Book · January 012 citation reads 15,521 2

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

Hall

There are other models that post-date “Culture´s Consequences” and still retain its fundamental principle of making bi-lateral comparisons. They are:

• 
  Laurent (1983)
  
• 
  Trompenaars (1993)
  
• 
  Schwartz (1994)
  
• 
  Schwartz (1999)
  
• 
  House et al. (various authors and dates)
  

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) adopt a similar onion-like model of culture. However, their model expands the core level of the very basic two- layered model, rather than the outer level. They tried to specify the behavior of the people in different countries more deeply. In their view, culture is made up of basic assumptions at the core level. These ‘basic assumptions’ are somewhat similar to ‘values’ in the Hofstede model.
Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner use seven dimensions for their model of culture:

• 
  universalism vs particularism (what is more important - rules orrelationships?),
  
• 
  individualism vs communitarianism,
  
• 
  neutral vs emotional (do we display our emotions or keep them in check?),
  
• 
  specific vs diffuse (how far do we get involved?),
  
• 
  achievement vs ascription (do we have to prove ourselves to gain status or is it given to us just because we are a part of a structure?),
  
• 
  attitude to time – past/present/future-orientatedness, sequential time vs synchronic time (do we do things one at a time or several things at once?)
  
• 
  internal vs external orientation (do we aim to control our environment or cooperate with it?) (Sinha, 2012)
  

Of course, none of these models are perfect. They are criticized that they do not help the manager predict change in the culture. They do not explain why groups and individuals are led to modify their values through interaction with each other. So there are some new approaches that try to resolve these problems (like Lowe 2002, Fang 2006). (Mead, Andrews, 2010)