Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions: A Debate

This assignment critically examines Geert Hofstede’s theory of national cultures and Professor Brendan McSweeney's refutation of it. The report analyzes Hofstede's six dimensions of culture and McSweeney's emphasis on subcultures within nations. It also evaluates the practicality of both perspectives for organizational understanding and management.

The myth of national culture-Counter
argument to Hofstede’s work by
Professor Brendan McSweeney at Royal
Holloway, University of London
Report: Activity 4
Student Name: Student ID:
Subject Name: Subject ID:
Date Due: Professor Name:
Page | 1

Executive Summary
Cultural heterogeneity imposed challenges for organizations who needed a framework for
understanding of them. Geert Hofstede’s developed a study that identified five dimensions of
national cultures. Professor Brendan McSweeney refuted Hofstede’s view regarding national
culture and proposed sub-cultures of them. The scope of this study examines views of both the
professors identifying practicality of both.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................2
Page | 2

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4
Analysis........................................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................7
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................7
Analysis........................................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................8
Reference Lists............................................................................................................................................8
Introduction
Cultural understanding are important determinant for organisational success. Several researchers
have studies and analysed cross-cultures in order to develop their scopes and understand them in
Page | 3

great details (Hofstede, Geert hofstede., 2010). Geert Hofstede’s developed powerful theory
enduring which depicted national cultures or their differences. His findings reflects a number of
dimensions with six distinct parameters that was used to determine cultures of nations. Though
his findings had significant implications for management of diversified cultures across countries
it had been refuted by many. Professor Brendan McSweeney refuted his views depicting sets of
sub-cultures that occupied nations (Yoo, 2011). The scope of the current analysis provides a
detailed insight into the myths for national cultures.
Analysis
Geert Hofstede’s conducted a study of national cultures on power distance, individualism,
masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and indulgence. Countries across the
world were rated and their individual scores were developed on basis of these parameters
(McSweeney, The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede, 2002). The study was a
pioneer in the field of comprehensive cross-cultural studies. However, the study was based on
several underlying assumptions hence had very little practical applicability. Professor Brendan
McSweeney developed further on studies of Hofstede, stating that a nation comprises of various
sub-cultures hence it is not possible to define cultures at a national level. He stated further that
homogeneity amongst cultures of nations cannot exists and is only a myth (www.youtube.com,
Retrieved on 17th September 2017). His development of subcultures were in connection to
economic, political or historical influences. There were diversity amongst various cultures within
a country, hence accurate depiction of culture for a particular nation does not hold. He further
added that Hofstede’s view about national cultures were more theoretical in nature and had little
practical application. He identified geographical differences within a country to be determining
factors that affects cultures impacting an individual behaviors (Soares, 2007). Thus, he pointed
out that national cultures can be signified as clusters of cub-culture that is obtained from
individualistic norms.
Page | 4

Conclusion
Analysis of cultural views proposed by Geert Hofstede’s and McSweeney states that the later had
more compelling views which could be applied. McSweeney’s views regarding national cultures
are more practical and have been adopted by organizations and researchers for further studies as
well.
Reference Lists
Hofstede, G. 2010. Geert hofstede. National cultural dimensions.
Hofstede, G. 2010. 'Geert Hofstede.', National cultural dimensions.
Page | 5

McSweeney, B. 2002. The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human
relations, 55(11), 1363-1372.
McSweeney, B. 2009. Dynamic diversity: variety and variation within countries. Organization
Studies, 933-957.
Soares, A. M. 2007. Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. .
Journal of business research, 277-284.
www.youtube.com. (Retrieved on 17th September 2017). McSweeney National Culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_l84Dj2eXY.
Yoo, B. D. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual
level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. . Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.
Page | 6