English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper considers Geert Hofstede’s claim that his national cultural ‘dimension scores’ and related rankings of countries enable effective prediction by examining a causal generalisation he has repeatedly used to illustrate that capability. When tested against cross-sectional and longitudinal empirical data about conflicts in industrial relations, the generalisation is shown not to have predictive power. A second generalisation is then tested, which also fails to demonstrate predictive capability. This paper discusses some characteristics of valid cross-national research in the light of these predictive failures.

Claiming too much, delivering too little: testing some of Hofstede’s generalisations