Divergent Cultures
Critical Reflection Report on Cross–Cultural
Psychology
Hussam Mofti- Maryam Hendi
Business 430
Instructor: Rajiv Kozhiko
Summer 2013
Introduction
Through a careful consideration of various cultural dimensions, many researchers have
presented several behavioral models that explain how different cultures impact certain
organizational behaviors. In the article written by Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars named
“National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43
nations”, readers are introduced to another multidimensional analysis of cultural values that
targets Hofsede’s dimensional values of culture and examines its adequacy. However, the second
article named “Forward from a Critique of Hofstede's Model of National Culture” questions the
validity of Hofsede’s model by stating the limitations and unrealistic assumptions of Hofsede’s
theory of culture. This report aims to illuminate the main themes of the two articles, describe
their contents and reasoning, and argues why both articles can make a strong cultural framework,
if incorporated together.
First Article: National Culture and the Values of Organizational Employees: A
Dimensional Analysis across 43 Nations
The first article aims to examine the replicability of previous cultural studies, by
acquiring the behavioral values of thousands of managers and organization employees across 43
countries. Furthermore, the purpose of this article is to examine whether clarifications are
needed, in terms of cultural dimensions previously recognized by well-known studies of crosscultural psychology. (Smith, Dugan, Trompenaars, 1996). The nations that were surveyed in this
framework mostly paralleled those surveyed by Hofstede, with the inclusion of ex-communist
nations. Compared to earlier large-scale study of culture undertaken by Hofsede, this article
represents three different hypotheses in order to support or reject Hofsede’s earlier findings with
regards to individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and power distance. Furthermore,
1
the article concludes that Hofsede’s dimensions of culture are interdependent to other factors
including: the continuity of group membership (loyal/utilitarian) and the obligations of social
relationship (conservative/egalitarian). (Smith, Dugan, Trompenaars, 1996)
Figure-1
According to the above diagram, dimension 1 represents conservatism versus egalitarian
commitment and dimension two represents utilitarian involvement versus loyal involvement.
Interestingly, the figure demonstrates clear geographical and sociopolitical categories that group
some countries together. For example, former communist countries are grouped at the left
bottom of the diagram. Additionally, another cluster of nations is predominantly observed above
0.4 in the second dimension. This illustrates Asian and African countries with the inclusion of
Turkey and Greece. In fact, the most noticeable cluster is the increasing movement of Japan,
2
South Korea, and Honk Kong towards the positive pole. In general, this diagram indicates that
geographical placement of nations plays a significant role in the determination of nations’ group
membership and their obligations towards social relationship (Smith, Dugan, Trompenaars,
1996). Although the article declares that Hofsede’s dimensions are insufficient for the study of
organizational culture, it does approve the framework as a liable source of cultural studies.
Second Article: Forward from a Critique of Hofstede's Model of National
Culture
Moreover, the second article by Williamson provides further analysis of Hofstede’s
national culture model by incorporating McSweeney’s criticism and investigating whether those
criticisms were based on strong grounds. In addition, Williamson highlights the main aspects
where McSweeney criticizes Hosftede’s methodology and research methods, as well as the main
reasons why he rejected the model. In fact, McSweeney casts reliable doubts upon Hofsede’s
five premises, paradigm, and logic (Williamson, 2002).
The diagram below illustrates the five assumptions claimed by McSweeney that compose
the Hofstede’s model. It outlines the logical flow of its premises, starting from division culture
into three categories: national, organizational and occupational culture. Then, showing how
Hofstede presumed that national culture can be defined on the basis of samples he used in his
study. These assumptions were based on the questionnaires responses provided by IBM
employees. As a result, Hofstede’s chose the main dimensions that compose national culture
(Williamson, 2002).
3
Figure-2
First, Hofsede’s assumption with regards to culture having three distinctive levels is
flawed because culture is a construct, dynamic and changing. Therefore, it cannot be divided or
assigned to one of three levels. Second, Hofstede used IBM micro-level samples to identify
national cultures. In other words, Hofstede assumed that each culture is uniform within a
geographical border. However, a nation can have multiple cultures that are significantly different
from the dominant one. For instance, Canada has diverse ethnic groups within its borders. Such
as Canadian, Asian, Middle-eastern and many more cultures.Third, the questionnaires utilized in
Hofsede’s survey do not represent national cultures. In fact, the questionnaires were used in 43
countries and translated to the host country’s language. This created a great room for
misinterpretation on the respondents’ side. Finally, Hofstede dimensions of defining culture are
4
bipolar, restricted and not situation specific. Precisely, it is Bipolar in a sense that he assumes
culture is either on one side of the spectrum or the other with no middle ground or contingencies.
Furthermore, it is Restricted in terms of its target participants who are selectively chosen (IBM
employees) disregarding other socioeconomic classes of different nations (Williamson, 2002).
Limitation of the Articles
By the analyzing both articles, we encountered some critical limitations that were
apparent in each one of them. Hofstede’s model includes a lot of generalization in some aspects.
One of the aspects is apparent as Hofstede uses only IBM employees in his study, decreasing the
variability of data and responses. Also, the influence of the organization might have an effect in
terms of how participants responded to the questionnaire. Another aspect is how culture got
divided into distinctive categories and dimensions; while he disregarded similar external
environmental factors (Smith, Dugan, Trompenaars, 1996).
In addition to generalization and categorization, the way Hofstede placed national
culture, of a certain country, on the dimension spectrum is absolute and ignorant to the concept
of relativity. Moreover, he did not give enough attention to how much inter-related dimensions
could be when it comes to power distance and individuality, for example. This creates a false
dilemma perspective for researches that use Hofstede’s model as a reference. Additionally, the
sample did not include any of the communist countries at that time. It included some
confirmation bias since Hofstede choice was restricted. The research methods used by Smith had
its basic flaws. The sample had bias in terms of gender, ethnicity and age. Based on the table of
data provided in the article, majority of the samples participants were males in their 30’s
(Williamson, 2002).
5
Conclusion:
Through comprehensive examination of the two articles, this report concludes that even
though Hofsede’s model is flawed, it is still a reliable study for cross-cultural psychology. The
first article successfully indicates that there are more to Hofsede’s dimensions, and culture
cannot be limited to five dimensions only. In fact, culture is a complex subject to be defined and
categorized in only five factors. Smith’s analysis requires better sampling, surveying, and
placement and research methods.
Furthermore, the second article questions the validity of Hofsede’s assumptions and
raises concern over the fact that culture is dynamic and changing time to time. The incorporation
of the two articles have the potentials two make a new comprehensive study where more credible
dimensions are attributed to the concept of culture, and new assumptions are made to reflect the
dynamic nature of culture.
Although we support some aspects of article one, it still needs some improvements
because it has several flaws in its methodology particularly in terms of the gender and age of the
participants. Similarly, we support the concerns raised in the second article with regards to
Hofsede’s wrong assumptions, but we still believe that Hofsede’s theory of culture is a
phenomenon and it has room for advancement. Finally, it should be mentioned that less is not
always more. Cultural studies cannot be confined in one absolute theory only. It is complex and
on going. This is why this report suggests that two articles should be taken into consideration in
order to make a better model. A model, which utilizes better sampling and questionnaire,
discovers all possible dimensions of culture, and establishes realistic assumptions in term of the
dynamic nature of culture.
6
Works Cited
Smith, B. P., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National Culture and the Values of
Organizational Employees: A Dimensional Analysis Across 43 Nations.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27-231.
Williamson, D. (2002). Forward From a Critique of Hofsede’s Model of National
Culture. Human Relations. SAGE Publication. 55-1373
7