The danger with cultural comparison is the resort to stereotypes, assuming all members of a group share exactly the same attitudes and beliefs to the same detail and extent. Hofstedian analysis makes for entertaining armchair discussion but offers a poor basis for personal judgement. The quantification of such measures is also inherently problematic as the dimensions of culture are not objectively determined, measurable nor commensurate with each other even if they can be agreed on.
Culture is thought of as a collective concept where a group of people share distinctive values, symbols and norms. Geert Hofstede (
link) has made a science out of comparisons that aggregate stereotypes of culture as national (country level) properties. Simply put, he positions culture as a set of properties, that collectively constitute a typical national character and typical behaviour.
How tenable are a quantified measures of: power distance, individualism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation? In what ways is it valid to aggregate measures of PDI, IDV, MFM, UNA, and LTO at the level of the nation state? For example how can reported measures of IDV=20 and LTO=0 for Albania be justified? (
link).
What is the basis for comparing (data obtained how? public perception, individual self-reporting?) results from one country with another? If Hofstedian cross-cultural comparison is taken as an authoritative framework for informing action with people from other cultures, what are the consequences? For example: as an Australian who has lived in Ireland for 20 years, Japan for 1, and the UK for 2; how should I modify my behaviour towards a Bulgarian who has lived in Sweden for 4 years, and Ireland for 6 years? What if I manage a team of software engineers from (variously) Bulgaria, India, Pakistan, England, Scotland, Ireland, Mongolia, USA, and Ireland?
