A test of Hofstede's model of culture following his own approach

Abstract

PurposeRecent studies exposed serious issues with Hofstede's popular model of culture, especially his uncertainty avoidance (UA) and masculinity-femininity (MAS–FEM) dimensions. However those studies did not focus on work-related issues as in Hofstede’s research.Design/methodology/approachWe followed Hofstede’s approach to his dimensions more closely than anyone before in a large cross-cultural study. We used data from the nationally representative International Social Survey Program (over 50,000 respondents from 47 countries), measuring work goals and work-related stress in a way similar to Hofstede's.FindingsUA and MAS–FEM, as measured and described by Hofstede, did not replicate. They lack internal consistency and the items that target them are not associated with Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM indices. Instead, some of those items follow a very different and sound logic, invalidating Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM theories. Our study provides additional evidence that UA and MAS–FEM are misleading artifacts of Hofstede's IBM database, with no analogues outside IBM. An improved, recently reported version of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) replicated nearly perfectly, solidifying the validity of that dimension of national culture. A revised version of long-term orientation, called flexibility–monumentalism (FLX–MON) also replicated well.Research limitations/implicationsWe discuss lessons for the cross-cultural field, including cross-cultural management, as well as policy-making by national governments, to be drawn from the controversial story of Hofstede's model. We advise a stronger focus on empirical confirmation and replication rather than excessive faith in fascinating, yet unproven theory.Practical implicationsTo avoid further confusion, we advise researchers, consultants and managers to reconsider the use of Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM and focus on the valid dimensions in the revised Minkov-Hofstede model.Social implicationsA number of national governments recently launched large-scale studies of their national cultures, based on Hofstede's model. The goal of those studies was to involve culture in the design of social and economic development policies. Studies of this kind should be founded on empirically sound models or else they can result in the formulation of flawed policies.Originality/valueThis is the first study of large samples from many nations showing that even when Hofstede's method is followed closely by focusing on work-related issues, UA and MAS–FEM do not emerge from the data, and this is not because of data deficiencies but because the logic of UA and MAS–FEM is demonstrably flawed. Our study also demonstrates new methods for the replication of IDV-COLL and FLX–MON, though without claiming that they are superior to existing ones.

A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States

“…We test this hypothesized binary-factor model of culture using Minkov’s (2018) revision of Hofstede’s model of culture, consisting of new measures of Hofstede’s best-validated dimensions: individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) and long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO-STO), now known as flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON) (Minkov et al, 2018a). In addition to the many studies that have replicated IDV-COLL under the same name or other names (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018; House et al, 2004; Minkov et al, 2013, 2017; Schwartz, 2008a, 2008b; Welzel, 2013), equivalents of IDV-COLL and FLX-MON have been extracted by Minkov and Hofstede (2012), Vignoles et al (2016), and Minkov and Kaasa (2021) from very diverse databases. Thus, Minkov’s revision of Hofstede’s model consists of two strongly validated and easily replicable dimensions.…”

“…Baskerville (2003) noted that Hofstede’s model (and, we can add, all models that follow his methodology) was popular in psychology and management but not in “mainstream social sciences” (p. 3), such as sociology and anthropology. Recent studies that failed to replicate some of Hofstede’s dimensions (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018; Minkov, 2018; Minkov & Kaasa, 2021) may further shake academics’ faith not only in Hofstede’s model but also in his method. Ultimately, one might arrive at the erroneous generalization that aggregates of psychological measures are inappropriate for cultural comparisons, and anthropology (as well as sociology, to the extent that it is interested in culture) has nothing to learn from psychology.…”

Measuring Cultural Dimensions: External Validity and Internal Consistency of Hofstede's VSM 2013 Scales

“…In brief, our study tested the dimensions individualism, power distance, and indulgence across 57 countries. Our results indicate both poor internal consistency and mostly inadequate validity of the VSM 2013 scales, reflecting another recent failure to replicate the dimensions masculinity and uncertainty avoidance across 47 countries (Minkov and Kaasa, 2021 ). So why were Hofstede's original country scores fairly well-replicated by the meta-analytic scores of Taras et al ( 2012 )?…”

“…Thus, the dataset provides a unique opportunity to assess the VSM 2013 scales with respect to their internal consistency and their external validity across a wide range of countries. It also complements another recent large-scale cross-cultural study, which failed to replicate other dimensions: masculinity and uncertainty avoidance (Minkov and Kaasa, 2021 ).…”

“…Instead, we believe that the problem lies with the VSM 2013 instrument itself (cf. Minkov and Kaasa, 2021 ).…”