Description
Three critiques of Hofstedes dimension of culture, which have been published, are summarised; it is suggested the
second edition of Cultures Consequences has not made sufficient change to allay the concerns of such researchers.
A research note: the un?nished business of culture
Rachel F. Baskerville-Morley
*
Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
Three critiques of HofstedeÕs dimension of culture, which have been published, are summarised; it is suggested the
second edition of Cultures Consequences has not made su?cient change to allay the concerns of such researchers.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
There has been a problem of timeliness in the
debate concerning the methodological and theo-
retical foundations for HofstedeÕs Cultures Conse-
quences. The need for several rounds of rigorous
and careful reviewing may result in a delay to
the extent that publication of the research was
slightly dated by the time it reaches the reader-
ship. The critique by Hofstede (2003) of Basker-
ville (2003) alluded to such a problem, but it
was a problem shared by HofstedeÕs critics in
other disciplines, such as Myers & Tan in Infor-
mation Systems (2002), and McSweeneyÕs,
(2002a, 2002b) critique in the Human Resource lit-
erature. This research note is prepared with the
objective of updating the debate regarding the
validity of HofstedeÕs dimensions of culture.
There are three major criticisms and a new edition
to consider.
Firstly, the new 2001 edition of ‘‘Cultures Con-
sequences: comparing values, behaviours, institu-
tions and organisations across nations’’: bigger,
heavier, and more comprehensive in the discussion
of each dimension with a summary of applied re-
search on that dimension since the 1980 edition
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001). The number of countries
in the core analysis is extended to 50, with addi-
tional sections in every chapter. Hofstede states
in the Preface to the second edition that arguments
have been reformulated, new literature included,
and all calculations re-done. There is an additional
?fth dimension: long versus short-term orienta-
tion. Although much ÔdatedÕ material had been re-
moved, the section of Chapter 1 on culture is
largely unchanged, being based on anthropologists
such as Kluckhohn, Kroeber and Parsons. Hof-
stede noted that although cultural homogeneity
may be low among newer nations, these are not
among the sample of nations analysed. However,
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.002
*
Tel.: +64 4 463 6474; fax: 64 4 463 5076.
E-mail address: [email protected]
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391
among the 10 new nation states was one described
as Arab States,
1
representing seven di?erent na-
tion states, among which cultural homogeneity
would also be expected to be relatively low. The
new edition is strengthened by discussion of the
application of each of the (1980) dimensions of
culture, and issues concerning the problem of rep-
lications. However, the 2001 edition does not allay
fundamental concerns raised in three recent cri-
tiques of HofstedeÕs scholarship.
These three critiques were published contempo-
raneously with the second edition of ‘‘CultureÕs
Consequences’’. Readers of this journal may be
familiar with Baskerville (2003). Myers and Tan
(2002) examined 36 studies in the information sys-
tems literature; of those, 24 used some or all of
HofstedeÕs dimensions. They found HofstedeÕs
work has had a signi?cant in?uence on manage-
ment studies in general, and Information Systems
research in particular. At the same time, a critique
by McSweeney in Human Relations (2002) evalu-
ated his research methodology in more detail.
McSweeney identi?es four characteristics of Hof-
stedeÕs concept of culture, and then challenges
them: treating culture as implicit, core, systemati-
cally causal, and shared.
Furthermore, McSweeney describes why he
?nds HofstedeÕs recent devaluing of organisational
culture problematic with reference to others who
raise similar or related criticisms. McSweeney de-
scribes issues of circularity of reasoning, and
assumptions that the average cultural tendencies
of IBM employees are nationally representative.
In particular, the core of McSweeneyÕs critique
focuses on the questionnaire, the statistical analy-
sis and the arithmetization of the responses.
A summary of the commonalities in these three
critiques is provided in Table 1.
This brief summary of these critiques of ‘‘Cul-
tures Consequences’’ (1980) leads to the question:
have HofstedeÕs responses recognised the validity
of any of these aspects. HofstedeÕs responses in
1
Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Republic. Hofstede noted ‘‘the region is culturally
less homogeneous than would be desirable’’ (2001, p. 52); but
these countries had to be grouped together because of technical
issues, with data lost from the survey.
Table 1
That the data which formed the basis of HofstedeÕs analysis was not collected with this in mind;
was not representative of people in those countries
Myers & Tan, & Baskerville
That there is such a thing as ‘‘national culture’’. The problem with the unit of the analysis
being a territorially unique nation-state
Myers & Tan, McSweeney,
& Baskerville
Nation states are a relatively recent phenomenon Myers & Tan
National states are dynamic, and older states have major changes in population and ethnic
composition
Myers & Tan, McSweeney
Nation states do not each have their own single and distinct culture; many nation states
have multiple ethnicities
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
HofstedeÕs view of culture is not supported from current anthropological perspectives; its
foundations are no longer mainstream anthropology
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
The relationship between national cultural values and culturally—in?uenced work-related
values; Hofstede credits national cultures with strong, or even absolute, causality
Myers & Tan, McSweeney
The simple model presented by Hofstede did not allow for the complex relationships
between culture and economic indicators
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
That culture is not observable or recordable, but implicit, a type of mental programming McSweeney, Baskerville
The claim of an immutability of cultures: that each has a discrete unique nucleus or core McSweeney, Baskerville
That IBM has a single, uniform and monopolistic organisational culture McSweeney, Baskerville
That national cultural ÔsharednessÕ between individuals can be derived from a statistical
averaging of heterogeneous components; a national norm
MsSweeney
That the sample was only from IBM employees, with a single uniform organisational culture,
challenging that this permits a demonstration of
Myers & Tan, McSweeney,
Baskerville
That he had to assume a national uniformity of culture in order to ?nd it McSweeney
390 R.F. Baskerville-Morley / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391
2002 and 2003 refer to a discussion of criticisms of
‘‘Cultures Consequences’’ in the second edition
(2001); that:
1. Surveys are not a suitable way of measuring cul-
tural di?erences.
2. Nations are not the best units for studying
culture.
3. A study of subsidiaries of one company cannot
provide information about entire national
cultures.
4. IBM data are old and therefore obsolete.
5. Four or ?ve dimensions are not enough.
These ?ve criticisms, with HofstedeÕs response,
are replicated in HofstedeÕs response (Hofstede,
2002) to McSweeney (2002a) and referred to in
Hofstede (2003). However, these do not cover
the breath and depth of the critique in McSwee-
ney, Myers & Tan and Baskerville. The purpose
of this research note was:
(a) To alert readers of Accounting, Organisations
and Society of the continuation of a funda-
mental di?erence in the conceptual assump-
tions of those researchers who continue to
apply HofstedeÕs dimensions, compared with
those challenging the orthodox status of such
dimensions. The second edition of ‘‘Cultures
Consequences’’ has done little to accommo-
date such a perceptual dissonance.
(b) To prompt further examination of the validity
of the replications. HofstedeÕs discussion of
replications (2001: 66 & 463) re?ects some out-
standing issues; ‘‘replications usually con?rm
most, but not all of the dimensions, but di?er-
ent replications con?rm di?erent dimensions’’
(2002: 1358).
Hofstede remains as a ?gurehead at the apex of
an extensive and varied empire of cross-nation re-
search endeavours. He retains the equation of na-
tion states with cultures, making heroic
assumptions of ethnic homogeneity in historical
or political arrangements of societies; stating they
are the only kinds of units available for compari-
son, and are better than nothing. He has expressed
concerns at the failure of replications to attain the
same rigour as his study, and questionable aspects
of some subsequent research based on his dimen-
sions (2001: 73). As he noted: ‘‘in many practical
cases [culture] is redundant, and economic, politi-
cal or institutional factors provide better explana-
tions’’ (2002: 1359).
However, Hofstede continues to defend his be-
lief in the validity of positing the synchronicity of
nation states with ethnicity, and the fundamental
integrity of the research methodology. Business re-
search must recognise that a multiplicity of behav-
iours vary with ethnicity of participants, not
political or national groupings. Ethnic self-identi?-
cation by participants provides a valuable predic-
tor of how shared cultural values will a?ect both
individual and small-group behaviour. As
accountants approach research challenges from
the widespread adoption of international ?nancial
reporting standards, an appreciation of the de-
bates on fundamentals of cross-cultural account-
ing research remains timely.
References
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 1–14.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: international dif-
ferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: comparing values,
behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: a reply to
Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11), 1355–
1361.
Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7–8), 811–813.
McSweeney, B. (2002a). HofstedeÕs model of national cultural
di?erences and their consequences: a triumph of faith—a
failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.
McSweeney, B. (2002b). The essentials of scholarship: a reply to
Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11), 1363–1382.
Myers, M. D., & Tan, F. (2002). Beyond models of national
culture in information systems research. Journal of Global
Information Management, 10(1), 24–32.
R.F. Baskerville-Morley / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391 391
doc_117865620.pdf
Three critiques of Hofstedes dimension of culture, which have been published, are summarised; it is suggested the
second edition of Cultures Consequences has not made sufficient change to allay the concerns of such researchers.
A research note: the un?nished business of culture
Rachel F. Baskerville-Morley
*
Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
Three critiques of HofstedeÕs dimension of culture, which have been published, are summarised; it is suggested the
second edition of Cultures Consequences has not made su?cient change to allay the concerns of such researchers.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
There has been a problem of timeliness in the
debate concerning the methodological and theo-
retical foundations for HofstedeÕs Cultures Conse-
quences. The need for several rounds of rigorous
and careful reviewing may result in a delay to
the extent that publication of the research was
slightly dated by the time it reaches the reader-
ship. The critique by Hofstede (2003) of Basker-
ville (2003) alluded to such a problem, but it
was a problem shared by HofstedeÕs critics in
other disciplines, such as Myers & Tan in Infor-
mation Systems (2002), and McSweeneyÕs,
(2002a, 2002b) critique in the Human Resource lit-
erature. This research note is prepared with the
objective of updating the debate regarding the
validity of HofstedeÕs dimensions of culture.
There are three major criticisms and a new edition
to consider.
Firstly, the new 2001 edition of ‘‘Cultures Con-
sequences: comparing values, behaviours, institu-
tions and organisations across nations’’: bigger,
heavier, and more comprehensive in the discussion
of each dimension with a summary of applied re-
search on that dimension since the 1980 edition
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001). The number of countries
in the core analysis is extended to 50, with addi-
tional sections in every chapter. Hofstede states
in the Preface to the second edition that arguments
have been reformulated, new literature included,
and all calculations re-done. There is an additional
?fth dimension: long versus short-term orienta-
tion. Although much ÔdatedÕ material had been re-
moved, the section of Chapter 1 on culture is
largely unchanged, being based on anthropologists
such as Kluckhohn, Kroeber and Parsons. Hof-
stede noted that although cultural homogeneity
may be low among newer nations, these are not
among the sample of nations analysed. However,
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.002
*
Tel.: +64 4 463 6474; fax: 64 4 463 5076.
E-mail address: [email protected]
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391
among the 10 new nation states was one described
as Arab States,
1
representing seven di?erent na-
tion states, among which cultural homogeneity
would also be expected to be relatively low. The
new edition is strengthened by discussion of the
application of each of the (1980) dimensions of
culture, and issues concerning the problem of rep-
lications. However, the 2001 edition does not allay
fundamental concerns raised in three recent cri-
tiques of HofstedeÕs scholarship.
These three critiques were published contempo-
raneously with the second edition of ‘‘CultureÕs
Consequences’’. Readers of this journal may be
familiar with Baskerville (2003). Myers and Tan
(2002) examined 36 studies in the information sys-
tems literature; of those, 24 used some or all of
HofstedeÕs dimensions. They found HofstedeÕs
work has had a signi?cant in?uence on manage-
ment studies in general, and Information Systems
research in particular. At the same time, a critique
by McSweeney in Human Relations (2002) evalu-
ated his research methodology in more detail.
McSweeney identi?es four characteristics of Hof-
stedeÕs concept of culture, and then challenges
them: treating culture as implicit, core, systemati-
cally causal, and shared.
Furthermore, McSweeney describes why he
?nds HofstedeÕs recent devaluing of organisational
culture problematic with reference to others who
raise similar or related criticisms. McSweeney de-
scribes issues of circularity of reasoning, and
assumptions that the average cultural tendencies
of IBM employees are nationally representative.
In particular, the core of McSweeneyÕs critique
focuses on the questionnaire, the statistical analy-
sis and the arithmetization of the responses.
A summary of the commonalities in these three
critiques is provided in Table 1.
This brief summary of these critiques of ‘‘Cul-
tures Consequences’’ (1980) leads to the question:
have HofstedeÕs responses recognised the validity
of any of these aspects. HofstedeÕs responses in
1
Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Republic. Hofstede noted ‘‘the region is culturally
less homogeneous than would be desirable’’ (2001, p. 52); but
these countries had to be grouped together because of technical
issues, with data lost from the survey.
Table 1
That the data which formed the basis of HofstedeÕs analysis was not collected with this in mind;
was not representative of people in those countries
Myers & Tan, & Baskerville
That there is such a thing as ‘‘national culture’’. The problem with the unit of the analysis
being a territorially unique nation-state
Myers & Tan, McSweeney,
& Baskerville
Nation states are a relatively recent phenomenon Myers & Tan
National states are dynamic, and older states have major changes in population and ethnic
composition
Myers & Tan, McSweeney
Nation states do not each have their own single and distinct culture; many nation states
have multiple ethnicities
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
HofstedeÕs view of culture is not supported from current anthropological perspectives; its
foundations are no longer mainstream anthropology
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
The relationship between national cultural values and culturally—in?uenced work-related
values; Hofstede credits national cultures with strong, or even absolute, causality
Myers & Tan, McSweeney
The simple model presented by Hofstede did not allow for the complex relationships
between culture and economic indicators
Myers & Tan, Baskerville
That culture is not observable or recordable, but implicit, a type of mental programming McSweeney, Baskerville
The claim of an immutability of cultures: that each has a discrete unique nucleus or core McSweeney, Baskerville
That IBM has a single, uniform and monopolistic organisational culture McSweeney, Baskerville
That national cultural ÔsharednessÕ between individuals can be derived from a statistical
averaging of heterogeneous components; a national norm
MsSweeney
That the sample was only from IBM employees, with a single uniform organisational culture,
challenging that this permits a demonstration of
Myers & Tan, McSweeney,
Baskerville
That he had to assume a national uniformity of culture in order to ?nd it McSweeney
390 R.F. Baskerville-Morley / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391
2002 and 2003 refer to a discussion of criticisms of
‘‘Cultures Consequences’’ in the second edition
(2001); that:
1. Surveys are not a suitable way of measuring cul-
tural di?erences.
2. Nations are not the best units for studying
culture.
3. A study of subsidiaries of one company cannot
provide information about entire national
cultures.
4. IBM data are old and therefore obsolete.
5. Four or ?ve dimensions are not enough.
These ?ve criticisms, with HofstedeÕs response,
are replicated in HofstedeÕs response (Hofstede,
2002) to McSweeney (2002a) and referred to in
Hofstede (2003). However, these do not cover
the breath and depth of the critique in McSwee-
ney, Myers & Tan and Baskerville. The purpose
of this research note was:
(a) To alert readers of Accounting, Organisations
and Society of the continuation of a funda-
mental di?erence in the conceptual assump-
tions of those researchers who continue to
apply HofstedeÕs dimensions, compared with
those challenging the orthodox status of such
dimensions. The second edition of ‘‘Cultures
Consequences’’ has done little to accommo-
date such a perceptual dissonance.
(b) To prompt further examination of the validity
of the replications. HofstedeÕs discussion of
replications (2001: 66 & 463) re?ects some out-
standing issues; ‘‘replications usually con?rm
most, but not all of the dimensions, but di?er-
ent replications con?rm di?erent dimensions’’
(2002: 1358).
Hofstede remains as a ?gurehead at the apex of
an extensive and varied empire of cross-nation re-
search endeavours. He retains the equation of na-
tion states with cultures, making heroic
assumptions of ethnic homogeneity in historical
or political arrangements of societies; stating they
are the only kinds of units available for compari-
son, and are better than nothing. He has expressed
concerns at the failure of replications to attain the
same rigour as his study, and questionable aspects
of some subsequent research based on his dimen-
sions (2001: 73). As he noted: ‘‘in many practical
cases [culture] is redundant, and economic, politi-
cal or institutional factors provide better explana-
tions’’ (2002: 1359).
However, Hofstede continues to defend his be-
lief in the validity of positing the synchronicity of
nation states with ethnicity, and the fundamental
integrity of the research methodology. Business re-
search must recognise that a multiplicity of behav-
iours vary with ethnicity of participants, not
political or national groupings. Ethnic self-identi?-
cation by participants provides a valuable predic-
tor of how shared cultural values will a?ect both
individual and small-group behaviour. As
accountants approach research challenges from
the widespread adoption of international ?nancial
reporting standards, an appreciation of the de-
bates on fundamentals of cross-cultural account-
ing research remains timely.
References
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 1–14.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: international dif-
ferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: comparing values,
behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: a reply to
Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11), 1355–
1361.
Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7–8), 811–813.
McSweeney, B. (2002a). HofstedeÕs model of national cultural
di?erences and their consequences: a triumph of faith—a
failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.
McSweeney, B. (2002b). The essentials of scholarship: a reply to
Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11), 1363–1382.
Myers, M. D., & Tan, F. (2002). Beyond models of national
culture in information systems research. Journal of Global
Information Management, 10(1), 24–32.
R.F. Baskerville-Morley / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 389–391 391
doc_117865620.pdf