Culture is one of the elephants-in-the-room ideas which overshadowed cross-cultural business and management studies in particular. As the term culture is a noun, it is quickly adopted by several adjectives, resulting in a plethora of unique variations such as “world” culture,
“ethnic” culture, “Eastern” culture, “Christian” culture, “business” culture and so on.
Surprisingly, although these adjectives are intended to offer further clarity, they paradoxically transformed into the “blind guides for the blind.” As Baumann (2009) develops on this idea, he claims “the more experiences they pretend to render clear, the more invisible they become”. These are controversial words. They have their origins in small modern discourses that support dichotomous distinctions such as West vs. East, international vs. regional, and native vs. abroad. Moreover, they are intertwined with essentialism and universalism. In other words, they assign a set of precise as well as defined traits to specific populations and generalize these traits to categorize them. Such exaggerated and imbalanced arguments (McSweeney, 2002) emphasize sharp distinctions between certain cultures and unique groups among others, as though they were either completely different or completely equal jigsaw parts (Jafari, 2009).
The prevalence of myths, which are similar to cultural clichés reflected in the mainstream, is an immediate result of such a superficial and simplifying attitude to culture. The more serious, and pervasive, issue is that these assumed beliefs extensively exploited to shape instructional content as basically and utterly true grounds of learning, academic discussions in academics, and administrative guidelines for practice in reaching goals and other business objectives. In general, such concepts are not well described or conceptualized, and their epistemological and ontological foundations are widely overlooked. As a result, they are often inflated, mistaken, misinterpreted, and grossly misused (see, for example, Gesteland, 2012; Mole, 2003). Of all potential triggers, the following factors may be at the root of this dilemma (Jafari, 2009).
4.1.1 Reasons for Misunderstanding
The first explanation is that, as used in company and management environments, these managerial concepts are often used to serve specific purposes including recognizing multinational segments, standardization or transformation of business model, marketing analysis, international market penetration models, business partnerships, organizational behavior, and so on. As a result, no thought is given to delving further into the word “culture”
and some of its guardians. Instead, most analyses about culture are limited to tired subjects like Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions, world culture, Westernization, Americanization, issues with advertising such products in Islamic countries, and so on (see, for examples, Wall, 2004; Branch, 2006). Fortunately, as these subjects offer immediate solutions, which are presented as simple and fast answers, to complicated problems, they are also thought to serve intellectual, educational, and administrative purposes satisfactorily (Jafari, 2009).
The second explanation for cultural misunderstanding is that many of the publishers of those textbooks are not cultural experts. As a result, they typically relate to their own intimate, and often very minimal, encounters with and memories of other cultures in their writings. In a regional sense, these meanings suggest a kind of cultural uniformity. According to Huang, “it is a misconception to judge cultural value systems only by geographical location. It is not always that countries near to each other are also closer to each other in terms of cultural values” (Huang, 2007, p.24). A typical case of the misinterpretation is “Islamic” ideology.
The word “Islamic nations” refers to a collection of stereotypical cultural beliefs and behaviors. The main fallacy in this respect is that Islamism has been seen as a homogenous culture instead of a way of life and a civilization. Over 60 Islamic nations exist on this planet, whereby the bulk of the population is Muslim, or the nation is governed according to Islamic principles. Surprisingly, each of these communities were made up of a variety of cultures.
Islam, like every other faith, has traditionally been indigenous in each culture’s cultural context. As a result, it would be a grave error to disregard any of the historical moral traditions and principles that these cultures have historically held prior to adopting Islam (Jafari, 2009).
The third explanation for cultural confusion is that a significant amount of those materials is published by Western researchers, the majority of whose writers can scarcely break free from the bubble of the dominant viewpoint which long plagued the thoughts of a great number of scholars in the West, particularly in the social sciences. As Said (1978) points out, the bulk of Western writings represent, for instance, a positive representation of the West in comparison to the poor East. Such analyses, for the most part, ignore the social trajectories that underpin societies. They specifically disregard the idea that all human cultures across the globe have traditionally added to the forms of doing business in the area of foreign business and commerce. The Silk Road, for example, has a tradition dating back well over two millennia, and historical civilizations such as India, China, Egypt, or Rome had a significant influence on the growth of foreign trading. The major achievements of all civilizations with such cultures are largely underappreciated. For instance, environmental sustainability, market morals, and other are not modern phenomenon, nor are they the only moral features of post-materialistic cultures in the West that are expanding to the majority of the planet (see, for
example, Inglehart, 2010; Carrasco, 2007). As Asongu (2007) points out, these ideas and traditions can be tracked back to ancient civilizations and should be appreciated (Jafari, 2009).
The fourth explanation is that research community evolved into a business entity which must be more commercially active to cope with the fast expansion and competition in businesses such as colleges, printing firms, and the consulting field. Consequently, it seems that the content of generated books, papers, and databases has been lost in favor of quantity and speed. Typically, society is explained superficially using references in Bible, Hofstede's cultural dimensions as well as many clichéd examples. As additional probations are needed for more study, such beliefs are assumed to possess ample descriptive impact regarding community. Perhaps, this is why, considering their many analytical and epistemological shortcomings (see the example of Baskerville (2003) for criticisms of Hofstede’s approach), such ideas are prevalent throughout empirical literature. They go beyond and beyond corporate and management research and studies. Cooper-Chen (2005), for example, employs Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to examine media use in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The findings of Cooper-Chen seem to be troubling for a number of factors. One of which is the way she interchanges terms “nation” and “culture” – this is a fatal error and using these two words interchangeably can immediately lead to a fallacy (Jafari, 2009).
The thesis concludes that measurements and matrices, created by statistical analysis techniques and utilize further research and organizational applications which are of particular interest in business and management studies (see, for example, Meyer, 2014, 2015, 2017). As a result, culture, like many other definitions, is quantified to match certain matrices. When these ideas are minimally boxed, they seem to become clichés. However, proponents of such terminology which see some critique purely from a methodological standpoint, assuming that their opponents are from the qualitative camp and are generally biased against quantitative approaches. The thesis attempts to call into doubt some of the fundamental ideas regarding the nature of culture.
Many of the above words have been incorrectly conceptualized for ‘national’ culture as the primary course of study. It was originally assumed that each country has its ‘national’ culture, so those features are assigned to each country's ‘national’ culture (see Hofstede’s work). Jafari builds up on it while saying “Similarly, ‘national’ culture is used for either breaking the
‘global’ culture into ‘regional’ cultures based on a series of similarities and differences or forming a ‘global’ culture based on synthesizing certain similarities across ‘national’ or
‘regional’ cultures” (Jafari, 2009, p.353). These classifications are meaningless since they are based on shaky foundations of confusion. Nations, as Anderson (1983) suggests deftly, are
“imagined cultures”. In other words, a country is an abstract society formed in the thoughts of its people as well as it varies from a specific group in a way where its individuals cannot even recognize one another. Members of a fictitious group have just an illusion of a mutual history and feeling of connection. To put it another way, this illusion seems to be socially made. As a result, it is quickly skewed and abused for a multitude of purposes, including political, economic, theological, or commercial ones. Having said that, all meanings based on such a word “nation” would inevitably be treated as shadows of shadows (Jafari, 2009).
4.1.2 Dispute over Hofstede’s Work
Despite being the father of cultural dimensions and having had an enormous impact on later theories, Hofstede's cultural theory has not remained without critique, as already seen above.
In terms of methodology, it has been stated that the collectivist dimension is incapable of accurately predicting human actions (Venaik and Brewer, 2013). Furthermore, some authors claimed that the findings could not be generalized since they were collected in a single organization, namely IBM (McSweeney, 2002; Baskerville, 2003). Baskerville (2003) addressed some of the more particular issues, including the presumption that nation and culture are synonymous, and the problems and constraints of quantifying culture using cultural dimensions and matrices. According to her, Hofstede did not properly discuss these fundamental issues. Every element must be wholly autonomous as it is in a quantitative analysis to be valid. That is, it must be described uniquely and unambiguously since culture is not categorized into element structures and diverse principles in a statistical manner by anthropologists. However, this can be regarded as an interconnected system of symbols and definitions.
It was Marshall Sahlins (1976) who identified anthropology as abandoning the practice of defining cultures by a set of binary oppositions, which was way before Hofstede started his research. Instead, Sahlins promoted those different cultural emphases which reflect different hierarchical implementation of symbolic schemes. This brings many to the first big point of controversy in Hofstede's assumptions which is caused by putting nation states and cultures on each side of the equation. To this point, Hofstede replies by saying: “Nations are not the best units for studying cultures, to which my answer was: True, but they are usually the only kind of units available for comparison and better than nothing” (Hofstede, 2003, p. 812). He then defends himself in rather authoritarian manner (see Hofstede, 2003).
Other scholars also criticized Hofstede’s analysis for being incomplete and inconsistent, ignoring basic theory (Cray & Mallory, 1995), or for being dependent on time-worn secondary data gathered in just one international corporation between 1968 and 1972 (Smith, 2002). More specifically, strong critique has been leveled at the essentialist view of national culture, which presents nations as traditionally defined, homogeneous, and stagnant bodies rather than recognizing them as “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1983). A critique specifically related to such rigid view of culture emphasizes the reality of Hofstede's research focusing on interpretations of values and attitudes found inside the context of national cultures as a reference to compare.
Another major flaw in Hofstede's system is its highly functionalist and quantitative form, which insists on calculating processes that cannot be seen as quantifiable in the narrow sense (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007).
The majority of the critique leveled at Hofstede's research seems to be associated with the model credibility out of an analytical standpoint in West (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007). With this concentration of interest, it seems that most cross-cultural management researchers are concerned with empirical understanding that is profoundly embedded in Western rationality.
Fougère and Moulettes (2007) claim that the heavy emphasis on this issue may be highlighted in the way that Hofstede's method is firmly based on a scientifically sound procedure effectively legitimizes the discussion and enables for its institutionalization as genuine
scientific knowledge. Foucault (1982) believes that this type of institutionalization is essential since it is seen as the fundamental foundation of ‘disciplinary authority’. A text which purports to give such knowledge is thus difficult to deny because it is regarded as academically respectable and deemed expert publications (Said, 1995). While conceptual ambiguity limits the fact it is supposed to disclose, it leads to the formation of a conversation with a single agreed-upon way of perceiving the world (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007).
Indeed, Hofstede explores the “origins and consequences” of each dimension. He responds to this by instrumentalizing some of the similarities he discovers in order to draw assumptions about broader trends that are usually relevant to, as well as appear being recognized among, Western, industrialized nations. Though the measurements could be indications of such ideals being communicated, this becomes apparent that attempting to demonstrate how ideals originate from is a highly subjective endeavor dependent upon “intuition”, as Hofstede himself puts it. Hofstede claims that this ‘exercise in induction’ is similar to excavation labor of archaeologists who depend on “intuition”. It can be presumed that insight which Hofstede has is founded on preconceived notions of the environment that he employs while developing his five cultural dimensions. Nothing, obviously, shows that society is simply made up of certain dimensions, which are arbitrary constructs applied to imaginary social standards (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007). Surprisingly, in response to this criticism, Hofstede (2011) attempted to clarify that his dimensions must not be embodied in a concrete way since they represent concepts which we think about. He is adamant that dimensions can aid us in comprehending and dealing with the dynamic realities of our social world.
Still, Fougère and Moulettes (2007) extensively discussed and criticized Hofstede’s dimensions, highlighting the key shortcomings of each dimension. They began with the Power Distance Index (PDI), which is probably the most essential index from a postmodern standpoint since many of the “right societies” seem to be on the same hand. One direction Hofstede's rhetoric continues is by generalizations in which both ends of PDI nations are meant to be portrayed by clear antagonists as well as to validate most claims by contrasting them with any selected appropriate nations from either party. The Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), on the other hand, hasn't had the same unambiguous contradiction as the PDI.
Despite the fact that the ‘low-UAI’ end is not perceived in the same manner as the ‘low-PDI’
end has been, people have the impression it would be more attractive besides being high-UAI.
One feature comparable within the PDI debate seems to be that UAI frequently distinguishes both protestant (low-UAI) and catholic (high-UAI) nations. Individualism (IDV), like PDI, but with a larger gap between the West and most of the world, is the dimension most closely associated with modernism, according to Hofstede. Individualism (IDV) is the layer which often strongly recalls the colonial legacy and the concept of a dominant Western world and the inadequate remainder. Hofstede bases his Masculinity/Femininity factor (MAS) on the assumption that there exists a dualism between genders which seems to be a central reality over which various culture cope within various respects. This term applies to the prevalent gender positions trend seen in the great number of conventional and contemporary cultures, namely male competition and assertiveness and female humility and nurturance. Business organizations have accomplishment targets that correlate to the male's alleged achieving position. Finally, the Long-Term Orientation (LTO) is of special concern as the creation has been allegedly based on a need of being less focused on ethnography since it has been called
biased regarding the approach in the West. While the approach used to conceptualize, it was the same case as it was for other four dimensions which were driven by the quantitative ideology. Hofstede appears to regard the establishment of this last dimension as partially meeting the necessity for regional, culture-sensitive strategy as well as organizational theories in the in Eastern areas of the world (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007).
Ultimately, as cross-cultural management conversation grows increasingly established as valid information, some may see it as adding to innocent mentality in the West as well as to a common cultural burden on behalf of citizens out of so-called developed countries through a Foucauldian prism. As a result, cultural paradigm of Hofstede, including its biased presupposition systems, essentially provides the function of spreading the Western founding values, such as liberalism, industrial prosperity, new technologies and science, in order to promote the image of the West as a global savior. Overconfidence in quantitative methods’
ability to delineate such a scientific fact, as well as the illusion of progress, favored a linguistic mindset as well as numerous instances of the analysis, which strengthened the influence of Hofstede's discourse. Many writers, including Fougère and Moulettes (2007), have suggested that contemporary ideologies of modernism, growth, and sensible economics have swallowed cross-cultural management, particularly the approach of Hofstede.
Furthermore, an examination of Hofstede's text shows that his binary oppositions appear to build the universe which is split into an advanced and current and conventional and archaic side (Fougère and Moulettes, 2007). To the point of quantitative criticism, Meyer adds “the truth is that culture is too complex to be measured meaningfully along just one or two dimensions” (Meyer, 2014).