Kultury i organizacje: Zaprogramowanie umysłu

by Geert Hofstede

Książka jest poświęcona - jako jedna z pierwszych na polskim rynku - wpływowi kultury i różnic kulturowych na procesy organizacji i zarządzania. Prostym językiem autor wyjaśnił, czym są sama kultura i zjawiska kulturowe (m.in. wartości, normy, symbole), jak można zdefiniować kulturę narodową (na podstawie wyników badań w kilkudziesięciu krajach), jakie są praktyczne następstwa odmienności kulturowych oraz jak je pokonywać, aby możliwe było porozumienie między narodami, firmami, osobami. Książka jest przeznaczona dla studentów organizacji i zarządzania, socjologii, dziennikarstwa, politologii, stosunków międzynarodowych, handlu zagranicznego, a także menedżerów - praktyków.

Genres: Business, Nonfiction, Cultural, Psychology, Management, Sociology, Anthropology

378 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 1993

About the author

Gerard Hendrik Hofstede is an influential Dutch writer on the interactions between national cultures and organizational cultures, and is an author of several books including Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, co-authored by his son Gert Jan Hofstede. Hofstede's study demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of societies and organizations, and that are very persistent across time.

Excerpted from Wikipedia.

Reviews

[Mina · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about culture, not stereotypes so much as statistical constants.

As usual, I'm going to make my case on why you should read it rather than the Wikipedia summary (oh, yes, there are a few cliffnotes on the author's cultural dimensions Wiki page)

This book represents several decades of research, all around the globe, so nothing is passed off as "but those are the (insert nationality here), they're crazy". In his worldwide interviews and surveys, Hofstede discovered certain dimensions of cultural values that hold true across the sampled cultures and thus provided a basis for understanding, if anything, the background of the individual.

There is a caveat, what he sampled Is IBM employees from various countries, which represent a particular culture of their own, rather than being representative of the culture as a whole.

Those dimensions are Power Distance (the psychological distance we feel to superiors - government, boss, teacher, parents), Uncertainty Avoidance (or how much a culture dislikes change and prefers more rules), Masculinity vs Femininity (no misogynism here, this value reflects competitiveness, among others), Individualism (how much we think of ourselves as a person, rather than part of a group - family, work, social network) and Long-Term Relationships (how much we think of the future, how much importance we put in building a social network based on trust and strong, personal ties). He also included Indulgence vs. Restraint, useful, but for reasons unknown the first five are those most often mentioned.

Now, when I say "values", I don't mean aesthetic values. By the author's definition, values are the deepest level of social programming. Those things have been found slow to change if at all and so far have proven to have a perplexing and strong impact on the simplest of cultural interactions as you can see in the case presented at the beginning of each chapter.

Paradoxically, this work on communication is quite dully written. The way I see it the fun starts around the middle of Ch. 3, so for my selection of interesting ideas, check this Wiki section and the reading progress notes. All of Part IV "Implications" should be of interest to most people.

[Benny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both practical and theoretical, this is the only book that I know of that really describes and explains cultural differences on various levels (family, school, work...) AND on a more or less universal scale. While most other books on the matter either remain hopelessly vague, or loose themselves in academic abstractions, Hofstede really gets down to it. In parts the book might be a bit dated, but imho Hofstede's cultural dimensions are still essential in understanding cultural diversity.

In our globalized world, this book should be required reading.

[Doug · Rating 5 out of 5]

Title may sound dry, but if you, like me, find cultural differences fascinating/annoying you really must read this book, or something similar. If you have an interest in international business or politics, you really should take advantage of this field of study. I found Geert Hofstede while trying to research the cultural challenges of the NATO (American) effort in Afghanistan. This is a non-judgmental recognition of how different cultures provide for the psychological needs of human nature. It addresses relative differences between culture. The research, originally funded by IBM, is a landmark in cross-cultural comparison and contrast. The graphs and tables provided are very interesting. The samples of questions used to compare/contrast various points of view/values are quite good. If you have a group of multicultural friends and want some interesting discussion, then poor a few beers and make questions from the tables on uncertainty avoidance, or masculinity/femininity descriptors.
I discovered a great deal of food for thought in this book and left feeling a greater understanding, and therefore greater compassion for those who hold different views and values. To understand what it means to be human I think it is good to look at how our cultures provide for our basic needs, and how varied these cultures are.
If you have never encountered a different culture from your own, then there are some quite concrete examples that you should be able to relate to. Should be required reading for all educated folks.

[Cristina · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gives you an insight of the cultural differences of nations and explains why behaviors/values/heroes/symbols have a certain meaning and how they start to evolve from inside the family. It is interesting to have a closer look into the "power distance" or the "avoidance uncertainty" concepts and understand how they reflect on people's mindsets and how they translate into organization's culture.

Still, I do believe the book is too long and that the author could have make it a more compact reading.

As a snapshot, I will let you with what the author says it is part of the book's message, to have a better understanding of his intent/conclusion that I seem to see at correct:

"Cultural programming starts in the environment in which a young child grows up, usually a family of some kind. It continues at school and than at work. Workers' behaviors is an extension of behavior acquired at home and at school. Managers' behavior is an extension of the managers' school and family experiences, as well as a mirror image of the behavior of the managed. Politics and the relationships between citizens are an extension of relationships in the family, school, and at work,and in their turn they affect these other spheres of life."

[Adrena Johnson mcdonald · Rating 2 out of 5]

Trudged Through It

I am currently working on my doctorate in global leadership, and I was hoping that this text would be a great resource for my program. Though the book contains some very good information and some intriguing insights, much of it is a very long recount of the authors' research, along with reasons why their research is so good and others' so lacking. The last few chapters were interesting but filled with so much opinion and culturally-laden "should" and "should not" statements that I sometimes felt as if they were ignoring their own message that norms and values are culturally based. I do believe that the authors have done some good research, but this book did not help me see it in the best light.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well-written and researched book that employs the correct lens with which to view all other lenses, namely the evolutionary perspective! This is a point which I really want to emphasise; the evolutionary perspective isn’t ‘just another perspective’! To believe that would be to fall prey to the mean green meme’s propaganda and do away with all notions of hierarchy altogether. No. The evolutionary perspective is the apex with which we should view all life-related phenomena, at least if we don’t want to end up with the ivory archipelago, a situation where each separate subject proposes theories and analyses data that have no coherent, overarching implications for other subjects at all, meaning that they could be uttering the most complete nonsense without being corrected by other views. It’s an important point to raise.

In any case, on with the summary/review.

Human nature is that inherited suite of genetic mechanisms which shape all of humanity, regardless of particular context. (Read Brown.) Culture is the learned ways of behaving that we acquire from our specific groups. And personality refers to those personal sets of mental programs that are partially acquired and partially learned. All categories overlap; it’s not possible to neatly delineate one from the other. The book deals specifically with cultures.

Cultures manifest themselves at different levels of depth, depicted in the form of concentric circles. Starting from the most superficial, SYMBOLS are words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a particular meaning that is recognise as such only by those who share the culture. HEROES are persons, alive or dead, real or fictional, who possess characteristics that are highly prized in a culture and thus serve as models for behaviour. RITUALS are collective activities that are technically superfluous to reach desired ends but that, within a culture, are considered socially essential. And lastly VALUES are broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others. (Dirty versus clean, irrational versus rational, etc.) The first three are visible manifestations of cultures whereas the last one isn’t.

We need to understand the purpose of all of the behaviours instantiated by our cultures, which all tend towards the maintenance (and eventual enlargement) of the moral circle, or the group of people to whom we owe our allegiance. Ever wonder why the topics of religion and politics form such explosive dinner table conversation pieces? It’s because they serve to delineate the in-group from the out-group, such that conversations about them can easily be high-jacked by violent emotional outbursts. Now since we associate with various groups that overlap and comingle and fluididate and dance around in this hypermodern metropolis that we’ve created for ourselves, we need to learn how to navigate this unending complexity.

In order to do that, we need to understand the 6 DIMENSIONS along which all cultures are said to vary. These are:

POWER DISTANCE: The extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In small-power-distance countries there is a preference for consultation between bosses and subordinates and the emotional distance is small, so the latter can easily contradict the former. And vice versa. (This can be partially tacked on to the left/right debate)

INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM: Individualism describes societies where the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself and his immediate family. Collectivism describes societies in which people from birth are integrated into strong, cohesive in groups which protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. (This very distinction is what Murray was lamenting in his latest book which I read two days ago; we’re WEIRD and we’re blind to that fact.)

MASCULINITY/FEMININITY: A society is masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct; men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A feminine society is where emotional gender roles over lap, where both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE: The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures shun ambiguous situations and tend to look for structure in their organisations, institutions, and relationships which make events clearly interpretable and predictable.

LONG-TERM/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION: LTO stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. STO stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of face, and fulfilling social obligations.

INDULGENCE/RESTRAINT: Indulgence stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratifications of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun, whereas restraint reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regularised by strict social norms.

I might have slightly skipped the organisational parts of the book, and headed straight for the evolutionary part. The authors mention 5 simple facts about evolution, namely that it’s unavoidable, backward-looking, path-dependent, multidimensional (not purely genetic!) and evolves to become faster, faster. And I’ll include a quote that I love:

“Although it is not always perceived as such, any study of human behavior, any discipline of the social sciences and humanities, is involved in looking at an aspect of behavioral or symbolic evolution. The scope of these disciplines varies from the individual to the small group to the society to international affairs. To further complicate matters, time scales of most of these disciplines are in the order of years at most, or they might even be ahistorical. As a result, they do not usually link to human evolutionary history. This specialization has created a scattered landscape of disciplines that misunderstand or neglect one another and that have limited predictive value in real social life.”

So, this book is well-researched and employs the correct evolutionary lens with which to view society; why didn’t I give it 5 stars? Simply because the authors present the information and leave it at that; they don’t mention any grand theory about the nature of the universe; apparently that’s just for the Continental French and the Germans to speculate about, the analytic empiricists content themselves with data. If there’s a dichotomy between masculine and feminine, is one desirable over the other? Is that even a coherent question? Do people pick and choose according to whatever preferences they happen to have? The reader needs answers dammit! Incidentally, I believe that there are answers to all these questions and they’re found in a little book written by Iain McGilchrist.

[Angelo John Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a lot of books about cultural differences or diversity, but Hofstede's masterwork is just on a different order than the rest. It is a research-based examination of national and organizational cultural differences across a number of domains, such as power distance differences, attitudes towards individualism and collectivism, gender cultures and several others. He then goes on to discuss implications of this research to intercultural and interorganizational encounters.

This is a must read for anyone who the hidden programs -- Hofstede calls these the "software of the mind" -- that govern the behavior of cultures.

[Liam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Regurgitated Weberian sociology but as a text of its descriptors, with this one more ‘facts-adapted-to-suit-theory’, albeit one of an Anglo/Protestant (Calvinist/Lutheran) variety, very imperialist/colonialist mindset (but dislikes ‘Scandinavian culture’), since after all the ‘transition to a market economy’ after formal independence of the ‘developing world’ was a necessity if powerful money rather than outright seizure of assets and plunder were sanctioned rules of habit. But I understand studies like this were made to moralize the late-last centuries wealth extraction of poorer ‘developing’ countries (one could list the infamous activities that the sponsor and ‘exemplar’ IBM has been involved in); really some of the least ‘objective’ ‘uncertainty-avoidant’ feel-good schemes for a (dumb or cynical section) of the managerial/landlord (of both houses and land tracts) class.

This also reminds the future anterior audience that the (precursors) of what we call ‘neoliberalism’, which in the 70s/80’s believed the rhetoric of ‘civilizing’ values by creating the new slave wage-substratum (where many would not even reach the ‘middle income trap’, and ‘hey if they’re not penniless at least they’re not technically poor since they make more than the $1.90 poverty line!’), while the ideological positioning here is more the neo-conservative variant direction or right liberal; whom one could be mistaken for thinking decades ago used to at least admit the grossly unequal early ‘venture capitalism’ as you could call it, sometimes privately, the line drawn from the first joint imperial stock companies of empire [maybe much less common then?] whereas today accompanies the liberals by ignoring the question whereas the right harangue with ‘anti-national’ charges, while a (from what they say substantial enough) section of the left and even socialist left took up the right’s discourse, are loath to recall or discuss the after-effects of ‘new’ colonialism, more a reversion to imperial now world spheres after the congress of Vienna, and would label this even elementary as ‘PC’ or ‘not our concern’ or whatever tropes one expects to find as a displacement (and from what larger issues?). So much for the internationalist Western left, its as if they only cared for egalitarianism in legal/nominal terms only (more now of ‘class character’ without the specific persons involved who in diversity worldwide are the usually unacknowledged carriers of any revolution before or to come, not of) one under the rule of the usually Western imperial centres?

We find of course the elements product by ‘universal’ marketing, the precedent techno-utopia of the late 90’s/early 00’s, extending brand appeal until ‘08 shock with a second/third military-grade detachment of commercial infiltration: culture and politics particularly, overlapping with a few years ago (hence a major push for a ‘new’ techne to perpetuate the illusion that one trades financial security or lifting out of the working poor/destitute for the new goods, with accompanying major wealth profit extraction, stock buybacks that quicken the maturation cycle etc, little spending on R&D when unprofitable). So the text (looking from today) is a paean for a lost age since there are new models and excuses for the existing order. Wryly enough it can be observed this initiatory process of ‘transition to independence’, for others the ‘transition to democracy’ initiated benefits by and large for the rich nations/citizenry by the exploitation of resources, where the media apparatus is absent or sardonic to ‘developing’ resistance elsewhere than the ‘home’ countries, all while extending delinking capital-labour flows, with a practice of population control that will sharply exacerbate with further climate onset); a base-layer ‘safety’ without prosperity not existent for those outside wealthy capitalist metropoles, cities or ‘select’ populations/ethnicities, entrenched by comprehensive protectionism in legal/commercial areas; the return of ‘great power’ competition & spheres of influence becoming accepted by these same scholars.

Also nonsense such as, primarily of the second portion of ‘‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 was based on individualist Western values that were and are not shared by the political leaders nor by the populations of the collectivist majority of the world population’’(415) notwithstanding the insultingly simplistic binary these ‘developing nations’ who were indebted/exploited for their low wages with speculative profits not reinvested because of the paucity of ‘human rights’ would like them and remunerative working conditions if you asked them, which is acknowledged just after but which questions why the former was posited ''Without losing the benefits of the present declaration, which in an imperfect way presents at least a norm used to appeal against gross violations, the international community should revise the declaration to include, for example, the rights of groups and minorities. On the basis of such a revised declaration, victims of political and religious fundamentalisms can be protected; this protection should prevail over national sovereignty'', followed by the acknowledgement of historical record ''The nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century was the age of Europe; Europeans and their offspring overseas were the “lords of humankind,” who colonized most of the outside world while wealth owed from outside to inside'' but cannot seem to see the continuation of the practice so resort to vulgar opinion ''freedom from want became recognized as a fundamental human right, and around 1950 programs of development aid were gradually started, financed by the rich countries and with the poor ones as receivers. Between 1950 and 2000 the equivalent of more than a trillion U.S. dollars of public money from the rich countries was spent on the development of the poor ones'' where this ‘development’ was often the privatization of natural resources in conjunction with governmental capture, the wealthy often Western countries happy with bribery/corruption and hollowing out the rights of workers and rendering legal provisions unenforceable. This financed (still does) and maintains of the lifestyles of ‘home’ citizens and increases investitures of their pension funds.

This selection of the quote ''development assistance money is allocated according to the (psychological) needs of the donor countries more than according to the material needs of the receivers'' then denies the real material benefits wealthier countries obtain(ed) with said low-wage workforce, subcontracted labour & industrial capacity, environmental extraction and little concern for its standards, and offers the ‘enlightened rule’ trope as a new ‘white man’s burden’, the ‘rational with a touch of sentimentalism’ for the ‘benighted natives’, masking in reality brutalizing material gain/naked self interest as the actual pretext. This is followed by the statement ''looking back to half a century of development assistance, most observers agree [who?] that the effectiveness of much of the spending has been dismal. A number of countries did cross the line from poor to rich, especially in East Asia, but this progress was due to their populations’ own values and efforts, not to the amount of aid money received'' ignores where the manufacturing capabilities are located, wealth influx also of China from the fact of their nationalized ‘state-private’ resources not immediately stolen by tax havens and the points already made. Then the ‘enlightened rule’ trope again: ''the development of poor countries is an uphill struggle because population growth often swallows any increase in resources'' that again is not strictly true when China/East Asia is a positive case nor does the author have the authority to impose population reductions in a colonial fashion.

The frenetic whipsawing text of colonial policy followed by frank admission that isn’t reflected upon policy is (again) here: ''Many development agencies have grown out of the foreign service, the main objective of which is the promotion of the donor country’s interests abroad. Diplomats lack both the skills and the organizational culture to act as successful entrepreneurs for development consulting activities. Development aid money often has political strings attached to it: it has to be spent in a way that satisfies the values, if not the interests, of the donor country citizens and politicians, whether or not such values are shared by citizens and politicians at the receiving end. Projects funded by international agencies such as the World Bank in theory do not have this constraint, but they have to satisfy the agency’s objectives, which often also conflict with the receivers’ objectives.4 The institutional problem at the receiving end is the most serious for countries in which traditional institutional frameworks did not survive colonization and decolonization. Most of these lie in sub-Saharan Africa. Even when local wars do not destroy the products of peaceful development, forces in society make development difficult to attain. Without institutional traditions, personal interests can prevail unchecked. Politicians are out to enrich themselves and their families without being controlled by traditional norms. Institutions cannot be created from scratch: they are living arrangements, rooted in values and history, which have to grow. The economic success of certain countries of East Asia owes much to the fact that centuries-old institutional frameworks existed that were adapted to modern times''(417). That ‘institutions’ are invoked with poorly anthropology/ethnology and wide claims unrelated to empirical findings or those that are being presented and which the author has no remit for (‘‘companies are replicators’’(468), ‘‘[polities are replicators at the moral circle level’’), are an attempt at moralizing or ‘explaining away’ the comprehensive inequalities that plague and cut across every society and social strata. It ends with ‘‘in recent millennia, evolution has pressed toward enlargement of the moral circle, but we are not done yet. We have no choice but to pursue the direction of expansion of the moral circle to all people in the world’’(477), a social darwinist end and arbitrary eschatology, moralizing in a menacing manner where the ‘‘moral circle’’ could mean helping the afflicted and exploited persons affected, while likely ‘overlooked’ in favour for the opposing ‘side’, that of imperial re-entrenchment. Cui bono?

[Joost Nixon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a foundational study on how national culture impacts behavior, perceptions, and norms. In this area of study, it's a classic. A must-read.

Just a heads up: the book spends a great deal of space simply describing their methodology in gathering and interpreting data. Expect long stretches of this, with lots of jargon, and a maddening tendency of theirs to expect readers to memorize the acronyms they use for various cultural indicators. For example, the UAI refers to "uncertainty avoidance," while PDI refers to "power distance." Both crucial concepts. They tell you once what the acronyms stand for, and then not again for hundreds of pages.

But considering the riches in this book, it is a small price to pay.

The last chapter, applying the theory of evolution, adopted a change in tone. The book became weirdly preachy, and a bit repetitive. I didn't gain much from chapter 12, but clearly it was important to the authors.

[Allan Leung · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to look into this a bit further after seeing it referenced in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers since I found the explanation for Korean Air super interesting, but also because I wanted to make better sense of my mixed experience of growing up as an Asian Australian in a traditional Chinese household within a broader Western society using Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions.

This book did not provide the answer, its very theoretical and like all textbooks very difficult to keep interested in reading on. I just gave up and looked for summaries online.
The research and in particular it's applications however are quite interesting.
I have a better perspective of countries through these five lenses and they'll definitely come in handy if I ever decide to work overseas.

[Luke Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read 6 of the 12 chapters, because this is a book for my Cultural Anthropology class. I think I would only read it for references, because it’s more of textbook than anything. However, the book itself hold much valuable information that I believe can be applied in any field of study.

[Joao Azevedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

In times of globalization, understanding and accepting cultural diversity and appreciating other people's views about life and how human beings should relate to one another is increasingly important. In the late sixties, Dr. Geert Hofstede became interested in the cultural differences between countries and has researched this subject since then. This book presents his work for the general reader. It is not an easy book, but the interested reader will be able to fully understand the ideas; reading an article about factor analysis in an encyclopedia may help to grasp how the data was interpreted. The book itself does not use any mathematical approach; those who want to check the numbers should refer to another of Dr. Hodstede's books, named "Culture's Consequences" (1980). In summary, Dr. Hofstede has developed a model that tries to explain the cultural differences between countries and organizations; this model has been refined and improved over decades. Based on statistical analysis of a large body of data, he suggests that culture may be understood according to six principal components: "power distance", "individualism x collectivism", "masculinity x femininity", "avoidance of uncertainty", "long-term orientation" and "indulgence x restraint". Each concept is carefully defined and the evaluation method is explained. A discussion of what to expect from the relative strength of each dimension is presented; in other words, the factors are, to some extent, predictors of the dominant values and behaviors, both individual and institutional, of a society. I was truly amazed by the accuracy of these predictions, at least for the few countries I have lived and worked in. I recommend this book to everyone, specially for those who deal often with people from other countries and cultures.

[Willis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This took a long time for me to get through because it is packed with information. It is a fascinating study into "culture" and what that word really means. There is a large discussion of different elements that distinguish different cultures based on survey data. They show how countries differ from each other in terms of these elements, which I thought was quite interesting, to think about how someone from Japan or China might have a different idea of how to approach a particular situation compared to my American ideas of culture. There's a lot of detail and statistical analysis of all of this survey data to explain the differences. I think this could have been more concisely explained. The last part of the book talks about the implications of these differences in culture and what it means in terms of business relations and governmental policies towards other countries that have different cultures. It concludes with a discussion of how culture evolves over time, which at times seemed to turn more into a rant against overpopulation of the earth and religious dogmas.

The topic is absolutely fascinating and one not covered much elsewhere so I really enjoyed the 500 pages or so of the book, but it just took me a long time to get through it because of the organization of the book and the more academic style of writing.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a pretty interesting comparative perspective on culture (organizational and otherwise). It's easy to forget sometimes how the culture we're born into can influence our perspective, often in ways we're completely unaware of. And if one finds oneself engaged in pastimes such as...oh, I don't know...nation-building, it bears remembering that even something as Perfect and Flawless as American democracy can be difficult, if not downright impossible, to export to a nation or region that has a completely different set of values. Just sayin'.

My biggest critique of this book is the chapter on "masculine" vs. "feminine" cultures. Besides relying a little too heavily on dated gender stereotypes (which is always sure to raise my ire), the author seemed to use such descriptions inconsistently. We're first told that "masculine" refers to cultures with traditionally defined and separated gender roles, whereas in "feminine" cultures, men and women undertake similar roles. Yet later, "masculine" is referred to cultures that display stereotypically male traits, such as aggressiveness, whereas "feminine" cultures like to "build consensus" and "work together." It's a little confusing and misleading, I think.

Otherwise, a decent read.

[Margo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Something I would probably never read if I didn’t have to. I picked it up from the university’s library as I needed to refer to the original source for my dissertation and by the time I got to that specific part I needed, I decided I might as well finish it. Some parts I found extremely boring, but most of it was interesting. Although some of the research might be considered outdated, it is still one of the biggest studies done in this field. I might have enjoyed the “culture” part of it more than the “organisational setting” one and I don’t think it’s something I’d recommend reading if you didn’t have a personal interest in it, but if you do - have a go. It’s written in a simple language and broken down into very understandable bits so even someone without much previous knowledge (like me) can have a pleasant read.

[Catherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book offers and synthesis of Geert Hofstede's scientific model of intercultural differences. It presents the details of the 5 factors differentiating cultural values (and much more).

It is a 'short' version (560 pages) of his work, easy to read and meant for non-academics. The long and detailed version of his academic work is found in his other book "Culture consequences".

It is important to buy the last edition. Compared to the previous edition, the last edition to this date (2010) brings significant changes to the 5th factor due to new research.

I am very interested in cross-cultural differences at various levels, in organizations but also in families and education. This work is fundamental in this field of research.

[Mad Hab · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book.

There are a lot definitions of what culture and what values are. Most of them are in the form of romantic poetry, personal experience and feelings. What Hofstedes actually did, they quantified value systems, gave them names, dimensions and showed how values for different cultures differ ( or cultures for different cultures differ, which way you like :)). However the most important stuff to take from the book is the fact that even Western countries differ a lot. This is especially important for citizens of developing world, where we all believe in one, monolithic culture of the whole western society.

Although the book is based on pretty good statistical analysis, the book does not talk about it much. So it will be interesting for all i guess.

[Franklin Wang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quickly browsed this classic book again. First read it about eight years ago and found it still stimulating. One thing dawned on me this time is that among the six dimensions of culture Hofstede lists: power distance, collectivism & individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation, and indulgence/restraint, U.S. and China are on the opposite side in five. No wonder we would differ in so many important ways.
The only thing that is common for both is masculinity, that both cultures are quite masculine (index, China 66 and U.S. 62, the higher the more masculine). Thus both are more assertive, which means we tend to express our differences than hiding them, and we intend to achieve what we think is right.
One quick conclusion: there will be a lot of frictions.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is interesting, but the author tends to essentialize and naturalize cultural and national identity, ignoring the fact that there are usually more differences within groups than there are between them. Statistically speaking, it is easy to find even tiny ggregate differences between groups if the sample size is large enough; unfortunately these (usually small) statistically significant differences are translated into the media and popular culture as binary oppositions (i.e., Asians are collectivistic while Americans are individualistic) and can subsequently congeal into misleading and potentially dangerous stereotypes.

[Diz · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to understand how cultures differ from each other, then this is a great book to read. While it does get deep into research methodology (a bit boring, but necessary), it also offers a lot of practical advice. This book also provides a lot of charts and lists with main points, so it is easy to find relevant information quickly. The bottom line is that cultural values were set deep in the past, but that they are continually evolving in response to events and experiences. If you work or teach in an intercultural setting, this book is a must-read.

[Willa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book giving a lucid exposition of Hofstede's attempts at cultural quantification. Also notably it argues for observing different moralities arising from different cultural experiences, yet also contains arguments in favor of the authors' moral particularities. To be fair, this is lampshaded implicitly when calling for world citizens to learn about others' values while remaining rooted in their own.

[Aksay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise and detailed insights of how societies breathe in & out through its cultural lungs , to each and every scrutinised aspects of its daily functioning- stereotyping, barriers to languages,semantics etc. But , albeit being a great socio-litterary, it is quite long to discuss on visible cultural differences. But amazing Hofstede, he got it right to be the most cited European sociologist in today's sociology.

[Ven · Rating 5 out of 5]

One if my favorite book that explain so much to me.. It is like fundamentals that everyone should learn. For business, for tourists, for people who want to understand more about country's culture. Still, i miss more data, especially about young peoples, subcultures.. Mr. Hofstede could extend his research.

[Sam Cantele · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps one of the best books I read about intercultural relations and business. Interesting is Hofstede's cultural framework outlined in the book. There a myriad of cultures in the world and the higher is their cultural asymmetry, made up of common features, the best they bond accordingly. More information I extrapolated for my dissertation's writing.

[Elvin P. Aliyev · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first of its kind, this book is based on years of research Hofstede conducted on determining the national and organizational cultures. Must read for leaders working in a diverse global organizations.

[Jason Lyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for anyone working in international relations. Rather that be business or NGO work. Hofstede gives tools to connect cultures and allow us to see our own ethnocentricity at work.

[Awin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book taught me a lot, Hofstede's model can be used on so many basis to classify the different cultures and seek understanding them. However, it's object to criticisms in some of its dimensions..

[Rosario · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important book if you want to understand about cultural differences among culture.

[Mayo · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a second generation Nikkei Canadian, and a long term ex-pat, cultural influences and regional idiosyncrasies have fascinated me ever since I could remember. The data-based insights and the dimensions these researchers identified could potentially change the way the reader thinks of why societies react and behave the way they do - it certainly is the case for me.
As an aside, I happen to have personal ties to the company first involved in the sociological research regarding cultural values, but that's incidental to how interesting I found the insights. The points made especially about short term vs. long term orientation and the power distance factors ring true about how companies are led and run, and the differences brought about by whether the terrain and climate lent itself to settled agriculture or hunting/gathering - and how firmly entrenched the mindsets continue to be despite the globalization of food supplies - was also thought provoking. There was even mention of pandemics being an equilibrium mechanism when over-population and drastic environmental changes reach some critical point, which was a timely point given the COVID-19 pandemic.
Anyone interested in examining how collectives of people are encouraged to behave based on fundamental values should, even if they find gaps in the research methodology or anecdotally see many outliers day to day in cultural generalizations posited via this data, try reading this book.

[Ana-Maria Bujor · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an older book that still holds up quite well today. I like that it tackled some of our perceptions of the world: my culture is the default, my way is the way to do things and the others are just weird. It shows how not being culturally aware is a recipe for disaster in business and other domains, how values shape us and the companies we work for, and how intercultural communication is very, very hard to pull off.
I especially liked the parts that show biases in studies and manuals themselves, as they are made by people who live in a culture. We take Adam Smith's writings for granted as an example, but for other cultures they make no sense.
A big part of the book is rather technical and shows how some dimensions were studied. It is very relevant for understanding the data and what it all means. But it's not always very exciting to read. It does make you think though, which is all that matters.