The paper offers a critical reading of Geert Hofstede’s (1980) Culture’s Consequences using an analytical strategy where the book is mirrored against itself and analyzed in terms of its own proposed value dimensions. “Mirroring” unravels the book’s normative viewpoint and political subtext and exposes discursive interests in its research process. Making all this evident in the canonical book’s own terms, this paper communicates critical concerns across paradigm boundaries. It indicates the need to reconsider concepts and convictions that predominate cross-cultural research and to adopt norms of reflexivity that transcend existing notions of “cultural relativism.”
Globalization, there seems to be a need to further these attempts at reevaluating its foundations. To a great extent, the knowledge produced in this field is still firmly rooted in the orthodoxy of functionalist, “normal” science—its positivist epistemology and objectivist rhetoric (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979). While there are a few interpretive, emically oriented case studies (e.g., Ahrens, 1996; Brannen, 2004), these generally remain a marginalized pursuit (MarschanPiekkari & Welch, 2004); studies are usually nomothetic and quantitative, with researchers posing themselves as discoverers of universal regularities and systematic causal relationships. Cultural relativism, when admitted, is seen to relate to the scientist—not to science
Itself—and is accordingly “corrected” by rituals of confession, (rare) attempts to create crosscultural research teams, or various “bias control” techniques. In this vein, international management thought is evolving into quite a large body of thought— one that, despite its name, underrepresents many regions of the world in terms of authorship and topics of analysis (Kirkman & Law, 2005). Moreover, like other managerial disciplines that aspire to shape actual workplaces, its influence extends into the world of practice as well.
The book indeed entailed various substantive contributions. Apparently, as globalization progressed into the 1980s, crossing traditional boundaries, national culture could no longer be disregarded. What until then constituted a beast too “soft” or vague for the positivist epistemology of “normal” science became a focus of much interest. Hofstede, it can be said, tamed the beast— he divided it, counted it, tabled it, and graphed it. “Culture” was reduced to “values,” which were reduced to a limited set of questions on an IBM questionnaire. “National society” was reduced to “middle class rather than the working class” (1980: 56), which was reduced to IBM personnel from the marketing and service divisions. Answers were quantified, computerized, “statisticalized.” Things cultural could finally be said in “scientific” language.
Subsequently, the book promoted sensitivity to cultural diversity at the workplace (and beyond it). In addition, it undermined the widespread assumption that American management knowledge is universal and thus easily transferable across cultures, and challenged psychology’s long-standing refusal to acknowledge the relevance of culture as anything but an external variable (see Joseph, Reddy, & Searle-Chatterjee, 1990: 21; Triandis, 2004). Culture, Hofstede claimed, is a “mental programming” instilled in people’s minds—an internal variable, shaping behavior from the inside out. Thus, for organizational practice, management theory, and psychology, national culture is relevant; it does count. And as far as the scientific community of his time was concerned, he had the right numbers to prove it.
There were, however, very serious critiques from the outset (e.g., Baskerville, 2003; Eckhardt, 2002; Harrison & McKinnon, 1999; Kitayama, 2002; Merker, 1982; Robinson, 1983; Schooler, 1983; Singh, 1990). In what appears to be one of the most damning critiques of the book, McSweeney claimed that “the on-going unquestioning acceptance of Hofstede’s national culture research by his evangelized entourage suggests that in parts of the management disciplines the criteria for acceptable evidence are far too loose” .
Hofstede never failed to respond to the ongoing stream of criticism, defended his methodological decisions, and clarified the study’s claims and implications (e.g., 1990, 2001, especially p. 73). The debate that evolved was extensive, but it generally focused on a single question: Does Hofstede “really” capture “feminine-in-management” meets “globalization.” Business Horizons, 36(2): 71– 81. Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. 1999. Past postmodernism? Re´ flections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24: 649 – 671. Chandy, P. R., & Williams, T. G. E. 1994. The impact of journals and authors on international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 25: 715–728. Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. 1999. Introduction. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory & method: 1–22. London: Sage.
Cooper, R. 1989. Modernism, post modernism and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10: 479 –502.
Cooper, R., Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization
Studies, 9: 91–112.
Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. (Translated by A. M. S. Smith.) New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. 1977. Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. (Edited by D. F. Bouchard.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. (Edited by C. Gordon.) New York: Pantheon. Frost, P. 1980. Toward a radical framework for practicing organization science. Academy of Management Review,
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 5:
584 – 602.
Harrison, G. L., & McKinnon, J. L. 1999. Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A review of the current state. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 24: 483–506. Hart, W. B. 1999. Interdisciplinary influences in the study of intercultural relations: A citation analysis of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23: 575–589.
Hofstede, G. 1978. The poverty of management control philosophy. Academy of Management Review, 3: 450 – 461. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business
Studies, 14(2): 75– 89.
Hofstede, G. 1990. A reply and comment on Joginder P. Singh: “Managerial culture and work-related values in India.”
Organization Studies, 11: 103–106.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40: 4 –13. Hofstede, G. 1996. An American in Paris: The influence of
nationality on organization theories. Organization Studies, 17: 525–537. Hofstede, G. (Ed.). 1998a. Masculinity and femininity: The
taboo dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks,
Derrida, J. 1972. Positions. (Translated and annotated by A. Bass.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hofstede, G. 1998b. Masculinity/femininity as a dimension of culture. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity:
The taboo dimension of national cultures: 3–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eckhardt, G. 2002. Book review of Culture’s consequences:
Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (second edition). Australian Journal of Management, 27: 89 –94.
Hofstede, G. 1998c. The cultural construction of gender. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 77–105. Thousand Oaks,
Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hofstede, G. 1998d. Comparative studies of sexual behavior: Sex as achievement or as relationship? In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 153–178. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferguson, K. E. 1994. On bringing more theory, more voices and more politics to the study of organizations. Organization, 1: 81–99.
Hofstede, G. 1998e. Religion, masculinity, and sex. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 192–209. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: 463– 477. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. 2004. Qualitative research methods in international business: The state of the art. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 5–24. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connection:
From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational
Dynamics, 16(4): 4 –21.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (revised & expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culture
revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture.
Cross-Cultural Research, 38: 52– 88.
Hoppe, M. H. 2004. An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 75–79. Jack, G., & Lorbiecki, A. 2003. Asserting possibilities of resistance in the cross-cultural teaching machine: Reviewing videos of others. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement: 213–232. New York: Palgrave.
Martin, J. 1994. The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1: 401– 431.
McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural
differences and their consequences: A triumph of
faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55: 89 –
Merker, S. L. 1982. Book review of Geert Hofstede’s Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Behavioral Science, 27: 195–197.
Meyerson, D. E. 1998. Feeling stressed and burned out: A
feminist reading and re-visioning of stress-based emotions within medicine and organization science. Organization Science, 9: 103–118.
Jack, G., & Westwood, R. 2006. Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 46: 481–501.
Morgan, G. 1983. The significance of assumptions. In G.
Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research: 377–382. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Joseph, G. G., Reddy, V., & Searle-Chatterjee, M. 1990. Ethnocentrism in the social sciences. Race & Class, 31(4): 1–26.
Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. 1992. The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of
Management Review, 17: 465– 486.
Kirkman, B. L., & Law, K. S. K. 2005. From the editors: International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal,
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe., K. B., Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter
century of Culture’s consequences: A review of empirical
research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37:
Kitayama, S. 2002. Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin,
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12: 251–273. Kuhn, T. 1972. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 480 – 498. Kwek, D. 2003. Decolonizing and re-presenting Culture’s consequences: A postcolonial critique of cross-cultural studies in management. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement: 121–146. New York: Palgrave. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Manning, P. K., & Cullum-Swan, B. 1994. Narrative, content, and semiotic analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
Nkomo, S. M. 1992. The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “Race in organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 17: 487–513. Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128: 3–72. Parker, M. 1992. Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory.
Organization Studies, 13: 1–17. Prasad, A. (Ed.). 2003. Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement. New York: Palgrave Reed, M. 1992. Introduction. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organizations: New directions in organizational theory and analysis: 1–16. London: Sage. Richardson, L. 1994. Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: 516 –529. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robinson, R. V. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Work and Occupations, 10: 110 –115. Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Random House. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. 2005. Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences
between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9: 17–31. Schooler, C. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Contemporary Sociology, 12: 167.
Academy of Management Review
Singh, J. P. 1990. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11: 75–101. Søndergaard, M. 1994. Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15: 447– 456. Sorge, A. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 625– 629. Spivak, G. C. 1988. Subaltern studies: Deconstructing historiography. In R. Guha & G. C. Spivak (Eds.), Selected subaltern studies: 3–34. New York: Oxford University
Van Deusen, C. 2002. Book review of Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Business & Society, 41: 125–128. Vunderink, M. & Hofstede, G. 1998. Femininity shock: American students in the Netherlands. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 139 –152. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15: 565–590.
Triandis, H. C. 1993. Reviews on cultural phenomena— Cultures and organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38: 132–134.
Westwood, R. 2004. Towards a postcolonial research paradigm in international business and comparative management. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 56 – 83. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Triandis, H. C. 2004. The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 88 –93.
Williamson, D. 2002. Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 55: 1373–1395.
Galit Ailon ([email protected]) is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-IIan University. She received her Ph.D. from the Department of Labor Studies at Tel-Aviv University. Her research interests include organizational globalization, organizational culture, organizational theory, and managerial ideologies.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX