has investigated national cultural diversity. The GLOBE project has involved 160
researchers who have collected data over seven years from 18 , 000 middle managers
in sixty-two countries (House et al. 2004 ). These managers were compared on nine
cultural dimensions: performance orientation, future orientation, assertiveness,
uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, family collectiv-
ism, gender egalitarianism, and humane orientation. Adopting an approach some-
what similar to Hofstede’s research, and based in theory, House and colleagues
sought to provide a comprehensive view of the cultural practices of diVerent
countries. The national cultural characteristics identiWed in the GLOBE research
have implications for many areas, such as communication preferences and man-
agement style (Javidan and House 2001 ).
While these landmark cross-cultural studies have made valuable contributions
to our understanding of cultural diversity, several researchers have queried the
emphasis that has been placed on national culture. Nationality is often used in
research as a measure of national cultural diversity. Research has shown that
national culture has an impact on a variety of organizational activities, and
national cultural diversity continues to be an important issue for transnational
Wrms (see Earley and Gibson 2002 ). However, it is recognized that cultural diversity
may be observed not only at national levels but also at regional or intranational
levels. Husted ( 2003 : 428 ) points out that national cultures ‘usually represent the
values and practices of the dominant groups in society, and not of the marginal-
ized.’ Also, Leung et al. ( 2005 ) point out that it is important to be aware of the perils
of attribution errors with regard to cultural diversity. As Leung et al. ( 2001 ) note,
such errors can lead to misunderstandings and problems in the workplace, when
applied in areas such as HR practices.
Hofstede’s model has been widely applied in international management but
substantial debate surrounds the work and several theoretical and methodological
criticisms have been directed at it (e.g. Chiang 2005 ). On theoretical terms, major
criticisms of Hofstede’s work focus on his conceptualization of culture and labeling
of the dimensions. On methodological grounds, major concerns include the
generalizability of Hofstede’sWndings and criticisms of his method of data collec-
tion. Gerhart and Fang’s ( 2005 : 973 ) reanalysis of Hofstede’s research raises this
criticism to a new level by questioning the dominant role of national culture in
international management:
While we are certain that national culture diVerences can be critical and that insensitivity to
national culture diVerences can and does result in business failure (as well as failure and
career consequences for individual managers), one can still ask whether national culture,
deWned in terms of values, isthisimportant and whether its eVects arethispervasive and
systematic.
512 h e l e n d e c i e r i