Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis

By B. McSweeney. Organizational Collaboration, 2002

1,068 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Geert Hofstede’s legendary national culture research is critiqued. Crucial assumptions which underlie his claim to have uncovered the secrets of entire national cultures are described and challenged. The plausibility of systematically causal national cultures is questioned.

Subfields: Demography, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61a7b5b4519277e6d750f76940e051cb72a2980e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: integrating approaches and key insights (2020, background): “…small sample sizes in the underlying surveys used to construct the dimensions cannot be automatically generalized to the national level, and that fundamental assumptions underlying the work — such as the assumption that an average tendency is the average tendency — are all flawed (McSweeney, 2002).”
How consumers' values influence responses to male and female gender role stereotyping in advertising (2018, background): “While the Hofstede framework still receives wide support (Soares, Farhangmehr, and Shoham 2007; Williamson 2002), the framework has come under some scrutiny (Javidan et al. 2006; McSweeney 2002).”
The expanded view of individualism and collectivism: One, two, or four dimensions? (2020, background): “Others have elaborated on this issue extensively (e.g. Gannon, 2009; McSweeney, 2002a, 2002b, 2013; Sivakumar and Nakada, 2001; Tung, 2008).”