Third Edition - Cultures and Organizations - Software of the Mind

Geert Hofstede is Emeritus Professor at Maastricht University in The Netherlands. He was Professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at the University of Limburg (which was later re-named Maastricht University). He is the founder and first director of the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC), where a lot of the research used in this book comes from. This paperback version was published 3 years after the hardcover and includes some updated references to political events. This book is largely an extension to Hofstede's 1980-book `Culture's Consequences'. The book consists of 4 parts.

Part I - Introduction, consists of one chapter, and lays the foundation for the remainder of the book by introducing the meaning of `culture' and a small vocabulary of essential terms. He also discusses the objective of the book: "to help in dealing with the differences in thinking, feeling, and acting of people around the globe. It will show that although the variety in people's minds is enormous, there is a structure in this variety which can serve as a basis for mutual understanding." With reference to the definition of culture, we need to understand the book's subtitle first. `Software of the mind' is patterns of thinking, feeling and acting (which were learned throughout a lifetime). Hofstede's definition of culture is "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another." It is important to note that he believes that culture is learned and not inherited. He continues with a brief discussion on the 3 levels in human mental programming: 1. Human nature (universal; inherited); 2. Culture (specific to group/category; learned); and 3. Personality (specific to individual; learned and inherited).

Part II - National Cultures - is the largest section of this book with 6 chapters and deals with differences among cultures at national levels. Chapter 2-to-5 describe the four dimensions empirically found in research across more than 50 countries: (1) to wit power distance; (2) collectivism versus individualism; (3) femininity versus masculinity; and (4) uncertainty avoidance. Each of these 4 chapters follows the same structure: description of dimension, the scores of the various countries, the consequences of the dimension for family life, school, workplace, organization, state, and the development of ideas. Chapter 6 looks at the consequences of the national culture differences in the way people in a country organize themselves, combining the dimensions from the previous chapters. The next chapter introduces a fifth cross-national dimension, which is long-term versus short-term orientation. This reveals deep differences between Eastern and Western thinking.

Part III deals with differences in organizational culture and consists of only 1 chapter in which the author describes the insights collected in IRIC's research project across 20 organizational units in Denmark and the Netherlands between 1985-1987.

Part IV - Implications - consists of 2 chapters and discusses the practical implications of the culture differences and similarities. The first chapter of this part discusses what happens when people from different cultures meet. It discusses phenomena, such as culture shock, ethnocentrism, stereotyping, differences in language and in humor. It also discusses the development of intercultural communication skills. The final chapter of the book summarizes the message of the book and translates it into suggestions for parents, managers and the media. There is also a speculation on future political developments, based on the cultural processes.

Yes, this is a monumental book on the `software of the mind'. I believe that this book is a fantastic piece of work on this subject, based on strong research, and is probably the starting point for anybody interested in this subject. I must warn people that the book is not a simple, fast read, since the information is very intense and the wide range of information covered. However, the writing style is good and there are plenty of tables, diagrams, figures to make the reading somewhat `easier'. Highly recommended to all people interested in this subject, from parents through to managers. (Where is the 6-star button?)

This is a pioneering book, which provides a generalist approach to dealing with cross-cultural issues with many excellent examples. Hofstede was one of the first to bring the study of how culture affects human interaction in the field of business. The quantifying approach is very similar to what cultural anthropologists use. As with all pioneering works there is some criticism about conflict resolution as other reviewers have pointed out. Another central criticisms of this model has been that nation state and culture are always presumed to be the same. Local culture does not follow political boundaries. Globalization has also changed some of the observations initially made by Hofstede.

Some readers might be tempted to think of people in simple categories or stereotypes, which is precisely what Hofstede counsels that we should attempt to avoid. Cultures and organizations gives good insights on how "Groupthink" controls our lives and how we could improve interaction.

Hofstede's tools for understanding different national cultures are widely used by cross-cultural trainers all over the world and taught in many fields.

This is a good book for international managers and students of culture. HR-practitioners working in multicultural organizations might find this a bit theoretical but nonetheless useful for understanding underlying causes for human behaviour.

I have found this book very useful for new change consultants who are venturing out into a global environment, this at least prepares people to think about cultural norms and the way in which certain societies generally view the world, get along with each other and make decisions.. Be cautioned this is not an approach to stereotype cultures, rather to provide the student with an understanding of the normal cultural drivers.

It is not a cookbook of how-to's. It a research report into how cultural differences underlay everything you want to accomplish.

While the book is titled Cultures and Organisations, it is really about ethnic cultures, not corporate cultures.

If you are working in a multi cultural or international environment then this is a must. Success in an international environment only occurs when you possess cultural sensitivity. This book is a fantastic introduction into the world of international cultures

Hofstede described the following cultural dimensions:

(1.) Power distance index (PDI)

(2.) Individualism versus collectivism (IDV)

(3.) Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

(4.) Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

(5.) Long term versus short term orientation (LTO)

(6.) Indulgence versus restraint (IVR)

Political effects of cultural dimensions:

[1.] Hofstede assumes that political ideologies are entirely created by cultures:

Hofstede says that politicians create policies based on preexisting value judgments. But I think that is idea is only half true. Societies in which large corporations or large businesses own the majority of the nations' media and can bribe politicians ted to create policies that reflect the needs of elite minority. The financial elite of the US own the media and use it to brainwash the American public into voting for the policies that benefit them, but not the majority of the citizens. Hofstede points out the fact that many American voters believe that the America's economic problems are caused by high taxes. The fiscal conservatism of the American populace is far more likely caused by the financial elite's control of the media than the masculine values of the nation. Scandinavian countries and a few other European countries not only have more feminine cultures, but also have more democratic political systems. Switzerland and Iceland are direct democracies in which their citizens directly vote on policies, but the Anglo Saxon nations; Britain, and the US are democratic republics in which the citizens elect politicians who then vote on policies. Does the greater amount of political democracy in Scandinavian countries create more feminine cultures or do more feminine cultures create more democratic governments? The interactive causality of culture and politics can be compared to the interactive causality of economics and politics. Did the income equality of Scandinavian countries create their feminine cultures or did their feminine cultures create income equality? He described how cultures create organizational structures in the chapter called Cultures and Organizations, but he did not explain how political structures change cultures.

[2.] Hofstede did not discuss how political structures and inequality affect cultures:

I was surprised to see that Hofstede did not include income inequality and political structure in analysis of the rates of imprisonment of countries around the world. The US has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, but Hofstede failed to mention why the US also has the highest level of income inequality in the developed world, and why the US's undemocratic political structure leads to the imprisonment of the poor who are most often arrested for possession of illegal drugs. Rich bankers in the US usually not prosecuted for shark loans and when they are prosecuted they never face imprisonment. Undemocratic countries also tend to have much larger internal imprisonment rates and external imprisonment rates. Hofstede's study did not subdivide imprisonment rates into external and internal rates. For example Guantanamo bay is America's external prison.

My father often describes to me how in Lebanese culture toughness is very important and how it's very hard to get a Lebanese to vote because they don't respect politicians. They think of politicians as people who think their better than everyone else. From anthropology and political science books I've read, American documentaries I've watched and the American news channels I've seen such as MSNBC and CNN I get the feeling that Americans deeply respect and trust religious and political leaders. Adam Curtis in his documentary called "Save Your Kisses for Me" hosted on his BBC blog showed why some Arab nations are very suspicious of political leaders, but still have great faith in the moral integrity of religious leaders. Disrespect for political and religious leaders and celebrities should reduce power distance. The Anglo Saxons are obsessed with celebrities and tend to turn their politicians into celebrities. The British think of the English Royal family as celebrities and worship them despite the fact that they don't contribute to society.

I think Hofstede should have created 4 sub -scales with self - report questionnaires and statistical analyses of favorable or unfavorable commentary on authority figures in online and print media outlets for power distance that measure the amount of respect that a nation's citizens have for 4 categories of authorities; politicians, religious leaders, political leaders and royalty.

I think he should have made a comparison between the economic structure of a country's media and its power distance score. I think countries such as the US in which more than 90% of media outlets are owned by corporations and conglomerates that are run by a financial elite that make up the top 1% of these nation's income brackets tend to have a lot more positive commentary on the actions and beliefs of the political elite. It's easier in terms of propaganda to brainwash the public to worship all the famous, rich and powerful members of society than is to brainwash the public to admire the financial elite but look down upon the political elite. And in countries such as America the financial elite tend to also be the political and religious elite. Some nations are politically and economically structured in such a way that money can be converted into political power. In the US billions of dollars can be converted into lobbying power. Homogeneous propaganda that contains only one overriding theme is easier to control and disseminate than heterogeneous propaganda that contains different value laden messages.

Environmental or ecological causes of cultural dimensions:

If Hofstede creates a 4th edition I hope he investigates the interactive causality of cultural and environmental forces. In this edition Hofstede simply assumes that political values are created by more pervasive cultural values and does not take into consideration the structure of the media outlets in each country. I think comparative politics should be incorporated into the next edition if Hofstede ever decides to make another edition of Software of the Mind. He also did not include respect for celebrities, political leaders, and religious leaders in his calculation of power distance which often show up in media reports and news outlets.

My concerns with Hofstede's theoretical research:

[1.] Categorization of nations:

I also disliked the way he lumped all Middle Eastern countries into one category, Asian countries into 2 categories and Africa into 2 categories; East and West Africa. Why did he lump those countries into regions when countries within the same region can have radically different cultures? From my personal experience I noticed how Nigerians tend to be optimistic, talkative and emotionally expressive while Kenyans tend to be pessimistic and emotionally subdued. Nigeria is situated in West Africa and Kenya is situated in East Africa. My father who is Lebanese often described to me how Syrians tend to be obedient and loyal while Lebanese tend to be arrogant and hot tempered. Syria and Lebanon share borders with one another, but their political cultures are very different. Syria was ruled by a dictator for several decades and I think they would probably have more power distance than Lebanon which never had a dictatorship and is more democratic that most Middle Eastern countries. I think Israel is the most democratic nation in the Middle East and according to Hofstede research they score very low on power distance. I also think Jewish culture's emphasis on communal values might have made Israel a more democratic nation. Maybe Syrian culture has a greater level of uncertainty avoidance and power distance than Israel and this might have contributed to the rise of dictators in Syria. I liked the way Hofstede used uncertainty avoidance to explain fascism in Japan and Germany, but I feel that his analysis of dictatorships would have been better if he discussed the interactions of cultural dimensions.

[2.] Moral disconnection between publicly proclaimed religious morality and privately practiced morality:

I was surprised when Hofstede how the WVS (Western Virtue Survey) produced results that showed that the poorest countries that happened to be African countries scored the highest on belief in absolute moral values when most African cultures are extremely corrupt and amoral. Nigerian cultures scored the highest on the WVS even though Nigeria is not only one of the most corrupt countries in Africa, but also one of the most corrupt countries in the entire world. I believe that the WVS produced dishonest results from poor countries. Poor countries are also the most religious countries and professing in absolute values means verbally admitting to one's belief in religious teachings. Monotheism is the dominant set of religions in Africa and these religions stress absolute truth in moral values therefore Africans have to say that they believe in absolute moral values, but their actions mays sometimes demonstrate that that they are amoral. I think the WVS should have been designed with two scales; one scale for absolute moral values and another scale for situational moral values. The 2 options of stating that one believes in absolute values or believes in situational moral values in the WVS only assessed explicit (public) belief in moral values, but failed to mention one's implicit (private) belief in moral values. I think Asian countries such as China would have scored higher on situational moral values e.g. not stealing from one's boss even though many Chinese are as poor as Africans and the Africans would have scored the highest on absolute moral values, but the lowest on situational moral values (specific cases of moral choice). A poor African would shamelessly steal from an African King, but I doubt a poor Chinese would steal from a sacred Chinese Emperor. For Africans moral and intellectual respect does not go hand in hand with economic respect. In Africa everyone is out for themselves. I like to think of it as the African eats African mindset.

[3.] Imperfect categorization of cultural dimensions:

I felt that there were that the cultural dimension of Long - Term Orientation (LTM) overlapped with too many qualities of other dimensions to the point that I wondered if LTM is a cultural dimension that emergent independently from other cultural dimensions or was a synergistic product of the interaction of several cultural dimensions that emerged independently from one another. If you look at Table 7.3 on page 251 you will see that Short - Term Orientation includes valuing achievement; a cultural quality measured by the Masculinity dimension (MSN), freedom; a cultural quality measured by the Individualism dimension (IDV) and a collection of qualities I like to call analytic truth which includes the following cultural qualities that I think should be measured by but are not measured by the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI); cognitive consistency, concern for rationality, concern for truth, and belief in absolute morality. Is the LTM a product of the psychological interaction of the cultural dimensions of MAS, IDV and UAI? I don't think that's the case. Clear boundaries between each dimension help anthropologists and cultural psychologists trace historical origins of each cultural dimension. A single historical event might have caused a simultaneous cultural fluctuation in LTM, MAS, IDV, UAI, and IVR. I like to call this historical event an explosive cultural shift and I think this type of shift should be compared to a unipolar cultural shift e.g. a single historical event or a series of historical events that cause a change in only one cultural dimension. I also think a series of historical events can be shared by a group of nations that leads to correlations among all 4 of the cultural dimensions I just explained and I like to refer to such a series of events as a multipolar cultural shift. I have a personality of high UAI and I have tendency to look for theoretical perfection.

Hofstede's brief mention of Transcultural psychology in Chapter 11 (Intercultural Encounters):

He wrote that "mental health professionals" need to be trained in transcultural psychiatry and transcultural clinical psychology. For clarification: Clinical psychology is the research branch of psychiatry which is not explained in the book. In this chapter it became clear that Hofstede believes in the myth of mental illness.

If you read History of Madness,The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct and Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health you will come to the same conclusion that I did. "Mental Illnesses" are social metaphors that describe socially and culturally unacceptable behavior. Wikipedia even has a page on cultural mental illnesses. If you watch the documentaries of the Citizens Commission for Human Rights on [...] you will learn about the origins of psychiatry and how pharmaceutical companies pay psychiatrists. Every new illness lead to the creation of a new drug that inevitably expands the profits and market share of the pharmaceutical industry.

I agree with Hofstede that immigrants experience acculturative stress but I disagree with him that psychiatry will reduce the emotional pain of acculturation. He did not specify whether psychotherapy or drug therapy or both should be used to alleviate acculturative stress. I guess he's not aware of the fact that psychotherapy no longer plays a significant role in psychiatry. Thanks to the pharmaceutical industry psychiatry has now divorced itself from psychotherapy. I feel that psychiatry should be abolished and that psychotherapy combined with social welfare is probably the bests way to help immigrants deal with acculturative stress.

My views on Hofstede's chapter called Cultural Evolution:

[1.] A definition of speciation would have increased intellectual clarity:

In the last chapter be briefly summarized the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens (humans). I small problem I had with this chapter was when he used the term "cross fertilization". What exactly does cross fertilization in the context of sexual mating amongst bonobos and chimps in zoos? Did he mean to say that male Bonobos can fertilize female chimps? Does that mean that Bonobos are the same species as chimps? Can I compare Bonobos to chimps much in the same way I can compare Africans to Europeans? Are bonobos an ethnic group (race) of chimps?

[2.] Unification of knowledge:

The second topic he discussed in the last chapter was about the concept of consilience which involves uniting scientific viewpoints that are usually seen as separate rather than interconnected. If believe unifying human knowledge systems will help us as a species to achieve a prosperous metadestiny. If you want to learn more about unifying human knowledge systems then I suggest you read the Unifying Theory of Psychology by Gregg Henriques who presents a unifying theory of science that unites the material and social sciences.

[3.] I doubt all hunter - gatherer tribes were egalitarian and do gender roles create power hierarchies that reduce egalitarianism?

The 3rd topic he discussed was the nature of the first hunter - gather tribes millions of years ago. He tried to speculate about the cultural behavior of ancient tribes by analyzing modern day hunter gatherer tribes. But I felt that his insistence on egalitarianism and individualism being the cultural traits of ALL hunter gather tribes was confusing.

In the previous chapters he described how individualism is correlated with national affluence. Individualism is European invention and as cultural dimensions was conceived by European researchers. If you live in an African country like I do or if you've watched many documentaries about tribal societies you will realize that tribes foster collectivism at the expense of individualism. He failed to see the connection between higher education and individualism. Educated people are able to see how their cultures have shaped their beliefs, will have the intellectual ability to create new beliefs that are different from that of their cultures and they will have the financial ability in affluent countries to travel around the world and adopt a multicultural perspective. Multiculturism breeds individualism.

I understood how a hunter gather tribe in an environment of abundant resources could be egalitarian, but he then said that aboriginal hunter gathers of Australia who lived in scarce resource environments were egalitarian contradicted his explanation of why the women in the aboriginal tribe were forced to be subservient . He confounded egalitarianism with long term orientation when he described the cultural behavior of modern day tribes. Just because a tribe is egalitarian does not mean that it has a long term orientation and just because a tribes is hierarchal and beats its women into subservience does not mean that it has a short term orientation. I felt that his western idealism distorted his analyses of modern and ancient tribal behavior and according to his explanation for the gender role differentiation is a sign of long term orientation. The dimension he struggled the most to explain the origins of was long term orientation.

[4.] A global market without a global village (a single global culture):

The 4th topic he very briefly discussed in the last chapter was about how our knowledge of the origins of human cultures has enabled us to predict the future of a new global human culture that will shape our future as a species. Hofstede believes that as a species we can go one step further than predicting the new global culture by learning about the origins of cultural differences in order to learn how to accept global cultural difference so that we can wars and live as a peaceful global society. I like to call our ability to consciously create a new global culture "metadestiny".

I disagree with Hofstede on how we should achieve our metadestiny. I think we should not give equal respect to all cultures. I think as a species we should use the merger of the social and material sciences as an opportunity to create a "transcultural (beyond culture or beyond ethnicity)" ideology - an ideology that transcends ethnic differences and combines the world's best cultural values. How do you decide which values are the best values? I think we should examine countries that have the highest rate of economic growth, highest GDP per capita, and lowest level of income inequality. Asian cultures have the highest and fastest levels of economic growth because they have high LTO. Nordic countries have the lowest rate of income inequality because they have low MAS and high IDV.

We can combine Nordic and Asian values to create an optimum culture that would look something like this:

(1.) Low PDI (for direct democracy as currently practiced by Switzerland + Iceland)

(2.) High IDV (to foster a strong desire for human rights over ethnic priorities)

(3.) Very high LTO (for economic growth)

(4.) Low MAS (for equality and quality of life)

(5.) Medium UAI (high UAI for scientific theories + low UAI for scientific empiricism)

Overall, I felt his approach to studying cultures throughout the world was lineal. His lineal approach to the study of culture used a 2 step process:

(1.) Environment creates culture

(2.) Cultures create political system

I believe an interactive approach to the study of culture would have explained how cultures create environments and how political systems shape cultural evolution and environmental outcomes. For example how America's political system has increased American culture's Power Distance Index (PDI) through media propaganda. I also think an interactive approach would have explained the origins of political revolutions such as the communist revolutions in Russia and China and the 19th century democratic revolution in France. If you're looking for a political analysis of the origins of social revolutions I recommend reading the Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World.

The one variable that Hofstede did not use to explain the origins of culture was climate. For an in depth study of
how different climates create different cultures read Climate, Affluence, and Culture (Culture and Psychology).

Hofstede dimensions are useful and seem to be reasonable. However the book is full of unproved corelations and many paragraphs arrive to contradictory conclusions. At the end authors choose whatever they wanted.
I would say, read with caution and be aware of extreme generalizations.
I must add, that it has been a very useful and valuable book

Culture matters - that is surely the case, but the issue is whether it matters in the specific ways posited by this book, and it is not at all clear that it does. Setting aside the problematic nature of the notion of "national" culture in multiethnic societies (plus issues of class, generation etc.), Hofstede argues on the basis of surveys given to IBM employees circa. 1970 that national cultures can be understood along four (or possibly five) dimensions. He has a tendency to invoke anecdotes as ex post rationalizations of whatever statistical result he obtains. Although Hofstede must be given his due as a pioneer in this field, subsequent research attempting to validate this analysis has yielded mixed results, and by and large Hofstede's IBM data has been superseded by the more extensive World Values Survey data. Readers with a more scientific bent who want to examine in detail the evidence that underlies (or does not underlie) the arguments that Hofstede makes are directed to the companion volume, "Culture's Consequences." Nevertheless, it is a fast and easy read, presumably one of its attractions in management courses.

Having just survived a merger of two companies, I was searching to find the right words to explain the differences in cultures I was experiencing. Although this book focuses on national cultures, I found the explanations of the dimensions of culture and how they manifest themselves in different behaviors appropriate for corporate situations. The last few chapters deal explicitly with corporate culture, but I found these chapters less insightful than the others. The book is very well written and organized, with tables summarizing key concepts and entertaining anecdotes to illustrate the points. Because I've traveled internationally for business, I was familiar with other works on culture, but none were as helpful as this book. I now have the vocabulary to articulate the differences I see.

My company was expecting an off shore group to problem solve and go off script to fix problems. We provided much assistance for many months, but the group never became self sufficient.

After reading the book we know why. They are in a high power distance culture where it is very unlikely that someone will attempt to behave independently and think for themselves.

We will have to use them to do routine, repeatable work and then send more challenging problems to a group who can solve new problems effectively.

A must-read for anyone interested in the subject area.

The new and revised content also relate Hofstede's original groundbreaking research to the more recent work of other renowned scholars in the field (such as Ronald Inglehart of the Univ of Michigan and the World Values Survery). These links make his work even more compelling and make you start to think that we may be inching closer to a more universally agreed upon framework for thinking about cultural differences.

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind is an essential book for anybody working or dealing with a multicultural environment. It provides a system to anticipate potential communication issues and as such to be prepared to adapt to a very diverse environment. This is a very thorough work which is based on lot of data and statistics. It certainly helps the reader to have a more tolerant perspective about other cultures and in fact also helps to better understand his own culture.

I highly recommend this book if you are interested in international business or issues. This book will provide you an outstanding framework for understanding the challenges to communication when dealing with different cultures.

Without this knowledge most of us continue to judge other cultures from our own perspectives not realizing our own thought patterns are as deeply ingrained as any other culture's. Much of who we are is learned unconciously and if we are to negotiate with other cultures and countries, it is wise to understand each other.

Until I read this book and taught a college course based on Hofstede's research, I was unaware of what I didn't know. I now also understand culture in the U.S. and have a framework on which to hang differences between other cultures.

Hofstede's dimensions can be applied not only to the business world, but politics and global issues which concern us all.

An important book for developing the skills needed for an individual for working in a multi-cultural environment. Through the course of reading the book i realized a few things (in fact a lot of things) that will help me work better in a global organization. It is also useful as a tool if one plans to work with people from different cultures. In all, this book gives you revelent information in uderstanding this topic!

This book is excellent on showing how countries and states where influenced by each other. The only problem I had with it was it was a college level book and I am still in high-school. So i did have to go back and reread paragraphs every so often. But this book asks many important questions and gives great insight on how and why the different world cultures spread.

Together with Nancy Adler's 'International dimensions' is one of the best sources of cross-cultural social and business behaviour.In some points, the jargon is excessive though. Highly recommendable for cross-cultural analysts.

I'm a grad student working on an international MBA and this was one of our required texts. I admit to being rather intimidated by all of the buzzwords in it when I first got the book, but after sitting down and actually churning through it, it's not bad at all. It didn't exactly drastically alter my perspective with regards to international/intercultural communications, but it definitely provided some 'hmmm... neat' points to think on.

If it wasn't a required book, I'd pass it by. Buy it used - that's my advice.

Is this book scientific or dogma? Science employs unambiguous concepts, does not ignore data that contradicts; and revises in the light of valid critique. This book fails all these tests. For a comprehensive critique of its many flaws see Professor Brendan. McSweeney's widely cited paper in Human Relations (2002) 55.1. To take an example from the Hofstede's book: they state that "the masculinity-femininity dimension affects ways of handling industrial conflicts. In the United States as well as in other masculine cultures such as Britain and Ireland) there is a feeling that conflicts should be resolved by a good fight ... the industrial relations scenes in these countries is marked by such fights. If possible management tries to avoid having to deal with labor unions at all." (p.143). This claim first appeared in Hofstede (1991) and later in Hofstede (2001). Test 1: a national culture does not affect national managers but only national labor. Inconsistent. Test 2: according to the Hofstede's own ranking (p. 121) Japan is the second most masculine country and Germany is more masculine than either the US or Britain. And yet for over fifty years the industrial relations in Japan and Germany have been the least conflictful. The Hofstede's claim is contradicted even by their own data. Test 3: In 2002 McSweeney published a second paper in which he showed that mascluninity-femininity has no predictive or explanatory power in relation to industrial relations. His data showed that sometimes such relations in feminine countries are more aggressive than in masculine countries, sometimes they are less. Despite this data the Hofstede's repeat a claim that is clearly contradicted by the data (others and even their own). A company which believed the Hofstede's claim would be discouraged from considering investing in Britain, Ireland, or the US and would be encouraged to invest in feminine countries such as the Hofstede's Netherlands which they claim is the third most feminine country in the world. Hopefully, not too many are misled by the dogma in this book which bears no relation to reality.

Tackling a multi-level complex phenomenon that is culture through simplification based on questionable material reconfirms the cold war mentality which is highly representative for the time the data was gathered. However, for those who look for a quick fix based on stereotyping, this is the literature to read.