Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williamson, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Forward from a Critique of Hofstede’s Model of National Culture

Dermot Williamson

Lancaster University Management School and Lancaster Centre for Management in China, d.williamson{at}lancaster.ac.uk

McSweeney’s critique (2002) rejects Hofstede’s model and finds national culture implausible as a systematically causal factor of behaviour. 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 behaviour in different national cultures.

Key Words: Hofstede • methodology • national culture • paradigm

Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 11, 1373-1395 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/00187267025511006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Management LearningHome page
C. Fisher, D. Doughty, and S. Mussayeva
Learning and Tensions in Managerial Intercultural Encounters: A Dialectical Interpretation
Management Learning, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 311 - 327.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management LearningHome page
G. Currie
`Beyond Our Imagination': The Voice of International Students on the MBA
Management Learning, November 1, 2007; 38(5): 539 - 556.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
K. Soin and T. Scheytt
Making the Case for Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Organizational Research
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2006; 9(1): 55 - 77.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementHome page
M. M. Jabri
Commentaries and Critical Articles : Text-context Relationships and Their Implications for Cross Cultural Management
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, December 1, 2005; 5(3): 349 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organization ScienceHome page
H. L. Tosi and T. Greckhamer
Culture and CEO Compensation
Organization Science, November 1, 2004; 15(6): 657 - 670.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementHome page
T. Fang
A Critique of Hofstede's Fifth National Culture Dimension
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, December 1, 2003; 3(3): 347 - 368.
[Abstract] [PDF]