Mirror mirror on the wall-cultures consequences in a value test of its own design Essay

The paper offers a critical reading of Geert Hofstedes (1980) agricultures Consequences using an analytic strategy where the book is mirrored against itself and analyzed in terms of its own proposed value proportions. Mirroring unravels the books normative viewpoint and political subtext and exposes discursive interests in its query process. Making all this evident in the canonical books own terms, this paper communicates critical concerns across paradigm boundaries. It indicates the need to consider concepts and convictions that predominate cross-cultural research and to adopt norms of reflexivity that transcend existing notions of cultural relativism.Globalization, there seems to be a need to further these attempts at reevaluating its foundations. To a great extent, the knowledge produced in this field is chill out firmly rooted in the orthodoxy of functionalist, normal cognizanceits positivist epistemology and objectivist rhetoric (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979). While there a rgon a few interpretive, emically oriented case studies (e.g., Ahrens, 1996 Brannen, 2004), these generally remain a marginalized pursuit (MarschanPiekkari & Welch, 2004) studies atomic number 18 unremarkably nomothetic and quantitative, with researchers posing themselves as discoverers of universal regularities and systematic causal relationships. Cultural relativism, when admitted, is seen to relate to the scientistnot to eruditionItselfand is accordingly corrected by rituals of confession, (rare) attempts to create crosscultural research teams, or various bias control techniques. In this vein, inter depicted object guidance thought is evolving into quite a large body of thought one that, scorn its name, underrepresents many another(prenominal) regions of the world in terms of authorship and topics of depth psychology (Kirkman & Law, 2005). Moreover, like other managerial disciplines that propose to shape actual body of works, its influence extends into the world of practi ce as well.The book indeed entailed various satisfying contributions. Apparently, as globalization progressed into the 1980s, crossing traditional boundaries, depicted object culture could no longer be disregarded. What until and then constituted a beast too soft or vague for the positivist epistemology of normal science became a focus of much interest. Hofstede, it can be said, tamed the beast he divided it, counted it, tabled it, and graphed it. Culture was reduced to values, which were reduced to a limited set of headlands on an IBM questionnaire. National society was reduced to ticker class rather than the working class (1980 56), which was reduced to IBM personnel from the marketing and service divisions. Answers were quantified, computerized, statisticalized. Things cultural could finally be said in scientific language.OctoberSubsequently, the book promoted sensitivity to cultural diversity at the workplace (and beyond it). In addition, it undermined the widespread assum ption that American management knowledge is universal and thus well transferable across cultures, and challenged psychologys long-standing refusal to acknowledge the relevance of culture as anything but an remote variable (see Joseph, Reddy, & Searle-Chatterjee, 1990 21 Triandis, 2004). Culture, Hofstede claimed, is a mental programming instilled in peoples mindsan internal variable, formation behavior from the inside out. Thus, for organizational practice, management theory, and psychology, national culture is relevant it does count. And as far as the scientific community of his time was concerned, he had the right numbers to prove it.There were, however, very serious-minded critiques from the outset (e.g., Baskerville, 2003 Eckhardt, 2002 Harrison & McKinnon, 1999 Kitayama, 2002 Merker, 1982 Robinson, 1983 Schooler, 1983 Singh, 1990). In what appears to be one of the most damning critiques of the book, McSweeney claimed that the on-going unquestioning acceptance of Hofstedes n ational culture research by his evangelized entourage suggests that in parts of the management disciplines the criteria for acceptable evidence are far too loose .Hofstede never failed to respond to the ongoing stream of criticism, defended his methodological decisions, and clarified the mulls claims and implications (e.g., 1990, 2001, especially p. 73). The debate that evolved was extensive, but it generally focused on a single question Does Hofstede really capture feminine-in-management meets globalization. trade Horizons, 36(2) 71 81. Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. 1999. Past postmodernism? Re flections and tentative directions. academy of Management Review, 24 649 671. Chandy, P. R., & Williams, T. G. E. 1994. The impact of journals and authors on outside(a) business. Journal of supranational Business Studies, 25 715728. Clegg, S. R., & stout, C. 1999. Introduction. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization Theory & method 122. London Sage.Cooper, R. 1989. Mod ernism, post modernism and organizational abstract 3 The contribution of Jacques Derrida. organisation Studies, 10 479 502.Cooper, R., Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational compend An introduction. OrganizationStudies, 9 91112.OctoberFoucault, M. 1972. The archeology of knowledge. (Translated by A. M. S. Smith.) newborn York Pantheon. Foucault, M. 1977. Language, counter-memory, practice Selected essays and interviews. (Edited by D. F. Bouchard.) Oxford Blackwell.Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge Selected interviews and other writings 19721977. (Edited by C. Gordon.) New York Pantheon. Frost, P. 1980. Toward a radical framework for practicing organization science. Academy of Management Review,5 501507.Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 5584 602.Harrison, G. L., & McKinnon, J. L. 1999. Cross-cultural research in management control systems design A reexamine of the current state. A ccounting, Organizations and Society. 24 483506. Hart, W. B. 1999. Interdisciplinary influences in the account of intercultural relations A citation analysis of the multinational Journal of Intercultural Relations. external Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23 575589.Hofstede, G. 1978. The poverty of management control philosophy. Academy of Management Review, 3 450 461. Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA Sage. Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 14(2) 75 89.Hofstede, G. 1990. A reply and comment on Joginder P. Singh Managerial culture and work-related values in India.Organization Studies, 11 103106.Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations Software of the mind. London McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40 4 13. Hofstede, G. 1996. An American in Paris The influenc e ofnationality on organization theories. Organization Studies, 17 525537. Hofstede, G. (Ed.). 1998a. Masculinity and femininity The forbidden dimension of national cultures. gravitational constant Oaks,CA Sage.Derrida, J. 1972. Positions. (Translated and annotated by A. Bass.) dough University of Chicago Press.Hofstede, G. 1998b. Masculinity/femininity as a dimension of culture. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininityThe taboo dimension of national cultures 328. 1000 Oaks, CA Sage.Eckhardt, G. 2002. track record review of Cultures consequencesComparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (second edition). Australian Journal of Management, 27 89 94.Hofstede, G. 1998c. The cultural construction of gender. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity The taboo dimension of national cultures 77105. Thousand Oaks,CA Sage.Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Hofstede, G. 1998d. Comparative studies of sexual behavior depend upon as achievement or as relationship? In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity The taboo dimension of national cultures 153178. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Ferguson, K. E. 1994. On bringing more theory, more voices and more governance to the study of organizations. Organization, 1 8199.Hofstede, G. 1998e. Religion, masculinity, and sex. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity The taboo dimension of national cultures 192209. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.(Eds.), Handbook of soft research 463 477. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. 2004. Qualitative research methods in international business The state of the art. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business 524. Che ltenham, UK Edward Elgar.Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connectionFrom cultural roots to economic growth. OrganizationalDynamics, 16(4) 4 21.Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations Software of the mind (revised & expanded 2nd ed.). New York McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culturerevisited Linking traits and dimensions of culture.Cross-Cultural Research, 38 52 88.Hoppe, M. H. 2004. An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1) 7579. Jack, G., & Lorbiecki, A. 2003. Asserting possibilities of resistance in the cross-cultural teaching work Reviewing videos of others. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis A critical engagement 213232. New York Palgrave.Martin, J. 1994. The organization of elimination Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1 401 431.McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstedes model of national culturaldifferences and their consequences A triumph offaithA failure of analysis. humankind Relations, 55 89 118.Merker, S. L. 1982. Book review of Geert Hofstedes Cultures consequences International differences in work-relatedvalues. Behavioral Science, 27 195197.Meyerson, D. E. 1998. Feeling disquieted and burned out Afeminist reading and re-visioning of stress-based emotions within medicine and organization science. Organization Science, 9 103118.Jack, G., & Westwood, R. 2006. Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 46 481501.Morgan, G. 1983. The significance of assumptions. In G.Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method Strategies for social research 377382. Beverly Hills, CA Sage.Joseph, G. G., Reddy, V., & Searle-Chatterjee, M. 1990. Ethnocentrism in the social sciences. Race & Class, 31(4) 126.Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. 1992. The politics of emotion A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy ofManagement Review, 17 465 486.Kirkman, B. L., & Law, K. S. K. 2005. From the editors International management research in AMJ Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal,48 377386.Kirkman, B. L., Lowe., K. B., Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quartercentury of Cultures consequences A review of empiricalresearch incorporating Hofstedes cultural valuesframework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37285320.Kitayama, S. 2002. Culture and basic psychological processesToward a system view of culture Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). psychological Bulletin,Knights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity A critique. Organization Studies, 12 251273. Kuhn, T. 1972. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University of Chicago Press.Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108 480 498. Kwek, D. 2003. Decolonizing and re-presenting Cultures consequences A postcolonial cri tique of cross-cultural studies in management. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis A critical engagement 121146. New York Palgrave. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition A report on knowledge. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. Manning, P. K., & Cullum-Swan, B. 1994. Narrative, content, and semiotic analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. LincolnNkomo, S. M. 1992. The emperor has no clothes revising Race in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17 487513. Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 372. Parker, M. 1992. Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory.Organization Studies, 13 117. Prasad, A. (Ed.). 2003. Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis A critical engagement. New York Palgrave Reed, M. 1992. Introduction. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organizations New directions in organizational theory and analysis 116. London Sage. Richardson, L. 1994. Writing A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research 516 529. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.Robinson, R. V. 1983. Book review of Cultures consequences International differences in work-related values. Work and Occupations, 10 110 115. Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. New York Random House. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. 2005. Individualism A valid and important dimension of cultural differencesbetween nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 1731. Schooler, C. 1983. Book review of Cultures consequences International differences in work-related values. Contemporary Sociology, 12 167.Academy of Management ReviewSingh, J. P. 1990. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11 75101. Sndergaard, M. 1994. Research note Hofstedes consequences A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15 447 456. Sorge, A. 1983. Book review of Cultures consequences International differences in work-related values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 625 629. Spivak, G. C. 1988. Subaltern studies Deconstructing historiography. In R. Guha & G. C. Spivak (Eds.), Selected subaltern studies 334. New York Oxford UniversityPress.OctoberVan Deusen, C. 2002. Book review of Cultures consequences Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Business & Society, 41 125128. Vunderink, M. & Hofstede, G. 1998. Femininity shock American students in the Netherlands. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity The taboo dimension of national cultures 139 152. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms lost Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15 565590.Triandis, H. C. 1993. Reviews on cultural phenomena Cultures and organizations. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38 132134.Westwood, R. 2004. Towards a postcolonial research paradigm in international business and comparative management. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business 56 83. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar.Triandis, H. C. 2004. The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1) 88 93.Williamson, D. 2002. Forward from a critique of Hofstedes model of national culture. Human Relations, 55 13731395.Galit Ailon (ailonsgmail.biu.ac.il) is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-IIan University. She received her Ph.D. from the Department of Labor Studies at Tel-Aviv University. Her research interests include organizational globalization, organizational culture, organizational theory, and managerial ideologies.