“Hofstede’s dimensions raise issues such as the problem of equating nation states with cultures, quantification using indices and matrices, and the status of the observer […] The weak theoretical basis makes it unclear what Hofstede was theorizing; he might not have studied culture at all. The connections between his dimensions and socio-economic aspects such as Gross Domestic Product suggest that he was measuring socio-economic factors” (Baskerville, 2003, p.2)
MacFayden (2005) argues that the behavior of the individual cannot be presented by means of the national culture alone. There are also many individualistic experiences for the individual and these have to be considered. This is yet another weakness with the Hofstede culture deriving from the same accusation of narrowed focus.
The Schwartz theory breaks the individualistic-collectivistic dichotomy that has existed for long and this is strength for the theory. The theory admits individualistic elements and at the same time is also able to consider them from the impact they cause in a collectivistic dimension. An individual who is highly individualistic and is focused on the “I” could in being harmonious and egalitarian also focus on the collectivistic dimensions. The cons of the theory are that it is not as simple as the Hofstede theory. Where the Hofstede theory relies on a direct score approach to understand cultures and countries, this is a theory that is much more complex and hence this could be a con. Secondly Schwartz’s model is based on considering the cultural dimensions as a form of integrated non-orthogonal system and this distinguishes it from existing systems such as Hofstede and Inglehart and this is one another reason why the model has not been strongly applied (Tapanes et al, 2009). Also the model is very much similar to that of the existing Hofstede system, and this is also a weakness as people using the Hofstede model as a theory base might not use the Schwartz model because of similarities in categories.
Hall’s contexting model has its strengths in understanding how the individual could be face difficulties in low context and high context cultures and the basis for such difficulties. The theory hence is useful to understand how communication concerns arise in the context of two different cultures and how better awareness and information on culture could resolve them. This theory is also often cited in many research works. However, the weakness of the theory is that the level which contexting is empirically tested is doubtful and unlike the Hofstede theory, this theory is not empirical in nature. It is a set of propositions and is not a score card representation such as the Hofstede.