A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from 56 countries

Abstract

Purpose Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility. Design/methodology/approach Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents. Findings Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one. Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people, work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the best predictor of national differences in educational achievement. Research limitations/implications Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences. A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision. Practical implications Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically. They need to be aware of its deficiencies. Originality/value As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.

The “common view”, the “cultural binary”, and how to move forward

“…The perceived “naturalness” of the opposition between individualism and collectivism is reinforced by its confounding with another taken‐for‐granted binary opposition—the popular distinction between so‐called Western and Eastern nations. Equating individualism with “The West” and collectivism with “The East,” together with the quasi‐experimental approach to studying culture, transforms I/C from an abstract dimension (e.g., Hofstede, ; Minkov, ) into a concrete typology with just two categories: Western individualism and Eastern collectivism. Cultural groups that are neither Western nor Eastern—including those residing in South America, Africa, the Middle East, West Asia, and Eastern Europe—may be either misrepresented or marginalized entirely from the scientific discourse.…”

Cultural Determinants of Corporate Governance: A Multi-Country Study

“…However, Khlif (2016) argues that several criticisms have been addressed to Hofstede's approach. Minkov (2017) points that Hofstede´s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. He proposes a test of the model´s coherence and utility, analyzing 56 countries.…”

“…They inferred that the culture of a nation may influence the laws and the governance itself. Therefore, and according to Griffin et al (2014;2017), to introduce the culture of the country as a determining CG factor may be the differential to better adjust the existing governance models and to understand the behavior of financial markets of each country.…”

A study of the attitude of generation z to cross-cultural interaction in business

“…G. Hofstede's fundamental study of value orientation in different cultures (Hofstede, 1980) is, maybe, still the most influential work in this field. The Hofstede's model of national culture (Hofstede, 2001;Hofstede et al, 2010;Minkov et al, 2017; the official G. Hofstede centre website, 2018) consists of six dimensions: power distance (expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally); individualism / collectivism (distinguishes the cultures where people are more concerned on personal goals and achievements from the cultures where people feel more comfortable working in teams); masculinity / femininity (illustrates the domination of traditional "male" or "female" values in different cultures); uncertainty avoidance (shows the attitude of society's members to uncertainty); long-term orientation / short-term orientation (illustrates how "long-term oriented" the society is); indulgence / restraint (defines the role of rules in people's behavior). The relative positions on these dimensions are expressed in a score on a 0 to 100 point scale.…”