Rating: 
Summary: What Lies Beneath
Review: From earlier reviews it is clear that Hofstede's research claims are controversial. The reviews have been extraordinarly laudatory or have very sharply questioned the verasity of Hofstede's research. So, I decided to read the book and the journal article cited in one of the reviews. The conclusions of that article are clear from its title: B.McSweeney "Hofstede's model of national cultural research: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis", Human Relations, 2002 Vol.55,(January) pp.89-117. Human Relations is, I know, a very highly rated scholarly journal. All articles published in it are independently refereed, so there must be some merit in McSweeney's critique! I found his article to be very clearly and carefully written and to be very convincing. Whilst looking for a copy of the article, I discovered that Hofstede had replied and McSweeney had responed. Both reply and response were published in Human Relations in November last year (Vol.55, No.11). In my view it's "game, set, and match" to McSweeney. His demonstrations in his response of the flaws in Hofstede's "validations" are I think devastating. So, my recommendation is, if you plan to read Hofstede's book make sure you also read the three articles in Human Relations: McSweeney's critique; Hofstede's reply; McSweeney's response.
Rating: 
Summary: A Nemisis of Knowledge
Review: Hofstede's book is essential reading for anyone interested in cross-cultural studies. The reviewer, Nemesis (Washington D.C.), demonstrates a rather appalling lack of knowledge of the current state of cross-cultural research. The original studies of Geert Hofstede were in fact carried out in English within the IBM Corporation, as Hofstede was an IBM employee at the time. However, since then a considerable number of studies have been completed, with the survey administered in English and in local languages, demonstrating the usefulness and consistency of Hofstede's cultural value constructs. Most responsible cross-cultural research today that uses surveys is carried out with data collection in local languages. The reader is referred, for example, to the extensive body of work on values across cultures based upon the Shalom Schwartz value survey. You can look it up.
In the social sciences, of which business is one, a theory is a model or framework for understanding phenomena. The term generally is taken to mean a framework derived from a set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category in a system. Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas. A theory has to be something that is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that businesses progress from local to international markets by always implementing a certain set of processes in a fixed order. Then the process of internationalization of businesses is studied, and the theory is confirmed or revised in a continuous feedback system.
According to Stephen Hawking, a physicist, in A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." This also applies to business theories, including Hofstede's, from which one can make definite predictions that have been verified. Theories are not facts, but tools.
Rating: 
Summary: IBM Defines Your Nation's Culture ?
Review: I'm kind of surprised by the voting on the reviews thus far. The glowing tributes which don't address the book critically are classified as helpful; the one which point to Hofstede's methodological problems, and cited further information in a leading management journal is seen as unhelpful. What should a review do ?Well, how about this for food for thought. IBM, which is the organization Hofstede built his theory around, is now being accused of being complicit in sustaining apartheid in South Africa in the period of his research. Are we happy that this kind of a company is defining our understanding of nations' culture ? And how accurate a picture of South Africa's culture it presents ? And what about the other countries ?
Rating:
Summary: Excellent for academic inquiry, not for bedside reading
Review: In reference to the previous reviews, there is considerable critique of Hofstede's work throughout the academic community and Amazon.com is not the ideal place to get a feel for the value of this book. Also, the survey was not given in English around the world; it was translated into the appropriate languages and retranslated back into English just to ensure that the translation from English was accurate. However, this does not mean that other problems with the survey do not exist. If you are seeking an understanding of what is currently known about culture and how to compare cultures, this book is essential. I don't mean that I think it is good. I mean that no reputable research on cultural values will fail to include Hofstede's work because it has been so influential, even for those who despise it. Those who agree use this to reinforce their perspectives. Those who disagree use this to frame counter-argument. It is essential. It should be understood that this is academic literature. Only those committed to understanding the deep and complex issues associated with differences among cultures should even attempt to read thus. It is more like a reference book. I have only read probably half of it, myself. However, I learned more in that half than I have in many whole books. For experienced readers and thinkers only.
Rating:
Summary: Hofstede's claims are fundamentally flawed
Review: On the surface Hofstede's claim to have identified enduring, systematically causal, 'national cultures' may seem plausible and indeed to have been scientifically proven. However, too much mangement literature is long on assertion and pseudo-science and very short on genuine testing of ideas. Hofstede's work is no exception - it's an extreme example of an author 'proving' what he already 'knows. His data base is very old and biased viz non-independent questionnaires from just one company: IBM completed in the early 1970s. Yet on the basis of that single company data he claims to be able to generalise about entire countries. To make that analyitical leap requires a number of crucial but fundamentally flawed assumptions. There have been many critiques of his work. The best and most extensive was publised this year. It identifies and strongly criticises each of Hofstede's fundamentally flawed assumptions: B. McSweeney,'Hofstede's model of national cultural diffrences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis' in the journal Human Relations (ISSN 0018 -7267) Vol. 55, No. 1, January 2002.
Rating:
Summary: critiques of Hofstede
Review: Pass the salt please. As already acknowledged in these reviews, there are sustained critiques of Hofstede. e.g.
Nigel Holden "Cross-Cultural Managment - a Knowledge Management Perspective" Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002.
"Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis." Brendan McSweeney in Human Relations, 2002, 55 (1)
"Beyond models of national culture in information systems research", by Michael Myers & Felix Tan in the Journal of Global Information Management,2002, 10 (1).
"Hofstede never studied culture" by Rachel Baskerville 2003 Accounting Organizations and Society 28 pages 1- 14
Those using this book should take it with a large grain of salt.
Rating:
Summary: critiques of Hofstede
Review: Pass the salt please. As already acknowledged in these reviews, there are sustained critiques of Hofstede. e.g.
Nigel Holden "Cross-Cultural Managment - a Knowledge Management Perspective" Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002.
"Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis." Brendan McSweeney in Human Relations, 2002, 55 (1)
"Beyond models of national culture in information systems research", by Michael Myers & Felix Tan in the Journal of Global Information Management,2002, 10 (1).
"Hofstede never studied culture" by Rachel Baskerville 2003 Accounting Organizations and Society 28 pages 1- 14
Those using this book should take it with a large grain of salt.
Rating:
Summary: The Touchstone Bible of Culture
Review: Professor Hofstede is the Michael Jordan of Culture and, with this book, he will only add to the luster of his work. Widely read and respected, sometimes controversial and feisty but never ignored, he has led the way for all those interested in the study of culture. The first edition of "Culture's Consequences," published in 1980, has become one of the most widely referenced books in history. This greatly expanded second edition, published in 2001, builds on his original work and extends the bridge to cultural understanding he and his academic colleagues have produced over the past 20 years. His gifts include a creative mind, empirical soundness, and a highly readable writing style which sets him apart from many other serious writers and researchers. He also is the first to suggest his teachings and his Five Dimension Theory should be used as guidelines (vs. absolutes) in recognizing the practical aspects of culture and its influences in the public and private sectors. The Netherlands has provided the world many treasures and, among these, is Professor Hofstede and his work. Anyone who takes the time to even casually look through this book will find numerous cultural gems and other nuggets which make one's professional life more understandable and appreciated...both globally and within his/her own national, organizational, and/or occupational culture.
Rating:
Summary: A Train Wreck
Review: Reading the previous reviews, several things are evident. The West Palm Beach review is nothing more than an ad hominen attack on a previous review. Furthermore, the Palm Beach reviewer mistakes sticking to the subject with "we're the only game in town" argument/counterargument assertion. It is very easy to ignore Hofstede's work completely, start from zero and perform a real cross cultural analysis, 2-3 three countries at a time, starting IN the native language and then making a comparison that speaks in its own voice. This is NOT the same as Hofstede's doing the surveys in English and then translating them twice. The Palm Beach reviewer also falls into the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy (must be true because it hasn't been proven false) by saying "I mean that no reputable research on cultural values will fail to include Hofstede's work because it has been so influential" as well as appeal to celebrity.
While Dr. Littrell tends to lecture, he fails to address the problems of sample sizes in Hofstede's work. As for Schwartz's work, folks who speak read and write Japanese, Korean or Chinese and who have lived in one of the respective countries for more than 3 years know that Schwartz's "prototypical structure of value systems" as well as his 1997 "Influences on Adaption.." paper don't come near East Asian thinking.
The odd fact is that the Palm Beach reviewer and Littrell both admit that Hofstede's work falls short. The Palm Beach reviewer states," I don't mean that I think it is good" and "I have only read probably half of it" but then gives the book a five star rating. Littrell tangents on Hawkings but then covers for Hofstede by saying, "Theories are not facts".
Well statistics, when done right, reinforce theories enough to become a reliable base for future work but several reviewers clearly point out, with references, the shortcomings of Hofstede's statistical methods which again is odd considering the tone of these two reviewers.
Hofstede's work is useless and his defenders should work harder at dealing with the specific criticisms raised rather than pontificating or making condescending innuendo. Sampling just students or just company employees should ring alarm bells for statistical skewness. Furthermore, it is absolute cultural condescension to assume that a non native speaker of a given language can think like a native by using his own language and bring out a mere handful of qualities that are both universal and consistent across not just a few cultures but all at the same time. The Eurocentric hubris running through this study undermines the credibility of the assumptions and conclusions.
The researcher must not speak for the culture. The culture must speak for itself and this is the main point where Hofstede and his followers have failed completely. For those with critical thinking skills, read the reviews that are negative and the journal responses between McSweeney and Hofstede and then construct your own model. For those who dare, remember, no one man or woman can complete this project by himself because no one in this world has such a Tower of Babel level of experience of the cultures expressed in their native languages.
Universalism is a big lie. That's your starting point. 100% matching of traits across 200 nations will not happen when the study is properly conducted nor will the study's "voice" be censored by one corporate culture with statistically unreliable sample sizes. Understand this and you are on your way to a true understanding of cross-cultural phenomenon.
Rating:
Summary: An essential reference. . . .
Review: The publication of the original edition of Hofstede's Culture's Consequences was, within the field of cross-cultural research, comparable to the work of Darwin in evolutionary theory. Now, with a second edition, practitioners and theorists alike have a rich quarry to mine for many years to come. The second addition notably adds references to a number of corroborating studies that have been collected over the more or less twenty years since the first edition. As an example, Appendix 6 contains references to well over 50 statistically linked research papers from other authors. The result is the collection in a single volume of a growing body of literature in the field, work that continues to define a kind of mental geography of culture. When I first come upon Hofstede's research in the 1980's I was immediately taken with the extraordinary relationship between his mental geographies (charted by developing ratios between his four, now five, dimensions) and the physical proximity of real countries. In other words, the countries in his dimensions tended to cluster in similar ways to how countries cluster geographically. Of course there are counter-intuitive examples (e.g., Germany), but in many of those cases, the data helps break cultural stereotypes widely held about those countries. Hofstede's original research focused on over 115,000 questionnaires provided to the worldwide employees of IBM. The premise behind using one company worldwide is that because the company is held constant, the data that can be examined for differences that can be attributed to country cultures. If IBM employees had been compared to, for example, government workers in different countries, organizational culture would have been implicated. More recent studies (for example Michael Hoppe's dissertation work) tend to revalidate the country positions on the dimensions, showing only slow shifts in the data over time. Over the years that I have used Hofstede's research in my practice, I have found it to be a touchstone by which people of all backgrounds can understand how culture influences business and other fields. I know that many, many other practitioners rely on his research approach as well. The book is a compendium of much of the substantive cross-cultural research of the past half-century; it is an essential reference for students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners alike.
|
