Hofstede, GLOBE, Schwartz and Inglehart’s cultural dimensions: a critical examination and assessment

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical examination of four cultural frameworks, namely, Hofstede’s, GLOBE’s, Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s. Design/methodology/approach Unlike previous studies that adopted empirical analysis or systematic literature review, this study uses an analytical approach to assess the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions, highlight their key strengths and limitations and analyze their breath, reliability and applicability. Findings While Hofstede’s model remains influential, specific dimensions, such as uncertainty avoidance and indulgence versus restraint, are critiqued for conceptual ambiguity. GLOBE’s dimensions, particularly institutional collectivism, humane orientation and assertiveness, suffer from conceptual overlap and limited applicability. In contrast, Schwartz’s model is recognized for its conceptual rigor and broad applicability in social sciences. Inglehart’s model, grounded in Modernization theory and supported by longitudinal data from the World Values Survey, is praised for its empirical rigor and ability to capture cultural transformations over time. This study concludes that while Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s frameworks are widely used in business research, Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s dimensions are conceptually superior. Originality/value While the previous studies have dealt with the methodology and statistical validity of Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s research, the originality of this paper lies in examining, comparing and assessing the conceptual properties of cultural dimensions from four frameworks. The insights from this paper can be used in refining cultural dimensions, avoiding conceptual confusion and developing future empirical studies.