This paper critically evaluates Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework through the lens of crossvergence theory. Drawing on Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley's (2006) longitudinal study of middle managers in indigenous banks across Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United States from 1985 to 2000, the paper argues that cultures are dynamic and permeable rather than static. It examines how economic change, political events such as the 1997 handover of Hong Kong, and cross-cultural exposure produced measurable shifts in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and collectivism that Hofstede's model fails to anticipate. The findings suggest researchers must continuously reassess cultural paradigms, especially when analyzing Asian societies often treated as a monolithic bloc.
One of the most well-known and widely used methods of analyzing differences between cultures is Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, which conceptualizes different cultures as having fundamental, core values regarding power distance, masculine and feminine norms, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and future orientation. However, Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley (2006) in their article "Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: A longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors" criticize the Hofstede framework as overly rigid and static. Cultures are not enclosed entities but rather permeable structures. The authors apply the concept of crossvergence to the Hong Kong and Chinese banking sectors, comparing the cultural differences between Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United States — the latter described as "an often assumed, dissimilar region" from these Asian nations — during the years 1985–2000 (Kelley, MacNab, & Worthley 2006: 68).
One of the problems with applying Hofstede's framework to Asia is that there has long been a tendency among Westerners to view Asia as a whole as simply more collectivist than Western societies, without sufficiently appreciating the nuances between different local environments. This tendency is also evident in comparisons of Hong Kong and China. As Kelley, MacNab, and Worthley observe: "Asians are sometimes culturally, and arguably carelessly, lumped together in the treatment of management issues on the basis that they have a common value system (Fukuda and Wheeler, 1988). This similarity assumption is dangerous for researchers and practitioners alike, as several studies have demonstrated tendencies for cultural differences among various Asian groups and within Greater China" (2006: 69).
It should be noted that Hofstede does acknowledge that cultures can change. However, he maintains that cultures tend to remain static relative to one another — in other words, even if Japan becomes more individualistic given shifts in modern global society, it is still more collectivist than the United States. According to Hofstede: "countries could all have moved [to different levels on cultural dimensions] without changes in their mutual ranking" (Kelley, MacNab, & Worthley 2006: 70).
By contrast, the concept of the convergence–divergence–crossvergence (CDC) model suggests a more dynamic synergy and greater pliability of cultural ideals. Cultures may converge (blend) or diverge, but they may also engage in crossvergence — changing in response to different economic circumstances and cultural exposure to other nations and ideas. This can result in a fundamental shift in cultural orientation away from a nation's original position on Hofstede's dimensions. As the authors explain: "The concept of crossvergence is vital to our position as it addresses the idea that as economies develop, interact and evolve, there will be an impact on culture, creating a unique type of identity. Altered blends of past standard cultural identity may evolve in order to meet new challenges and to respond more effectively to external pressures like global competition. For example, it may become less accurate to generally refer to Asians as highly collectivistic without clearly identifying the specific context or region" (Kelley, MacNab, & Worthley 2006: 71).
"Longitudinal banking study design and Likert measures"
"Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and collectivism shifts"
Even on measures of collectivism — supposedly the most significant difference between the U.S. and Asian nations as a whole — "the Taiwanese measure on collectivism decreased, conforming much closer to U.S. and Hong Kong measurements," while the relative positions of the U.S. and Taiwanese measures on this value scale remained unchanged (Kelley, MacNab, & Worthley 2006: 79). All of these findings indicate that the positioning of nations in terms of cultural worldviews is extremely variable. Researchers must therefore continuously reevaluate the paradigms they apply to different nations — particularly Asian nations, which have often been unfairly painted with a very broad theoretical brush.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.