A Critical Review of Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context by Geert Hofstede

According to Hofstede Model culture include six dimensions, which is considered as a creative method on culture research. However, it is vital to analyse the Hofstede model critically. The model also exists some limitations, for instance, the small size of sample, ignoring the toughness of the definition of the culture, simplifying cultural measurements as a bipolar phenomenon and so on which has introduced a various critic for his famous dimensions. Mostly, Hofstede's concept of cultural measurement has been heavily criticized several times - all shortly after its first publication. Even though, some dimension of Hofstede like individualism vs collectivism pretty much supports Parsons and Shils (1951) findings where, a person reflects a culture in an organisation in accordance to his/her personal and group choices.

Whether a person behaves the same at home, with friends or at work, it can always create an argument. Hofstede, Goffman (1959) unlikely argues that everyone wears a different mask, depending on the environment they're in. He portrays society as a drama where everything is a show. Individuals wear masks; They adapt themselves to others and their environment. The theme is no longer stable, but "liquid". Those behaviours adopted by a person in a personal and family life are significantly diverse from the one leaded by a working environment, hence the final outcome of Hofstede research cannot be delivered to culture. Trompenaars, Hampden – Turner (1997). On one hand, looking at the compliments, approve and reliability of his study by a numerous researcher, one can consider those findings as a novel international influence.

On the other hand, some facets of his outcome have been criticised sharply, his research methodology could be one example. The ultimate definition of the culture he describes could leads to another disagreement. Moving on Fang (2003) has even questioned the Confucian dynamism which in fact, is the fifth-dimension solid foundation. Many experiences portrait, not necessarily commanding models in various angle within one society has to be the same. Hence, plenty of research reveals the practice of both individualism and collectivism more likely to be fitted in that society culture.

Do IBM employees share the same values as everyone else? According to McSweeney, there is no reason to think IBM's response reflects the "national average". First, because IBM is not a "typical" state-owned enterprise, and second, employees are likely to part ways with the general population because "it is not very common to work for a high-tech enterprise in a third world country". Hofstede simplifies his research not only to all available kind of workers in a country, but to every individual carrying the same nationality. It is not a relevant sample size to identify the power distance of a whole country. Sample sizes in some countries, although there is a large amount of data overall. For example, only six countries from 40 countries had more than 1, 000 respondents, and 15 countries had fewer than 200 respondents.

The dimensions that culture creates are always complex and intangible Clyde Kluckhohn (1962). However, seven conceptual dimensions, differentiates the culture dimension according to Fons Trompenaars (1993). The only score at a national level be relied on Trompenaars data, which represents other half of individualism. Looking at the findings, Trompenaars statement to seven dimension lacks observed back up.

Conclusion

The world has changed in the decades since the study began, so the metrics Hofstede calculated are outdated. If we agree that culture changes more slowly than any other social institution and Hofstede does succeed in accurately measuring the fundamental value of attitudes, then its argument is controversial.