第一代写网代写留学生民族文化管理论文，本文提出亚洲管理研究需要更多的自信的反思霍夫斯泰德和超越文化观念，霍夫斯泰德的文化范式刺激学术兴趣价值和行为变化跨越国界，并帮助医生捕获的民族文化定型观念在具体和可衡量的术语。COMMENTARIES
Asian management research needs more self-confidence:Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
Tony Fang
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Hofstede’s cross-cultural paradigm has stimulated academic interest invalue and behavioral variations across national borders and helped practitioners tocapture national cultural stereotypes in concrete and measurable terms. Nevertheless,the Hofstede paradigm with its focus on cultural differences can hardly capturetoday’s new cross-cultural management environment characterized by change andparadox in borderless and wireless cultural learning, knowledge transfer, andsynchronized information sharing. In the twenty-first century, management faces
new challenges because people in the twenty-first century are increasingly no longerbipolarized and isolated creatures but of multicultural identities and multiculturalminds. Asian management researchers need to learn from the West but at the sametime need to have self-confidence and courage in using indigenous knowledge tomake contributions to theory building with global relevance.
Keywords Asian management . Hofstede . National culture . Onion . Ocean .
Change . Paradox . Multicultural . Yin YangGeert Hofstede is one of the most cited names in the Social Sciences Citation Index(SSCI). His work on culture (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 2001a) is so far the most
influential work in the field of cross-cultural management. Hofstede has created adominating “paradigm” (Hofstede, 2001a: 73, 2001b: 15, 2002: 1355) with which ageneration of academics and practitioners in international management has been
indoctrinated.
Hofstede is unique and his impact has been “spiritual.” Although some laterstudies may be more scientific in character (Schwartz, 1992) and may have
Asia Pac J ManagDOI 10.1007/s10490-009-9134-7
I would like to thank Klaus E. Meyer for allowing me to borrow the title of his APJM article “Asianmanagement research needs more self-confidence” as the main title for this paper. Special thanks go to
Mike Peng (Editor-in-Chief) and Klaus E. Meyer for their comments on earlier versions of the paper.
T. Fang (*)
Stockholm University School of Business, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: URL: investigated more societies and mobilized probably more resources (House, Hanges,
代写留学生论文Javidan, & Dorfman, 2004) than Hofstede’s research, their overall impact in bothacademia and the business world cannot be compared with Hofstede’s. Hofstede’smasterful capacity to elaborate the complex phenomenon of culture in simple andmeasurable terms explains his enormous popularity.Hofstede (2001a: 466) maintains that his research “does not present a finishedtheory” and that he encourages us to continue our “exploration” to “serve the understandingof cultural differences and the improvement of intercultural communicationand cooperation, which the world will increasingly and forever need.” Theseencouraging comments should be taken as an /impetus for us to catch up and move on.
In this paper, I give my reflection on Hofstede’s (2007) article in APJM’s 25thanniversary issue, “Asian management in the 21st century,” and his overall paradigm(hereinafter referred to as the Hofstede paradigm) in general. I argue that there is aneed to move beyond the Hofstede paradigm if today’s borderless and wirelesscross-cultural management has a chance to be understood and theorized. I discussYin Yang and its implications for understanding cultural dynamics in the age ofglobalization. I emphasize that Asian management researchers need to learn from the
West but at the same time need to have self-confidence and courage in usingindigenous knowledge to make contributions to theory building with global relevance.
The Hofstede paradigm1
Hofstede’s (2007: 411) article aimarticle aims to explore “general characteristics of Asian
management as opposed to management elsewhere, and what the study of Asian
management and its cultural origins mean for the emerging Asian multinationals and
for the state of the art in management research worldwide in the twenty-first
century.” The article discusses three major themes: (1) The continuity of
management problems over time; (2) Differences in management problems across
countries; and (3) What is Asian management? Hofstede (2007) is consistent with
his earlier writings about culture and it provides a nutshell of the Hofstede paradigm
which is based on at least six assumptions.
First, the complex phenomenon of culture can be tackled through simplification
and stereotyping. Second, nation-state or nationality is adopted as the basic unit of
analysis. Third, cultural difference is the focus. Culture and management skills are
viewed as country-specific phenomena. In the words of Hofstede:
The nature of management skills is such that they are culturally specific: a
management technique or philosophy that is appropriate in one national culture
is not necessarily appropriate in another (2007: 413). Different societies in the
world have different histories and they maintain different values: there is no one
universal human values system (2007: 415).
Moreover, cultural differences, cultural clashes, and cultural collisions are seen
essentially as a problem. This view of culture has had a crucial influence on many
1 “The Hofstede paradigm” refers, in a broad sense, to not only Hofstede’s work but all other closelyrelated
research streams in the bipolar tradition of studying culture.
T. Fang
intercultural consultants’ practical advice which is focused on the negative
consequences of cultural collisions (e.g., titles such as “When cultures collide,”
etc.).
Hofstede’s fourth assumption is that cultures can be analyzed in terms of four or
five cultural dimensions along which each national culture is given a fixed indexing.
Hofstede (1991: 50; original italics) uses bipolarized terms to categorize culture and
society, for example:
The vast majority of people in our world live in societies in which the interest
of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. I will call these
societies collectivist… A minority of people in our world live in societies in
which the interests of the individual prevail over the interests of the group,
societies which I will call individualist.
Asian cultures are categorized as collectivist cultures. “Asian countries all scored
below average on individualism—that is, they scored collectivist—with China,
Indonesia, Korea, and Pakistan relatively more and India, Japan, Iran, and the Arab
countries relatively less collectivist” (Hofstede, 2007: 417).
Fifth, Hofstede emphasizes that value determines and prevails over behavior, not
the other way around. Sixth and finally, culture is stable over time because values are
difficult to change over time. In the words of Hofstede:
Cultural values differ among societies, but within a society they are remarkably
stable over time (2007: 413)… Cultures, especially national cultures, are
extremely stable over time… Differences between national cultures at the end
of the last century were already recognizable in the years 1900, 1800, and 1700,
if not earlier. There is no reason they should not remain recognizable until at
least 2100 (2001a: 34, 36). Contrary to popular opinion, the crucial elements of
the management process show strong continuity over time, but differ from one
country to another, as a function of the local culture (2007: 411).
Hofstede keeps adding more countries to his country dimension index (Hofstede,
1980, 1991, 2001a; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), although his original data were
collected “around 1968 and around 1972” (Hofstede, 1980: 11). The underlying
assumption is that culture remains unchanged over time and data collected in the
1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and even from tomorrow can serve as the same base for
cross-cultural comparison. In Hofstede (2007: 416), data collected from different
countries at different points such as China (1999), India (1999), Denmark (2004),
and the United States (1999) are directly compared with each other, which is in line
with the cultural stability thinking throughout the Hofstede paradigm.
Hofstede compares culture to “onion” (Figure 1), which manifests in terms of
symbols, heroes, rituals, and values. While the outer layers (symbols, heroes, rituals)
of the “onion” come and go, the core (values) of the “onion” stays firm. In
Hofstede’s visual presentation, the core of the “onion” is depicted in the way that it
looks not only large in size but it cannot be cut through or penetrated. In other
words, values shape symbols, heroes, and rituals; symbols, heroes, and rituals
(behavioral elements or hardware of culture) may change, but values (the software of
culture) will not.
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
The strength of the Hofstede paradigm lies in its clarity and consistency in
identifying cultural differences and juxtaposing one culture against another along
cultural dimensions to facilitate cross-cultural comparison. It offers “sophisticated
stereotyping” and “the first best guess” in understanding national culture (Osland &
Bird, 2000). The fact that not only academics but also managers can talk about
culture-related management issues in terms of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions is
indicative of Hofstede’s great influence.
Nevertheless, the Hofstede paradigm has received increasing critiques in recent
years (Fang, 2003, 2005–2006; Holden, 2002; McSweeney, 2002). The paradigm
identifies cultural differences, but offers little insight into the dynamic process of
cross-cultural management characterized by change and paradox in borderless and
wireless cultural learning, knowledge transfer, and synchronized information
sharing. Various new approaches are emerging, such as “negotiated culture”
(Brannen & Salk, 2000), “knowledge transfer” (Holden, 2002), “multiple cultural
identity” (Sackmann & Phillips, 2004), and “cultural dialectics and paradox” (Fang,
2005–2006). There is a growing awareness at the frontier of research community
that a dynamic vision of culture is overdue (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, &
Gibson, 2005). This paper attempts to convey a message that it is time to go beyond
Hofstede and that Asian management researchers can contribute to this enterprise.
Yin Yang and dialectical thinking
Hofstede (2007) seems to be so obsessed with cultural differences and cultural
stability that discussions about “What is Asian management?” and emerging Asian
multinationals in the twenty-first century are centered solely on his advice to adopt
his five-dimensional prefixed indexing to understand national cultural differences in
Source: Hofstede (1991: 9, 2001: 11).
Figure 1 The “onion” metaphor
of culture
T. Fang
management. It is a pity that Hofstede (2007) talks nothing about the emics of Asian
management and how indigenous Asian thought can be used to inspire knowledge
creation in cross-cultural management. Rich in history, philosophy, and tradition,
Asia is undergoing institutional transformation and cultural change in globalization
(Carney, Gedjalovic, & Yang, 2009; Lu, Tsang, & Peng, 2008). Asian philosophies
and changing Asian institutional and cultural contexts can serve as an important
source of inspiration for cross-cultural theory building.
Asian thought and management is fundamentally characterized by “both–and”
dialectical thinking and change mentality (Chen, 2001, 2002; Fang, 2003, 2005–
2006; Nisbett, 2003; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Whereas in the West issues tend
towards classification on a bipolar “either-or” basis, this is seldom the case in Asian
cultures. Although juxtaposing one culture against another may fit neatly with
Western notions of clarity, consistency, and parsimony, it does not reflect the Asian
approach to tolerance of ambiguity, inconsistency, and paradox. In Asia, it is natural
to have both “black” and “white”—the opposites—existing side by side and even
within each other, allowing the situation, context, and time to determine what is
appropriate (Fletcher & Fang, 2006). When asked whether they are feminine or
masculine, whether they are collectivistic or individualistic, and whether they are
reserved or expressive, for example, Asians would often be confused because they
believe they can be both depending on situation, context and time. While Westerners
often find Chinese concepts and practices such as “one country, two systems,”
“socialist market economy” ridiculous, most Chinese feel comfortable as far as the
internal consistency of the constructs is concerned (Faure & Fang, 2008). This Asian
tendency to embrace contradictions is reflected in the philosophy of Yin Yang (see
Figure 2).
Yin Yang is arguably the best-known symbol in East Asia (Cooper, 1990) and its
basic motive is also found on the national flag of South Korea. Yin Yang refers to
the integration of dual cosmic energies called Yin and Yang in any universal
phenomenon. Yin represents female energy (the moon, night, water, weakness,
darkness, mystery, softness, and passivity), whereas Yang stands for male energy
(the sun, day, fire, strength, brightness, clearness, hardness, and activity). Yin Yang
is grounded in Taoism which views paradox and change as a normal state of being.
The Yin Yang image suggests that Yin and Yang coexist in everything and
Figure 2 Yin Yang
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
everything embraces Yin and Yang. There exists neither absolute Yin nor absolute
Yang. There is no straight borderline between black and white; rather, the black (dot)
exists in the white and the white (dot) exists also in the black. Yin Yang suggests that
opposites contain within them the seed of each other and together form a dynamic
and changing unity (Chen, 2001, 2002). Yin and Yang cannot survive without each
other, and they complement each other, depend on each other, exist in each other,
give birth to each other, and succeed each other at different points in time, all in
the process of ceaseless change and transformation. The Yin Yang philosophy
empowers Asians to perceive culture essentially as a dialectical and changing
phenomenon full of paradoxical value and behavioral orientations. This dialectic,
holistic, and changing perspective of culture inspired from Yin Yang differs
philosophically from the static and bipolarized vision of culture advocated by the
Hofstede paradigm.
In the history of Western philosophy, dialectical thinking with change and
contradiction as central concepts permeated through the works of a number of
influential philosophers and thinkers such as Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Karl
Marx (1818–1883). Unfortunately, the dialectical movement represented by Hegel
and Marx was later overwhelmed by positivistic philosophies and functional
paradigms which eventually formed the foundation of modern science (Popper,
1959/2002). The lack of debate on dialectical thinking in management literature
especially in cross-cultural management literature may also be attributed to the fall
of Soviet communism which triggered the total rejection of Marx and his thoughts in
the West.
While paradox is often seen as “absurd and irrational” (Lewis, 2000: 760), it is a
natural way of life. A culture’s strong tendency toward one extreme of a bipolar
dimension (e.g., femininity) does not preclude its opposite (e.g., masculinity)
(Fletcher & Fang, 2006). Drawing on Yin Yang and dialectical thinking and using
“+Vi” and “−Vi” to symbolize paradoxical values, respectively, Fang (2005–2006)
proposes that if there exist “+Vi” in a national culture, there must coexist “−Vi” in
the same culture depending on situation, context, and time. A balanced culture
embraces both Yin and Yang; a balanced culture is both feminine and masculine, both
long-term and short-term, both individualistic and collectivistic, both monochronic
and polychronic, both high-context and low-context, and both expressive and
reserved, depending on situation, context, and time.
Why is karaoke popular in Asia?
Yin Yang and dialectical thinking which is inherent in Asian idiosyncrasy has never
been given importance in any of Hofstede’s writings, including Hofstede (2007). The
Hofstede paradigm rests on linear rationality and the “non-contradiction” principle
which tends to sharpen its clarity only on one side of the coin. For example,
Hofstede (2007: 414) tells selectively the story of Tan Chun, an entrepreneurial
figure from the famous classic Chinese novel The dream of the red chamber to
suggest that “the capitalist privatization” that Tan Chun carried out in the family
garden is in line with Deng Xiaoping’s “privatization in the Chinese villages” and
that “its effects started the present Chinese economic boom.” But why focusing only
T. Fang
on Tan Chun? Why was “the capitalist privatization” not working in Mao’s China
(1949–1976)? The dream of the red chamber is probably the best Chinese novel to
uncover the paradoxical nature of Chinese culture. Tan Chun is just one of more than
400 figures of various personality, character, and sentiment that are described in this
novel. Had a comprehensive analysis of these figures been provided it would have
revealed a far more complex and contradictory picture of Chinese values. The ups
and downs of the Jia family itself may be seen as evidence of the coexistence of
creativity and entrepreneurship on the one hand, and the lack of creativity and
entrepreneurship on the other hand in the same Chinese culture.
Asians are routinely described as collectivistic people in the Hofstede paradigm,
including Hofstede (2007). But from the Yin Yang point of view, Asians would have
had a hard time surviving had they not had chances to think and behave as
individualists. Asian people, like all other peoples, are collectivists in some
situations and contexts but the same people are individualists in some other
situations and contexts. It is enlightening to notice that karaoke is popular in Asia
but hardly popular in the West. At a formal Asian workplace, collectivistic thinking
and actions may be prioritized and individual identities and initiatives may be
dampened and invisible. However, in informal settings such as karaoke bars where
Asian professionals often socialize with each other, an opposite scene is often the
case: Individuals sing whatever they want to sing and show whatever sentiments
they want to show! Karaoke is not a venue for top singers but an informal meeting
place to allow individuals to sing and cry out their individualistic feelings and
thoughts. Karaoke in Asia reflects the culture’s inner psychological craving for
balancing paradoxes. Moreover, communication in formal work settings in China
and Asia may be high-context oriented and reserved (see discussions about China in
Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996). But in karaoke bars, Asian people can be
direct and “wild” just like people from any low-context cultures. A piece of practical
advice: Non-Asian businesspeople who are insensitive to Yin Yang and paradox
inherent in Asian thought and behavior by remaining reserved and indirect in
karaoke bars in Asia would have fewer chances to bring home a lucrative contract.
So in the same spirit of the age-old advice, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,”
the new-age advice for Westerners is: Loosen up. When in Asia, enjoy karaoke as
the Asians do!
The changing symbols, heroes, and rituals in China
Hofstede (2007) sees culture as basically unchanged over time because he places
value at the core of culture and sees value as unchanged over time. In Hofstede’s
visual “onion” presentation (Figure 1), the hard core of the “onion” is unreachable
and impenetrable. In real life, however, onions do not have a hard core; one can
simply keep peeling the onion layer by layer into almost nothing. An important
implication from peeling a real onion bought at any marketplace around the world is
that value—the “core” of the “onion”—can be understood as a relative and changing
construct.
Change and paradox are deep-seated Asian values. Yin and Yang, water and fire,
the moon and the sun, and so forth, are waning and waxing, coming and going,
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
opening and closing, all in the process of ceaseless change and transformation.
During the past three decades, many Asian countries have been undergoing
institutional transformation and economic development. In the case of China, it is
about changes from Mao to Market, from isolation to integration with the rest of the
world, from a backward economy to a rising economic superpower, all taking place
since 1978. Thirty years ago, China had almost zero inbound foreign direct
investment (FDI). Today, China is one of the world’s largest FDI recipients. Nearly
600,000 foreign-invested companies, including more than 400 of Fortune 500
companies, are operating on Chinese soil (Fang, Zhao, & Worm, 2008). Amazingly,
“China now exports in a single day more than it sold abroad during the entire year
of 1978” (Meredith, 2006: 16; original italics).
In today’s China, it is not uncommon that the son or daughter earns a salary ten or
even twenty times higher than what the family father gets. It is often not the family
father but rather a junior member of the family who pays the bill when the family
goes out wining and dining (Faure & Fang, 2008). This new economic reality puts
the traditional Chinese notion of hierarchy and the absolutely supreme authority of
the family father to test. Another example is face. Chinese people are traditionally
described as face-conscious, reserved and indirect in communication (Gao, Ting-
Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996); assertive behavior and individual initiatives are not
encouraged as suggested in the Chinese proverb: “It is the bird ahead of the flight
that gets shot the first.” Today, while face and humility are still relevant values,
Chinese professionals have learned to stand out. Facing competition, one must look
confident and assertive. This is illustrated in a recent highly publicized advertisement
from China Mobile showing the image of a confident Chinese manager speaking to his
mobile phone in front of the entire world with the text displaying “I can!” (Wo neng!)
(Faure & Fang, 2008). China’s economic development and transition to a marketoriented
system lends support to Inglehart and Welzel’s (2005) finding that cultural
change comes hand in hand with economic progresses. The more developed the
economy, the more vigorously the value of self-expression blossoms.
In Mao’s China (1949–1976), Mao and Maoist rhetoric was China’s only idol,
only hero, and only ritual. But in today’s China, symbols, heroes, and rituals are
multiple and diversified. If Chairman Mao “woke up” today he would be surprised
to see how Chinese people are taking Deng Xiaoping’s “capitalist” slogans (e.g., “To
get rich is glorious”) seriously, speaking to Mobile phones and talking about Money,
Market, Mercedes, and MTV probably more fervently than Mao. Chairman Mao
would also be surprised to see (1) crowds of fans of various kinds cheering no longer
for Mao like the Red Guard did in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) but for their
own idols at Chinese airports and other public locations; (2) young Chinese couples
getting married not by singing “The East Is Red” as people did during the Cultural
Revolution but by singing “Mice Loves Rice”2 or any other latest pop songs; and (3)
Western films and TV programs such as Sex and the City and American Idol
simultaneously generating their counterparts in China. The American Idol, for
2 “Mice Loves Rice” (Laoshu ai dami in Chinese) is a Chinese love song well received in China in recent
years.
T. Fang
example, gave birth to the Super Girls contest in China in 2005, the first of its kind
in Chinese history. The theme song for the contest was Xiang Chang Jiu Chang
(Want [to] Sing, Just Sing). The number one hero drawing the largest audiences in
the history of Chinese television was Li Yuchun, a 21-year-old music student from
Sichuan province. Li won the “Super Girl 2005” title by challenging Chinese
traditional values through her boy-looking appearance, unconventional clothing, and
straightforward communication style.
The word “sexy” was completely banned in Mao’s China. A “sexy” attitude was
synonym of “shameless” or “hooligan” behavior and talking about sex in public was
impossible. But today Chinese media and public attitude no longer bans open
discussion about sex, sexuality, and even homosexuality. The term “sexy” is
received increasingly in a neutral and even positive light at least in large cities (Faure
& Fang, 2008). Using the term “comrade” (tongzhi) to address each other was an
integral part of daily rituals characterizing Mao’s China. Today, except for some
clearly defined often politically oriented contexts where the word “comrade” still
refers to (revolutionary) comrade in its original meaning, the term “comrade” means
“homosexuals” (tongxinglian) in Chinese Internet slang and popular conversations
among young Chinese in mainland China.3
Would the changes of symbols, heroes, and rituals in China have any impact on
the changes of Chinese values? The Hofstede paradigm does not encourage this line
of thinking. In Hofstede’s “onion” model of culture, symbols, heroes, and rituals are
not core elements in culture; they are coming and going, emerging and disappearing.
It is core values that determine and prevail over symbols, heroes, and rituals.
However, if we accept that “[v]alues are broad tendencies to prefer certain states of
affairs over other[s]” and that values “are about what is evil and what is good, dirty
and clean, immoral and moral, irrational and rational” (Hofstede, 2007: 413), we
have to be honest to ourselves and we must have guts to admit that what is evil and
what is good in today’s China differs radically from what was evil and what was
good in Mao’s China (1949–1976). Capital, capitalists, market, private ownership,
individualism, self-expression, fashion, knowledge, professionalism, Confucian
tradition, quality college education, academic degrees and even piano and anything
Western were all labeled and condemned as evils in Mao’s Cultural Revolution. But
these concepts, values and lifestyles are among the drivers in China’s New Cultural
Revolution that we are witnessing today.
Bem’s (1970: 54) psychological research reveals that beliefs follow behaviors and
that “one of the most effective ways to ‘change the hearts and minds of men’ is to
change their behavior.”4 The relationship between values (beliefs, norms) on one
side and behaviors and artifacts (symbols, heroes, and rituals) on the other side
should be understood as a dynamic one; both sides can influence and be influenced
by each other. The aforementioned enriched meaning of “comrade” in Chinese
vocabulary comes hand in hand with China’s rapid economic development and with
3 This is similar to the use of the term “comrade” in Taiwan and Hong Kong when referring to
homosexuals.
4 Hofstede (1980, 2001a) made a quick reference to this point without showing true interests in the
implications of Bem’s (1970) finding (beliefs following behaviors) for cross-cultural theory building.
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
the increased openness in China and the multiple value orientations gradually taking
roots in Chinese culture. “Culture and economic development are likely to exert
mutual influence on each other. Value associated with long-term orientation may
have contributed to the economic success of East Asia, but economic development
may also propel important value change in East Asia” (Leung, 2006: 236). The new
idols, new heroes, new symbols and new rituals prevailing in today’s China, such as
“I can!” “Li Yuchun,” “Comrades/homosexuals,” and “Sexy” suggest that there is an
ongoing value change process taking place in Chinese society.
But why were symbols, heroes, and rituals such as “I can!,” “Li Yuchun,”
“Comrades/homosexuals,” and “Sexy” not openly visible in Mao’s China? Why
were capital, capitalists, market, private ownership, individualism, self-expression,
fashion, knowledge, professionalism, Confucian tradition, quality college education,
academic degrees and even piano and anything Western all labeled and condemned
as evils during Mao’s Cultural Revolution? Because they were “suppressed,”
“beaten,” and “jailed” by the then prevailing political ideology and they were not
able to show their faces legitimately on the surface of the ocean of culture but had to
be hibernating on the bottom of the ocean during that period. Yet, their potentials
were not dying but were waiting to be empowered and activated to come up to the
surface of the ocean. China’s transition from Mao to Market illustrates the ups and
downs of the life of Chinese values, which lends support to Rokeach’s (1973)
assertion that no values are time free. Culture has a life of its own full of dynamics
and paradox which cannot be understood without cultural values being placed in
broader political, institutional, economic, and social contexts. The Yin Yang
principle and China’s transformation and cultural change have inspired me to craft
an “ocean” metaphor to understand culture (see Table 1).
Table 1 The “Ocean” metaphor of culture.
Culture can be compared to an ocean. In a given context at a given time, we identify visible values and
behaviors just like we identify visible wave patterns on the surface of the ocean. Nevertheless, the culture
we see at this moment does not represent the totality and the entire life process of that culture. The ocean
embraces not just visible wave patterns on its surface (compared to visible cultural values and behaviors)
but also numerous ebbs and flows underneath of amazing depth (comparable to “hibernating,” unseen and
unknown cultural values and behaviors). Given internal mechanisms (Yin Yang) and external forces (e.g.,
globalization, institutional, economic, technological, situational factors), invisible and “unconscious”
values and behaviors (ebbs and flows) beneath the water surface can be stimulated, powered, activated,
promoted, and legitimized to come up to the ocean’s surface to become the visible and guiding value
patterns at the next historical moment. For example, the spirit of Chinese capitalism had long been
perceived as something that belonged only to the Chinese Diaspora rather than to mainland “Communist”
China. However, Deng Xiaoping’s famous tour in southern China in early 1992 and his slogan “To get
rich is glorious!” catalyzed an enormous cultural change process in mainland China, making the spirit of
Chinese capitalism an integral and essential part of today’s “Communist” China.
Source: Fang (2005–2006: 83–84).
Faure and Fang (2008) show that China’s 30 years “Open-Door” reform (1978–
2008), market-orientation, and integration with global economy are driving a
fundamental value change in China. However, by “value change” it does not mean
that China’s old value system is being replaced by a new value system but rather that
paradoxical value orientations coexist more and more visibly in today’s Chinese
society. Chinese culture is often discussed in terms of traditional value orientations
T. Fang
such as guanxi, importance of face, thrift, family and group orientation, aversion to
law, respect for etiquette, age and hierarchy, long-term orientation, and traditional
creeds. Today, while these old value orientations still remain valid and in many cases
powerful in Chinese society, opposite value orientations are emerging and becoming
powerful as well in the same Chinese society, respectively: professionalism, selfexpression
and directness, materialism and ostentatious consumption, individuation,
respect for legal practices, respect for simplicity, creativity and competence, shortterm
orientation, and modern approaches. These new value orientations coexist with
the old value orientations discussed earlier. These new value orientations are not
created out of nothing but come as a consequence of China’s invited collisions with
foreign systems, foreign values and foreign lifestyles following Deng Xiaoping’s
institutional reform (“Open-Door” policy) which started in 1978.
The beauty of cultural collisions
Cultural differences are viewed essentially as a problem in the Hofstede paradigm in
which the negative consequences of cultural collisions are warned and strategy
which “mitigates cultural clashes” (Hofstede, 2007: 419) is welcome. However,
culture’s rich life during and after cultural clashes/collisions has rarely been studied
in the Hofstede paradigm. From the Yin Yang perspective, cultures are not tangible
“onions” and they do not collide in a mechanical way. Given his extremely static
vision of culture declared consistently in all his writings, Hofstede’s (2007: 413)
assertion that “a management technique or philosophy that is appropriate in one
national culture is not necessarily appropriate in another” seems to suggest that a
management technique or philosophy basically cannot be transferred from one
national culture environment to another. But cases from real-life management
processes show that a management technique or philosophy can be learned and
transferred often through cultural clashes/collisions. When different cultures (like Yin
and Yang) “collide” with each other, the very collision itself, however painful it may
be at the colliding moment, would help inspire and ignite invaluable cultural learning
and management learning processes taking place on both sides, most probably
leading to the integration of both cultures into a new hybrid culture. During the
cultural collision, different cultural values radiate and penetrate into each other and
coexist within each other, physically and cognitively. The case of cultural collision
resulting in a “negotiated culture” (Brannen & Salk, 2000) illustrates this point.
China is also a good example in question. Interviewing Chinese business leaders
we can see their value system influenced not only by traditional Chinese culture and
management philosophy, but also by Western culture and management philosophy.
How come? Learning and most importantly learning through cultural collisions.
Without post-1978 collisions between China and the rest of the world, China’s
progress and growing prosperity would not have been imaginable. Without collisions
between Western culture and management philosophy on the one hand, and
traditional Chinese culture and management philosophy on the other hand, Western
management concepts such as marketing, branding, franchising, innovation, and
professional management would still have been unknown to Chinese managers and
self-serviced tea house chains, just to give one example, would not have been
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
possible on Chinese soil today. Without collisions between IKEA/Swedish culture
and Chinese culture, quality of life movement in China in terms of simplicity
(jianyue) and DIY (do it yourself) would not have been as vigorous as it is today.
Management in the twenty-first century
Forecasting management in the twenty-first century, Hofstede (2007: 412) writes:
Most of the popular management literature implicitly assumes that management
problems change over time—one should always follow the latest trends…
Against these alleged assumptions in the popular management press, I would
like to defend the opposite viewpoint: “That management problems basically
have remained and will remain the same over time, and that their solutions
differ less from period to period than from part of the world to part of the world,
and even from country to country.”
Hofstede’s static vision of management and his assertion that solutions to
management problems remain country-specific stem from his static and bipolarized
vision of culture. Many times I was wondering why Geert Hofstede could end up
persistently presenting such a static and bipolarized vision of culture and management
to us. I have to say that, for good and for bad, we researchers could hardly escape
from the shadow of our times. It is important to point out that the Hofstede paradigm
has its important historical limitations; it was constructed in the height of the Cold
War era when nations were like “black boxes” (self-contained “onions”), separated
from each other physically, psychologically, ideologically, and culturally. It is not
strange that culture was conceptualized as a nationality-based and passport-based
phenomenon at that time: Dutch culture was the culture of people who held Dutch
passports and Dutch values, while Chinese culture was the culture of people who
held Chinese passports and Chinese values. This was the era that knew no mobile
phone, no Internet, no Skype, no synchronized information sharing, and no global
MBA joint degree programs—and certainly no globally influential academic
journals such as APJM, which was founded in 1983 (Peng, 2007). This was the era
when people of different nationalities lived in separation, physically and cognitively
already in their childhood. “By the age of 10, most of the child’s basic values have
been programmed into his or her mind” (Hofstede, 2001a: 394).
In the twenty-first century, the age of globalization and Internet, management
faces new challenges and calls for dynamic approaches to management problems.
Today, national cultures are no longer “black boxes” but are becoming increasingly
transparent, fluid, elastic, eclectic, virtual, and mobile. From the Yin Yang point of
view, different and even paradoxical cultures can coexist within each other; different
and even paradoxical management philosophies can inspire and co-exist within each
other. If we accept that culture derives from one’s social environment, not from one’s
genes (Hofstede, 1991: 5), if we accept that “management is subject to cultural
values” (Hofstede, 2007: 413), and if we accept that “management is always about
people” (Hofstede, 2007: 412; original italics), we have to face up to the reality that
today’s borderless and wireless cultural learning, knowledge transfer, and synchronized
information sharing fostered by globalization and new technology is bringing
T. Fang
to the twenty-first century world of management a myriad of new challenges
unknown to the Hofstede generation.
Management in the twenty-first century differs from management in the Hofstede
times basically because people in the twenty-first century are no longer bipolarized
and isolated creatures but of “bicultural identity” (Arnett, 2002), multicultural
identities and “multicultural minds” (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000).
In the twenty-first century, nation-states may still remain politically meaningful, but
cultural values and management practices are increasingly not a country/culturespecific
phenomenon but a self-selected and self-identified phenomenon. Before the
age of 10, children in The Netherlands and China can learn and share very much the
same symbols, heroes, and knowledge base through the Internet. By the age of 30
and even 40 and 50, Dutch managers and Chinese managers can sit in the same
MBA class and work in the same management team brainstorming thoughts and
values and together solving management problems by referring to the same frame of
references. Today, Chinese mangers, though still genetically looking like Chinese
and still holding a Chinese passport, are no longer mentally programmed purely with
Chinese values but increasingly with a dynamic portfolio of cultural values selected
from the ocean of culture of the entire world given situation, context and time.
If today’s new borderless and wireless cross-cultural management environment
has a chance to be understood and theorized we need to have courage to question
many of the basic assumptions of the Hofstede paradigm. That there exists no
universal value is one of such assumptions. While Hofstede (2007: 415) assumes
that “there is no one universal human values system,” we cannot help noticing that
emergent global culture (Arnett, 2002; Bird & Stevens, 2003) increasingly
influences all of us no matter who we are and where we are from; we cannot help
witnessing that meaningful and powerful global initiatives such as global warming
debate, environmental protection, sustainable development, corporate social responsibility
(CSR), and so on are reshaping many of our common beliefs, norms, values,
conscientiousness and attitudes, and influencing our management philosophies and
business behaviors irrespective of our nationality and physical associations; and we
cannot help seeing that global firms such as IKEA can successfully transcend
cultural differences on a global basis by applying many of their values and
management philosophies to very different national markets.
In the era of globalization and Internet, culture and management philosophy are
becoming less nationality-based and geography-specific but more situation-specific,
context-specific, and time-specific. Cultural values and management skills can be
learned, transferred and shared by corporations and professionals of different cultural
origins (Holden, 2002). Different from the Hofstede times, cross-cultural management
in the twenty-first century, as implied by Yin Yang and dialectical thinking, is
not about managing cultural differences but about managing cultural learning,
cultural change, cultural paradox and cultural harmony in a globalized multicultural
business world with workforces of multicultural minds and with markets of
multicultural tastes.
Globalization has given rise to a paradoxical movement of cultures and
management practices. On the one hand, emergent global cultures and management
practices transcend national and corporate boundaries. One the other hand, the
synchronizing power of the Internet, wireless technologies, and various cultural
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
carriers (e.g., companies going international and global) provide local cultures and
indigenous cultural values with unprecedented global exposure and attention. In this
new era of humanity, all “potential cultural groupings” (Fang, 2005–2006: 86) can
embrace each other and coexist side by side and even within each other. Asian
management journals such as APJM do not need to be physically housed in Asia but
can be based at any dynamic locations on and even beyond this planet. Asian
management should be able to play an active role in global knowledge creation.
In the light of the above discussions about culture and management, I would like
to say I share with Singh’s (2007) concern in the sense that culture, if left to be
captured in terms of the Hofstede paradigm, has and will continue to have limited
relevance for strategy. But culture as a situation-specific, context-specific, and timespecific
dialectical construct as discussed in this paper has and will continue to have
relevance for strategy formulation and strategy implementation in global business
management in the twenty-first century.
Conclusions
In this paper I gave my reflection on Hofstede (2007) and the Hofstede paradigm in
general. Yin Yang and dialectical thinking, and the changing Chinese society were
discussed to suggest that there is a need to go beyond Hofstede’s static and
bipolarized vision of culture and management. Asia has its rich philosophical and
institutional contexts which offer invaluable inspirations for theory building.
Management in the twenty-first century will be different from management in the
Hofstede times (in other words, the twentieth century) because people in the twentyfirst
century no longer live in a bipolarized and isolated environment but are
increasingly of multicultural identities and multicultural minds. This is where
unprecedented challenges to management in the twenty-first century will emerge and
will have to be managed with the help of new visions and fresh approaches. This is
where Yin Yang and other Asian philosophical principles can make potential
contributions to the development of cross-cultural management theory and practice.
In preparing this paper, I revisited Klaus E. Meyer’s (2006) APJM article “Asian
management research needs more self-confidence” and I found it inspiring.5 Meyer
(2006) touches the base of the Asian complex and gives us a far-reaching wake-up
call, allowing us to ponder where to embark on our pursuit of management research:
self-confidence. I cannot more than agree with Meyer on the point that Asian
management scholars need to not only learn and enrich “global scholarly discourse”
but also “make major contributions…by drawing on traditional Asian thought in
developing new theories” (Meyer, 2006: 119).
So far most Asia-related cross-cultural management works published in Western
management journals tend to unquestioningly adopt “established” Western paradigms
and models without scrutinizing their underlying assumptions. Asia is home
5 In October 2007 when I contacted Klaus E. Meyer to borrow the title of his (2006) article “Asian
management research needs more self-confidence” as the main title for this paper I didn’t know that the
article would later be selected as APJM’s first Best Paper Award (Peng, 2009). But recently when I knew
that Meyer (2006) won, I was not surprised at all.
T. Fang
to the world’s oldest philosophies as well as the world’s most fundamental societal
transformations (Carney et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2008). Asian management researchers
should be genuinely humble in absorbing the knowledge of the world. At the same
time, as encouraged by Meyer (2006), Carney et al. (2009), Lu et al. (2008), Peng
(2007), and Peng, Wang, and Jiang (2008), Asian management researchers must
have self-confidence and courage in researching and globalizing indigenous Asian
wisdom to advance management knowledge with global relevance. The required
self-confidence does not come from our ignorance of Western theory as pointed out
by Li and Peng (2008) but from our passion to learn, to embrace, and to contribute.
References
Arnett, J. J. 2002. The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10): 774–783.
Bem, D. J. 1970. Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bird, A., & Stevens, M. J. 2003. Toward an emergent global culture and the effects of globalization on
obsolescing national cultures. Journal of International Management, 9: 395–407.
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. 2000. Partnering across borders. Human Relations, 53(4): 451–487.
Carney, M., Gedjalovic, E., & Yang, X. H. 2009. Editorial: Varieties of Asian capitalism: Toward an
institutional theory of Asian enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management (in press).
Chen, M.-J. 2001. Inside Chinese business: A guide for managers worldwide. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Chen, M.-J. 2002. Transcending paradox: The “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 19: 179–199.
Cooper, J. C. 1990. Taoism: The way of the mystic (revised ed.). Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press.
Fang, T. 2003. A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 3: 347–368.
Fang, T. 2005–2006. From “onion” to “ocean”: Paradox and change in national cultures. International
Studies of Management and Organizations, 35: 71–90.
Fang, T., Zhao, S., & Worm, V. 2008. Editorial: The changing Chinese culture and business behavior.
International Business Review, 17(2): 141–145.
Faure, G. O., & Fang, T. 2008. Changing Chinese values: Keeping up with paradoxes. International
Business Review, 17(2): 194–207.
Fletcher, R., & Fang, T. 2006. Assessing the impact of culture on relationship creation and network
formation in emerging Asian markets. European Journal of Marketing, 40: 430–446.
Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. 1996. Chinese communication processes. In M. H. Bond
(Ed.). The handbook of Chinese psychology: 280–293. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. 2001a. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 2001b. Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research.
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1: 11–30.
Hofstede, G. 2002. Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11):
1355–1361.
Hofstede, G. 2007. Asianmanagement in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 411–420.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural
cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holden, N. J. 2002. Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management perspective. Harlow, England:
Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. 2000. Multicultural minds: A dynamic
constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55: 709–720.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. W. (Eds). 2004. Leadership, culture and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human
development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leung, K. 2006. The rise of East Asia: Implications for research on cultural variations and globalization.
Journal of International Management, 12(2): 235–241.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. 2005. Culture and international
business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 36: 357–378.
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management
Review, 25(4): 760–776.
Li, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2008. Developing theory from strategic management research in China. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 25: 563–572.
Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W. K., & Peng, M. W. 2008. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the
Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25: 361–374.
McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph
of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–118.
Meredith, R. 2006. The elephant and the dragon: The rise of India and China and what it means for all of
us. New York: Norton.
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 23: 119–137.
Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently—And why.
London: Nicholas Brealey.
Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. 2000. Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context.
Academy of Management Executive, 14: 65–79.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American
Psychologist, 54(9): 741–754.
Peng, M. W. 2007. Celebrating 25 years of Asia Pacific management research. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 24: 385–393.
Peng, M. W. 2009. APJM’s first Best Paper Award. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (in press)
doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9132-9.
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. I. 2008. An institution-based view of international business
strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 920–936.
Popper, K. R. 1959/2002. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Sackmann, S. A., & Phillips, M. E. 2004. One’s many cultures: A multiple cultures perspective. In N. A.
Boyacigiller, R. A. Goodman & M. E. Phillips (Eds.). Crossing cultures: Insights from master
teachers: 38–47. New York: Routledge.
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, 25:
1–65. New York: Academic.
Singh, K. 2007. The limited relevance of culture to strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24:
421–428.
Tony Fang (PhD, Linköping Institute of Technology) is an associate professor of international business at
Stockholm University School of Business, Sweden. He is also visiting professor at Europe China Institute,
Nyenrode Business University, the Netherlands and Asia Research Centre, Copenhagen Business School
(CBS), Denmark. His research interests include international cross-cultural management, China business
studies, and international business negotiation.
T. Fang