BUSINESS

Critical Analysis

Critical Analysis

Synopsis

Hofstede's research is based on the premised on the impact of different cultures and the implications it entails. McSweeney states that Hofstede's depiction of powerful and enduring cultures or the differences in cultures can be termed as being legendary. If the findings observed by Hofstede are genuine then it is bound to have implications with respect to management that is present within as well as across countries along with the future of the nation states which in turn entails European integration prospects (Schwartz, 1992, pp. 1-65).

The article is said to entail four whole assumptions based on which assumptions are premised upon. The assumptions are said to be vital in terms of them being crucial for high level of plausibility when it comes to the identifying the claims. In the first part of the report Hofstede discusses the identification model briefly. Secondly, it tends to explore the repercussion of theorizing the concept of culture as being national. Thirdly, it also tends to analyze, unpack and then criticize on the claims of Hofstede to have an empirical identification of the national culture that exists in multiplicity of the dissimilarity amidst cultures by defying vital methodological assumptions that are made. Lastly, the article has a reflection of the plausibility of a relationship that is determinate amidst uniform national institutions and the concept of national culture. Nevertheless, when it is closely examined the research is said to reveal that there is dependency on assumptions that are flawed (www.research.kinasevych.ca).

Key Claims or Findings

Based on the set of assumptions that have been made use of to identify the degree to which it was flawed, McSweeney states that Hofstede has said to demonstrate the findings validity by the explanation of the contemporary and historical events whereby his arguments are said to be based on the national cultures dimensions. Hofstede has listed many national institutions artifacts, events which in turn entail social stratification, scientific theories, religious organizations, family structures, industrial relations systems, literature, religion, and architecture which Hofstede terms it as a set of consequences or national cultures crystallization. Hofstede further states the fact that the list is said to be unlimited and that all parts of life are included in it and cannot by any means be exempted. On the contrary, there is a chronic problem of priorism which basically has said to refute his measurement and has said to make it faulty. It is this aspect which has also said to make his illustrative theories invalid. McSweeney states that the theories have said to be developed; disregarding the counter-evidence which was readily available. The model of Hofstede consists of many theories and it is not just one theory which has failed to meet the criteria in fact majority of his stories have said to fail the test. McSweeney states the fact that useful predictive theories or explanatory theories can undergo exceptions, although the high the number of failures in terms of explanation, the higher the extent to which it becomes ...