Critiques of Models

I have spent the last couple of days reading critiques and I have reformatted the report. I will only be explaining Hofstede and Trompenaars and then in Chapter 4 critiquing both and the method of dimensions and discussing what will be used in the paper. I have found in database articles critiques from Trompenaars about Hofstede and vice versa, also Hofstede has included in his 2001 book a section on responses to critiques of his work since a lot of people mis use his work, that is apply it to an incorrect context. Nina Jacobs a management professor in Rotterdam, advocates a more modern approach to management. Now in management looking at the societal level is inappropriate since you manage people you need to look at an individual level. Thus using Hofstedes dimensions as bible in management studies is inherently flawed. Trompenaars inspite of this adopts this approach, I believe that he is more popularist and does not the empirical evidence to support his findings. His typologies in my definition cannot be called dimensions because some of them correlate to each other and he does not prove that they are different. Instead he takes this as a priori and from there applies the theory to the management practices. He has built up a world renowned profile for management consulting, however, maybe in all the hype people just accept what they are shown without questioning the validity.