Consequences National Cultural Differences - Article Example

Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - A Failure of Analysis Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Conclusion 9 References 11 Bibliography 13 Introduction The article titled as ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis’ by McSweeney states that the Hofstede’s model of cultural differences is an achievement in itself; however, there are certain dimensions included in the model lacking adequate analysis which turn it into disadvantages (McSweeney, 2002). The Hofstede’s model of culture is based on five major dimensions of national culture which include Power Distance, Masculinity versus Femininity, Individualism versus Collectivism, Long-Term Orientation and Uncertainty Avoidance (The Hofstede Centre, 2013). This article analyses the concept of Hofstede’s model in various procedures by comparing the developed framework with other interpretations of national cultures emerged recently. The main objective of this particular article by McSweeney (2002) has been to assess whether the findings of the Hofstede’s model are warranted as well as to identify the evidences which are acquired for recognising the national cultures. Furthermore, the article also aims to determine whether the assumptions of this model have been adequately justified to make it a realistic attempt in recognising national cultures. Correspondingly, the article has been segregated into four segments. The first segment summarises the Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences followed by the second segment, where suggestions derived from hypothesizing culture on a national prospect have been discussed. The third segment critiques the Hofstede’s model from an overall perspective. Ultimately, the final part of the article aims to determine the credibility of the relationship which exists between national culture as well as national institutions as depicted by Hofstede and in reality (McSweeney, 2002). The discussion henceforth in this paper will thus emphasise on critically discussing the findings of the article titled ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis’ with comparison to another similar articles based on Hofstede’s model which shall be highly beneficial in understanding the rudiments of national cultural distinctiveness. Discussion The key findings of the article reveal the various ideas from a critical perspective which has been considered in the Hofstede’s model to determine the concept of national culture. The article recognises the key concepts of this model on the basis of research methodology performed by Hofstede when developing the framework (Hofstede, 1998). One of the major limitations of the Hofstede’s model was that the regions or rather clusters where the surveys were conducted were significantly small to replicate the national cultures. Moreover, although the survey was performed in 66 countries, the data from around 40 countries were only utilised in order to determine the national cultures (McSweeney, 2002; Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011). Furthermore, the respondents of the surveys were solely constituted of marketing as well as sales employees of IBM which limited the scope of the findings obtained by Hofstede to be applied in other work cultures such as the Human Resource Department and even the Small and Medium-size Enterprises (SMEs) sectors (McSweeney, 2002). McSweeney (2002) also evaluates the assumptions which were considered to be crucial in the Hofstede’s model. The author, in the discussion, critically states that there are certain assumptions of Hofstede’s model which were inappropriate as well as unrealistic in nature. For instance, Hofstede assumed that the organisational culture of IBM is uniform as well as monopolistic. This particular assumption of Hofstede can be considered to be unrealistic in its nature as organisational cultures are apparently observed to differ substantially in the various dimensions of large organisations such as IBM. The organisational culture differs with respect to certain values which include shared interests as well as principles and practices among others which are based on distinct processes performed in the individual departments of the company. In this regard, the description of culture by Hofstede can be considered as unreliable to a certain degree. Again, Hofstede assumed that the occupational culture across IBM is identical or similar. This assumption of Hofstede has been criticised on the ground that employees of different countries or regions were recruited by the company in its various divisions. These employees possessed different cultural rudiments owing to which the occupational culture within the organisation ought to be a diverse cluster. In this regard, Hofstede assumed that national diversity do not develop occupational as well as organisational cultural differences which has been criticised by the later studies where it was empirically depicted that national cultures do affect organisational and occupational cultures (McSweeney, 2002). McSweeney (2002) further criticises the model based on Hofstede’s assumption that national culture is uniform based on which, the surveys were conducted in small regions and clusters for recognising the cultural prospects of the entire nation (Black, 2013). Moreover, the differences of response from the respondents obtained by Hofstede when developing the model were assumed as a consequence of cultural differences ignoring other possible reasons of differing views such as age, education and individual perceptions (McSweeney, 2002; Schwartz, 1999). From a critical perspective, the key findings obtained by McSweeney (2002), reveal that the assumptions and consequently the statements affirmed by Hofstede in his model of national cultures were unreliable to a large extent being based on the personal values and perceptions of the developer and lacking practical justification (McSweeney, 2002). It can further be noted that the findings generated from the article by McSweeney (2002) has been supported by various other studies based on assessing the gaps present in the Hofstede’s model. However, one significant weakness of the article can be identified in terms that it does not reveal the other grounds of criticism except the assumptions adopted by Hofstede. Correspondingly, as stated by Jones (2007), the dimensions of cross-cultural relationship have been of great importance for scholars since past few years in order to acquire knowledge regarding the cultural aspects of different countries. Similar to McSweeney (2002), Jones (2007) also stated that the cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s model were primitively based on the perceptions of the developer rather than evidence based theories. Based on a similar issue, Taras & Steel (2007) revealed that the research study of Hofstede to develop the model was performed through survey which can be considered as an incomplete research methodology when analysing cultural disparity owing to the fact that such approach disregards the influence of other possible factors which might influence the disparity and increases the chances of biases being highly based on the interpreter’s knowledge, skills and personal values (Taras & Steel, 2007). Notably, the study of McSweeney (2002) had been based on a qualitative approach where sole consideration was provided towards secondary data sources. Surveys, interviews and other forms of primary data collection processes were not observed in the article. One of the fundamental reasons to consider such as an approach might be the qualitative and historical nature of the research issue identified in the study. However, the article was quite effective in revealing certain interesting facts regarding Hofstede’s model and therefore, rendering a critical understanding to the limitations of using similar theoretical frameworks in assessing complex phenomenon such as culture. With reference to the key findings obtained by McSweeney (2002) and comparing those with other articles based on similar research issue, it can be stated that McSweeney (2002) possesses various strengths which enhances its applicability as a research literature. For instance, the rudiment of any theoretical model is perceived to be its underlying assumptions (Whitbeck, 2006). Thus, McSweeney (2002) intended to assess the assumptions of Hofstede’s model in order to identify the reliability of its findings which were further observed to be justifiable in comparison to other similar articles. However, a certain degree of bias can be observed in the article where major concern has been rendered towards revealing the limitations of Hofstede’s model rather than maintaining a balance in the depiction of its positives and negatives. Furthermore, as revealed by Shugan (2007), there are various models which have been criticised to be based on unrealistic assumptions, but had acted as a breaking-point for better and more realistic models as well as theories. Nevertheless, McSweeney (2002) lacks in assessing the scope of Hofstede’s model which further limits its accuracy to a certain extent. Although a structured process has been followed in the article which can be regarded as its major strength being based on a qualitative approach, the article also possesses the weaknesses of repetition of facts and proper elaboration of the research method used. Hence, it can be affirmed that by considering the strengths and the weaknesses possessed by the Hofstede’s model, from a critical point of view and conducting a survey to depict the limitations or the competencies of the model, the article could have been more accurate in justifying its applicability. From an overall point of view, the study can be observed to contribute effectively towards the development of a critical understanding regarding the application of theoretical models in business cultures. The findings obtained in the article also contribute to the knowledge of business cultures and its complexities to be demonstrated with the help of few assumptions. Conclusion Hofstede’s model of national culture has been of great importance in recognising the cultural differences among countries and workplaces over the past few years. In McSweeney (2002), the Hofstede’s model has been analysed with the aim of determining its applicability in the practical world scenario as it had been considered in the recent past. The article depicts various aspects concerning the limitations of Hofstede’s model on the basis of the assumptions considered when developing the theoretical framework. As the article had been based on a qualitative approach through literature reviews, due consideration was rendered towards adhering to a well-structured presentation of the facts. Hence, the article was divided into four parts which discussed different aspects with relation to Hofstede’s model maintaining a flow of generalised point of view towards a precise depiction of the key findings obtained. Notably, the key findings obtained from the article depicted that the assumptions considered by Hofstede to build his model were unrealistic to a certain extent and were largely based on the personal values of the developer. It was also revealed from the study that assumptions made by Hofstede, such as the replication of organisational culture and occupational culture to be identical in the various dimensions of the organisation as well as the ignorance towards other influencing factors in causing the differences between personal perceptions, led to some major limitations of the model. Even though these findings were further justified with reference to other articles based on a similar research issue, it can also be observed that McSweeney (2002) lacked in ensuring a balance between the positive and negatives of the Hofstede’s model. In the obtained findings, McSweeney (2002) can be observed to focus majorly on the lacunas of the model disregarding its value in terms of scope for future developments and strengths. Thus, it could have been beneficial to develop the article as more accurate with the inclusion of both strengths and limitations possessed by the Hofstede’s model to obtain a critical understanding of the phenomenon. References Black, B., 2013. National Culture and Comparative Industrial Relations Theory. Working Papers. Furrer, O. & et. al., 2000. The Relationships between Culture and Service Quality Perceptions. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 355-371. Ghemawat, P. & Reiche, S., 2011. National Cultural Differences and Multinational Business. IESE Business School. Hofstede, G., 1998. Attitudes, Values and Organizational Culture: Disentangling the Concepts. Organization Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 477-492. Jones, M. L., 2007. Hofstede - Culturally Questionable? Oxford Business & Economics Conference, pp. 1-9. McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - A Failure of Analysis. Human Relation, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 89-118. Shugan, S. M., 2007. It’s the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions. Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 449–459. Schwartz, S. H., 1999. A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 23-47. Taras, V. & Steel, P., 2007. Improving Cultural Indices and Rankings Based on a Meta-analysis of Hofstede’s Dimensions. Improving Cultural Indices. The Hofstede Centre, 2013. National Cultural Dimensions. National Culture. Whitbeck, L. B., 2006. Some Guiding Assumptions and a Theoretical Model for Developing Culturally Specific Preventions with Native American People. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 183–192. Bibliography Adam, R. J., 2004. International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalization and the Developed Market Economies. Relations Industries/Industrial Relations, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 798-800. Al-Emadi, T. & Al-Asmakh, M. A., 2006. Cultural Differences and Their Impact: Some Brief Comments. Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp. 807-810. Browaeys, M. & Price, R., 2010. Understanding Cross-cultural Management. Pearson Education India. Reiser, D., 2011. Analysis of Cultural Differences in Dubai. BWV Verlag. Read More