Abstract:Purpose Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility. Design/methodology/approach Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents. Findings Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one. Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people, work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the best predictor of national differences in educational achievement. Research limitations/implications Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences. A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision. Practical implications Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically. They need to be aware of its deficiencies. Originality/value As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.

Measuring Cross-Cultural Differences of Ethnic Groups within Nations: Convergence or Divergence of Cultural Values? The Case of the United States

Exploring subcultural differences in hofstede's value survey: The case of the Chinese

Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions.

A cross-cultural investigation of work values among young executives in China and the USA

Dimensions and Dynamics of National Culture: Synthesizing Hofstede With Inglehart

Worldwide divergence of values

Measuring Cultural Dimensions: External Validity and Internal Consistency of Hofstede's VSM 2013 Scales

Comparing dimensions of national culture for secondary analysis of consumer behavior data of different countries

Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises

A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework

Are Scores on Hofstede's Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis

A test of Hofstede's model of culture following his own approach

A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from 56 countries

Are Individual-Level and Country-Level Value Structures Different? Testing Hofstede’s Legacy With the Schwartz Value Survey

Hofstede's Culture Dimensions

Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations

The Evolution of Business Ethics in China and the United States: Convergence, Divergence, or Crossvergence?

Valuing Cultural Differences in Behavioral Economics

National Cultures

Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation

Cross-Cultural Values: A Meta-Analysis of Major Quantitative Studies in the Last Decade (2010–2020)