6.

3: Critique of Hofstede’s theory

Among the various attempts by social scientists to study human values from a cultural perspective, Hofstede’s is certainly popular.
In fact, it would be a rare culture text that did not pay special attention to Hofstede’s theory. The current text is a case in point.
However, Hofstede’s theory has also been seriously questioned, and we will summarize some of the most common criticisms
below.
First, Hofstede’s methodology has been criticized. To begin with, the way in which the questionnaire was developed has been
described as haphazard (Orr & Hauser, 2008). Indeed, the questionnaire was not even originally developed to explore cultural
values but instead to assess job satisfaction within IBM. It is hard to believe that questions framed to explore workplace attitudes
are relevant to broader cultural attitudes outside of the work place.
Critics also point out that Hofstede’s conclusions are based on insufficient samples McSweeney, 2002). Although 117,000
questionnaires were administered, only the results from 40 countries were used. Furthermore, only 6 countries had more than 1000
respondents, and in 15 countries, there were fewer than 200 respondents. Surely it is not appropriate for 200 people to speak on
behalf of a country of millions.
Critics have also been skeptical about the assumption that IBM employees are representative of national cultures as a whole. And
even within IBM, the surveys were administered only to certain categories of workers, i.e., “marketing-plus-sales,” leaving out
many other employee categories, including blue-collar workers, full-time students, retired employees, etc. (McSweeney, 2002).
Hofstede has suggested that restricting the sample in this way effectively controls for the effects of occupational category and class,
insuring that the relevant variable of comparison is nationality. However, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that since the study
consisted solely of IBM employees, the results may have more to say about IBM corporate culture than about anything broader.
Moreover, we should not forget that when Hofstede’s research was first conducted, IBM employed mostly men, so women’s
perspectives are also largely missing (Orr & Hauser, 2008).
Hofstede’s theory has also been faulted for promoting a largely static view of culture (Hamden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1997). As
Orr and Hauser (2008) have suggested, the world has changed in dramatic ways since Hofstede’s research began. The world map
has changed, cultures themselves may have changed, and the original data is likely to be out of date. In fact, it is somewhat of a
puzzle why Hofstede’s theory continues to enjoy the popularity that it does. Indeed, over the years, attempts by many researchers to
replicate Hofstede’s findings have not been very successful (Orr & Hauser, 2008).

This page titled 6.3: Critique of Hofstede’s theory is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Nolan Weil
(Rebus Community) .

6.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/39182