Hofstede’s dimensions and the categories proposed by Galtung and Clyne can certainly provide useful signposts for observing student behaviour in the classroom, but they are unlikely to prove adequate to account for the complex web of interactions which are characteristic of training situations.

In the experience of most teachers, Hofstede's concept of culture as essence and difference has limited explanatory value for what happens in a multicultural classroom. In the world of widespread international student exchange and multinational teams notions such as language, nationality and ethnicity no longer play the kind of role they used to. Even though cultural orientation systems acquired early in life – Hofstede calls them the 'collective programming of the mind' – have a strong influence on human beings, they are insufficient when it comes to accounting for behaviour differences in training situations where factors such as age, gender, occupation or status also play a major role.

For a more detailed critique of Hofstede’s approach see “Cataloguing culture –Hostede’s periodic tables”.

• Critique of Hofstede’s approach
• Critique from an anthropological point of view
• Culture as an object of knowledge management