Global markets are changing faster than ever and increasing international competition makes it necessary for managers to understand not only the domestic culture but also the host country’s culture.
Derived from globalisation, successful cross-cultural management is gaining in importance and its need for understanding of cultural differences becomes essential. Because of this it is argued that, with the increasing importance of a cross-cultural understanding, Hofstede’s (1980) model of cultural dimensions gains proportional importance and attracts notice at the same time. His study is widely used in global operating organisations within trainings and workshops. The first step of effective cross-cultural management is the awareness that cultural differences exist and domestic strategies might fail in host countries.
Even though, Hofstede’s (1980) cultural study is the most important one and widely known, there are many other cultural studies, which are only partly supporting his study. For each and every model of cultural identifications arouse praise and criticism and Hofstede was not spared by criticism. The main criticism refers to the methodology Hofstede used and many authors questioned its validity and reliability. Another major critique is that the nearly 40-years old survey findings are out-dated and not of any modern value anymore. Addressing the elaborated criticisms from the literature, a personal replication study within the two countries of Germany and the UK is undertaken in order to evaluate the validity, reliability and applicability in the 21st century. This study has developed own dimension scores for Masculinity/ Femininity (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) for Germany and the UK and compared and evaluated these with Hofstede’s findings. The findings of this study vary from Hofstede’s findings, as according to this study the UK is more masculine and has a higher Uncertainty Avoidance score than Germany. These findings do not support Hofstede’s findings and further cultural research is recommended.
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Globalisation
1.2 Cross-cultural management
1.3 Need for contemporary approach
1.4 Research aim and objectives
1.4.1 Aim
1.4.2 Objectives
1.5 Outline of the chapters
2. Literature review
2.1 Culture defined
2.1.1 National culture
2.1.2 Organisational culture
2.2 Hofstede’s study of cultural dimensions
2.2.1 Research data
2.2.2 Cultural dimensions
2.2.3 Other cultural studies and comparison with Hofstede’s dimensions
2.3 Analysis and evaluation of Hofstede’s findings
2.3.1 Arguments in support of Hofstede’s study
2.3.2 Arguments against Hofstede’s study
2.3.3 Discussion
2.4 Hofstede’s findings in practice
3. Research methodology
3.1 Research process
3.1.1 Philosophy of research
3.1.2 Research Approach
3.1.3 Research Strategy
3.1.4 Research Choices
3.1.5 Time Horizon
3.1.6 Data collection method
3.2 Data validity, reliability and generalisibility
3.2.1 Validity
3.2.2 Reliability
3.2.3 Generalisability
3.3 Research ethics
3.4 Limitations
4. Analysis and findings
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Calculation of dimension scores
4.3 Masculinity
4.3.1 MAS Index Score
4.3.2 Further Analysis
4.4 Uncertainty Avoidance
4.4.1 UA Index Score
4.4.2 Further Analysis
4.5 Discussion
5. Conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Future research and recommendation
Research Goals and Themes
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically analyse and evaluate the reliability, validity, and modern-day applicability of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions model. Through a comparative replication study involving students from Germany and the United Kingdom, the research investigates whether Hofstede’s original findings remain accurate in the 21st century or if cultural values have shifted over time.
- Analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and their foundational critique.
- Comparison of Hofstede’s model with contemporary cultural studies such as the GLOBE project.
- Evaluation of the practical application of cultural dimension scores in modern cross-cultural management.
- Empirical investigation of current Masculinity/Femininity (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) trends among German and British students.
- Recommendations for future cultural research and methodology improvements.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2 HOFSTEDE’S STUDY OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, published his landmark study in 1980 “Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work related Values” (Hofstede, 1980). Through his cross-cultural studies he identified four main dimensions, later six, which affect human thinking, organisations, and institutions in predictable ways (Francesco and Gold, 2003). ‘A dimension is an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures’ (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.30). Moreover, Levitin (1973, p.492) states that dimensions are not tangible and that they are ‘not directly accessible to observation but inferable from verbal statements and other behaviors and useful in predicting still other observable and measurable verbal and nonverbal behavior’. Furthermore, Hofstede’s (1980) research had a remarkable effect on academics and practitioners (Jones, 2007) and was cited and utilised in a wide range of social context, is taught in class rooms and subject in organisational training (Dawson and Young, 2003) and is further the most cited Non-American in the US Social Science Citation Index (Powell, 2006). Hofstede’s study of pioneering character based on a huge amount of data was taken up enthusiastically by many researchers and has been accepted and adopted quickly within academic and organisational environment ever since.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research context, highlighting the importance of cross-cultural management in globalized business and outlining the study's core aims and research objectives.
2. Literature Review: This section provides a theoretical framework by defining culture and examining major cultural models, with a critical focus on Hofstede's dimensions and their limitations.
3. Research Methodology: This chapter details the research process, justifying the use of a survey strategy and a deductive, quantitative approach to data collection among students in Germany and the UK.
4. Analysis and Findings: This core section presents the calculation of MAS and UA dimension scores based on primary survey data and discusses how these results deviate from or align with Hofstede’s original metrics.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations: The final chapter summarizes the research findings, evaluates the relevance of Hofstede’s model today, and proposes directions for future scholarly investigation into cultural dynamics.
Keywords
Cross-cultural management, Hofstede’s model, Cultural dimensions, Globalization, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Research methodology, Survey analysis, Organizational culture, National culture, Cultural intelligence, Quantitative research, Value survey module, Comparative study, Cultural change
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this dissertation?
The dissertation provides a critical assessment of Hofstede’s (1980) model of cultural dimensions, questioning its continued validity and reliability for modern business organizations in the 21st century.
Which central thematic fields are explored?
The study navigates themes such as globalization, cross-cultural management, the evolution of organizational and national culture, and the critical debate surrounding quantitative cultural measurement.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The objective is to evaluate whether Hofstede’s cultural findings are still applicable today by replicating his study with a contemporary sample of German and British students to identify potential shifts in cultural values.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a deductive, quantitative research methodology, utilizing a self-administered questionnaire based on Hofstede’s VSM08 manual to collect primary data from undergraduate students.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the literature, presents the research methodology and data collection processes, analyzes personal dimension scores for Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance, and discusses these findings against established theory.
What are the key terms that define this work?
Key terms include Cross-cultural management, Cultural dimensions, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Research methodology.
How does this study contribute to the critique of Hofstede’s original work?
The study provides empirical evidence showing that current survey results for Germany and the UK differ from Hofstede’s original scores, suggesting that culture may not be as static as Hofstede’s model originally assumed.
How is the "Uncertainty Avoidance" dimension interpreted in this study?
The study challenges the established ranking of Germany as a high Uncertainty Avoidance culture compared to the UK, finding that in the current student sample, both nations exhibit lower Uncertainty Avoidance traits than expected.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Kristin Piepenburg (Autor:in), 2011, Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/169716
