An Evaluation of Intercultural Business Communication Frameworks

This essay delves into the complexities of intercultural business communication, highlighting its significance in today's competitive global market. It examines Hofstede's cultural dimensions model, a widely recognized framework for understanding cultural differences in business contexts, including power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, pragmatic vs. normative, and indulgence vs. restraint. The essay provides a detailed overview of each dimension and their implications. Furthermore, it presents criticisms of Hofstede's model, particularly McSweeney's arguments regarding the reliability and validity of the data and methodology, and the limitations of using national cultures as the primary unit of analysis. The essay also explores counterarguments and discusses the importance of adapting communication strategies to navigate cultural differences effectively. The study concludes by emphasizing the need for critical evaluation of the cultural dimensions model and recognizing the dynamic nature of intercultural communication in the 21st century.

Running head: INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Intercultural Business Communication
Name of the Student
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Discussion........................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................10
References......................................................................................................................................12

2
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Introduction
Intercultural business communication can be compared with a complex disciplinary
Endeavour, which is involved with a highly developed field of enquiry. The dimensions
associated with the intercultural perceptiveness are widely used in the organisational context.
According to Mazanec et al., (2015), intercultural business communication deals with the cross-
cultural business context and the study of the communication in intercultural. It is noticeable the
establishment of the effective intercultural communication process helps in eliminating the
cultural differences between the international business clients or partners (Bakir et al., 2015).
Many scholars and business tycoons have expressed their experiences in dealing with the
intercultural scenario. The study observes a thesis statement that depicts the extent to which the
description of the cultural dimensions presented by Hofstede is justified and contextual. In order
to develop such thesis, the study would provide the clear understanding regarding the diverse
cultural dimensions explained by Hofstede. Furthermore, the study would present the counter
arguments created by McSweeney’s to define the loopholes in the description of Hofstede. The
debate-based study would help in strengthening the analytical skills regarding the subject area.
Discussion
The current global marketplace is surrounded by the immense competitive forces. Chien
et al., (2016) pointed out that each of the organisations strives to meet the excellence by
developing the suitable strategies. Broadening the global perspectives is also one of those
fruitful business strategies that are securing the competitive edge in the international market.
According to Hur, Kang and Kim (2015), communication is the .major weapon to achieve the
excellence in a global level. Establishment of the effective communication at the multicultural

3
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
level cannot be underestimated. Developing the intercultural communication helps in gathering
the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in ensuring the ‘win-
win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015). One of the
famous psychologists, Dr. Geert Hofstede introduced the cultural dimension model in the year of
1970 to explain the broader aspects of the intercultural values. After conducting the extensive
research on these parameters, this framework is approved as per the internationalized standards
to develop the clear understanding regarding the cultural differences. It is argued that the
individuals may carry the individual preferences that cannot define the collective characteristics
of a nation. It is stated that as an essentialist, one may objectify the scenario that has some of the
specific underlying nature or essence.
The observations of the different cultural dimensions could create the differences
between the cultures. Based on such differences, the cultural dimensions are characterization into
six divisions, such as power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity,
uncertainty avoidance, pragmatic vs. normative, and indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, 1984).
The first dimension is power distance index (PDI), which refers to the observable degree of
inequality that is accepted between the people with or without power. If the score of the PDI is
higher, it determines that the society tends to accept the hierarchal and unequal distribution of
power. It also indicates that people understand their position in the system. On the other hand,
the low PDI score indicates that the power is widely dispersed and shared (Engle & Nash, 2015).
Society would not accept when the power is unequally distributed among others. For example, in
Malaysia, the people accept the unequal distribution of power due to which it scores higher in
this dimension. The second dimension is Individualism vs Collectivism, which refers to the
strong cooperation of the people in the community. The higher level of IDV indicates the weaker

4
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
interpersonal relationships with each other whereas the low score defines the strong tendency
towards establishing the collectivism (Ladhari, Souiden & Choi, 2015). For example, some of
the Central American countries like Guatemala and Panama have the lower IDV scores, which
indicate that they prefer the individualism for performing any work.
The third dimension is masculinity vs femininity, which refers to the distribution of
responsibilities between males and females (Kim, 2017). In such divisions, men are supposedly
perceived as the strong and assertive whereas the females are perceived as modest. The gaps
created between the male and females’ values are greater in Austria and Japan. The fourth
dimension is uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), which describes the extent to which people
can cope with anxiety (Nathan, 2015). In a society where the UAI is high, people attempt to
make the life as controllable or predictable as possible. On the other hand, the low UAI score
indicates the more relaxed, inclusive, and open mentality. Greece has scored the highest in this
dimension whereas Singapore has scored lower. The fifth dimension is pragmatic versus
normative, which is also conceptualized as the long-term orientation (Matthes, 2016). It
generally refers to the degree to which people need to explain the stronger aspects of the
nationalism or religiosity. It has been observed that US has scored higher in the normative scale.
It reflects the short term goal orientation to gain quick result (Zeromskyte & Wagner, 2017). The
final dimension is indulgence versus restraint in which higher score refers to the high level of
encouragement. On the other hand, the lower score refers to the more emphasis on suppressing
the gratifications. Russia has the lower IVR score in this segment, which indicates the lesser
gratification in such context.
Each dimension of this model specifies some of the basic questions that determine the
score achieved by the countries. However, it has been observed that there are some of the re-

5
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
enquires are developed for answering the questions. The first dimension of this model is the
power distance in which the questions are formulated to understand the extent of disagreement
of the society to question their leaders (Zeromskyte & Wagner, 2017). It develops the questions
on the extent to which the employees are afraid to express their disagreement with their
managers. It was noticed that Hofstede was receiving the similar answer within the cultures, but
the differences are found while establishing the links on the ecological correlation. There is thus
a question arise based on the reliability on the questionnaire developed for power distance. The
second dimension is the uncertainty avoidance index, which develops the question regarding
the extent to which an individual face nervousness or tension at the workplace (Beugelsdijk,
Maseland & Hoorn, 2015). The scores developed in this question differed in a greater aspect by
country than by the occupation. Therefore, there is the question raised against the validation of
the Hofstede’s methodology in this cultural dimension as well based on the people’s reactions
towards uncertainty or anxiety.
The cultural dimension scores established by Hofstede are relatively arguable in terms of
reliability and validity. Ojala (2015) commented that the unconsciousness of the people is much
more sensitive than their conscious mind. When people stay in their unconscious mind, it affects
their psychology in a significant way. It is noticeable that people sometimes fail to answer the
questions consciously since they are not aware of the truth. For instance, if people have the clear
ideas about their work values and approaches, it would have been easier for them to analyse the
questionnaire in a clarified manner (French, 2015). Moreover, they are even unaware of the
situations as well. It is even argued that some of the questionnaires are completed by the group
instead of the individuals. Hence, it is noticeable that the information derived from the
questionnaire cannot provide the evidence of accuracy. It does not reflect the real mentality of

6
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
the people. In addition to this, it has been observed that some of the employees predicted some
changes in the company’s policies based on the result derived from this survey. Therefore, they
did not give the real responses (Conforti et al., 2015). Observing such drawbacks, it can be
implied that the questionnaire formulated for describing the cultural dimensions is quite limited.
It is quite difficult to rely on the questionnaire due to such lack of authenticity. Moreover, it is
even observed that the description provided by Hofstede introduces the extension of the validity
and applicability of the survey questionnaire. He presented the argument by stating that people
cannot carry the separate mentality while they are working in a similar working environment.
Despite the broader acceptance of the cultural framework of Hofstede, there are
numerous criticisms are formulated. Hofstede has faced the fierce challenges and oppositions
due to such criticisms. McSweeney criticized the approaches of Hofstede in diverse ways
(Esfandiar et al.., 2017). The first criticism was developed on the questionnaire that was prepared
to understand the responses towards the cultural dimensions. He identified that the responses
gathered from the survey are not accurate (McSweeney, 2002). Moreover, use of nation as the
unit is not suitable enough to examine the cultural differences. The methodology is quite
questionable for assigning the result of single employees from one company to the score of entire
nation. In fact, it is also noticed that these dimensions are not enough to judge the cultural
differences (De Mooij, 2015). It is also argued that the data collected from the survey of IBM
employees is not outdated. On the contrary, Hofstede presented the counter argument by stating
that the survey measured the differences between the nations. Hence, there is no absolute
numbers to be calculated (Hofstede, 2002). Therefore, this notion of McSweeney is not accepted.
Hofstede also indicated that these cultural dimensions are not the only criteria to measure the
cultural aspects. He expected others to preset the proposal that define more cultural dimensions.

7
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
He even rejected the allegations based on the outdated data by stating that the current replication
does not show any loss of validity. Richter (2016) developed the comparison between the
strengths and weakness of the methodology formulated by Hofstede. This differentiation
provides the supports to the argument presented by McSweeney. This argument suggests the
possibility of some of the political influences to the development of some of the dimensions.
Zeromskyte and Wagner (2017) ensured that the theoretical construction developed by Hofstede
need to be reexamined thoroughly concentrating on the context of early 21st century. It would
formulate the idea about the cross cultural aspects and the behavioral traits as well.
The inconsistencies noticeable in the cultural dimension model are conceptualized as
static instead of dynamic. Rallapalli and Montgomery (2015) developed another argument on the
fifth dimensions of the cultural model. It is noticed that the short term orientation in this aspect is
marked as negative whereas long term vision is perceived as exceptionally positive. This
philosophical flaw in the fifth dimension is highly criticized. This differentiation is violating the
principles of China presented by Yin and Yang. Furthermore, it is also noticed that the fifth
cultural dimension, as per the Hofstede model, overlaps different value attributes that might lead
towards confusion. These values are generally based on the opinions of some students that do not
represent the majority of the population. Therefore, it is suggested that the fifth cultural
dimensions need modifications more particularly. Developing the intercultural communication
helps in gathering the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in
ensuring the ‘win-win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop the concerns regarding the major implications made upon the description of the diverse
cultural dimensions. The interpretation of the cultural dimensions based on the values of the
Asian countries (especially China and Japan) may vary as per the value scale. The diverse

8
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
perception of western people can be judged as the ‘western bias’ that significantly creates the
limitation in this description of the cultural dimensions. On the other hand, Bakir et al., (2015)
suggested that the approaches used by Hofstede can be valid up to 40 years, which is considered
as the most widely recognised and robust. However, the dependency on the biased perceptions
may affect such views and create the contradictory factors to oppose such approaches.
There are some sets of the arguments developed against the perceptions presented by
Hofstede in terms of describing the cultural dimensions. It is noticed that Hofstede generalized
about the entire national population, which fails to understand the individual perception towards
any particular culture. The respondents selected for the questionnaire was selected from the
certain categories of the employees of IBM. There is no validation of their responses since it
concentrates on the collective views rather than the individual perceptions based on the subject
area (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015). The questionnaire is answered by the group of people
who could answer in their unconscious mind. Hence, it is noticeable that the answers provided in
the questionnaire cannot develop the complete understanding of the characteristics of the nation.
The emergence of the essentialism and non-essentialism is also a debatable area in such regards.
According to Hur, Kang & Kim (2015), essentialism is conceptualized as the closed minded
view that perceive the similar view of the people in a region or country. On the contrary, the
non-essentialism is concerned with the open minded belief, which determines that people from
the same region or country have their individualistic mentality to live their lives. If these
essentialism and non-essentialism is compared with the cultural dimensions of Hofstede, many
debates and negative concerns may arise. In majority of the cases, essentialism is perceived as
the negative concern since these are restraining one from accepting people as individuals. The

9
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
essentialist view ensures the constant judgments without having the complete understanding of
the context.
The views presented by the essentialist cause someone to believe on the stereotypes,
which might not be true. As per the essentialist view, it is perceived that ‘culture’ is
conceptualized as the social phenomenon that is generally representing the essential
characteristics of a nation. In spite of generalizing the essentialist view, Hofstede bases much of
his work on the specific characteristics that are differentiating the national cultures (Rallapalli &
Montgomery, 2015). This essentialist culture is criticized as the sub-cultures, which are featured
as the smaller group, but develops the understanding regarding the major characteristics of a
nation. On the contrary, the non-essentialist view argues that the ‘culture’ itself is a movable
concept that is perceived by the different people in different contexts. This argument reflects on
the essentialist notion of the ‘national culture’, which is visualized as the socially constructed by
the form of nationalism. The essentialist view is widely focusing on the orientation of any
specific culture that represents the simplistic form (Ladhari, Souiden & Choi, 2015). It is highly
debatable while comparing with the dimension formulated by Hofstede. For example the fifth
dimensions of the cultural aspects define the short term and long term goals developed by the
nation. it is argued that short term orientation in this aspect is marked as negative whereas long
term vision is perceived as exceptionally positive. The description provided by Hofstede
introduces the extension of the validity and applicability of the survey questionnaire. He
presented the argument by stating that people cannot carry the separate mentality while they are
working in a similar working environment. This view is quite similar to the essentialist views,
which is contradicted in many aspects. For example, it is argued that the individuals may carry
the individual preferences that cannot define the collective characteristics of a nation. It is stated

10
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
that as an essentialist, one may objectify the scenario that has some of the specific underlying
nature or essence. In the field of intercultural communication, it is noticeable that the position of
the essentialist is highly criticized. The arguments suggest the broader aspects by concentrating
on the perceptive values of people (Nathan, 2015). It is noticeable that if people have the clear
ideas about their work values and approaches, it would have been easier for them to analyse the
questionnaire in a clarified manner. Moreover, they are even unaware of the situations when they
are needed to suggest more concerned areas. It is even argued that some of the questionnaires are
completed by the group instead of the individuals. Hence, it is noticeable that the information
derived from the questionnaire cannot provide the evidence of accuracy.
The major problem identified in the cultural analysis of Hofstede ensures the lack of
proper evidence based studies. McSweeney has come up with several compilations of arguments
that even concentrate on the smaller aspects of the cultural traits. The lack of flexibility in the
research structure is providing the limited knowledge regarding the cultural traits of the different
nations. He identified that the responses gathered from the survey are not accurate. Moreover,
use of nation as the unit is not suitable enough to examine the cultural differences (Zhou &
Pilcher, 2018). The methodology is quite questionable for assigning the result of single
employees from one company to the score of entire nation. In fact, it is also noticed that these
dimensions are not enough to judge the cultural differences. It is also argued that the data
collected from the survey of IBM employees is not outdated. Therefore, it can be stated in spite
of the general assumptions, the criticism is overlapping the description of cultural dimensions in
a significant way.

11
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Conclusion
The study describes the description of the cultural dimensions elaborated by Hofstede.
Furthermore, the study develops the criticism presented by McSweeney in terms of
understanding the individual perceptions. The questionnaire associated with the dimension based
views of Hofstede is highly criticized. Hofstede has faced the fierce challenges and oppositions
due to such criticisms. McSweeney criticized the approaches of Hofstede in diverse ways. The
first criticism was developed on the questionnaire that was prepared to understand the responses
towards the cultural dimensions. The study also indicates that the intercultural communication
helps in gathering the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in
ensuring the ‘win-win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop the concerns regarding the major implications made upon the description of the diverse
cultural dimensions. The view of the essentialism is aligned with the views of cultural
dimensions and criticized as the sub-cultures, which are featured as the smaller group, but
develops the understanding regarding the major characteristics of a nation.

12
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
References
Bakir, A., Blodgett, J. G., Vitell, S. J., & Rose, G. M. (2015). A preliminary investigation of the
reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions. In Proceedings of the
2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 226-232). Springer,
Cham.
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede's dimensions of
national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223-
240.
Chien, S. Y., Sycara, K., Liu, J. S., & Kumru, A. (2016, September). Relation between trust
attitudes toward automation, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and big five personality
traits. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 841-845). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Conforti, R., de Leoni, M., La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W. M., & ter Hofstede, A. H. (2015). A
recommendation system for predicting risks across multiple business process
instances. Decision Support Systems, 69, 1-19.
De Mooij, M. (2015). Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the
confusion. International Marketing Review, 32(6), 646-662.
Engle, R. L., & Nash, B. (2015). Does it matter if researchers use individual dimension
constructs or only aggregated constructs of cultural distance and cultural
intelligence?. Journal of International Business Research, 14(2), 47.

13
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Esfandiar, K., Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Pratt, S., & Altinay, L. (2017). Understanding entrepreneurial
intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach. Journal of Business
Research.
French, R. (2015). Cross-cultural management in work organisations. Kogan Page Publishers.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal of
management, 1(2), 81-99.
Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human
relations, 55(11), 1355-1361.
Hur, W. M., Kang, S., & Kim, M. (2015). The moderating role of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
in the customer-brand relationship in China and India. Cross Cultural
Management, 22(3), 487-508.
Kim, S. (2017). National culture and public service motivation: investigating the relationship
using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 83(1_suppl), 23-40.
Ladhari, R., Souiden, N., & Choi, Y. H. (2015). Culture change and globalization: The
unresolved debate between cross-national and cross-cultural classifications. Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ), 23(3), 235-245.
Matthes, E. H. (2016). Cultural Appropriation Without Cultural Essentialism?. Social Theory
and Practice, 343-366.

14
INTERCULTURAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of
cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural
dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299-304.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human relations, 55(1), 89-118.
Nathan, G. (2015). A non-essentialist model of culture: Implications of identity, agency and
structure within multinational/multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 15(1), 101-124.
Ojala, A. (2015). Geographic, cultural, and psychic distance to foreign markets in the context of
small and new ventures. International Business Review, 24(5), 825-835.
Rallapalli, K. C., & Montgomery, C. D. (2015). Marketing strategies for Asian-Americans:
guidelines based on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. In Minority marketing: Research
perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 73-77). Springer, Cham.
Richter, T. (2016). A Conceptual Culture Model for Design Science Research. International
Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(3), 01-19.
Zeromskyte, R., & Wagner, W. (2017). When a majority becomes a minority: Essentialist
intergroup stereotyping in an inverted power differential. Culture & Psychology, 23(1),
88-107.
Zhou, V. X., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Intercultural competence’as an intersubjective process: a
reply to ‘essentialism. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(1), 125-143.