'Mirror mirror on the wall-cultures consequences in a value test of its own design Essay\r'

'The paper offers a critical reading of Geert Hofstede’s (1980) burnish’s Consequences using an analytical strategy where the disc is reflect against itself and analyzed in terms of its own proposed time value holdings. â€Å"Mirroring” unravels the book’s normative viewpoint and policy-making subtext and exposes discursive interests in its inquiry process. Making all in all this evident in the canonical book’s own terms, this paper communicates critical concerns across double boundaries. It indicates the need to reconsider concepts and convictions that predominate cross- pagan look and to adopt norms of reflexivity that transcend existing notions of â€Å" heathen relativism.”\r\nGlobalization, there seems to be a need to push these attempts at reevaluating its foundations. To a great extent, the knowledge produced in this field is still firmly rooted in the orthodoxy of functionalist, â€Å"normal” accomplishmentâ€its positivist epistemology and objectivist rhetoric (see Burrell & vitamin A; Morgan, 1979). While there ar a few interpretive, emically oriented case studies (e.g., Ahrens, 1996; Brannen, 2004), these generally remain a marginalized pursuit (MarschanPiekkari & group A; Welch, 2004); studies are usually nomothetic and quantitative, with seekers posing themselves as discoverers of universal regularities and systematic causal transactionhips. Cultural relativism, when admitted, is seen to relate to the scientistâ€not to science\r\nItselfâ€and is whence â€Å"corrected” by rituals of confession, (rare) attempts to create crosscultural research teams, or various â€Å"bias control” techniques. In this vein, inter issue trouble thought is evolving into quite a huge body of thought†one that, despite its name, underrepresents galore(postnominal) regions of the world in terms of authorship and topics of abbreviation (Kirkman & adenosine monophosphate; Law, 200 5). Moreover, like other managerial disciplines that drive to shape actual works, its influence extends into the world of make out as well.\r\n The book indeed entailed various crucial contributions. Apparently, as globalization progressed into the 1980s, crossing traditional boundaries, subject field culture could no longer be disregarded. What until wherefore constituted a beast too â€Å" round the bend” or vague for the positivist epistemology of â€Å"normal” science became a focus of much interest. Hofstede, it can be said, tamed the beast†he divided it, counted it, tabled it, and graphed it. â€Å" refining” was trim down to â€Å"values,” which were reduced to a limited establish of questions on an IBM questionnaire. â€Å"National society” was reduced to â€Å" plaza class rather than the working class” (1980: 56), which was reduced to IBM personnel from the marketing and service divisions. Answers were quantified, comp uterized, â€Å"statisticalized.” Things cultural could ultimately be said in â€Å"scientific” language.\r\nOctober\r\nSubsequently, the book promoted sensitivity to cultural diversity at the workplace (and beyond it). In addition, it undermined the widespread assumption that American counsel knowledge is universal and thus slow transferable across cultures, and challenged psychology’s long-standing refusal to have intercourse the relevance of culture as anything but an impertinent variable (see Joseph, Reddy, &type A; Searle-Chatterjee, 1990: 21; Triandis, 2004). refinement, Hofstede claimed, is a â€Å" psychical programming” instilled in people’s sagaciousnesssâ€an inside variable, shaping behavior from the inside out. Thus, for fundamental lawal give, prudence possible action, and psychology, national culture is relevant; it does count. And as uttermost as the scientific community of his time was concerned, he had the right num bers to prove it.\r\nThere were, however, rattling serious critiques from the outset (e.g., Baskerville, 2003; Eckhardt, 2002; Harrison & angstrom; McKinnon, 1999; Kitayama, 2002; Merker, 1982; Robinson, 1983; Schooler, 1983; Singh, 1990). In what appears to be one of the most damning critiques of the book, McSweeney claimed that â€Å"the on-going unquestioning acceptation of Hofstede’s national culture research by his evangelized entourage suggests that in parts of the management disciplines the criteria for pleasant evidence are far too well-situated” .\r\nHofstede never failed to respond to the ongoing stream of criticism, defended his methodological decisions, and clarified the study’s claims and implications (e.g., 1990, 2001, especially p. 73). The turn over that evolved was extensive, but it generally focused on a single question: Does Hofstede â€Å"really” capture â€Å"feminine-in-management” meets â€Å"globalization.” logi cal argument Horizons, 36(2): 71†81. Calas, M. B., & angstrom; Smircich, L. 1999. Past postcontemporaneousness? Re´ flections and in question(p) directions. Academy of wariness Review, 24: 649 †671. Chandy, P. R., & adenine; Williams, T. G. E. 1994. The relate of journals and authors on worldwideist business. diary of internationalist blood Studies, 25: 715â€728. Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. 1999. Introduction. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory & method: 1â€22. London: Sage.\r\nCooper, R. 1989. Modernism, post modernism and organizational digest 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. establishment Studies, 10: 479 â€502.\r\nCooper, R., Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernistism and organizational epitome: An introduction. administration\r\nStudies, 9: 91â€112.\r\nOctober\r\nFoucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. (Translated by A. M. S. Smith.) New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. 1977. Language, cou nter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. (Edited by D. F. Bouchard.) Oxford: Blackwell.\r\nFoucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other books 1972â€1977. (Edited by C. Gordon.) New York: Pantheon. Frost, P. 1980. Toward a radical mannikin for practicing organization science. Academy of commission Review,\r\n5: 501â€507.\r\nGioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multi mental image perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 5:\r\n584 †602.\r\nHarrison, G. L., & McKinnon, J. L. 1999. Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A go off of the menses state. Accounting, formations and Society. 24: 483â€506. Hart, W. B. 1999. Interdisciplinary influences in the study of intercultural relations: A citation compendium of the world(prenominal) Journal of Intercultural Relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23: 575â€589.\r\nHofstede, G. 1978. The poverty of management contr ol philosophy. Academy of Management Review, 3: 450 †461. Hofstede, G. 1980. tillage’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International crease\r\nStudies, 14(2): 75†89.\r\nHofstede, G. 1990. A reply and comment on Joginder P. Singh: â€Å"managerial culture and work-related values in India.”\r\n institution Studies, 11: 103â€106.\r\nHofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.\r\nHofstede, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40: 4 â€13. Hofstede, G. 1996. An American in Paris: The influence of\r\nnationality on organization theories. arranging Studies, 17: 525â€537. Hofstede, G. (Ed.). 1998a. Masculinity and femininity: The\r\n proscribed proportion of national cultures. k Oaks,\r\nCA: Sage.\r\nDerrida, J. 1972. Positions. (Tra nslated and annotated by A. Bass.) cabbage: University of Chicago Press.\r\nHofstede, G. 1998b. Masculinity/femininity as a dimension of culture. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity:\r\nThe proscribed dimension of national cultures: 3â€28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\r\nEckhardt, G. 2002. harbor review of Culture’s consequences:\r\n study values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (second edition). Australian Journal of Management, 27: 89 â€94.\r\nHofstede, G. 1998c. The cultural construction of gender. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 77â€105. Thousand Oaks,\r\nCA: Sage.\r\nEscobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.\r\nHofstede, G. 1998d. Comparative studies of sexual behavior: Sex as achievement or as relationship? In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension o f national cultures: 153â€178. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferguson, K. E. 1994. On bringing to a greater extent theory, more voices and more government activity to the study of organizations. Organization, 1: 81â€99.\r\nHofstede, G. 1998e. Religion, masculinity, and sex. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 192â€209. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\r\n(Eds.), enchiridion of qualitative research: 463†477. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: canvass values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\r\nMarschan-Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. 2004. Qualitative research methods in international business: The state of the art. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 5â€24. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.\r\nHofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius conn ection:\r\nFrom cultural roots to stinting growth. Organizational\r\nDynamics, 16(4): 4 â€21.\r\nHofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (revised & expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.\r\nHofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culture\r\nrevisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture.\r\nCross-Cultural Research, 38: 52†88.\r\nHoppe, M. H. 2004. An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 75â€79. Jack, G., & Lorbiecki, A. 2003. Asserting possibilities of resistance in the cross-cultural tenet machine: Reviewing videos of others. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement: 213â€232. New York: Palgrave.\r\nMartin, J. 1994. The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1: 401†431.\r\nM cSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s place of national cultural\r\ndifferences and their consequences: A triumph of\r\n trustâ€A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55: 89 â€\r\n118.\r\nMerker, S. L. 1982. agree review of Geert Hofstede’s Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related\r\nvalues. Behavioral Science, 27: 195â€197.\r\nMeyerson, D. E. 1998. liveliness stressed and burned out: A\r\n feminist reading and re-visioning of stress-based emotions within medicine and organization science. Organization Science, 9: 103â€118.\r\nJack, G., & Westwood, R. 2006. Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 46: 481â€501.\r\nMorgan, G. 1983. The significance of assumptions. In G.\r\nMorgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for affectionate research: 377â€382. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.\r\nJoseph, G. G., Reddy, V., & Searle-Chatterjee, M. 1990. Ethnocentr ism in the loving sciences. bleed & Class, 31(4): 1â€26.\r\nMumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. 1992. The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of jump rationality. Academy of\r\nManagement Review, 17: 465†486.\r\nKirkman, B. L., & Law, K. S. K. 2005. From the editors: International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal,\r\n48: 377â€386.\r\nKirkman, B. L., Lowe., K. B., Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter\r\ncentury of Culture’s consequences: A review of empirical\r\nresearch incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values\r\nframework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37:\r\n285â€320.\r\nKitayama, S. 2002. Culture and basic psychological processesâ€Toward a system view of culture: stimulant on Oyserman et al. (2002). mental Bulletin,\r\nKnights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectiveness: A critique. Organization Studies, 12: 251â€273. Kuhn, T. 1972. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\r\nKunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. psychological Bulletin, 108: 480 †498. Kwek, D. 2003. Decolonizing and re-presenting Culture’s consequences: A postcolonial critique of cross-cultural studies in management. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement: 121â€146. New York: Palgrave. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of atomic number 25 Press. Manning, P. K., & Cullum-Swan, B. 1994. Narrative, content, and semiotic analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. capital of Nebraska\r\nNkomo, S. M. 1992. The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting â€Å"Race in organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 17: 487â€513. Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. P sychological Bulletin, 128: 3â€72. Parker, M. 1992. Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory.\r\nOrganization Studies, 13: 1â€17. Prasad, A. (Ed.). 2003. Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement. New York: Palgrave reed instrument, M. 1992. Introduction. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organizations: New directions in organizational theory and analysis: 1â€16. London: Sage. Richardson, L. 1994. Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), enchiridion of qualitative research: 516 â€529. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\r\nRobinson, R. V. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Work and Occupations, 10: 110 â€115. Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: stochastic House. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. 2005. Individualism: A valid and master(prenominal) dimension of cultural differences\r\nbetween nations. Person ality and cordial Psychology Review, 9: 17â€31. Schooler, C. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. modern-day Sociology, 12: 167.\r\nAcademy of Management Review\r\nSingh, J. P. 1990. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11: 75â€101. Søndergaard, M. 1994. Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15: 447†456. Sorge, A. 1983. Book review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 625†629. Spivak, G. C. 1988. Subaltern studies: Deconstructing historiography. In R. Guha & G. C. Spivak (Eds.), Selected subaltern studies: 3â€34. New York: Oxford University\r\nPress.\r\nOctober\r\n van Deusen, C. 2002. Book review of Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations ac ross nations. Business & Society, 41: cxxvâ€128. Vunderink, M. & Hofstede, G. 1998. Femininity shock: American students in the Netherlands. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures: 139 â€152. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms incapacitated: Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15: 565â€590.\r\nTriandis, H. C. 1993. Reviews on cultural phenomena†Cultures and organizations. Administrative Science\r\nQuarterly, 38: 132â€134.\r\nWestwood, R. 2004. Towards a postcolonial research paradigm in international business and comparative management. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 56 †83. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.\r\nTriandis, H. C. 2004. The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 88 â€93.\r\nWilliamson, D. 2002. Forward fro m a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 55: 1373â€1395.\r\nGalit Ailon (ailonsg@mail.biu.ac.il) is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-IIan University. She get her Ph.D. from the Department of Labor Studies at Tel-Aviv University. Her research interests take on organizational globalization, organizational culture, organizational theory, and managerial ideologies.\r\n'