, Hofstede’s paradigm is lacks qual

, Hofstede’s paradigm is lacks quality research and lacks diverse information. Brendan McSweeney (2002) cited his data is collected from IBM employees was too specific group of people and some questionnaires were not use for analysis. For example, his survey covered from 66 countries overseas, but the characterising nation culture analyzed was from 40 countries. The first survey was from 37 employees in Pakistan then 70 employees in the second time. The sampling group cannot provide the characteristics, the motivation and the culture of population whole country. In addition, the occupation area focused on IBM only excluding the labor class, the unemployed, the retired, the part-time and full time students, the business owners, the self employed and others. It does not provides another occupation and organization. That means it is cross culture in the same organization, but different country. Also the frame of social class is similar in respondents because mostly IBM employees are in the same of social class (McSweeny, 2002). On the contrary, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s paradigm concentrated on the cultural aspect of the large number of executives and secretaries from different organisation across fifty countries overseas (Dahl, 2004). Hence this data is more diversified than Hofstede’s research and its can apply to different organisations. Conversely, Schwartz’s framework consist of different type of career; his research has been collected data from teachers, students, and adults in 41 cultural groups in 38 nations and more than 70 countries across the world (Ng et al., 2007). A sampling group shows different of individual values reflect on their experience and culture level. Nevertheless, Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s models used respondents from different occupation and demographic background. These frameworks can apply for global trading between countries or across culture