[.ca] CULTURE'S CONSEQUENCES (ISBN 0803973233)

Pure Garbage! Academic Quackery! A Joke! Cold Fusion!:
Two important points: First, language and culture are inseparable. Second, this entire survey was done in English and therefore was flawed from the very beginning. As for all of the reviewers, Amazon and otherwise: 1. No one has demonstrated any foreign language skills or published any peer-reviewed studies on this subject in native languages. Furthermore, who would trust a cross cultural survey performed on England or the U.S. but done completely in Michelin (French) or Nissan (Japanese) or Haier (Chinese) or Hyundai (Korean)and not in English and not outside of any one of these companies? (IBM and English language surveys) 2. Hofstede and Trompenaars try the "bigger is better" fallacy and both fail. Large numbers hide the truth and have NOTHING to do with the kind of people surveyed, the questions asked or the number of people surveyed in each group (sample sizes). 3.McSweeney points out in 1/02 Human Relations page 94 that the number of "respondents in 15 countries was less than 200". In the 1960's, the Philippines (part of this 15) had at least 30 million people on 6000 islands with 100 different dialects. Gallup polls in the U.S. alone are generally 5,000 people from a wide cross section, not a single company like IBM. His samples sizes are meaningless. Some samples were less than 100 people per country. 4. Those who think that any group of people can be reasonably described by 5 bipolar characteristics or even 10 simply are novices and have no place in academia. Furthermore, those who believe that the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Brazilians, the Irish and the Japanese can be characterized by a COMMON set of descriptors, have no language skills and no understanding of culture whatsoever. 5. It's doubtful if Hofstede or any commentators on either side have any significant overseas living experience outside of their home country's military, government, university or even home country company (i.e. subsidiary) using the local language and managing most affairs by themselves. They are all inexperienced and have no clue which questions to ask. 6. Those who believe that they have the capacity to do an analysis (survey instrument construction and collection/analysis) of more than 3 countries competently, except for a few Europeans working in Europe only, are delusional and possibly arrogant. 7. The belief that the one-dimensional analysis of country through one company, native or foreign, can yield any sort of reflection of even that one country's culture should be an obvious fallacy. Does anyone believe that Deal & Kennedy's 1977 survey instrument could be used outside of a Western country? 8. When respondents know the intent of a survey, the danger of bias is very high. When managers know the intent, the threat to the subordinate responders is even greater. Page 103 McSweeney 1/02 Human Relations, elucidates Hofstede's methods on this point. 9. The Confucianism dimension is nothing more than cultural condescension and severe academic laziness by Hofstede. 10. Hofstede and others have created a result and then found data to "prove??" their contrived result. Given the lack of qualifications, the unwillingness to ask the right questions and the unwillingness to even allow the IBM data speak the truth, there is nothing academic or reliable here. The 1000 word limit is insufficient to detail all of the mistakes here. Suffice it to say, Hofstede's work is truly, the "Cold Fusion" of cross-cultural studies.

critiques of Hofstede:
Pass the salt please. As already acknowledged in these reviews, there are sustained critiques of Hofstede. e.g. Nigel Holden "Cross-Cultural Managment - a Knowledge Management Perspective" Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002. "Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis." Brendan McSweeney in Human Relations, 2002, 55 (1) "Beyond models of national culture in information systems research", by Michael Myers & Felix Tan in the Journal of Global Information Management,2002, 10 (1). "Hofstede never studied culture" by Rachel Baskerville 2003 Accounting Organizations and Society 28 pages 1- 14 Those using this book should take it with a large grain of salt.

What Lies Beneath:
From earlier reviews it is clear that Hofstede's research claims are controversial. The reviews have been extraordinarly laudatory or have very sharply questioned the verasity of Hofstede's research. So, I decided to read the book and the journal article cited in one of the reviews. The conclusions of that article are clear from its title: B.McSweeney "Hofstede's model of national cultural research: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis", Human Relations, 2002 Vol.55,(January) pp.89-117. Human Relations is, I know, a very highly rated scholarly journal. All articles published in it are independently refereed, so there must be some merit in McSweeney's critique! I found his article to be very clearly and carefully written and to be very convincing. Whilst looking for a copy of the article, I discovered that Hofstede had replied and McSweeney had responed. Both reply and response were published in Human Relations in November last year (Vol.55, No.11). In my view it's "game, set, and match" to McSweeney. His demonstrations in his response of the flaws in Hofstede's "validations" are I think devastating. So, my recommendation is, if you plan to read Hofstede's book make sure you also read the three articles in Human Relations: McSweeney's critique; Hofstede's reply; McSweeney's response.

IBM Defines Your Nation's Culture ?:
I'm kind of surprised by the voting on the reviews thus far. The glowing tributes which don't address the book critically are classified as helpful; the one which point to Hofstede's methodological problems, and cited further information in a leading management journal is seen as unhelpful. What should a review do ? Well, how about this for food for thought. IBM, which is the organization Hofstede built his theory around, is now being accused of being complicit in sustaining apartheid in South Africa in the period of his research. Are we happy that this kind of a company is defining our understanding of nations' culture ? And how accurate a picture of South Africa's culture it presents ? And what about the other countries ?

Excellent for academic inquiry, not for bedside reading:
In reference to the previous reviews, there is considerable critique of Hofstede's work throughout the academic community and Amazon.com is not the ideal place to get a feel for the value of this book. Also, the survey was not given in English around the world; it was translated into the appropriate languages and retranslated back into English just to ensure that the translation from English was accurate. However, this does not mean that other problems with the survey do not exist. If you are seeking an understanding of what is currently known about culture and how to compare cultures, this book is essential. I don't mean that I think it is good. I mean that no reputable research on cultural values will fail to include Hofstede's work because it has been so influential, even for those who despise it. Those who agree use this to reinforce their perspectives. Those who disagree use this to frame counter-argument. It is essential. It should be understood that this is academic literature. Only those committed to understanding the deep and complex issues associated with differences among cultures should even attempt to read thus. It is more like a reference book. I have only read probably half of it, myself. However, I learned more in that half than I have in many whole books. For experienced readers and thinkers only.