Critical Reflection: Divergent Cultures
William Kwok
Enoch Ng
Ainsley Hart
Axel Durand-Smet
Mahmoud Abu Hannoud
Martina Nikic
Bus 430 D1
Instructor: Rajiv Krishnan Kozhikode
Monday February 4, 2013
1. Introduction
The American company Lincoln Electric tried in the late 1980s to expand its activities
internationally. With no international experience, the company based most of its success on an
incentive system thus replicating it abroad. Unfortunately, the company started losing money in
the new markets and did not recover until 1996. This example illustrates the fact that many
underlying factors influence economic life and that these factors vary from one country to
another. Since the early 1980s, sociologists have focused on culture and have tried to understand
what impact does culture have on the way society, companies, and individuals function, think and
react to certain situations. Moreover, experiences showed that the meaning of work for
individuals is also greatly influenced by prevailing cultural value priorities.
To analyze different cultures, researchers have identified key dimensions to create
frameworks to explain cultural variations between regions of the world and then be able to
classify these cultures in homogeneous groups.
In this critical reflection paper, six articles have been analyzed, which enabled us to follow
the evolution in the research regarding culture comparison. As all articles refer to each other, it is
important to consider these articles in a chronological way to understand in each academic
content what is being criticized and what is being added to the previous theory.
2. Brief summaries of Studied Articles
It is important to start our analysis with National culture and the values of organizational
employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations written by P. Smith, S. Dugan and F.
Trompenaars, as the article presents in detail the theory considered as the foundation of research
in cross-cultural analysis: Hofstede’s Value Dimensions (1980). It explains how other theories
were derived from Hofstede’s dimensions. For instance, the group of researchers called the
Chinese Culture Connection suggested in 1987 that the dimensions used by Hofstede reflected
only Western values and they decided to seek new dimensions, which will be more appropriate to
analyze East Asian countries. The authors then focused their analysis on the theory developed by
Schwartz in 1992 without explaining properly its link to Hofstede’s Value Dimensions. The
article further relates the empirical justification of these theories using the Trompenaars
Questionnaire, it also shows how most cultural dimensions are closely linked together and offers
a classification of countries. This article is very important in the sense that it explains how crosscultural research was founded and how further research has been undertaken using Hofstede’s
dimensions as a basis. However, the article lacks in-depth analysis of each theory and focuses
mostly on the experience it provides.
To understand more closely the content of one of these theories, it is useful to read
thoroughly the second assigned article, A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications For
Work, written by Schwartz in 1999. Without referring directly to Hofstede’s Value Dimensions,
Schwartz explains that it is mandatory to identify types of values on which different cultures can
be compared. By stating the existence of seven types of values (which is more than the five types
described in Hofstede’s theory), which can be grouped under three “polar dimensions”
(Conservatism vs. Intellectual and Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism, Mastery
vs. Harmony), Schwartz asserts that it is possible to identify groupings of culturally related
nations. In finish with, he admits that associating these types of values is complex as their nature
is ambivalent. However, the author links his conclusions to the work environment by saying that
the values of “work centrality”, “societal norms about work” and “work goals” in each country
highly depend on culture. This article is useful as it demonstrates that assessing cultural values is
more complicated than Hofstede’s theory proposes. But, without saying it, Schwartz only
improves previous theories and does not change the basis of culture comparison, as the
framework (the use of dimensions) is the same.
Relevancy of these paper can be explained by the article A quarter century of Culture’s
Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework, by Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson in 2006. For them, over the last twenty five years,
most research about the influence of national cultural values on behaviors in workplaces and
organizations have been carried out according to Hofstede’s Value Dimensions. The authors’
goal is to show limitations of this method: how can theories developed in 1980s still be relevant
today as changes happen in short periods of time? They make methodological recommendations,
to improve the framework for research in the future. This article is engaging as it emphasizes the
ongoing importance of the old theories, and suggests ways to adapt them to recent events.
However, unlike the two papers detailed above, there is no pretention of creating a new
framework that will revolutionize research means in cross-cultural analysis.
Similarly, Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a
Different Method of Measurement, written by Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, Harris and
Owens in 2001, asserts that actual methods to apply the theories (Hofstede’s and Schwartz’) are
not completely relevant as empirical research showed that 5% of examined samples
systematically deviate. The authors, thus, describe a new instrument, which is supposed to make
results more detailed and global. The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) would replace the
Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) with more concrete questions in order to better take into account
deviation cases. This paper is interesting as it shows how one researcher (Schwartz) tries to
improve his own work as he realized the limitations of his previous contributions. Nevertheless,
this article does not provide another theory and, like A quarter century of Culture’s
Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework, mostly focused on the research methodology, but not the content.
The article Cultural Values and International Differences in Business Ethics, by B. Scholtens
and L. Dam in 2007, also relates well to the rest of the articles, as its goal is to compare ethical
policies of firms in industrialized countries. It aims to show that cultural factors do have an
impact on national systems and that they can explain country differences. For this purpose, the
authors resort to Hofstede’s Value Dimensions to carry out their experience. This paper is thus an
application of a theory to a particular topic, ethical policies, and is relevant for two reasons. First,
it is a good example to show how theories developed in the previous articles can be used
concretely. Secondly, it illustrates well the purpose of A quarter century of Culture’s
Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework, being that even though many authors have tried to develop their own cross-cultural
analysis framework, Hofstede’s Value Dimensions still remains the basis for all recent studies
concerning this subject. Despite this, the paper represents no major breakthrough in this field of
research and its conclusions are very specific and are not finely shaded, as the deviations are not
analyzed.
The last studied article, On the Empirical Identification of Dimensions for Cross-Cultural
Comparisons, by K. Leung and M. Bond (1989), is one more critic of Hostede’s dimensions.
According to the authors, the theories and research methods used are biased and do no make it
possible to identify universal personal dimensions. For this purpose, the paper describes a new
method thanks to a procedure based on a “within-culture standardization” in order to isolate
affects that depend on cultural factors and those that depend on individual factors to permit a
more relevant analysis. This new method is called the “Pancultural analysis”.
Overall, the common feature of all six articles is the fact that their general starting point is
Hofstede’s theory and then declinations are found in order to improve the current analyses.
Moreover, all articles try to link cultural differences with the work environment.
However, even though all six articles see important limitations in Hofstede’s Value
Dimensions theory, its basis (the use of dimensions to assess the differences between cultures) is
never questioned and the fact that Cultural Values and International Differences in Business
Ethics in 2007 stills uses these concepts illustrates the apparent limit that research in crosscultural field has met.
3. Role of Hofstede in Cultural Research
One cannot deny the influence Hostede’s Cultural Dimensions theory on cultural research
with many other theoretical models being the product of Geert Hofstede’s theory. It is an
effective tool when analyzing culture as it describes how a society’s culture affects the values of
its members. Hofstede introduced 5 key factors that are essential for understanding the culture of
a business, the factors being; uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity v. femininity,
long-term orientation and individualism v. collectivism. Combined, these factors give a solid
understanding of how an organization’s culture is situated.
However, there have been numerous criticisms of Hofstede’s theory and with its limited
ability to analyze culture. For example, Hofstede’s (1980) work has been criticized for: reducing
culture to an overly simplistic four or five dimension conceptualization; limiting the sample to a
single multinational corporation; failing to capture the malleability of culture over time; and
ignoring within-country cultural heterogeneity (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). This leaves
academics with the notion that Hofstede’s framework contains limitations and lacks detail; this
resulted in theories developing from Hofstede’s original framework. Therefore these theories
intend to ‘fill the gaps’ of Hofstede’s suggestion.
One competitor of Hofstede’s original framework is Trompenaars’ model of 7 dimensions of
culture. Although this theory contains many different dimensions opposed to Hosfstede’s, for
example; the concept of universalism–particularism, which discusses the importance of how
people judge others and further discusses what is of higher importance, rules or relationships and
emotions, there are still aspects of Hofstede’s framework present, for example, individualism v.
collectivism.
Overall it is clear that although Hofstede’s theory contains major criticisms, it allowed
academics to adapt and perfect their own theories and develop a greater understanding of culture
within the workplace.
4. Empirical Value of Hosfstede’s Theories
Hofstede’s theory provided the academic world copious amounts of information about
different cultural values between countries and whether they approach different situations either
similarly or differently.
For example, Kirkman et al. article gave numerous results based on Hofstede’s theory. Hong
Kong, which is a high scoring collectivist country, were more likely to sue a stranger than were
US subjects; and collectivism was associated with higher likelihood of suing when the dispute
was between strangers (but not friends). US students used more antisocial, self-attribution, hint,
and self-presentation strategies than Japanese subjects Leung (1988). This indicates a difference
in the way a country views the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups and impacts
how the country interacts and deals with the above situations.
A further example is a sample of Anglo- and Chinese-Australian managers, Casimir and
Keats (1996) assessed preferences for leadership styles from among four choices, in which a
leader is high or low on both concern for group performance and maintenance of group relations.
Both cultures preferred leaders who expressed high concern for both performance and group
relations, and did not differ significantly on individualism and collectivism. In high-stress work
environments, both cultures maintained their preference for high concern leaders; however, in
low-stress environments, Chinese respondents preferred a leader who showed concern for group
relations equally to leaders high on both types of concern.
Using Hofstede’s framework allows an individual to assess whether a country is significantly
different or similar to their home country. This is an important and effective tool as it will allow
the individual to identify key differences and if these differences will affect their ability to work
together.
5. Theoretical Criticisms
While Trompenaars’ theory is widely acknowledged and helpful there are some aspects that
are somewhat problematic. Such as the similarity it bears with Hofstede’s theory. Although
Trompenaars’ theory follows Hofstede’s time there are comments that some researchers struggle
to distinguish some elements between the two theories. To elaborate, one of these examples is the
closeness between the ideas of collectivism vs. individualism of Hofstede and communitarianism
vs. individualism of Trompenaars, similarly for Hofstede's power distance index and
Trompenaars’ achievement vs. ascription.
Furthermore, there are research inconsistencies by the two academics. For example
Trompennars found that German corporate culture is hierarchical, whereas Hofstede identifies
Germany as relatively low in terms of Power Distance.
Another framework to be discussed is Schwartz’s theory of 7 types of values, structured
along 3 polar dimensions: Conservatism versus Intellectual and Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy
versus Egalitarianism and Mastery versus Harmony. As this theory is the product of a
psychologist and it is suggested that Schwartz’s theory is more a focus on how people deal with
problem solving and what actions they instinctively take that causes them to make the decisions
they do. Schwartz integrates various psychological models for happiness showing how the
problem of choice can be addressed by different strategies.
Therefore, this can be criticized, as the theory would be more apt for the psychological
aspects of the workplace and not the cultural or business aspect.
6. Analysis Within a Culture
Before one can analyze a culture, culture must be defined or ‘unpackaged’ and this is why
theories like Hofstede’s framework is used as it lists dimensions of culture. Leung and Bond’s
article introduces the idea of a pan-cultural study which means a study that is across all societies,
so anything that is pan-cultural applies to everyone regardless of country, race or religion. Facial
expressions that are pan-cultural apply to everyone and are not influenced by where or how a
person was raised. However there is a problem when conducting pan-cultural or cross cultural
analysis, different cultural groups may show different responses to the questions, this will then
lead to false or untrue correlations and furthermore, untrue factors in the pan-cultural or cross
cultural analysis.
The article further describes the idea of the patterning affect and the positioning affect of
cultural analysis. First, the patterning affect which explains how two variables in a culture could
be positively correlated in one culture, negatively in another and be related in no way in a third
culture. If correlations in cultural studies are similar the authors conclude that the “items are
similar across the culture studies and hence etic.” (Leung and Bond, 1989); however, if the items
are different, they are described as “culture-specific”. The positioning affect describes how two
cultural groups can have similar or different views on a subject but this does not necessarily have
to correlate with their location.
It is important to remember that there is no logical reason to expect that cultural and
individual dimensions will correspond together, different theories will be needed to explain these
different types of variation. It is in these circumstances where Hofstede’s theory or Schwartz’s
framework will aid in the understanding of and analysis of culture.
7. Potential use of theories for Factbook: Banking in Poland Vs. Switzerland
There are various aspects from the cultural theories our group discovered that we could
implement in our Factbook successfully. Firstly it will be useful to analyze and compare the two
countries in terms of Hofstede’s scale. Upon initial research it is clear to see that Poland is more
risk averse than Switzerland with Poland scoring 93 and Switzerland 58. It will be interesting
content for our Factbook to explore why this is the case between the two countries. Furthermore,
it is interesting to see that Poland has a higher power distance score of 68 opposed to
Switzerland’s score of 31, again it will be intriguing to explore the different organizational
structures in the two countries and determine why Poland seems to use a more traditional
hierarchical structure opposed to Switzerland, which appears to be a society that believes that
inequalities amongst people should be minimized.
Furthermore, it would be advisable for our group to explore the dimensions of Schwartz’s
theory in terms of the two countries in the banking industry. The first being Conservatism versus
Intellectual and Affective Autonomy meaning, maintenance of the status quo opposed to being
curious and open-minded (i.e. categorization of Poland and Switzerland). The second dimension
is Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism, which is defined as social power opposed to equality, as
Poland scored higher in terms of power distance it will be fascinating to explore how the country
ranks in terms of hierarchy and egalitarianism. Finally,
there is Mastery versus Harmony,
which means, being successful and daring opposed to protecting the environment. As we are
focusing on the banking industry it is fair to assume that both countries will veer more towards
mastery in terms of being successful, since protecting the environment may not be a huge factor
for that industry. However it may be effective to explore the CSR side of the banking industry
within the two countries, if there is one.
Appendix
Appendix I – Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Framework
Appendix II – Trompenaars’ Cultural Framework
Appendix III – Schwartz’s Framework
Reference List
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, 285 – 320
Leung K., Bond M. H. (1989), On the Empirical Identification of Dimensions for Cross-Cultural
Comparisons, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20: 133
Retrieved from http://jcc.sagepub.com/
Scholtens B., Dam L. (2007). Cultural Values and International Differences in Business Ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics. 75:273-284.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications For Work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48: 23-47.
Schwartz S. H., Melech G., Lehmann A., Burgess S., Harris M. and Owens V. (2001) Extending
the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a Different Method
of Measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32: 519
Retrieved from http://jcc.sagepub.com/
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of
organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 27(2): 231-264. Retrieved from http://jcc.sagepub.com/