【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 is related to the degree to which authority is centralized and the degree of autocratic leadership inside anizations. 2. Uncertainty avoidance describes the extent to which a culture’s members feel threatened by ambiguous high uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates that a country has a low tolerance for unstructured situations,resulting in the creation of a ruleoriented society that institutes technology,laws,and religion in order to reduce the amount of levels of uncertainty avoidance ranking indicate the country is not as concerned about uncertainty and has more tolerance for a variety of results in a society that is less ruleoriented,more accepting of change,and more risk taking. 3. Individualism describes the emphasis individuals place on their self interests as opposed to those of the larger high Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society,implying that social ties between individuals are very in such societies are emotionally independent of their pany and their involvement tends to be practices tend to allow for individual the other hand,a low Individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals and individuals and their employing cultures reinforce extended families and collectives where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their relationship between individuals and their pany is affected by the emotional bindings of loyalty and duty. 4. Masculinity deals with the fundamental fact of the duality of sexes and its implications on gender roles in masculinity dimension focuses on the degree a society reinforces,or does not reinforce,the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement,control,and high masculinity ranking indicates that a country emphasizes and values assertiveness and work objectives such as earnings and contrast,a low masculinity ranking indicates the country has a low level of differentiation between the these cultures,people are less motivated by material things,and relish their relationships with others. A few years later,in the 1980s,the conceptualization of national culture in four cultural value dimensions was extended by including another distinct dimension specifically useful in analyzing Eastern dimension was identified through a joint project between HOFSTEDE and previously had developed a Chinese Value Survey(CVS).Data reanalysis at the country level revealed four dimensions correlated significantly with power distance,masculinity,and fourth dimension,however,did not correlate with uncertainty newlyidentified dimension,initially dubbed“Confucian Work Dynamism,”was later renamed“l(fā)ong term orientation”. 5． Long TermOrientation is independent from the four dimensions described dimension is only relevant for paring Western and Asian focuses on the degree the society embraces,or does not embrace,longterm devotion to traditional,forwardthinking orientation countries value longterm mitments and respect shortterm orientation countries,change can occur more rapidly as longterm traditions and mitments do not impede change. HOFSTEDE made great efforts to prove the reliability and validity of the cultural dimensions through subsequent replications and applications even outside the core of the social sciences made HOFSTEDE’s book Culture’s Consequences the most influential work in social analyzed the citations of Culture’s Consequences from the Social Science Citation Index from 1981,when the first edition of the book appeared,to found HOFSTEDE’s approach“more than a super classic”.The citations do not follow the usual pattern in which citations increase and peak after three to five years after its first publication and thereafter decrease,reaching a steady level after ten ,the use of HOFSTEDE’s book is increasing,particularly in management sciences and a result,HOFSTEDE’s conceptualization of culture is the most widely used in management accounting and information systems research. Despite or maybe due to the success of HOFSTEDE’s paradigm,there has been extensive criticism of four major criticisms will be briefly recaptured in the following: ? The first allegation is that surveys are not a suitable way of measuring cultural admits that the surveys should not be the only conducting largescale empirical surveys,applying Structural Equation Modeling (SEM),it is however necessary to have validated scale at hand which can be used in a ,for reasons of costand timeefficiency,a qualitative research approach would not have been suitable for this research. ? Second,most critics claim that nations are not the best units for studying concedes that they are not the best units for studying culture but most frequently,nations are the only one this research does not include multiethnic states,no negative effects are expected to result from the focus on nationality as a variable for selecting the target respondents. ? The third criticism is that a study of the subsidiaries of only one pany can not provide information about entire national replies that this approach offers the possibility to get a functionally equivalent sample and that any functionally equivalent sample can provide information about differences between national ,his data has been validated by the correlation of the country scores measured with all kinds of other data,including results from representative samples of entire national populations. ? Fourth,as HOFSTEDE measured his data in the early 1970s,his data is considered outdated and thus replies that present cultures have centuries’old histories and that values are relatively ,he included only data which showed sufficient stability between the two surveys conducted. Crosscultural research in general is