Country-level cultural scores along dimensions such as power distance and individualism, derived from employee surveys.
Hofstede's 1980 IBM survey covered 40 countries and became the most-cited framework in cross-cultural management. It is heavily debated: the scores are national averages and must not be read as individual traits, the dimensions came from one firm's employees, and some have replicated much better than others.
In practice
- Note the limits: national averages hide enormous within-country variation, and the dimensions came from one firm's employees.
- The framework is more defensible as a vocabulary for anticipating misunderstanding than as a measurement of any individual you will meet.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation is that shared institutions and history produce average differences in values, which survey items can pick up as country-level scores.
- In its favour
- It gave cross-cultural management its first systematic vocabulary, several dimensions replicate in later surveys, and country scores correlate with outcomes such as management practice and negotiation style.
- Against it
- The scores came from one firm's employees in the 1970s, national averages are routinely misread as individual traits, within-country variation exceeds the between-country differences, and some dimensions replicate far better than others.
- Standing
- National averages must not be read as individual traits; the dimensions came from one firm's employees and some replicate far better than others.
- Subject
- Sociology & Culture
- Essay
- How societies hold together, sort people, and change