The idea of clustering countries culturally is enticing, because it seems to simplify a complex situation. Consequently, there is an enduring tendency to think of the world as made up of clusters of cultures, within each of which there are fairly common cultural characteristics. Geert Hofstede, for example, studied the cultures of forty different countries, focusing on the dimensions that he labeled Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, and Masculinity. He grouped countries into culture areas on the basis of their scores on these dimensions and noted that it is likely on this basis that some cultures can be combined more easily than others in partnership or joint venture arrangements. These more easily combined cultures produce organizational unions that tend to work better.

Now consider again the work force and its changing character. If one were to consider each country as unique, the magnitude of complexity with which the multinational corporation ( MNC must deal is monumental. For example, we are not now dealing with one group of employees from the same country, but with employees of many nationalities in many different countries. The implications of this one environmental factor are enormous. In each country in which the firm operates, management must contend with one or more different national and ethnic cultures. The employees within each culture will respond from a different value base, have different beliefs and different motivations. They will require a different human resource plan with different incentives, managerial styles, and expectations. They will be governed by and respond to different employee legislation. Now to all of these cultural variations, add the dimension of constantly increasing change. The ability of the global manager to respond appropriately to this one dimension is surely challenged. It is clear why it is so tempting to seek apparent clusters in an effort to simplify the situation.