View in EDS

Hofstede, GLOBE, Schwartz and Inglehart's cultural dimensions: a critical examination and assessment.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Hofstede, GLOBE, Schwartz and Inglehart's cultural dimensions: a critical examination and assessment.
Authors: Yeganeh, Hamid1 (AUTHOR) hyeganeh@winona.edu
Source: European Business Review. 2025, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p1073-1090. 18p.
Subject Terms: CROSS-cultural studies, SOCIOCULTURAL factors, CONCEPTUALISM
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical examination of four cultural frameworks, namely, Hofstede's, GLOBE's, Schwartz's and Inglehart's. Design/methodology/approach: Unlike previous studies that adopted empirical analysis or systematic literature review, this study uses an analytical approach to assess the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions, highlight their key strengths and limitations and analyze their breath, reliability and applicability. Findings: While Hofstede's model remains influential, specific dimensions, such as uncertainty avoidance and indulgence versus restraint, are critiqued for conceptual ambiguity. GLOBE's dimensions, particularly institutional collectivism, humane orientation and assertiveness, suffer from conceptual overlap and limited applicability. In contrast, Schwartz's model is recognized for its conceptual rigor and broad applicability in social sciences. Inglehart's model, grounded in Modernization theory and supported by longitudinal data from the World Values Survey, is praised for its empirical rigor and ability to capture cultural transformations over time. This study concludes that while Hofstede's and GLOBE's frameworks are widely used in business research, Schwartz's and Inglehart's dimensions are conceptually superior. Originality/value: While the previous studies have dealt with the methodology and statistical validity of Hofstede's and GLOBE's research, the originality of this paper lies in examining, comparing and assessing the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions from four frameworks. The insights from this paper can be used in refining cultural dimensions, avoiding conceptual confusion and developing future empirical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Business Review is the property of Emerald Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Business Source Index
Description
Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical examination of four cultural frameworks, namely, Hofstede's, GLOBE's, Schwartz's and Inglehart's. Design/methodology/approach: Unlike previous studies that adopted empirical analysis or systematic literature review, this study uses an analytical approach to assess the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions, highlight their key strengths and limitations and analyze their breath, reliability and applicability. Findings: While Hofstede's model remains influential, specific dimensions, such as uncertainty avoidance and indulgence versus restraint, are critiqued for conceptual ambiguity. GLOBE's dimensions, particularly institutional collectivism, humane orientation and assertiveness, suffer from conceptual overlap and limited applicability. In contrast, Schwartz's model is recognized for its conceptual rigor and broad applicability in social sciences. Inglehart's model, grounded in Modernization theory and supported by longitudinal data from the World Values Survey, is praised for its empirical rigor and ability to capture cultural transformations over time. This study concludes that while Hofstede's and GLOBE's frameworks are widely used in business research, Schwartz's and Inglehart's dimensions are conceptually superior. Originality/value: While the previous studies have dealt with the methodology and statistical validity of Hofstede's and GLOBE's research, the originality of this paper lies in examining, comparing and assessing the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions from four frameworks. The insights from this paper can be used in refining cultural dimensions, avoiding conceptual confusion and developing future empirical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:0955534X
DOI:10.1108/EBR-05-2025-0144