6 minute read
Strengths in McSweeney’s article
A major assumption that Hofstede makes in his work is that a national culture exists; that each nation or state which is his unit of analysis has its own culture. McSweeney has been able to identify some weaknesses on the Hofstede’s model such as denial of agency, culture as being coherent, national culture being pure and stable. He also finds that Hofstede has excluded the independent role of non-cultural influences and the also the independent influence of other cultures (McSweeney 2009).
According to McSweeney (2009), Hofstede’s model does not give a clear explanation of the relationship between national cultural values and those that are related to work (McSweeney 2009). For instance, nations like Japan, India, and Iran appear to behave in a way totally different from what Hofstede explains about a national culture. They have a strong sense of group and community. They place work team above own interests. However when it comes to company work, it is only Japanese who seem to carry this over. As employees, Indians and Iranians become very individualistic (McSweeney 2009)
Advertisement
He finds that this assumption is good for countries that usually experience divisions so as to create a depiction that there can be unity for an entire nation (Paik, Stage & Vance 1996)
However, it is already questionable for various reasons.
In his work, McSweeney observes that Hofstede assumes that national culture is identifiable in the micro or local setting of an organisation. The observations of his survey are only valid if there is a presupposition of national uniformity. However there are lots of unexplained conceptual chasm between micro-local culture represented by IBM and the national culture. In this view, national uniformity is assumed and not ‘found’ as Hofstede claims (McSweeney 2009)
The first reason is that a nation or state is a contemporary phenomenon and used not to be in existence for a large part of the human history (McSweeney 2009). This is in agreement with Banai (2005) who observes that only few jurisdictions had mobilised governmental powers by the end of the 19th century. These were Europe, the U.S. and Japan. Culture on the other hand has existed for a longer time (Banai 2005).
Weaknesses in McSweeney’s article
McSweeney focuses on the content of Hofstede’s work and fails to look at the procedures used. Some of the flaws that McSweeney observes in Hofstede’s model come from his methodology in research. Here are some of the major mistakes that McSweeney did not criticise.
Sample size
Hofstede in his research administered 117,000 questionnaires in 66 countries (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). The matching of respondents by Hofstede is good as it is able to link the occupations of employees in IBM among the countries that were included in the survey. However, even when a large number of respondents are used is not a pure guarantee that the number is representative; it is apparent that this number of questionnaires is not as large as it may appear considering the number of countries. In fact in some countries it was so minuscule.
In his survey, only six of the 66 countries had more than one thousand respondents. Some countries had less than 200 respondents. There were only 68 respondents in Hong Kong (Banai 2005). To support his small number of respondents, Hofstede stated that homogeneous samples have little to gain from in terms of reliability when the sample size is over 50. In my opinion such a number is to be scorned even when doing a study to represent five thousand people.
Variety
McSweeney seems to agree with the sample Hofstedes’s sample homogeneity in terms of where it is drawn. He fails to notice the problem with the narrowness of the population that was included in the survey. The respondents are often drawn from one company (IBM), yet he talks of national samples. I think that this represents a similar number in all respects because the organisational culture they share is the same
The use of IBM employees across nations is a flaw in itself. This is because it is assumed that the IBM employees or their occupations in the organisations have a common organisational culture regardless of the countries they are serving. This is very contestable because it ignores the literature of presence of contradictory cultures, resisting, emergent, organic and incomplete cultures within organisations. In fact, Hofstede had already started to admit presence of varieties of culture in some units of the same organisations just ten years after publication of his IBM analysis.
Opinions of other scholars on Hofstede’s work
The makeup of nations has consistently changed over time especially for political reasons. For instance what used to be the Soviet Union broke up after the Cold War. Another perspective of the same changes is where the population constitution of nations is constantly changing due to immigration and globalisation. This has contributed to people embracing cultures that are not their own (Lowe 1981).
Larry (1994) indicates that there is not necessarily a distinct culture restricted to specific nations. This is because nations are political entities. In fact, most of African nations were created on the colonial bounds and that is the way they remain today (Larry 1994). Another reason is that what Hofstede defines as culture does not hold water in the modern anthropological view. He talks of culture as something that identifies a group from the other.
This is too static and modern anthropology has transcended above that and is today in the view that “culture is contested, temporal and emergent”. Hofstede’s model does not allow a clear understanding of the linkage between culture and economic growth and may thus be misleading (Salter & Niswander 1995).
In addition his model denies the influence of other cultures. It is too deterministic to assume that only one coherent culture for the entire nation exists since it ignores that a nation is like a system with inputs that significantly influence it and outputs that significantly influence others. Furthermore, a culture could be influenced by even non-cultural factors like laws, institutions, religion and other social practices (Allport 1924).
In my opinion, there is nothing like a homogeneous, stable national culture. If there was existence of a national culture common to all individuals there would not be that much of intracountry differences in the responses that came from the individuals. The responses given by IBM employees showed radical differences for each country. Even Hofstede himself acknowledged this by saying that these were only averages or other central tendencies. I strongly agree that a nation could try to bring unity of diverse cultures but they cannot become homogeneous and specific to the boundaries of that nation. That culture would also constantly change due to influence from other external cultures.
Why his model is still used in organisations
Hofstede’s model is still used in many organisations especially the business oriented ones. For instance, it gives an understanding of consumer behaviour and hence becomes a critical one in marketing especially in the area of advertising. His national model of culture has explained some important concepts of self, identity, and personality of individuals that are very significant in branding strategy and also in communications (Salter & Niswander 1995).
Homogeneity is also an advantage in some areas of management as it allows uniformity of action, rules, and procedures to be followed by employees. It is on assumptions of this homogeneity that the basis for promotions, rewards, and other actions are done in organisations (Paik, Stage & Vance 1996) Conclusion
McSweeney (2009) has been successful in showing that most of Hofstede’s identification claims have major flaws. The generalisations he makes like the one of a national level culture drawn from his study of sub-national populations is not well proven. His data is also limited in scope in that the study of IBM employees could not represent a nationwide assumption. On another note, culture is elusive and could not be identified with what Hofstede averaged and opinionated (McSweeney 2009). Even though his questions in the questionnaires were part of what defined a cultural identification, they were too narrow to represent culture in its entirety. These were situational and specific opinions that define part of culture and not entire culture, and they make a general deduction of culture invalid. In addition, his claim to have successfully measured national culture differences in an empirical manner is not valid since they were already based on unwarranted assumptions (Banai 2005).
There have been converse observations in both literature and empirical data. National diversity is a better embraced idea than national culture (Larry 1994). The uniformity assumption within the entire nations is a false one. Nations may fissure, expand or undergo other changes that redefine the borders. Hofstede does not explain what implications such changes have on the national culture. What would we say of a country like Yugoslavia that fissured into Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia? Would we still assume a national culture for Yugoslavia? As much as many may believe in a national culture, the work by Hofstede is neither sufficient nor convincing that such exists.
