Critique of Hofstede's Country Classification 25 years later

890 Words4 Pages
Critical Analysis This review is a critique of Hofstede’s Country Classification 25 year later, Fernandez D. R. et al’s (1997), cited in The Journal of Social Psychology, 1997, 137(1), pp 43-54. Do work-related values change across cultures and over time? Recent research suggests that the work- related values do change over time due to several factors (Shaffer 2000, Simeron 2001, Kuchinke 1999, Ardichvili 2002). The main aim of the present study is to extend on the current body of knowledge on work-related values across cultures. Using Hofstede`s (1980) country classification measures (individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/ femininity). This article reexamines seven (Venezuela, Yugoslavia, America, Germany, Chile, Japan, Mexico) of the original Hofstede`s countries with addition of Russia and The People’s Republic of China. The authors utilized a new methodological approach by using Dorfman’s and Howell’s (1988) scales. The article is well structured and coherent. The authors supported their arguments by extensive research. The findings of the article imply that work-related values are likely to change over a period of time. As suggested by Kuchinke (1999), Human Resource Department (HRD) should conduct their own cultural assessments and rely on the latest general scores reported. Hofstede’s country classification measures have been widely used in past research (Kuchinke 1999, Simeon, Nicholson, Wong 2001, Ardichvili 2002). Hofstede’s methodology has been criticized for its unreliability (Kuchinke 1999, Ardichvili 2002). In this study Dorfman’s and Howell’s (1988) scales were used. The same type of scales has been also used in recent research (Simeon, Nicholson, Wong 2001) to measure masculinity/femininity in Japan, China and U.S.A. In both studies, China scored the highest on masculinity and USA lowest
Open Document