The big five personality is the most widely respected personality construct in social science. Hofstede clearly points to that and to individual variation. Just because he points to measures of central tendency regarding issues for the nation at large doesn't mean he is saying any specific person, family (in he specifically points to variation in family cultures,) or organization has to behave a certain way. McSweeney misunderstands what ecological and reverse ecological fallacies.
He had his IBM dimensions translated and back translated. They were originally based on organizational behavior/psychology surveys. They were not based on cultural stereotypes. He is explicit about the scholarly history the theories he uses. He operationalized his constructs so that they could be correlated, compared, replicated etc. He followed standard quantitative methods allowing his theories to be empirically falsifiable (if false,) but it hasn't happened.
McSweeney who criticized Hofstede's ""method"" without showing he had any idea how to do a proper factor analysis (of any type), hierarchical cluster analysis, even stepwise regressions for goodness sake Some of Hofstede's correlations were significant to the .001 level!!!!!!
Didnt watch this video but just needed to rant somewhere. I was disappointed by their findings on South Africa, how they even got to base their findings on the minority in the country and disregarded a whole African race is beyond me, I cannot understand how they would say the results are for South African when they only focused on white South Africans. Had it not been for this incident, I would've gladly accepted his theory
And if McSweeney was really serious he wouldn't claim that Hofstede is saying culture is completely deterministic. Hofstede pointed that the environment and personality etc. have their own effects....and that all of these are just constructs that only have effects to the degree they are isometric with reality. Factor analyses have been used for all kinds of major dimensional constructs. He wasn't being radical at all. Even schwartz was using multidimensional scaling. And Geertz...
McSweeney and Trompenaars both have a Finance background, no a social science background, but at least Trompenaars has had enough multicultural experiencea basic idea what he's talking about even if he did take almost all his dimen to have sions directly from Parsons and Shills/Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck.
McSweeney? The guy who pointed out that there are regional cultures within a country after Hofstede did his iIMEDE research showing that people in Switzerland followed the values of those in the neighboring countries..French more similar to French...Germans more similar to Germans... McSweeney that says culture is always changing...when hofstede pointed to his correlations with McClellands 1925 work, Schwartz, Ingelhart...conceptual links with Inkeles parsons and Shills? Mcsween
And he published in Journal after journal and received validation after validation. He adopted Monkov's dimensions that used the even more massive and representative as well as far more current World Values Survey.
