Cross- cultural Communication This page intentionally left blank

1) Analysis needs further updating
Although Hofstede has reviewed and updated his work, his analysis has been 
criticized as being in need of an update in certain aspects. He has, however, 
negated much of this criticism by updating his own research and carrying out 
cross- analysis with other national surveys. However, the world continues to 
change, and as societies have become increasingly interconnected in a more 
globalized environment, their cultural styles have modified accordingly. 
In addition, countries such as Russia and China have come to prominence 

---

Key Thinkers in Cross- Cultural Communication (1) 43
and are undergoing radical change. These, along with Eastern and Central 
European countries, were not included in the initial research project as IBM 
at the time did not operate in communist countries. The development of 
globalization and international cooperation, along with increased inter-
national mobility, has not been fully taken into account in terms of its effect 
on influencing a degree of cultural convergence. Hofstede’s work also does 
not consider the influence of multiculturalism. It should be emphasized, 
however, that he defends the accusation that his findings are to some extent 
now out of date by arguing that cultural trends take a long time to change.
2) Too general
The mean score for a national culture is the average score of those who 
responded. Hofstede accepts there may indeed be wide variations within 
each national sample. Although he confines himself to national characteris-
tics, many critics believe that the importance of regional differences within 
countries and especially ethnic and religious differences count for as much 
as national differences. Hofstede can be criticized for a tendency to treat 
national cultures as homogeneous entities when in fact they are made up of 
groups of different ethnicities with different characteristics.