Arguments against hofstede

   Criticised and complemented on the breadth, depth and import of his study into culture ("Culture's Consequences") Hofstede's work has been nothing short of highly controversial. Like some of the great economists (Keynes, Malthus, Philips) Hofstede is not without his protagonists and antagonists. Many arguments run against Hofstede's work, the discussion which follows endeavours to capture some of the more pertinent issues.

   Relevancy

   Many researchers allude a survey is not an appropriate instrument for accurately determining and measuring cultural disparity. This is especially apparent when the variable being measured is a value which culturally sensitive and subjective. Hofstede addresses this criticism saying that surveys are one method, but not the only method that was used.

   Cultural Homogeneity

   This criticism is perhaps the most popular. Hofstede's study assumes the domestic population is an homogenous whole. However most nations are groups of ethnic units. Analysis is therefore constrained by the character of the individual being assessed; the outcomes have a possibility of arbitrariness. On the other hand Hofstede tends to ignore the importance of community, and the variations of the community influences.

   National Divisions

   Nations are not the proper units of analysis as cultures are not necessarily bounded by borders. Recent research has found that culture is in fact fragmented across group and national lines. Hofstede points out however that national identities are the only means we have of identifying and measuring cultural differences.

   Political Influences

   The outcomes, particularly those pertaining to Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance, may have been sensitive to the timing of the survey. Europe was in the midst of the cold war and was still haunted by vivid memories of World War Two, similarly their was the communist insurgence in Asia, Africa and Europe. As a result of the political instabilities of the time, the sample lacks data from socialist countries, as well as from the less affluent Third World Countries.

   One Company Approach

   A study fixated on only one company cannot possibly provide information on the entire cultural system of a country. Hofstede said he was not making an absolute measure, he was merely gauging differences between cultures and this style of cross-sectional analysis was appropriate. In addition, Hofstede points out that the use of a single multinational employer eliminates the effect of the corporate policy and management praxctices from different companies influencing behaviour diffeently, leaving only national culture to explain cultural difference.

   Out-dated

   Some researchers have claimed that the study is too old to be of any modern value, particularly with today's rapidly changing global environments, internationalisation and convergence. Hofstede countered saying that the cross-cultural outcomes were based on centuries of indoctrination, recent replications have supported the fact that culture will not change overnight.

   Too Few Dimensions

   Four or five dimensions do not give sufficient information about cultural differences. Hofstede agrees, he believes additional dimensions should continue to be added to his original work.

   Statistical integrity

   Dorfman and Howell have found that in his analysis, Hofstede has, on occasion, used the same questionnaire item on more than one scale, and several have significant cross-loadings. In fact, when closely observed, the analysis comprises 32 questions with only 40 cases or subjects (40 data points corresponding to 40 countries). An analysis built on so few 'subjects' takes great advantage of chance and increases the likelihood of sample error.