Culture Decoded: The Assessment of Frames in Relation to the Multi-faceted Reality.

Introduction

To comprehend and study the culture both in international and organisational level, the Hofstede Dimensions, Schein levels and the Competing Values Framework (CVF) are the commonly used cultural frameworks in business. They are pivotal management and international studies instruments. They simplify the complicated understanding of culture that determines human behaviour and decision making. But there is one more significant point, which is that are these models really the way of expressing the real world culture, or are they simplifying it excessively, by being too theoretical? Their usefulness in practice (use in comparisons and diagnosis) must be balanced with their conceptual constraints (generalisation and lack of nuance) to be used successfully.

The Practical Utility of Cultural Models

Their relevance lies in the fact that they provide managers with a systematic approach towards cultural analysis and comparison. They are applied to inform the entry strategies in the market and to study the internal culture with the aim of enhancing performance, creating success and surpassing the competitors.

Hofstede Dimension: An International Paradigm.

The model developed by Hofstede, based on the surveys of IBM, classifies the national culture with such dimensions as the Power Distance and Individualism (Bright and Cortes, 2019). It is also practical as it provides a point of comparison and the manager can have an idea of the variation in management styles and negotiation strategies across different countries (Jacobs et al., 2021). To international corporations, it offers an expedited, general platform of cultural education and strategic planning such as venturing into new markets (Bolzonella, 2024).

Organisational Diagnostics, Schein and CVF.

Schein's concept delves deeper into organisational culture, classifying it into three layers (Schein, 2010):

• Artifacts are visible structures, processes and behaviours.
• Espoused Values - organisational plans, goals and philosophies (including mission statements, core values and company charters). These are the mentioned reasons behind the behaviour of the members.
• Basic Underlying Assumptions (core beliefs) refer to the extremely in-depth unconscious thoughts, emotions, and feelings, which form the ultimate basis of values and actions. These are the worldviews. This building would enable the consultants to see the origin of the behaviour and not just superficial problems when seeking to transform a culture.

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) builds upon this and contrasts organisational success in two ways: stability vs. flexibility and internal vs. external focus. This creates four types of culture (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market). The CVF enables companies to diagnose their current culture in an easy manner, know whether it is suitable to the objectives they are trying to achieve, and use these discussions to concentrate on the required changes to their culture (Cameron and Quinn, 2011).

Framework	Utility and Application (Pros)	Conceptual Limitations (Cons)
Hofstede's Dimensions	Provides high-level scores for quick comparison of national cultures, vital for initial strategic planning and expatriate training (Bright and Cortes, 2019).	Methodological Nationalism: Treats nations as homogenous, ignoring internal regional and ethnic variation (Jacobs, Pan and Jimenez, 2021). Temporal Decay: Data is often historically specific and fails to capture modern societal shifts (Bolzonella, 2024).
Schein's Three Levels	Offers deep diagnosis by distinguishing between observable Artifacts, Espoused Values, and unconscious Basic Underlying Assumptions (Schein, 2010), helping identify root causes of behavior.	Measurement Difficulty: The deepest, most powerful layer (Assumptions) is defined as tacit and unconscious, limiting its quantifiable measurement (Dimitrov, 2013).
Competing Values Framework (CVF)	Offers a simple matrix for strategic alignment, helping diagnose the dominant culture (Clan, Adhocracy, etc.) and assess its fit with business strategy (Cameron and Quinn, 2011).	Static Snapshot: Provides a fixed profile that struggles to reflect the need for dynamic paradox (e.g., being simultaneously flexible and controlled) required for modern agility.

Limitations in the Modern Context and Alternatives

The fundamental conflict of these pre existing structures is that they are structurally hard to deploy in an environment characterized by fluidity, complexity and digital interconnectedness.

Globalisation and Hybrid Norms: The approach of Hofstede to relying on one nation-state is disputed by hybrid team models and global teams. Digital interaction tends to be an emergent construct of culture nowadays (Jacobs, Pan and Jimenez, 2021). Moreover, both the CVF and the models of Schein have problems with mapping the informal rules and the tacit knowledge that actually inform everyday behaviors, particularly those that are developed and implemented using digital mediums (Barends and Rousseau, 2022). As Schein himself observed, the lowest level of culture, Basic Underlying Assumptions, is the unconscious and difficult to measure one (Dimitrov, 2013). The CVF also has a habit of overlooked significant subcultures which are present in a large organization.

The Need for Dynamic Paradox: The modern organisations should be capable of using seemingly conflicting qualities at once (e.g., being highly efficient and supporting innovation). Models, which impose one, constant number of scores, discourage the flexibility which is necessary in VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) environments.

To address this fluidity, contemporary research offers alternatives:

• The GLOBE Study (House et al., 2004): Builds upon Hofstede by taking a more specific approach in exploring the connection between culture and leadership styles, offering more industry specific dimensions.
• Dynamic Constructivist Approach (Hong et al., 2000): It emphasizes hybrid and context-sensitive cultural identities, arguing that people have multiple cultural knowledge structures and adjust which structure to use depending on the situation at hand.
• Agile Culture Models (Denison, 2000): Look at cultural characteristics that will enable quick response as in high learning orientation and adaptability which is more suitable in digital organisations.

Conclusion

The Hofstede, Schein, and CVF frameworks of culture are highly effective tools; however, they do not provide conclusive solutions or definitive answers. They must be considered vital lenses that managers should use to begin their view of culture. They are excellent as a starting point for global training and diagnosing company culture, providing a clear framework for making initial comparisons. Nonetheless, they are unable to portray all the intricate details of human behaviour, all the unwritten rules, or the constant changes of the contemporary workplace.

Using them without thinking is the main risk, which can lead to stereotyping or drawing wrong conclusions. Good management implies treating them as hypotheses, employing them together with real-world observation, communicating with other people, and understanding the particular situation. Their true worth is not the theory itself, but their ability to initiate informed debate and encourage us to consider culture more carefully in all its complexity.

References

Barends, E. and Rousseau, D. (2022) Organisational culture and performance: an evidence review. Scientific summary. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/evidence-reviews/2023-pdfs/organisational-culture-and-performance-scientific-summary.pdf (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Bolzonella, F. (2024) 'Evaluating through culture: rethinking Hofstede’s framework in policy analysis', European Evaluation Society blog, 28 October. Available at: https://europeanevaluation.org/2024/10/28/evaluating-through-culture-rethinking-hofstedes-framework-in-policy-analysis/ (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Bright, C. and Cortes, M. (2019) Hofstede’s cultural dimensions explained. OpenStax. Available at: https://openstax.org/books/principles-of-management/pages/6-2-hofstedes-cultural-framework (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011) Diagnosing and changing organisational culture based on the competing values framework. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denison, D.R. (2000) ‘Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Competitive Advantage?’, Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), pp. 118–129. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1399791/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Dimitrov, K. (2013) 'Edgar Schein’s model of organisational culture levels as a hologram', Economic Studies (Ikonomicheski Izsledvania), 22(4), pp. 3–36. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/279438/1/1_K.Dimitrov_f.pdf (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Hong, Y., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C.Y. and Benet-Martínez, V. (2000) ‘Multicultural minds: a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition’, American Psychologist, 55(7), pp. 709–720. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/7259781 A_Dynamic_Constructivist_Approach_to_Culture (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

House, R.J. et al. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Available at: https://globeproject.com/2004-2007-studies (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Jacobs, A., Pan, Y-C. and Jimenez, E. (2021) 'Comparison of Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s cultural frameworks for enterprise social media adoption', in The 26th UK Academy for Information Systems International Conference (UKAIS 2021). Available at: https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/7712/1/Comparison%20of%20Hofstede%E2%80%99s%20and%20Schwartz%E2%80%99s%20Cultural%20Frameworks%20for%20Enterprise%20Social%20Media%20Adoption.pdf (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

Schein, E.H. (2010) Organizational culture and leadership. 4th edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.