Mcsweeney's Critique Of Hofstede

Hofstede considered on an additional characteristic of culture viz., vision or forward looking attitude. Again India shows this aspect of culture. People put high precedence on future route of time rather than directed on the present only. Other countries like Taiwan, Singapore also imitate this culture. By distinction, some cultures inclined to focus on present only because nothing can be done about future. So, it is better to do present work instead of drawing attention to future too much.
Hofstede has used these four dimensions of national culture in his research for 53 different areas; individualism versus collectivism, large versus small power distance, strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity. Invalid source specified.

Research shows that a national culture (values held by a …show more content…
His critique is examined for its useful warnings to those who follow Hofstede’s research and for its logical consistency. A paradigmatic perspective identifies where McSweeney argues against Hofstede’s logic and where he rejects Hofstede’s paradigm and premises. This indicates that both the functionalist and other paradigms are needed for future research into national culture and for understanding social behavior in different national cultures.Invalid source specified.
He further claims that Hofstede sometimes assumes that all members of a national community uniformly carry the same national culture. This is based upon culture in the sense of uniform characteristics, carried by everyone in a nation. Accordingly, Hofstede assumes that questionnaire responses from each country represent the values of that national culture and dismisses this position as being inconsistent with the existence of organizational and occupational cultures, and with variety of values within nations. Invalid source