Editorial Review:Product Description:
'An important, sophisticated and complex monograph . . . Both the theoretical analysis and the empirical findings constitute major contributions to cross-cultural value analysis and the cross-cultural study of work motivations and organizational dynamics. This book is also a valuable resource for anyone interested in a historical or anthropological approach to cross-cultural comparisons.'
--PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
--PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
The
Second Edition of this classic work, first published in 1981 and an international best seller, explores the differences in thinking and social action that exist among members of more than 50 modern nations. Geert Hofstede argues that people carry 'mental programs' which are developed in the family in early childhood and reinforced in schools and organizations, and that these programs contain components of national culture. They are expressed most clearly in the different values that predominate among people from different countries.
Geert Hofstede has completely rewritten, revised and updated
Culture's Consequences for the twenty-first century, he has broadened the book's cross-disciplinary appeal, expanded the coverage of countries examined from 40 to more than 50, reformulated his arguments and a large amount of new literature has been included. The book is structured around five major dimensions: power distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity; and long term versus short-term orientation.
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Related Items:
see more
Related Items:
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
A map to understanding culture
I am currently an expatriate in France, and have also lived in the United States, Mexico, Spain. Hofstede's book is a good guide to better understand culture. As with a map, we recognize that it is not (nor is it intended to be reality) rather a tool to help guide us. The information on cultures in this book is our "first best guess" to understanding business norms in that culture, and then once we get to know the individuals we are working with, we can adapt. We recognize that these "norms" may change depending on the industry, the region, sub-culture, or other various factors. This book is extremely helpful in creating our "first best guess."
Rating: 
-
Valuable? - Perhaps for somebody who has never had a real eye for other cultures
Hofstede's work was and is not really helpful; perhaps fascinating for those who deal with the issues from the comfortable space of their warm home of office in a western country.
For all who want to get a fundamental insight to understanding espec. Asian behavior and cultural differences, I highly recommend to start with: "The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why -- by Richard Nisbett".
That's the stuff that will bring you where Hofstede could never dream to be.
Rating: 
-
Very valueable, if taken as Hofstede has meant it
Although many comments have already been accumulated let me add something, since some of the reviews tend to get out of focus. Hofstede never claimed to have studied cultures in general, he studied effects of culture on work-related values. For this topic his work is still the standard. The starting point is like this: a large company like IBM tries to establish a strong corporate identity shared among all of its worldwide employees ("We are IBM" kind of thing). However, if you ask them a couple of questions about their work-related values, they answer differently. Turns out, the differences can be explained to some degree by the employee's country-of-origin, that is his or her culture. Hofstede then goes on and tries to find dimensions in order to describe the differences between cultures, - and it has to be said again and again - dimensions for "work-related values" and not for culture in general! This observation was and is tremendously important for multinational companies. It means that we are still influenced even when we work at a multinational firm by our cultural traditions and that this cannot easily be exchanged by the company's culture. Of course if you are more interested in other aspects of culture, than Hofstede's books might not the prime choice for you to study.
Hofstede's work is scientifically sound. The choice of IBM as a case is reasonable given his prime motivation. Sample sizes are impressive for all who have tried similar studies (besides, representativity is not a function of sample size but given by the radomness of the sample draw. Sample size has an effect on standard error but this can be taken into account with a test of significance). Quackery is how other people have used Hofstede's data in contexts other than work-related.
Rating: -
A Train Wreck
Reading the previous reviews, several things are evident. The West Palm Beach review is nothing more than an ad hominen attack on a previous review. Furthermore, the Palm Beach reviewer mistakes sticking to the subject with "we're the only game in town" argument/counterargument assertion. It is very easy to ignore Hofstede's work completely, start from zero and perform a real cross cultural analysis, 2-3 three countries at a time, starting IN the native language and then making a comparison that speaks in its own voice. This is NOT the same as Hofstede's doing the surveys in English and then translating them twice. The Palm Beach reviewer also falls into the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy (must be true because it hasn't been proven false) by saying "I mean that no reputable research on cultural values will fail to include Hofstede's work because it has been so influential" as well as appeal to celebrity.
While Dr. Littrell tends to lecture, he fails to address the problems of sample sizes in Hofstede's work. As for Schwartz's work, folks who speak read and write Japanese, Korean or Chinese and who have lived in one of the respective countries for more than 3 years know that Schwartz's "prototypical structure of value systems" as well as his 1997 "Influences on Adaption.." paper don't come near East Asian thinking.
The odd fact is that the Palm Beach reviewer and Littrell both admit that Hofstede's work falls short. The Palm Beach reviewer states," I don't mean that I think it is good" and "I have only read probably half of it" but then gives the book a five star rating. Littrell tangents on Hawkings but then covers for Hofstede by saying, "Theories are not facts".
Well statistics, when done right, reinforce theories enough to become a reliable base for future work but several reviewers clearly point out, with references, the shortcomings of Hofstede's statistical methods which again is odd considering the tone of these two reviewers.
Hofstede's work is useless and his defenders should work harder at dealing with the specific criticisms raised rather than pontificating or making condescending innuendo. Sampling just students or just company employees should ring alarm bells for statistical skewness. Furthermore, it is absolute cultural condescension to assume that a non native speaker of a given language can think like a native by using his own language and bring out a mere handful of qualities that are both universal and consistent across not just a few cultures but all at the same time. The Eurocentric hubris running through this study undermines the credibility of the assumptions and conclusions.
The researcher must not speak for the culture. The culture must speak for itself and this is the main point where Hofstede and his followers have failed completely. For those with critical thinking skills, read the reviews that are negative and the journal responses between McSweeney and Hofstede and then construct your own model. For those who dare, remember, no one man or woman can complete this project by himself because no one in this world has such a Tower of Babel level of experience of the cultures expressed in their native languages.
Universalism is a big lie. That's your starting point. 100% matching of traits across 200 nations will not happen when the study is properly conducted nor will the study's "voice" be censored by one corporate culture with statistically unreliable sample sizes. Understand this and you are on your way to a true understanding of cross-cultural phenomenon.
Rating: -
A Nemisis of Knowledge
Hofstede's book is essential reading for anyone interested in cross-cultural studies. The reviewer, Nemesis (Washington D.C.), demonstrates a rather appalling lack of knowledge of the current state of cross-cultural research. The original studies of Geert Hofstede were in fact carried out in English within the IBM Corporation, as Hofstede was an IBM employee at the time. However, since then a considerable number of studies have been completed, with the survey administered in English and in local languages, demonstrating the usefulness and consistency of Hofstede's cultural value constructs. Most responsible cross-cultural research today that uses surveys is carried out with data collection in local languages. The reader is referred, for example, to the extensive body of work on values across cultures based upon the Shalom Schwartz value survey. You can look it up.
In the social sciences, of which business is one, a theory is a model or framework for understanding phenomena. The term generally is taken to mean a framework derived from a set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category in a system. Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas. A theory has to be something that is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that businesses progress from local to international markets by always implementing a certain set of processes in a fixed order. Then the process of internationalization of businesses is studied, and the theory is confirmed or revised in a continuous feedback system.
According to Stephen Hawking, a physicist, in A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." This also applies to business theories, including Hofstede's, from which one can make definite predictions that have been verified. Theories are not facts, but tools.
