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.
Rating: 
Summary: Pure Garbage! Academic Quackery! A Joke! Cold Fusion!
Review: Two important points: First, language and culture are inseparable. Second, this entire survey was done in English and therefore was flawed from the very beginning. As for all of the reviewers, Amazon and otherwise: 1. No one has demonstrated any foreign language skills or published any peer-reviewed studies on this subject in native languages. Furthermore, who would trust a cross cultural survey performed on England or the U.S. but done completely in Michelin (French) or Nissan (Japanese) or Haier (Chinese) or Hyundai (Korean)and not in English and not outside of any one of these companies? (IBM and English language surveys) 2. Hofstede and Trompenaars try the "bigger is better" fallacy and both fail. Large numbers hide the truth and have NOTHING to do with the kind of people surveyed, the questions asked or the number of people surveyed in each group (sample sizes). 3.McSweeney points out in 1/02 Human Relations page 94 that the number of "respondents in 15 countries was less than 200". In the 1960's, the Philippines (part of this 15) had at least 30 million people on 6000 islands with 100 different dialects. Gallup polls in the U.S. alone are generally 5,000 people from a wide cross section, not a single company like IBM. His samples sizes are meaningless. Some samples were less than 100 people per country. 4. Those who think that any group of people can be reasonably described by 5 bipolar characteristics or even 10 simply are novices and have no place in academia. Furthermore, those who believe that the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Brazilians, the Irish and the Japanese can be characterized by a COMMON set of descriptors, have no language skills and no understanding of culture whatsoever. 5. It's doubtful if Hofstede or any commentators on either side have any significant overseas living experience outside of their home country's military, government, university or even home country company (i.e. subsidiary) using the local language and managing most affairs by themselves. They are all inexperienced and have no clue which questions to ask. 6. Those who believe that they have the capacity to do an analysis (survey instrument construction and collection/analysis) of more than 3 countries competently, except for a few Europeans working in Europe only, are delusional and possibly arrogant. 7. The belief that the one-dimensional analysis of country through one company, native or foreign, can yield any sort of reflection of even that one country's culture should be an obvious fallacy. Does anyone believe that Deal & Kennedy's 1977 survey instrument could be used outside of a Western country? 8. When respondents know the intent of a survey, the danger of bias is very high. When managers know the intent, the threat to the subordinate responders is even greater. Page 103 McSweeney 1/02 Human Relations, elucidates Hofstede's methods on this point. 9. The Confucianism dimension is nothing more than cultural condescension and severe academic laziness by Hofstede. 10. Hofstede and others have created a result and then found data to "prove??" their contrived result. Given the lack of qualifications, the unwillingness to ask the right questions and the unwillingness to even allow the IBM data speak the truth, there is nothing academic or reliable here. The 1000 word limit is insufficient to detail all of the mistakes here. Suffice it to say, Hofstede's work is truly, the "Cold Fusion" of cross-cultural studies.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Garbage! Academic Quackery! A Joke! Cold Fusion!
Review: Two important points: First, language and culture are inseparable. Second, this entire survey was done in English and therefore was flawed from the very beginning. As for all of the reviewers, Amazon and otherwise: 1. No one has demonstrated any foreign language skills or published any peer-reviewed studies on this subject in native languages. Furthermore, who would trust a cross cultural survey performed on England or the U.S. but done completely in Michelin (French) or Nissan (Japanese) or Haier (Chinese) or Hyundai (Korean)and not in English and not outside of any one of these companies? (IBM and English language surveys) 2. Hofstede and Trompenaars try the "bigger is better" fallacy and both fail. Large numbers hide the truth and have NOTHING to do with the kind of people surveyed, the questions asked or the number of people surveyed in each group (sample sizes). 3.McSweeney points out in 1/02 Human Relations page 94 that the number of "respondents in 15 countries was less than 200". In the 1960's, the Philippines (part of this 15) had at least 30 million people on 6000 islands with 100 different dialects. Gallup polls in the U.S. alone are generally 5,000 people from a wide cross section, not a single company like IBM. His samples sizes are meaningless. Some samples were less than 100 people per country. 4. Those who think that any group of people can be reasonably described by 5 bipolar characteristics or even 10 simply are novices and have no place in academia. Furthermore, those who believe that the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Brazilians, the Irish and the Japanese can be characterized by a COMMON set of descriptors, have no language skills and no understanding of culture whatsoever. 5. It's doubtful if Hofstede or any commentators on either side have any significant overseas living experience outside of their home country's military, government, university or even home country company (i.e. subsidiary) using the local language and managing most affairs by themselves. They are all inexperienced and have no clue which questions to ask. 6. Those who believe that they have the capacity to do an analysis (survey instrument construction and collection/analysis) of more than 3 countries competently, except for a few Europeans working in Europe only, are delusional and possibly arrogant. 7. The belief that the one-dimensional analysis of country through one company, native or foreign, can yield any sort of reflection of even that one country's culture should be an obvious fallacy. Does anyone believe that Deal & Kennedy's 1977 survey instrument could be used outside of a Western country? 8. When respondents know the intent of a survey, the danger of bias is very high. When managers know the intent, the threat to the subordinate responders is even greater. Page 103 McSweeney 1/02 Human Relations, elucidates Hofstede's methods on this point. 9. The Confucianism dimension is nothing more than cultural condescension and severe academic laziness by Hofstede. 10. Hofstede and others have created a result and then found data to "prove??" their contrived result. Given the lack of qualifications, the unwillingness to ask the right questions and the unwillingness to even allow the IBM data speak the truth, there is nothing academic or reliable here. The 1000 word limit is insufficient to detail all of the mistakes here. Suffice it to say, Hofstede's work is truly, the "Cold Fusion" of cross-cultural studies.
| 
