Never in the history of humanity has it been more important for the peoples

of the world to learn how to effectively communicate with ea other, both
within global corporations and across societies and organizations
worldwide. The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management is
therefore both timely and important for every manager, and student of
management, who believes that communicating respect is as important as
‘geing the work done’.
Nancy J. Adler, Professor, McGill University, Canada and author of International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior and the Leadership Insight journal (Routledge)

What a tremendous collection of work by many of the world’s greatest

experts on cross-cultural and international issues! The Routledge Companion
to Cross-Cultural Management is a highly significant path towards
advancing the field through the collective works of global solars
addressing cultural issues ranging from theory overview, topic specific
issues, educational initiatives and new advances in the field. I highly
recommend this edited volume for both the academic solar as well as the
student of cultural issues in management.
P. Christopher Earley, Professor, Purdue University, USA

e aptly named Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management is

indeed a volume that should be the companion to everyone active in cross-
cultural management resear and education. It provides excellent coverage
of the field including the oen overlooked area of language.
David C. omas, PhD, Beedie Chair and Professor of International Management, Simon Fraser
University, Canada and author of Cross Cultural Management: Essential Concepts
e Routledge Companion to Cross-
Cultural Management

is Routledge Companion provides a timely and authoritative overview of

cross-cultural management as an academic domain and field of practice for
academics and students. With contributions from over 60 authors from 20
countries, the book is organised into five thematic areas:

Review, survey and critique

Language and languages: moving from the periphery to the core
Cross-cultural management resear and education
e new international business landscape
Rethinking a multidisciplinary paradigm.

Edited by an international team of solars and featuring contributions from

a range of leading cross-cultural management experts, this prestigious
volume represents the most comprehensive guide to the development and
scope of cross-cultural management as an academic discipline.

Nigel Holden is Visiting Resear Fellow at Leeds University Business

Sool, UK.

Snejina Miailova is Professor of International Business at the University

of Auland, New Zealand.

Susanne Tietze is Professor of Management at Keele University, UK.

Routledge Companions in Business, Management and
Accounting

Routledge Companions in Business, Management and Accounting are

prestige reference works providing an overview of a whole subject area or
sub-discipline. ese books survey the state of the discipline including
emerging and cuing-edge areas. Providing a comprehensive, up to date,
definitive work of reference, Routledge Companions can be cited as an
authoritative source on the subject.

A key aspect of these Routledge Companions is their international scope and

relevance. Edited by an array of highly regarded solars, these volumes also
benefit from teams of contributors that reflect an international range of
perspectives.

Individually, Routledge Companions in Business, Management and

Accounting provide an impactful one-stop-shop resource for ea theme
covered. Collectively, they represent a comprehensive learning and resear
resource for researers, postgraduate students and practitioners.

Published titles in this series include:

The Routledge Companion to Fair Value and Financial Reporting

Edited by Peter Walton

The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing

Edited by Adrian Sargeant and Walter Wymer Jr

The Routledge Companion to Accounting History

Edited by John Riard Edwards and Stephen P. Walker

The Routledge Companion to Creativity

Edited by Tudor Riards, Mark A. Runco and Susan Moger

The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management

Edited by John Storey, Patri M. Wright and David Ulri

The Routledge Companion to International Business Coaching

Edited by Miel Moral and Geoffrey Abbo

The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change

Edited by David M. Boje, Bernard Burnes and John Hassard

The Routledge Companion to Cost Management

Edited by Falconer Mitell, Hanne Nørreklit and Morten Jakobsen

The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption

Edited by Russell W. Belk and Rosa Llamas

The Routledge Companion to Identity and Consumption

Edited by Ayalla A. Ruvio and Russell W. Belk

The Routledge Companion to Public–Private Partnerships

Edited by Piet de Vries and Etienne B. Yehoue

The Routledge Companion to Accounting, Reporting and Regulation

Edited by Carien van Mourik and Peter Walton

The Routledge Companion to International Management Education

Edited by Denise Tsang, Hamid H. Kazeroony and Guy Ellis

The Routledge Companion to Accounting Communication

Edited by Lisa Ja, Jane Davison and Russell Craig

The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization

Edited by Emma Bell, Jonathan Sroeder and Samantha Warren

The Routledge Companion to Arts Marketing

Edited by Daragh O’Reilly, Ruth Rentsler and eresa Kirner

The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization

Edited by Martin Parker, George Cheney, Valerie Fournier and Chris Land

The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing

Edited by Luiz Moutinho, Enrique Bigne and Ajay K. Manrai

The Routledge Companion to Accounting Education

Edited by Riard M. S. Wilson

The Routledge Companion to Business in Africa

Edited by Sonny Nwankwo and Kevin Ibeh

The Routledge Companion to Human Resource Development

Edited by Rob F. Poell, Tonee S. Rocco and Gene L. Roth

The Routledge Companion to Auditing

Edited by David Hay, W. Robert Kneel and Marleen Willekens

The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship

Edited by Ted Baker and Friederike Welter

The Routledge Companion to International Human Resource Management

Edited by David G. Collings, Geoffrey T. Wood and Paula Caligiuri

The Routledge Companion to Financial Services Marketing

Edited by Tina Harrison and Hooman Estelami

The Routledge Companion to International Entrepreneurship

Edited by Stephanie A. Fernhaber and Shameen Prashantham

The Routledge Companion to Non-Market Strategy

Edited by omas C. Lawton and Tazeeb S. Rajwani

The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management

Edited by Nigel Holden, Snejina Miailova and Susanne Tietze
e Routledge Companion to
Cross-Cultural Management

Edited by Nigel Holden, Snejina Michailova and Susanne Tietze

First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
711 ird Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2015 Nigel Holden, Snejina Miailova and Susanne Tietze

e right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual apters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, meanical, or other means, now known or hereaer invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-0-415-85868-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-203-79870-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

List of figures
List of tables
Notes on contributors
Keynote foreword: the power of richness: revitalizing cross-cultural
management
MARY YOKO BRANNEN

Editorial introduction: philosophy, aims and composition

NIGEL HOLDEN, SNEJINA MICHAILOVA AND SUSANNE TIETZE

SECTION 1 Review, survey and critique

Editor: Sonja Sackmann

1 Introduction: taking sto of critical issues and relevant topics in the field
of cross-cultural management
Sonja Sackmann

2 Cross-cultural management rising

Margaret Phillips and Sonja Sackmann

3 Towards a complex view of culture: cross-cultural management, ‘native

categories’, and their impact on concepts of management and organisation
Fiona Moore

4 Cross-cultural management at a cross-roads?

Wolfgang Mayrhofer and Katharina Pernkopf
5 e Hofstede factor: the consequences of Culture’s Consequences
Sierk Ybema and Pál Nyíri

6 e impact of Japan on Western management: theory and practice

Christina L. Ahmadjian and Ulrike Schaede

7 Cross-cultural management: arguing the case for non-cultural explanations

Vlad Vaiman and Nigel Holden

8 Challenges in working across cultures: reflections of two executives

Mikael Søndergaard and Sonja Sackmann

SECTION 2 Language and languages: moving from the periphery to the

core
Editor: Terry Mughan

9 Introduction: language and languages: moving from the periphery to the

core
Terry Mughan

10 Cross-cultural management and language studies within international

business resear: past and present paradigms and suggestions for future
resear
Markus Pudelko, Helene Tenzer and Anne-Wil Harzing

11 Researing supra- and sub-national contexts: multi-sited and extended

ethnographic methodologies for language resear
Anders Klitmøller, Jakob Lauring and Toke Bjerregaard

12 Multicultural and multilingual: workplace communication in Dubai

Valerie Priscilla Goby and Catherine Nickerson

13 Multilinguaculturing: making an asset of multilingual human resources in

organizations
Patchareerat Yanaprasart
14 Translation in cross-cultural management: a maer of voice
Chris Steyaert and Maddy Janssens

15 What do bicultural-bilinguals do in multinational corporations?

Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen

16 Language diversity in management education: towards a multilingual

turn
Linda Cohen, Jane Kassis-Henderson and Philippe Lecomte

17 Language-oriented human resource management practices in

multinational companies
Vesa Peltokorpi

18 Company linguistic identity and its metaphorical dimensions: purasers,

personnel and products through the perspective of metaphors
Magdalena Bielenia-Grajewska

SECTION 3 Cross-cultural management resear and education

Editor: Gavin Jack

19 Introduction: cross-cultural management resear and education

Gavin Jack

20 Bridging etic and emic approaes in cross-cultural management resear

Jia He and Fons J. R. van de Vijver

21 Beyond positivism: towards paradigm pluralism in cross-cultural

management resear
Ajnesh Prasad

22 Beyond West-centrism: the way forward for cross-cultural management

in Latin America
Alfredo Behrens
23 e present and future of cross-cultural management education in China:
towards an integrated etic–emic approa
Yunxia Zhu and Zhaohui Wang

24 e evolution of a cross-cultural perspective in Russian business

education
Sheila M. Puffer, Daniel J. McCarthy, Anna Gryaznova and Vyacheslav
Boltrukevich

25 Intercultural encounters as socially constructed experiences: Whi

concepts? Whi pedagogies?
Prue Holmes

26 In sear of an international experience: towards a ‘Bildung’

understanding of MBA learning
Sarah Robinson

SECTION 4 e new international business landscape

Editor: Fiona Moore

27 Introduction: the new business landscape: transformational perspectives

Fiona Moore

28 Global innovation through cross-cultural collaboration

Karina R. Jensen

29 Culture in the audit file: an empirical reflection on the cross-national

cultural ‘native categories’ used by auditors in a ‘Big 4’ professional
services firm
Olof P. G. Bik

30 Cyber-threats and cybersecurity allenges: a cross-cultural perspective

Nir Kshetri and Lailani Laynesa Alcantara

31 A nation of money and sheep

 Már Wolfgang Mixa

32 e evolving world of the cross-cultural manager as a corporate and

socio-political actor
Ödül Bozkurt

33 Under construction but open for business: women entrepreneurs

negotiating shiing socio-economic realities in the Arab Gulf
Leila DeVriese

34 Transformational leadership: contextually dependent on individual and

cultural values
Gregory Bott

35 Indian boundary spanners in cross-cultural and inter-organizational

teamwork: an account from a global soware development project
Anne-Marie Søderberg

36 ‘Looking forward by looking ba’: a transdisciplinary self/other

perspective on intercultural expatriate resear
David Guttormsen

SECTION 5 Rethinking a multidisciplinary paradigm

Editor: Janne Tienari

37 Introduction: rethinking a multidisciplinary paradigm in cross-cultural

management resear?
Janne Tienari

38 Interdisciplinary resear of cultural diversity

Slawomir Magala

39 Postcolonial feminist contributions to cross-cultural management

Banu Özkazanç-Pan
40 What cross-cultural management doesn’t tell us: history of generational
dynamics in Chinese society
Matti Nojonen

41 Making sense of gender equality: applying a global programme in

Argentina
Mariana I. Paludi and Jean Helms Mills

42 Reproducing self and the other: the role of cross-cultural management

discourse and training in shaping Israeli–Korean collaborations
Michal Frenkel, Irina Lyan and Gili S. Drori

43 Finns, Russians, and the smokescreen of ‘culture’: a micro-political

perspective on managerial struggles in multinationals
Alexei Koveshnikov

44 Management is ba! Cross-cultural encounters in virtual teams

Johanna Saarinen and Rebecca Piekkari

45 A multi-paradigm analysis of cross-cultural encounters

Henriett Primecz, Laurence Romani and Katalin Topcu

Author index
Subject index
Figures

2.1 Evolution of the discipline of cross-cultural management

10.1 Paradigmatic development of international business, cross-cultural
management and language studies within international business
(dominating paradigm in bold)
18.1 3P’s model of company linguistic identity and its metaphorical
dimension
22.1 Abandoning the West-centric ship
22.2 Uruquay’s net yearly migration
22.3 Share of population dead or disappeared during a Latin American ‘dirty
war’ or a drug related one
28.1 Global innovation project cycle and laun process
28.2 Cross-cultural collaboration model
31.1 Highest individualism scores using the Hofstede cross-cultural method
31.2 Savings ratio in highest scoring individualistic countries 1990–2012
36.1 ‘Difference’ and ‘distance’
36.2 Conceptual boundary-markers
Tables

8.1 Niels Porksen’s cross-cultural work experiences

8.2 Loe Kragelund’s cross-cultural experiences
10.1 Idealized comparison between the “reductionist culture-specific” and
the “differentiated culture-specific paradigm”
20.1 Non-statistical strategies to deal with various types of bias
20.2 Nested models in multigroup confirmatory factor analysis
26.1 Summary of suggested learning activities
30.1 Some examples of boundaries that separate perpetrators and potential
victims and make cyberaas more justifiable and acceptable
39.1 New concepts and directions for cross-cultural management: insights
from feminist postcolonial perspectives
43.1 e four views on cross-cultural management in the multinational
45.1 Cultural dimension scores for Hungary and Turkey
Contributors

Christina L. Ahmadjian is Professor in the Graduate Sool of Commerce

and Management at Hitotsubashi University. She received an AB, magna
cum laude, from Harvard University, an MBA from Stanford University
Graduate Sool of Business and a PhD at the Haas Sool at the University
of California at Berkeley. Her resear interests include Japanese
management, comparative corporate governance, inter-organizational
networks, institutional theory and organizational ange. She has published
articles in journals including American Sociological Review, Administrative
Science Quarterly and Organization Science. She serves as a non-executive
director at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and JPX Holdings.

Lailani L. Alcantara is an associate professor at the College of International

Management and Graduate Sool of Management in Ritsumeikan Asia
Pacific University. Her resear interests include innovation,
entrepreneurship, international expansion and social network. As a Japanese
government Mombusho solar, she received her PhD in Management from
the University of Tsukuba. She has published articles in Journal of
International Management, Best Proceedings Academy of Management,
Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, Management Research Review,
Journal of Transnational Management and Asian Business and
Management. Her resear works have been funded by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tenology in Japan.

Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen (PhD) is affiliated to the Department of

Management and Organ-isation at Hanken Sool of Economics in Helsinki,
Finland. Language in international management is a key theme of his
resear; within this area he takes a particular interest in the individual-level
implications of varying levels of language skills. He has published on this
topic in practitioner-oriented outlets as well as in academic ones, the laer
including journals su as Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World
Business and Management and Organization Review. Since 2009, Barner-
Rasmussen has also acted as co-organizer and co-air of a number of
language-related workshops, including stand-alone events as well as tras
and symposia at international conferences su as Academy of Management
and EGOS.

Alfredo Behrens holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge. He is

Professor of Cross-Cultural Leadership with FIA Business Sool, Brazil, and
prior to that he lectured at the London Business Sool and Princeton
University. Alfredo Behrens is the author of Culture and Management in the
Americas (2009) published by Stanford University Press, Palo Alto and
Saraiva, São Paulo. His most recent book is Shooting Heroes and Rewarding
Cowards published by Winvest in English and Bei in Portuguese, both in São
Paulo.

Magdalena Bielenia-Grajewska, PhD, is an assistant professor in the

Department of Translation Studies and Head of the Intercultural
Communication and Neurolinguistics Laboratory at the Faculty of
Languages, University of Gdansk. She is a linguist (MA in English Studies,
PhD in Humanities, University of Gdansk), an economist (MA in Economics,
Gdansk University of Tenology), a specialist in managing scientific
projects (postgraduate studies, Gdansk University of Tenology) and a
specialist in the meanisms of the Eurozone (postgraduate studies,
University of Gdansk). Her PhD thesis was of an interdisciplinary aracter,
being devoted to intercultural communication, translation and investment
banking. She is an associate editor at the Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, a member of the editorial board of International Journal
of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation and International
Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies as well as serving as a
reviewer in other international journals. Her scientific interests include
organizational discourse, neuromanagement, online social networks,
intercultural communication, sociolinguistics, ANT and symbolism in
management studies. She is an author of over 100 publications on, among
others, corporate identity, business communication and the discursive
dimension of organizations.

Olof P. G. Bik is Associate Professor in Behavioural and Cultural

Governance at Nyenrode Business University in the Netherlands. He
received his PhD in Economics and Business Administration from the
University of Groningen. With his 20 years of practice and academic
experience, his teaing and resear focuses on Organizational Culture,
Climate and Behaviour. More specifically, his resear interests include the
dynamic interaction of the mutually influencing and reinforcing bundle of
culture aributes and embedding meanisms of organizational context; the
strength thereof or alignment with espoused values; the association thereof
with external or strategic contingencies; and its joint meaning for
organizational behaviour, ange, governance and performance. Olof is a
mu-invited speaker, lecturer and facilitator in both solarly and executive
programs and regularly publishes (internationally) academic and
professional articles and thought leadership pieces.

Toke Bjerregaard is a postdoctoral researer at the Department of

Business Administration, Sool of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus
University. His resear lies at the intersection of organization studies and
international management resear. His academic interest is in the strategies
and practices mobilized by organizations and their multiple actors in
managing institutional/cultural complexity and the global mobility of
professionals. He has published in journals su as British Journal of
Management, Critical Perspectives on International Business, European
Management Journal and Organization Studies.
Vyaeslav Boltrukevi is an associate professor at Moscow State
University Business Sool. His resear and publications centre on lean
management, improving production systems and developing continuous
improvement culture in different business environments with a focus on the
initial stage of the transformation process. Since 2011 he has led the MBA
program with a concentration in Operational Excellence at Moscow State
University Business Sool. He received his undergraduate degree in
Economics from Novosibirsk State University and a Master’s degree in
Sociology from the Higher Sool of Economics, Russia. He received his
PhD in Economics from Moscow State University.

Gregory Bott holds an MSc in Agricultural and Resource Economics from

the University of Alberta, Canada. He has also completed executive
education courses in municipal management, leadership, and governance
from the University of Alberta and the Institute of Corporate Directors. Mr
Bo has held lecturing positions at the University of Alberta on topics
including strategic positioning, economic theory, value ain development
and small business management in both private and nonprofit sectors. Mr
Bo’s current resear interests are in nonprofit board governance and
numerous facets of leadership.

Ödül Bozkurt (PhD Sociology, UCLA) is Senior Lecturer in International

Management at the University of Sussex, Department of Business and
Management. Ödül’s resear interests revolve around the organization and
transformation of contemporary work and workplaces, especially within the
context of globalization and within the confines of multinational
corporations. She has published articles about the experience of professional
careers, high-skilled work and particularly mobility on multinational
corporate jobs, employment practices of supermarket retailers in the UK,
foreign employers’ employment practices facilitating women’s managerial
careers in Japan and migrant academics in British higher education. She has
published some of this work in journals including Gender Work and
Organization, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Human Resource Management Journal and The International Journal of
Management Reviews, as well as in a number of edited volumes.

Mary Yoko Brannen is the Jarislowsky East Asia (Japan) Chair of Cross-
Cultural Management, Professor of International Business and Resear
Director at the University of Victoria Gustavson Sool of Business. She is
also Deputy Editor of the Journal of International Business Studies. She
received her MBA with emphasis in International Business and PhD in
Organizational Behavior with a minor in Cultural Anthropology from the
University of Massauses at Amherst, and a BA in Comparative
Literature from the University of California at Berkeley. She has taught at
the Ross Sool of Business at the University of Miigan, the Haas Business
Sool at the University of California at Berkeley, Smith College and
Stanford University in the United States; Keio Business Sool in Tokyo,
Japan; and Fudan University in Shanghai, China. Professor Brannen’s
expertise in multinational affairs is evident in her resear, consulting,
teaing and personal baground. Born and raised in Japan, having studied
in France and Spain, and having worked as a cross-cultural consultant for
over 25 years to various Fortune 100 companies, she brings a multi-faceted,
deep knowledge of today’s complex cultural business environment.

Linda Cohen is a professor of International Business Communication and

Chair of the Language and Culture Department at ESCP Europe, Paris
campus. She received a Baelor of Arts with Honors from the University of
California at Berkeley within the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies:
Sociology and Political Philosophy. She then studied law in the Juris Doctor
program at the University of California–Hastings Sool of Law. In Paris,
she continued her studies in sociology at Université Paris VIII. She has
taught in Fren universities and business sools. Her current resear
areas include the use of English as a working language in international
business, managing language diversity in organizations and teaing and
learning in multicultural/ multilingual contexts. She is a founding member
of GEM&L, an international think tank on management and language.
Leila DeVriese, PhD, is Associate Professor of Global Studies and Director
of the Middle East Studies program at Hamline University in Saint Paul,
MN. Prior to joining Hamline University, DeVriese taught Politics and
Women’s Studies at Texas Te University (2007–8). From 2004 to 2007,
DeVriese was a professor in the International Studies program at Zayed
University in Dubai, where she also headed the university-wide and
interdisciplinary Women, Youth and Development program. Before joining
Zayed University, DeVriese taught Political Science at Concordia University
in Montreal. DeVriese’s resear explores alternative strategies for
mobilization by civil society actors in the Middle East, focusing most
recently on social media and contentious politics leading up to and
following the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. DeVriese’s forthcoming book is titled
Virtual Democracies: Social Media and Democratization of the Public Sphere
(Ashgate).

Gili S. Drori is a professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, Israel. She was awarded a PhD in Sociology by
Stanford University in 1997. Before joining HUJI in 2011, she served as
Lecturer and Director of International Relations Honors Program at Stanford
University and also taught at the University of California Berkeley, the
Tenion (Israel) and University of Bergamo (Italy); in 2010 she was a guest
solar at Uppsala University (Sweden). Gili’s books, journal articles and
book apters speak to her resear interests in globalization and
glocalization; science, innovation and higher education; governance and
rationalization; culture and policy regimes; and tenology divides.

Mial Frenkel is a senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology and

Anthropology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She holds a PhD from
Tel-Aviv University (2001). She was a Fulbright fellow at Princeton
University and a visiting at fellow at Harvard University’s Center for
European Studies, the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute, at Brandeis University
and at Smith College. Her resear focuses on the transformation of local
and transnational social orders, in the context of the ‘globalization’ of
management practices. Her empirical and theoretical publications, whi
appeared in top international and Israeli journals, have looked at the role of
geopolitical and center-periphery power relations in the cross-national
transfer and translation of management practices within multinational
corporations and across national boundaries and at the role of organizations
and organizational discourses and practices in shaping gender, ethnic and
class identities.

Valerie Priscilla Goby, PhD, is a professor in the College of Business, Zayed

University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. She has published widely in the
fields of communication, IT and education, in journals su as the Journal of
Business Ethics, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Journal of Business and
Technical Communication and Journal of Small Business Management. She
is on the editorial board of Journal of Business and Technical
Communication (USA), Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
(USA), Management Convergence: An International Journal of Management
(India) and is the reviews editor of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education: Gulf Perspectives (UAE). She has taught Organizational
Communication, Intercultural Communication and Organizational Behavior
for 25 years at universities in Singapore, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates,
Ireland and Australia.

Anna Gryaznova is an associate professor at Moscow State University

Business Sool. Her resear focuses on psyological contracts, leadership
in various cultural environments, use of social media in the organizational
context and performance lessons from the arts. e results of her resear
have been published in Russia and abroad. Since 2008 she has served as an
Academy of Management HR Ambassador in Russia. She received her
undergraduate degree in Psyology from St Petersburg University and her
Master’s degree in International Relations and Political Science from
Moscow State University of International Relations (MGIMO) and Sciences
Po Paris. She earned her doctoral degree in Economics from Moscow State
University.
David Guttormsen joined the Exeter University Business Sool as a
lecturer in International Business in 2014. He earned a PhD in Politics and
International Studies from the University of Warwi. David specializes in
cultural issues in international business and management, social
anthropological analysis of expatriates and qualitative resear
methodology. He has been a visiting researer at Hong Kong Baptist
University, Peace Resear Institute Oslo and Leeds University Business
Sool. David is currently a guest editor for International Studies of
Management & Organization (with Jakob Lauring, Aarhus). He serves as a
review panel member for International Journal of Social Research
Methodology and has reviewed for International Business Review and
Journal of Global Mobility. David has published on expatriates and think
tanks, and his work has been presented at the Academy of International
Business and European Academy of Management annual conferences. David
is former President and Chair of the British International Studies
Association’s Postgraduate Network.

Anne-Wil Harzing is Resear Professor and Resear Development

Advisor at ESCP Europe, London. Her resear interests include
international HRM, expatriate management, HQ-subsidiary relationships,
the role of language in international business, the international resear
process and the quality and impact of academic resear. She has published
or presented more than 160 books, book apters and academic papers about
these topics in journals su as Journal of International Business Studies,
Management International Review, International Business Review, Journal
of World Business, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Human Resource
Management, Organization Studies, Strategic Management Journal and
Academy of Management Learning and Education. Anne-Wil also has a
keen interest in issues relating to journal quality and resear performance
metrics. In this context she is the editor of the Journal ality List, the
provider of Publish or Perish, a soware program that retrieves and analyses
academic citations and the author of The Publish or Perish Book: Your Guide
to Effective and Responsible Citation Analysis.
Jia He is a PhD researer in the Social and Behavioral Sciences at Tilburg
University, the Netherlands. She obtained her MA degree in Intercultural
Communication from Shanghai International Studies University, China. Her
current resear includes the psyological meaning of survey response
styles, values, social desirability and other methodological aspects of cross-
cultural studies. She is also interested in contemporary resear methods
including structural equation modelling and multilevel analysis.

Jean Helms Mills is a professor of Management at the Sobey Sool of

Business, St. Mary’s University in Halifax Nova Scotia and a professor (2.0)
at Jyväskylä University’s Sool of Business and Economics in Finland from
2012 to 2014. She has also been a visiting senior resear fellow at Hanken in
Helsinki, Finland since 2008. Her resear interests are in the areas of gender,
historiography and critical sensemaking, from a critical management
perspective and she has published in journals including Organization,
Organizational Research Methods, Culture and Organization, Gender, Work
and Organization, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, Journal of Management History and Management and
Organizational History. Jean is the author of seven books and a number of
book apters and edited collections, including Making Sense of
Organizational Change (Routledge, 2003) and co-author of Workplace
Learning: A Critical Perspective (Garamond Press, 2003) and Understanding
Organizational Change (Routledge, 2009). She is a past associate editor (the
Americas) of Culture and Organization and she is an associate editor for
Gender, Work and Organization, as well as serving on the editorial boards of
a number of journals. Jean is past Co-Chair of the Critical Management
Studies Division of the Academy of Management.

Nigel Holden obtained his PhD at Manester Business Sool in 1986 and
has been a visiting resear fellow at the Centre of International Business of
Leeds University Business Sool (UK) since 2011. He has held
professorships at business sools in the UK, Denmark and Germany as well
as visiting professorships in Austria, Denmark and ailand. A widely
travelled management researer, educator and keynote speaker, he has
published extensively in a wide range of international management fields
with special reference to cross-cultural management in the global knowledge
economy, language and translation in international business, global talent
management and business history. He is an associate editor and co-founder
of the European Journal of International Management.

Prue Holmes, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education,

Durham University, UK. She leads the MA in Intercultural Education and
Internationalisation, and researes and publishes in the area of intercultural
(language) education, and intercultural
communication/dialogue/competence. In addition to co-developing the
teaing and learning activities within IEREST, she leads the Researing
Multilingually strand of the large AHRC-funded project ‘Researing
multilingually at the borders of language, the body, law, and the state’
(hp://researing-multilingually-at-borders.com/). Prue is the airperson
of the International Association of Languages and Intercultural
Communication (IALIC, hp://ialic.net/?page_id=15). Prue has taught at the
University of Waikato, New Zealand, and in English language and teaer
education in Italy, China and Hong Kong.

Gavin Ja is Professor of Management in the Business Sool at Monash

University, Australia. His resear interests include postcolonial theory and
its application to the critical study of management and marketing, and
gender and diversity in organizations. He has published in journals
including Sociology, Organization, Management International Review,
British Journal of Management and the Academy of Management Review.
He is Past Chair of the Critical Management Studies Division of the
Academy of Management.

Maddy Janssens is Professor of Organization Studies at the Faculty of

Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Belgium. She has served as the
scientific lead of SUS.DIV, a European Network of Excellence on Sustainable
Development in a Diverse World, and the director of LUCIDE, the Leuven
University Center for Interdisciplinary Resear on Diversity and Equality.
Her resear interest centres on the relationship between ‘difference’ and
emancipatory practices in organizations. Key areas of inquiry have been
expatriate management, global teams, language and translation, diversity
management and inter-organizational collaborations. Her current resear
works with cosmopolitanism in order to consider how global connectivity is
translated into ethical and political issues in global organizations. Recent
publications have appeared in Journal of International Business Studies,
Organization, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Journal of Business
Ethics, Journal of Management Studies and Academy of Management
Journal.

Karina Jensen is Professor of Global Innovation and Leadership at NEOMA

Business Sool in the Champagne region of France. She is an educator,
international management consultant and ange facilitator with substantial
experience in launing business and education initiatives across cultures.
She has successfully launed and managed global products and education
programs across Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas for multinational
organizations su as Adobe, Hyperion (now Oracle), NEC and Symantec.
Karina is also the founder and managing director of Global Minds Network,
a firm that provides management consulting and training services for
facilitating organizational innovation and collaboration worldwide. In
addition to earning a PhD from ESCP Europe Business Sool, Karina holds
an MBA in International Business and a BA in Public Relations. Originally
from San Francisco, California, Karina is currently based in Paris where she
conducts resear on global innovation management, cross-cultural
collaboration and leadership development.

Jane Kassis-Henderson is Professor of International Business

Communication at ESCP Europe Business Sool, Paris campus. She is a
graduate in Modern Languages, MA Honours, PhD, University of St
Andrews, Scotland, UK. She has taught in higher education in France in
universities and business sools and was Chair of the Department of
Language and Culture at ESCP Europe for several years. Her current
resear interests and recent publications are on the following themes: the
use of English as a working language in international business and
management education; teaing multicultural audiences and learning in
multicultural/multilingual student groups; language diversity and building
trust in multilingual teams. She is a member of the ESCP Europe Resear
Centre, Teams in International Business and a founding member of GEM&L,
an international think tank on Management and Language.

Anders Klitmøller is Assistant Professor at the Department of Language

and Communication, University of Southern Denmark. His resear lies in
the nexus between international management and cross-cultural
communication with particular focus on different aspects of common
language use in multinational corporations. His work has been published in
national and international journals including Journal of World Business,
Critical Perspectives on International Business and International Journal of
Public Administration.

Alexei Koveshnikov is a post-doctoral researer at Aalto University,

Sool of Business, Finland. His resear and teaing interests include
diverse issues related to power and legitimacy in organizations and, more
specifically, critical perspectives on managing a multinational corporation,
in terms of cultural stereotyping, nationalism and gender. He has published
in journals su as Strategic Management Journal, Journal of World
Business, Journal of International Management, Management International
Review and Journal of International Business Studies.

Nir Kshetri is a professor at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro

and a resear fellow at Kobe University. He is the author of Cybercrime and
Cybersecurity in the Global South (Palgrave 2013), The Global Cyber-Crime
Industry: Economic, Institutional and Strategic Perspectives (Springer-Verlag
2010) and two other books. Nir has published 75 journal articles and two
dozen book apters and has given lectures or presented resear papers
(over 150) at national/international conferences in 44 countries. A 2012 study
ranked him second in terms of the number of articles published in Journal of
International Management over a 13-year period (1998–2010). Nir received
the Emerald Literati Network Award for Excellence in 2013 and 2010. He has
won the Pacific Telecommunication Council’s Meheroo Jussawalla Resear
Paper Prize twice (2010 and 2008). Nir participated as lead discussant at the
peer review meeting of the UN’s Information Economy Report 2013.

Jakob Lauring is Professor in the Department of Business Administration,

Aarhus University. His resear is on international management with
particular focus on language use and communication. Jakob Lauring has
published more than 100 articles in outlets su as Journal of World
Business, International Business Review, British Journal of Management,
Human Resource Management Journal and International Journal of Human
Resource Management as well as Journal of Business Communication and
Corporate Communication. Jakob Lauring is an associate editor of Journal of
Global Mobility.

Philippe Lecomte holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University

Paris X, France and an ‘Agrégation’ of German (High-level Diploma
permiing teaing in University). He has lectured in France, Belgium and
Germany and has been a member of the faculty of Toulouse Business Sool
(TBS), France for over 30 years. He was Head of the Language Department
of TBS for seven years. He is now in arge of a Major in International
Management at TBS. He is a member of the HR Department and of the
Management Resear Center of TBS, as well as president and founding
member of GEM&L, an international think tank on Management and
Language. In this position, he has organized eight annual conferences so far.
His current resear interest is on language in international business and
management education.
Irina Lyan is a doctoral student at the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is writing her
dissertation on the cross-cultural encounters in international collaborations
between Israeli firms and Korean business groups. Her main resear
interests are national and global cultures and their impact on inter-
organizational dynamics. Irina is a recipient of the Hebrew University
Presidential Solarship (2013–17) and she is an associate doctoral fellow at
the Truman Resear Institute for the Advancement of Peace.

Slawomir J. Magala, Professor of Cross-Cultural Management, Roerdam

Sool of Management, Erasmus University. Educated in Poland, Germany
and the United States. Involved in global consulting, resear and training in
China, Egypt, India, Singapore, Estonia and Slovakia, Cze Republic,
Slovenia, Poland, Italy, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom, USA and Namibia. He
has wrien books including Class Struggle in Classless Poland (1982, 2011),
Cross Cultural Competence (2005) and The Management of Meaning in
Organizations (2009) and apters for books, e.g. ‘Social Life of Values:
Cross-cultural Construction of Realities’ (Barry, Hansen, ed., Sage Handbook
of New and Emerging Theories in Management and Organization, 2008);
‘Cultural Change: Complexity and Diversity in Institutional Tempospaces’
(Boje, Burnes, Hassard, eds., The Routledge Companion to Organizational
Change, 2012). He has also wrien over 400 papers, e.g. ‘Ethical Control and
Cultural Change: In Cultural Dreams Begin Organizational Responsibilities’,
Journal of Public Affairs, 10/3, 2010; ‘Organizing Change: Testing Cultural
Limits of Sustainability’, Management Decision, 50/5, 2012.

Wolfgang Mayrhofer is Full Professor and Head of the Interdisciplinary

Institute of Management and Organisational Behaviour, WU Vienna,
Austria. He previously has held full-time positions at the University of
Paderborn, Germany, and at Dresden University of Tenology, Germany.
He conducts resear in comparative international human resource
management and leadership, work careers and systems theory and
management and has received national and international rewards for
outstanding resear and service to the academic community. He has
authored, co-authored and co-edited 27 books, more than 110 book apters
and 70 peer-reviewed articles. Wolfgang Mayrhofer is a member of the
editorial or advisory board of several international journals and resear
centres. His teaing assignments at the doctoral, graduate and executive
level and his role as visiting solar have led him to many universities
around the globe. He regularly consults to both private and public sector
organizations and conducts training in the areas of HRM, leadership, teams
and self-development by outdoor training/sailing.

Daniel J. McCarthy is the Alan S. McKim and Riard A. D’Amore

Distinguished Professor of Global Management and Innovation at the
D’Amore-McKim Sool of Business, Northeastern University, and is a
fellow at the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University. His
resear and publications centre on strategic management, entrepreneurship
and corporate governance, particularly in Russia’s transitioning economy.
He has more than 100 publications, including numerous articles in journals
including Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management
Perspectives, California Management Review, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, Management International Review and Journal of Business Ethics.
His books include four editions of Business Policy and Strategy, as well as
Business and Management in Russia, The Russian Capitalist Experiment and
Corporate Governance in Russia. He is also the lead director of Clean
Harbors, Inc., a multibillion-dollar NYSE-listed company. He earned his AB
and MBA degrees from Dartmouth College and his DBA from Harvard
University.

Snejina Miailova (PhD from Copenhagen Business Sool, Denmark) is

Professor of International Business at the University of Auland Business
Sool, New Zealand. Her resear areas are International Management and
Knowledge Management. Her work has appeared in Academy of
Management Review, Academy of Management Executive, Journal of
Management Studies, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of
World Business, Management International Review, International Business
Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Advances in
International Management, Journal of International Management, Critical
Perspectives on International Business, California Management Review,
Long Range Planning, Management Learning, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Organizational Dynamics, Technovation, Employee Relations,
European Management Journal, Business Strategy and other
Review
journals. Snejina has co-edited books on knowledge governance (Oxford
University Press), women in international management (Edward Elgar),
HRM in Central and Eastern Europe (Routledge) and resear methodologies
in non-Western contexts (Palgrave Macmillan). She serves on the editorial
boards of several academic journals.

Már Wolfgang Mixa is a PhD candidate at Reykjavik University Sool of

Business. Már graduated with an MA in Corporate Finance from the
University of Iceland in 2009, a BSBA in Finance and a BA in Philosophy
from the University of Arizona in 1994. He has had extensive experience in
the financial banking industry in positions ranging from trading, FX,
proprietary trading, asset management, establishing and managing mutual
funds, money market desk, pension funds and being head of department and
CEO of a brokerage firm. In recent years Már has been a lecturer at
Reykjavík University. Már also worked full-time in 2013 and 2014 as a
researer for the Parliamentary Special Investigation Commission looking
into the causes and events that eventually led to the fall of the Icelandic
savings banks system in 2008. His main resear interests are investments,
cultural finance, behavioral finance and financial history.

Fiona Moore is a business anthropologist and reader in Management

Studies at Royal Holloway, University of London. She received her doctorate
from Oxford University’s Institute for Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Her resear on German multinational corporations, iefly BMW UK, was
published in the Journal of International Business Studies, Management
International Review and Thunderbird International Business Review. She
has wrien a monograph, Transnational Business Cultures, on German
expatriates in London and conducted resear on Korean entrepreneurs in
the UK and on cross-cultural management in Tesco plc, in collaboration
with researers at Kingston University and Victoria University. Her current
resear focuses on the development of international knowledge networks
by Taiwanese professionals in the UK.

Terry Mughan (PhD) is Associate Fellow at the Centre for Global Studies,
University of Victoria in Canada. His resear interests have revolved
around the place of language and cultural skills in business
internationalisation strategies, including a 1,200 company study of SMEs in
the East of England. He has authored several resear reports for policy
bodies su as UK Trade and Investment and the OECD. He has published
articles in The Language Learning Journal, European Business Review and
International Marketing Management. In 1999, Terry was the Founding
President of the UK arm of SIETAR, the leading world professional society
for interculturalists, a post he occupied for three years. He is currently a
member of the Scientific Commiee of GEM+L, the society dedicated to
languages in international business. He taught the first MBA intercultural
management module in the UK when at the University of Wolverhampton
in 1991. At Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, he led the validation of
degree programmes in Intercultural Studies at postgraduate level in 1995 and
undergraduate in 1999. He is currently co-authoring a book with Mary Yoko
Brannen entitled Language Strategies for Global Business to be published by
Palgrave McMillan in 2015.

Catherine Nierson is a professor in the College of Business at Zayed

University in the United Arab Emirates. She has held senior positions in
India and in the Netherlands, and she has also lived and worked in the
United States and the United Kingdom. In 2008 she received the Association
for Business Communication’s Distinguished Publication Award and in 2009
the Association’s Outstanding Researer Award. Dr Nierson’s work has
been published widely and she has given numerous international conference
papers and guest lectures at institutions around the world. Her current
resear interests include the use of English as an international language in
business contexts, the use of English as a lingua franca in the Gulf Region
and the communication of corporate social responsibility.

Matti Nojonen received his MA in Sinology at Stoholm University and

doctorate from the Helsinki Sool of Economics. Nojonen is currently
working as Professor of Chinese Society and Culture at University of
Lapland, Finland. Previously he has been a Professor of Practice at Aalto
Sool of Business, Finland and an executive vice director at the Sino-
Finnish Center at Tongji University in Shanghai. Nojonen has spent several
years working in China; as a professor at Tongji University, board member
and as a resear fellow at the Nordic Center, Fudan University in Shanghai.
Nojonen has also been working as resear fellow and program director at
the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, a think tank of the Parliament
of Finland. Nojonen’s resear interests and publications cover Chinese
foreign and security policies, traditional Chinese strategic thinking, guanxi
in commercializing China and regional business systems of China. Nojonen
can be reaed at mai.nojonen@ulapland.fi.

Pál Nyíri is the Professor of Global History from an Anthropological

Perspective at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. He is the author, most
recently, of Mobility and Cultural Authority in Contemporary China (2009)
and, with Joana Breidenba, Seeing Culture Everywhere … from Genocide
to Consumer Habits (2010, both University of Washington Press). His current
resear focuses on foreign correspondents for Chinese media.

Banu Özkazanç-Pan received her PhD in Organization Studies from the

University of Massauses, Amherst. Currently, she is an assistant
professor and the director for the newly launed doctoral program on
Organizations and Social Change at the College of Management at the
University of Massauses, Boston. Banu’s resear interests include
examining diversity, equality and inclusion in organizations using
postcolonial, transnational and feminist perspectives. Her recent work
focuses on assessing the inclusivity and impact of tenology and social
innovation incubators for various groups of people and communities. She is
also pursuing resear examining the impact of urban entrepreneurship
activities on the economic and social development of various cities. Banu’s
work has been published in the Academy of Management Review,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and
International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Mariana Ines Paludi is a PhD candidate at the Sobey Sool of Business,

Saint Mary’s University, Canada and a teaing and resear assistant at
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina. Her areas of
resear include critical management perspective, gender, culture, Latin
America and postcolonialism. She has published in journals su as
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and recently she co-authored a apter for
The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations. In 2011 she was awarded
with the Vanier Canada Graduate Solarship to pursue her PhD
programme.

Vesa Peltokorpi is Associate Professor at the Japan Advanced Institute of

Science and Tenology (JAIST) in Nomi, Japan. He received his PhD at
Hanken Sool of Economics in Helsinki, Finland. His resear interests
include international HRM-related issues, su as expatriation, recruitment
and language policies and practices, especially in foreign subsidiaries in
Japan.

Katharina Pernkopf is Assistant Professor at WU Vienna. Her work is in

the field of organizational institutionalism, particularly in the area of
comparative human resource management and organizational behavior. She
is interested in how today’s employment relationship is affected by anging
organizational demands and institutional environments. rough the study
of how institutional logics or more generally cultural values play out in real
organizations, she analyses coordination situations at the intersection of
person and organization, the employee and work or more specifically
contemporary HR/talent management systems. Besides her interest in
neoinstitutional theory, she applies concepts from Fren sools of thought
(e.g. convention theory) to comparative HRM studies. In a current project,
she examines legitimation processes in the course of the establishment or
adjustment of work time arrangements in organizations between the poles
of individual career paths and labour law policies. In 2014, she was
SCANCOR visiting solar at Stanford.

Margaret E. Phillips is Associate Professor of International Business at the

Graziadio Sool of Pepperdine University. A teaer, researer and
consultant, she works primarily in the US, the Caribbean and Latin America.
Her special interests are in cultural influences on behaviour in and of
organizations, management development in multicultural contexts, the
application of multiple theoretical perspectives to organization diagnosis,
design for organizational sustainability, and qualitative resear methods.
She currently serves on the Board of Directors of several organizations, for-
profit and not-for-profit, with culturally diverse stakeholders. With
multinational, multidisciplinary teams of colleagues, she has co-authored
Crossing Cultures: Insights from Master Teachers (Routledge, 2004) and the
comprehensive apter on ‘Conceptualizing culture’ for two editions of the
Handbook for International Management Research. Professor Phillips
received her PhD in Management from the Anderson Sool at UCLA, an
MS in Administration from the Merage Sool at UC Irvine and a BA in
Psyology from UCLA’s College of Leers and Science.

Rebecca Piekkari is Professor of International Business at Aalto University,

Sool of Business, Finland. Her resear focuses on the allenges of
managing people in multinational corporations. More specifically, she has
contributed to two main resear streams: language in international business
and the use of qualitative methods in international business and
management resear. Her work has been published in journals su as the
Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management Studies and
Journal of International Business Studies as well as in several handbooks in
the area.

Ajnesh Prasad is Resear Associate Professor at EGADE Business Sool,

Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico. His resear has appeared in the
Advances in Consumer Research, Human Relations, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research,
Management Learning, Organization, Scandinavian Journal of Management
and elsewhere. He has guest edited special issues of the Journal of Business
Ethics (with A. J. Mills) and Critical Perspectives on International Business
(with G. Durepos). He has previously held resear appointments at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rutgers University and Yale University.
Prior to assuming his current position, Ajnesh was a senior lecturer at the
University of New South Wales’ Australian Sool of Business. He
completed his PhD in Organization Studies from York University’s Suli
Sool of Business in October 2012.

Henriett Primecz, PhD, is Associate Professor at Corvinus University of

Budapest. Her main resear area covers organization theory, cross-cultural
management, gender and diversity. She has published several papers
analysing intercultural and organizational phenomena from different
paradigmic perspectives. She has conveyed several conference tras (EGOS
2007, CMS 2007, CMS 2013), edited a special issue (IJCCM in 2009) and a
book (2011) and authored several papers together with Laurence Romani and
Katalin Topcu, whi investigated different paradigms in the field of cross-
cultural management.

Markus Pudelko is Director of the Department of International Business at

Tübingen University Sool of Business and Economics and Vice Dean as
well as Associate Dean for International Affairs of the Faculty of Economics
and Social Sciences. He earned Masters degrees in Business Studies
(University of Cologne), Economics (Sorbonne University) and International
Management (Community of European Management Sools – CEMS) and
a PhD (University of Cologne). His current resear is on headquarters–
subsidiary relationships, multinational teams, the impact of language on
international business, Japanese HRM and gender issues, comparative HRM
and cross-cultural management. He has published on these topics in books,
book apters and journals su as Journal of International Business Studies,
Human Resource Management, Long Range Planning, Journal of World
Business, Organizational Dynamics and International Journal of Human
Resource Management. He received several resear awards, from the
Academy of Management and the Academy of International Business,
among others.

Sheila M. Puffer is University Distinguished Professor at the D’Amore-

McKim Sool of Business, Northeastern University and a Fellow at the
Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University. She is a former
editor of The Academy of Management Executive and member of the board
of governors. Her resear and publications focus primarily on corporate
governance, entrepreneurship and management in Russia’s transitioning
economy. She has more than 150 publications, including numerous articles
in journals su as Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of
Management Review, Academy of Management Perspectives, California
Management Review, Journal of Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice. Her books include The Russian Management
Revolution, Business and Management in Russia, The Russian Capitalist
Experiment and Corporate Governance in Russia. She holds BA and MBA
degrees from the University of Oawa, Canada, a PhD from the University
of California, Berkeley, and a diploma from Moscow’s Plekhanov Institute of
the National Economy.

Sarah Robinson is Senior Lecturer in Management and Organisation

Studies at Leicester University Sool of Management. She has worked at
the Open University Business Sool and Lancaster University Sool of
Management, UK where she also completed her PhD. Her interests include
the internationalisation of management education, cross-cultural
management and international management learning. She has a baground
in education development and worked on the management and development
of education projects in several countries before joining academia.

Laurence Romani, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Stoholm Sool of

Economics (Sweden). Her work focuses on issues of representation and
interaction with the cultural Other in respectful and enriing ways. She
currently considers contributions from critical management, feminist and
postcolonial organization studies to further cross-cultural management
resear and teaing. She co-edited Cross-Cultural Management in
Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings (Edward Elgar, 2011) with
Henrie Primecz and Sonja Samann.

Johanna Saarinen is a doctoral candidate at the Department of

Management Studies in Aalto University, Sool of Business, Finland. Prior
to her PhD studies she has had a career of 20 years in human resources
within industrial companies – as an executive and as a manager, currently
deeply involved in competence and talent management of a multinational
organization. e focus of her PhD is leadership in global virtual teams.

Sonja Samann holds a air in Organizational Behavior, University Bw

Muni, Department of Economics, Management and Organization Sciences,
Germany and is Director of the Institute for Developing Viable
Organizations. She is also a visiting professor, University St Gallen,
Switzerland and has taught mostly executives at EBS, RWTH Aaen, WU
Vienna, Jao Tong University in Shanghai and UCLA, USA. She was
Managing Partner at a major resear and consulting firm in Switzerland.
Her resear, teaing, executive development and consulting focus on
issues of intercultural management, corporate/organizational culture,
leadership, personal-, team- and organizational competence and
development in national and multinational/multicultural contexts. She has
published several books, numerous articles in reviewed and professional
journals and contributed to several handbooks. Professor Samann received
her PhD in Management from the Graduate Sool of Management at
UCLA, USA, and her MS and BS in Psyology from the Rupret-Karls
University Heidelberg, Germany.

Ulrike Saede is Professor of Japanese Business at the University of

California, San Diego, Sool of International Relations and Pacific Studies.
She earned her MA and PhD in Japan Studies and Economics from Bonn
University and the Marburg University, Germany. She is trilingual and has
spent a total of more than eight years of resear and study in Japan. Areas
of resear include Japan’s corporate strategy, business organization and
management, regulation, financial markets, corporate restructuring,
anging employment practices and entrepreneurship.

Anne-Marie Søderberg is Professor of Cross-Cultural Communication and

Management at Copenhagen Business Sool, Denmark. With a resear
focus on cultures, identity constructions, communication and learning
processes, she has created a bridge between her educational baground in
the humanities and her present position as an international business solar.
She is currently principal investigator of longitudinal ethnographic studies
of global soware development teams in an interdisciplinary and inter-
organizational project (www.nexgsd.org). She was director of the resear
programme ‘Cultural Intelligence as a Strategic Resource’ (2008–11), based
on whi she co-authored the book Global Collaboration: Intercultural
Experiences and Learning (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). She has (co-)authored
books, book apters and journal articles (e.g. Journal of International
Business Studies, Journal of International Management, Management
International Review) on cross-cultural communication and management
issues and has wrien about how managers and employees make sense of
and give sense to complex ange processes in international mergers and
acquisitions.
Mikael Søndergaard is Associate Professor at Aarhus University, where he
is Head of the Business Section for the Department of Economics and
Business. He teaes graduate level courses on International Management,
Internationalization of the Firm and Transnational Management. He
organized and taught in nine week-long PhD workshops in Cross Cultural
Organizational Resear with participants from all continents (2004–14) at
Aarhus University, Koc University and Maastrit University. He has
published in Management International Review, Thunderbird International
Business Review, Organization Studies, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Academy of Management Executive and The Case
Journal and co-edited for Foundations of Cross Cultural Management for
Sage Publications. Mikael has contributed a number of book apters,
reviews ad hoc for a number of journals and serves on the editorial boards
of journals. With Mark F. Peterson, he is focused special issue editor of
Nations, Within-Nation Regions, and Multiple Nation Regions: How Are
Societal Boundaries Significant for International Management Today?

Chris Steyaert is Professor of Organizational Psyology and Director of

the Resear Institute for Organizational Psyology at the University of
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland. He has published in international journals and
edited books in the area of organizational theory and entrepreneurship. His
main thematic interests concern creativity, multiplicity and reflexivity in
organizing ange, intervention, and entrepreneurship. Key areas of inquiry
have been entrepreneurial startups and social-entrepreneurial ange, urban
creativity and new museums, diversity and cosmopolitanism, creative
pedagogies and dialogical intervention, and language and translation.
Currently, he is interested in conceiving performative, conceptual
approaes to language, affect, space and method. Recent publications have
appeared in Journal of International Business Studies, Organization Studies,
Organization, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management Studies,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and the Scandinavian Journal
of Public Administration.
Helene Tenzer (PhD, University of Passau) is Assistant Professor in the
Department of International Business at the University of Tübingen,
Germany. Prior to joining the department, she earned a Masters in
International Cultural and Business Studies and a PhD in Inter-cultural
Communication. Helene’s resear focuses on the impact of language
barriers on international business. Specific topics include the influence of
language on trust building, shared cognition and power relations in
multinational teams, language-based oice of communication media in
virtual teams or the management of language-induced emotions in a
multinational workforce. e overall goal of her resear is to extend
international business and organizational behavior theory to multilingual
contexts. Helene’s resear interests also include multinational team
processes, cross-cultural management, foreign subsidiary management and
Japanese management. Her resear has been published in journals su as
the Journal of International Business Studies, Schmalenbach Business
Review, Asian Business and Management and Zeitschrift für
Betriebswirtschaft.

Janne Tienari is Professor of Organizations and Management at Aalto

University, Sool of Business, Finland. He also works as Guest Professor at
Stoholm University, Sool of Business, Sweden. Tienari’s resear and
teaing interests include gender and diversity, managing multinational
corporations, strategy work and cross-cultural management and
communication. His latest passion is to understand management, new
generations and the future. He has published in journals su as the
Academy of Management Review, Organization Science, Organization
Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Human Relations, British Journal
of Management, Organization and Journal of Management Inquiry.

Susanne Tietze, PhD, is Professor of Management at Keele Management

Sool, Keele University, UK. She holds a degree in Linguistics and
Language from Heidelberg University, Germany and her resear is
informed by discursive and linguistic approaes through whi she
theorizes organizations as ‘talk and text’. Her work has a distinct
international dimension and focuses in particular on the relationship
between culture and language and their nexus of ties with the generation
and dissemination of knowledge in international work contexts. In particular
her work includes the impact of English-only publication policies on the
generation of management knowledge and on the career and well-being of
management academics. Current resear draws on translation theory as a
conceptual trajectory to understand multilingual knowledge transfer and the
role of translators and interpreters as active and influential knowledge
agents. She has wrien two books on language, international management
and organization and has language-related publications in journals su as
Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business,
Intercultural Communication and Language and Management Learning.

Katalin Topcu, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Corvinus University of

Budapest. Her main resear area is cross-cultural management and decision
sciences, her preferred resear paradigm is interpretive and she pursues
qualitative resear analysing narratives. She has published several papers
and book apters on intercultural encounters in Hungarian, in English and
in German. Her teaing covers decision methods and cross-cultural
management.

Vlad Vaiman is Associate Dean and Professor of International Management

at the Sool of Management of California Lutheran University and visiting
professor at several premier universities around the world. Dr Vaiman has
published three books on managing talent in organizations – Smart Talent
Management: Building Knowledge Assets for Competitive Advantage (with
C. Vance); Talent Management of Knowledge Workers: Embracing the Non-
Traditional Work-force; and Talent Management of Self-initiated
Expatriates: A Neglected Source of the Global Talent Flow (with A.
Haslberger) – as well as a number of academic and practitioner-oriented
articles in the fields of talent management and international HRM. His work
has appeared in top academic journals including Academy of Management
Learning & Education, Academy of Management Perspectives, Human
Resource Management, International Journal of Human Resource
Management and others. He is a co-founder and editor-in-ief of the
European Journal of International Management (EJIM), an ISI/SSCI indexed
publication.

Fons J. R. van de Vijver is Professor of Cultural Psyology at Tilburg

University, the Netherlands, and Professor Extraordinary at North-West
University, South Africa and the University of eensland, Australia. He
obtained a PhD from Tilburg University in 1991. e study dealt with cross-
cultural differences and similarities in inductive reasoning in Zambia,
Turkey and the Netherlands. He has wrien over 350 publications, mainly
on cognition, acculturation, multiculturalism and methodological aspects of
cross-cultural studies (how can we design and analyse cross-cultural studies
so as to maximize their validity?). With Kwok Leung from Hong Kong, he
wrote a book on cross-cultural resear methods (Sage, 1997). He is a former
editor of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. He is the current
president of the European Association of Psyological Assessment.

Zhaohui Wang, PhD, is Professor in the Sool of Management, Shanghai

University of International Business and Economics, China. His resear
interests include cross-cultural management and human resource
management. He has published extensively in these areas and his works
appear in books su as Cross-Cultural Management, International
Enterprise Management: Theory and Practice and Talents Localization of
Transnational Corporations. He serves as a TV show host of Talent Capital
Operations. He also has extensive consulting experience with companies and
government agencies in China.

Patareerat Yanaprasart, PhD, holds a Baelor of Arts and a Master’s

degree in Fren Studies from Chulalongkorn University, ailand. Aer
obtaining her PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Neuâtel,
Switzerland and her intercollegiate Franco-Swiss postdoctoral fellowship at
the University of Fribourg in partnership with the National Institute of
Oriental Languages and Civilizations in France, she began her teaing
experience at the Center for Teaing and Resear in a Foreign Language,
University of Fribourg, Switzerland. ereaer, she worked as a deputy
director for the EU Project at the University of Basel. Currently, she is a
teaer–researer aaed to the Faculty of Arts (SLSI) of the University of
Lausanne. She is a substitute lecturer at the Faculty of Arts (ELCF) at the
University of Geneva, and provides courses at the University of Applied
Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland (HEG Arc Neuâtel, HEIG-VD),
and at the Business Sool of Management, Angers, France. Her
publications, fields of teaing and resear focus on the intercultural
approa to multilingual teaing; language policy and diversity
management; exolingual interactions and intercultural communication;
multilingualism, interpreting and interculturality; and mobility and
expatriation – integration and competences.

Sierk Ybema is Associate Professor, Department of Organization Sciences,

VU University, Amsterdam. His resear centers on processes of politics,
identity and sensemaking, with empirical seings ranging from amusement
parks to newspaper offices and multinational corporations. He has published
on culture and conflict, relational and temporal identity talk, managerial
discourse and ‘postalgia’, intercultural communications, inter-organizational
relationships, organizational ange and crisis in journals su as Human
Relations, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Organization, Organization Studies and Journal of Business Ethics. He is co-
editor of Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of
Everyday Life (2009, with Dvora Yanow, Harry Wels and Frans Kamsteeg)
and Organizational Culture (2011, with Dvora Yanow and Ida Sabelis). E-
mail: [email protected].

Yunxia Zhu, PhD, is Associate Professor at UQ Business Sool, University

of eensland, Australia. Her resear interests include cross-cultural
communications and management. She has published extensively in these
areas and her works have appeared in books, book apters and prestigious
international journals su as Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Management International Review, Journal of Business Ethics,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Public Relations Review, Discourse &
Communication, Discourse Studies, Discourse & Society, Text and Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, to name a few. She also has
extensive consulting experience with companies and government agencies in
Australia and China.
Keynote foreword: the power of
riness
Revitalizing cross-cultural management

Mary Yoko Brannen

Our lives, our cultures, are composed of many overlapping stories … if we hear only a single story
about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstanding.

(Ted talk – Adiie, 2009)

Despite its significant contributions, the field of cross-cultural management

is at a crisis point. Top business sools throughout the world no longer offer
cross-cultural management courses,1 consultants don’t call themselves cross-
cultural management specialists, and companies don’t actively seek
knowledge about crossing cultures. Yet, never before has cultural knowledge
been as important as it is now. In today’s globalized economy, managers and
professionals cannot but interact with individuals from other cultures – both
internationally and within their own work units – in order to make and
maintain cross-cultural connections, work in culturally mixed environments
and perform tasks with counterparts in different countries that require an
understanding and sensitivity to different cultural perspectives. Why then
the paradox between low demand yet high need for cross-cultural
management expertise? e short answer is that our solarship has
drastically fallen behind the daily reality of managers. Whereas in the past
when the primary motivation for internationalization was market expansion
or resource seeking, simple stories based on comparative aggregate data of
static national cultural aracteristics and the like were useful, today’s
complex business environment consisting of embedded ongoing
commitments spanning multiple cultures requires mu more nuanced
frameworks that capture the riness of current cross-cultural encounters.

e evolving foci of cross-cultural management

(CCM) stories

CCM at the level of the nation-state

e focus on national cultural differences as the main story in the field of

cross-cultural management came about as a natural consequence of the
economic and political motivation for international business resear (cf.
Brannen & Doz, 2010). Although the importance of national cultural
differences was well-established in the field of international relations (IR)
since the early 1920s,2 it was a relatively new focus in management studies
where an unquestioned US-centric, paroial perspective prevailed until the
pioneering interdisciplinary work of Frederi Harbison, an IR solar, and
Charles Myers, an economist (Harbison & Myers, 1959).
As more and more firms internationalized, the need for control of foreign
direct investment encouraged the understanding of differences between
nation-states and thus fostered a focus on cross-national differences
predominantly using aggregate demographic and economic variables (see
for example, the path-defining multidisciplinary work of Far Riman, 1965).
e key intent of this work was to help companies understand the cultural
barriers to the successful transfer of products, practices, tenology and
other core competencies abroad. e key vector under study was
unidirectional and headquarter centr su as ‘market penetration’, ‘market
entry’, ‘brand building’, ‘exploration and exploitation’ and ‘expatriates’
aracterized the cross-cultural resear of this time and helped to create an
‘us versus them’ diotomy.

CCM at the level of the organization

Later, following the interest in MNC effectiveness in cross-border mergers

and acquisitions, international joint ventures (IJV) and the like, the level of
analysis in resear shied from that of the nation-state to the organization.
Whereas previously international managers were primarily concerned with
ensuring the smooth transfer of knowledge from headquarters to
subsidiaries, managers operating in cross-border mergers and IJVs needed to
understand and negotiate across cultural differences within the context of a
single merged organizational context. Accordingly resear began to focus
on inter-organizational national cultural dynamics and was predominantly
rooted in cross-cultural psyology (Berry, 1969; Triandis et al., 1972;
Triandis, 1989) and intercultural communication (Barnlund & Araki, 1985;
Benne, 1977; Gudykunst et al., 1988).
is shi in resear focus was necessary as the management concern
became more about creating a common work culture within organizations
that were now made up of multiple national cultural influences (cf.
Boyacigiller et al., 1996, 2002; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Roberts, 1970 for
seminal reviews). e work of Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001) provided useful
early understanding of potentially relevant cultural differences impacting
upon the management of multicultural organizations. Others su as
Inglehart (1990), Swartz (1994), House et al. (2004), and Maznevski et al.
(2002), building on the earlier work of dimensions-based culture researers
outside of the field of international business su as Hall (1959), Kluhohn
(1951), Kluhohn and Stodtbe (1961) and Parsons and Shils (1951),
provided pragmatic categorizations of how variance in cultural values might
possibly play out in organizational seings.
While these categorizations have certainly been useful to managers in
cross-border mergers or when entering into IJV relationships, they tend to be
at too high a level of aggregation to help guide them through the day-to-day
exigencies and particularities of intercultural interactions. For instance,
while managers find Hofstede’s dimensions thought-provoking and
generally relevant, understanding the practical implications from them in
regards to how they relate to particular management situations is oen
unclear. is might be due to the various weaknesses in his resear design
that many solars have brought to the fore including its monolithic, static
nature, la of consciousness regarding variance in class or power dynamics
for individuals employed in foreign contexts by a large US Fortune 100
company (cf. Ailon, 2008 and McSweeney, 2002 for good reviews)
accompanied by the fact that his study missed half of the population of the
countries to whi he was inferring as women were significantly under-
represented at IBM in the late 1960s and early 1970s.3 But, clearly, in the
rapidly evolving environment of global business, one can easily imagine
endless cases where the day-to-day nature of managers’ organizational
realities does not fit the national cultural determinants provided by
aggregate values-based dimensions. Take, for example, just one of many
contextual aspects of culture that might not map exactly onto the national
cultural aggregate dimensions, su as organizational culture. Sony,
Olympus, Nippon Sheet Glass and Nissan all have put on board foreign
CEOs demonstrating that even in a national cultural seing that is
considered tighter than that of most other nation-states like seemingly
‘homogeneous’ Japan, aggregate cultural categorizations would fall short if
they were to predict the behaviour of these companies.
Following a functionalist ontology (Burell & Morgan, 1979), mu of the
resear from cross-cultural management to this point in the development of
the field viewed culture as something ‘out there’, measurable, objective and
relatively static and independent of interaction with others including the
researers themselves. As with the earlier economics motivation for cross-
cultural management theorizing, a predominant positivist perspective has
prevailed (cf. Lowe, 2001; Nakata & Izberk-Bilgin, 2009; Romani, 2008),
driven by an ‘us versus them’ logic of cultural comparison that maps nicely
into the aggregate value-based dimensions of national culture (cf. Brannen,
2009 for a critical summary of this work). As organizations rather than
nation-states have become in essence the ‘global meeting ground’, su
solarship has contributed lile to help in explaining how individuals
embedded in multiple cultural spheres of reference that impact upon
organizational life su as occupational, industry, or departmental culture,
can work together in an integrated, positive, ‘value-added’ fashion.
Unfortunately, the lion’s share of cross-cultural management resear
remains unsophisticated with regard to the complexity of culture in today’s
globalized work arenas. Stu in a static perspective, based on an
assumption of enduring national cultural aributes, it seems to reflect a
fundamental misunderstanding in the nature of culture itself. Although
culture is generally spoken of as a group level phenomenon, it is
dynamically created and enacted by individual members (Van Maanen &
Barley, 1985) and as su there are significant differences within cultures at
the individual level of analysis that are overlooked when cultural elements
are aggregated to the whole.

CCM at the level of the individual

e culture construct as embodied by individuals is more mutable than its

group level aggregation (Brannen, 1994; Brannen & Salk, 2000). Individuals
are typically members of several subcultural groups and therefore an
individual’s cultural makeup is a dynamic composition of a cross-section of
traits from simultaneous memberships in several subcultures (Brannen, 1994;
Sneider & Barsoux, 1997; Tung, 1997). While researers continued to fine-
tune their national culture comparisons, the fast-paced, interdependent,
interactive nature of today’s global economy has pushed to the forefront
what anthropologists and other close-observers of culture have always
known. From a distance, meanings and people’s sense-making paerns
might seem as a ‘collective programming of the mind’ (Hofstede, 1984).
However, up close and personal, the use-value of aggregate level cultural
frameworks begins to seriously break down as individuals with varying pre-
conceptions about ea other’s multiple cultural identities (national,
regional, sub-organizational, etc.) and contexts (institutional, organizational,
occupational, etc.) aempt to transfer knowledge, synronize routines,
learn from or even co-create across distance and differentiated
circumstances (Brannen & Salk, 2000; Brannen, 2004).
Even the transfer of seemingly non-culturally dependent knowledge or
practices requires deep knowledge of variable cultural meanings at all
locations of a firm’s global footprint (Brannen, 2004). Interestingly, there is a
growing proportion of people of mixed cultural identities in the global
workforce – biculturals, multiculturals and global cosmopolitans, who
provide companies operating globally with an unanowledged opportunity
to beer sense these inconsistencies, bridge across cultural contexts and
integrate knowledge from around the world (Brannen & Lee, 2014; Brannen
& omas, 2010). Yet, lile is known about the capabilities of this new
demographic beyond those suggested by aggregate group-level cultural
distinctions; and organizational approaes to managing su diversity still
tend to emphasize multiculturalism across a given population, rather than
within individuals (Jonsen et al., 2011). In the current competitive global
context where managers need to comprehend both the sending (i.e.
headquarters) as well as the receiving contexts, this demographic is likely to
have a lot to offer in terms of latent cultural intelligence – both specific to
their cultures of origin as well as a general understanding of cultural
variation (what has been termed ‘cultural metacognition’).
As flows of knowledge and processes become increasingly critical to
innovation and the ultimate competitive performance of MNCs, the role of
individuals in mediating between and within cultures oen in the context of
global teams has become arguably the most vital part of MNC performance.
us, as we begin to think about cross-cultural management at the
individual level of analysis we need to take into account the power of
riness. Individuals navigate not a single static cultural story, but operate
through webs of ri, interconnected and overlapping stories.
Today’s cross-cultural reality
Individuals in today’s global organizations are oen displaced from their
countries of origin, asked to share knowledge that is oen tacit, operating in
complex cultural teams without a commonly agreed upon shared language,
for the benefit of companies headquartered elsewhere, communicating in a
lingua franca not their own. e state of the existing resear in cross-
cultural management does lile to help them out. For example, the British
company Tesco, when faced with massive growth in its Asian markets and
decline in profitability at home, decided not to employ cross-cultural
management consultants, or utilize conventional cross-cultural management
tools su as bilateral comparative country profile analyses of ea of its
foreign subsidiaries. Rather, they ose to draw on the tacit, deeply
contextual knowledge of a team of their own Asian managers who had
never met before to leverage the power of their emerging markets and help
reinvigorate Tesco’s entire global operation. Exploring this situation briefly
will help us understand what the current cross-cultural needs are for
managers like these and what we as academics need to consider as resear
agendas in moving the field forward.4

A case in point: revitalizing Tesco plc with insights

from a cross-cultural team
In order to learn from the success of its Asian subsidiaries, Tesco launed
an innovative project in whi I had the opportunity to lead an academic
team in training nine Asian managers to become in-house ethnographers of
Tesco UK for a three-month period studying 52 stores in the UK with dual
objectives of helping Tesco (1) to understand and evaluate the core practices
that comprised the essence of Tesco’s home country advantage, and (2) to
identify sources of learning from Tesco’s foreign subsidiaries to aid in
reinvigorating its core practices in light of increasing competition in its
home market. In addition to realizing Tesco’s immediate goals, the project
also provided a resear opportunity to formalize ‘strategic ethnography’ as
an endogenous method for MNCs to leverage the insights and innovations
from their subsidiaries and to operationalize the construct of the ‘bicultural
bridge’ touted as essential to delivering on the promise of the multinational
company to utilize its global presence for sustainable competitive advantage
(Bran-nen & Doz, 2012).
As surfacing contextually based implicit (and oen tacit) knowledge is
difficult to do from within one’s own context, and because Tesco’s global
performance was being led by the strong positive performance of its Asian
subsidiaries with perhaps the most to offer the home-base in terms of
learning, the study began with the formation of a global team of nine
managers (called the ‘project team’) osen from Tesco’s Asian operations
(in China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, India and ailand) to come to the UK,
where they would be based for three months. Two managers were osen
from ea of the three countries where Tesco had the strongest growth:
China, Korea and ailand; one ea was osen from the three other
countries: Japan, where Tesco had been struggling since inception (and in
fact pulled out of entirely during the course of our project), Malaysia,
representing the most multicultural customer context, and India, the newest
of Tesco’s markets established in 2008. e selection process was limited by
several factors including time availability and exigencies in the subsidiary
contexts. However, the key criteria for selection were language competence
in English, at least three years’ experience working at Tesco and employee
level three or higher (Tesco has only five grades of employee classification
with five being the executive level).
In the first phase of the project, the academic resear team of four
solars skilled in organizational and strategic field-based analysis trained
the project team in ethnographic, cross-cultural analysis and grounded
theorizing teniques. Training sessions were on topics including
observation skills, note-taking methods, analysis of media and
documentation, interviewing teniques and on organizing and making
sense of data through teniques of content analysis, coding, triangulation
and the comparative method. Drawing from the constant comparative
method in grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) we helped the managers
understand that the generation of new knowledge that can guide global
strategic renewal is oen triggered by mismates – unexpected outcomes –
between earlier strategy formulation and implementation in different global
contexts. e project team’s role was to engage in a process of quasi-
theoretical reflection wherein they leverage their insider/outsider
perspectives to compare and contrast Tesco UK’s home processes and
operations with the emergent implementation realities in their home
contexts. is is the crux of the strategic ethnographic method: through the
inference meanism of abduction (Van Maanen et al., 2007), managers can
surface locally based tacit understandings and turn them into new
formulations (what Birkinshaw, 1997 terms ‘subsidiary initiatives’), whi
can offer substantial aid in reinvigorating their firms’ home operations as
well as its global strategies.
An important cross-cultural dimension of the project that represented a
particular allenge was that of language. Although all the project team
members came from Asia they had differing native languages. Mandarin,
ai, Hindi, Japanese and several others figured in the linguistic profile of
the group. Alongside their language identity, ea manager had a strong
national cultural identification that was further nourished by a strong desire
to see Tesco excel in their geographic region. e level of proficiency in
English of the project team members was by no means even. In spoken
English four of the managers stood out as having more ability than the
others because of residence, study or work experience in English-speaking
countries. ree project team members were noticeably weaker than the rest
in spoken English and one of them had never before visited an English-
speaking country. is project also had to overcome numerous allenges to
the business viability of the project posed by language differences both
between headquarters and the project team members as well as within the
team itself. Traditional expectations are that if the working language is
English and everyone is speaking it, non-native speakers will usually be
competent and motivated enough to get the job done despite native English
speakers oen being unaware of the difficulties they are encountering
(Edwards, 2008). is project gave rise to findings that rather expand our
understanding of this important language dynamic in cross-cultural
teamwork. In fact, language competence maered, but not in the way we
expected it. We also found this to be true for other cross-cultural
competencies we expected would maer.
In this project team, the three best performers in terms of their ability to
contribute insights from their home context to help revitalize Tesco
operations were the ones who had the weakest spoken English yet had the
longest tenure in Tesco in their native country. is indicates that familiarity
with the corporate language and identification with the organizational
culture is a key component of communicative efficacy in global
organizations. We also uncovered a significant la of correlation between
ability in spoken English and wrien English across the whole team, with
several project team members producing fieldnotes of mu higher quality
than expected based on their speaking ability. A further surprise in regards
to team performance was that in addition to having the weakest English and
the longest tenure at Tesco, the three best performers had one other thing in
common – they had the least cross-cultural exposure! In fact the top
performer – a manager from Tesco’s ailand subsidiary, Tesco Lotus – had
never le her home country prior to this project, whereas, oddly, she tested
highest in the team on global cosmopolitanism; a testament to the powerful
effect of global media. In fact, the team members we originally thought
would excel in the project (those who spoke English fluently and had spent
substantial time in the UK) were the weakest contributors to the project
goals. ey were very useful in the first stages of the project as cross-
cultural bridges for example, helping the project team with the ‘lay of the
land’ as it were: navigating the Tube, geing driver’s licenses, etc. However,
their familiarity with the UK context made it hard for them to see
differences that maered between their home context and Tesco UK and, as
su, their observations and consequent contributions to the project were
significantly less insightful than those who had less cross-cultural exposure
and lower levels of English competency.

New questions for the field of cross-cultural

management
is evidence from the Tesco project is representative of the current cross-
cultural organizational realities brought about by new forms of mobility,
interaction and strategic shis that are taking place in the global business
community. ese bear very lile resemblance to the static, monolithic
models of nation-based conceptualizations of culture on whi the field of
cross-cultural management has been based. e field is thus decidedly at a
crisis point and The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management is
well-timed to reflect upon and explore this new reality in a ri manner and
address new, currently pressing, questions for today’s global managers and
for the field of cross-cultural management.
What are the limits of culture-specific understanding? What kinds of
cross-cultural learning contribute to cultural general (i.e. cultural
intelligence or cultural metacognition) competencies? When does
organizational culture identity trump national cultural distance? How can
managers recognize and leverage latent skill-sets of the new bicultural
workforce demographic? Whi kinds of cultural skill-sets are most useful
for whi kinds of management needs and strategic processes? What is the
relationship between the various forms of language that articulate levels of
culture su as native speaker language, corporate language, lingua franca
and even occupation-specific language? How would our conceptualization of
cultural identity look if we were to consider su a multifaceted
understanding of language? Is there su thing as linguistic intelligence that
transcends language-specific competencies? What individual-level skill-sets
enable managers to act as ‘bicultural bridges’ – ‘boundary spanners’
mediating routines, practices and knowledge across subsidiaries of a
multinational organization?
A central irony about the field of cross-cultural management is that it
emerged at a time when the social sciences at large had finally begun to
embrace other forms of resear beyond the positivist paradigm, yet even
today, cross-cultural management resear remains aracterized by large-
scale survey resear based on value dimensions. While this offers a
relatively simple way to introduce cross-cultural components into one’s
resear design, for all of the reasons I’ve mentioned and as the Tesco story
underscores, this practice falls drastically short in documenting the current
reality of today’s global managers. What is needed now are less home-
centric, multi-textured, locally informed, contextually sensitive perspectives
that offer ri overlapping stories about the day-to-day life of individuals
navigating the complexities presented by today’s global reality. is
companion contains a number of pieces that escape su a single-story trap
and exemplify the type of resear questions and methodologies that
generate the power of riness needed to move the field forward.
Mary Yoko Brannen, PhD
Victoria, BC, Canada, October 2014

Notes
1 In fact, in our discussions around revitalizing the MBA program at the Gustavson Business Sool
at the University of Victoria, one International Advisory Board member specifically mentioned
that courses in Cross-Cultural Management are ‘old hat’ and no longer ‘relevant’.

2 International relations emerged as a formal academic ‘discipline’ in 1919 with the founding of the
first ‘air’ (professorship) in IR – the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, whi was rapidly
followed by the establishment of IR at US universities, Geneva, Switzerland and the London
Sool of Economics’ department of IR founded in the early 1920s at the behest of Nobel Peace
Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker (Mingst & Arreguín-To, 2011).
 3 e demographics of the employee population of IBM have anged radically, as well as the way
the company is organized and managed (just as two small examples, IBM now employs nearly
50,000 persons in India and 50 percent of IBM employees directly report to someone in another
location, oen in a different continent and of a different culture). e era of multi-domestic
companies is over and IBM now presents itself as a globally integrated company (Palmisano,
2006).

4 For a fuller story see Brannen, M.Y., Moore, F. & Mughan, T. (2013). Strategic ethnography and
reinvigo-rating Tesco plc: Leveraging inside/out bicultural bridging in multicultural teams,
Ethnographic Praxis in Industry (EPIC) conference Proceedings, London.

References
TEDGlobal 2009 18:49 – Adiie, C. (2009). e danger of a single story.
hps://www.ted.com/talks/imamanda_adiie_the_danger_of_a_singl
e_story
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a
value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33 (4):
885–904.
Barnlund, D. and Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: e management
of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1: 9–26.
Benne, J.M. 1977. Transition sho: Puing culture sho in perspective. In
N.C. Jain (Ed.), International and Intercultural Communication Annual,
4: 45–52.
Berry, J.W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of
Psychology, 4 (2):119–128.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: e
aracteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal,
18 (3): 207–229.
Boyacigiller, N., Kleinberg, M.J., Phillips, M. and Samann, S. (1996).
Conceptualizing culture. In B.J. Punne and O. Shenkar (Eds.),
 Handbook for International Management Research, Cambridge:
Blawell.
Boyacigiller, N., Beeler, S., Taylor, S., and Levy, O. (2002). Global
competencies. Presented as part of the ION Project on International
Organizing and Managing: A Panel Symposium. Academy of
International Business Annual Conference. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Brannen, M.Y. (1994). Your Next Boss Is Japanese: Negotiating cultural
change at a Western Massachusetts paper plant. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Massauses, Amherst.
Brannen, M.Y. (2004). When Miey loses face: Recontextualization,
semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management
Review, 29 (4): 593–616.
Brannen, M.Y. (2009). Using multiple case studies to generalize from
ethnographic resear. In R. Piekkari and C. Wel (Eds.), Rethinking the
Case Study in International Business Research. Northampton: Edward
Elgar: 124–146
Brannen, M.Y. and Doz, Y. (2010). From a distance and detaed to up close
and personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in
international management resear and practice. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, special topics forum, 26: 236–247.
Brannen, M.Y. and Doz, Y. (2012). e languages of strategy: Trapped in your
jargon or lost in translation. California Management Review, 54 (3): 77–
97.
Brannen, M.Y. and Lee, F. (2014). How can the organizational literature
inform psyology resear on biculturalism. In V. Benet-Martinez and
Y.Y. Hong (Eds.), The Handbook of Multicultural Identity: Basic and
applied psychological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press:
417–438.
Brannen, M.Y. and Salk, J.E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating
organizational culture in a German–Japanese joint venture. Human
Relations, 53(4): 451–87.
Brannen, M.Y. and omas, D. (2010) Bicultural individuals in organizations:
Implications and opportunity. Introductory Chapter of the Special Issue
 of the International Journal of Cross Cultural Management on
Biculturalism (M.Y. Brannen and D.C. omas Eds.), 10 (1): 5–16.
Brannen, M.Y., Moore, F. and Mughan, T. (2013). Strategic ethnography and
reinvigorating Tesco plc: leveraging inside/out bicultural bridging in
multicultural teams. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry (EPIC) conference
Proceedings, London.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis. London and Exeter: Heinemann.
Edwards, V. (2008). New minority languages in the United Kingdom.
Multilingual Europe: Facts and Policies, 2008, 253–270.
Farmer, R.N. and Riman, B. (1965). Comparative Management and
Economic Progress. Homewood: Irwin.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London:
Weidenfield & Nicolson.
Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S., with Chua, E. (1988). Culture and
Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.
Harbison, F. and Myers, C.A. (1959). Management and the Industrial World:
An international analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International differences in
work-related issues. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan,
M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M.L. and Sneider, S.C. (2011). Diversity and its not
so diverse literature: An international perspective. International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management, 11: 35–62.
Kluhohn, C.K. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of
action. In T. Parsons and E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of
Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 388–434.
Kluhohn, F.R. and Strodtbe, F.L. (1961). Variations in Value
Orientations. Evanston: Row, Peterson.
Lowe, S. (2001). Chinese management theory: Beyond values. In I. Alon
(Ed.), Chinese Culture, Organizational Behavior, and International
Business. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishers: 3–27.
Maznevski, M.L. and Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time:
Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science,
11(5): 473–492.
Maznevski, M.L., Gomez, C.B., DiStefano, J.J., Noorderhaven, N.G. and Wu,
P.C. (2002). Cultural dimensions at the individual level of analysis: e
cultural orientations framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 2(3): 275–295.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human
Relations, 55 (1): 89–118.
Mingst, K.A. and Arreguín-To, I.M. (2011). Essentials of International
Relations (5th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Nakata, C. and Izberk-Bilgin, E. (2009). Culture Theories in Global
Marketing: A literature-based assessment. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palmisano, S.J. (2006). e globally integrated enterprise, Foreign Affairs,
85(3): 127–136.
Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Roberts, K.H. (1970). Corporate
culture: e last frontier of control? Journal of Management Studies, 23
(3): 289 –297.
Romani, L. (2008). Relating to the Other: Paradigm interplay for cross-
cultural management research. Doctoral Dissertation, Stoholm Sool
of Economics. Institute for International Business.
Sneider, S.D. and Barsoux, J.L. (1997). Managing across Cultures. London:
FT Prentice Hall.
Swartz, S.H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure
of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4):19–45.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). e self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psychological Review, 96 (3): 506–520.
Triandis, H.C., with Vassiliou, V., Vassiliou, G., Tanaka, Y. and Shanmugam,
A.V. (1972). The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: Wiley.
Tung, R. (1997). International and intranational diversity. In C.S Granrose
and S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Work Groups. ousand Oaks:
Sage: 163–185.
Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1985). Cultural Organization: Fragments of
a theory. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J.
Martin (Eds.), Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage: 31–53.
Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J.B. and Mitell, T.R. (2007). e interplay
between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4):
1145–1154.
Editorial introduction
Philosophy, aims and composition

Nigel Holden, Snejina Michailova and Susanne Tietze

Few can doubt the importance of cross-cultural management as a field of

ever greater significance in the pantheon of academic management
disciplines, and their related streams of literature. It has in recent years
matured in both depth and scope. Yet solars have raised concerns about its
dir ection and/or relevance in its present incarnation. Lowe et al. (2007, p.
237) contend that the field is ‘in a crisis of its own making’ and Tsui et al.
(2007, p. 434) express the conviction that the disproportionate preoccupation
with values and – by the statistically competent – their measurement ‘may
be a hindrance to progress’: that is to say, progress, whi enries and
refocuses the scope of cross-cultural management as an intellectual
discipline. Our discipline seems to be at a cross-roads, possibly implying that
cross-cultural management solars need to rethink and reposition the entire
subject area. Indeed, The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural
Management is being published at a time of critical reflection about the
future direction of the field.
e influence of cross-cultural management both as an academic
discipline and management practice is wide-ranging thanks in no small part
to Geert Hofstede, whose landmark work Culture’s Consequences, first
published in 1980, remains the subject’s most authoritative contribution. It is
not an exaggeration to say that for many – but not for all – the name
Hofstede is synonymous with cross-cultural management in the sense that
the national culture dimensions whi he has put forward demarcate the
very boundaries of the field. is is by any standard a remarkable
aievement and cross-cultural management solars, in general, seem to
anowledge this, however mu they may disagree with Hofstede’s
assumptions, propositions and findings.
Indeed there is today no shortage of researers who try to envisage what
has been termed the post-Hofstede era, when the titan’s influence is
irreversibly on the wane. But the Hofstede paradigm is, it would seem, in
fine fele for all his critics and detractors. Yet there is a high cost to the field
of cross-cultural management. Influential as the ‘Hofstede doctrine’ (Minkov
and Hofstede, 2011; our emphasis) has become, solars may be accused of
slavishly accepting his diagnosis to the extent that the field has experienced
a kind of intellectual degeneracy.
If correct, this is an unhealthy state of affairs and it has lasted in effect
since Culture’s Consequences appeared more than 30 years ago, when of
course the corporate world was a very different place. ere was no Internet,
China was on nobody’s radar, the Cold War split the world and American
business was paramount (though Japan was becoming a mighty allenge to
the US orthodoxies). But thanks to Marshall McLuhan people in at least
some parts of the world were already aware at that time that the concept of
the global village (a term he coined in 1962) foresaw a new era of human
experience, whi we know today as globalisation. For all the controversy of
that term, the fact is that the human race has not evolved into a kind of
unitary, like-minded collectivity, responding to similar stimuli in similar
ways. Far from it: the variegated barriers of language and culture seem to
have lost none of their baffling constraining power over international
business endeavour. at in itself has been a fillip to cross-cultural
management.
Everyone active in international business resear and education agrees
that cultural differences as a natural state of the human condition exercise a
significant influence on business practice. But there is no agreement as to the
actual extent or how relevant su differences are or might be in any current
or future cross-cultural encounter. To predict the precise impact of cultural
differences in an international merger of, for the sake of argument, two
major national groupings – say, Germans and Chinese – seems to be
impossible. Ironically, if there were a measurement capable of calibrating the
cultural differences between national entities (and that is a dream of some
solars), still predictions would fall short. Whenever we try to isolate
culture, we seem to miss something that is elusive, ineffable, but at the same
time palpable to participants: things su as mood, atmosphere, expectation
as well as incongruities to do with cross-culturally nuanced things su as
respect and trust.
It is against this somewhat disconcerting baground that we, the
consultant editors, offer – indeed commend – the Routledge Companion to
our colleagues both in the field of cross-cultural as well as other fields of
management studies, to whi its influence has extended. From the very
beginning of the project we were faced with several allenges. We had just
been commissioned by Routledge to produce a multi-author volume
designed to provide a leading-edge and authoritative overview of cross-
cultural management as an academic domain and field of practice for
academics and students. e Companion was envisaged as comprising some
50 apters wrien by solars who, among other things, would be invited
to set forth new resear avenues for cross-cultural management education
and resear, bearing in mind that the field, so interdisciplinary, had
expanded rapidly and to some extent haphazardly over the last 30 years or
so.
One of our first objectives was to develop a working philosophy for the
proposed Companion and to delineate its actual scope. As for the philosophy,
we took it as axiomatic that our essential purpose was to advance cross-
cultural management as an international management sub-discipline by:

distancing itself from the long preoccupation with aggregate models

of culture and cultural differences;
moving beyond static models of complex cultural interaction;
adopting a less ‘West-centric’ stance about the domain’s subject
maer;
 repositioning itself to be nearer the actual practice of management
and international business.

Concerning scope, we envisaged this in terms of structure to complement

the philosophy as well as aract leading solars to contribute to the
Companion. Aer mu consideration we decided that we would build the
Companion around five major themes:

review, survey and critique;

language and languages: moving from the periphery to the core;
cross-cultural management resear and education;
the new international business landscape;
rethinking a multidisciplinary paradigm.

It was logical that our opening section should include contributions

reflecting the current status of cross-cultural management, while our
following four sections were devised to supply informed comment, raise
allenges about aspects of the field and contribute perceptive views on the
overall development of the discipline.
In the first instance we were aware that the discussion of language – ‘the
great human fact of Language’ (Entwistle, 1974: 1; original emphasis) – had
been woefully limited in the general cross-cultural management literature
and more broadly in the international business literature. is has been an
unpardonable omission, given the centrality of language in its awesome
complexity in every aspect of business practice. We were therefore firmly of
the opinion that language as a key component of business communication be
accorded a section in its own right.
Next, we considered it important to address the issue of relevance: that is
to say, the mu-aired discussion in other areas of the management
literature about the relevance of business resear and education – and
indeed business sools – to society. While cross-cultural management is a
self-standing academic field, as we have noted, its proponents regard its
insights as possessing vital importance to the business community. So, we
decided it would make sense to publish contributions on the impact of cross-
cultural management resear and education on the world of practice.
From here it was, as it were, a small step to our next section, in whi we
wished to consider the new business landscape. is evolutionary context is
not one that can readily be accommodated into the Hofstede model, for it
was one that is to a large extent predicated on a new aspect of modern
communication: namely, the emergence of cyberspace as a place of business
transactions and communication, in whi we encounter intensity of
disembodied contact and anonymity.
Our proposed fih section would be a serious aempt to rethink the
multidisciplinary nature of the cross-cultural management paradigm. Cross-
cultural management can never be a self-contained paradigm nor shape
itself around notions su as ‘cultural differences’ or ‘values’.
Having mapped our five thematic sections, our next task was to appoint
section editors. We sought established solars who had published in the
general field of culture and international business as opposed to cross-
cultural management as su. Crucially, they needed to be sympathetic to
the concept and guiding philosophy of the Companion. By accepting our
offer to be a section editor, they were requested to select seven to ten
contributors of apters, who in turn would need to write their material
consistent with the Companion that would be authoritative and cuing-
edge. We requested section editors to exercise their judgement as to the
balance between established solars and new ones (oen with freshly
minted PhDs) as well as between theoretical contributions and empirically
based ones, whilst giving voice to countries or regions that have been
generally under-represented in the cross-cultural management and
international business literatures (one su country is, disarmingly,
Germany!). All authors were to be encouraged to be original in approaes,
thinking, ideas and conclusions.
For the sake of transparency – that de rigueur term these days – we
should state that it was part of our original concept to invite four or five
practitioners to write up their views on a theme of their oice that the
Companion engages with. We duly identified four high-quality candidates,
who between them had truly wide international experience in advertising,
marketing, expatriate management and diplomacy. ey all promised with
excitement and enthusiasm to contribute apters, but none of them, in the
end, could find time to deliver. It was a bier disappointment.
e experience raised a serious issue for those of us active in cross-
cultural management resear and education, who are all too conscious of a
pernicious gap that exists between us, solars and the world of practice. It
is not just a case of international practitioners having vast reservoirs of
knowledge and experience about cultural impacts on business. How, unless
we on the academic side engage more closely with them, can we expect to
reflect on knowledge and experience? We, it seems, have got to be far more
creative in seeking this all-important industry– academia collaboration.
Let us now give a brief outline of our five sections, ea of whi is
prefaced with a short introduction. When our section editors submied their
introductions, it was clear to us that they more than fulfilled our wishes as
to encapsulating entire thematic areas in a few words. Ea introduction
contains perceptive insights that one expects from true experts. We warmly
commend these introductions to all our readers.
Section 1, edited by Sonja Samann, offers a review, critique and survey
of the field of cross-cultural management, traing its development as an
academic field and outlining contemporary reflections on possible future
trajectories, themes and methodologies. e eight apters anowledge the
effects of accelerated globalisation, whi poses new allenges for cross-
cultural management and also for the influence and relevance of the
national paradigm as the ‘only way’ to understand CCM. e apter
authors offer approaes to go beyond national boundaries by
anowledging the multi-faceted, multi-layered and dynamic nature of
culture. e section also contains a apter that presents the voices of two
international practitioners, who reflect on their experiences of being
between national, professional, temporal and spatial boundaries.
Section 2, ‘Language and languages: moving from the periphery to the
core’, edited by Terry Mughan, represents a currently burgeoning field of
academic interest that also allenges the ‘national’ paradigm. In looking at
aspects of language and communication, the section draws on the traditions
of intercultural communication, the role of languages (including English) in
current international business resear and also provides examples from
organisational functions, and less explored locations su as Dubai. e
contributions reflect the increasing sophistication in using diverse
methodological approaes su as ethnography and metaphorical
explorations, and ask questions about past and future paradigms for
language-sensitive resear.
Section 3, ‘Cross-cultural management resear and education’, edited by
Gavin Ja, contains eight apters that take up the allenge not only to
critique existing perspectives, but to advance new approaes and practices
to researing and teaing cross-cultural management. is section takes
seriously the variety of contexts in whi cross-cultural management is
embedded – historical, geographical, cultural, theoretical and pedagogical, to
mention but a few. Another uniting feature of the apters in this section is
associated with recognising the limiting hegemony of functionalist and
positivist paradigmatic thought and practice. e section voices a powerful
call for alternative strategies for generating knowledge about cross-cultural
management without engaging in highly tenicist in nature discussions,
but rather advancing metatheoretical reflexivity as necessary for fruitful
discussions not only about but also across different paradigmatic
perspectives. Together, the apters in this section articulate distinctive and
exciting perspectives for solars and educators in the field of cross-cultural
management and hopefully they will inspire and guide others to join the
pluralisation of our discipline.
In her introduction to Section 4 Fiona Moore points out that the allenge
of portraying new business landscapes is that of describing the significance
of the most important trends today, while being aware that hindsight is
generally more reliable than foresight. With that caveat she has gathered
authors whose contributions fall into three broad areas: geopolitics, new
developments in management practice and new developments in theory. e
aim is to create a new take on familiar topics in the context of shis in the
geopolitical landscape, the boundary spanning tenologies and the role of
the cross-cultural manager. For many decades his or her role has been
conceived of as ‘managing cultural differences’. In today’s world it is
increasingly apparent that that person’s role involves displaying and
enacting a new kind of discernment about people, contexts and
environments, whi in turn suggests that we may be moving into an era in
whi the hitherto ‘sacred’ diotomy of the local and the global may have
less and less validity. is section supplies – and from unusual vantage
points – ideas and insights of practical and conceptual importance for cross-
cultural management solars.
Section 5, edited by Janne Tienari, is titled ‘Rethinking a multidisciplinary
paradigm’. e nine apters included in the section (none of whi analyses
issues in countries that over-populate existing cross-cultural resear)
continue the solarly conversation on the pages of the previous apters
and allenge the dominant positivist paradigm in cross-cultural
management resear. While these nine contributions differ from ea other
in terms of theoretical grounding and contextual foci, they share the view
that a mu more nuanced and indigenous understanding of cross-cultural
encounters is needed at present and in the future. e authors not only
argue for the value of critiquing the field of knowledge production that is of
Anglo-American origin, but also offer alternatives for dominant conceptions
of ‘cultures’ and their management. In that sense, the apters provide both
evidence and hope that the field of cross-cultural management has matured
enough to be able to allow (also in print!) contributions that ‘deviate’ from
the dominant positivist norm and that a multidisciplinary paradigm in
cross-cultural management resear is indeed not only desirable, but also
aievable.
It is by no means too unreasonable to state that the Companion has very
mu been the work of our section editors. anks to their efforts,
commitment and occasional persistence, they have delivered 40 original
apters wrien by 65 authors who are based in 20 countries. We are also
very pleased to include a keynote foreword wrien by Mary Yoko Brannen,
a solar of world standing with respect to her studies of the impact of
language and cultural factors on the great endeavour of management.
 Here is the right place to also pay tribute to our authors. ese days
solars are under continual pressure from their institutions to prepare
articles for peer-reviewed journals that are frequently and axiomatically
assumed to be ‘world leading’, ‘top-ranked’, or ‘elite’. We, the editors and
indeed you, the readers, are indebted to our authors for taking on the labour
of preparing apters in the knowledge that their contributions may receive
lile or no recognition by their institutions or even in their peer groups. It is
a surely a sad reflection on the nature of academic life when – especially for
young solars – contributions in a work with the declared aim of
repositioning an entire academic field are potentially undervalued.
Finally, this Routledge Companion would never have been published – at
least under our auspices – unless we had not been invited by Terry Claque,
Senior Editor, to form our editorial team to make it happen. We thank him
for giving us this opportunity to make su a major contribution to cross-
cultural management resear and education. roughout the process we
have been very ably assisted by Sinead Waldron, Editorial Assistant. Her
role too was equally important in making it happen.
Nigel Holden, Snejina Miailova and Susanne Tietze,
September 2014

References
Entwistle, W.J. (1974). The Spanish language together with Portuguese,
Catalan and Basque. London: Faber and Faber.
Lowe, S., Moore, F. and Carr, A.N. (2007). Paradigmapping studies of culture
and organisation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
7(2): 237–251.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011). e evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine.
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1): 10–20.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S., and Ou, A.Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural
organisational behavior resear: Advances, gaps, and recommendations,
Journal of Management, 33: 426–478.
Section 1
Review, survey and critique

Editor: Sonja Sackmann

1
Introduction: taking sto of critical
issues and relevant topics in the field
of cross-cultural management

Sonja Sackmann

Business conducted across cultures dates ba many centuries. Early

examples are the trading of goods along the Silk Road from the Han
Dynasty in 200 BC, extended over the centuries across Asia to Arabian and
Western countries. Accompanied by the interange of religious ideas and
knowledge, this had far-reaing effects on the world (Liu 1997). Later
examples are the expansion of the Portuguese empire, the Hanseatic League,
and the Fugger family businesses (Häberlein 2006), all dating from the
fourteenth century. With its headquarters based in Augsburg, Germany,
Fugger von der Lilie’s various businesses in trading, banking, and mining
operated in many countries of Europe and financed, for example, political
leaders su as Emperor Charles V, Ferdinand I of Bohemia, and Henry VIII
of England, as well as the royal houses of Portugal and Denmark.
Knowledge of customs and local preferences certainly helped in these
activities. is kind of knowledge for conducting business across cultures
had to be acquired through experience and oral history, since the scientific
exploration of culture did not begin until the late nineteenth century (e.g.,
Tylor 1871) as a result of the Age of Enlightenment. Early resear on the
specifics and comparison of cultures was predominantly conducted in the
developing field of anthropology (e.g., Benedict 1934; Kroeber & Kluhohn
1952; Hall 1959).
Increasing opportunities to invest abroad raised questions about how to
transact business with people from different cultures. Hence, the field of
international business emerged, focusing on business activities across
national borders and necessarily taking into account differences in the
spheres of politics, economics, and society as described by the first
contribution in this section. To be effective in conducting business in and
with other countries, firms had to know about and consider different
political systems and economic policies, different languages and dialects,
differences in accounting standards, in living and environmental standards,
different currencies and their exange rates. ey had to know about local
tariffs, import and export regulations, trade agreements, climate differences,
and climate anges, as well as educational systems. In response to these
many questions, solars started to investigate systematically these
differences across nations in their various disciplines, su as economics,
finance, and politics. Increasing internationalization of the business world
also required knowledge about local cultures and their specific customs,
ways of thinking and behaving. ese topics were initially explored in the
disciplines of anthropology, sociology (e.g., Durkheim 1964; Parsons 1949;
Simmel et al. 1998) and psyology (e.g., Triandis 1989) with their insights
on culture being adopted into the emerging field of international cross-
cultural management (Boyacigiller et al. 2004).
With accelerating levels of internationalization and globalization of the
business world, interest in issues of cross-cultural management (CCM) rose,
seeking knowledge and insights regarding work, interactions and especially
management and leadership in international and cross-cultural seings.
ese interests have been met by a growing body of resear and an
expanded range of activity and publications in the field during the last 35
years (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Primecz et al. 2011; Punne & Shenkar 2007;
omas & Peterson 2014). In addition, workshops, seminars, and entire
university programs have been offered to help prepare leaders, managers,
employees, and solars to work with and live in different cultures.
Are these efforts of generating knowledge and informing practitioners still
sufficient for working and conducting business effectively in our globalized
world? Are our currently available insights and recommendations regarding
cross-cultural interactions and management still adequate for working in
our increasingly information-based, networked societies of the twenty-first
century? Are they still appropriate for working with, managing, and leading
an increasingly diverse and hence multicultural workforce? Does our
currently available knowledge still apply in work seings in whi people
with diverse cultural bagrounds are more frequently interacting on a
virtual basis and decreasingly face-to-face? Are we going to need CCM
relevant knowledge, education, and training at all for working with and
managing people who were born into and raised in a multicultural society?
With this section, we want to take sto of the current state of knowledge
regarding different facets of CCM, discuss some of the existing blind spots,
and point to some promising ways to move CCM forward into yet unarted
territory. Due to the amount of existing works and the limited space in this
volume, su a sto-taking cannot claim to be all-embracing and
comprehensive. Hence, this section provides an overview of the development
of CCM, its current state and potential future directions with a focus on
influential works and important streams of thought that have shaped the
field of CCM. e section also addresses critical topics that need to be
addressed in the future. While seven of the eight contributions of this
section reflect the perspectives and outlooks of solars based in the
academic world, interviews with two executives who have extensive work
experience with and across different cultures validate several of the
aforementioned issues regarding cross-cultural management and ground
them in the practitioners’ world.
e resulting picture resembles a mosaic highlighting specific areas rather
than rendering a complete masterpiece. e contributions of this section
review and survey different aspects of the field – ea one with a specific
focus. ey also voice critique and point to areas worthwhile for further
exploration – both theoretically and in terms of resear. In addition, they
also discuss implications for practice. Common to the eight contributions’
unique focus is the viewpoint that the business context has substantially
anged during the past decades and that these anges need to be
considered when conceptualizing the field, in oosing topics for resear
and resear methodologies, as well as when identifying practical
implications for working and managing in today’s globalized and networked
business context.

e contributions to this section

is section starts with an overview of the evolution of CCM. Phillips and
Samann (Chapter 2) review the development of the discipline of cross-
cultural management from 1960 to the present, differentiating four
developmental eras. For ea one of these four eras, the authors identify key
contextual drivers that triggered practitioner needs, prompted certain
academic forces and responses, and fostered a specific focus and framing of
the key concept of culture. e authors argue that, due to the contextual
forces and habitual use of the term, the first three eras held “nation-state” as
the defining synonym of culture. Given the contextual anges that our
world has experienced in the past decades, they suggest – along with several
other authors in this section – that the time has come to go beyond national
boundaries by truly anowledging the multifaceted, multilayered and
dynamic nature of culture.
Ybema and Nyíri (Chapter 5) address the prominent influence of Geert
Hofstede’s resear approa and dimensions on the field of CCM and its
focus on national culture. e authors conduct an appreciative review of
Hofstede’s contribution to understanding, researing, and dealing with
national/cultural differences; they also address some of the major criticism
that has been voiced in recent years regarding his work. By introducing and
explicating the term culture work, the authors suggest a paradigmatic
alternative to Hofstede’s principles, models, and methods based on opposing
ontological and epistemological stands.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, the Western world and especially the US
experienced a “Japan sho.” Managers and researers alike went on a
pilgrimage to Japan trying to learn from Japanese management and Japan’s
success story. Even though the Japanese economy has shown difficulties for
over a decade, its influence on Western management theory and practice still
exists today. Ahmadjian and Saede (Chapter 6) discuss some of these
influences with a focus on organizational behavior and human resource
management highlighting those influences that affected the actual
management practices of many companies, from multinationals to startups,
in developed and developing countries.
While the dominant approa to most CCM resear is comparative in
nature conducted from an outsider’s or etic perspective, Moore (Chapter 3)
explores the application of the “native category” approa to the study of
cross-cultural management. She conceptualizes national cultures as social
categories through whi managers define their worlds. Her study of
Taiwanese management illustrates the superficiality of the dimensional
approaes of CCM resear on the one hand and how mu more
knowledge, detail, and depth of understanding can be gained by learning
about native categories and native knowledge. In line with other authors,
Moore suggests that successful cross-cultural managers should become
ethnographers of their own organizations, learning about the existing
cultures and being aware of native categories while at the same time
critically reflecting them.
Vaiman and Holden (Chapter 7) take a different perspective by exploring
four influencing factors on culture as a dependent variable and the
respective impact on the field of CCM. e four “non-cultural” factors are
globalization, country impacts, institutional approaes, and the USA with
its “unique” default position in CCM studies. e authors argue that CCM
needs to find alternative or at least companion paradigms to the traditional
values-based ones in studying culture. In line with Phillips and Samann,
Ybema and Nyíri as well as Mayrhofer and Pernkopf criticize the pervasive
use of nation as a proxy for culture and national cultural values. Based on
their analysis, they suggest five different paradigmatic stands for future
resear in the field of CCM.
What kind of new phenomena need to be considered in the field? Given
the emergence of a world society, the dominance of English as lingua franca,
and the reaction of different age groups to effects of virtualization,
Mayrhofer and Pernkopf (Chapter 4) point to significant progress in the
world of science that may provide new opportunities for CCM. Among them
is the development of grand social theories focusing on the interplay
between society and the actor as well as advances in knowledge about the
functioning of the human brain. In addition, they suggest that big data and
the pervasiveness of digital realities provide opportunities for different kinds
for resear.
e section closes with the voices, experiences, insights, and reflections of
two executives both working for international firms. Despite the different
cultural contexts and associated experiences, both reiterate and illustrate
several issues addressed by the academic contributions in the prior sections.
ey underline the anging nature of the business context as discussed by
Phillips and Samann, Ybema and Nyíri as well as Mayrhofer and
Pernkopf, the allenge of geing to and learning the underlying meanings
of a specific culture seing as suggested by Moore and the role of language
as discussed by Mayrhofer and Pernkopf. Despite their different experiences,
both executives’ recommendations are similar in that they consider
important proper preparation, true efforts in both trying to understand, and
appreciating otherness – as suggested by Moore – whi may require more
time and patience than initially expected.

Conclusion
Despite the growing body of empirically generated knowledge that is helpful
for practitioners in their business conduct with and across cultures, many
blind spots still exist in the field of CCM that call for aention in future
resear efforts. One of them points to the nature of its core concept culture,
whi is rather complex and multifaceted going beyond national culture.
Given our globalized world and its increasingly multicultural workforce, the
various facets and levels of culture can no longer be ignored. As most recent
empirical resear suggests, culture at the national level is found to be of
mu lesser importance when, in addition to Hofstede’s dimensions, data is
collected allowing for other levels of culture to emerge (e.g., Taras et al.
2014). is poses not only many allenges for any kind of resear,
conceptually and regarding all aspects of the resear process and its
methodology, but also for practitioners. First of all, the worlds of resear
and of practice need to anowledge that culture cannot be compressed into
one, three, five, or six dimensions. Dimensional resear and insights gained
from these dimensions is only a scrating on the surface of a mu rier
but also mu more dynamic, context specific, and complex phenomenon.
Future resear as well as educational efforts will need to focus on different
facets and contexts of culture, including a broader theoretical base with
concepts and ideas also developed in different parts of the globe and
published in languages other than English using different kinds of resear
approaes and resear paradigms. As pointed out by Moore and supported
by the two executives Porksen and Kragelund, learning about and
appreciating native categories may be one avenue to be more mindful and
sensitive to the multifaceted culture context relevant to the increasingly
important field of CCM. is implies appreciating the true nature of culture
as suggested by Phillips and Samann in resear efforts using various
kinds of methods and their triangulation. e use of big data, social
networks, and theories developed in other disciplines may also be
worthwhile sources for future resear efforts as suggested by Mayrhofer
and Pernkopf. e bold combination of these kinds of efforts will eventually
lead to more differentiated and culture-appreciative knowledge for people
acting as responsible citizens in various roles and functions in our global,
networked, and culture-ri business world.
References
Benedict, R. (1934) Paerns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Boyacigiller, N.A., Kleinberg, M.J., Phillips, M.E., and Samann, S.A. (2004)
Conceptualizing culture: Elucidating the streams of resear in
international cross-cultural management. In B.J. Punne and O. Shenkar
(Eds.), Handbook of International Management Resear, 2nd ed. Ann
Arbor: University of Miigan Press, pp. 99–167.
Durkheim, E. (1964) e Divison of Labor in Our Society. New York: Free
Press.
Häberlein (2006) Die Fugger. Gesite einer Augsburger Familie [e
Fugger. History of a Family from Augsburg] (1367–1650). Stugart:
Kohlhammer.
Hall, E.T. (1959) e Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kroeber, A.L. and Kluhohn, C.K. (1952) Culture: A Critical Review of
Concepts of Definitions (Peabody Museum of Areology and Ethnology
Papers No. 47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Liu, X. (1997) Ancient India and Ancient China, Trade and Religious
Exanges A.D. 1–600. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, T. (1949) e Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.
Primecz, H., Romani, L., and Samann, S.A. (2011) Cross-Cultural
Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Punne, B.J. and Shenkar, O. (Eds.) (2007) Handbook for International
Management Resear, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Miigan
Press.
Simmel, G., Frisby, D.P., and Featherstone, M. (1998) Simmel on Culture:
Selected Writings. Newbury Park: Sage.
Taras, V., Steel, P., and Kirkman, B.L. (2014). Does Country Equal Culture?
Beyond Geography in the Sear for Cultural Entities. Paper presented
 at the 74th Academy of Management, Philadelphia, August 5.
omas, D.C. and Peterson, M.F. (2014) Cross-Cultural Management:
Essential Concepts, 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Triandis, H.C. (1989) e self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psyological Review, 96(3), 506–530.
Tylor, E.B. (1871) Primitive Culture: Researes into the Development of
Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Customs, Vol. 1.
London: John Murray.
2
Cross-cultural management rising

Margaret Phillips and Sonja Sackmann

The paradox of culture is that language, the system most frequently used to describe culture, is by
nature poorly adapted to this difficult task. It is … too much a product of its own evolution.

(Hall 1976: 57)

Introduction
e rhetoric of a discipline both advances and constrains the development of
a field (Hall 1976, Hyland 2004). Cross-Cultural Management (CCM), as a
discipline in academia and in practice, has experienced an evolution subject
to this push-pull of the socially constructed discourse. Changes within the
context, framing both the academic dialog and the practical needs of this
discipline, have allowed side conversations to develop and new avenues to
be explored. However, the discipline has been subject to severe constraints,
brought about by embedded rhetoric with reflexive interpretation resistant
to modification of the received meaning of its key concept – culture.
It is the recent evolution of the discipline of Cross-Cultural Management
(CCM), with its anging context, emerging label, broadening focus, but
stagnant use of rhetoric, that this discussion seeks to illuminate and critique.
To this end, in the following sections, we trace the development of the
discipline in the field of management from the 1960s to current times,
aracterizing ea developmental era and its rendering of the discipline by
identifying key contextual drivers (political, economic, tenological, and
social) that triggered respective practitioner needs, prompted certain
academic forces and responses, and fostered a specific focus on and framing
of culture. Figure 2.1 visualizes this development.
In tracing the contextual evolution of the discipline, we note and aempt
to explain the successive labels used for the field – Comparative
Management, International Management, International Cross-Cultural
Management – all of whi have held “nation-state” as the defining
synonym of culture, originally for purposeful, but of late for more
traditional reasons. We argue that it is time the discipline sheds the routine
and unreflective rhetoric of previous eras to embrace fully its true label –
Cross-Cultural Management – and, thus, to embolden the discourse on
culture and enable a needed expansion of the field’s scope and depth. We
close by presenting future allenges for CCM as a discipline.
Figure 2.1 Evolution of the discipline of cross-cultural management

1960s and 1970s: CCM’s nascency in Comparative

Management (CM)
Early stirrings of the contemporary field of Cross-Cultural Management
arose in response to a desire on the part of developed nations and
corporations for trade expansion and the ensuing need to understand how
aributes of business practice in export partners might differ from those in
the home country. Aention to between-country differences was magnified
by the dominance of Cold War political alignments, whi dictated national
and ideological allegiances.
In the 1960s and 1970s, these Cold War political alignments between the
West and the East were symbolized by the Berlin Wall, whi the former
German Democratic Republic started to build August 13, 1961, physically
dividing a city within a politically divided country in a geographically
divided region in an ideologically divided world. In this East–West divide,
Russia and the US were clearly the dominant political actors, provoking a
nation-based “us versus them” discourse, with the “us” and “them” being
these two dominant nation-states and their allies.
Economically, the period of post-World War II reconstruction had favored
the United States and provided huge business opportunities for US-based
firms, making them financially strong and self-assured, and positioning
them to supply new markets. e 1960s saw US companies expanding their
foreign markets by ramping up exports of their products and services and by
investing locally. As the then CEO of Kentuy Fried Chien (KFC)
expressed, “We looked on the map and asked ourselves where else we
wanted to plant our next flag.”1 Businesses could exploit new and newly
rebuilt high-capacity infrastructures to serve the ample needs of consumers
with increasing disposable incomes. is age of affluence fostered a strong
materialistic orientation and drove a rise in consumerism, social and
economic traits whi, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, were both counter-
balanced and supplemented by liberalization and equalization movements to
enhance civil and women’s rights. e US lead in international trade and its
business practices, in particular its belief in management as a means for
economic development, were modeled by developed and developing nations,
who themselves were building capacity and expanding their trading
capabilities.
For management practitioners, the overseas business opportunities seized
by US-based firms gave rise to questions regarding the development of
international companies and MNCs, their management in different
countries, and how they should conduct business in these different nations.
To be effective in conducting business in other countries, firms had to know
about and consider different political systems and economic policies,
different languages and dialects, differences in accounting standards, in
market demographics, in living and environmental standards, different
currencies and their exange rates. ey had to know about local tariffs,
import and export regulations, trade agreements, climate differences and
anges, and educational systems. ey also required knowledge about
behaviors, norms, values, and beliefs – the “cultures” – of their trading
partners and customers in these other countries, and they needed to learn
how to effectively interact with them. As the former CEO of KFC continued,
in simplistic terms, “When visiting Hamburg in the late 1960s, we realized
we had a problem when we saw customers trying to eat our drum stis
with knife and fork!”
In response to these many practitioner questions, International Business
(IB) solars started to investigate systematically these differences across
nations (e.g., Harbison & Myers 1959, Farmer & Riman 1965), with the
major focus exploring those aributes of business practice in export partners
and local customers that differed from those of the home country. From this
response, the field of Comparative Management (CM) emerged, focusing on
comparing business activities across different nations in the spheres of
politics, economics, and society and, with the tenological advances in data
processing, using large-scale positivistic studies with a Western, largely US-
based perspective. Researers soon expanded their work to address
differences between managerial aitudes and behaviors (Haire et al. 1966)
and values (England 1975). ese cultural aributes were also explored using
largely survey and quantitative resear methods and employing nation-
state as the independent variable. Even researers more qualitative in
orientation (e.g., Hall 1960) employed nation-state as the primary category
of “cultural” comparison. us, at this early developmental stage, the
budding discipline of CCM was subsumed under the banner of Comparative
Management and, as a natural outcome of its being framed by transactional
relationships between countries within the political and legal regulatory
boundaries of the export context, “nation-state” was established as the
surrogate for the discipline’s key concept, culture.2

1980s through early 1990s: the emergence of

International Management (IM)
By the 1980s, however, “culture” had become the surrogate for nation-state,
and the label for the discipline had shied from Comparative (CM) to
International Management (IM). ese critical occurrences in the discipline’s
development were solidified by the publication in 1980 and subsequent
widespread embrace by solars and practitioners alike of Geert Hofstede’s
seminal work, Culture’s Consequences.
Politically and economically, this period was aracterized by a anging
balance of power. In the late 1970s, Japanese business success and respective
business practices started to allenge US business practices and US
generated management theories. e oil sho in 1983 made the world aware
of the resource-based power of the Arab region, and the fall of the Berlin
Wall on November 9, 1989, ended the Cold War, pushing the US into an
identity crisis. While the enemy of many decades had disappeared, the
liing of the Iron Curtain opened up additional markets and trading
partners to Western companies, leading to a dramatic increase in Foreign
Direct Investments from Western economies. Hence, practitioners wanted to
know how to expand and exploit available business opportunities in foreign
markets and how to be successful in these new contexts (e.g., how to export
successful business recipes to other countries).
Researers continued to compare business practices cross-nationally and
to explore culturally pertinent questions su as differences in managerial
aitudes and values between nations, though this laer focus played a
minor role in the larger body of international business solarship that
emphasized the study of differences in business context (e.g., Dülfer 1992,
Deresky 1994). ey also expanded their aention beyond the previously
limited set of more traditional US trading partners to consider differences
across a broad range of nations (e.g., von Keller 1982). As Jason and Aycan
aracterize the focus of International Management, these researers
engaged in “comparisons with the aim of identifying similarities and
differences among a number of countries” [emphasis added] (2001: 7).
e exploration of nation-based cultural differences received impetus
from the publication of Dut researer Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions and
his questionnaire measure of culture. His work was based on the assumption
that, if the data generated from a survey of employees of a multinational
firm with a strong corporate culture su as IBM show differences across
nations, these differences reveal variation in national culture. Hofstede’s
oice of methodology was influenced by the newly available computational
power that allowed mu faster and more complex calculations of
relationships in large databases, making the tools for su methodologies
(e.g., factor analysis) fashionable at the time, especially in Hofstede’s field of
social psyology. By applying orthogonal factor analysis to his data,
Hofstede was able to identify supposedly universally applicable independent
dimensions that could be used for mapping, and thus differentiating,
nations.
Providing a measurement instrument for assessing “culture” and cultural
differences across nations resulting in data that could also be expressed in
numerical scores led to an explosion of studies using Hostede’s
questionnaire instrument or subscales thereof, as well as the respective
cultural distance measures (e.g., Ronen & Shenkar 1985, Kogut & Singh 1988,
Shenkar 2001).3 e vast amount of resear that was inspired by Hofstede’s
work also promoted and spread his terminology. By referring in his work to
culture, Hofstede equated culture with nation, further legitimizing the use of
the label culture as equivalent for cross-national comparisons. Given the
prominence and strong influence of his work, “culture as nation-state”
became embedded in the field’s language – both by practitioners and
academics. Hence, most of the resear published since Hofstede’s original
study in 1980 compares nations while referring to “culture.”
 Even in the stream of work conducted in the area of resear that
Boyacigiller et al. (1996, 2004) have labeled “intercultural interaction,” with
its focus on bi-national comparisons, the rhetoric equating culture with
nation-state continued. However, since researers in this area were trained
anthropologists (e.g., Kleinberg 1989, Brannen 1994), the underlying
assumptions of culture, resear questions asked, and methodologies used to
shed light on the success factors behind the Japanese management practices
under investigation were new to the IM field. ese researers, interested in
the cross-cultural relationships and managerial practices emerging from bi-
cultural interactions, no longer considered culture a variable but rather a
social construction of reality negotiated in interactions between
organizational members. e anthropological method of participant
observation was employed to generate “thi description” and insider
knowledge about the nature of bi-national interactions and their perceived
impact on organizational life. Knowledge about the aracteristics and
processes of culture formation, evolution, and emergence, albeit from a bi-
national interactive perspective, became a new focus of aention and
learning in this International Management era of the evolving discipline of
CCM.

Mid-1990s and 2000s: melding International Cross-

Cultural Management (ICCM)
e mid-1990s marked a turning point in our society: the ARPANET
(precursor to the Internet), heretofore exclusively used for military purposes,
was commercialized as the “world wide web” and became available for the
public’s ever-increasing use. is event started a process that has anged all
spheres of our lives, including the way we communicate and interact with
people, the scope of those with whom we are able to interact, the manner in
whi we conduct business and purase goods, the means by whi we
sear for information, conduct resear, and learn, and beyond. Two major
anges were underpinned by the availability and pervasiveness of the
Internet. First, our interactions and business activities anged from
predominantly physical interactions to increasingly virtual ones. Co-located
work became complemented by all kinds of virtual work arrangements (e.g.,
Hinds & Kiesler 2002, Shapiro et al. 2002, Gibson & Cohen 2003, Weisband
2007) to bridge the geographic distance of MNCs and transnational
organizations. In addition, the exange of tangible goods became
supplemented and even substituted by virtual products and services. Second,
access to the tenology allowed instant retrieval of data and information
from all over the world. is spurred an increasing process of
democratization in all spheres of life – be it in politics or in society, in
business, or in private life.
Due to these tenological enablers, corporate globalization accelerated,
causing a proliferation of transnational organizations and strategic alliances
across borders and regions, as well as the advent of “born global” firms
(Madsen & Servais 1997). Economic zones (e.g., the EU, EFTA, NAFTA,
Mercasor, ASEAN, CARICOM), formed to ease trade, to concentrate power
of and between countries, and to deal with common interests at a regional
level, gained more currency and sway, as did global organizations su as
the WTO, created to deal with issues relevant to many countries. While the
importance of national borders decreased (Ohmae 1995), separatist and
independence movements increased, and with a louder and clearer voice.
Well-known examples include the separation movements between northern
and southern Italy and within Ireland, the breakup of the USSR, and the
breakdown of the former Yugoslavia. Regardless of the reasons for these
geographic rearrangements – economic, religious, or political – they
revealed a significant ange in the salience of different sources of personal
identification. Identification at a cognitive level was rising in importance for
individuals and groups and in contrast to their national identities signified
by birth certificates and passports. For most individuals, these additional
identifications did not replace national identity; instead, they formed a
growing mosaic of cultural identifications existing simultaneously with
anging importance depending on the salience in a given situation (e.g.,
Chao & Moon 2005).
Given these developments, practitioners wanted to know how to
familiarize themselves with these identities of their employees and
customers and their consequent differences in order to behave, interact,
work, manage, lead, sell, and trade effectively in a different cultural context,
as well as how to avoid cultural blunders, e.g., in human resource
management and in marketing (Ris 2006).
Researers sought to provide answers from three different perspectives.
From one direction, dimensions available from Hofstede (1980) and
Trompenaars (1993) continued to try to help managers map and understand
national cultural differences. Studies from this International Management
perspective also expanded their scope to seek to understand the effect of
national cultural differences on individual, group, and firm performance
(e.g., Kirkman et al. 2006). e now routine and widespread use of this
perspective, with its language unabatingly equating culture with nation-
state and its quantitative methodology linking national culture to a narrow
set of dimensions, dominated the discourse in resear, teaing, and
practice.
A second group of researer/consultants taled the aracteristics of
global leaders (e.g., House et al. 1999, 2004: the GLOBE studies, Caligiuri
2006, Mendenhall 2006, Nardon & Steers 2008) and the aributes of a “global
mindset” (e.g., Javidan et al. 2007, Levy et al. 2007). ough the more generic
“cultural context” was oen cited by these International Cross-Cultural
Management solars (e.g., Levy et al. 2007), their goal remained to assist the
global manager in overcoming the influences of his/her national culture, as
they still consistently referenced nationality and country, explicitly or
implicitly, as the independent variable or key differentiator (e.g., House et al.
1999, 2004, Caligiuri 2006: 220). As su, their work, like that of the first
perspective, served to perpetuate the rhetorical and methodological
conventions from the 1980s and early 1990s.
Fostering a third perspective, the International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management was founded in 2001 to provide a home for solars addressing
the aracteristics and processes of culture in different kinds of contexts.
Launing the journal, editors Jason and Aycan allenged contributors to
provide “comparisons with a specific aim of identifying the role of the socio-
cultural context in management approaes and practices” (2001: 7) and
broadened the discussion of Cross-Cultural Management among the
international community of solars by publishing article abstracts in
multiple languages. is journal almost immediately gained prominence
within the discipline and, while still emphasizing nation-based
categorizations of culture, it sought to include work “that consider[ed]
culture a socially-constructed phenomenon that may exist or emerge
whenever a set of basic assumptions or beliefs is commonly held by a group
of people” (Samann & Phillips 2004: 378). is expanded the voice of
researers who were using alternative resear methodologies (e.g.,
ethnography, phenomenology, hermeneutics) to try to beer understand
culture from an emic or insider perspective and to consider its respective
subcultures and evolving dynamics.4 More importantly, this fostered a
multinational dialog in the discipline, accelerating a shi in the discourse
from the stridently international toward the heuristically cross-cultural.

2010s to the present: Cross-Cultural Management

– advancing in its status as a discipline
In this ensuing era, the intersection of political, economic, tenological, and
social developments has intensified and has further accelerated the need for
aention to context and cultural salience, identity formation, and the
implications of multiple identities and identifications for the individual and
the group rather than routine, unreflective rhetorical use of culture as a
surrogate for nation-state.
Growing transnationalism has increased the irrelevance of nation-state as
an economic entity. A reduction in political interdependencies has been
hastened by continued regionalism, energy and resource discoveries, the
unifying threat of climate ange and force of environmentalism,
widespread availability of advanced tenology, access to and the influence
of social media on political action in, for example, the Arab Spring, Turkey,
and other non-Western democratization movements, and the progressively
universal scope of regulations and certifications (e.g., ISO, educational
degrees). Meanwhile, communications network availability in countries at
all levels of development has heightened information transparency and
promoted more fluid e-commerce. Expanded tenological sophistication
and virtual interaction between individuals worldwide has enabled direct
and unmediated trade of tangible and virtual goods and services between
individuals and organizations, enhanced the ability to access nie markets
worldwide, transformed the process of business innovation (Chesbrough
2003, Lakhani & Panea 2007), impacted the means of acquisition of capital
for investment, development, political, business, and personal use, and
provided platforms for individual self-expression within global communities
(e.g., Metel-mann 2014). Emerging economies have begun to engage in
specifically targeted FDI, and rapid development is evident in new economic
tiers of nations, i.e., the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), CIVETS
(Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa), and the
MINTS (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, South Africa) (Ellio 2014,
Espinoza 2014).
Additionally, workforces have continued to integrate across generations,
genders, ethnicities, and religions. Due to enhanced mobility, more equal
participation, and the presence of multiple generations – X, Y or
“millennials,” and Z (Twenge 2010) – that express their different and
respective interests, values and identifications more explicitly than prior
generations, today’s workforce has become noticeably more diverse. Hence,
individuals who strongly identify with a single culture may work with
colleagues who carry multiple identifications and who would consider
themselves bi- or even multi-cultural (e.g., Lüe et al. 2014).
Organizations have become more complex, differentiated, and truly
multicultural. Some may be born global, while some MNCs may struggle
with being more “glocal,” thus becoming beer able to exploit global
economies of scale while simultaneously being locally responsive, not only
to their markets, but also concerning their multicultural workforce.
Cognitive boundaries and respective identifications maer increasingly
more to organizations, internally and externally, than geographic
boundaries, as expressed, i.e., in communities of practice (e.g., Kirkman et al.
2013) and fan communities around specific products.
Hence, practitioners want advice on discerning the cultural mindsets of
their employees, as well as their customers, and they need to know what
kind of impact their multicultural workforce has on organizational
performance and effectiveness. ey want to know how to identify and
approa different customer groups, aract and retain high-potential
employees, and manage a truly eclectic workforce. Global managers want to
understand, create, and harness the positive dynamics of their multicultural
workforce, and they want to know how to develop and tap the synergies
across cultures, exploiting their commonalities and capitalizing on their
differences in positive ways.
In response, some researers have intensified their exploration of bi-
nationals to understand their bi-cultural identities and their potential
benefits for business (e.g., Brannen & omas 2010, Hong 2010). Others
examine multinationals, with their respective multicultural identities (e.g.,
Nguyen & Benet-Martinez 2010, Fitzsimmons et al. 2011) to discern, for
example, their coping paerns. As Lüe et al. (2014) propose in their most
recent work on “multiculturalism,” the way of dealing with multiculturals
and their respective identifications may differ from individual to individual,
as ea may develop different coping paerns, i.e., compartmentalization,
integration, inclusion, convergence, or generalization. As these authors
suggest, ea of these paerns comes with different kinds of multicultural
capabilities and degrees of task effectiveness. However, even as these
researers seek to understand the multiple identities of their subjects and
offer advice to practitioners, they continue to assume and employ nation-
state as a surrogate for cultural identity, reflexively operationalizing culture
as a person’s national origin and/or geographic living experience (e.g.,
Brannen & omas 2010, Lüe et al. 2014), sometimes even based on a
parent’s national origin (e.g., Fitzsimmons et al. 2011: 200).
Despite the persistent rhetorical reflexivity and continued use of etic
approaes for collecting and rendering cultural data (e.g., Kandogan 2012,
Ronen and Shenkar 2013), including Hofstede’s questionnaire and
dimensions as the accepted source and standard for CCM resear, multiple
methods and multi-paradigmatic approaes seem to now be gaining a
foothold in the field.5 e use of qualitative and ethnographic resear
methods involving field-based data collection appears to be increasingly
acceptable to discern cultural sensemaking processes and to surface cultural
content (e.g., see contributions in Primecz et al. 2011). Studies have used
single as well as multiple data collection methods combining multiple
paradigms, as outlined by Primecz et al. 2009). Researers are aempting to
unravel insiders’ perspectives and identify native categories (e.g., see
contributions in Romani et al. 2011), surface emergent cultures, and explore
multiple levels of culture. e discipline is advancing in its investigation and
understanding of collective identities and identifications, their social
construction, and their embeddedness in and dependence upon context.
Cross-Cultural Management as a discipline now emerging from
Comparative Management, International Management, and International
Cross-Cultural Management, is making strides to address issues relevant for
working and managing in today’s and tomorrow’s global context – an
interconnected world of people with multiple cultural identities.

e future: Cross-Cultural Management rises as a

discipline
We have argued here that, as a discipline, Cross-Cultural Management has
evolved through eras under the labels of Comparative Management focused
on identifying differences from aributes of home country business practice,
International Management emphasizing cross-national comparison of
ostensibly cultural aributes across a multiplicity of countries, and
International Cross-Cultural Management aempting to integrate a broader
definition of socio-cultural context into the cross-national conversation. We
contend that CCM has entered its current era with the potential to rise to
the status of a discipline under its own label, replacing all others, if it can
shake off some of the encumbrances of the past.
e embedded rhetorical and methodological conventions of the
discipline, developed over these past eras, still largely drive the
epistemological and social assumptions of CCM and, to a great degree,
reflect the power relationships within the discipline. Also, we recognize that
“ea repetition helps to instantiate and reproduce these conventions”
(Hyland 2004: 40).
However, we have demonstrated here again, as we have elsewhere and in
other ways over the past several decades (e.g., Boyacigiller et al. 1996, 2004;
Samann & Phillips 2004), that the larger political, economic, tenological,
and social context has shied dramatically, eliciting new needs and demands
from business practitioners and requiring new responses from the academic
community. If the discipline is to be helpful and flourish, solars will need
to investigate adequately the multifaceted nature of culture in
organizational seings, to share this well-grounded knowledge with
practitioners, and to provide them with more differentiated frameworks and
language.
In resear and in practice, it is no longer appropriate for the term
“culture” to reflexively release the response “nation” and for the concept
culture to be unconsciously assumed to be equivalent to nation-state. Nor is
it acceptable to allow the use of new rhetoric to mask old meanings or to
favor certain methodologies less suited to surfacing ri description and
eliciting the deep understandings that culture requires.
In this new era, we see signs in the discipline of the waning of what
Ramalingam aracterizes in the field of international development as “best
practicitis” – that “assumptions are implicitly made that the existing
paradigm is the right one” (2014: 26). Level of cultural analysis is more oen
being asked as an empirical question with an emergent response; individuals
are seen as potentially simultaneous members of different cultures who may
develop different kinds of identifications of various strengths and paerns;
multiculturalism is being approaed from a cognitive perspective. is is
quite promising, given that differentiating the various levels and facets of
culture is not only a maer of using a more precise language, it is a maer
of perspective and paradigm. Continued heavy reliance on a well-rewarded
methodology and continued, unreflective dependence on a contextually
irrelevant definition has and will continue to inhibit the evolution of the
discipline. It is time for the field to move under its true banner, Cross-
Cultural Management, thus symbolically shed its “nation-based” constraints
and open – in fact, embolden – the discourse on culture.

Notes
1 Personal interview with the first author.

2 Boyacigiller et al. (1996, 2004) make this argument more rily and cogently in their discussion of
the development of the Cross-National Comparison perspective in International Management
resear.

3 For a detailed appreciation and critique of Hofstede-influenced work, see, e.g., the contribution by
Ybema and Nyíri in this section and Kirkman et al. 2006.

4 See also precursors with similar intent, e.g., Samann 1997.

5 See also the contribution by Primecz et al. in this volume.

References
Boyacigiller, N.A., Kleinberg, M.J., Phillips, M.E., and Samann, S.A. (1996)
Conceptualizing Culture. In Punne, B.J. and Shenkar, O. (Eds.),
 Handbook for International Management Research. New York: Blawell
Publishers, pp. 157–208.
Boyacigiller, N.A., Kleinberg, M.J., Phillips, M.E., and Samann, S.A. (2004)
Conceptualizing Culture: Elucidating the Streams of Resear in
International Cross-Cultural Management. In Punne, B.J. and Shenkar,
O. (Eds.), Handbook of International Management Research, 2nd ed. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Miigan Press, pp. 99–167.
Brannen, M.Y. (1994) Your Next Boss Is Japanese: Negotiating Cultural
Change at a Western Massachusetts Paper Plant. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Massauses, Amherst.
Brannen, M.Y. and omas, D.C. (2010) Bicultural individuals in
organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 10 (1), 5–16.
Caligiuri, P. (2006) Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management
Review, 16 (2), 219–228.
Chao, G.T. and Moon, H. (2005) e cultural mosaic: A metatheory for
understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90 (6), 1128–1140.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) e era of open innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 44 (3), 35–41.
Deresky, H. (1994) International Management: Managing Across Borders and
Cultures, 2nd ed. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Dülfer, E. (1992) Internationales Management. Münen and Wien: R.
Oldenbourg.
Ellio, L. (2014) Mint condition: Countries tipped as the next economic
powerhouses. The Guardian [London], January 9.
England, G.W. (1975) The Manager and His Values. Cambridge, MA:
Bollinger.
Espinoza, J. (2014) BRICs and beyond: Do acronyms help in emerging
market investing? W all Street Journal, April 6.
Farmer, R.N. and Riman, B.N. (1965) Comparative Management and
Economic Progress. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Fitzsimmons, S.R., Miska, C.,
 and Stahl, G.K. (2011) Multicultural employees: Global business’
untapped resource. Organizational Dynamics, 40 (3), 199–206.
Gibson, C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (Eds.) (2003) Virtual Team That Work:
Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Haire, M., Ghiselli, E.E., and Porter, L. (1966) Managerial Thinking: An
International Study. New York: Wiley. Hall, E.T. (1960) e silent
language of overseas business. Harvard Business Review, 38, May/June,
87–96.
Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, New York: Anor Books.
Harbison, F. and Myers, C.A. (1959) Management in the Industrial World:
An International Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S. (Eds.) (2002) Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hong, H.J. (2010) Bicultural competence and its impact on team
effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10
(1), 93–120.
House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-intanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M.,
Dison, M., Gupta, V., and 170 co-authors (1999) Cultural Influences on
Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE. In Mobley, W.F., Gessner,
M.J., and Arnold, V. (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 1.
Stanford, CT: JAI Press, pp. 171–233.
House, R.J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., and Gupta, V. (2004)
Culture, Leadership and Organization: A GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic
Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Miigan Press.
Jason, T. and Aycan, Z. (2001) International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management – towards the future. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 1 (1), 5–9.
Javidan, M., Steers, R.M., and Hi, M.A. (Eds.) (2007) The Global Mindset.
Oxford: JAI Press.
Kandogan, Y. (2012) An improvement to Kogut and Singh measure of
cultural distance considering the relationship among different
dimensions of culture. Research in International Business and Finance,
26 (2), 196–203.
Keller, E. von (1982) Management in fremden Kulturen. [Management in
Foreign Cultures]. Bern and Stugart: Paul Haupt.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., and Gibson, C.B. (2006) A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of the empirical resear
incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37, 285–320.
Kirkman, B.L., Cordery, J.L., Mathieu, J.E., Rosen, B., and Kukenberger, M.
(2013) Global organizational communities of practice: e effects of
nationality diversity, psyological safety, and media riness on
community performance. Human Relations, 66 (3), 333–362.
Kleinberg, M.J. (1989) Cultural Clash Between Managers: America’s
Japanese Firms. In Prasad, S.B. (Ed.), Advances in International
Comparative Management, Vol. 4. Greenwi, CT: JAI Press, pp. 221–
244.
Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) e effect of national culture on the oice of
entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (3), 411–432.
Lakhani, K.R. and Panea, J.A. (2007) e principles of distributed
innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2 (3),
97–112.
Levy, O., Beeler, S., Taylor, S., and Boyacigiller, N. (2007) What we talk
about when we talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in
multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38
(2), 231–258.
Lüe, G., Kostova, T., and Roth, K. (2014) Multiculturalism from a cognitive
perspective: Paerns and implications. Journal of International Business
Studies, 45 (2), 169–190.
Madsen, T.K. and Servais, P. (1997) e internationalization of born globals:
An evolutionary process? International Business Review, 6 (6), 561–583.
Mendenhall, M. (2006) e elusive, yet critical allenge of developing global
leaders. European Management Journal, 24 (6), 422–429.
Metelmann, J. (2014) It’s just me, my selfie and I? Das Selbstporträt in der
Social-Network-Ära [e self-portrait in the social network-era].
Presentation, University of St. Gallen, May 12, 2014.
Nardon, L. and Steers, R. (2008) e new global manager: Learning cultures
on the fly. Organizational Dynamics, 31 (1), 47–59.
Nguyen, A.M.D. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2010) Multicultural Identity: What
It Is and Why It Maers. In Crisp, R.J. (Ed.), The Psychology of Social and
Cultural Diversity: Social Issues and Interventions. Oxford: Wiley-
Blawell, pp. 87–114.
Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional
Economies. New York, NY: Free Press. Primecz, H., Romani, L., and
Samann, S.A. (2009) Cross-cultural management resear:
Contributions from different paradigms. International Cross-Cultural
Management Research, 9 (3), 267–274.
Primecz, H., Romani, L., and Samann, S.A. (Eds.) (2011) Cross-Cultural
Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ramalingam, B. (2014). Aid on the Edge of Chaos: Rethinking International
Co-operation in a Complex World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ris, D.A. (2006). Blunders in International Business, 4th ed. Cambridge:
Blawell.
Romani, L., Samann, S.A., and Primecz, H. (2011) Culture and Negotiated
Meanings: e Value of Considering Meaning Systems and Power
Imbalance for Cross-Cultural Management. In Primecz, H., Romani, L.,
and Samann, S.A. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Management in Practice.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–17.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) Clustering countries on aitudinal
dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review,
10 (3), 435–454.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster
formation, forces and implications. Journal of International Business
Studies, 44 (9), 867–897.
Samann, S.A. (Ed.) (1997) Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent
Contrasts and Contradictions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Samann, S.A. and Phillips, M.E. (2004) Contextual influences on culture
resear: Shiing assumptions for new workplace realities. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (3), 371–392.
Shapiro, D.L., Furst, S., Spreitzer, G., and von Glinow, M.A. (2002)
Transnational teams in the electronic age: Are team identity and high
performance at risk? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (4), 455–467.
Shenkar, O. (2001) Cultural distance revisited: Toward a more rigorous
conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of
International Business Studies, 32 (3), 519–535.
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Twenge, J.M. (2010) A review of the empirical evidence on generational
differences in work aitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25 (2),
201–210.
Weisband, S. (Ed.) (2007) Leadership at a Distance: Research in
Technologically-Supported Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3
Towards a complex view of culture
Cross-cultural management, ‘native
categories’, and their impact on concepts of
management and organisation

Fiona Moore

Introduction

Historically, cross-cultural management has been dominated by a concept of

culture that first prioritises the national level as a unit of analysis and,
second, considers culture as a set of measurable qualities or traits. More
recently, however, the literature on ‘native categories’ has developed as an
alternative perspective, considering culture at the national level as a set of
social categories through whi managers define their worlds. Using the case
of the literature on Taiwanese ‘business culture’ and cross-cultural
management, I will consider first how the focus on measurable national
cultures has influenced concepts of management and organisation in a
transnational context and then what a native category approa can
contribute to our understanding of the way in whi su concepts as
culture, management and organisation operate in an international business
(IB) seing.
‘Native categories’
e concept of ‘native categories’ takes as its basis the idea that managers
are unconsciously influenced by social categorisations through whi they
organise their world, whi are independent of empirical data, though
people may draw upon su data to support their categorisations. Native
categories are defined by Buley and Chapman as the categories of analysis
through whi people in particular societies classify and understand their
social worlds (1997: 283). e study of these in anthropology and sociology
goes ba to the work of Durkheim and Mauss (1967 [1903]), Hertz (1973
[1909]), and others of the Année Sociologique sool, later to form the basis
of structuralist anthropology (Needham 1973) and the social constructionist
view of society as a subjective reality (Berger & Lumann 1966). Needham,
summarising the work done on the interpretation of native categories,
indicates that an anthropologist, arriving in a new society, ‘learns to see the
world as it is constituted for the people themselves, to assimilate their
distinctive categories … His [sic] analytical task, consequently, is to
apprehend a mode of classification’ (1967: viii–ix). Native categories are
oen used as a means by whi people define their own identities as
members of groups, and the aracter traits of others in different groups (see
Levi-Strauss 1963). is categorisation informs the ways in whi
subsequent anthropologists have approaed the study of other societies, up
to the present day (see Buley & Chapman 1997: 284–285). e ways in
whi different groups define themselves and others through a process of
developing, and negotiating, native categories is a fundamental subject of
anthropology and sociology.
While the subject has less oen been discussed in management studies, a
key early work is Buley and Chapman (1997), whi argues that reality,
for managers as for any human group, is socially defined (288), and that
anthropologists’ use of the ‘native category’ could equally apply as a means
of understanding managers. ey posit that ‘Western management science
has never been objective; it has, rather, consisted of an ad hoc mixture of
categories generated by the observer and the observed’, and thus that greater
aention should be paid to the native categories of managers rather than
aempting to explain managerial behaviour in supposedly ‘objective’ terms
(284). Harris (2000) develops Buley and Chapman’s conclusions by looking
at the role of management literature on the formation of native categories.
He argues that management resear is interpreted by managers according
to their own categories, and used as a means of classifying the world (757),
and to develop rituals and means of dealing with events (760).
Native categories, in the context of management studies, can be therefore
defined as social categories that can be derived from national, professional
or organisational cultures, whi are internalised. ey are continuously
formulated and re-formulated by managers and workers through conscious
and unconscious processes of collective definition, with reference both to
external and internal discourses and concepts, and are used as a means of
organising and understanding their social world.

National culture as native category in cross-

cultural management
In international business (IB) studies, whi influences most of the cross-
cultural management literature, the situation regarding culture is described
by Leung et al.:
Mu of previous resear on culture and IB has adopted what we view as a simplistic view of
culture, whi tends to examine the static influence of a few cultural elements in isolation from
other cultural elements and contextual variables. For instance, mu of the resear inspired by
the Hofstede dimensions falls into this category, whi, in our view, was instrumental in
kistarting the field.
(2005: 374)

Chapman et al. (2008: 219) note that there is an artificial distinction made in
su works between culture and individual, even though the two must
intersect at some point. It seems to be generally agreed that the origin of this
focus lies largely in the seminal work of Hofstede (1980, 1994, 2001, and see
also www.geerthofstede.com), whi constituted a questionnaire-based
survey of a single trans-national organisation, later supplemented with other
measures and indices. While Hofstede himself has indicated that his
dimensions are a deliberate oversimplification for the purpose of building an
ideal-typical resear model (2001: 24–28), nonetheless an examination of
the IB literature indicates that dimension-based, nationally focused models
of culture dominate, and far overextend the remit of Hofstede’s initial study
(see Kirkman et al. 2010). Despite the development of more complex and
multilayered ways of looking at culture in IB (see Boyacigiller et al. 1996,
Samann & Phillips 2004, Samann [ed.] 1997), dimension-based,
nationally focused models persist, with alternative views relegated to special
issues, or to critical management studies (Grey & Sinclair 2006).
It may therefore be useful to consider these from the perspective of native
categories. An examination of managerial literature defining ‘national
cultures’ (e.g. Hison & Pugh 1997) reveals structural similarities with Levi-
Strauss’s native Americans classifying groups within the tribe as ‘Bear
People’ or ‘Fish People’. In this instance, members of the Bear or Fish totem
groups were said to possess aracteristics of these animals, regardless of the
empirical accuracy of this statement. Likewise, in management studies, we
see the imposition and adoption of a particular national identity associated
with particular social and physical traits, whi is also subject to
negotiation, discussion and the anowledgement of exceptions. is would
also explain the paradox noted by Chapman et al. (2008), whereby the focus
on what they term ‘simple, static models of culture’ (217) remains despite
the existence of oen-cited publications pointing out the flaws with this
approa (e.g. McSweeney 2002). Buley et al. (2011) also make the point
that many solars have too mu invested in the national focus to ange
the system now. e focus on national culture, and on culture as a simple,
static, measurable property, persists not because of its inherent validity, or
even utility, but because it forms part of the native categories through whi
the world of international managers is organised.
 is system of categorising the world can be seen to have an influence on
multinational corporations and the way in whi management is
experienced. In organising themselves, corporations tend to focus on
branes or subsidiaries at the national level: a factory in North Carolina, for
instance, may be considered the ‘American bran’ without mu
consideration for the impact that the bran’s location in a specific town in
a specific state might make for its culture. Even when companies organise at
a more regional level (the European operation, for instance), it seems to be
generally understood that the commonalities over the region will outweigh
any differences at other levels. Furthermore, the idea that culture can be
assessed, measured and defined according to particular traits persists in
terms of analysing organisations; while Hofstede criticises the application of
his dimensions to analysing organisational culture (2001: Chapters 8 and 10),
he nonetheless offers a similar approa (Chapter 8). It should, however, not
be surprising that this is the case given that there is an oen-
unanowledged dimension of feedba between resear and practice
(Buley & Chapman 1997): Hofstede’s study was instigated in part on
behalf of the corporation in question (2001: xv), while managers learn their
teniques and practices from textbooks, and popular management works,
some of whi are wrien or co-wrien by IB solars (Hison & Pugh
1997, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997), as well as in experiential
modes, whi will include an element of passing on cultural lore and
customs. Dimension-based approaes thus do not only exist as an abstract
concept for management researers, but have a real impact on cross-border
management and organisation.
In sum, the literature indicates that the focus on national cultures, with
comparable dimensions and thus metrics of distance, operate in cross-
cultural management as a set of native categories, through whi managers
organise the world and, in turn, conceive of management and organisation,
dividing the world into unproblematic social categories. By considering the
worldview of international managers in this way, we can cast a different
light on cross-cultural management and organisation.
Case study: Taiwanese identity and transnational
business networks
While ‘Taiwanese identity’ is unproblematic in the literature, with numerous
papers isolating it as a single variable in terms of knowledge transfer, the
anthropological and sociological literature suggests that Taiwanese identity
is, in fact, a fragmented and contested concept with distinct political
overtones. e construction of ‘Taiwaneseness’ in IB is not simply a
detaed act of scientific analysis, but plays into political and social
constructions of who can legitimately define what a ‘Taiwanese business’ is.
e extant literature on Taiwanese businesses correspondingly suggests
that an identification as Taiwanese plays a role in cross-cultural
management. Chou and Kirkby’s (1998) account of the internationalisation
of Taiwan’s electronics sector note that this took place in part because of
competition between the USA and Japan, both of whi were looking for
eap offshore factory locations (334); although they do not say so, Taiwan
has historical and diaspora connections to both countries. e fact that
Taiwan does a lot of business with mainland China is oen noted, with Yang
et al. (2010: 539) saying that almost half of Taiwan’s FDI has been to the
mainland since the late 1990s. Lin (2010), using 2006 figures, says that
Taiwanese FDI to the mainland was as mu as $13.97 billion, and that
Taiwanese IT companies specifically account for one-third of all FDI in
China; the historical connections between the two countries are
undoubtedly influential. Shih et al. (2010), examining work–life balance in
expatriate families, take as their case study Taiwanese expatriates in
mainland China, suggesting that Taiwanese businesses and managers use
their historical connections to the mainland to assist their cross-cultural
activities.
A few papers cast more direct light on the issue of Taiwanese identity and
cross-cultural management in Taiwanese firms. Chang et al. (2009) for
instance, note that Taiwanese businesses at home exercise centralised
control through tight-knit personal networks (quanxi), and then examine
how MNCs also use personal connections to exercise control abroad.
Taiwanese MNCs, according to Chang et al., tend to be centralised and use a
lot of behaviour control, whi the authors contrast with culture control, to
keep subsidiaries in line; they rely heavily on expatriates to mediate through
their ties to Head Office and to local people. e centre trusts expatriate
managers more than locals, and also usually restricts communications by
having important messages wrien in Mandarin. Chen (2006), looking at
how Taiwanese firms deal with the so-called ‘liability of foreignness’ (that is
to say, the difficulties firms face when expanding into a new market, su as
la of local connections and the suspicions of local consumers) when
expanding into Europe, note that they will oen start by entering into a
short-term alliance with a local partner (290), but then aer that tend to rely
on wholly owned subsidiaries, suggesting a combination of networking both
within and outside the Taiwanese group itself. Liu (2011) reports a similar
paern in building supply networks (636); it is also noted that when there is
a Taiwanese network in the host country, it is used in preference to local
networks (639). Tsai and Wen (2008) examine the impact of relational
embeddedness on entrepreneurial activities in Taiwanese subsidiaries in
mainland China, mentioning that it is useful in a variety of ways for firms to
cultivate relationships with customers, local government and suppliers.
ere is thus evidence that national identity, together with other social,
political and historical identities, plays a role in the cross-cultural
management and knowledge transfer activities of Taiwanese international
businesspeople.
However, almost all of these papers take a quantitative approa,
employing surveys, corporate data, and/or structured interviews, and all of
them, as noted in Samann and Phillips (2004; see also Buley et al. 2011
and Chapman et al. 2008), focus on the national level, excluding more
complex processes at the subnational and supernational levels. As a result,
the role of the individual, relationships and identity in constructing
networks and managing knowledge—namely, the very processes through
whi these activities take place—are not taken into consideration by IB
researers. A typical example is Jaw et al. (2006), who discuss knowledge
flows, human capital and performance using Taiwanese firms as a case
study, but, for the most part, they do not discuss the role that individuals’
identities might play in their development. Furthermore, the focus on the
‘Taiwanese’ factor to the exclusion of all else does not allow for the
possibility that there may be other factors operating in concert with, or
alongside, national culture. e traditional dimensions-of-culture focus, in
this case, may allow researers to identify that a phenomenon is taking
place, but not how, or why, it is doing so.
More problematically, all of the abovementioned studies treat Taiwan as a
national unit, speaking of ‘Taiwanese’ businesses and ‘Taiwanese’ culture.
is is particularly problematic in the Taiwanese case because studies of
Taiwan conducted in anthropology, sociology and political science all
indicate that Taiwanese identity is at the very least a strongly contested one,
and shows evidence of complex lines of fragmentation and integration at
many different levels. Many studies, for instance, note strong social, political
and class differences between Taiwanese of pre-1949 and post-1949 Chinese
origin (e.g. Appleton 1970, Bedford & Hwang 2006, Hall 2013, Murray &
Hong 1991, Muyard 2012), but that both groups, albeit in different ways, self-
identify as ‘Taiwanese’ (e.g. Chow 2012, Danielsen 2012, Subert 2004).
Furthermore, the issue of how Taiwanese identity is defined is politically
arged (Murray & Hong 1991: 275–276). Finally, it has been documented
that the discourses of Taiwanese identity ange over time (see Bedford &
Hwang 2006, Chen 2012).
None of this contestation makes it into any of the papers listed, whi is a
serious omission: the literature on Taiwanese investment in mainland
companies, for instance, does not generally discuss whether the Taiwanese
involved are post-1949 migrants or not, or whether or not they are in favour
of unification. e complexity of Taiwanese identity has serious implications
for international business studies, and yet, the focus on the national level, on
dimensions, and on statistical instruments, has meant that these implications
remain ignored in international business studies.
Implications for international management and
organisation
e Taiwanese case has a number of implications for concepts of
management and organisation. For one thing, it prioritises national culture
as the unit of analysis, whi has a kno-on effect in terms of defining
managers and organisations: in the literature, we have ‘Taiwanese
companies’ and ‘Taiwanese business culture’, whi obscures a number of
subnational influences: whether or not the company’s managers are
predominantly from the pre- or post-1949 immigration cohort, when the
company was founded, whether the company considers itself Taiwanese in
terms of being part of an international Chinese diaspora, or whether it
considers Taiwan as a distinct national identity with historical ties to the
mainland. Similarly, to generalise about ‘Taiwanese managers’ is to create
an artificial category and, usually, one that prioritises the dominant
Kuomintang (KMT) image of national identity, if only in that it does not
anowledge that Taiwanese identity is diverse.
Furthermore, in terms of the construction of transnational knowledge
networks, a more organic and nuanced perspective shows organisations as
porous and nuanced, with information flowing organically in different
directions, whi is not reflected in a view that simply considers the flow of
knowledge as an issue of conduits between bran and headquarters, or
between home and host countries (e.g. Hebert et al. 2005). Martin, likewise,
suggests organisations can be seen as being at once integrated and
fragmented, depending on the perspective one takes (1992). e focus on
native categories focused on national units in opposition to ea other leads
to a construction of the world in whi organisations operate as units with
national subunits in opposition to ea other and to the headquarters,
whereas the reality as experienced by managers is mu more porous,
organic and discursive, as organisations connect with local and global social
and political processes, and are both divided and integrated by these;
furthermore, organisations are made up of discursive categories and defined
in terms of native categories and artificially constructed oppositions.
e key significance of the literature on native categories in international
business, and the Taiwanese case, is that academic resear still does not
reflect the less visible influences on management practice. is is true both
for studies that support the managers’ native categories, through their focus
on national culture, dimensions and cultural distance (e.g. Ahern et al. 2012,
Hebert et al. 2005) and for those whi allenge the relevance of these
concepts (e.g. McSweeney 2002, Moore 2013), since, although the categories
may be artificial and reductive, they nonetheless reflect the way in whi
reality is constructed in international organisations. A similar case can be
seen in Zhou and Shi’s (2011) review of the literature on diverse teams:
although the literature shows that the idea that ethnically diverse teams are
more creative applies only to laboratory studies, and that studies of teams in
the field produces more complicated results, nonetheless the idea that
ethnically diverse teams are more creative persists in popular management
literature (see, for instance, the entry on ‘Managing Groups and
Teams/Diversity’ at en.wikibooks.org).
As a result of failing to treat national culture in terms of native categories,
instead assuming it to exist as an objective concept, researers are missing
opportunities and not obtaining crucial data that influence organisations and
management practice. A researer unaware of the differences between pre-
and post-1949 migration groups in Taiwan would be unable to pi up on
the nuances of their management experience, for instance the fact that post-
1949 migrants favour closer ties with the mainland than do pre-1949 groups.
Furthermore, they are in danger of representing political agendas without
realising it, as Murray and Hong (1991) note. Finally, native categories are
not immutable; Ramsden (2006) and Firow (1986) point out that
relationships between countries ange over time and thus, by implication
from Chapman et al. (2008), so do measures of cultural distance. e utility
of concepts of culture in international business needs to be reframed, as
native categories informed by power and history that influence management
and organisation.
 In order to obtain a more accurate image, researers thus need to focus
less on national culture as an object in and of itself, and more as a social
category developed by managers as a means of understanding and relating
to the world around them. Cultural distance studies are not invalid, as they
can be a useful guide to relationships between countries; it is unsurprising
that Ahern et al. (2012) and Morosini et al. (1998) were respectively able to
correlate it with merger success, since perception and preconception
demonstrably play a part in merger success and failure (Moore 2013).
However, researers need to be aware that they are not writing in a
vacuum, and that the concepts with whi researers work are influenced
by the models our informants possess of how the world works. It is also
important to consider the relationship between resear and practice, and
the extent to whi IB studies do not so mu reflect reality as participate in
the creation of native categories.
In practitioner terms, managers need to be aware that simple divisions
and oppositions may be aractive in terms of conceiving of the organisation,
but actually operating with these in mind are going to create
misunderstandings. To understand organisations, and differences in
managing across borders, practitioners must understand the relationship
between native categories, managers, organisations and the literature; they
must also bear in mind the issue of ambivalence about seemingly clear-cut
organisational processes (see Moore 2013). It may be that, as Brannen et al.
(2013) argue, successful cross-cultural managers must become ethnographers
of their own organisations, learning about cultures and being aware of
native categories, but being also able to reflect critically on these and their
relationship to the organisation.

Conclusions
Applying the native category approa to the Taiwanese management
suggests that, for researers and practitioners, the future of cross-cultural
management is to regard culture in a more nuanced, critical fashion, taking
multilevel, multifaceted, dynamic and dialogic approaes, whi do not
reject functionalist or distance-based approaes, but regard these as part of
a complex paern of cross-border social activity rather than as objects in
and of themselves. Solars and managers need to develop a reflexive
approa to cross-cultural management, or our images of management and
organisation are not only inaccurate, but we are unaware of the hidden
political agendas informing our resear. Managers, likewise, can benefit
from not taking the stated values of their organisation for granted, but
instead viewing these critically as the native categories of a particular group.
By considering cross-cultural management in terms of native categories and
the process of their construction, then, we can understand and take into
account the complexity and mutability of culture, management and
organisation in international business. e Taiwanese case study thus
indicates that more nuanced, subjective, approaes to culture are needed if
we are to understand cross-cultural management.

References
Ahern, K.R., Daminelli, D. and Fracassi, C. 2012. Lost in translation? e
effect of cultural values on mergers around the world. Journal of
Financial Economics, hp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.08.006.
Appleton, S. 1970. Taiwanese and mainlanders on Taiwan: A survey of
student aitudes. e China arterly, 44: 38–65.
Bedford, O. and Hwang, K.-K. 2006. Taiwanese identity and democracy: e
social psyology of Taiwan’s 2004 elections. London: Palgrave.
Berger, T.L. and Lumann, T. 1966. e social construction of reality. New
York: Anor Books.
Boyacigiller, N., Kleinberg, J., Phillips, M.E. and Samann, S. 1996.
Conceptualizing culture. In Handbook for International Management
 Resear, B.J. Punne and O. Shenkar (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Blawell
Publishers, 157–208.
Brannen, M., Moore, F. and Mughan, T. 2013. Strategic ethnography and
reinvigorating Tesco plc: Leveraging multicultural teams using
ethnographic method. Paper presented at EPIC 2013, London (UK), 15–
18 September 2013.
Buley, P.J. and Chapman, M. 1997. e use of native categories in
management resear. British Journal of Management, 8 (4): 283–300.
Buley, P.J., Chapman, M., Clegg, J. and Gajewska-deMaeos, H. 2011.
Doing business in developing and transitional countries: An empirical
example of the dominant logic and its alternative. International Studies
of Management and Organization 41 (2): 25–54.
Chang, Y., Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. 2009. Control of subsidiaries of
MNCs from emerging economies in developed countries: e case of
Taiwanese MNCs in the UK. e International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 20 (1): 75–95.
Chapman, M., Gajewska-DeMaos, H., Clegg, J. and Buley, P.J. 2008. Close
neighbours and distant friends: Perceptions of cultural distance.
International Business Review, 17: 217–234.
Chen, R. 2012. Beyond national identity in Taiwan: A multidimensional and
evolutionary conceptualization. Asian Survey, 52 (5): 845–871.
Chen, T. 2006. Liability of foreignness and entry mode oice: Taiwanese
firms in Europe. Journal of Business Resear, 59: 288–294.
Chou, T. and Kirkby, R.J.R. 1998. Taiwan’s electronics sector: Restructuring
of form and space. Competition and Change, 2: 331–358.
Chow, P. 2012. Introduction. In Peter C.Y. Chow (ed.), National Identities and
Economic Interest: Taiwan’s Competing Options and eir Implications
for Regional Stability. London: Palgrave, 3–14.
Danielsen, M. 2012. On the road to a common Taiwan identity. In Peter C.Y.
Chow (ed.), National Identities and Economic Interest: Taiwan’s
Competing Options and eir Implications for Regional Stability.
London: Palgrave, 135–152.
Durkheim, E. and Mauss, M. 1967 (1903). Primitive classification. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Firow, P. E. 1986. e death of the German cousin: Variations on a literary
stereotype 1890–1920. London: Associated University Presses.
Grey, C. and Sinclair, A. 2006. Writing differently. Organization, 13(3): 443–
453.
Hall, B. 2013. Modernization and the social construction of national identity:
e case of Taiwanese identity. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 47: 135–
169.
Harris, S. 2000. Reconciling positive and interpretative international
management resear: A native category approa. International
Business Review, 9 (6): 755–770.
Hebert, L., Very, P. and Beamish, P. 2005. Expatriation as a bridge over
troubled water: A knowledge-based perspective applied to cross-border
acquisitions. Organization Studies, 26 (10): 1455–1476.
Hertz, R. 1973 (1909). e pre-eminence of the right hand: A study in
religious polarity. In Needham, R. (ed.), Right and Le: Essays in Dual
Symbolic Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3–31.
Hison, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. 1997. Management worldwide: e impact of
societal culture on organizations around the globe. London: Penguin.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. London: Sage.
––– 1994. Cultures and organizations: Soware of the mind. London: Harper
Collins.
––– 2001. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values (2nd edn.). London: Sage. ––– 2013. www.geerthofstede.com,
accessed 20 August 2013.
Jaw, B., Wang, C.Y. and Chen, Y. 2006. Knowledge flows and performance of
multinational subsidiaries: e perspective of human capital.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (2): 225–244.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. 2010. A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical resear incorporating
 Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37: 285–320.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buan, N., Erez, M. and Gibson, C. 2005. Culture and
international business: Recent advances and their implications for future
resear. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 357–378.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. e bear and the barber. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 93 (1): 1–11.
Lin, F. 2010. e determinants of foreign direct investment in China: e
case of Taiwanese firms in the IT industry. Journal of Business Resear,
63: 479–485.
Liu, B.J. 2011. MNEs and local linkages: Evidence from Taiwanese affiliates.
World Development, 39 (4): 633–647.
Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: ree perspectives. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. McSweeney, B. 2002.
Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A
triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1): 89–119.
Moore, F. 2013. Ambivalent perspectives: An ethnographic case study of
ambivalence in postacquisition integration. underbird International
Business Review, 55 (4): 453–467.
Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. 1998. National cultural distance and
cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business
Studies, 29 (1): 137–158.
Murray, S.O. and Hong, K. 1991. American anthropologists looking through
Taiwanese culture. Dialectical Anthropology, 13 (3/4): 273–299.
Muyard, F. 2012. Taiwanese national identity, cross-strait economic
interaction, and the integration paradigm. In Peter C.Y. Chow (ed.),
National Identities and Economic Interest: Taiwan’s Competing Options
and eir Implications for Regional Stability. London: Palgrave, 153–186.
Needham, R. 1967. Introduction. In Durkheim, E. and Mauss, M. 1967 (1903)
Primitive Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vii–xlvii.
Needham, R. 1973. Introduction. In Needham, R. (ed.), Right and Le: Essays
in Dual Symbolic Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i–
xxxvii.
Ramsden, J. 2006. Don’t mention the war: e British and the Germans since
1890. London: Abacus.
Samann, S.A. (ed.) 1997. Cultural complexity in organizations: Inherent
contrasts and contradictions. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Samann, S.A. and Phillips, M.E. 2004. Contextual influences on culture
resear: Shiing assumptions for new workplace realities. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (3): 370–390.
Subert, G. 2004. Taiwan’s political parties and national identity: e rise of
an overaring consensus. Asian Survey, 44 (4): 534–554.
Shih, H., Chiang, Y. and Hsu, C. 2010. High involvement work system,
work–family conflict, and expatriate performance: Examining Taiwanese
expatriates in China. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21 (11): 2013–2030.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding cultural diversity in business (2nd edn.). London:
Niolas Brealey Publishing.
Tsai, C. and Wen, C. 2008. e effects of relational embeddedness on
entrepreneurship: Taiwanese subsidiaries in China. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Resear, 15 (5): 453–472.
Wikibooks 2013. Managing groups and teams/diversity. available from
hp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Managing_Groups_and_Teams/Diversity,
accessed 20 August 2013.
Yang, C., Wu, Y. and Lin, H. 2010. Outward investment to China and local
innovation of Taiwanese manufacturing firms. e Japanese Economic
Review, 16 (4): 538–558.
Zhou, W. and Shi, X. 2011. Special review article: Culture in groups and
teams: A review of three decades of resear. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 4 (1): 5–34.
4
Cross-cultural management at a cross-
roads?
Wolfgang Mayrhofer and Katharina Pernkopf

Introduction
Oh no, not another Skype call with John from UK and Sita from India. They expect me to share my
valuable knowledge and a week later they work for a different company. I have never met them in
person, besides that I have to participate in this cross-cultural training that is nothing more than a
waste of time. How should stories from a US manager who has worked in Germany help me to deal
with my Kenyan coworkers?

(Swiss business developer and frequent flyer, personal communication)

Examples su as this lead to the core thesis of this apter: cross-cultural
management has reaed a cross-roads and needs readjustment regarding
topics covered, theory and methodology, and relationship to its stakeholders
to continue its success story. Since the middle of the twentieth century,
cross-cultural management resear has produced an impressive literature
both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Yet, developments in three areas
bring the field to a cross-roads.
First, the world around us has anged substantially. Examples of su
ange include a sharp rise in business operations across national and
cultural borders (Punne & Shenkar, 2004), innovations in the area of
tenology, in particular with regard to information processing (Leung et al.,
2005), or anges in the demographic composition of the workforce in
various countries due to factors su as varying birth rates (Bloom &
Canning, 2004), ethnic diversity (Tung, 2008), and the growing participation
of women in the workforce over a number of years and its impact on
performance (Caligiuri & Tung, 1999). e emergence of concepts and
buzzwords su as the new spirit of capitalism (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005),
network society (Castells, 2010), or varieties of capitalism (Hall & Soskice,
2001) reflect these developments at the macro level. Second, social science
has progressed in theoretical and methodological terms. Examples include
the emergence of grand social theories providing comprehensive views of
the interplay between various levels of society (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977;
Giddens, 1984; Boltanski & évenot, 2006); discoveries in brain resear
opening up new possibilities for analyzing how individuals cope with their
environment and make decisions (Kandel et al., 1995); and progress
regarding data collection and analysis due to large international databases
su as the World Value Survey (www.worldvaluessurvey.org) and more
sophisticated analytical methods because of new insight and advances in
computing capacity (Davidson & di Gregorio, 2011). ird, in many
industrialized countries stakeholders su as the government, industry, or
tax payers request more accountability from universities due to scarce public
funds (Ramirez & Tiplic, forthcoming). In addition, the global crisis of 2008
has raised a massive critique on the role of universities’ educational and
resear activities (e.g., Podolny, 2009; The Economist, 2009; Petri-glieri,
2012), puing more pressure on the academic world to demonstrate their
contribution to the societal good.
Against this badrop, our apter first identifies major global
developments and outlines related topics of resear. Second, we address
opportunities and obstacles arising from new theoretical and methodological
developments, and third, we discuss the role of cross-cultural management
in the discourse with other resear fields and its contribution to the societal
good.
Emerging global developments and new resear
topics
ree developments are especially crucial for generating new topics in cross-
cultural management resear. Arguably the most important is
globalization, an all-pervasive phenomenon widely covered in the literature
(e.g., Miie, 2003). ere seems to be a broad consensus that we see a new
era of cross-border activities at very different levels. is includes goods,
services, capital, or information as well as the flow of people, e.g., voluntary
and involuntary migration (International Labour Office, 2014), tailored
exange programs su as Erasmus+ in Europe during secondary and
tertiary education, and the emergence and nature of a large group of
employees constantly moving between business locations in different
countries (Mayerhofer et al., 2010). Related to this, English emerges as a
global lingua franca not only in business, but also in other areas su as arts,
music, or education. Conceptually, the world-polity approa suggests that
since 1945 Western cultural paerns and institutions have dominated global
developments and that organizations and nation-states are subject to
isomorphic pressures inherent in the Western model of rationalization (Drori
et al., 2006). Assuming that the importance of nation-states will decrease
(Ohmae, 1995), becoming a world-system (Wallerstein, 1974; Frank & Gills,
1993) or world-society (Krüen & Drori, 2009), they expect countries to
become increasingly similar with respect to their tastes, behavioral paerns,
cultural values, and governance systems because of factors su as
industrialization paerns, globalized media, or capital flows.
A second major development is virtualization (Panteli & Chiasson, 2008).
Related to tenological developments su as increasing computing power
and beer data links, the decoupling of action and the underlying material
basis allows different forms of working and living to emerge. ey have in
common that physical contact allowing the full range of communication
annels is partly or fully superseded by virtual means. In its simplest
practice, e-mails, texting, or video-conferencing support the contact with co-
workers, spouses, or family members in distant locations. In a fuller form,
this can include totally virtual work teams or long-distance relationships
between spouses in different parts of the world. Linked to virtualization are
the speed of communication and the potential global rea of seemingly
isolated individual action due to modern forms of communication including
social networks. e example of the communication director of an internet
giant tweeting a dubious message about her journey to Africa before
stepping on the plane is just one of many showing the potential global
dimension of seemingly private action. e tweet caused a social media
uproar while the director was on the flight with no access to the web and
unaware of unfolding events. She was fired aer landing
(www.cnn.com/2013/12/22/world/sacco-offensive-tweet).
ird, the demographic developments in various countries and continents
differ vastly (World Health Organization, 2009). is is important since
demography, in particular the absolute number of people, age composition,
and population growth are major indicators for future issues su as labor
market policies, investment in public health and education, or retirement
age. It also annels future investments of companies looking for new
markets. e meanwhile well-known example of China or the more recent
case of Nigeria as another example of an African country becoming more
and more interesting for business investments (The Economist, 2014) are but
two instances of this.
ese developments provide fertile ground for new or more intensive
efforts in cross-cultural management resear. A few examples should make
the case.
Very directly related to globalization, the emergence of a world society –
or the la thereof – raises issues in terms of cultural distinctiveness of
countries and regions. estions linked with this are: To what extent do our
current culture concepts capture the essence of these developments? Is there
a new world culture emerging and, if so, what are its aracteristics? With
regard to the mobility of people across countries, are individuals with
experience of secondary and tertiary exange programs more successful
when sent on a foreign assignment? Relating to the emergence of English as
lingua franca, is there a systematic difference between working groups using
a centrally ordered language, usually English and groups who opt for a self-
osen mix of national languages according to the situation with regard to
typical group performance measures and individual well-being?
With regard to virtualization, beyond the meanwhile well-known
phenomenon of the global virtual team, other questions arise: How do
members of different cultures react to different degrees of virtualization of
business communication and do they need a different mix of direct and
virtual communication to be successful? Does the potential availability of a
global public through the use of social networks ange the conflict handling
and bargaining strategies of management and employees?
Demographic developments seem to indicate that major future economic
developments will happen outside of the WEIRD (Western, educated,
industrialized, ri, and democratic) countries. Yet, despite its close
relationship with anthropology, cross-cultural management resear has a
bias towards these countries and has lile or no evidence of cross-cultural
management aspects for many of the currently 193 countries that are
members of the United Nations. Su blind spots require more resear
efforts. Regarding the demographic composition within a country,
interesting issues emerge as well: Do the communication paerns of older
and younger employees differ given typical variations in the overall age
distribution of a society, e.g., depending on who is now and in the future the
majority group?
e interplay of the outlined developments raise new questions deserving
more aention, too: How do well-established in-group/out-group effects
based on ethnic, gender, or cultural stereotypes play out in virtual work
groups of different age composition where traditional cultural markers are
no longer present due to a diffuse cultural imprint or a cultural identity
transcending the usual categories? Does the use of English as lingua franca
in work seings have varying performance and well-being effects in virtual
and non-virtual seings?
We could go on with our lists of questions. However, the message should
be clear: Cross-cultural management resear of the future has to go beyond
its traditional approa relying on neatly cut-out cultures, countries, and
individuals being socialized in these units. Current reality seems more
complex, fuzzy, and mixed. It contains new phenomena and adds new facets
to well-known phenomena covered by existing resear.

Advances in theory and methodology

Besides deciding on topic areas, scientific disciplines rely on good theory
and sound methodology. To be sure, in this section we do not want to
reiterate the well-known problems in these areas. ere is no shortage of
works describing the methodological problems in comparative resear from
different disciplinary angles (e.g., Arrindell & van der Ende, 1988; Caell,
1989; McDonald, 2000; Morales & Ladhari, 2011; Liba, 2013) spanning
more than half a century (e.g., Moore, 1961; Brislin, 1973; Lonner & Berry,
1986; Inkeles & Sasaki, 1996; Hantrais & Mangen, 2007; Matsumoto & Vijver,
2011). Against this badrop, we are still in line with voices seconding
Seu’s dictum 25 years ago that “[t]he problems that are encountered in
practical resear are not due to a la of available methodological
knowledge” (Seu, 1989: 148). However, over the past decades, there have
been developments opening up new avenues for cross-cultural management
resear. Again, we want to select in order to highlight the most important
issues. Given the prominence of psyology as a major anor for cross-
cultural management, whi many in the field monitor regularly, we oose
not to focus on it here.
In the theoretical realm, we argue that the greatest advances have been
made at both the micro and the macro level. Regarding the former, we
specifically point out the insight by brain resear about the functioning of
the brain, in particular its ways of processing input from the outside world
(Kandel et al., 1995), and the newly inflamed discussion about the role of
genetic disposition and brain processes for individual behavior as well as
free will (Pinker, 2002; Obhi & Haggard, 2004). We do not necessarily share
views that claim the primacy of genetics over socialization or the aa on
the free individual will, but we see fascinating new routes for resear in the
light of these results and the methods they use to aain them. For example,
the resear on the role of stereotypes for cross-cultural communication, a
classic in the field, can raise new questions: Whi brain regions are
activated under whi conditions when stereotypes are used in cross-
cultural communication and (how) do different forms of sensitivity training
leave traces not only at the behavioral, but also at a “deeper” level? Or, to
take another classic example, the role of tolerance for ambiguity in
culturally demanding situations: How does the brain of individuals from
different countries/cultures react to different forms of cultural ambiguity?
Whi other brain regions are affected by these activities and to what extent
do different forms of presenting information about the issues in question
influence brain activity, perception, and actual behavior?
At the macro level, new theoretical insights have been gained by grand
social theories aiming at bridging the structure–agency divide. Two
prominent examples may suffice. Giddens’s structuration theory analyzes
the production and reproduction of social life. It conceptualizes structure
and agency as mutually dependent: “Social structures are both constituted
by human agency and are the very medium of this constitution” (Giddens,
1976: 121). e concept goes beyond a simple dualism between voluntaristic,
dynamic, and subjective individual agency and deterministic, static, and
objective structure. Central to this are rules as “procedures of action”
(Giddens, 1984: 21), whi have to be linked to their historical context to be
adequately understood. Individuals, although subject to these rules, also
actively create, re-create, and co-create them. e three concepts crucial to
Bourdieu’s social theory of practice are “habitus,” “field,” and “capital.” Social
fields identify the “space” within whi actors struggle for various potential
gains, i.e. capital, according to clearly defined rules (Bourdieu, 1977). e
concept differentiates between three basic types of capital: economic, social,
and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). ese rules may be internalized, i.e.
habitualized, by way of socialization. While these concepts have been
around for some time now, we argue that the field of cross-cultural
management has not made full use of these or other concepts (e.g., social
systems view, sociology of conventions, network theory) for theoretically
enriing the link between culture and individual behavior. estions for
further exploration include: How can the recursive view advocated by
structuration theory be built into culture-based theories and what is the
relationship between rules and cultural values? How does national culture
influence the transformation of the three forms of capital into symbolic
capital and what role does it play in the formation and upholding of fields?
At the level of data collection and analysis, three developments over the
past decade deserve even beer exploitation than in the past. First, the past
decades have seen a surge in the number of large data sets available for
cross-cultural management resear. is includes both national and
international comparative surveys to whi basically every academic under
certain conditions has access. Examples of the former would be national
data sets su as the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), a representative
panel study of individuals in Germany with a number of items relevant for
cross-cultural studies (www.diw.de/en/soep), or the British Household Panel
Survey (www.iser.essex.ac.uk/bhps) with a similar approa. With a broader
rea, studies su as the World Value Survey
(www.worldvaluessurvey.org), the European Values Study
(www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu), or the European Work Condition Surveys
(www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/index.htm) can be mentioned. Of
course, there are a number of limitations linked with these studies su as
the given design of the items and the sampling methods. Nevertheless these
data sets wait to be exploited more systematically with a cross-cultural
management resear focus.
Second, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of
digitalized texts. For example, the arives of the European Parliament
contain a ri array of texts su as minutes, statements, dra reports etc. of
its decision making bodies. e general availability of these texts allow new
forms of analyses from a number of perspectives, e.g., communication
paerns, deep structures of texts, or argumentation structures in different
kinds of political struggles in order to get a beer understanding of how
crucial players in organizations act. In a similar vein, the availability of text
on the web, in particular in the “blogosphere” surrounding social networks
su as Facebook or Twier, opens the access to real-life data in an
unobtrusive way. ese opportunities get even more promising in
combination with methods in qualitative data analysis allowing to process
large amounts of text. While the basic approa has been around for some
time, the ever increasing computing power has made the soware more
sophisticated and allows the use of larger amounts of texts (e.g., Alexa &
Zuell, 2000; Hopkins & King, 2010; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). For cross-
cultural management resear, this opens up new avenues for resear.
ird, the past decades have seen a rise in international academic
collaborations. Major drivers are the increasing pressure on academics in
many countries to present and publish internationally, beer means of
electronic communication and cooperation across large geographical
distances su as Skype, Dropbox, or OneDrive, and the early exposure of
young solars to an international environment, for example through PhD
workshops during major conferences, allowing them to make contact with
peers from around the world. For cross-cultural management resear in the
future, this has at least two positive effects. e diversity of viewpoints in
international collaborations raises the riness of the analysis and reduces
the potential blind spots, in particular when designing empirical studies and
interpreting their results. In addition, these academic resear collaborations
in themselves constitute an interesting area of resear. While there is some
work on this (e.g., Teagarden et al., 1995; Melin, 2000; Wagner &
Leydesdorff, 2005; Brewster et al., 2011), these collaborations are not well
explored and the insight from a cross-cultural angle can greatly contribute
to a beer understanding of these teams. However, there is one caveat
regarding international collaborations funded by external grants.
Sometimes, successful grant applications require the inclusion of different
countries to show a geographical spread. is can lead to the inclusion of
academics with poor tenical expertise and/or social fit and a primary
interest in being part of a project with international grant money increasing
their status in the academic system. Besides the social cost of “resear
mercenaries and funding vultures” whose interest and capacity vanish once
the money is gone, this also can lead to biases in the work of a larger
consortium because of uneven input by the members of the network.

Relevance and impact

Like every other scientific field, cross-cultural management has to ask itself
about the implications of its output. is points towards the audiences that
resear in the field communicate with, i.e. from whi discourses the field
gets its input and by whom individual solars and the field want to be
heard. Most obviously, solars in cross-cultural management resear talk
among themselves, producing a ri literature and mu insight. However,
this is not enough for at least two reasons.
First, scientific fields usually profit from a discourse across disciplinary
borders. ere are many calls for inter-, cross-, and transdisciplinary work,
pointing out the substantial advantages of su approaes (e.g., Hoffmann-
Riem et al., 2008). While we are at the same time convinced that opening up
to thoughts from other areas is important for one’s intellectual enterprise
and skeptical about the practicalities of su an approa in the light of
publication pressures, we argue that as a field it is essential to constantly
receive stimuli su as critical questions or new ideas from outside the field.
Compared to other disciplines su as economics, cross-cultural
management does well in this respect. A major reason is its diverse
intellectual heritage. While being rooted in many disciplines has many
drawbas for a field su as developing isolated sub-streams of thought
hardly relating to ea other due to different basic scientific socialization
and potentially leads to a fragmented adhocracy (Whitley, 1984), there is one
eminent advantage: intellectual openness, resulting from the absence of a
single dominant world view. Still, continuous calls for su an openness are
essential to avoid silo-thinking and, in the long run, an impoverishment of
the discipline. One example for su a beneficial dialogue is the theoretical
and empirical work in organization studies, trying to gain insight into how
organizations, individuals, and the broader context interact and how these
interactions influence ea other. Cross-cultural management resear has
always understood this and has assigned “culture” a primary role in this,
both at the organizational and the contextual level. By keeping up with
developments in organization theory and the allenges this poses for
traditional assumptions in the field of cross-cultural management su as
“culture maers,” the field can greatly profit from su a dialogue.
Alternatively, take the example of the critical management discourse as well
as gender studies, whi question some of the tacit assumptions in our field
where gender, power relations, or class struggle have hardly been received
as relevant.
A second argument for transcending the solely internal discourse stems
from developments related to the global crisis starting in 2008. In its wake
there was massive critique with regard to the output of universities in
general and business sools in particular (Podolny, 2009; The Economist,
2009; Petriglieri, 2012). Su critique particularly points towards a
managerialist bias towards short-term individual and organizational
performance outcomes while neglecting the long-term consequences for
communities and society as a whole as well as the partial or full neglect of
the importance of the highly complex contextual seings for analyzing and
managing individual and organizational action in different locations around
the globe. Most fundamentally, this raises the issue of societal impact of
academic resear. Again, cross-cultural management resear has a good
pedigree in this respect. Far from being loed in its ivory tower, the field
continuously reaes out to the world of practice. An example is the close
link between academics and practitioners in the field of cross-cultural
training as represented with SIETAR (www.sietareu.org), an NGO
supporting effective interethnic and intercultural relations at various levels.
Yet, the aermath of the global financial crisis of 2008 has made the question
of resear’s contribution to society mu more salient. For cross-cultural
management as a field, it is important to continue – and intensify – these
efforts to increase both relevance and impact beyond the academic
discourse.

Concluding remarks
Underlying this apter is the assumption that cross-cultural management as
a discipline has reaed a cross-roads. We substantiate this assumption by
starting with three major developments in the outer world – globalization,
virtualization, and demographic ange – and show how they potentially
influence the resear agenda in cross-cultural management. We continue at
the theoretical and methodological level by outlining how future work in the
field could benefit from new theoretical insights at the macro and micro
level, new large-scale data sets and digitalized text in combination with new
analytical methods, and the growth of international resear collaborations.
Triggered by the global crisis starting in 2008, we finally support
developments in the field, whi continue and increase its disciplinary
openness and its strive for societal relevance and impact. Of course, we
argue pars pro toto. By no means our suggestions are comprehensive; yet,
we are convinced that they outline major areas for reconsidering the
development of the field and exemplify concrete steps towards further
improving the cross-cultural management discourse.

References
Alexa, M. & Zuell, C. 2000. Text analysis soware: Commonalities,
differences and limitations: the results of a review. Quantity and Quality,
34, 299–321.
Arrindell, W. A. & van der Ende, J. 1988. On cross-cultural comparative
studies with the EMBU: A note on specific methodological issues. Acta
 Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 78, 141–145.
Bloom, D. E. & Canning, D. 2004. Global demographic ange: Dimensions
and economic significance. National Bureau of Economic Resear, No.
w10817.
Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. 2005. The new spirit of capitalism, London,
Verso.
Boltanski, L. & évenot, L. 2006 (Orig. 1991). On justification: The
economies of worth, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. e forms of capital. In: Riardson, J. G. (ed.) Handbook
of theory and research for the sociology of education, New York:
Greenwood Press.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Reiel, A. 2011. Riding the tiger? Going
along with Cranet for two decades: A relational perspective. Human
Resource Management Review, 21, 5–15.
Brislin, R. W. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods, New York, J. Wiley.
Caligiuri, P. & Tung, R. 1999. Comparing the success of male and female
expatriates from a US based multinational company. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 763–82.
Castells, M. 2010. The rise of the network society, Chiester, Wiley-
Blawell.
Caell, M. G. 1989. Being comparative: Methodological issues in cross-
cultural gerontology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 4, 75–78.
Davidson, J. & di Gregorio, S. 2011. alitative resear and tenology: In
the midst of a revolution. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.)
Handbook of qualitative research 4ed., ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Drori,
G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (eds.) 2006. Globalization and
organization: World society and organizational change, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frank, A. G. & Gills, B. K. (eds.) 1993. The world system: Five hundred years
or five thousand?, London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. 1976. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of
interpretative sociologies, New York, Basic.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of
structuration, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. (eds.) 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional
foundations of comparative advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hantrais, L. & Mangen, S. P. (eds.) 2007. Cross-national research
methodology & practice, London: Routledge.
Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbaer-Mansuy, W., Joye, D.,
Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (eds.) 2008. Handbook of
transdisciplinary research, Dordret: Springer.
Hopkins, D. & King, G. 2010. A method of automated nonparametric content
analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54,
229–247.
Inkeles, A. & Sasaki, M. S. (eds.) 1996. Comparing nations and cultures:
Readings in a cross-disciplinary perspective, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
International Labour Office. 2014. Fair migration: Setting an ILO agenda.
Report of the Director General [Online]. Available:
hp://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---
relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_242879.pdf. [Accessed 18
May 2014].
Kandel, E., Swartz, J. H., & Jessel, T. M. 1995. Essentials of neural science
and behavior, Norwalk, Appleton & Lange.
Krüen, G. & Drori, G. S. 2009. World society: The writings of John W.
Meyer, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buanan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. 2005.
Culture and international business: Recent advances and their
implications for future resear. Journal of International Business
Studies, 36, 357–378.
Liba, M. I. 2013. Democratic theory and causal methodology in
comparative politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. (eds.) 1986. Field methods in cross-cultural
research, Beverly Hills, Sage. Matsumoto, D. R. & Vijver, F. J. R. V. D.
(eds.) 2011. Cross-cultural research methods in psychology, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Mayerhofer, H., Müller, B., & Smid, A. 2010. Implications of flexpatriates’
lifestyles on HRM practices. Management Revue, 21, 155–173.
McDonald, G. 2000. Cross-cultural methodological issues in ethical resear.
Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 89–104.
Melin, G. 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization: Resear collaboration on
the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40.
Miie, J. (ed.) 2003. The handbook of globalisation, Cheltenham, Elgar.
Moore, F. W. 1961. Readings in cross-cultural methodology, New York,
Taplinger.
Morales, M. & Ladhari, R. 2011. Comparative cross-cultural service quality:
An assessment of resear methodology. Journal of Service Management,
22, 241–265.
Obhi, S. S. & Haggard, P. 2004. Free will and free won’t. American Scientist,
92, 358–365.
Ohmae, K. 1995. The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies,
New York, Free Press.
Panteli, N. & Chiasson, M. (eds.) 2008. Exploring virtuality within and
beyond organizations: Social, global and local dimensions, Houndmills,
Palgrave Macmillan.
Petriglieri, G. 2012. Are business schools clueless or evil? [Online]. HBR Blog
Network, hp://blogs.hbr.org/2012/11/are-business-sools-clueless/.
[Accessed 28 August 2014].
Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature,
London, Allen Lane.
Podolny, J. M. 2009. e bu stops (and starts) at business sool. Harvard
Business Review, 87, 62–67.
Punne, J. & Shenkar, O. 2004. Introduction. In: Punne, J. & Shenkar, O.
(eds.) The handbook for international management research, Miigan,
University of Miigan Press.
Ramirez, F. O. & Tiplic, D. forthcoming. In pursuit of excellence? Discursive
paerns in European higher education resear. Higher Education, 1–17.
Seu, E. K. 1989. eoretical implications of comparative survey resear:
Why the wheel of cross-cultural methodology keeps on being
reinvented. International Sociology, 4, 147–167.
Tausczik, Y. R. & Pennebaker, J. W. 2010. e psyological meaning of
words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.
Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A., Bowen, D. A., Frayne, C. A., Nason, S.,
Huo, Y. P., Milliman, J., Arias, M. E., Butler, M. C., Geringer, J. M., Kim,
N.-H., Scullion, H., Lowe, K. B., & Drost, E. A. 1995. Toward a theory of
comparative management resear: An idiographic case study of the best
international human resources management project. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 1261–1287.
The Economist. 2009. The pedagogy of the privileged. 24 September 2009
[Online]. hp://www.economist.com/node/14493183. [Accessed 18 May
2014].
The Economist. 2014. Step change. Revised figures show that Nigeria is
Africa’s largest economy. 18 April 2014 [Online].
hp://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600734-
revised-figures-shownigeria-africas-largest-economy-step-ange.
[Accessed 18 May 2014].
Tung, R. L. 2008. e cross-cultural resear imperative: e need to balance
cross-national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International
Business Studies, 39, 41–46.
Wagner, C. S. & Leydesdorff, L. 2005. Network structure, self-organization,
and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy,
34, 1608–1618.
Wallerstein, I. M. 1974. The modern world-system, New York, Academic
Press.
Whitley, R. D. 1984. e development of management studies as a
fragmented adhocracy. Social Science Information/Information sur les
Sciences Sociales, 23, 775–818.
World Health Organization. 2009. Demographic and socioeconomic statistics
[Online]. Available:
hp://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table9.pdf. [Accessed
18 May 2014].
5
e Hofstede factor
e consequences of Culture’s Consequences

Sierk Ybema and Pál Nyíri

Introduction

In the field of cross-cultural management, Geert Hofstede’s work has had an

‘extraordinary command in shaping both thought and practice’ (Ailon
2008:886). According to Google Solar, Hofstede has over 100,000 citations,
making him one of the most-cited social scientists worldwide. His work, and
his landmark book Culture’s Consequences in particular, has greatly
influenced how social science solars – particularly social psyologists and
management solars – subsequently theorized and researed national
culture; how practitioners viewed and approaed intercultural
communication in (inter)organizational seings; and how those familiarized
with his thinking experienced and framed cultural differences in everyday
seings. Hofstede’s work, and Hofstedean thought in general, did not always
get a warm reception. In fact, it has met with some o-cited, somewhat
illy, critiques, questioning its conceptual underpinning, empirical
groundwork, practical usefulness or political consequences (e.g. Ailon 2008;
McSweeney 2002). In recent years, in the shadow of Hofstede’s imposing
edifice, interpretive and critical approaes to studying cross-cultural
management emerged. Ontologically and epistemologically in opposition,
these studies present a paradigmatic alternative to Hofstedean principles,
models and methods.
In this apter we explore various consequences of Hofstede’s Culture’s
Consequences (Holden 2002). First, we briefly discuss the influence of
Hofstede’s work on cross-cultural management theory and practice. We then
sket some of the limitations of, and objections to, a Hofstedean approa
by listing some of the central concerns and critiques levelled at his (and
similar) resear. Seeking to further a critical, interpretive assessment of
cross-cultural management in solarly thought and resear, we then
sket the outlines of an alternative approa to studying national culture
and cultural differences in organizational seings. Aer offering an
empirical example, we close our apter with a few reflective thoughts. We
critically discuss our own practice of ‘othering’ Hofstedean approaes and
we introduce the term ‘culture work’.1

Hofstede
Geert Hofstede’s work can be credited for making ‘national culture’ popular
among academics and practitioners, sensitizing them to the impact of
national cultures on organizations with a culturally diverse work staff or
operating in a globalizing world. His canonical work proved to be extremely
influential in the theory and practice of international management,
contributing to the establishment of the field of cross-cultural management
and intercultural communication. Between 1967 and 1973, Hofstede
conducted a survey of work-related values among 88,000 IBM employees in
over 50 countries, published in his classic Culture’s Consequences in 1980.
Claiming that ‘data obtained within a single MNC [multinational
corporation] does have the power to uncover the secrets of entire national
cultures’ (Hofstede 1980a:44), Hofstede, trained as a social psyologist,
proceeded to develop a system of ‘cultural dimensions’ that identifies and
quantifies ‘value orientations’ – a concept originally developed by
Kluhohn and Strodtbe (1961) – in different societies. In a frequently
quoted definition, he saw culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind
that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from
others’ (Hofstede & Hofstede 2004:4). is ‘programming’ is acquired
through socialization in a particular country (Hofstede 1980b:14).
Starting from the assumption that national cultures imprint a value-based,
mental program or collective ‘soware’ in people’s minds, Hofstede suggests
su cognitive models can be represented through a small set of variables
(for similar approaes, see, e.g. House et al. 2004; Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner 1998). e six cultural dimensions, measured on a scale
from 0 to 100, are ‘power distance’, collectivism/individualism,
masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long/short-term orientation
and indulgence/restraint (Hofstede added the last two later). To focus on one
of these variables, the ‘collectivism’ dimension means an orientation
towards the expectations and norms of the we-group (su as kin) and strict
differentiation between it and outsiders. By contrast, in individualistic
societies, individuals are expected to be concerned primarily about
themselves and their immediate family members, and the distinction
between the in- and the out-group is weak. ‘Power distance’ denotes
acceptance of hierary versus preference for egalitarianism. us,
Americans are individualists with a small power distance; Chinese,
collectivists with a large power distance.
Not all authors in intercultural communication use Hofstede’s categories,
but most popular texts (Chaney & Martin 2004; Gudykunst & Kim 2002;
Jandt 2006; Lustig & Koester 2005; Martin & Nakayama 2003; Samovar et al.
2009; Varner & Beamer 2005) operate with a similar set of dimensions and
values. Beginning in the late 1980s, academic and corporate interest in the
economic success of the so-called ‘Asian tigers’ and, later, China led to a
proliferation of cultural explanations inspired by Hofstede. A Chinese Values
Survey, conducted in 23 countries by social psyologist Miael Harris
Bond, came up with a set of values described as Confucian Dynamism, on
the basis of whi Hofstede developed the dimension he called long-term
orientation and Hofstede and Bond (1988) directly linked to economic
growth.
By the late 1990s, the interest of some theorists and practitioners in cross-
cultural management began shiing away from determining group
aracteristics and towards measuring, and, through various trainings,
expanding ‘cultural’ or ‘intercultural competence,’ a set of skills that defines
an individual’s ability to work with cultural difference. e Intercultural
Development Inventory, developed by Benne and Hammer, for example,
locates individuals at one of six stages of intercultural sensitivity, from
‘denial’ to ‘integration’ of cultural difference, on five different scales
corresponding to particular cognitive meanisms (Hammer et al. 2003).
Leading authorities on diversity management su as Cox tend to focus on
differences in perception, influenced by the relative social status of two
individuals as mu as their ‘core values’. us, Cox (1994:142ff) discusses
the differing evaluation of a promotion policy by bla and white American
employees in a company and interprets them primarily as a result of
minority–majority power dynamics. Nonetheless, Cox’s discussion of
culture relies on ‘dimensions’ as developed by Hofstede, Hall, Bond and
others. Even among those IC solars who do not use ‘dimensions’,
Hofstede’s influence is visible in the naturalization of nations as the unit of
culture and, further, the widespread assumption that national culture can be
captured, measured and counted in numerical terms.

Critique
Critical solars have argued that, by contrast with functionalist and
managerialist notions, ‘culture is not a conventional social science variable
in the sense that it can immediately be observed, counted, dimensionalized,
yoked to a set of norms, or directly manipulated’ (Van Maanen 1984: 243).
Yet, while other fields of study have long moved on to alternative
approaes, cross-cultural management is lagging behind. Despite criticism,
Hofstedean approaes in particular have proved to be resilient to ange,
perhaps because a dimensional approa to studying national cultural
difference offers a lenient framework that easily absorbs alternative
interpretations. It ‘appears to have created an extremely flexible interpretive
space’ (Ailon 2008:896). As an all-explaining symbolic order, it is tempting to
stay within its framework. Even where the intention is to zoom in on
people’s day-to-day dealing with, and manipulating of, cultural difference
solars oen fall ba on the sematic world of ‘cultural dimensions’. For
example, a study of US– Mexican joint ventures showed that, contrary to
predictions made on the basis of Hofstede’s (and Trompenaars’s)
dimensions, Mexican workers welcomed participatory management
teniques introduced by the Americans, but aempts to explain these
reactions within the framework of those dimensions (Rao & Teegen 2001).
For those adopting a Hofstedean approa, its heuristic flexibility seems to
make it difficult to step outside its framework, and subject its truth claims to
critical examination.
Hofstede’s dimensional approa to national cultural differences probably
derives its popularity partly from the appealing simplicity of a description in
terms of dimension scores (Ybema & Byun 2009). Su a graphic
representation promises to provide a useful grip on a complex phenomenon,
apparently providing easy and affordable answers to existing corporate
needs. Searing for ‘countable, graphable elements that could be
statistically manipulated’, Hofstede appeared to be ‘dedicated to the project
of producing a vision of order in the world’ (Ailon 2008: 893). e downside
of su a reductionist approa is that it overlooks or ignores, and thus fails
to capture, the complexities of culture. It promotes a perspective in whi
culture is treated as aprocessual, acontextual and apolitical. A description of
national cultures based on dimension scores provides at best a minimal,
static and monolithic sket of national cultures and, at worst, a false and
misleading representation (e.g. Ailon 2008; McSweeney 2002). Instead of
offering an account of empirical studies working with, or from within
Hofstede’s approa (for su a discussion, see Kirkman et al. 2006) or a
detailed rendering of Hofstede’s resear methodology and analysis (see
McSweeney 2002), we list some of the central concerns and critiques levelled
at his resear (and that of similar resear) from outside a functionalist
paradigm. We focus on four issues in particular: its poor conception of
ange and conflict, agency, context and power.
First, a cultural dimension score, postulated as an unanging core, is ill-
equipped to deal with internal conflicts and ange, whether political, social,
or organizational. e measurement of national culture differences on a
small set of value dimensions is premised on the assumption that national
culture manifests itself in organizations through stubbornly distinctive
paerns of thinking, feeling and acting. e world is conceptualized as a
mosaic of distinct national societies, ea of whi has a set of value
orientations that are, at their core, resistant to ange. Culture is thus ‘reified
into something uniform, contradiction-free, and unanging’ (McSweeney
2013:495). Moving towards a processual view of culture brings along a
different conception of culture. As the anthropologist James Clifford, turning
radically against Edward Hall’s culture concept (a major inspiration for
Hofstede’s work), wrote, culture was neither an ‘object to be described’ nor a
‘unified corpus of symbols and meanings that can be definitively
interpreted’ but ‘contested, temporal, and emergent’ (Clifford 1986:13, 19).
Cultural anthropologists now broadly agree that cultures previously
depicted as static and monolithic entities have in fact always incorporated
outside influences, and that beneath their facades of homogeneity and
stability lie conflicts between individuals and groups who had quite different
views on and uses for common cultural practices. Similarly, linguistics ‘have
long since moved away from structuralism with its emphasis on discrete
units’ (Piller 2011:32), whi continues to be influential in intercultural
communication. Some cross-cultural psyologists have also been critical of
national cultural dimensions failing to pay aention to individual variation,
conflicts within groups and historical ange (Gjerde 2004). Aside from
problems with the assumptions underpinning this disregard, the focus on
national cultures runs into very practical difficulties when, for example,
nations split, and the new entities suddenly portray themselves as culturally
very different: a not infrequent occurrence.
 Second, and related to the previous point, the conceptualization of culture
as ‘collective programming of the mind’ (Hofstede 1980b:25), whi
constitutes a true and timeless cultural essence, also marks a disregard for
individual agency. A few general aracteristics are considered to be deep-
rooted determinants of behaviour. It advances an image of an individual as
‘merely the passive embodiment of a predetermined cultural template’
(Ailon-Souday & Kunda 2003:1074), loing individuals ‘within the
boundaries of mental sowares’, incapable of reflection and ange (Ailon
2008:894–895). e only angeable aspect of their collective mental soware
is their cross-cultural communication skill set, and, with a lile help from
managers and consultants, Hofstede’s book can help the pre-programmed
individuals to improve these skills. So, the Hofstedean approa casts
individual actors in the role of puppets that dance to the pulling of their
national culture’s strings. Even if individuals indeed routinely follow
cultural scripts in their doings and sayings, the question is whether
Hofstede’s resear deciphered the scripts. Dimension scores are factor-
analytic extrapolations of respondents’ answers to questionnaires. ey are
primarily based on respondents’ own perception of cultural habits; that is,
not on what they actually do, but on what they say they do. He thus put a
lot of faith in members’ knowledge of the cultural scripts dictating their
behaviour. Apparently, the individual is assumed to be reflexive enough to
read the script and inform the researer about its details, but not enough to
write or revise it.
ird, culture as located in nationally constituted actors ignores not only
individual agency, but also the social context in whi individual agents and
cultural encounters unfold or are embedded. Surveys fail to capture the
influence of situational dynamics, politics and the historical moment on
people’s sayings and doings (Breidenba & Nyíri 2009). Restricting
respondents to answering predefined questions without any reference to a
specific situation or intercultural relation, suggests culture exists in a social
and political vacuum. Even if the variance that is measured in survey
resear captures cultural essence as experienced by its members, it does not
represent the actualities of everyday work situations, isolating culture and
its experience from its social context. Consequently, the question of how
organizational actors draw on and deploy presumed cultural differences in
specific intercultural contexts remains unanswered. Taking account of both
context and agency involves treating culture and cultural identities as
situational constructs; that is, as products of strategic agency enacted within
a specific power figuration. Culture and culture members shape, and are
shaped by, social processes.
More critically, a Hofstedean approa does not take into account possible
political effects of its own, seemingly neutral, representation of cultural
differences. As Ailon (2008) points out, scores on value dimensions all
appear to be ‘equally legitimate, representing a neutral variation to be
analyzed in neutral terms’. However, analysing the political subtext of
Hofstede’s work, she shows how the definition of the dimensions, as well as
the links with other values, are hardly neutral, leading Hofstede to call ‘large
Power Distance countries’, for instance, ‘less developed’ or ‘developing’, or
linking high or strong uncertainty avoidance to rigidity, racism,
aggressiveness and dogmatism (Ailon, 2008:891, 894). Insofar as Hofstede’s
depiction of national cultures is neutral, his typifications may reinforce
stereotyping nonetheless. In spite of his caution against it (Hofstede
1991:253), straightforward aracterizations of cultures in terms of
dimension scores and correlations with other variables invite to adopt fixed
ideas about oneself and others (Piller 2011). So, Hofstede’s work can be
celebrated for a contribution to making both solars and practitioners more
reflexive of the impact of national culture and cultural difference in
organizational seings, but it tends to be un-reflexive of its own cultural
biases and stereotyping effects on cross-cultural practices.
Scoring cultural differences on a small set of continua thus offers a static,
massive and potentially skewed representation of national cultures and
cultural differences. Can it be useful nonetheless? e enduring appeal of a
Hofstedean analysis lies in the fact that it responds to a practical need to
‘deal with cultural difference’ within and across organizations in a way that
appears concrete and easy to comprehend in the course of, say, a weekend
training. In addition, as Hofstede’s questionnaire invites respondents to
reflect on their own cultural values and practices, it tells us, if not mu else,
how members of organizations at the time of the resear see the way they
are or the way they wish to be. Su a Hofstedean analysis can be useful to
an organization, as long as the analysis is limited to behaviour within the
organization itself. For all its pitfalls, there are few alternative ‘products’
that cater to this need. However, it would need to take into account local,
contextualized data of organizational actors’ lived experience of cultural
differences and day-to-day work. Hofstede did not ask respondents to
describe their culture in their own terms, but rather extrapolated dimensions
from the questionnaire data. So, we do not know whether respondents
concurred with these typifications and also found that the dimension scores
provided an accurate description of relevant cultural differences. In the
following section, we will discuss an alternative approa to studying
national culture and cultural difference whi takes actors’ own views as a
starting point.

An interpretive approa
Compared to, for instance, intercultural education, cross-cultural
management as a field has been slower to ange. Still, while the dominant
‘Hofstedean’ approa in cross-cultural management resear is firmly
rooted in the orthodoxy of functionalist, ‘normal’ science (Burrell & Morgan
1992), there is an emerging tradition of interpretive resear in the field that
is sensitive to situated sensemaking practices (e.g. Ailon-Souday & Kunda
2003; Birkinshaw et al. 2011; Brannen & Salk 2000; Byun & Ybema 2005).
ese studies oen emerge from the fields of intercultural linguistics or
intercultural education and operate on a tangible scale of day-to-day
encounters, whi allows us to see how individuals deploy cultural
difference (or similarity) strategically to aieve their aims. Instead of
adopting a view in whi cultural identities carry a pre-given meaning that
people passively reproduce, su revisionist solars assume that ‘culture’ or
‘cultural differences’ are discursively enacted depending on the multiple
situatedness of individuals in various social categories and on their oice of
whi available discourse to deploy (Scollon et al. 2012). eir studies
explore how culture and cultural identity become infused with meaning in
organizational actors’ interpretations within specific social seings. ey
show the significance of culture as a symbolic resource where social actors
draw on to set boundaries, to draw distinctions, and to distribute power and
status.
Seen from this theoretical vantage point, studying cross-cultural
communications essentially means shedding light on symbolic
classifications, whi are generally built on putative differences in national
or ethnic culture. Sociological and anthropological studies of collective
identity have shown processes of appropriation and mobilization of culture
for the purpose of constructing collective ‘selood’ and distinctiveness
through cultivating a discourse of common culture and, simultaneously,
casting the ‘other’ as ‘strange’ (e.g. Cohen 1985; Elias & Scotson 1965).
Instead of treating culture as a historically based ‘given’, these studies focus
on processes of social categorization and distinction drawing (Barth 1969)
and the symbolic construction of community (Cohen 1985). It is assumed
that culture, within the bounds of institutional conditions and constraints,
can be invented or invoked by culture members in order to present an
identity, to establish a truth, to enhance status and self-esteem, or to defend
an interest (Eriksen 1993). Cultural identities should thus not be understood
as coherent, stable entities, but as shiing social constructs that are
dependent on specific interests that are at stake at a certain moment in a
certain situation.
In a similar albeit more critical vein, postcolonial studies, drawing
inspiration from the work of Said, Spivak, Bhabha and others, highlight the
exercise of imperial power through representational strategies that build
binary oppositions between self and other to denigrate and diminish ‘the
other’ whilst empowering the self (e.g. Ja et al. 2008; Prasad 2003;
Westwood 2006). Rather than understanding or allowing others to construct
themselves in terms of their own codes and categories, the other is
abstracted and reified in negative terms. Ultimately seeking to produce and
perpetuate power asymmetries (Westwood 2006), members signal how they
like to see themselves while, at the same time, disciplining newcomers and
excluding ‘deviants’ (Bhabha 1989).
An intrinsic part of the enactment of an ‘identity’ involves the symbolic
separation of ‘self’ from the ‘other’ by establishing and signifying
‘sameness’ and ‘otherness’ (Ybema et al. 2009), usually through invoking
stark contrasts – good versus bad, bla versus white, the West versus the
Orient, management versus staff. Su discursive positioning is oen utilized
to establish or maintain a sense of moral or social respectability of the self
and to position the other not merely as different, but also as less acceptable,
less respectable and, sometimes, less powerful (Hall 1997). Identity
construction may thus be a far from neutral process, coloured by emotions,
moral judgments and political or economic interests. Identity discourse
appears to be instrumental in aempts to establish, legitimate, secure or
allenge the prevailing relationships of power and status. It implicates
social manoeuvring and power games. Exploring culture and cultural
boundaries as being constituted in organizational actors’ ‘self-other identity
talk’ (Søderberg & Holden 2002; Ybema et al. 2009), thus allows us to bring
into view how ‘culture’ is ‘mutable, negotiated, and infused with
contestation and power relations’ (Ja et al. 2008:875). It focuses on the
micro-politics of everyday sensemaking in multicultural contexts (Clark &
Geppert 2011; Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2006), asking the question: ‘Who
makes culture relevant to whom in whi context for whi purposes?’
(Piller 2011:172) (for a similar, highly critical and deconstructivist approa
to ‘culturalism’, see, e.g. Dervin et al. 2011).
Some in-depth studies found that organizational actors of a Dut NGO
involved in building and maintaining partnerships with Asian, African and
Latin American counterparts may aempt to bridge ‘cultural distance’ by
denying, trivializing or upending differences between themselves and their
‘partners’ (Ybema et al. 2012). Others found that conflicts or
misunderstandings aributed to cultural difference stem not from ethnic
fault lines, but from conflicts of interest or differing central values held by
subgroups within an organization, as in the case of a high-te company
operating in Germany and India (Mahadevan 2007). Still other studies
highlight the situational and strategic use of national culture differences or
ethnicity (e.g. Barinaga 2007; Dahler-Larsen 1997). Koot (1997) provides an
ironic illustration when he describes how employees of a Shell oil refinery
on the Dut Caribbean island of Curaçao were keen to express their affinity
with Latino culture when in the 1960s and 1970s the management of the
Shell plant was Dut, while the same Curaçaoan workers started to
dissociate themselves from Latino culture when the refinery was rented out
to a Venezuelan company in the 1980s, instead calling upon their Dut
roots and praising the old Shell culture. Su instances of cultural identity
talk testify to the importance of socially situated use of culture, illustrating
the significance of power asymmetries for intercultural relations.
Organizational hierary is a crucial factor influencing how people perceive
and present themselves and others. In line with this idea, Watanabe and
Yamagui (1995) found that locals with higher ranks from British
subsidiaries of Japanese firms were likely to perceive Japanese expatriates
more negatively than locals with lower ranks, due to greater frustration
generated by the la of promotion and authority (see also Byun & Ybema
2005; Hong & Snell 2008). Inequality in terms of political influence, rewards
and advancement opportunities is oen a aracteristic of cross-cultural
cooperation in multinational corporations, joint ventures, mergers,
acquisitions, or any other intercultural seing. Studying cross-cultural
collaboration should thus take into account how national or ethnic culture is
related to power asymmetries between partners from different cultural
bagrounds.
In an ironic sense, Hofstede’s resear may remain salient from an
interpretive point of view. Insofar as social actors internalized Hofstede’s
typifications in their own interpretations of national cultures and cultural
difference, his findings ‘materialized’. Due to the popularity of Hofstede’s
resear in management practice and consultancy, nations’ dimension scores
may have become incorporated in ‘the native’s point of view’, turning etic
categories into emic classifications. In the eyes of members of, for instance, a
country that scores high on Power Distance, their culture is hieraric and
authoritarian, because ‘Hofstede said so’. rough intercultural training and
popular publications, national culture typifications may thus start a life of
their own in members’ everyday parley. In this way, Hofstede’s theory
becomes a self-perpetuating truth once (and insofar as) it gets abroad. It may
be seen as an example of social-scientific categories entering into wide use
in society. Everyday ‘lay’ concepts and social scientific concepts thus have a
two-way relationship, something Giddens (1987) referred to as the ‘double
hermeneutic’ typical of social science. However, because people can think,
make oices and use new information to revise their understandings (and
hence their practice), they can use the knowledge and insights of social
science to ange their practice as well. So, it remains an open question
exactly how Hofstede’s aracterizations of cultures and cultural difference
are used in everyday intercultural practice.
To conclude, an alternative, interpretive approa to studying cross-
cultural communication in (inter)organizational seings anowledges the
situated, constructed and strategic nature of cultural identity discourse.
Cross-cultural relations are oen marked, not by cultural differences per se,
but by cultural identity formation within contexts of specific power-
constellations. While su studies may reflect the complex causes of conflict
more accurately, it is as yet unclear whether they can take the place of
Hofstedean approaes, whi appear to provide easy and affordable
answers to existing corporate needs.

Empirical example
To illustrate an interpretive approa to cross-cultural management as an
alternative to studies that insist on measuring and dimensionalizing culture,
we present a brief summary of our resear into Japanese–Dut work
relations in multinational corporations (MNCs) (see Byun & Ybema 2005;
Ybema & Byun 2009, 2011). Drawing on data derived from interviews and
ethno-graphic case studies in MNCs in Japan and the Netherlands we
analysed differences in cultural identity talk in two different power contexts:
Japanese management–Dut staff and Dut management–Japanese staff.
Both parent country and host country nationals cultivated cultural
differences, actively drawing on ‘national culture’ to discursively erect
symbolic boundaries between ‘self’ and ‘other’. e Japanese, for instance,
tended to underline putative Japanese virtues, su as loyalty and devotion,
perseverance and a long-term orientation, respect and tactfulness. Despite
occasional praise, they also pointed to the imprudence and impoliteness of
the Dut, whi they saw as proof of their ineptitude. ey used these
images to justify that Japanese held all-important positions or, in the case of
Japanese working under a Dut regime, to explain why they should play a
pivotal role in client relations or should be consulted in decision-making
processes. Likewise, Dut managers and staff members also made self-
praising (and other-depreciating) comparisons, emphasizing their cultural
distinctiveness vis-à-vis the Japanese by portraying themselves as efficient
workers, clear communicators or flexible decision-makers. Although the
Dut (Dut managers in Japan in particular) admied to admiring
Japanese politeness, for instance, the major issues they brought up were, for
instance, Japanese inefficiency in decision-making and filtering of
information and, from their viewpoint as subordinates in a Japanese firm, an
overly hieraric aitude and la of interest in subordinates.
Interestingly, Hofstede’s (1991) classifications of Japanese and Dut
culture in terms of, for instance, a difference in ‘masculinity’ (Japan) versus
‘femininity’ (the Netherlands) or ‘collectivist’ (Japan) versus ‘individualist’
(the Netherlands), were taken up by participants in our resear as issues
that were relatively open to subjective construction and political
contestation. Cultural aracteristics su as ‘consensus-orientation’ or
‘hierary’ were interpreted quite differently by Japanese and Dut (see
also Noorderhaven et al. 2007) and Dut participants claimed, for instance,
that Japanese decision-making was not consensus-oriented at all. And, while
variance on the ‘power distance’ dimension between Japan and the
Netherlands in Hofstede’s resear was rather small, this very issue
constituted one of the most salient resources for drawing cultural
distinctions for both Dut and Japanese resear participants. Ironically,
both usually claimed their own culture was consensus-oriented or
egalitarian while they depicted the cultural other as hieraric or top-down
oriented. Working together within a context of unbalanced power relations
apparently turned ‘power distance’ into a significant and disputed identity-
defining cultural aracteristic, whi further testifies to the importance of a
context-sensitive and power-informed perspective on culture and cultural
identities.
To illustrate the constructed, context-specific and legitimizing nature of
cultural identity talk in more detail, we also analysed small but significant
differences in the ways in whi management and staff members of the
same nationality talked about their national culture and cultural differences.
Dut staff working under Japanese rule claimed to find their efforts to build
closer contacts with the Japanese unreciprocated, whi fostered feelings of
relative deprivation and resentment about ‘unfair’ treatment and an
inclination to resist rather than reciprocate Japanese efforts. From this
position, they portrayed egalitarianism and a consensus-orientation as
‘typically Dut’ while describing top-down, inefficient and inflexible
decision-making and a submissive aitude towards superiors as typical of
Japanese culture. Dut top managers ‘ruling over’ Japanese, on the other
hand, never mentioned Dut egalitarianism, nor did they criticize Japanese
submissiveness. In a similar vein, Japanese managers anowledged that
their culture was ‘hieraric’ in comparison to ‘Dut egalitarianism’, while
Japanese subordinates instead criticized their Dut managers’ decision-
making style for being ‘top-down’. e Japanese subordinates’ complaint
eoed Dut subordinates’ claim that top-down decision-making was
typical of their bosses’ (Japanese) culture. So, in unequal relations,
subordinates (whether Dut or Japanese) marked cultural distance by
claiming that the national culture of their superiors (whether Japanese or
Dut) was hierarical or top-down oriented. e political context
appeared to be crucial for what people found culturally salient in a specific
situation. By presenting particular cultural distinctions rather than others
they aempted to legitimize or de-legitimize the existing distribution of
power, status and resources.
Like other interpretive studies in the field (e.g. Koot 1997), this case shows
the significance of ‘context’ – the unequal power relation between national
groups – and ‘situated agency’ – the use of cultural aracteristics to
discursively legitimate or oppose the power asymmetry – for the analysis of
cross-cultural communication. Apparently, culture is not only a code for or a
mode of communication; it also serves as a discursive resource drawn on to
articulate cultural identities that serve to sustain or resist power and
authority relations. Within the oen politicized context of transnational
(inter)organizational seings, actors may play up or play down, praise or
dispraise, or even ignore or invent culture and cultural differences. e type
of culture work and identity talk that we find may depend heavily on
context and situation. Contrary to the paern described previously, for
instance, we found Dut members of a humanitarian NGO responsible for
establishing and maintaining partnerships with ‘Southern’ locals
depolarizing differences by adopting a ‘thin’ notion of cultural identity;
depicting one’s self as ‘strange’ and in need of adjusting to ‘normal’ others;
levelling out hierarical differences; and constructing an inclusive ‘we’ in
talk of personal relationships across cultural divides (Ybema et al. 2012). As
aempts to buress or break down the social boundary, organizational
actors’ cultural identity talk may thus become infused with the social
dynamics of contestation or coalition-building between the actors involved.

Interpretive science in sear of meaning

To end on a critically reflexive note, we turn the focus of ‘self–other talk’ on
ourselves and our presentation of ideas in this apter. In some roundabout
way, what we say about ‘others’ tends to refer ba to ourselves or, as Ailon
(2009:573) put it, ‘the things we say about “others” are oen bound up with
what we want to see in ourselves’. For that reason, as we explained in this
apter, self–other talk oen sets up an unfriendly hierary that values the
self at the expense of others. Our apter is not any different. We have tried
to be fair in our treatment of Hofstede’s work, and we hope to have offered a
valuable alternative; yet, inevitably, we pursued our own agenda. In a self-
critical sense, we used the Hofstedean approa in the field of cross-cultural
management as a ‘take-off board’ to laun our own interpretive ideas. Of
course, criticism is inherent to scientific debate and, in a field where
Hofstede’s ideas have become the toustone for mu theorizing, they
deserve critical discussion. Yet, perhaps it is time to move on and pursue an
interpretive agenda independent of the functionalist orthodoxy and,
analogous to the fundamental anges in cultural anthropology of the 1970s
and the 1980s, start seeing the field of cross-cultural communication no
longer as ‘an experimental science in sear of law but an interpretive one in
sear of meaning’ (Geertz 1973:5).
In this apter, we have outlined what su an interpretive sear of
meaning might entail for studying culture in transnational contexts. It
would place processes of culture construction and distinction drawing centre
stage. As Ailon (2008:900) argues:
Besides questions relating to the essence of difference – what distinctive substances the ‘us’ and
the ‘them’ supposedly contain – there are questions relating to what the ‘us’ and the ‘them’
actively make of this difference while orienting themselves toward ea other. Whi elements of
difference do people articulate as important and when? Whi facts do they highlight? What
values do they aribute to difference? What is the discursive impulse that underlies their
preoccupation with it? For a field of study that seeks to further cross-cultural dialogue, there
seems to be logic in devoting theoretical energy not only to objectifying difference (measuring it,
drawing it, defining it) but also to examining why and how difference comes to carry particular
baggages of meaning by various global discourses, including cross-cultural resear itself.

Shiing towards ‘the native’s point of view’ and placing emphasis on

embedded agency involves a theoretical move similar to the one in, for
instance, institutional theory. Rather than studying institutions per se,
institutional solars shied focus towards exploring the agential and
processual ‘institutional work’ of individual and collective actors (Lawrence
et al. 2009). Similar developments can be observed in the theorization of
identity or emotion and the introduction of the concepts ‘identity work’ and
‘emotion work’. We believe theory and resear in cross-cultural
management would profit from a similar development. We may adopt the
term ‘culture work’ or ‘cross-culture work’ for the study of individual and
collective actors’ embedded agency aimed at creating, maintaining and
disrupting ‘culture’ and ‘cultural difference’. Analysing actors’ culture work
in everyday life would allow us to obtain a more grounded understanding of
the various ways in whi social actors actively and creatively draw on
national, ethnic, organizational or any other type of culture as symbolic
resources for pursuing an interest, promoting an identity, negotiating
boundaries, and distributing power and status in cross-boundary
collaboration.

Note
1 For parts of this apter, we draw on Nyíri and Breidenba (2013) (section I in particular) and
Ybema and Byun (2009) (sections III and IV).

References
Ailon, G. 2008. ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s Consequences in a
value test of its own design’, Academy of Management Review 33: 885–
904.
Ailon, G. 2009. ‘A reply to Geert Hofstede’, Academy of Management Review
34(3): 571–573.
Ailon-Souday, G. and Kunda, G. 2003. ‘e local selves of global workers:
e social construction of national identity in the face of organizational
globalization’, Organization Studies 24: 1073–1096.
Barinaga, E. 2007. ‘“Cultural diversity” at work: “National culture” as a
discourse organizing an international project group’, Human Relations
 60(2): 315–340.
Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of
Cultural Difference. London: Allen and Unwin.
Bhabha, H. K. 1989. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y. and Tung, R. L. (2011). ‘From a distance and
generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for
qualitative methods in international business resear’, Journal of
International Business Studies 42(5): 573–581.
Brannen, M. Y. and Salk, J. E. 2000. ‘Partnering across borders: Negotiating
organizational culture in a German– Japanese joint venture’, Human
Relations 53: 451–487.
Breidenba, J. and Nyíri, P. 2009. Seeing Culture Everywhere: From
Genocide to Consumer Habits. Seale: University of Washington Press.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1992. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate. Byun, H. and Ybema, S. 2005. ‘Japanese
business in the Dut polder: e experience of cultural differences in
asymmetric power relations’, Asia Pacific Business Review 11: 535–552.
Chaney, L. H., and Martin, J. S. 2004. Intercultural Business Communication.
3rd ed. London: Pearson Education. Clark, E. and Geppert, M. 2011.
‘Subsidiary integration as identity construction and institution building:
A political sensemaking approa’, Journal of Management Studies 48(2):
395–416.
Clifford, J. 1986. ‘Partial truths’. In J. Clifford and G. Marcus (Eds.) Writing
Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1986, pp. 1–26.
Cohen, A. P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Ellis
Harwood/Tavisto.
Cox, T. Jr. 1994. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and
Practice. San Francisco: Berre-Koehler. Dahler-Larsen, P. 1997.
‘Organizational identity as a crowded category: A case of multiple and
quily shiing “we” typifications’. In S. Samann (Eds.) Cultural
Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions.
London: Sage, pp. 367–389.
Dervin, F., Gajardo, A. and Lavany, A. (Eds.) 2011. Politics of
Interculturality. Newcastle: Cambridge Solars Press.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. 2006. ‘Micro-politics and conflicts in
multinational corporations: Current debates, re-framing, and
contributions of this Special Issue’, Journal of International Management
12: 251–265.
Elias, N. and Scotson, J. 1965. The Established and the Outsiders: A
Sociological Inquiry into Community Problems. London: Frank Cass.
Eriksen, T. H. 1993. Ethnicity & Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives.
London: Pluto.
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Gjerde, P. 2004. ‘Culture, power, and experience: Toward a person-centered
cultural psyology’, Human Development 47(3):138–157.
Gudykunst, W. B. and Kim, Y. 2002. Communicating with Strangers: An
Approach to Intercultural Communication. 4th ed. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Hall, S. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying
Practices. London: Sage/Open University. Hammer, M. R., Benne, M. J.
and Wiseman, R. 2003. ‘Measuring intercultural sensitivity: e
intercultural development inventory’, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 27(4): 421–443.
Hofstede, G. 1980a. ‘Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics Summer: 42–63.
Hofstede, G. 1980b. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G. and Harris Bond, M. 1988. ‘e Confucius connection: From
cultural roots to economic growth’, Organizational Dynamics 16(4): 4–
21.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. J. 2004. Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holden, N. J. 2002. Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management
Perspective. London: Prentice Hall.
Hong, J. F. L. and Snell, R. S. 2008. ‘Power inequality in cross-cultural
learning: e case of Japanese transplants in China’, Asia Pacific
Business Review 14: 253–273.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. 2004.
Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
ousand Oaks: Sage
Ja, G. A., Calás, M. B., Nkomo, S. M. and Peltonen, T. 2008. ‘Critique and
international management: An uneasy relationship?’, Academy of
Management Review 33: 870–884.
Jandt, F. E. 2006. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities
in a Global Community. 5th ed. London: Sage.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B. and Gibson, C. B. 2006. ‘A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical resear incorporating
Hofstede’s cultural values framework’, Journal of International Business
Studies 37(3): 285–320.
Kluhohn, F. and Strodtbe, F. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations.
Evanston: Row & Peterson.
Koot, W. C. J. 1997. ‘Strategic utilization of ethnicity in contemporary
organizations’. In S. Samann (Ed.) Cultural Complexity: Inherent
Contrasts and Contradictions. London: Sage, pp. 315–339.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (Eds.) 2009. Institutional Work:
Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lustig, M. W. and Koester, J. (2005) Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal
Communication Across Cultures. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McSweeney, B. 2002. ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis’, Human
Relations 55(1): 89–118.
McSweeney, B. 2013. ‘Fashion founded on a flaw: e ecological mono-
deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers’, International
Marketing Review 30(5): 483–504.
Mahadevan, J. (2007) ‘Beyond national culture? Deuts-indise
Ingenieursarbeit aus ethnologiser Sit’ (German-Indian engineering
work from an anthropological perspective), SIETAR Journal 1: 11–14.
Martin, J. N. and Nakayama, T. K. 2003. Intercultural Communication in
Contexts. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Noorderhaven, N., Benders, J.
and Keizer, A. 2007. ‘Comprehensiveness versus pragmatism: Consensus
at the Dut–Japanese interface’, Journal of Management Studies 44:
1349–1370.
Nyíri, P. and Breidenba, J. 2013. ‘Intercultural communication: An
anthropological perspective’. In International Encyclopedia of Social &
Behavioral Sciences.
Piller, I. (2011) Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Prasad, A. 2003. Postcolonial
Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Rao, P. and Teegen, H. 2001. ‘Human Resource Issues: U.S.–Mexico Joint
Ventures.’ Paper presented at the 2001 Iberoamerican Academy of
Management, Mexico City, 10–12 December.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. and McDaniel, E. 2009. Intercultural
Communication. 12th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Scollon, R., Wong Scollon, S. and Jones, R. 2012. Intercultural
Communication: A Discourse Approach. 3rd ed. Chiester: John Wiley
& Sons.
Søderberg, A-M. and Holden, N. 2002. ‘Rethinking cross cultural
management in a globalizing business world’, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management 2: 103–121.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Columbus: McGraw Hill.
Varner, I. and Beamer, L. 2005. Intercultural Communication in the Global
Workplace. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Van Maanen, J. 1984. ‘Doing new things in old ways: e ains of
socialization’. In J. L. Bess (Ed.) College and University Organization.
New York: New York University Press, p. 243.
Watanabe, S. and Yamagui, R. 1995. ‘Intercultural perceptions at the
workplace: e case of the British subsidiaries of Japanese firms’, Human
Relations 48: 581–607.
Westwood, R. 2006. ‘International business and management studies as an
orientalist discourse: A postcolonial critique’, Critical Perspectives on
International Business 2: 91–113.
Ybema, S. and Byun, H. 2009. ‘Cultivating cultural differences in asymmetric
power relations’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
9(3): 339–358.
Ybema, S. and Byun, H. 2011 ‘Unequal power relations, identity discourse,
and cultural distinction drawing in MNCs’. In C. Dörrenbäer and M.
Geppert (Eds.) Politics and Power in the Multinational Corporation: The
Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 315–345.
Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswi, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis N. and Sabelis, I.
2009. ‘Articulating identities’, Human Relations 62: 299–322.
Ybema, S., Vroemisse, M. and van Marrewijk, A. 2012. ‘Constructing identity
by deconstructing differences: Building partnerships across cultural and
hierarical divides’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 28(1): 48–59.
6
e impact of Japan on Western
management
eory and practice

Christina L. Ahmadjian and Ulrike Schaede

Introduction

Japanese management practices have had a profound influence on Western

management. Not only were global management studies deeply affected by
resear on the “Japanese model” by Japanese and Western solars, but this
resear also affected the actual management practices of many companies
ranging from multinationals to startups, in developed and developing
countries. e impact reaed a wide range of disciplines: organizational
behavior, human resource management, organizational design, network
theory, operations management and manufacturing, organizational
economics, comparative institutional analysis, tenology and innovation,
strategy and international business, and government–business relationships
(Lincoln 1990). In this apter, we focus on Japan’s influence on
organizational behavior and human resource management. Following a brief
review of the evolution of the main literature in these two fields, we identify
the most important contributions of Japanese business to management
theory and practice.
 Within the focus of management two main themes emerge. e first is the
relationship between people and organizations. While previous resear in
the human relations domain had addressed the importance of employees
and their motivation and needs, resear on Japan contributed a new
approa that emphasized commitment, long-term relationships, and
organizational culture. Management solars expanded their view of the role
and function of a firm, from a structure to provide incentives, roles, rules,
and systems to a seing for relationships between employees. e second
theme that emerged was that firms were integrated systems, made up of
complementary sub-systems. Within the company, these concerned culture,
people, and formal structures; outside, they included relationships among
buyers and suppliers, banks and firms, the state and firms. Organizations
were most appropriately analyzed in this holistic, complementary
perspective, and not simply as independent formal entities.
In addition to helping shape the resear agenda, Japan’s influence on
Western management also stands out in its impact on practice. A critical
early observation was that Japan’s management practices were not
aributable to “unique” Japanese culture but rather to a different view of
managing general aspects of human psyology. Even as the “learn from
Japan” wave took on faddish elements in some quarters, academic analysis
of Japan’s alternative model forced solars to identify and dissect specific
components of the system. Ea of these components appeared applicable to
other seings, and lent itself to introspection as to how management
practices elsewhere might be improved.

A brief look ba: how Japanese management

studies evolved
e earliest resear on the Japanese firm came from Abegglen (1958), who
coined the English phrases for what he called the “three pillars of Japanese
management”: lifetime employment, seniority-based wages, and enterprise
unions. Yoshino (1968) offered an early overall analysis of Japan’s
management system. ese works posed an important contrast to theory on
modernization, whi suggested that there would be a convergence in
business practices to “modern” (meaning U.S.) practices of worker mobility
and automation through advanced operations management.
It was in the 1970s that the field of “Japan business studies” really took off.
One aspect of this first wave was economic studies of Japan’s growing
strength, su as Patri and Rosovky’s (1976) edited economic analysis
volume titled Asian’s Next Giant, whi in turn had been influenced by,
among others, Hermann Kahn’s (1970) The Emerging Japanese Superstates.
In 1979, Ezra Vogel’s Japan as Number One also brought the disciplines of
sociology and political science into the fray. On the management side, Cole
(1973) offered a ground-breaking ethnography of the Japanese shop floor,
and his study of blue-collar work organization in Japan initiated interest in
how to manage what later came to be called “high-commitment systems.”
Rohlen (1979) added the white-collar perspective with his ri
anthropological study of socialization at a Japanese bank. Ballon (1970),
Dore (1973), Lincoln et al. (1978), Clark (1979), and Abegglen and Stalk
(1985) all identified deeply different work aitudes in Japan, thereby
spearheading a new focus on commitment and motivation. Hatvany and
Pucik (1981) were first in highlighting Japan’s “integrated management
system.”
Peter Druer (e.g., 1981, and many later works) led the translation of
Japan resear into the practice of management during this early period.
Druer had observed Japan first-hand as a staff member of the U.S.
Occupation Forces aer World War II, and, in unparalleled fashion, laid out
just how and what managers might learn from Japan, including an
appreciation of the value of long-term planning, consensus style decision-
making, different government–business relationships and economic
organization, and leadership skills.
e idea that the world could learn from Japanese management pied up
steam in the 1980s. e year 1981 saw the publication of both Pascale and
Athos’s The Art of Japanese Management and Oui’s Theory Z. What made
these two publications so compelling was that they explained Japan by
employing, and then extending, management concepts familiar to Western
practitioners. While Pascale and Athos (1981) analyzed the Japanese firm in
the context of McKinsey’s 7S framework, Oui (1981) suggested that
Japanese companies had found a third way, labeled eory Z, that was
located between the Taylorist and Human Relations views of eory X and
eory Y, and balanced control and commitment in an organizational design
not yet known elsewhere.
Also roughly at this time, the concept of “culture” as something that was
not just given but could be managed as a set of workplace components
emerged in U.S. management studies. Peigrew (1979) and Deal and
Kennedy (1982) launed a new movement that was greatly inspired by the
Japanese example and continued to grow rapidly over the following two
decades. As this academic push to bringing culture into management
occurred, again, the translation into the real world materialized through an
analysis that highlighted how apparently unique features of Japanese
organization were in fact not so different from what successful U.S. firms
were doing. In In Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman (1982)
aributed the success of ten large U.S. companies to strong culture, clear
corporate philosophy, clear vision and distinct values – all aracteristics
very similar to those identified in Japanese companies. DeFrank et al. (1985)
offered an early comparison of the impact of culture on CEOs in the U.S. and
Japan.
Following these early defining works, a large and ri literature emerged
around almost all fields of Japanese management practices, touing almost
all fields of management studies. So strong was the impact in those years
that the interest continued even aer the Japanese asset bubble burst in 1991.
It was only when Japan appeared to lose its competitive edge in the mass-
production of consumer end products to Asian competitors in the mid- to
late 1990s that the evaluation reversed. Suddenly, the same meanisms that
had previously been celebrated as sources of Japan’s success were
reinterpreted as obstacles to restructuring and strategic repositioning (e.g.,
Saede 2008). is shi in evaluation notwithstanding, the impact of
Japan’s system of management continues unabated.

What have we learned from Japanese management

studies?
As we consider the trajectory of management science and organization
theory in the United States, we identify six distinct areas of management
that converge into a lasting impact of Japan.

Culture and commitment

Probably the single largest impact of Japan was the introduction of

“commitment” as a form of “social control” and therefore a source of
employee motivation, whi could be managed by cultivating a distinct
organization culture, articulating philosophy and values, and paying
aention to work team management.
Recall that the original approa to shop-floor workforce management in
the West had been greatly influenced by Frederi Taylor (1911) and his
system of specialization and oversight. In this approa, workers were paid
and replaceable cogs in a maine, rather than as human beings with
complex motivations beyond simply money (see Cole 1994, for a succinct
summary). Even though work on organizations at the time, especially
among researers in the Aston group, was examining dimensions of culture
and organizations, it tended to focus on structural aspects of the
organization, su as size and differentiation. e Japanese company offered
a very different model of organization – a bureaucracy, but one that could
build commitment by employees through lifetime employment, early
socialization, job rotation, long-term career planning, teamwork, and intense
training; and all of these were anored in a distinct corporate philosophy
and a set of strong norms and values.
e discovery of Japanese organization coincided with a paradigm shi in
the U.S. toward the study of culture as a management tool. Sein’s (1985)
investigation into how a company could create commitment, and the Oui
and Wilkins (1985) extension of his line of management thinking, spawned a
huge literature on the assessment and management of culture as an
organizational tool. In this context, the socialization practices analyzed by
anthropologists su as omas Rohlen (1979) – intense initiation programs,
group activities, and rituals – gained appreciation as managerial tools to
create organizational culture and commitment. Organizational culture
emerged as a critical aspect of organizational design, with organizations
thriving or failing due to their culture (e.g., O’Reilly 1989, O’Reilly &
Chatman 1996, Sein 1993).

High-performance HR systems

A related stream of resear emphasized that an organization’s ability to

obtain commitment came not through a single means but rather through a
set of complementary meanisms. One big step toward this realization was
the insight that an integrated set of practices employed by Japanese
companies – long-term commitment, teamwork, job-rotation, worker
empowerment – were at the core of Japan’s competitive advantage (e.g.,
Iniowski & Shaw 1999, Pil & Macduffie 1996). As in In Search of
Excellence, researers found that some of these components were also
practiced in some very successful non-Japanese firms. Moreover, one
emerging insight was that the components of this system could be adopted
in non-Japanese seings.
e most celebrated instance of a successful transfer of a high-
performance system from Japan was that from Toyota to General Motors in
their California-based joint venture, NUMMI (New United Motors
Manufacturing Incorporated). A year aer adopting Japanese HR practices,
the NUMMI plant went from being the worst plant in the GM system to the
very best, in terms of efficiency, quality, and absenteeism, even though 80
percent of the workforce remained the same (Adler 1993). e NUMMI
success provided indisputable evidence that the organizational context, as
well as motivation and treatment of workers, made a huge difference not
only in worker aitude but also in output quality and performance
efficiency.

Lean manufacturing

To be sure, the NUMMI turnaround was not just based on new HR practices,
but on the adoption of an even larger set of practices, the “Toyota
Production System” (TPS). TPS stressed the optimization of “flow”
(heijunka) and inventory management (just in time), the reduction of waste
(muda), the building in of the quality function (TQM), and the involvement
of work teams in the process of constant improvement (kaizen) (e.g.,
Cusumano 1985, Liker 2004, Macduffie 1995, Monden 1983).
Troubled by loss of market share by American automakers to their
European and Japanese rivals, a team of researers centered at MIT
initiated a worldwide study of manufacturing practices in the automotive
industry (Woma et al. 1990). It became clear that Japanese auto makers
were more efficient because their plants were more nimble and fast to
ange, and this ability was anored in the workforce. e resear on
human factors behind Japan’s aievements showed for the shop floor what
had previously been argued for white-collar work: culture and high-
performance HR systems were part of organizational systems that led to
superior results and competitive advantage. Empowerment of employees to
stop the line when necessary, quality circles and their emphasis on giving
employees the tools and the voice to make things beer – and the
relationship of these practices to commitment and deep training – were all
begun to be understood as parts of a management system that would
increase the work efficiency of the entire company.
 e “lean manufacturing” literature also drew aention to the key role of
close relationships between core manufacturers and their suppliers, and
noted that joint problem-solving could only happen with a high degree of
trust and information exange supported by long-term relationships and
mutual commitment, whi in turn was created in ways similar to those set
up with employees internally (Asanuma 1989, Cusumano 1989, Nishigui
1994). e system’s translation into business practice greatly exceeded the
automobile industry, as “lean production” is now widely practiced in
hospitals and professional firms worldwide.

The network firm

In fact, Japanese manufacturers tended to be far less vertically integrated

than their U.S. counterparts, and thus offered a new model of vertically
disintegrated network partnerships – and as su greatly propelled forward
the economic theory of transaction cost economics (Williamson 1985).
Japanese firms were tied into loose configurations, or keiretsu, ranging from
groups of firms in diverse industries organized around main banks, to
vertical networks of buyers and affiliated suppliers. ese constellations of
firms were linked not only by minority equity stakes, but also by
interloing directorates, shared business, formal and informal associations,
and projects. Researers noted that keiretsu networks were distinctive
features of the Japanese economy, supported by institutions, history, and
culture (Gerla 1992, Imai & Itami 1984, Lincoln et al. 1992, 1996). Japan’s
network economy provided fertile ground for theoretical development of the
embeddedness perspective that viewed the firm as positioned in a dense
network of social relationships (Granoveor, 1985). eory deriving from or
influenced by Japanese inter-organizational relationships, drawing from
sociology and economics, highlighted the great advantages of su setups
over building large hieraries, namely flexibility, cross-fertilization in joint
resear, the reduction of labor costs, and nimble reaction to market anges
(Uzzi, 1996).
Organizational capabilities

e resear interest in culture, commitment, and human resource

management also spilled over into the strategy literature, through important
contributions to the literature on organizational capabilities, and in
particular the resource-based view of the firm. Long-term commitment,
teamwork, deep knowledge through job rotation, strong socialization into
firm culture, and shared values enabled firms to develop distinctive
capabilities that had not previously been considered in the strategy
literature. Once economists su as Wernerfelt and Montgomery (1988) and
Peteraf (1993) had introduced the concept of “invisible assets,” the economic
study of a firm’s internal, tacit skills became knows as “resource-based
capabilities” (e.g., Wernerfelt 1995).
In their defining paper on the “core competence of the corporation,”
Prahalad and Hamel (1990) explicitly relied on Japan’s largest companies as
examples of how core competencies were created, nurtured, and then also
“streted and leveraged” into adjacent productive activities. ese concepts
offered a new pathway to looking inside the firm. Japan’s long-term
planning and patient investment was juxtaposed with the U.S. short-term
thinking at this time (e.g., urow 1992).
From the “invisible asset” literature on Japan (e.g., Itami 1994, Itami &
Roehl 1991) and the growing innovation literature (e.g., Lynn 1982) emerged
another ri sub-area of the organizational capabilities literature: the theory
of the “knowledge-creating firm” (Nonaka & Takeui 1995). Nonaka
considered the organization as a structure and resource for firm-specific
knowledge, created through the sharing of culture, organizational vision,
philosophy, and values. e organization’s main function in this view was to
provide the locale, ba, for the creation of new knowledge. In contrast to the
dominant (U.S.) view of knowledge as resulting from financial incentives,
information management systems, or “hard” components of the organization
su as reward systems, Nonaka extended the earlier literature by outlining
the meanisms through whi knowledge creation was anored in strong
personal relationships, commitment, and shared norms and values, i.e.,
culture. e “learning organization” became a standard management term in
the U.S. with Senge’s (1990) The Fifth Discipline.

Global transfer of management practices

An ongoing theme was the extent to whi Japanese practices were rooted
in distinctive elements of Japanese “culture,” and to what extent they had
developed as rational responses to specific historical and institutional
circumstances (Lincoln & Kalleberg 1990, Marsh & Mannari 1976). e
“culture”-oriented resear traced some of Japan’s features to differences in
religion, history, or social organization. Japanese behavior reflected
Confucian ethics, argued Dore (1987), or was a reflection of preindustrial
village structure (Smith 1959). Communities of rice farmers organized
differently to, for example, hunters (an enduring imagery among Japanese
managers to date) and had different standards and expectations for
cooperation (Oui 1981). Other resear highlighted the importance of
specific institutions – the state, financial system, employment systems, and
practices related to Japan’s late development.
Regardless of whether one agreed with the culture or institutions
argument, it was undeniable that Japanese practices were different and were
embedded in a set of complementary institutions. As a result, one allenge
was how to transfer Japanese practices to one’s own country. How could
Western companies, with their different educational, political, and
regulatory systems, adopt high-performance human resource practices, lean
production methods anored on blue-collar worker empowerment, strong
corporate culture systems managed not so mu through formal but rather
social controls, and long-term strategic bets?
is question resulted in an outpouring of resear on the globalization of
human resource practices (e.g., Bird & Beeler 1995, Bird et al. 1998, Florida
& Kenney 1991). e case of the successful transfer of the Toyota Production
System to a GM factory in the NUMMI venture provided strong evidence
that elements of Japanese management could be transferred across contexts
(Adler 1993). One of the biggest insights drawn from this resear was that,
once the “system” was decomposed into its main components, practices
could be transferred. Because national cultural differences in varying
locations required adaption, translations led to varying outcomes and
recontextualization (Brannen 2004), but overall the lesson derived was that
global transfer of practices was possible.

e persistent yet silent influence of Japan in

management theory and practice today
With the burst of the asset bubble in the early 1990s, and the subsequent
weakening of the Japanese economy, interest in Japanese management
plummeted, and many of the former celebrations were reversed (e.g., Porter
et al. 2000). Increasingly researers questioned the effectiveness and
relevance of the Japanese system. is decline in interest notwithstanding,
Japan has had a huge impact on global management studies. Perhaps the
greatest testimony to the strength and depth of this influence is that we no
longer refer to culture, vision, and philosophy, organizational capabilities,
and collaboration as elements of “Japanese management,” but rather as
fundamental aributes of good management. Leading business books in the
early 2000s, su as Built to Last (Collins & Porras 2004), drew strongly from
this literature, tying sustainable growth of firms to culture and vision. e
popularity of these books underscores the relevance for management
practitioners.
Even as downsizing, restructuring, off-shoring, and other business
practices have shortened and weakened employment relationships, the
notion that human resource management is a key strategic factor for a firm
and that capabilities are important is stronger than ever. ere is lile
dispute that successful organizations motivate and inspire employees
through complementary systems of compensation, culture, training, and skill
development. e notion that firms are paages of capabilities and
resources, and that competition is based on unique, inimitable combinations
of resources including knowledge is also no longer in dispute. Moreover, the
notion of strategy as an outcome of efficient deployment of resources, and of
firms developing dynamic capabilities that enable them to continually
upgrade those resources as tenology and competition ange, was deeply
influenced by the early resear on Japan (e.g., Eisenhardt & Martin 2000,
O’Reilly & Tushman 2008, Teece et al. 1997). e literature can be seen as an
extension of earlier studies on culture and commitment, because a major
component of dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity is the full use of
human resources in the face of an increasing rate of tenological
disruptions.
While the “network firm” was first seen as a distinct feature of Japanese
companies, and as something startlingly different compared to the vertically
integrated behemoths that long dominated U.S. industry, following the sto
market-driven restructuring and reorganization move of U.S. firms in the
1990s, networks are increasingly becoming a critical organizational design.
Even large, vertically integrated companies rely increasingly on partnerships
with component suppliers, taking on a role as hub of a network, rather than
an internalized production system. Highly networked industrial districts,
su as Silicon Valley, have gained prominence as integrated firms have all
but disappeared in tenology (Saxenian 1991).
ality, just-in-time management, and lean production have also become
standard practice for globally competitive manufacturers anywhere. e gap
in quality between Japanese and Western auto manufacturers has closed, as
best manufacturing practices are disseminated fast. is is testimony not to
the failure or decline of the Japanese system, but rather to its effectiveness
and to the fact that these practices, though highly influenced by Japanese
culture and institutions, have been transferable to very different systems and
circumstances.

Conclusion
Without the contributions of Japanese management studies, modern
management theory and practice would not look the same. Consider the
strong, employee-focused culture of Google, the revitalization of Ford and
GM due to aention to quality and productivity, the global partnership
model of Boeing: While it may be overreaing to claim that these firms
have adopted aspects of “Japanese style management,” it is a fact that
today’s global business has been deeply influenced by Japanese management
practices as well as the resear that translated these practices to make them
adoptable in the existing Western business context. While management
theory on culture, organizational capabilities, networks, knowledge transfer,
high-performance HR systems, and related areas would likely have grown
and diversified even without drawing as mu on Japanese management
studies resear, it is unlikely that these resear areas would have become
as rily developed and therefore as influential as they did without the work
on Japan.
Can we still learn from Japan? Perhaps this is not the right question to
ask. Rather, Japan management studies show us the value of seeking
management wisdom from many places – not only from different countries,
but different industries, different types of firms, even different time periods.
It shows us the importance of cross-disciplinary, business-and-practitioner
resear that is anored on real problems. Japan has taught us that seeking
knowledge beyond our own borders enries both our theory and practice.

References
Abegglen, J.C. (1958) e Japanese Factory: Aspects of its Social
Organization, Glencoe: e Free Press.
Abegglen, J.C. and Stalk, G. Jr. (1985) Kaisha – e Japanese Corporation:
How Marketing, Money, and Manpower Strategy, Not Management
Style, Make the Japanese World Pace-Seers, New York: Basic Books.
Adler, P.S. (1993) ‘e “learning bureaucracy”: New United Motor
Manufacturing, Inc.’, Resear in Organizational Behavior, 15:111–194.
Asanuma, B. (1989) ‘Manufacturer—supplier relationships in Japan and the
concept of relation-specific skill’, Journal of the Japanese and
International Economies, 3:1–30.
Ballon, R.L. (1970) ‘Understanding the Japanese’, Business Horizons, 13:21–
30.
Bird, A. and Beeler, S. (1995) ‘Links between business strategy and human
resource management strategy in U.S.-based Japanese subsidiaries: An
empirical investigation’, Journal of International Business Studies, 26:23–
46.
Bird, A., Taylor, S., and Beeler, S. (1998) ‘A typology of international
human resource management in Japanese multinational corporations:
Organizational implications’, Human Resource Management, 37:159–172.
Brannen, M.Y. (2004) ‘When Miey loses face: Recontextualization,
semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness’, Academy of Management
Review, 29:593–616.
Clark, R. (1979) e Japanese Company, New Haven: Yale UP.
Cole, R.E. (1973) Japanese Blue Collar: e Changing Tradition, Berkeley:
University of California Press. ––– (1994) ‘Different quality paradigms
and their implications for organizational learning’, in M. Aoki and R.
Dore (eds) e Japanese Firm: e Source of Competitive Strength, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Collins, J. and Porras, J.I. (2004) Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies, New York: Harper Collins.
Cusumano, M.A. (1985) e Japanese Automobile Industry: Tenology and
Management at Nissan and Toyota, Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: e Rites and
Rituals of Organizational Life, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
DeFrank, R.S., Maeson, M.T., Sweiger, D.M., and Ivancevi, J.M. (1985)
‘e impact of culture on the management practices of American and
Japanese CEOs’, Organizational Dynamics, 13:62–76.
Dore, R. (1973) British Factory – Japanese Factory: e Origins of National
Diversity in Industrial Relations, Berkeley: University of California
Press. ––– (1987) Taking Japan Seriously: A Confucian Perspective on
Leading Economic Issues, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Druer, P.F. (1981) Behind Japan’s Success, Harvard University, Graduate
Sool of Business Administration.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) ‘Dynamic capabilities: What are
they?’, Strategic Management Journal, 21:1105–1121.
Florida, R. and Kenney, M. (1991) ‘Transplanted organizations: e transfer
of Japanese industrial organization to the U.S.’, American Sociological
Review, 56:381–398.
Gerla, M.L. (1992) Alliance Capitalism: e Social Organization of
Japanese Business, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Granoveer, M. (1985) ‘Economic action and social structure: e problem of
embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91:481–510.
Hatvany, N. and Pucik, V. (1981) ‘An integrated management system:
Lessons from the Japanese experience’, Academy of Management
Review, 6:469–480.
Iniowski, C. and Shaw, K. (1999) ‘e effects of human resource
management systems on economic performance: An international
comparison of U.S. and Japanese plants’, Management Science, 45:704–
721.
Imai, K. and Itami, H. (1984) ‘Interpenetration of organization and market:
Japan’s firm and market in comparison with the U.S.’, International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 2(4):285–310.
Itami, H. (1994) ‘e “human-capital-ism”: e Japanese firm as an
integrated system’, in Business Enterprise in Japan: Views of Leading
Japanese Economists, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Itami, H. and Roehl, T.W. (1991) Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Kahn, H. (1970) e Emerging Japanese Superstate, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Liker, J.K. (2004) e Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the
World’s Greatest Manufacturer, New York: McGraw Hill.
Lincoln, J.R. (1990) ‘Japanese organization and organization theory’, in B.M.
Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.) Resear in Organizational Behavior, V.
12. Greenwi: JAI.
Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1990) Culture, Control and Commitment: A
Study of Work Organization and Work Aitudes in the United States
and Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, J., Gerla, M., and Takahashi, P. (1992) ‘Keiretsu networks in the
Japanese economy: A dyad analysis of intercorporate ties’, American
Sociological Review, 57: 561–585.
Lincoln, J., Gerla, M., and Ahmadjian, C. (1996) ‘Keiretsu networks and
corporate performance in Japan’, American Sociological Review, 61:67–
88.
Lincoln, J.R., Olson, J., and Hanada, M. (1978) ‘Cultural effects on
organizational structure: e case of Japanese firms in the United States’,
American Sociological Review, 829–847.
Lynn, L.H. (1982) How Japan Innovates: A Comparison with the US in the
Case of Oxygen Steelmaking, Boulder: Westview Press.
Macduffie, J.P. (1995) ‘Human resource bundles and manufacturing
performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the
world auto industry’, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 48:197–221.
Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H. (1976) Modernization and the Japanese Factor,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Monden, Y. (1983) Toyota Production System: Practical Approa to
Production Management, Norcross: Industrial Engineering and
Management Press.
Nishigui, T. (1994) Strategic Industrial Sourcing: e Japanese Advantage,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Takeui, H. (1995) e Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
O’Reilly III, C.A. (1989) ‘Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation
and social control in organizations’, California Management Review,
31:9–25.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1996) ‘Culture as social control:
Corporations, cults, and commitment’, Resear in Organizational
Behavior, 18:157–200.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008) ‘Ambidexterity as a dynamic
capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma’, Resear in
Organizational Behavior, 28:185–206.
Oui, W. (1981) eory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Oui, W.G. and Wilkins, A.L. (1985) ‘Organizational culture’, Annual
Review of Sociology, 11:457–483.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981) e Art of Japanese Management, New
York: Warner Books.
Patri, H. and Rosovsky, H. (1976) Asia’s New Giant: How the Japanese
Economy Works, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993) ‘e cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-
based view’, Strategic Management Journal, 14:179–191.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In Sear of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best-Run Companies, New York: Harper & Row.
Peigrew, A.M. (1979) ‘On studying organizational cultures’, Administrative
Science arterly, 24:570–581.
Pil, F.K. and Macduffie, J.P. (1996) ‘e adoption of high-involvement work
practices’, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,
35:423–455.
Porter, M.E., Takeui, H., and Sakakibara, M. (2000) Can Japan Compete?,
London: Macmillan Press.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘e core competence of the
corporation’, Harvard Business Review, 68:79–91.
Rohlen, T.P. (1979) For Harmony and Strength: Japanese White-Collar
Organization in Anthropological Perspective, University of California
Press.
Saxenian, A. (1991) ‘e origins and dynamics of production networks in
Silicon Valley’, Resear Policy, 20:423–437.
Saede, U. (2008) Choose and Focus: Japanese Business Strategies for the
21st Century, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Sein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
––– (1993) ‘Does Japanese management style have a message for American
managers?’, in T.D. Weinshall (ed.) Social Culture and Management,
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Senge, P.M. (1990) e Fih Discipline: e Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, New York: Currency.
Smith, T.C. (1959) e Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Taylor, F.W. (1911) e Principles of Scientific Management, New York:
Harper Brothers.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18:509–533.
urow, L. (1992) Head to Head: e Coming Economic Bale Among
Japan, Europe, and America, New York: Morrow.
Uzzi, B. (1996) ‘Embeddedness and economic performance: e network
effect’, American Sociological Review, 61(4): 674–698.
Vogel, E.F. (1979) Japan as Number One: Lessons for America, New York:
Harper & Row.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995) ‘e resource-based view of the firm: Ten years aer’,
Strategic Management Journal, 16:171–174.
Wernerfelt, B. and Montgomery, C. A. (1988) ‘Tobin’s q and the importance
of focus in film performance’, e American Economic Review,
78(1):246–250.
Williamson, O.E. (1985) e Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms,
Markets, and Relational Contracting, New York: Free Press.
Woma, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D. (1990) e Maine that Changed the
World: e Story of Lean Production – Toyota’s Secret Weapon in the
 Global Car Wars that is now Revolutionizing World Industry, New York:
Simon and Suster.
Yoshino, M.Y. (1968) Japan’s Managerial System, Cambridge: MIT Press.
7
Cross-cultural management
Arguing the case for non-cultural
explanations

Vlad Vaiman and Nigel Holden

Introduction

is apter contends that the cross-cultural management (CCM) literature

overwhelmingly uses nation as a proxy for culture, and that non-cultural
values have a role to play in advancing, paradoxical as this may sound, our
knowledge as to the nature of culture in today’s business world.
Accordingly, we will regard culture as a phenomenon that ‘denotes an
historically transmied paern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system
of inherited conceptions in symbolic forms by means of whi men
communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge and aitudes to life’
(Geertz, 1993: 89). Our argument is that non-cultural factors exert a
significant influence on cultural ones, though some of them are less a
preoccupation of CCM solars than others. For example, globalisation is a
factor that is mu cited by solars, whereas organisational size is a mu
lesser concern.
Non-cultural factors cover a vast range of topics: in a manner of speaking
everything about international business that CCM solars would not
consider to be central to their interests. In this apter we briefly examine
four non-cultural factors, whi in our opinion have special relevance for
the future direction of CCM theory and resear: globalisation, country
impacts, institutional approaes and the USA and its ‘unique’ default
position in CCM studies.
In this review of world business from cultural perspectives, we should
note that more and more countries – in terms of organisations and managers
– are being compared cross-culturally than ever before in human history.
is state of affairs gives cross-cultural management studies the perpetual
illusion of breaking new ground. But what is most striking is how consistent
has been the notion of culture: it has invariably referred to cultural
difference, focused on values and has been preoccupied with the nation state
as the most important container of values.

A disproportionate preoccupation with values and

measurement?
It is surely correct that ‘a distinctive feature [of the cross-cultural
management literature] has been the proliferation of values and
measurement’ (Tsui et al., 2007: 434). At first glance it is logical that cross-
cultural management education and resear should be overwhelmingly
concerned with cultural values, differences among them and methods for
accounting for these differences in a scientific way. Although values are
central to any appreciation of cross-cultural management in theory and
practice as presently conceived, ‘the abundance of culture dimensions’ – not
just Hofstede’s, of course – ‘and corresponding measures does not
necessarily advance our knowledge on culture’ (Tsui et al., 2007: 462).
Beyond that, value surveys may be ‘a compelling means of investigation,
yet they cannot tell us how people actually enact [their] values in, for
example, an intercultural interaction’ (Primecz et al., 2011: 3). It would then
be fine to say that solars of cross-cultural management are forever seeking
new approaes to the understanding of culture and its effects in
international business contexts. But it is difficult not to avoid the conclusion
that the way forward has a way of going ba to the classification and
measurement of values: values, in short, that purport to spell out
measurable, statistically relevant differences that in Hofstede’s memorable
words ‘distinguish the members of one human group from another’
(Hofstede, 1980: 21) and can accordingly serve as a basis for a comparative
international/intercultural investigation and analysis. e fact that values
can, in principle, simultaneously help explain cultural difference as well as
underpin cross-cultural comparisons has made cross-cultural management
as an academic discipline singularly resistant to paradigm shi.
One consequence of this situation is that it helped make the management
– the practical activity governing the pursuits of organisations – in cross-
cultural management markedly subordinate to the preoccupation with
culture and associated values (Holden, 2002). is state of affairs should be a
allenge to solars, who rather than in effect confirming it, should be
exploring further the interconnection of culture as a polymorphic
phenomenon and management in practice. It is precisely this
interconnection that should form the core of cross-cultural management.
Once that it is accepted, new and fertile approaes to cross-cultural
management will definitely emerge. In line with these thoughts we suggest
the task of cross-cultural management is to
facilitate and direct synergistic interaction and learning at interfaces where knowledge, values and
experience are transferred into multicultural domains of implementation … [it] is also the study of
the creation, evolution, and management of fusions of diversity in relation to organisations’
policies, goals, strategies and aievements.
(Holden, 2002: 316)

In this apter we argue the case for including non-cultural factors, whi
influence cross-cultural management in practice, as part of the quest for
redefining cross-cultural management. is is not as illogical as it may
sound. As Fren (2010: 42) has pointed out with specific reference to non-
cultural factors, it is ‘misleading and unsatisfactory not to record the
potential influence of a range of factors whi impinge upon a business in all
cultures and whi can themselves have a major impact on employee
aitudes, managerial actions and organisational arrangements’. Hence the
disproportionate preoccupation with values and – by the statistically
competent – their measurement ‘may be a hindrance to progress’ (Tsui et al.,
2007: 434); progress that enries and refocuses the scope of cross-cultural
management as intellectual discipline.
To many people this advocacy of non-cultural factors may seem
unnecessary. Aer all there is so mu variety in cultural forms and
manifestations that shape organisational life and inter-organisational
relationships that there is never – and will never be – a dearth of new
phenomena. One must respect su a point of view, but there is also a self-
delusional element about it. Consider this example.
With the general collapse of the socialist regimes in East and Central
Europe in the period between 1989, when the Berlin Wall was breaed, and
1991, when the once all-powerful Soviet Union disintegrated, aspiring
solars of the alien, still novel discipline of management turned to the work
of Hofstede in a quest to rediscover a distinctive national and sometimes
even ethnic identity. It will be recalled that Hofstede’s core sample never
included any socialist country with the exception of Yugoslavia for the
simple reason that Hermes (i.e. IBM) had no offices in them.
But as of the early 1990s, solars in the so-called transitional economies
applied to themselves the disparate work values of a huge number of IBM’s
worldwide employees in 40 countries; values, we should add, that were valid
at the time of their collection in the form of responses to 116,000
questionnaires ‘around 1968 and around 1972’ (Hofstede, 1980: 11). So it was
that a survey instrument designed to gather information from more than
100,000 people working for a large American MNC became the basis for
studying the national aracteristics of countries that for more than 40 years
had to stifle their own true history and cultural identity as one of many
forms of unpalatable tribute to Moscow.
e point here is that, when the findings of their Hofstede-influenced
studies were published in English in mainstream journals (and books),
readers would probably not grasp the significance of those findings as a
genre of national–cultural assertiveness. In other words, nominally cultural
data were also expressive of a context-specific, politically arged subtext.
is example from recent history suggests that the exploration and
presentation of cultural values are helpfully enhanced with reference to
perhaps the most significant of all nominally non-cultural factors, namely
context. We take context to be a social construct that reflects ‘situational
opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of
organizational behaviour as well as functional relationships between
variables’ (Johns, 2006: 386). Miailova (2011: 131) has noted that ‘cross-
cultural resear in particular and IB resear in general still suffer from a
general failure to capture the subtle nuances of differences and similarities,
both across and within contexts’. e value of exploiting context as a source
of insight, as Miailova (2011: 135) notes, ‘lies, among other things, in
treating context as an essential component of, rather than a hindrance to,
explanation’ (see also Wel et al., 2011).

e polycontextual approa
In support of those propositions, Tsui and her co-authors (2007: 463) make
the case for a polycontextual approa for the appreciation of culture in
international business practice, by whi they mean ‘the process of
incorporating multiple contexts for a holistic and valid understanding of any
phenomenon’ in the quest for more nuanced understanding of cultural
impacts on international business. Among su contexts Tsui and co-authors
(2007) include nations’ economic, political, geographic, or historical contexts.
On the surface the idea of polycontextuality has great appeal when we
consider culture, whi by its nature is contextually variable, multi-faceted
and mutable. Yet, as it is impossible to give equal weight to all possible
contexts, the researer is immediately faced with the issue of selection and
related justification. In a apter with a limited word count we cannot
conceivably embark on a truly holistic aempt.
We propose to consider four nominally non-cultural factors that exercise
a profound bearing on the shape of macro-level cross-cultural management
studies today. We are highlighting macro factors because already the cross-
cultural literatures and related literatures have given wide exposure to
micro- and mezzo-factors su as organisational size, product/sector,
tenology, ownership (as specifically mentioned by Fren, 2010), as well as
job aitudes, job behaviours, well-being, justice and reward allocation,
negotiation, leadership behaviours, sexual harassment, influence tactics or
political behaviours, and team behaviour and processes (as mentioned by
Tsui et al., 2007). Of the potentially large number of macro factors available
to us, we have selected the following four, because they give shape to cross-
cultural management by shiing its bearings and seing it off new
directions, while the last factor – whi is connected to the US control of the
management studies agenda – acts as a constraining influence:

globalisation
country impacts
institutional approaes
the USA and its ‘unique’ default position.

Globalisation
In the cross-cultural literature it is de rigueur to regard globalisation –
‘economic internationalization and the spread of capitalist market relations’
(Koen, 2005: 15)1 – as the factor that more than any other has led to ‘an
increased prevalence and intensity of cross-cultural interactions’ (Fren,
2010: 3). is, so the argument runs, makes cross-cultural management a
topic of ever-greater significance. While this is not an incorrect deduction in
theory, the persistent assumption is that in the end cross-cultural
management is in practice tantamount to ‘coping with cultural differences’.
at is, to be frank, hardly management in the sense proposed here, whi
emphasised a practical activity – aimed at accomplishing objectives using
available resources efficiently and effectively – governing the pursuits of
organisations. is restricted view of cross-cultural management obscures at
least two major factors about modern business practice: first, corporations’
engagement with knowledge, whi is ‘the paramount resource and thus the
key to economic progress’ (Burton-Jones, 1999: 6); second, the degree to
whi business is being depersonalised as a result of the information
tenology. Consider the following statement:
Every day in the domain of worldwide business, millions of cross-cultural interactions take place,
linking buyers with suppliers and suppliers with customers and an array of stakeholders.
Relationships are forged and networks are consolidated. ese actors are engaged in immense acts
of knowledge co-creation, involving the cross-cultural blending and integration of information,
perceptions and—in a high proportion of cases—mistaken impressions.
(Holden & Glisby, 2010: 49)

Not only are all these operations taking place at a time when the world’s
economic centre of gravity is shiing from the West, but languages and
cultures are in interplay on a scale unprecedented in human experience.
However, perhaps the most startling aspect is that in all this global
relationship-building, networking and knowledge sharing a colossal
proportion of the world’s business is being transacted in cyberspace by
complete strangers, who are electronically intermeshed in sanitised
anonymity. A corollary of this state of affairs, whi can only intensify in
future, is that CCM theories will need to embrace the idea of ‘the Other’ not
as an ar-type, subject to ‘more or less partial, distorted, selective, ultra-
simplified, or deformed … representation’ (Cristoffanini, 2004: 80), but as a
rarefied, disembodied and mutable link in (a) relationships, that are to be
managed at the interpersonal level, and (b) networks, whi are to be
managed at the strategic level. It is as if the mu-erished Global Village
has been upstaged by cyberspace.
Cyberspace is puing an acute strain on the values-based approa to
CCM, especially when those values are rooted in nation states, whose
nominal cultural aracteristics may be unfliningly derived from the
Hofstede data compiled more than 40 years ago. It seems that CCM needs a
concept of culture for the modern business realities that anowledges the
impact and indeed immediacy of cyberspace.

Country impacts
Prior to the 1980s, subject maer relating to cross-cultural management was
dominated by the issue of relationships between the corporate headquarters
of US multinational enterprises and ‘host countries’ (see Weinshall, 1977). At
that time it was assumed that countries would converge in their
management practices with the US business model, but as of the mid-1970s
there was a shi. Within the so-called free world two factors of massive
significance were shaping the world’s cross-cultural map: first the economic
rise of Japan and second the moves within the then-called European
Economic Community to integrate economies and business practices.
Japan’s stunning ascendency to ‘the cuing edge of management and
tenology’ (Dower, 1986) and its baffling mystique created a new notion:
Japanese management. Previously the world only had in a manner of
speaking one management approa associated with an entire nation, whi
was of course the United States of America.
It was surely Japan and not Culture’s Consequences, published in 1980,
whi put culture – plainly in terms of cultural difference – on the
curriculum in management courses and on the management agenda – at
least in those corporations that saw themselves threatened by Japan. In the
1980s cross-cultural management studies were largely dominated by the big
question: ‘how to understand Japan’ with its inscrutable ways of managing
organisations. Indeed, the very question sustained a worldwide cross-
cultural training industry. In the 1980s the European Economic Community
was taking measures to consolidate itself as a huge single market with trade
barriers being lowered among the members states and the European
Commission enacting legislation to end ‘Euro-sclerosis’, whereby European
firms would be as competitive as their Japanese and US rivals.
In Europe there arose an interest in the different business cultures both as
‘containers’ of distinctive management styles and distinctive arenas of
business, whi predicated the emergence of the ‘Euro-manager’, the
executive who could be a German, a Frenman or a Greek, who had the
competences for dealing with his or her European counterparts. Hence,
countries that – unlike the USA or Japan – were not clearly seen to have
their own distinct management styles, now had them. Suddenly there was
German management, Portuguese management, British management and so
forth. All this of course widened the resear foundations of cross-cultural
management and offered new teaing vistas.
It goes without saying that in the early 1980s China was not on anybody’s
radar. We are still at a time when the Internet did not exist, including mobile
phones and e-mail with their instantaneous connectivity and global rea,
but computers were sufficiently entrened to make people imagine a
paperless world. However, no one then could imagine that the clunky
desktop devices would in a maer of years deliver information on a scale
unprecedented in human experience. Managers who operated in different
business jurisdictions were being continually urged to acquire a vague,
talismanic competence, namely ‘cross-cultural awareness’ (or sensitivity).
e 1980s and the early 1990s saw the fissuring of the socialist bloc, with
the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the almighty Soviet Union. When the
former socialist countries threw off their defunct totalitarian regimes at the
end of the 1980s, it was noticeable how rapidly solars in Hungary, Poland,
Bulgaria and so forth applied the Hofstede dimensions to themselves. Aer
40 grim years of subservience to Moscow, in whi national identities had
been sublimated into pan-socialist uniformity, the light of Hofstede could
restore those identities using proven criteria from the West.
By this time the last remaining communist giant, China, had emerged as a
powerful player in the world economy. In 2001 Jim O’Neill coined the
acronym BRIC, representing Brazil, Russia, India and China, as the new
drivers of the world’s economy.
 It is hard not to draw the conclusion that in cross-cultural management
studies countries are only of interest while they are the subject of fads and
fashions (Abrahamson, 2001) and/or have significance to ‘the West’ as
‘threats’, as best exemplified by Japan in the 1980s, and colossal market
potential, su as China, India and the ever-anging galaxy of countries
dubbed ‘emerging markets’. With regards to the rest of the world – the
Middle East, most of Africa, many Asian countries and all of Latin America,
apart from Mexico and Brazil – it is as if they do not exist. For all the
globalisation of the world economy, these countries form ‘a periphery of
place and progress’ (Rienhofer, 2011: 128), thus being viewed as not worthy
of aention. Globalisation, therefore, has never truly become a global
phenomenon.

Institutions
As we have already discussed, national culture – an important concept in its
own right – is not the only explicatory factor behind differences in
behaviours across nations. One su important non-cultural factor is
comprised of institutions. Kostova (1996) suggested that it is the institutional
environment with its regulative, normative and cognitive elements (Sco,
1995) that is mostly ‘responsible’ for differences in organisations’ behaviours
in different national markets.
e institutional approa, in contrast to a purely cultural one, focuses on
the more tangible and clearly measurable differences between nations.
Among the most emphasised components of institutional environment are
society’s political, educational, economic, tenological and social systems,
whi in turn feed into various business structures. Also there are other, but
no less important, components su as infrastructure, demographics, wealth
and natural climate, to name a few, that affect the ways businesses operate
in that particular seing. Ea of these components, factors and systems
directly influence the way organisations function and manage their
workforce. To summarise and emphasise its importance, Meyer and Rowan
(1977: 341) define institutionalisation as the means ‘by whi social
processes, obligations, or actualities come to take on a rule-like status in
social thought and action’.
Even though institutionalism ‘has many faces’ as described by Wood et al.
(2012: 28), its main message remains the same. e focus here is on the
factors that make for isomorphism in a given society (Vaiman & Brewster,
2014). e isomorphism theory states that when an organisation becomes a
respected and recognised contender, other entities will strive to adopt similar
practices in an effort to obtain competitive advantage. It is essential to
remember, however, that organisations compete not just for resources and
clients, but also for political power, legitimacy and/or the support of external
agencies within a society (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Even though some
earlier accounts suggested that this isomorphism would eventually take
place on a worldwide basis, more recent studies have maintained that it may
be national societies and their features that have the most influence (Vaiman
& Brewster, 2014).
Indeed, a clear majority of extant literature on institutions concentrates
on the ownership of businesses, distinguishing between societies where
shareholders have relatively few constraints and societies where other
business stakeholders can effectively restrain shareholders’ independence
(Jason & Deeg, 2008; North, 1990). Similar literature focuses on either legal
systems exploring whi one is more conducive to more efficient business
ownership and therefore successful national economy, or on politics arguing
that efficiency of businesses and economic success of a nation is determined
based on what kind of political force is in power, and what kind of electoral
system is in use (Vaiman & Brewster, 2014).
Another conceptual thread that has gained mu popularity is so-called
comparative capitalism literature. It has started as a diotomous model
developed by Hall and Soskice (2001), according to whi economies can be
successful at either end of their diotomy, but those in-between will be
under pressure to move towards one type or another. e diotomy itself
consists of distinct economic systems – liberal market economy (LME) and
coordinated market economy (CME). LMEs are aracterised by shareholder
or sto market economy, where the focus is on maximising shareholder
value and short-term returns. CMEs, in contrast, focus on balancing the
needs of multiple stakeholders in order to aieve legitimacy.
Further studies revealed that there are other types of market economies
that may contribute to our beer understanding of differences between
nations. For instance, Amable (2003) and Whitley (1999) have identified
social democratic economies (SDEs) as well as mixed market economies
(MMEs). SDEs – mostly found in the Nordic countries – possess some
features in common with LMEs, but at the same time have a mu stronger
government role aimed at protecting individuals in the labour market.
MMEs, common to Mediterranean states, boast widespread family
ownership as well as a clear distinction between large and small
organisations in terms of state involvement. en, there are also ex-socialist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, whose economies’ transformation
was based on the degree of political and economic distance to the EU,
whereby some more well-off societies espouse a more European CME
model, while poorer ones gravitate towards LME features (Vaiman &
Brewster, 2014).
However, the institutional models described are themselves not without
their critics. Most criticism comes as a reaction to these models’ main focus
on Western, educated and industrialised world, whi is untypical of the
societies most people live in (Jason & Deeg, 2006; Vaiman & Brewster,
2014). ese models also tend to be static in nature, and therefore unable to
explain anges in the systems. In any case, however, they help us gain some
insight into non-cultural reasons behind differences among nations.

e USA and its unique default position

One country stands out above the rest, namely the US, as the benmark
business culture for not only good practice, but also methodologies for the
scientific study of business and management worldwide. For this reason
Hofstede (1993: 81) observed some 20 years ago that ‘management as the
word is presently used is an American invention’. It is not then surprising
that the development of academic management, including cross-cultural
management, has been long dominated by US solars. But this American
dominance, by and large, has served as a constraining factor to further
expansion of the field: not least because of the dominant status of English as
the world language of business and business solarship (Harzing &
Pudelko, 2013; Tietze, 2010). In their seminal work The Parochial Dinosaur:
The Organizational Sciences in a Global Context, Boyacigiller and Adler
(1991: 262) go as far as labelling contemporary academic management
paroial, where American cultural values underpin and frame management
resear, thereby infusing it with ‘implicit, and yet inappropriate,
universalism’. Indeed, out of 93 cross-cultural studies described by Tsui et al.
(2007), the US is represented in 78, while about a half of the original 93 (49
studies) compare two countries, where the US is featured in 35 of these 49.
e more recent meta-analysis of 451 published and unpublished
empirical studies that involve measurement of national cultural values
indicate that there are more studies conducted using US samples that all
other countries combined (Taras et al., 2012). Granted that there is more to
cross-cultural management than just investigation of cultural values, this
particular construct is an important point of cross-cultural resear at
national and other levels of investigation, and these statistics most likely
reflect on other cross-cultural management studies. Moreover, Taras et al.
(2012) note that 29 per cent of the co-authors work in US-based universities.
All these figures clearly demonstrate that American solars provide
intellectual leadership in most of the studies.
American leadership or its unique default position in cross-cultural
management resear is not surprising. First of all, most management
theories have been developed in the US in the post-World War II
environment, when the country emerged from the war as the leading world
economy, and there has been a clear need for innovative management ideas.
Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) argue that these theories have been developed
without mu awareness of non-US models, contexts and values. Along with
academic institutions and journals, they have emerged as distinctly US
entities, with their own unique resear paradigm. e same paradigm was,
and still is, predominant in academic publishing, where authors, editors and
reviewers feel quite comfortable in the existing framework (Tsui et al., 2007).
erefore, resear led by US-based solars may have a somewhat unfair
advantage over their non-US counterparts in terms of publishing
opportunities in top management journals, most of whi are US-based as
well. e cycle is now complete.
Second, according to Tsui et al. (2007), most cross-cultural studies have a
preference to begin with the dominant values-based models in order to
investigate how other cultures may differ from the point of departure.
Needless to say that in most cases this point is a US model, whi is already
mu-researed and well-developed, and therefore represents a kind of
‘convenience sample’. On the one hand, this kind of resear may definitely
be of interest to some solars and practitioners in the cultures investigated,
but on the other, it may be of limited value to the rest of the academic
world.
In order to overcome these constraints, it is essential to continue
developing new theoretical perspectives on specific issues that are relevant
to nations in focus, as opposed to simply reproducing US-based resear
(Tsui et al., 2007). In general though, it seems necessary for solars to
explicitly address both their own cultural assumptions as well as the
peculiarities of the context in whi any given study is taking place.2 is is
especially important because only then will we begin to expose
overgeneralised and oversimplified aributes of academic management,
whi US-based solarship sometimes represents (Boyacigiller & Adler,
1991). is allenges both non-US and US solars to reflect afresh on the
US’s status not only in CCM studies, but also across the entire pantheon of
the management sciences. Perhaps they need to reposition their entire
subject area.
Conclusions
As we have emphasised, the four non-cultural factors selected for
commentary represent a small proportion of those eligible. Yet these four
factors alone indicate ways in whi CCM theory and approaes to CCM
in practice are not influenced by combinations of exclusively cultural and
managerial considerations. Presumptions about the US as benmark, the
rise and occasional fall of ‘fashionable’ countries from single cases su as
Japan to entire blocs su as the BRIC countries and the so-called emerging
markets, and the rise of the digitally transmied ‘Other’ all have invisibly –
some might say insidiously – shaped or are shaping CCM.
Compressed as our review of these selected non-cultural factors has been,
we are bound to conclude that cross-cultural management studies need to
find alternative or at least companion paradigms to the traditional values-
based ones: more institutional in approa, less West-oriented, more in tune
with the actualities of the knowledge economy and cyberspace, less
deferential to American methods of social scientific investigation and more
open to the content of CCM-related writings in languages other than
English. e notion of polycontextuality we have described does not negate
the importance of national cultural values, but it enables solars to move
from the invariably restrictive comparative frameworks to productively
observing these values in relation to and combination with other factors,
whi undoubtedly exert a crucial influence on the dynamics of cross-
cultural interactions.

Notes
1 For a critique of globalisation as a post-colonial phenomenon, see Ja and Westwood (2009), s. 1
and 6.
 2 See Hofstede (1980: 287–288) for a commentary on the impact of his own values on his famous
study.

References
Abrahamson, E. (2001). Fads and fashions in management, Organization,
8(1): 5–15.
Amable, B. (2003). The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N.J. (1991). e paroial dinosaur: e
organizational sciences in a global context, Academy of Management
Review, 16(2): 262–290.
Burton-Jones, A. (1999). Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and
Learning in the New Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cristoffanini, P. (2004). e representation of ‘the Others’ as strategies of
symbolic construction. In: Blasco, M. and Gustaffson, J. (eds.).
Intercultural Alternatives: Critical Perspectives on Intercultural
Encounters in Theory and Practice. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business
Sool Press.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). e iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational
fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147−160.
Dower, J. (1986). War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War.
London: Faber and Faber.
Fren, R. (2010). Cross-Cultural Management in Work Organisations.
London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Geertz, C. (1993). The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana.
Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harzing, A-W. and Pudelko, M. (2013) Language competencies, policies and
practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and
 comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic
MNCs, Journal of World Business, 48(1): 87–97.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories, Academy
of Management Executive, 7(1): 81–94.
Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge
Management Perspective, Harlow, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Holden, N. J. and Glisby, M. (2010). Creating Knowledge Advantage: The
Tacit Dimensions of International Competition and Cooperation.
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business Sool Press.
Ja, G. and Westwood, R. (2009). International Cross-Cultural Management
Studies: A Postcolonial Reading. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jason, G. and Degg, R. (2006). How many varieties of capitalism?
Comparing the comparative institutional analyses of capitalist diversity,
MPIfG Discussion Paper 06/2, hp://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=896384.
Jason, G. and Deeg, R. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding
institutional diversity and its implications for international business,
Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 540–561.
Johns, G. (2006). e essential impact of context on organizational
behaviour, Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 396–408. Cited in
Miailova (2011).
Koen, C. (2005). Comparative International Management. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill.
Kostova, T. (1996). Success of the transnational transfer of organisational
practices within multinational companies, unpublished dissertation,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology,
83(1977): 340–363.
Miailova, S. (2011). Contextualizing in international business resear:
Why do we need more of it and how can we be beer at it?
 Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1): 129–139.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic
Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Primecz, H., Romani, L. and Samann, S. (2011). Cross-Cultural
Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rienhofer, I. (2011). Divorcing globalization from Orientalism. In: Primecz,
H., Romani, L. and Samann, S. (eds.). Cross-Cultural Management in
Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sco, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B. L. (2012). e times they are a-angin’:
Improving cultural indices and rankings based on a meta-analysis of
Hofstede’s dimensions, Journal of World Business, 47(3): 329–341.
Tietze, S. (2010). International managers as translators. European
Management of International Management, 25 (1/2): 184–199.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S. and Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural
organisational behavior resear: Advances, gaps, and recommendations,
Journal of Management, 33: 426–478.
Vaiman, V. and Brewster, C. (2014). How far do cultural differences explain
the differences between nations? Implications for HRM, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(26): 151–164.
Weinshall, T. D. (ed.). (1977). Culture and Management. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Wel C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E.
(2011). eorizing from case studies: Towards a pluralistic future for
international business resear. Journal of International Business
Studies, 42: 740–762.
Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and
Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, G. T., Psyogios, A., Szamosi, L. T. and Collings, D. G. (2012)
Institutional approaes to comparative HRM. In Brewster, C. and
Mayrhofer, W. (eds.) A Handbook of Research into Comparative Human
Resource Management Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
8
Challenges in working across cultures
Reflections of two executives

Niels Porksen (Eli Lilly) and Lotte Kragelund (Velux

A/S)

Interviewed by Mikael Søndergaard and Sonja

Samann

How do executives perceive and experience their work that takes them
around the globe and requires them to work effectively with different
cultures? What kind of allenges do they encounter? How do they deal
with these allenges and what do they recommend as practitioners to
practitioners, educators and researers? To shed more light on these issues,
we conducted interviews with two executives. Both come from the same
country, Denmark, and both are in their mid-career and very successful in
their work. ey differ, however, in gender, in educational baground, in
professional training and in their work and cross-cultural experiences.
Hence, their views differ in some respects and also complement ea other.
ey highlight several issues that were discussed in prior apters su as
the importance of language, the anging nature of culture and the work
context, the difficulties in understanding cultural differences – especially of
cultures that are very similar. eir reflections and recommendations paint a
big canvas with many colors that still leaves ample room for many other
contextualized cross-cultural experiences.
In the following, we first introduce the executives with their respective
baground and current work context. We then let them speak in response
to our questions without interpretation from our side providing the
unfiltered, ideosyncratic expriences and recommendations to the reader
regarding cross-cultural work and related experiences. Subheadings and
sentences in italics are questions that we posed.

Interview with Niels Porksen, MD, Dr. Sci/PhD,

currently Global Product Development, Eli Lilly
Niels began his career as Medical Fellow in the Mayo Clinic (two years),
then worked for 13 years as MD in the Aarhus University Hospital. He
decided to join Eli Lilly as Group Leader Development in 2001 and become
Senior Director, Global External Resar and Development in 2006. His
cross-cultural job experiences include coordination, development, leading
teams and labs, problem solving, negotiation, mediation and HR
responsibilities including the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim. e
specific experiences are listed in Table 8.1. Before embarking on his work
life, he had no prior experience of living abroad. Currently, he is on his third
international assignment in whi he spends usually six to eight hours of
transatlantic time per week traveling. Eli Lilly is one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies worldwide, founded in 1876 in Indianapolis. e
company operates in 125 countries with 38,000 employees (2013) and 23.1
billion in sales.

Table 8.1 Niels Porksen’s cross-cultural work experiences

Coordination
Leading small specialized teams, with representation in Singapore,
Germany, Belgium, UK and US
Coordinating global opportunity sear with representation in Japan,
China, India, UK, Belgium and US with conferences and web meetings
Development
Simultaneous development of several programs, with input from across the
globe
Teams represent 10–15 different functions in three to six different countries
across US, Europe and Asia
Dealing with regulatory agencies for medical trials, integrating data from
different countries, applied to local environments
Working on global submission, with distinct requirements per major
country
Leading teams and/or labs
Leading several medical teams
Globally responsible for R&D opportunities within cardiovascular disease
and diabetes for Lilly for six years. Local leaders provide point contact to
major universities and pharma, as well as biote, and reported ba to
Indianapolis
Leading the interface between the external environment and internal
stakeholders
Problem solving
Only sparsely involved. at is dealt with by local contact person, i.e. when
declining a partnership in Japan, we would FEDEX signed leer, to be
handed over in person by local employee, then within one hour web or
video conference with our employee in the room, at whi we explain
reasons for declination. Local person will act as the eyes on the ground and
ask clarifying questions, ensure time is taken, and that message is clear and
understood
Negotiation
Roles were strictly divided into tenical roles and business development
roles. Negotiated extensively on the tenical side
HR responsibilities
Had HR responsibilities in US, while residing in Denmark
M & A experience
In exploratory phases, but initiated and followed to completion partnership
with Boehringer Ingelheim

What were your most memorable events in cross-cultural work?

Given extensive experience with very different cultures, it always takes me

by surprise that the risk is real when cultures are similar, yet still different,
i.e., within Northern Europe or between German-speaking countries. Having
frequent meetings where we are prepared for difference and meet on
common ground, we take our guards down, su as when speaking to Brits
or Germans, because we know that they are different: mu more direct
than the Americans from the Midwest. In the Midwest, you have to read
between the lines, not unlike Japan and China. When in Japan, there is a
very formal interaction in work relations, only to see a dramatic relaxation
at dinner, whereas we may tend to keep the same aitude throughout entire
business interaction. I also experienced major surprise over cover-ups of
mistakes in some Asian countries, that contrast with all the formal
interaction. When confronted with scientific flaws, the discussion becomes
very difficult, and one learns that despite the strict adherence to formality
and correctness, you cannot solve problems by stating obvious and correct
problems, due to defensive thinking. You have to leave the door wide open
for them to draw the obvious conclusions, before the situation gets too tense,
maybe by taking a break in discussions, leaving some questions to them to
think of.

What was a major blunder you experienced in working cross-

culturally and how did you realize that you had committed it?
I openly confronted a junior member of a large Japanese team with things
we would clearly have done differently. I realized I had inadvertently
embarrassed him in front of upper management (really for no good reason)
and the rest of a three-day stay was tense. I was not able to have open
exanges of opinion with their team, probably as I was suspected to maybe
expose individuals.

What did you do when you realized it?

I tried to compliment both him, and their team for their accomplishments,
but their first impression did not ange over the days.

How satisfied were you with the final outcome?

We did the deal to everybody’s satisfaction but that was to their credit, not
mine.

What did you learn from the situation for dealing with cross-
cultural experiences?

Be prepared and, most importantly, be sensitive to all signals, as you may

think things go well based on verbal communication but, in reality, things
are really bad. Also, do not assume language is enough to connect people.
Oen it is what seperates us. is is obvious when people hardly speak
English and you are tuned into anything that helps you read their message
compared to fluent English, with subtle hints and buried messages.

What do you consider the major challenges in working cross-

culturally?
Finding common ground, that leaves everybody satisfied with the
interaction. It is not the purpose to please nor to come to qui decisions, but
make sure all parties make their views clear and understood. Value their
concerns and perspectives, so that we have a ance to come to a win-win
situation or really solve the problems that maer. It takes extra time in ea
meeting to make sure you don’t close down the discussion before the maer
is really brought to the table.

What was helpful for you in getting more experienced/better in

working cross-culturally?

Having company colleagues from that culture that can bridge the
communication. Clarify, if needed, in the local language and discuss
impressions of interaction aerwards. Having extensive travel, always with
company colleagues, allows a grounded opinion from somebody on your
side on how they may perceive the interaction, so really on-the-job training
that is set up the right way.

What are obstacles/no-goes in working cross-culturally?

When you know what you want, do not want to negotiate and know that it
really is not in their interest to work with you. You risk wasting their and
your time on polite yet unproductive exange. You have to walk in with a
perception of why it is a good idea to even do cross-cultural collaboration.
Unethical thinking, action, work is an absolute no-go, and you have to see
through that from the beginning. Your brand will be associated with how
you got the results.

What do you recommend to students, managers and executives in

getting better prepared for their cross-cultural work?
ere is reading to do before any significant interaction and lots of literature
that may help in geing prepared. Learn a few phrases in their language: it
is not the purpose to be understood, but to make them understand that you
respect their culture enough to prepare for the meeting. Appreciate
differences and never impose your culture on them. As an instance, there are
many national holidays or very significant family events that may not be
appreciated by you, but they may be very important to them. How would
you like to have a business dinner on Christmas Day? If it is important to
them, there probably is a good reason for them in hesitating to accept a
meeting. Appreciate that cross-cultural work is an opportunity and an
expense, and you have to consider both. Put yourself in their shoes, but
similarly also expect them to try to understand you, by politely but firmly
pointing out what is important to you. Understand how work gets done,
understand the role of hierary, their tradition and take this into
consideration in how you make your point and how you expect that they
will respond. An excellent example is the Chinese or Japanese “no,” whi is
politely to say it is difficult but possible, so they can do it, but it will take
time.

What do you recommend to researchers and educators to be

prepared for the challenges in working cross-culturally?

Set your own expectations clearly and both be realistic about what you can
get out of it, and then measure progress. You may find for the first few
months that everything seems good, but eventually nothing comes out of an
academic collaboration. Look for complementary skills, and
knowledge/skills that are unique. If it is “pay for service” or bread and buer
resear, do it in a familiar culture. Be prepared to invest extra time and
effort in start-up and to over-communicate. For teaers, look for the
puzzled looks on people’s faces and probe for underlying meanings and
reactions. Most commonly, when in a different culture people will quietly
wonder if they disagree or don’t understand.
What did you learn from your cross-cultural experiences?

I have increased my knowledge regarding different business conditions and

practices over the years – not weeks. Openness toward otherness may
happen quily and relates more to your mindset than long-term experience.
Your vacations and cultural encounters at restaurants could be a good and
easy reference point, for how prepared you are.

What did you learn at the university that helped you in getting
prepared for working in a multi-cultural environment?

e solarly wrien books and papers have been very helpful. Also, they
put in context the culture per se, as it can be viewed not only as cross-
cultural work, but also the difference in culture between and within sectors
(competing values framework), companies etc. Many of the skills from
working across very different cultures may be helpful in understanding
organizational culture, and how it may align, or not. It gives the helicopter
perspective from global cross-cultural allenges, over age/gender/race etc.
faultlines in teams, to diagnosing and understanding organizational culture,
to align organizational design. Many small teams in a matrix organization
may reflect the large external environment.
My MBA program included two field trips that helped, although given my
experience, probably they were of limited value. I had a specific focus on
cross-cultural work and learned explicitly that it is not all or none, nor good
or bad, but rather, you need to carefully consider the allenges and the
value. I clearly hear different messages compared to my colleagues, when
having cross-cultural teams on board, as I feel beer auned to what they
want to communicate, when having various cultural bagrounds. I am also
less tolerant when colleagues do not aempt to understand cultural
differences. I am more confident shuing down a discussion, when I believe
we have a decision, as I know I have listened enough to understand the
viewpoints.
What struck you as being different when you returned to your
second expatriate assignment in the same place in the US?

Less giving into American culture and speaking up for other expats joining
the company, or being on shorter-term assignment in Indianapolis. I was
anged by preparedness this time around, but also with a broader
perspective from my MBA classes. Most strikingly, though, is that the US
has anged over the last six years. Maybe not surprising, but you take it for
granted that you come ba to the same place, yet the tone and the spirit are
different. e financial crisis may be part of it, but also the ange from
focusing on war to domestic policy. e la of understanding of the outside
world etc. is even more striking to me this time around. CNN mostly reports
on the same story for weeks, with no international news: there just seems to
be no interest for non-US maers from any news source.

To what extent is it helpful having a wife with a different cultural

background?

It certainly made it easier. e difference between Danish and Fren culture

is significant, yet fairly easily understandable, if one wants to. With ildren
of triple citizenship, and as all of us have been most places, we can easily
take different perspectives into account.

In summary, what do you consider the major challenges in working

cross-culturally?

Paying aention to the smaller differences. It will sneak up on you, that you
make important assumptions that do not hold up unless you keep paying
aention to the cultural differences. e big differences come mu easier, as
they are obvious. Also, the importance of non-verbal communication,
especially with increasing use of virtual communication, is a major
allenge, as it is a very significant contributor to decision making in
ambiguous situations. When things are not ambiguous, they are easy
anyway.

Interview with Lotte Kragelund, Head of Marketing

Coordination, VELUX A/S

Table 8.2 Loe Kragelund’s cross-cultural experiences

M.A. in International business, Arabic culture and language

Positions held
Arla Foods Overseas Division (Middle East) 2000–2004
Marketing trainee 2000–2002
Brand manager 2002–2004
VELUX A/S
Project manager corporate market communications 2004–2006
European marketing manager 2006–2011 (Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Baltics, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal)
Head of marketing coordination 2011- ongoing (Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Baltics, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Poland, Cze Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Serbia)
Cross-cultural job experience
Daily coordination with sales companies in more than 20 markets
Marketing projects - project management across borders
Change management - anging from national activities/projects to global
activities/projects
Business development at strategic level
HR: marketing competences
Living experience aboard
Before work: three months in Basra, Iraq 2003

Loe Kragelund has been Head of Marketing Coordination at VELUX A/S

since 2011. Her job consists of daily coordination with sale companies in
more than 20 European countries. From 2006 to 2011, she was Marketing
Manager responsible for 14 European and Eastern European countries. She
started as a marketing trainee in 2000 at Arla Foods Overseas Division
(Middle East) and became Brand Manager in 2002. She was appointed
Project Manager of corporate market communication at VELUX A/S in 2004
before being appointed European Marketing Manager in 2006. Loe received
a combined language and business degree (international business and Arabic
language and culture), being an elite student of that program. In addition,
she was a language officer in military education. Before starting her work
life, she lived for three months in Basra, Iraq. Table 8.2 lists her various
cross-cultural experiences. VELUX is a Danish entrepreneurial company that
specializes in windows and skylights including many types of decorations
and sun screening, roller shuers, installation products as well as products
for remote control and thermal solar panels for installation in roofs. It has
manufacturing companies in ten countires and sales companies in about 40
countries. e VELUX Group employs 10,000 people worldwide. It is owned
by foundations and family.

What were your most memorable events in cross-cultural work?

Interpretation in Iraq was one of them. When working as an interpreter for

the Danish army in Iraq, I expected to be ignored by Iraqi men. I even
expected some of the Shias to refuse to talk to me. e opposite happened –
when the sheiks got to know me, they would rather talk to me than my
superiors because I spoke Arabic. ey did not mind that I was a woman,
even an unmarried Christian woman. ey viewed me as a member of the
Danish tribe (the Danish baalion living in Basra).
 Another one was project management in VELUX in 2004. e main task
of the project was to develop an international aritectural magazine
(Daylight & Architecture) based on two national initiatives; a Nordic
aritectural magazine and a German aritectural magazine. A prey
uphill experience in the beginning because a German and a Danish
colleague did not agree about the concept, tone of voice, content and level of
tenical details. It took six months to get them to agree (meaning
approximately 12 meetings). Later the magazine received several
international awards. e main allenge was to get them to collaborate and
trust one another. My Danish colleague is an aritect and my German
colleague is a commercial marketing and PR person who is eager to aieve
a larger share of voice. It was obvious that the Dane wanted to add value to
the magazine. e German perceived this as being excessively fluffy and
irrelevant. e German wanted to meet deadlines and not necessarily add
value but just maintain the existing level.
A third surprising situation was a strategic initiative regarding business
development in Poland in 2012. e main objective was to improve the
VELUX brand position in the minds of home owners and house builders. A
Polish project member kept arguing that communicating features was the
way forward in Poland. Normally, we would focus on benefits. We (two
Russian members of the team, a Cze member and I) argued that we
needed to focus on benefits. I expected the discussion to be over aer having
tested the marketing concept. e test was supporting the fact that benefits
are making more sense to the Polish and Russian customers than tenical
features. Despite this, the Polish colleague decided to communicate features
instead of benefits in 2014. When we discussed it, he was surprised that we
did not just let him decide himself what to communicate. Apparently, he had
no idea that in our minds we had agreed that we should communicate
benefits. In his mind, he could still do as he wanted to. He needed the
decision to be wrien bla on white in order to accept the decision.
Minutes of the meeting wrien by the project manager were not sufficiently
formal to him.
What was a major blunder you experienced in working cross-
culturally and how did you realize that you had committed it?

I realized the problem with the Polish manager when the campaign was
about to start. Coincidentally, I saw the text on the Polish website. When
discussing it on the phone I suddenly realized my Polish colleague has mu
more need of wrien rules and clear and explicit orders.

What did you do when you realized it?

We agreed that we had to set up clear guidelines for larger campaigns.

How satisfied were you with the outcome?

It does require more work for my team when we need to be that explicit
about how we need to execute campaigns. To be honest, it annoys me a bit
that this is needed. However, I understand that it is a necessity for my Polish
colleague and his team.

What did you learn from your cross-cultural experiences?

I have to be patient – with others and myself. I have to keep asking

questions until I’m certain about the meaning behind the opinions and
behaviors expressed in discussions. It does take time to get to know another
person from another culture – and sometimes I have to accept that I do not
get the full picture the first time we meet.

What do you consider the major challenges in working cross-

culturally?
e major allenge is language. We all speak English – none of us is a
native speaker and it causes some misunderstandings from time to time.
When meeting with different cultures we always have to develop a common
framework (language and behavior) in order to have a successful
collaboration. It takes time.

What was helpful for you in getting more experienced and better in
working cross-culturally?

Traveling and meeting people face to face helped as well as reading about
the country’s history.

What are obstacles/no-goes in working cross-culturally?

We need to meet physically from time to time. If we only run

teleconferences, we end up misunderstanding one another. Don’t expect
everyone to be the same.

What do you recommend to students/managers/executives in getting

better prepared for their cross-cultural work?

Try to live in a culture that is very different from your own. is way you
will get to know and feel the differences in an outspoken way, whi will
make it easier to deal with other cultures in the future. Allow yourself to
make mistakes – and say sorry, I misunderstood and do not be afraid of
telling why you misunderstood something.

What did you learn at the university that helped you in getting
prepared for working in a multi-cultural environment?
First of all, when teaing intercultural topics – use people who have
experience working in cross-cultural seings. Studying intercultural
communication and management theory was helpful. e concepts by
Maruyama and Hofstede have been a great help. Writing my thesis about
intercultural conflict resolution has helped me a lot. You cannot read
people’s minds but you can ask questions and then draw a simple mind map
to understand the misunderstandings that will occur.

What have you learned in practice that helped you in the cross-
cultural workplace?

By experiencing the allenges, I have learned that I need to listen to team

members or colleagues with different cultural bagrounds – and keep
asking questions in order to understand them. Staying patient has been the
biggest allenge for me.

Concluding remarks
Both interviews demonstrate, on the one hand, the idiosyncratic experiences
people encounter in today’s globalized work environment. On the other
hand, they raise similar allenges and issues that practitioners face and that
need to be addressed in (future) resear. e prior apters of this section
have discussed some of the similarities su as the dynamic nature of
culture, the difficulties of going beyond the visible and obvious necessary for
developing an understanding of the real underlying issues in a discussion
and the enhanced difficulty when a meeting between people with different
cultural bagrounds take place virtually. Niels also points out in his account
of the meeting with the Japanese the difficulties in stepping out of or beyond
habitually used routines (confronting an issue at hand) that contrast the
basic beliefs and related routines of the business partner (Japanese/high
context culture face saving). As discussed in Chapter 2 by Phillips and
Samann, su a stepping out of habitual routines (e.g., equating culture
with nation) will also be necessary to move the field of CCM forward into
the societal and business realities of the twenty-first century.
In addition, the interviews point to issues that warrant future resear.
How can we deal with the paradox that both the business world and
business lifestyles are accelerating? is is exemplified in Western terms like
“time is money” or resear findings that show the financial benefits
associated with a qui time-to-market of newly developed products and
fast responses to customer demands. Yet, both executives interviewed
emphasize the amount of time needed to increasingly learn to understand
the subtleties of different cultures. In addition, it also takes time to reflect for
learning from cross-cultural encounters. Niels’s second stay in the same US
city six years later gave him the impression that things had anged. He,
however, had also anged and perceived the same things in a different light.
Loe’s example of her speaking the Arab language could overcome her
being an unmarried Christian woman in a male-dominated Muslim part of
the world. Who takes the time to learn all those languages needed for
business conduct in a globalized world? Who even takes the time trying to
understand the subtleties of English being used as a second language/lingua
franca by business partners? What kind of similarities may be strong enough
to bridge perceived differences? As Mayrhofer and Pernkopf discuss in their
apter, current resear in CCM has not really embraced both the
opportunities and the allenges that come with our globalized networked
society – practitioners will have to deal with them.
Section 2
Language and languages: moving from
the periphery to the core

Editor: Terry Mughan

9
Introduction: language and languages
Moving from the periphery to the core

Terry Mughan

Capturing the full meaning and relevance of a subject as broad as the one of
language and languages is a daunting task, whether it be in the context of
business, economics or indeed philosophy or psyology. Few international
business solars beyond those contributing to and cited in this section have
commented seriously on the processes and allenges of multilingual
interactions in global operations, other than seeing language, or a subset of
it su as translation costs, as a variable in a broader study of trade or
investment. Among linguists, the suspicion lingers that the broader
management community has, at the very least, resisted the invitation to
embrace language and languages as a core part of its canon and
methodology, despite several decades of resear critiquing this dimension
of international business theory (Marsan et al., 1997).
Yet it is hard to see how any form of business relationship can survive and
prosper if good mutual comprehension, respect and trust are not established.
is section represents an opportunity for leading and emerging solars in
this field to elaborate new approaes to language-based resear that
demonstrate its centrality to the field of cross-cultural management. is
introduction will reflect on some of the causes for the language deficit and
consider the allenges we face in articulating the nature and importance of
the field. It will then summarize how this new generation of solars are
beginning to map a way forward for future resear, whi will enri
cross-cultural management and learning by questioning existing paradigms,
developing new methods and investigating new social and organizational
phenomena in the global economy.

Why should language and languages be embraced

by management solars?
ere is no shortage of evidence that language and international trade are
closely connected phenomena. Economists and policy-makers have been
aware of this for a long time. ‘e alphabet was supposedly invented by the
Phoenicians, who were traders in the Mediterranean coastal area around the
twelh century B.C., to facilitate trade, and to keep records of debts arising
from trade’ (Kwan Choi, 2002, p. 266). Solars su as Spencer (1987),
Holden (1987) and Mughan (1990) and organizations su as the European
Commission (2008) and the OECD (Della Chiesa et al., 2012) have produced
evidence that the link is crucial to company and economic performance. In
2012 economist James Foreman-Pe directed a study1 for the United
Kingdom government that estimated the cost of the language skills deficit in
the UK at £48bn a year.
It is therefore surprising that mainstream management solars, many of
whom are steeped in the discipline of economics, ose to pursue a
‘universalist’ approa to language, whi, in favoring a lingua franca
approa to the management and study of global organizations, would
deprive practitioners of the riness of insight into local cultures and
understanding of the full capabilities of employees in those markets. is
approa is at times an argued, explicit one, stating that globalization
entailed the management of complexity whi necessitated a simplified
approa to language use and the adoption of a lingua franca by the
corporation (Neeley, 2012). In other respects, the disregard for language and
languages seemed to happen by stealth, equating to a oice of convenience,
ignoring emerging evidence that language skills make managers more
effective in crossing multiple global borders (Spencer, 1987, Knowles et al.,
2006).
One possible explanation for this denial of the obvious is to see the
process by whi culture (in the form of generalizations and aggregations of
differences between national cultures; Hofstede, 1980) was integrated into
the management mainstream towards the end of the twentieth century. If
national markets can be reduced to a set of ‘essentialist’ indices on value
dimensions and a limited set of behavioral aracteristics, why do we need
to speak their language? Placed alongside the rise of English as a lingua
franca of global business, this argument carried all before it in the era of
rapid growth in global trade and investment. e decline in foreign language
learning (other than English) in many countries over the same period led
some to see cross-cultural knowledge and language skills as separate and
even competing entities.
But the tide is turning. Critiques of the Hofstedian culture paradigm have
increased (see Janne Tienari’s introduction to Section 5 of this volume) and a
more open and dynamic model of cross-cultural management is emerging. A
more open and dynamic approa to language should be part of this.
Building on the influential work by Luo and Shenkar (2006), lingua franca
policy in global organizations has been questioned and the multilingual
reality of multinational corporations is being explored. New and established
researers have brought new perspectives and approaes to the subject of
language in cross-cultural management and core concepts su as
translation, context, proficiency, identity and multilingualism are being re-
examined through new lenses and new links with management concepts
su as knowledge transfer, power relations and trust are being developed
(Brannen et al., 2014). e many dimensions of language as a concept are
being re-visited and the boundaries of strategy, linguistics and society are
being bridged to yield new theories and insights. alitative, quantitative
and mixed methods are being used to study phenomena emerging on many
levels because of the effects on communities of globalization and the
aendant concepts of tenology, mobility and migration. Exciting as this is,
we might also consider that this shi from a reductionist approa to one
that is more broad and inclusive might reduce the cogency and impact of the
field and make it incomprehensible to non-specialists. Some kind of
framework that would help solars and managers convey both the
pervasive and differentiated nature of the concept would be of help in
cementing its place as a fundamental building blo of management
resear.
In this respect, maybe we should turn to cross-cultural management itself
for a clue. Brannen and Lee (2013), in discussing the skillsets and mindsets
biculturals and multiculturals bring to organizations, note that ‘existing
theories and resear of culture in the organizational literature provide a …
varied and multi-leveled conceptual framework for what culture is and how
culture works in organizations’ (p. 2). ey then propose a way in whi the
broad range of meanings and functions of culture may be more concisely
delineated; the concept of culture as a specific, grounded observable process
requiring particular skills (for a particular country) and, on the other hand,
as a general, abstract and dynamic process requiring different skills for
dealing with a variety of cognitively complex situations (su as
multicultural teams or workplaces). Perhaps this framework can help us
disentangle and categorize the many situations in whi language arises in
cross-cultural management from both a practice and a resear viewpoint.
For example, when we talk about proficiency in languages, we are talking
about a language-specific issue; that is, how fluent or knowledgeable a
person is about a specific foreign language. Mu of the literature in this
field revolves around this concept, whether it be in the form of lingua franca
as a corporate language or other native languages present in global
organizations and the interaction between them and relative status of ea
language. Contributing solars tend to come from the fields of language
acquisition, linguistics and social sciences, particularly the study of the
nation state. On the other hand, when we encounter more complex language
scenarios, su as multilingual communities or groups, we see other
processes of complex language use su as ALAAT (all languages at all
times) requiring more general cognitive skills su as cross-linguistic
awareness, high levels of tolerance and emotional management. In this
category, we might also include what happens when we talk about language
and power in organizations. Here, for the main part we are talking about the
way in whi companies use language as a general tool to describe a
company, promote its products, or even hide or share information and the
extent to whi language is used to denote other concepts su as status or
identity. In this mode, whi is conventionally code-independent, the
emphasis is on language as a social or organizational construct that in this
context can be used to reflect or condition social relations among native-
speakers of the same language or more broadly, and contributing solars
tend to bring perspectives from anthropology, psyology, communication
studies and linguistics.
It is important to be able to distinguish between these two closely related
phenomena in international, multilingual organizations in order to frame
future resear questions and propose courses of action for executives and
team leaders who seek to use resear findings to develop policy,
frameworks and protocols for language that makes managers and
organizations more productive (this laer purpose is, aer all, what
distinguishes management science from the other social sciences). In some
cases, su as translation theory, it is possible to adopt both the specific and
the general lens at the same time. For example, some practitioners and
solars see translation as a meanical process across a dyad of national
languages. Others see it as an interpretational, socio-political act.
e present collection of apters on the subject of language has
outstanding timely value as the contribution of established and emerging
solars to the development of an integrated picture of the place of language
in the field of cross-cultural management. is volume has a function of
reviewing accepted theories and questioning paradigms and the authors in
this section are selected because they give their field voice and shape. In
summarizing the contributions we will use the language-specific and
language-general dyad as a way of articulating and reflecting on our
collective journey towards the formulation of a more clearly defined
framework for language and languages in cross-cultural management.

Contributions
In the first apter, Pudelko, Harzing and Tenzer present a historically
framed review of the emergence of cross-cultural management and language
studies, with specific regard to the international business and multinational
corporation constructs. is journey from the ‘culture-free’ to the ‘culture-
inclusive’ paradigms includes the up-swell in resear focusing on language,
resulting in the current ‘differentiated language-specific’ paradigm.
Directions of future resear and the suitability of resear methodologies
are discussed within an overall framework still aracterized by the country-
specific concerns that prevail in the IB (international business) community.
For newcomers to this field, this apter offers a commendably concise
picture of its origins and development. For established researers, it poses
some allenging questions about methodology and validity of data and
concepts.
Several of these allenging questions are addressed by Klitmøller,
Lauring and Bjerregaard in the next apter. e perpetually problematic
concept of geographical space is raised in a piece that takes issue with the
national level of analysis and proposes the supra- and sub-national levels as
foci for future resear. Using two innovative qualitative resear
teniques, they endeavor to demonstrate how categorization (of the self
and the other) and language use in diverse contemporary organizational
contexts can be influenced by boundaries between local competitive
identities in interplay with varieties of lingua franca su as English and
Spanish. is piece allenges the traditional assumption that national
language and culture suffice as means of understanding identity and
communication in the global workplace and describes scenarios in whi
specific language skills are just one part of a locally constructed language
rooted in shiing and competing group identities.
Goby and Nierson also present a complex scenario that defies classical
categories of nation and organization. Dubai is a multicultural, multilingual
community with a workforce made up of individuals from many different
bagrounds. eir study was interested in the language oices made by
individuals in the context of strong competition for employment and
advancement between foreign and indigenous workers and the ensuing
tensions in the workplace. e impact of these tensions on teamwork and
productivity are discussed and some surprising findings emerge. e need
for organizations and educators to develop locally grounded, micro-level
solutions spanning specific and general dimensions of language and culture
skills is stressed.
e reality of mixed-language work communities, either sharing the same
physical space or forming across virtual space, is the dominant theme in this
section. e role of language and languages in these communities comes to
the forefront in the next four apters. Switzerland is perhaps the best-
known example of a nation-state with a policy of multilingualism and
Yanaprasart examines exactly what this policy entails in the workplace and
the approaes used to ensure it becomes an asset rather than a liability. By
means of ri textual data, the complexity of practice is conveyed and
paerns of language use are categorized in a range of beguiling acronyms
(e.g. BELF: Business English as a lingua franca), whi are explained and
illustrated. e title of the piece, multilinguaculturing, more than adequately
conveys the dynamic and creative role of language use in promoting
diversity whilst aaining efficiency in the workplace.
e activity of translation is possibly the one most readily associated with
the use of languages across international organizations. Yet Steyaert and
Janssen s contend that it is a neglected field. Rather than being a dry, literal
activity, they see it as a creative force, and potentially as ‘a hybrid voice’
that constitutes a fuller representation of the cultural encounters from whi
the text emerges. is piece draws on film and art to evoke a allenging
new landscape for extracting the meaning from cross-linguistic and cross-
cultural interactions in international business.
e effect of this kind of language use on the individual is the concern of
Barner-Rasmussen in the next apter. While the concept of bilingualism is
well established in linguistics, the notion of biculturals has only emerged
more recently in the cross-cultural literature. A review of the literature is
undertaken and the potential contribution these individuals might make to
the multinational organization as boundary-spanners is considered.
Important questions about the relationship between language and culture
are raised as well as the limitations of these areas of knowledge as far as
boundary-spanning as a corporate asset is concerned.
Developing the managers of tomorrow is the focus of Cohen, Kassis-
Henderson and Lecomte. e place of foreign language learning in business
sools has been questioned not just because of the rise of English as a
lingua franca but the emergence of student groups that are no longer likely
to be all of the same national baground and are recruited from all over the
world. Shiing from a model of specific language-learning (e.g. Mandarin,
Spanish) to one of preparation for mixed language realities described in
earlier apters, is called the multilingual turn. Su a pedagogy would
embrace both a language-specific and a language-general approa and, the
authors propose, would carry many advantages.
We conclude with two papers that consider this issue from a company
standpoint. Peltokorpi examines similar issues from the point of view of
corporate human resource strategy. e extent to whi the MNC may
develop policies to reduce the language barrier through recruitment,
promotion and training is examined. At the same time a range of factors
militating against su practice is also considered, in particular conditions in
host-country markets. Several su examples are provided. Further resear
is needed into the links between these practices and corporate strategy.
Finally, Bielenia-Grajewska advances a view of companies, whi, rather
than seeing language as a consequence of corporate activity, sees it as a
force that shapes their identity on all levels. Key decisions about products,
personnel and purasers are articulated through metaphor and this message
becomes a reality in the form of the identity of the organization.

Conclusion
is final apter by Bielenia-Grajewska is a pure expression of a language-
general approa using theory from linguistics and sociology to analyze the
cross-cultural management process in a company. Languages in companies
does not just mean the dyadic communication between a seller and a buyer
from different countries. It is a multi-faceted concept spanning multiple
boundaries to whi the present collection has given an exciting voice: from
multilingual communities in fixed geographic territories to multicultural
teams or groups of students and project teams in third party locations with
or without recourse to a shared lingua franca; and from corporate executives
responsible for honing language-sensitive policies in multiple locations that
project the global identity of the organization and respect local sensitivities
to translators who look beyond literal or ba translation to find authentic
new voices.
e compelling feature of these contributions is the presentation of a
range of contexts within whi language use is practiced and studied. ese
include but go beyond the multinational corporation and the rigid lingua
franca policy many of them have adopted. is breadth of vision gives voice
to the need for alternative models of language policy and resear practice
reflecting the diverse communities present in global business today. To
deprive people of the use of their native language at work cannot be
condoned and makes no economic sense. Capturing the ries offered by a
receptive stance towards those native languages and the emergence of new
forms of expression and identity requires more resear and more
collaboration across disciplines. Cross-cultural management as a process of
understanding a diverse panoply of workplace seings should be a annel
through whi this kind of language resear meets the broader
management community and offers managers and organizations of the
future a beer set of tools than they have currently for understanding
complexity in cross-cultural scenarios.

Note
1 e Economic Case for Language Learning and the Role of Employer Engagement, e Education
and Employers Taskforce, 2011, London.

References
M.Y. Brannen and F. Lee, ‘Bridging cultural divides: Traversing
organizational and psyological perspectives on multiculturalism’.
Forthcoming in the Handbook on Multicultural Identity, edited by
Veronica Benet-Martinez and Yi-Ying Hong, Oxford University Press,
2013.
M.Y. Brannen, R. Piekkari and S. Tietze (eds.) Special issue: ‘e multifaceted
role of language in international business: Unpaing the forms,
functions and features of a critical allenge to MNC theory and
performance’. Journal of International Business Studies, 2014, 45(5).
Companies Work Better with Languages (Report). Recommendations from
the Business Forum for Multilingualism established by the European
Commission, 2008.
B., Della Chiesa, J. Sco and C. Hinton (eds.) Languages in a Global World:
Learning for Better Cultural Understanding. OECD Publishing, 2012.
G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
related Values. Sage, 1980. N. Holden, ‘e treatment of language and
linguistic issues in the current English language international
management literature’. Multilingua, 1987, 6(3): 233–246.
D. Knowles, T. Mughan and L. Lloyd-Reason, ‘Foreign language use among
decision-makers of successfully internationalised SMEs: estioning the
language-training paradigm’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 2006, 13(4): 620–641.
E. Kwan Choi, ‘Trade and the adoption of a universal language’.
International Review of Economics and Finance, 2002, 11: 265–275.
Y. Luo and O. Shenkar, ‘e multinational corporation as a multilingual
community: Language and organization in a global context’. Journal of
International Business Studies, 2006, 37(3): 321–339.
R. Marsan, D.E Wel and L.S. Wel, ‘Language: e forgoen factor in
multinational management’. European Management Journal, 1997,
Elsevier.
T. Mughan, ‘Is “Languages for Export” enough?’ European Business Review,
1990, 2(3): 22–25.
T. Neeley, ‘Global business speaks English’. Harvard Business Review, 2012,
May.
S.I. Spencer (ed.) Foreign Languages and International Trade. University of
Georgia Press, 1987.
10
Cross-cultural management and
language studies within international
business resear
Past and present paradigms and suggestions
for future resear

Markus Pudelko, Helene Tenzer and Anne-Wil

Harzing

e development of international business

resear: from the “culture-free” to the “culture-
inclusive” paradigm

To set the scene, we will start by providing a compact overview of the

emergence and further development of international business studies.
Shenkar (2004) suggests that initial theory in international business owed
mu to context-sensitive academic disciplines su as anthropology,
sociology, political science and area studies. We posit that only shortly
aerwards, however, international business resear established itself by
seeking legitimacy through emulating the “hard disciplines” of international
economics and subsequently strategy, a discipline that itself was heavily
influenced by economics. As su, its main concern became to produce
mostly quantitative, generalizable results on the narrow basis of concepts
and paradigms from economics-based strategy and largely irrespective of
contextual specificities. is is in our view all the more deplorable as
international business solars should possess the strongest competitive
advantage to unearth valuable context-embedded insights (Brannen & Doz,
2010), given that they are “more knowledgeable about foreign and
international environments and about ‘cross-bordering’” (Boddewyn, 1999:
13). Yet, with the understanding that international economic activities can
only be fully understood by considering human behavior, a significant
number of solars shied their aention from economics-based to human-
centered, psyology-based resear (Evans et al., 2002). It was also
increasingly understood that societal context, and in particular culture, was
of relevance and therefore had to be included in the study of international
business phenomena. As a result, the dominating resear paradigm shied
from a “culture-free” orthodoxy (Lammers & Hison, 1979) to what we call
a “culture-inclusive” paradigm. ese developments, we argue, provided a
fertile ground from whi cross-cultural management studies gradually
emerged in the 1980s, joining strategy as a second pillar of international
business (Brannen & Doz, 2010). A further powerful stimulus proved to be
one particular development in the world economy: the rise of the Japanese
economy in the 1980s and the painful realization for Western business
people and business solars that economic success could be aieved on the
basis of management principles that were very different from those common
in the West (Oui, 1981).

e development of cross-cultural management

resear: the dominance of the “reductionist
culture-specific paradigm” being allenged
Following this introductory section, we will briefly illustrate how cross-
cultural management studies established themselves as a separate resear
stream within international business, facilitated by the highly influential
cultural framework developed by Geert Hofstede (1980). is and similar
frameworks (e.g., Swartz, 1992; Trompenaars, 1993; House et al., 2004)
allowed for the introduction of culture into the study of international
business. Given that culture for the first time now occupies the center of
aention of international business solars, we consider “culture-specific”
the appropriate label for this new paradigm (in opposition to the “culture-
free” approa and going beyond the “culture-inclusive” approa). More
specifically, as culture is mostly operationalized through its reduction to a
few cultural value dimensions (Tung, 2008), we label this approa the
“reductionist culture-specific orthodoxy”. In our view, the ease by whi the
vague, complex and difficult to grasp construct of culture can be translated
under this paradigm into a few, directly comparable, value scores,
constituted a key factor for the success of cross-cultural management
studies. Studies under this paradigm mostly employ cultural differences (or,
in their most aggregated form, cultural distance) as an independent variable
to explain a large variety of dependent variables. In terms of resear
methods, both the context-free orthodoxy and the ensuing orthodoxy of
cultural inclusiveness or even cultural specificity share the same preference
for large-scale, static, quantitative cross-sectional survey studies.
We do not intend to downplay the value and significance of this kind of
resear, to whi we owe the introduction of culture into business studies
and a first distancing from an ethnocentric perspective that identified
Western management as “best practice” (Pudelko & Harzing, 2008).
Nevertheless, we are more concerned here with seing out the limitations of
this dominant orthodoxy of cross-cultural management resear. For
example, Hofstede’s concepts mold cultures into clearly circumscribed and
delimitable “units,” neglecting the permanent exange between cultures in
our globalized world. When solars cast cultures in boundaries and
contrast them against ea other, they inevitably also play down the fact
that modern societies are internally highly differentiated (Wels, 1999).
Dimensional models of culture furthermore conceptualize cultures as
logically consistent and coherent systems (Swartz, 1992; Jahoda, 1993;
Ono, 1998), a notion that has met with increasing criticism. Hofstede’s
metaphor of culture as a “soware of the mind” (Hofstede, 2001: 2) also
implies that people’s cultural baground has a decisive and inescapable
influence on their thoughts and behavior. is deterministic view has been
increasingly allenged (Abdallah-Pretceille, 2001). A further problematic
feature of Hofstede’s cultural models is the fact that dimensions can only
describe cultures at the point in time when they are observed. is view of
cultures as static entities neglects the fact that cultures should be regarded as
“work in progress” (Hannerz, 1987: 550).
It is due to these limitations and the “obsession” with cultural values
(Earley, 2006: 925) that more recently a new resear paradigm started to
emerge. is paradigm is less concerned with the comparison of static
cultural values on the national level, and more with the in-depth description
of the dynamic interaction processes between people of different
nationalities on the organizational level (e.g., Salk & Shenkar, 2001;
Birkinshaw et al., 2011). Under this new paradigm, a methodological
reorientation took place, away from deductive, static and survey-based
quantitative studies and towards interview- and observation-based
qualitative resear, focused on the inductive investigation of dynamic
processes of interpersonal interactions, and designed to generate rather than
test theory. Mu of this resear concluded that the struggle for adaptation,
negotiation, hybridization and formation of cultures on the
(sub)organizational level (Brannen & Salk, 2000) provides more insights
about actual organizational practice than the description of the clash of
national values. In addition, studies increasingly adopt the notion of national
and organizational culture forming complementary instead of fully separate
concepts. Furthermore, bi-culturals are identified as valuable bridge-makers
who can assist MNCs in coping with their complex cultural legacies
(Brannen et al., 2010). It is due to the appearance of this significantly more
differentiated, complex and multi-faceted concept of culture that we label
this emerging paradigm “differentiated culture-specific” as opposed to the
“reductionist culture-specific” previously outlined. Whether this emerging
paradigm develops into a new orthodoxy still remains to be seen. Table 10.1
provides an (idealized) comparison between the two paradigms.

Table 10.1 Idealized comparison between the “reductionist culture-specific” and the “differentiated
culture-specific paradigm”

Reductionist culture-
Differentiated culture-specific
specific

Reduction to an Differentiation to accommodate

Concept of culture
aggregate score for complexity
Objective of study Comparison of values Description of interactions
Perspective
Static Dynamic
towards time

Reasoning Deductive Inductive

Relation towards
eory testing eory generation
theory

Relation towards
Confirmation Exploration
knowledge

Relation towards Abstraction of Embeddedness in a specific

context specific contexts context

e emergence of language resear in

international business: the dominance of the
“differentiated culture-specific paradigm” so far
being unallenged
We argue that it was this emerging differentiated concept of culture that
prepared the ground for a new resear stream in international business, one
that only gradually took off in the first decade of the new millennium:
studies on language differences. While there have been studies considering
language effects in business from a variety of disciplines, su as language
training (e.g., see Holden, 1989), marketing (e.g., see Ris et al., 1974) and
trade (e.g., see Lohmann, 2011), international business solars investigating
the management of multinational firms and their employees only gradually
came to notice the relevance of language differences. Given the importance
of language for cross-national interaction and exange processes and in
spite of early studies highlighting the relevance of language and linguistics
as a resear area for business studies (e.g., see Holden, 1987), one might
wonder why it took the resear community so long to “discover” the
relevance of language for international business. One reason probably is that
language has been frequently defined by solars from international
business studies (see e.g., Leung et al., 2005) and from anthropological
linguistics (see e.g., Duranti, 1997) as being “merely” part of culture. Another
reason might have been that solars and practitioners alike perceived the
“solution” to language differences, the adoption of English as the lingua
franca of international business, as straightforward and unproblematic, and
therefore not worthy of further investigation (Fredriksson et al., 2006).
Only recently, some authors came to position language at the center of
culture (Vaara et al., 2005), anowledging that languages are systems of
meanings that are central to the process of constructing organizational,
social and global realities (Tietze et al., 2003). Piekkari and Tietze (2011: 267)
aracterize language as “the first and foremost means and source through
whi the ‘connecting’ of different socio-cultural, institutional and
individual worlds occurs.” Consequently, an increasing number of
international business solars recognize the importance of language and
call for conceptual innovation and sophisticated empirical investigations
specifically dedicated to the impact of language on international business
activities (see e.g., Piekkari & Zander, 2005; Maclean, 2006; Holden, 2008;
Hinds et al., 2013). Furthermore, even the use of a common language su as
English has been shown to be significantly more problematic than many
might have expected (Kassis Henderson, 2005; Piekkari et al., 2005;
Fredriksson et al., 2006). In response to the perceived increasing need to
study the complex role of language in international business, a series of
special issues have been dedicated to this emerging theme over the last few
years: International Studies of Management and Organization (35/1, 2005),
Journal of World Business (46/3, 2011) and the Journal of International
Business Studies (2014).

e paradigmatic opening up of language resear

in international business?
Very mu in line with the “differentiated culture-specific” paradigm, studies
of this emerging resear stream on language focus on dynamic interaction
processes on the micro-level and frequently refer to concepts of
organizational behavior resear su as power structures (Neeley et al.,
2012; Hinds et al., 2013; Neeley, 2013), social identity formation (Tong et al.,
1999; Lauring, 2008; Bordia & Bordia, 2013), trust (Lagerström & Andersson,
2003; Piekkari, 2006; Tenzer et al., 2013), shared cognition (Harzing & Feely,
2008; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2012), knowledge sharing (Lagerström & Andersson,
2003; Piekkari & Tietze, 2011), emotional climate (Neeley et al., 2012; Tenzer
& Pudelko, 2013), leadership (Zander, 2005; Zander et al., 2011; Tenzer &
Pudelko, 2013) or oice of communication media (Klitmøller & Lauring,
2013). Due to the strong parallels with the “differentiated culture-specific”
paradigm we call this approa “differentiated language-specific.”
A further similarity lies in the fact that also for the literature of the
“differentiated language-specific” paradigm inductive, theory-generating and
interview-based qualitative resear clearly stands in terms of methods in
the foreground. Starting with Piekkari’s influential study of language issues
in the Finnish multinational Kone (Marsan et al., 1997; Marsan-Piekkari
et al., 1999; Charles & Marsan-Piekkari, 2002), a proliferation of
exploratory studies has so far been conducted to art the vast territory of
previously unaddressed influences of language on international business (see
e.g., Chikudate, 1997; Hyrsky, 1999; Davis et al., 2009; Piekkari et al., 2013).
Given the novelty of this resear area, the exploratory aracter of
qualitative resear certainly has made mu sense. It gave rise to
pioneering discoveries, linked language differences to a large variety of
different topics, suggested important contextual modifications to established
organizational behavior theories, and continues to provide a ri basis for
the further development of the field.
However, almost two decades aer the pioneering work by Piekkari (see
e.g., Marsan et al., 1997) the field still relies predominantly on qualitative
case-study resear, oen conducted in a few countries/regions su as
Scandinavia and Japan. We are concerned that the current stream of
qualitative resear that focuses on interaction processes on the micro-level
could develop into a new orthodoxy. While we in no way wish to criticize
the direction of this resear – aer all, we as authors are also part of it – we
have two specific concerns: first, we distrust any kind of orthodoxy, as it has
the tendency to hold whatever it defines as outliers at bay; second, by
establishing an “insular orthodoxy” in language studies that contrasts with
the still “dominant orthodoxy” of mainly quantitative international business
including cross-cultural management resear, language studies might risk
to remain a relatively isolated area with less contact to mainstream resear
than would be beneficial to its further development.

Figure 10.1 Paradigmatic development of international business, cross-cultural management and

language studies within international business (dominating paradigm in bold)
 Figure 10.1 illustrates the paradigmatic developments of international
business, cross-cultural management and language studies within
international business.

Suggestions for further resear in language

studies
With language resear reaing adolescence, we argue that it should
emancipate itself from its infant past and start to venture into new
territories. Whereas there is clearly still mu room for significant
qualitative studies, at this more advanced stage of the field quantitative
survey studies could become increasingly useful as well to actually start
testing those hypotheses that qualitative resear has generated over the last
one and a half decades. e first steps into this direction were taken by
Sweeney and Hua (2010), Barner-Rasmussen and Aarnio (2011) and Harzing
and Pudelko (2013, 2014). We anowledge that some initial work has also
been done on language distance (Miller & Chiswi, 2004; Dow &
Karunaratna, 2006; Slangen, 2011), thus adding language to a long list of
other distance concepts su as cultural, institutional, political, legal,
economic and tenological distance. Despite this, we argue that it is
noteworthy that the distance concept appears to be significantly less
relevant in language studies in international business than in cross-cultural
management. Given the dominant “reductionist culture-specific orthodoxy”
in international business and, possibly to a lesser degree, in cross-cultural
management, the importance of cultural distance for these areas can hardly
be overstated (Zaheer et al., 2012). In contrast, the reductionist concept of
language distance appears to meet a higher degree of skepticism from the
more interation-oriented language solars, who, for the most part, adhere
to the “differentiated language-specific paradigm.”
While we call for a broadening of language resear, we should
emphasize that this includes more than merely increasing the amount of
survey-based resear. Other resear methods, su as experimental
resear (see e.g., Ayçiçegi & Harris, 2004; Akkermans et al., 2009; Puntoni et
al., 2009; Hosoda et al., 2012), could also provide novel insights. In terms of
disciplines, we would like language studies in international business to draw
more on other resear areas. Linguistics is an obvious candidate in this
context (see e.g., Kassis Henderson, 2005; Chen et al., 2006; Tenzer &
Pudelko, 2012), but innovative new areas su as neuroscience (see e.g.,
Takano & Noda, 1993; Volk et al., 2014) should also be referred to. Beyond
merely drawing on other disciplines, the integration of knowledge from
various areas as a key to interdisciplinary resear would provide
particularly fruitful insights (Dunning, 1989).
Additionally, we would appreciate language studies in international
business to be conducted increasingly on all levels of analysis, thus
investigating the effects of language differences between organizations (e.g.,
in mergers, acquisitions or strategic alliances) (e.g., Tienari, Vaara &
Björkman, 2003; Piekkari et al., 2005; Slangen, 2011), between different units
of organizations (e.g., in headquarters–subsidiary relations) (e.g., Björkman
& Piekkari, 2009; Harzing et al., 2011; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013, 2014), within
groups of individuals (e.g., multilingual teams, both collocated and virtual)
(Kassis Henderson, 2005; Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013; Tenzer et al., 2013) and
finally on the level of individuals (e.g., cognitive or emotional) (Luna et al.,
2008; Puntoni et al., 2009; Volk et al., 2014).
Next, we would also welcome an expansion of the countries and
languages that solars are including in their investigations. So far, resear
has tended to include only a few countries, thus opening itself up to the risk
of describing mere ideosyncracies instead of generating more encompassing
theories. e majority of studies on language effects in international
business has so far focused on barriers between English and a few other
languages, mostly Scandinavian languages, Japanese or Chinese.
Considering that a recent study also names Arabic, Hindi, Portuguese and
Russian among the ten most influential global languages (Ly et al., 2013),
covering a broader range of languages could further enhance the impact of
this resear area. Harzing and Pudelko’s (2013, 2014) language studies have
so far been the most comprehesive ones, including data from 13 countries.
Furthermore, irrespective of the number of languages included or the
relative importance of those languages in international business, the
selection of languages should be conducted more carefully on theoretical
grounds instead of, for example, convenience samples, thus strengthening
the explanatory power of language studies.
In addition, in the same way that cultural diversity is not limited to
national diversity but also relates to diversity in professions (Bloor &
Dawson, 1994), functions (Pra & Beaulieu, 1992), industries (Phillips, 1994),
organizations (Sein, 1984), social class (Erison, 1996), education (Halsey
et al., 1997), ethnicity (Cox et al., 1991), age (Lawrence, 1988) or gender
(Koan et al., 2003), the concept of language diversity can and should
equally be applied to su dimensions. While su studies would carry
resear on language diversity out of the so far still fairly enclosed camp of
language studies in international business, they would ultimately also
provide a fresh impetus to this field.
Finally, we call for a beer clarification of the relationship of the two,
closely interrelated concepts that also stand in the foreground of this
apter: culture and language. is clarification could and should go both
ways: in the direction of delineation (what can language studies aieve that
cultural studies cannot and vice versa) and in the direction of integration
(what arguments are valid for both cultures and languages). For both kinds
of resear efforts more conceptual clarity between the two constructs
would be highly useful. Here we call upon empirical studies, but particularly
also on conceptual reflections. Finally, beyond the further clarification of
these two concepts, conceptual studies on language differences in
international business, su as the pioneering paper by Luo and Shenkar
(2006), could provide highly valuable additional insights.

Conclusion
While we are concerned that static, comparative-oriented and quantitative
cross-cultural management resear with all its efforts to emulate
economics-based strategy resear has led to a thematic narrowness and a
neglect for context, we are equally concerned that a new orthodoxy of
dynamic, interaction-oriented and qualitative cross-cultural management
resear and language studies might lead to a collection of case-based
hypotheses that will never be tested in a more systematic and
comprehensive way.
Consequently, instead of calling for a new paradigm in the areas of cross-
cultural management and language resear in international business, we
make a plea for a closer integration of the comparative-oriented
“reductionist culture-specific” orthodoxy and the interaction-oriented
“differentiated culture/language-specific” paradigm. We suggest that a
plurality of methods, disciplines, ontological and epistemological approaes
and resear objectives that not only coexists in separate silos but that are
able to cross-fertilize ea other should lead to both more in-depth insights
and a beer understanding of what is generalizable and what is not in the
areas of cross-cultural management and language studies in international
business.

Bibliography
Abdallah-Pretceille, M. 2001. Intercultural communication elements for a
curricular approa. In M. Kelly, I. Ellio & L. Fant (eds.), Third Level,
Third Space: Intercultural Communication and Language in European
Higher Education: 131–142. Bern: Peter Lang.
Akkermans, D., Harzing, A.-W. & van Wieloostuijn, A. 2009. Cultural
accommodation and language priming: Competitive vs. cooperative
behavior in a prisoner’s dilemma game. Management International
Review, 50(5): 559–583.
Ayçiçegi, A. & Harris, C. 2004. Bilinguals’ recall and recognition of emotion
words. Cognition and Emotion, 18(7): 977–987.
Barner-Rasmussen, W. & Aarnio, C. 2011. Shiing the faultlines of language:
A quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC
subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 46(3): 288–295.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M.Y. & Tung, R.L 2011. From a distance and
generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for
qualitative methods in international business resear. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42(5): 573–581.
Björkman, A. & Piekkari, R. 2009. Language and foreign subsidiary control:
An empirical test. Journal of International Management, 15(1): 105–117.
Bloor, G. & Dawson, P. 1994. Understanding professional culture in
organizational context. Organization Studies, 15(2): 275–295.
Boddewyn, J.L. 1999. e domain of international management. Journal of
International Management, 5(1): 3–14.
Bordia, S. & Bordia, P. 2013. Linguistic identity management in Indian call
centers. Paper presented at the Academy of Management 73rd Annual
Meeting, Orlando, 9–13 August.
Brannen, M.Y. & Doz, Y. 2010. From a distance and detaed to up close and
personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in
international management resear and practice. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 26(3): 236–247.
Brannen, M.Y. & Salk, J.E. 2000. Partnering across borders: Negotiating
organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint-venture. Human
Relations, 53(4): 451–487.
Brannen, M.Y., omas, D.C. & Garcia, D. 2010. Bicultural individuals and
intercultural effectiveness. European Journal of Cross-Cultural
Effectiveness and Management, 1(4): 315–333.
Charles, M. & Marsan-Piekkari, R. 2002. Language training for enhanced
horizontal communication: A allenge for MNCs. Business
Communication Quarterly, 65(2): 9–29.
Chen, S., Geluykens, R. & Choi, C. 2006. e importance of language in
global teams: A linguistic perspective. Management International
 Review, 46(6): 679–695.
Chikudate, N. 1997. Exploring the life-world of organizations by linguistic
oriented phenomenology in sub-cultural analysis of organizations: A
comparison between Japanese and US banks. Management International
Review, 37(2): 169–183.
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. & McLeod, P.L. 1991. Effects of ethnic group cultural
differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(4): 827–847.
Davis, A., Leas, P. & Dobelman, J. 2009. Did you get my email? An
exploratory look at intercultural business communication by email.
Multinational Business Review, 17(1): 73–98.
Dow, D. & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument
to measure psyic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(5): 578–602.
Dunning, J. 1989. e study of international business: A plea for a more
interdisciplinary approa. Journal of International Business Studies,
20(3): 411–436.
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Earley, P.C. 2006. Leading cultural resear in the future: A maer of
paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6):
922–931.
Erison, B.H. 1996. Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of
Sociology, 102(1): 217–251.
Evans, P., Pucik, V. & Barsoux, J.-L. 2002. The Global Challenge: Frameworks
for International Human Resource Management. New York City:
McGraw-Hill.
Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W. & Piekkari, R. 2006. e
multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: e notion of a
common corporate language. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 11(4): 406–423.
Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. & Wells, A.S. 1997. Education: Culture,
Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hannerz, U. 1987. e world in creolisation. Africa, 57: 546–579.
Harzing, A.-W. & Feely, A.J. 2008. e language barrier and its implications
for HQ—subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal, 15(1): 49–60.
Harzing, A.-W. & Pudelko, M. 2013. Language competencies, policies and
practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and
comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic
MNCs. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 87–97.
Harzing, A.-W. & Pudelko, M. 2014. Hablas vielleit un peu la mia
language? A comprehensive overview of the role of language differences
in headquarters–subsidiary communication. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(5): 696–717.
Harzing, A.-W., Köster, K. & Magner, U. 2011. Babel in business: e
language barrier and its solutions in the HQ—subsidiary relationship.
Journal of World Business, 46(3): 279–287.
Hinds, P., Neeley, T. & Cramton, C.D. 2013. Language as a lightning rod:
Power contests, emotion regulation and subgroup dynamics in global
teams. Journal of International Business Studies, advance online
publication 12 December, doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.62
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences. 2nd ed. ousand Oaks, CA.
Holden, N. 1987. e treatment of language and linguistic issues in the
current English-language international management literature.
Multilingua, 6(3): 233–246.
Holden, N. 1989. Language learning and international management
development in Japanese corporations. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 21(4): 3–8.
Holden, N. 2008. Reflections of a cross cultural solar: Context and
language in management thought. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 8(2): 239–251.
Hosoda, M., Nguyen, L.T. & Stone-Romero, E.F. 2012. e effect of Hispanic
accents on employment decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
 27(4): 347–364.
House, R.J., Hangness, P.J., Javidian, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupla, V. 2004.
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies. London: Sage.
Hyrsky, K. 1999. Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: An exploratory
study. International Small Business Journal, 18(1): 13–34.
Jahoda, G. 1993. Crossroads Between Culture and Mind: Continuities and
Change in Theories of Human Nature. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kassis Henderson, J. 2005. Language diversity in international management
teams. International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1):
66–82.
Klitmøller, A. & Lauring, J. 2013. When global virtual teams share
knowledge: Media riness, cultural difference and language
commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3): 398–406.
Koan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jason, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J.,
Levine, D. & omas, D. 2003. e effects of diversity on business
performance: Report of the diversity resear network. Human Resource
Management, 42(1): 3–21.
Lagerström, K., & Andersson, M. 2003. Creating and sharing knowledge
within a transnational team: e development of a global business
system. Journal of World Business, 38(2): 84–95.
Lammers, C.J. & Hison, D.J. 1979. Are organizations culture-bound? In C.J.
Lammers and D.J. Hison (eds.), Organizations Alike and Unlike:
International and Interinstitutional Studies in the Sociology of
Organizations: 402–419. London: Routledge.
Lauring, J. 2008. Rethinking social identity theory in international
encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3): 343–361.
Lawrence, B.S. 1988. New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography,
norms, and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal,
31(2): 309–337.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buan, N.R., Erez, M. & Gibson, C.B. 2005. Culture
and international business: Recent advances and their implications for
 future resear. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 357–378.
Lohmann, J. 2011. Do language barriers affect trade? Economics Letters,
110(2): 159–162.
Luna, D., Ringberg, T. & Peracio, L. 2008. One individual, two identities:
Frame switing among biculturals. Journal of Consumer Research,
35(2): 279–293.
Luo, Y. & Shenkar, O. 2006. e multinational corporation as a multilingual
community: Language and organization in a global context. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(3): 321–339.
Ly, A., Esperanca, J. P., Pereira, I.N. & Amaral-Baptista, M.A. 2013. e ten
most influential global languages: Exploring their effect on international
trade. Paper presented at the Academy of Management 73rd Annual
Meeting, Orlando, 9–13 August.
Maclean, D. 2006. Beyond English: Transnational corporations and the
strategic management of language in a complex multilingual business
environment. Management Decision, 44(10): 1377–1390.
Marsan, R., Wel, D.E. & Wel, L.S. 1997. Language: e forgoen factor
in multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5):
591–598.
Marsan-Piekkari, R., Wel, D.E. & Wel, L.S. 1999. In the shadow: e
impact of language on structure, power and communication in the
multinational. International Business Review, 8(4): 421–440.
Miller, P. & Chiswi, B. 2004. Linguistic distance: A quantitative measure of
the distance between English and other languages. EconStor. IZA
Discussion Paper.
Neeley, T.B. 2013. Language maers: Status loss and aieved status
distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24(2): 476–497.
Neeley, T.B., Hinds, P.J. & Cramton, C.D. 2012. e (un)hidden turmoil of
language in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3): 236–
244.
Ono, K.A. 1998. Problematizing “nation” in intercultural communication
resear. International and Inter-cultural Communication Annual, 21:
193–202.
Oui, W.G. 1981. Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge. New York: Avon Books.
Phillips, M.E. 1994. Industry mindsets: Exploring the cultures of two macro-
organizational seings. Organization Science, 5(3): 384–402.
Piekkari, R. 2006. Language effects in multinational corporations: A review
from an international human resource management perspective. In G.
Stahl, & I. Björkman (eds.), Handbook of Research in International
Human Resource Management: 536–550. Bodmin: MPG Books Ltd.
Piekkari, R. & Tietze, S. 2011. A world of languages: Implications for
international management resear and practice. Journal of World
Business, 46(3): 267–269.
Piekkari, R. & Zander, L. 2005. Preface: Language and communication in
international management. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 35(1): 3–9.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J. & Säni, R. 2005. Integration or
disintegration? Human resource implications of the common corporate
language decision in a cross-border merger. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(3): 330–344.
Piekkari, R., Wel, D.E., Wel, L.S., Peltonen, J.-P. & Vesa, T. 2013.
Translation behavior: An exploratory study within a service
multinational. International Business Review, 22(5): 771–783.
Pra, J. & Beaulieu, P. 1992. Organizational culture in public accounting:
Size, tenology, rank, and functional area. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 17(7): 667–684.
Pudelko, M. & Harzing, A.-W. 2008. e golden triangle for MNCs:
Standardization towards headquarters practices, standardization towards
global best practices and localization. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4):
394–404.
Puntoni, S., de Langhe, B. & van Osselaer, S.M.J. 2009. Bilingualism and the
emotional intensity of advertising language. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(6): 1012–1025.
Ris, D.A., Arpan, J.S. & Fu, M.Y. 1974. Pitfalls in advertising overseas.
Journal of Advertising Research, 14(4): 47–51.
Salk, J.E. & Shenkar, O. 2001. Social identities in an international joint
venture: An exploratory case study. Organization Science, 12(2): 161–178.
Sein, E.H. 1984. Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture.
Sloan Management Review, 25: 3–16.
Swartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Shenkar, O. 2004. One more time: International business in a global
economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 161–171.
Slangen, A. 2011. A communication-based theory of the oice between
greenfield and acquisition entry. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8):
1699–1726.
Sweeney, E. & Hua, Z. 2010. Accommodating toward your audience: Do
native speakers of English know how to accommodate their
communication strategies towards nonnative speakers of English.
Journal of Business Communication, 47(4): 447–504.
Takano, Y. & Noda, A. 1993. A temporary decline of thinking ability during
foreign language processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24(4):
445–462.
Tenzer, H. & Pudelko, M. 2012. e impact of language barriers on shared
mental models in multinational teams. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy
of Management 2012 Annual Meeting.
Tenzer, H. & Pudelko, M. 2013. Leading across language barriers: Strategies
to mitigate negative language-induced emotions in MNCs. Best Paper
Proceedings, Academy of Management 2013 Annual Meeting.
Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M. & Harzing, A.-W. 2013. e impact of language
barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of
International Business Studies, advance online publication 19 December.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.64
Tienari, J., Vaara, E. & Björkman, I. 2003. Global capitalism meets national
spirit: Discourses in media texts on a cross-border acquisition. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 12(4): 377–393.
Tietze, S., Cohen, L. & Musson, G. 2003. Understanding Organizations
Through Language. London: Sage.
Tong, Y.-Y., Hong, Y.-Y., Lee, S.-L. & Chiu, C.-Y. 1999. Language use as a
carrier of social identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
23(2): 281–296.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business. London: Random House Business Books.
Tung, L.R. 2008. e cross-cultural resear imperative: e need to balance
cross-national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International
Business Studies, 39(1): 41–46.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R. & Säni, R. 2005. Language and the circuits
of power in merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(3): 595–623.
Volk, S., Köhler, T. & Pudelko, M. 2014. Brain drain: e cognitive
neuroscience of foreign language processing in multilingual
organizations. (Paper accepted by Journal of International Business
Studies.)
Wels, W. 1999. Transculturality – the puzzling form of cultures today. In
M. Featherstone & S. Lash (eds.), Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World:
194–213. London: Sage.
Zaheer, S., Somaker, M.S. & Naum, L. (2012). Distance without direction:
Restoring credibility to a mu-loved construct. Journal of International
Business Studies, 43(1): 18–27.
Zander, L. 2005. Communication and country clusters. A study of language
and leadership preferences. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 35(1): 83–103.
Zander, L., Moaitis, A. & Harzing, A.W. 2011. Standardization and
contextualization: A study of language and leadership across 17
countries. Journal of World Business, 46(3): 296–304.
11
Researing supra- and sub-national
contexts
Multi-sited and extended ethnographic
methodologies for language resear

Anders Klitmøller, Jakob Lauring and Toke

Bjerregaard

Introduction

Extant cross-cultural management literature has been devoted to

understanding how the national context influences interpersonal relations in
international organizations (Bjerregaard et al., 2009). In particular, studies
have sought to understand how the national baground of the individual
affects processes of social categorization and language use (Brannen & Salk,
2000). us, it has been found that nationality-based categories may create
sub-groups with negative implications for international collaboration
(Bartel, 2001). However, lile aention has been devoted to how other
contexts than the national potentially impact the cross-cultural encounter.
us, supra-national contexts created by the rise of information and
communication tenology may shape categorization between individuals in
the international organization in unforeseen ways. For example, individuals
in this context rely on a common language, and thus linguistic differences
between individuals could be important for understanding categorization
processes (Lauring, 2008; Vaara et al., 2005). Su globally based categories
may be equally important for understanding categorization relative to the
national affiliation of the individual. In a similar manner, sub-national
contexts may also affect categorization in international organizations. For
example, local socio-economic circumstances in the immediate surroundings
of the organization may create categorization processes that cut across
national divides and shape language use (Pavlenko & Blaledge, 2004). In
order to explore how the supra- and sub-national contexts influence
categorization, we suggest using conceptualizations and methodologies
derived from anthropology (Barth, 1966; Bourdieu, 1977b; Troop & Murphy,
2002). From an anthropological perspective, categories are contextually
embedded and are continuously negotiated through a constant interaction
between individuals (Barth, 1993). Hence, rather than being static entities,
categories are shaped in the meeting between individuals in the context of
interaction (Barth, 1971). us, as researers, we must immerse ourselves
into the local lived experience of our informants in order to gain an
understanding of how the context shapes categorizations. is calls for
methods that can capture the supra- and sub-national contexts of the social
encounters and allow us to rethink the interrelation between contexts and
categorization (Birkinshaw et al., 2011).
In order to understand how the supra- and sub-national contexts
influence categorization in international organizations, we commence with a
literature review of the relation between categorization and national context
and how this relates to language use. We then introduce an anthropological
understanding of categorization, and subsequently, through empirical
examples, we present two different ethnographic approaes; multi-sited
ethnography and the extended case method. Finally, we discuss implications
for cross-cultural management.
(Non-)national categorization and language use
e relevance and importance of social categorization to understand
organizational behaviour is well established in the field of cross-cultural
management (Miller et al., 2009). e basic assumption of social
categorization is that individuals define themselves in terms of group
membership that can be based on similarities in demographic or social
aracteristics (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). An important reason for
categorization is that individuals are motivated to establish and maintain
their self-esteem and therefore categorize themselves into positively labelled
units whereas others are viewed in a more negative light (Kulik & Ambrose,
1992; Vora & Kostova, 2007). ese insights have inspired a range of
important studies on how the national context of the individuals is decisive
for the social use of language, i.e. to maintain group boundaries between
individuals with different nationalities (Giles & St Clair, 1979; Vaara et al.,
2003). Yet, we would argue that the approa applies a relatively
unidirectional and linear understanding of the categorization process. is
conceptualization, whi is derived from social psyology, entails that
language defined as a generally agreed-on, learned symbolic system, used to
represent experiences within a given community, is viewed as an extension
of and overlapping with national categorization (Lauring, 2008). In doing so,
it does to some extent limit our understanding of how other contexts than
the national come to influence language use. Hence, by establishing a one-
to-one relation between national seing and language use, the approa
tends to reify and essentialize the national context, and we run the risk of
gaining a relatively static understanding of the interrelation between
context, categorization and language use (Lauring, 2008). In other terms, the
only ‘context’ that maers for categorization in this perspective is the
national context as this structures the language use of the individual
regardless of the specific non-national context in whi the person is
located.
 In order to broaden our understanding of how other contexts than the
national come to influence categories shaping language use in international
organizations, we propose a more dynamic perspective on social
categorization processes (Lauring, 2008). Anthropological studies have
demonstrated that categorization forming boundaries between groups is a
process where group members actively work on distinguishing themselves
from competing social units (Barth, 1971). e more allenged group
members of an entity feel, the more effort will be put into clarifying
boundaries of the in-group members (Jenkins, 2000; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011).
Accordingly, certain actions performed by representatives of one group may
increase boundary work by members of another group (Lauring, 2008).
Importantly, boundaries are not fixed but are formed through social
interaction in multiple contexts. us, categories are subjectively shaped and
used, only as so far as they resonate with experience-near interests of the
individual in a given context. Hence, rather than being a static entity,
categorization is captured, not in the study of the individual, but in the
meeting between individuals in the specific context of interaction (Barth,
1971). us, in order to understand how categorization comes to shape
language use, we need to explore the contexts in whi the individual is
embedded. Taking this stand, we also propose that the national context is
mainly interesting insofar as the national category is the central social
marker in boundary work. Consequently, many other markers and
boundaries, beyond those shaped by the national context, may be
accentuated in social categorization processes (Bjerregaard et al., 2009).
us, depending on actors’ motives, interests and the particular social and
organizational context of interaction, professional or status related
boundaries may, for instance, become more important in structuring
language use in a multicultural group of employees. erefore, identifying
categories that influence language use become above all an empirical
question that necessitates methodologies that are sensitive to the specific
contexts of interaction aracterizing international organizations.
e theoretical orientation of the previous section speaks to mobilizing
methods that can capture categorization processes embedded in other
contexts than the national, and again may shape language use. Here,
qualitative studies may prove useful in offering empirically grounded
explanations of categorization processes (Birkinshaw et al., 2011) including
in particular ethnographic approaes aracterized by delivering
contextualized descriptions as to how organizational actors apply meaning
to the world (Geertz, 1973; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011). us, ethnography
allows the researer through participant observation to immerse
him/herself into the everyday lives and concerns of the informants as to
gain a deeper understanding of the categories that drive social interaction
(Hastrup, 2003). Su contexts that shape categorization processes may span
across the globe, or they may be traceable to the immediate surroundings of
the unit. us, categorization processes in international managerial seings
are shaped by a diverse range of localities that form the context of
interactions, and are therefore not limited to the national context.
Consequently, we propose two ethnographic methods that can capture
categorization processes related to language use both in a supra- and sub-
national context.

Multi-sited ethnography: exploring the supra-

national context
A methodological venue is provided by multi-sited ethnography, whi is an
under-represented methodology in the field of cross-cultural management.
us, the method may be deployed to elucidate contexts spanning across
multiple and geographically dispersed sites of the international organization
(Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015; Peltonen, 2007). Multi-sited fieldwork can be
defined as a tracing process through a multi-situated space or context, and
contrary to traditional ethnography, it does not privilege local contexts over
those spanning across greater distances (Hannerz, 2003; Marcus & Fiser,
1986; Marcus, 1995). Hence, in the mainstream of ethno-graphic cross-
cultural management resear, the field study is oen confined to a single
location with the objective to give descriptions of how the national context
comes to influence categorization within a given organization (Moore, 2011).
However, Marcus (1995), who is the main proponent of multi-sited
fieldwork, argues that due to globalization, including the spread of
information and communication tenology, national contexts may become
less important for understanding social interaction compared to contexts
that rea beyond the national seing, i.e. supra-national contexts. us, we
see the aim of the multi-sited researer working in international
organizations to be the tracing of supra-national processes and ties in order
to discover how global contexts come to influence social relations. More
explicitly, Marcus (1995) suggests to trace the people, metaphors, stories and
conflicts as a means to concretize a multi-sited resear design. One seminal
example is provided by Julian Orr (1996), who did a form of multi-sited
fieldwork (Hunt, 2010; Orr, 1996; Yanow, 2006) in his study of photocopy
repair tenicians. Following the teams on office visits and tracing the uses
of documents, he focused his study on how distributed groups coped with
problems of distance. In our opinion, what multi-sited ethnography can offer
the field of cross-cultural management is to provide novel understandings of
how the supra-national context influences categorization and language use
in international organizations. Yet, this also carries methodological and
analytical allenges in balancing a need for tracing distributed activities
and the potential relevance of acquiring in-depth knowledge about, for
instance, the relative coherence and integration of particular language use
practices or values among given groups, workplaces or communities.
e following example draws on a multi-sited fieldwork conducted in a
Finnish-owned MNC and serves to illustrate how the multi-sited
ethnography method was used as a resear strategy to discover language
related insights. More particularly, the researer was interested in gaining
an understanding of how the use of media would influence categorization
processes in the supra-national context of global virtual teams. e data
collection was commenced by an ‘expert’ interview with the global HR
manager located in Denmark, who noted that the Spanish employees with
whom he was interacting virtually ‘have a strong accent and they can be
hard to even understand sometimes’. us, from the onset of the study, it
became clear that proficiency difference existed and posed a allenge for
collaboration in the team. e researer pursued the issue further in
subsequent interviews conducted in the Danish subsidiary. Here one
informant confirmed that common language proficiency differences was a
sensitive and conflict ridden issue within the company: ‘Every time I have a
phone meeting with members from Spain who don’t speak English that well
my hands start to get sweaty 10 minutes before. Because, you know, it will
just be so goddamn awkward because I know we will not be able to
understand ea other.’
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the proficiency-based
categorization processes, the researer traced the conflict across the HQ and
four subsidiaries located in five different European countries. It became
apparent that conflicts would oen emerge based on proficiency differences
within the common corporate language, and even more when using
communication tenologies. Furthermore, the tracing process allowed for
an understanding of the interrelation between social categorization and
language use. us, two categories had emerged in the virtual team that cut
across national divides, and was instead based on proficiency differences in
the common language: A category labelled ‘North’ consisting of Danes,
Swedes and Finns with a high degree of proficiency in the common
language (English), and a category labelled ‘South’ consisting of German
and Spanish employees with a lower degree of common language
proficiency. e ‘North’ and ‘South’ categories would develop into two
supra-national sub-groups. e ‘North’ grouping would make derogatory
statements of team members’ intellectual capabilities: ‘e fact is when you
don’t excel in language you just end up sounding less intelligent. It might be
that they are 10 times more intelligent in their own language, but you just
don’t know.’ ey would even question the extent to whi a certain team
member was qualified to work in the organization. In turn, ‘South’ members
would use some of the ‘North’ members’ derogatory stereotypes associated
with language proficiency when describing themselves and display a sense
of embarrassment suggesting a heightened awareness of how la of
language proficiency would be perceived by the ‘North’ members. As noted
by a German team member: ‘e Nordic members, for example Swedes and
Finns, are very close to native speakers. e weakest and most stupid is the
one you are speaking to right now.’ e ‘North’ members were well aware of
the fear that the ‘South’ members felt when communicating in verbal
English. Yet, rather than granting support to colleagues less proficient in the
common language, ‘North’ members would use their proficiency in English
to impose a dominative behaviour, for example by speaking fast or
interrupting if a ‘South’ member was taking up time trying to explain him-
or herself, and thereby actively reinforcing the categories and group
boundaries. For example, a Danish member addressed a German virtual
team member in the following way during a telephone conference: ‘Come
on, Hans. What is your input on this? Say something.’
In sum, the national context and location of the individuals provided lile
aid in understanding categorization processes, rather the supra-national
virtual context spanning across distant geographical sites led to insights
concerning the relation between categorization and common language use.
In this seing, the researer found the use of multi-sited tracing highly
appropriate as the tenique allowed for insights that would have been
impossible to obtain through a traditional single-site fieldwork. at is a
focus on how supra-national language-based sub-groups affect collaboration
in virtual teams.

Extended case study: capturing categorization in a

sub-national context
A methodological pathway for capturing categorization shaped by the sub-
national context is provided by the extended case study (Burawoy, 1998).
is method seeks to: ‘deploy participant observation to locate everyday life
in extra local and historical contexts […] in order to create a reflexive
understanding that extracts the general from the unique’ (Burawoy, 1998, p.
5). In emphasizing the extra local context, the method allows us to
empirically rethink whi aspects of the context that potentially comes to
influence categorization in the international organization. us, rather than
conceptualizing the organization as an object of study with analytically pre-
defined spatial boundaries, the method compels the researer to ‘extend’
out and participate across organizational bounds as a way of exploring how
the wider non-national context affects actors’ categorization and how it
shapes language use within the organization (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009).
e extended ethnographic case study was originally developed in the
Manester sool of social anthropology in the 1950s (Wadham & Warren,
2013). It situates actual on-the-ground practices and interactions within a
wider field of forces or larger-than-local contexts that impress themselves on
the ethnographic locale (Burawoy, 1998). e Manester shop-floor studies
(Emme & Morgan, 1982; Wright, 1994a; Linstead, 1997) brought the
extended case method ‘home’ (Velsen, 1967) and demonstrated how anges
in shop-floor work systems, meanings and practices interact with a broader
social order (Wright, 1994b).
To exemplify this methodology, we draw on an extended case study
conducted in a Mexican subsidiary of a Danish MNC located in a special
economic zone near the US border. In special economic zones, the host
country removes trade barriers and lowers tariffs in order to aract foreign
direct investment. In the Mexican variant of the special economic zone,
called the maquiladora, this liberalization process has created vast socio-
economic differences between individuals employed by the foreign MNCs.
us, in order to understand how this local extended context would
influence categorization within the subsidiary, the researer ventured
outside the factory walls. Here, he lived in poor blue-collar neighbourhoods
and middle class white-collar areas for extended periods of time. It was
during a visit to the house of one of the blue-collar workers that the
researer was made aware of the impact that informant’s local socio-
economic position would have on language use. us, in the corner of the
living room the informant had an aquarium, and he asked the researer to
take a look at his ‘pescados’. However, the researer was of the opinion that
in Spanish, the word ‘pescado’ is only used to aracterize fish that are
served, where one would otherwise use ‘pez’. To clarify this, the researer
asked in Spanish ‘So that is your “pezes”?’, and the informant replied ‘Yes,
those are my “pescados”’. is lile miscommunication alerted the
researer to how the local context, in this case an area with economically
and educationally deprived inhabitants, comes to shape what is considered
‘correct’ language use (see also Bourdieu, 1991). e insight was
subsequently used actively in observations and interviews, and led to an
understanding of how language was used to uphold local socio-economic
boundaries between groupings within the subsidiary. For example, some
white-collar workers would use the term naco to describe the behaviour of
blue-collar workers, whereas the white collar-workers would be categorized
as fresas. It was also through the participation in activities outside the
subsidiary that the researer gained a deeper understanding of the relation
between the two categories. us, in the car on the way home from work
one day a white-collar worker elaborated on the difference between the two
terms:
Okay it’s like this: A naco is like a rude person … vulgar. A type that whistles when a girl goes by,
and don’t have any education. ey don’t know how to behave. Fresa is another thing. It’s like
they have a lot of money and wears fancy clothes. Like going to Canada is very fresa. ey speak
English [and] listen to foreign music.
(Extract from fieldnotes)

us, during the extended fieldwork, it became apparent that subsidiary

actors would use not only proficiency differences within Spanish (e.g. the
relation between ‘pescado’ and ‘pez’) to sustain boundaries between socio-
economic groupings, but also English. at is, the use of English was
associated with being fresa, a particular socio-economic position, and
thereby functioned as a strong marker of group membership. Hence, office
employees would speak a mixture of English and Spanish, to distinguish
themselves from the blue-collar workers. However, the use of English words
and phrases served a dual purpose. It was used strategically to distance
themselves from the blue-collar workers, but also to position themselves
closer to the socio-economic grouping they aspired to be a part of, i.e. the
English speaking management group that included also foreign nationals.
us, Spanish and English language use as a mean to uphold group
distinctions could not be explained by the national context or nationality of
the employees, but rather by the socioeconomic groups shaped by the sub-
national extended context of the subsidiary. We believe that the extended
case method allows us to capture the categorization process rooted in the
local context that shapes and is shaped by informants’ language use.
erefore, the method permits us to move beyond the national context and
explore how a diverse range of seings, oen undetectable to the researer
before participating in the extended context of the informants, comes to
influence social interaction within organizational units.

Conclusion
Our aim with this apter has been to explore how the supra- and sub-
national context potentially comes to influence categorization and language
use in international organizations. us, we have argued that studies on
categorization in the field of cross-cultural management have tended to
focus almost exclusively at the national context in an understanding of
categorization processes. In consequence, studies have also tended to apply a
relatively unidirectional, linear and static understanding of the interrelation
between context, categorization and language use (Vaara et al., 2003). In
order to gain deeper insights into how other contexts than the national
influence interaction paerns in international organizations, we have sought
to apply a more dynamic understanding of the categorization process. us,
from our anthropological-inspired perspective, sub-group formations are
embedded in and thus highly sensitive to the context of interaction.
erefore, by studying how the boundary work is influenced by the context,
whi in turn affects language use, we may gain an understanding of the
multitude of contexts that potentially influences categorization. Yet, by
taking this approa we also anowledge that su insights are less likely to
be obtained through theoretical abstractions, but rather by empirical
immersion of the researer in the everyday life of the informants.
erefore, we have sought to provide methodological pathways for
gaining an understanding of how the non-national context, i.e. the supra-
and sub-national context, may shape categorization processes. We believe
that multi-sited ethnography and extended case study can prove valuable in
propelling novel insights concerning the interrelation between
categorization and language use. us, multi-sited ethnography
distinguishes itself primarily in its ability to capture processes that are not
confined to a single location, i.e. when social relations transcend the
boundaries of nation-states. In particular, the method has proven valuable in
the study of how tenology mediated communication potentially affects
language use in the supra-national context of virtual teams. Since the use of
communication tenologies and common language are continuously
increasing in organizations, a qualitative methodological void has existed of
how to capture su processes. We believe that multi-sited ethnography
helps to fill that void, and thus we encourage solars in the field of cross-
cultural management to use and develop multi-sited ethnography further.
Additionally, we have in this apter also called aention to the local sub-
national context, whi in our opinion has also been neglected in the study
of language use in international organizations. In particular, the extended
context of the subsidiary has been overseen even though it may provide
important and novel insight into language use within the unit. us, the
extended case study method allows the researer to immerse him/herself in
the extra local contexts as a means to understand how social formations
shaped outside the unit transcend and influence social interactions and
language use within it. us the method provides a methodological path to
understanding and capturing the interrelation between local social
categories and language use. Both methodologies allow us, therefore, to go
beyond a simplistic understanding of the national context in order to
discover a wider array of contexts influencing categorization and language
use in the international organization.
References
Bartel, C.A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects
of community outrea on members’ organizational identity and
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379–413.
Barth, F. (1966). Models of social organization. Glasgow: e University
Press.
Barth, F. (1971). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of
cultural difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M.Y. & Tung, R.L. (2011). From a distance and
generalizible to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for
qualitative method in international business resear. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42, 573–581.
Bjerregaard, T., Lauring, J. & Klitmøller, A. (2009). A critical analysis of
intercultural communication resear in CCM management: Introducing
newer developments from anthropology. Critical Perspectives on
International Business, 5(3), 207–228.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brannen, M.Y. & Salk, J.E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating
organizational culture in a German–Japanese joint venture. Human
Relations, 53(4), 451–488.
Burawoy, M. (1998). Extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.
Emme, I. & Morgan, D.H.J. (1982). Max Gluman and the Manester
shop floor studies. In R. Frankenberg (Ed.), Custom and conflict in British
society (pp. 140–165). Manester: Manester University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York:
Basic Books.
Giles, H. & St Clair, R. (1979). Language and social psychology. London:
Blawell.
Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there … and there … and there!: Reflections on
multi-site ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2), 201–213.
Hastrup, K. (2003). Metoden – Opmærksomhedens retning. In K. Hastrup
(Ed.), Ind i verden – En grundbog i antropologisk metode (pp. 399–419).
København: Hans Retzels Forlag A/S.
Hunt, J.C. (2010). Seven shots: An NYPD raid on a terrorist cell and its
aftermath. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, R. (2000). Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology.
Current Sociology, 48(3), 7 –25.
Kulik, C. & Ambrose, M.L. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of
referent oice. Academy of Management Review, 17(2): 212–238.
Lauring, J. (2008). Rethinking social identity theory in international
encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3), 343–361.
Lauring, J. & Klitmøller, A. (2015). Corporate language-based
communication avoidance in MNCs. A multi-sited ethnography
approa. Journal of World Business, 50(1), version before print.
Linstead, S. (1997). e social anthropology of management. Bristish Journal
of Management, 8, 85–98.
Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: e emergence of
multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
Marcus, G. & Fiser, M.J. (1986). Anthropology as a cultural critique – An
experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Miller, D., Greenwood, R. & Prakash, R. (2009). What happened to
organizational theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 273–279.
Moore, F. (2011). Holistic ethnography: Studying the impact of multiple
national identities on post-acquisition organizations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42, 654–671.
Orr, J.E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job.
Ithaca: ILR Press.
Pavlenko, A. & Blaledge, A. (2004). New theoretical approaes to the
study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko
 & A. Blaledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts
(pp. 1–33). Clevedon: Multilingual Maers Ltd.
Peltonen, T. (2007). In the middle of managers: Occupational communities,
global ethnography and the multinationals. Ethnography, 8, 346–359.
Taifel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
In S. Worel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publ.
Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography: Grounded
theory and the extended case method. Ethnography, 10(3), 243–263.
Troop, J. & Murphy, K. (2002). Bourdieu and phenomenology: A critical
assessment. Anthropological Theory, 2(2), 185–207.
Vaara, E., Risberg, A., Søderberg, A.-M. & Tienari, J. (2003). Nation talk: e
construction of national stereotypes in a merging multinational. In A.
Søderberg & E. Vaara (Eds.), Merging across borders: People, cultures
and politics (pp. 61–86). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business Sool Press.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R. & Säni, R. (2005). Language and the
circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(3), 595–623.
Velsen, J.v. (1967). e extended-case method and situational analysis. In
A.L. Epstein (Ed.), The craft of social anthropology (pp. 129–152).
London, New York, Sydney: Tavisto Publications.
Vora, D. & Kostova, T. (2007). A model of dual organizational identification
in the context of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 28(3): 327–350.
Wadham, H. & Warren, R.C. (2013). Telling organizational tales: e
extended case method in practice. Organizational Research Methods, doi:
10.1177/1094428113513619.
Wright, S. (Ed.). (1994a). Anthropology of organizations. London, New York:
Routledge.
Wright, S. (1994b). ‘Culture’ in anthropology and organisational studies. In
S. Wright (Ed.), Anthropology of organizations. London: Routledge.
Yagi, N. & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Boundary work: An interpretive ethnographic
perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal
 of International Business Studies,
42, 629–653.
Yanow, D. (2006). Talking about practices: On Julian Orr’s Talking about
Maines. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1743–1756.
12
Multicultural and multilingual
Workplace communication in Dubai

Valerie Priscilla Goby and Catherine Nickerson

Introduction

As has been observed, the International Business (IB) literature to date has
failed to take adequate account of the influence of language and its impact
on realizing international business goals (Brannen & Doz, 2012). Where
language has been considered by IB solars, it has been thought of only in
terms of discrete national languages, and how these are used by
organizations in general terms, and not in relation to the oices that
individuals make at a micro-level within organizations to get their work
done. In other words, it has not considered language as social action in
business contexts or sought to understand “how people aieve their
organizational and personal goals using language” (Bargiela-Chiappini et al.,
2013: 3). In addition, mu of the existing literature on cross-cultural
management (CCM) has relied on etic approaes, for instance, Hall’s (1976)
work on high and low context cultures and Hofstede’s (2001) work on
cultural dimensions, whi typically ignore the use of national languages
and how these are realized as discourse. e IB literature has not considered
why people in organizations oose one language over another and the
impact that this oice may have on their personal and organizational goals,
nor has it considered why people in multicultural contexts oose to align
themselves with certain individuals and not with others beyond the
constraints of language oice.
In this apter, we take an emic approa to the use of language in
business organizations, and investigate the oices made and interactional
preferences declared by individuals in multicultural workplace
communication. We first discuss the case of Dubai as a multilingual hub
with a workforce comprised of around 220 different national cultures, and
the affirmative action program called Emiratization intended to increase the
number of local employees in the private sector. We go on to discuss
language oices that are available to individual employees within the
Dubai workforce and we review some of the relevant literature on
workplace interactions, including the work by solars su as Yaping et al.
(2013), Harzing et al. (2011), and Charles and Marsan-Piekkari (2002) on
the various ways in whi language impacts international business. We
continue with the findings of an empirical study carried out in Dubai among
Emirati nationals to gauge their degree of willingness to use English over
Arabic as well as their preferences for intra-ethnic interactions over extra-
ethnic ones. We assess the value ascribed to communicating in Arabic rather
than English, as well as the relative willingness of locals to communicate in
English versus Arabic. Our final section provides recommendations for
further study and the implications of our findings for advancing the field of
cross-cultural management.

e multicultural hub of Dubai

Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates, is establishing
itself as an international financial center, and a tourist and retail hub. Its
government is encouraging foreign investment and entrepreneurial ventures
through the expansion of its free zones (e.g., hp://www.dafz.ae/;
hp://www.jafza.ae/). In 2010 foreign direct investment in the emirate
amounted to over US$8 billion (Bitar, 2013), and it was ranked nineteenth of
the 148 countries assessed in the Global Competitiveness Report (Swab,
2013). e fast-increasing population currently stands at 2.17 million
(Nazzal, 2013). e 2009 national figures reveal the population as including
16.5 percent Emiratis, 58.4 percent from the Indian Subcontinent, and 8.4
percent from Western countries (Sambidge, 2009). e very large Asian
communities mean that languages su as Malayalam, Hindi, Urdu, Farsi,
and Tagalog are widely used for intra-community interactions, while at the
same time the additional presence of expatriates from many other parts of
the world mean that workers regularly engage in languages other than their
own first language. ere is an obvious need for one or more mutually
intelligible languages to serve as a lingua franca and thus allow Dubai to
function. Although Arabic was used as the sole lingua franca in the region
at the beginning of the last century, this was largely superseded by the need
for other languages as a result of the influx of expatriate labor in specific
domains aer the discovery of oil. Urdu and Hindi are now also used in the
construction industry, for example, and English in the oil and gas industry,
in retail, and in tertiary education. Recent resear suggests that while
Arabic is used by the vast majority of Emirati nationals in the home
environment, English and Arabic are the current de facto lingua francae of
the emirate, with English dominating in many organizational contexts
(Randall & Samimi, 2010; Goby & Nierson, 2013; Nierson & Crawford
Camiciooli, 2013).

Workforce composition and Emiratization

At the outset of the oil-boom of the 1960s the population of Dubai stood at
40,000 (Lah-meyer, 2001) and there was a serious la of tenical expertise
to meet the enormous need for rapid development of infrastructure. e
response was to draw heavily on foreign labor and this trend has continued.
As in other countries in the Gulf region, there has been excessive reliance on
expatriate workers and a resulting la of employment opportunities for
locals. Currently Emirati citizens constitute 60 percent of the public sector
workforce and a mere 0.5 percent in the private sector (Salem & Dajani,
2013). Over the past four decades the educational level of locals has
increased enormously as a result of the massive expenditure on education,
su that the country is now ranked 15 out of the 148 countries evaluated in
the Global Competitiveness Report (Swab, 2013) in terms of quality of
tertiary education. Yet Emiratis’ increasingly high level of education is not
reflected in their presence within the private sector workforce and
unemployment among locals is now calculated at 28 percent (Trenwith,
2013) although government figures suggest a more modest 40,000 or 15
percent (Salem & Dajani, 2013). Government entities, where Arabic
dominates, have been leading the drive to employ locals and their
proportion has increased, but within the private sector, where English is
typically more commonly used, the trend of employing workers from low
GDP countries continues as many organizations prefer to employ workers at
the lower salary scales they command. e Emiratization program is an
aempt to counteract the trend to employ expatriate rather than local
workers (Dubai Strategic Plan, 2015). is is an affirmative action plan to
employ more nationals in the private sector, as traditionally they have
preferred public sector positions, whi are regarded as offering beer
conditions. It seems plausible that the support for Emiratization within the
private sector will lead to more interaction between local and expatriate
employees and therefore also to an increasing need for English. is study
seeks to deconstruct the consequences of using more rather than less English
in workplace seings if the process of Emiratization becomes more
established beyond the public sector and how this might also be viewed by
the local population.

Accommodation practices: language and the

Emiratization program
ere has been increasing investigation of language use in the workplace as
globalization makes diversity commonplace and the impact of non-
homogeneous cultural and language seings come to be felt (e.g., Poncini,
2004; Goby, 2009; Rogerson-Revell, 2010). Moreover, mu resear that is
conducted on performance, team work, and the generation of new
knowledge now hinges heavily on the language composition of a workforce.
ere is mu evidence to suggest that one’s first language impacts deeply
on how one communicates regardless of the language being employed and
even on an individual’s cognitive processes (Evans & Levinson, 2009).
However, as we will discuss, the existence of a team performance approa
goal relies heavily on team identity, whi Earley and Mosakowski (2000)
have illustrated can be hampered by diversity of language and cultural
baground. Language, for instance, is the transporter of displays of
perceived humility versus perceived arrogance yet politeness practices are
heavily dependent on one’s first language. is is significant in CCM studies
as the function of humility in management styles has been shown to impact
on how workers are prepared to grow within an organization (Owens &
Hekman, 2012; Jabeen et al., 2012). At a micro-level of interaction between
individuals, if su differences related to language exist, then these will
clearly impact the communication that takes place between Emiratis and
expatriates.
Looking at the use of different languages in the workplace, Harzing et al.
(2011) show that language barriers slow down and increase the costs of
decision making, Charles and Marsan-Piekkari (2002) identify numerous
problems in horizontal communication within a multinational corporation
using English as an official corporate language, and Louhiala-Salminen et al.
(2005) report on misunderstandings caused by differences in the
communication strategies used by speakers of English as a business lingua
franca who originate from neighboring areas of Northern Europe. In
contrast, however, the extensive survey of managerial reactions to a specific
set of leadership scenarios conducted across 17 different countries by Zander
et al. (2011) showed that the oice of language used did not have a major
impact on how managers responded; instead this was more influenced by
the cultural and situational context. Clearly mu still needs to be done to
understand how language influences the effectiveness, or otherwise, of
work-related communication.
While accommodation and other studies of the multicultural/multilingual
workplace suggest a typical drive towards integrating with other
nationalities, the Dubai workplace presents some very particular conditions
that impact heavily on interactions between locals and foreigners. Given
that the vast majority of expatriate workers are from countries with mu
lower salary scales than those of Dubai, the desire to remain employed is
intense. Moreover, in Dubai, the right to residence is based on employment,
and this adds another compelling factor for foreign workers to strategize as
to how to retain their positions. is concern is particularly strong in the
private sector with its vast majority of foreign employees, and the national
commitment to Emiratization has le many foreign workers fearing for their
job security as the government aempts to implement quotas for local
employees within private organizations (Al-Waqfi & Forstenlener, 2012). A
common response on the part of expatriate employees has been to devise
strategies to reduce opportunities for real integration of local employees into
work-place operations, and therefore to retain control. Abundant anecdotal
evidence reveals stories of exclusion from information sharing regarding
seduled meetings, job-related information, refusal to collaborate with
locals on tasks and completion of all duties by expatriate workers to limit
adequate on-task learning, and purposeful exclusion from social events su
as shared lun breaks (Al-Waqfi & Forstenlener, 2010). Su practices of
workplace incivility have been shown to divest workers of the ability to self-
enhance at work and contribute to organizational disengagement (Yuanyi et
al., 2013). Knowledge sharing has been shown to be a crucial factor in both
team and individual creativity but knowledge sharing relies on a basis of a
shared, and mutually understood, team performance approa goal (Yaping
et al., 2013), and this appears to be absent in many expatriate-Emirati
interactions (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlener, 2010). Cultural diversity and the
employment of an interactant’s own language rather than a lingua franca
have been shown to contribute to performance avoidance (Nederveen
Pieterse et al., 2013). All of this contributes to a situation in whi local
recruits are impeded from commiing to their tasks and improving their
skills set. Moreover, in terms of aieving a knowledge-based economy
based on innovative, creative companies, knowledge sharing is key. As
Dubai, like many other business hubs, strives to become a knowledge
economy (Lightfoot, 2011), greater focus is directed to knowledge creation,
whi Nonaka et al. (2000) have investigated in terms of the exange of
ideas and old and new knowledge, that is the ‘spiralling process’ of
interactions between ‘explicit’ (codified) and ‘tacit’ (highly personal,
subjective, intuitive) knowledge that generate knowledge creation. However,
su exange only occurs within trusting work teams and there is a
developing awareness that su trust must be nurtured. For example,
management in one large local company, the Al Habtoor Group
(www.habtoor.com/), has aempted to develop a context of trust and
support by training 50 foreign employees working at different levels and in
different sections to act as mentors to local hires (personal interview,
October 2013). ey are arged with the task of ensuring that the local
employees under their mentorship are given adequate opportunity to fulfill
the tasks within their job description, that they do not remain socially or
professionally isolated, and that they are allowed opportunities to improve
their professional performance.
It is a commonplace scenario in Dubai and in the rest of the United Arab
Emirates to find Emirati nationals in very small numbers working alongside
large numbers of expatriates originating from different parts of the world.
Although various aspects of language use have been investigated in
multilingual workplace contexts as well as the communication behaviors
exhibited in general by multicultural teams, very few studies have looked at
either the language or interactional oices made by national employees in
situations where they find themselves in the minority in their own country,
as is the case in many parts of the Gulf Region (but see Goby, 2009). In the
next section we present a survey of Emirati nationals whi aimed to
explore these oices and the consequences that they may have for the
process of Emiratization.
Study and resear instrument
e present study aimed to assess the language oices made by Emirati
nationals in the work-place together with their willingness to engage in
inter-ethnic interactions; first the preference for Arabic versus English for
workplace communication, and second the preference for communication
with other Emiratis as opposed to expatriate workers, and the reasons this is
the case. We first wanted to deconstruct the basic language oice and then
the underlying reasons for this oice, with particular reference to local and
expatriate interactions, and given the shi in educational levels together
with the increasing presence of English in tertiary education over the past
two decades, we also wanted to investigate the use of different languages in
relation to a set of different demographic variables. For an Arabic speaker, a
willingness to use English in the workplace is also an indication of a
willingness to accommodate the needs of the other interactant (in cases
where they are non-Arabic speaking) and we were interested in identifying
whether this was indeed the case for the majority of our local respondents.

Data collection
We engaged bilingual male and female Emiratis to personally administer our
questionnaire randomly to other Emiratis in the workforce accessed through
their personal connections. Our instrument was in English only given the
facility of the administrators to explain and receive responses in Arabic. We
adopted this approa as previous resear has indicated that Emiratis
display a preference for interaction with their co-nationals (Goby, 2009) and,
like Middle Easterners in general, they favor interactions with people
connected to their personal circles (Weiss, 1998; St Amant, 2002). Given that
some interviewer–respondent situations involved a personal relationship, we
were mindful of the issue of social desirability bias. However, our questions
did not focus on sensitive topics and the responses gathered indicated lile
reluctance to express negative views on the part of our respondents. Our
data collection yielded a convenience sample of 320 complete responses.

Findings
When respondents were asked whether they preferred to speak English or
Arabic, or if they had no preference, 40 percent expressed a preference for
Arabic and 31 percent a preference for English. An additional 27 percent
stated that they had no preference. When asked to explain their reasons for
this oice, the most common response was that they preferred Arabic
because it is their first language and the UAE’s national language (20
percent). e most frequently cited reason for a preference for English was
that it is a global language that permits communication with all nations, a
reflection on the diverse nature of the Dubai workforce (13 percent). In
addition to this group, nine respondents specifically mentioned that English
was necessary because of the multiplicity of nationalities working in the
UAE. Other notable responses were “no preference” (4.4 percent) or “both
languages” (6 percent), because both languages were needed at work, “no
preference” because it “depends on the situation and the person I am dealing
with,” and a further 8.4 percent of respondents who said that they had no
preference because they considered themselves proficient in both languages.
Other respondents reported specifically on work-based requirements; for
instance, 11 percent referred to the fact that either Arabic or English was
more prevalent in their respective workplace, as did a further 6 percent who
stated that either Arabic or English was required in their workplace.
Not surprisingly, a cross-tabulation between language preference in the
workplace and education level showed that respondents with only high-
sool education were more likely to prefer Arabic (almost four times as
likely), whereas among respondents with a tertiary education qualification,
there were equal numbers who expressed a preference for Arabic or English,
or who did not have a preference, or were willing to use both. is is a
reflection of the tertiary education system in the UAE, whi generally uses
the medium of English, meaning that graduates have been exposed to the
language for several years before entering the workforce. Again, not
surprisingly given the shi towards English as a lingua franca in the UAE in
recent years, more than half of the respondents in age groups 18–29 and 30–
44 reported that they either had no preference, were willing to use both
languages, or expressed a preference for English, whereas in the 45+ group,
the numbers were equally divided, with a slight preference for Arabic.
Gender did not play a role, as both female and male respondents expressed a
slight preference for Arabic, with equal numbers either opting for English,
or stating either language, or citing no preference. Finally, in terms of
employment, of our public sector respondents, twice as many ose Arabic
over English, while of our private sector respondents twice as many opted
for English rather than Arabic. However, respondents from both sectors had
similar numbers of respondents (30 percent) who expressed no preference
for either language. e preference for Arabic in the government sector and
English in the private sector is a direct reflection of the language most
frequently in use within ea sector. However, and very significantly, the
percentage of respondents who had no preference would seem to point to a
wider societal phenomenon at work within professional contexts in Dubai in
whi a knowledge of, and willingness to use, both languages is now
accepted as a necessary part of professional competence for many Emirati
nationals.
When respondents were asked if they preferred communication with
Emiratis rather than expatriates and their reasons for this oice, 62.5
percent expressed a preference for communication with Emiratis and 36
percent reported no preference. Unsurprisingly, respondents who stated a
preference for intra-ethnic interactions cited reasons su as “we are from
the same country and we know ea other,” “we are the same nationality
and we understand ea other,” and “we come from the same culture.” Su
themes emerged in 44 percent of the responses declaring a preference for
communicating with other Emiratis. e comments from respondents who
did not express a preference for communication with Emiratis over
expatriates were perhaps more interesting, however, as they provided some
insight into the dynamics of work interactions in Dubai. For instance, 14
respondents stated that they valued the opportunity to learn from
expatriates’ different experiences. A further nine respondents reported that
they liked to communicate with Emiratis and expatriates to allow them the
opportunity to learn new skills, a reflection perhaps of the developing
awareness of the value of the knowledge economy in Dubai. In addition, a
small number of respondents answered this question with a reference to the
diverse nature of the workforce, for example, “Everyone is the same,” “We
are in a multinational culture,” and “e differences between cultures is
beer.”
Revealingly, only a very few responses involved value judgments about
potential interactants, either Emirati or expatriate: A single respondent
stated “Expatriates don’t care about me, and they don’t want the best for
me” and three expressed the opinion that Emiratis “show off” or are
dismissive. Other responses expressed opinions su as “Expatriates are
friendlier to strangers and they respect my opinion” (four respondents),
“Expatriates are very efficient and they have more knowledge” (five
respondents), “Emiratis are usually more honest with me” (one respondent),
and “Emiratis are helpful and co-operative” (two respondents). Only four
respondents provided comments that were negative about the expatriate
workforce, or just over 1 percent of our population, a conspicuously low
figure.
In terms of demographics, gender and age played no role in determining a
preference for communication with other Emiratis. Educational level, on the
other hand, showed some influence in that more college- or university-
educated respondents did not express a preference for intra-ethnic
communication. Similarly employment appeared to have some influence
since a greater number of private sector than public sector respondents
expressed no preference. Variations as a result of education and employment
are likely to be caused by familiarity with expatriates both in academia and
the private sector as a substantial majority of both tertiary-level teaing
faculty and private sector employees are foreign.
Conclusion and recommendations
Many of the Emiratis in our population exhibited co-operative behavior both
in their willingness to speak English and interact with the expatriate
workforce. Apart from a handful of respondents, we found lile evidence of
negative value judgments about expatriates working in Dubai. Moreover,
there were numerous observations about the need for the presence of a
multicultural workforce and for effective inter-ethnic professional
communication. Although Arabic was seen as a vital national language and
a marker of national identity, English was also considered important, with
large numbers of our respondents expressing a willingness to communicate
in either language in the workplace. In addition, while some of the
population was more comfortable with intra-national communication, many
people also anowledged the need for the presence of the expatriate
population at this point in the development of the UAE. For highly educated
Emiratis in general, and for those employed in the private sector in
particular, it seems clear that both a knowledge of English and a willingness
to engage with others in a constructive way regardless of where they come
from, is now viewed by national employees as part of a necessary skill set.
e further development of these skills is likely to contribute in a positive
way to the process of Emiratization and an increase in the numbers of
nationals employed in the private sector. As a result, both management
training centers and the tertiary institutions need to ensure that nationals
are provided with adequate training in order to meet the demands of the
workplace. is is already an ongoing endeavor and the federal universities,
with principally local student populations, are prioritizing their graduates’
bilingualism in Arabic and English (Zayed University, 2009; HCT, 2010;
UAEU, 2013).
e need for co-operative behavior that was revealed in our study
suggests that understanding more about how su behavior is facilitated
would be a useful addition to management training for expatriates taking up
a position abroad. While cross-cultural management has generally focused
on the macro-level of interaction, for example, corporate policy on what
language to use in official documentation, our study underlines the
importance of also taking the micro-level of interaction into account in
order to facilitate local and expatriate communication. In this respect, we are
in agreement with the recent work by Zhu and Bargiela-Chiappini (2013)
that advocates the adoption of situated learning within cross-cultural
management education with a focus on micro-level interactions. Further
resear investigating micro-level interactions in multicultural
organizational contexts and the identification of those strategies that are
used to co-construct successful communication would make a useful
contribution to the IB literature in general and CCM in particular.

References
Al-Waqfi, M. and Forstenlener, I. (2010) ‘Stereotyping of citizens in an
expatriate-dominated labour market’, Employee Relations, vol. 32, no. 4,
pp. 364–381.
Al-Waqfi, M. and Forstenlener, I. (2012) ‘Of private sector fear and
prejudice’, Personnel Review, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 609–629.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Nierson, C. and Planken, B. (2013) Business
discourse, 2nd edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bitar, Z. (2013) ‘FDI inflow into Dubai reaed $8b in 2012’, Gulf News.
Available: hp://gulfnews.com/business/general/fdi-inflow-into-dubai-
reaed-8b-in-2012-1.1176338 [28 April 2013].
Brannen, M. Y. and Doz, Y. L. (2012) ‘e languages of strategic agility:
Trapped in your jargon or lost in translation’, California Management
Review, vol. 54, pp. 77–97.
Charles, M. and Marsan-Piekkari, R. (2002) ‘Language training for
enhanced horizontal communication: A allenge for MNCs’, Business
Communication Quarterly, vol. 65, pp. 9–29.
Dubai Strategic Plan (2015). Available:
www.dubaitourism.ae/dtcm_get_document/fid/150 [16 January 2014].
Earley, C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000) ‘Creating hybrid team cultures: An
empirical test of transnational team functioning’, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 43, pp. 26–49.
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009) ‘e myth of language universals:
Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science’,
Behavioural and Brain Sciences, vol. 32, pp. 429–492.
Goby, V. P. (2009) ‘Primacy of personal over cultural aributes:
Demonstrating receptiveness as a key to effective cross-national
interactions’, Canadian Social Science, vol. 5, pp. 91–104.
Goby, V. P. and Nierson, C. (2013) ‘Language, religion, and culture in the
context of international retail: A study of the multicultural commercial
hub of Dubai’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.
1–16.
Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond culture, New York: Anor Books/Random House.
Harzing, A. W., Köster, K. and Magner, U. (2011) ‘Babel in business: e
language barrier and its solutions in the HQ—subsidiary relationship’,
Journal of World Business, vol. 46, pp. 279–287.
HCT (2010) The learning model. Available:
hp://www.hct.ac.ae/about/learning-model [16 January 2014]. Hofstede,
G. (2001) Culture’s consequences, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jabeen, F., Cherian, J. and Pe, R. (2012) ‘Industrial leadership within the
United Arab Emirates: How does personality influence the leadership
effectiveness of Indian expatriates?’ International Journal of Business
and Management, vol. 7, no. 18, pp. 37–48.
Lahmeyer, J. (2001) e United Arab Emirates – Historical Demographical
Data of the Urban Centers. Available:
hp://www.populstat.info/Asia/unarabet.htm [18 November 2014].
Lightfoot, M. (2011) ‘Promoting the knowledge economy in the Arab world’
SAGE Open 2011, [Electronic] doi:10.1177/2158244011417457 [4 August
2011].
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. and Kankaanranta, A. (2005) ‘English as
a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies’,
English for Specific Purposes, vol. 24, pp. 401–421.
Nazzal, N. (2013) ‘Dubai population jumps 4.8 per cent to 2.17m’, Gulf News,
23 August 2013. Available:
hp://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/tourism/dubai-population-jumps-4-
8-per-cent-to-2-17m-11223350 [28 August 2014].
Nederveen Pieterse A., Van Knippenberg, D. and Van Dierendon, D. (2013)
‘Cultural diversity and team performance’, Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 56, pp. 782–804.
Nierson, C. and Crawford Camiciooli, B. (2013) ‘Business English as a
lingua franca in advertising texts in the Arabian Gulf: Analyzing the
aitudes of the Emirati community’, Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 329–352.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000) ‘SECI, Ba and leadership: a
unified model of dynamic knowledge creation’, Long Range Planning,
vol. 33, pp. 5–34.
Owens, B. P. and Hekman, D. R. (2012) ‘Modeling how to grow: An
inductive examination of leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes’,
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 55, pp. 787–818.
Poncini, G. (2004) Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings,
Bern: Peter Lang.
Randall, M. and Samimi, M. (2010) ‘e status of English in Dubai: A
transition from Arabic to English as a lingua franca’, English Today, vol.
26, no. 1, pp. 43–50.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2010) ‘Can you spell that for us non-native speakers?
Accommodation strategies in international business meetings’, Journal
of Business Communication, vol. 47, pp. 432–454.
Salem, O. and Dajani, H. (2013) ‘FNC would like Emiratisation to become
law’, The National 19 November 2013. Available:
hp://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/fnc-would-like-
emiratisation-to-become-law [28 August 2014].
Sambidge, A. (2009) ‘UAE population hits 6m, Emiratis make up 16.5%’.
Available: hp://www.arabianbusiness.com/uae-population-hits-6m-
emiratis-make-up-16-5--12137.html [7 October 2009].
Swab, K. (2013) Global Competitiveness Report 2013–2014. Available:
hp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_20
13-14.pdf [18 November 2014].
St Amant, K. (2002) ‘When cultures and computers collide: Rethinking
computer-mediated communication according to international and
intercultural communication expectations’, Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, vol. 16, pp. 196–214.
Trenwith, C. (2013) ‘Emiratisation failing to cut UAE jobless rate – Al
Mulla’, Arabian Business, 12 November 2013. Available:
hp://www.arabianbusiness.com/emiratisation-failing-cut-uae-jobless-
rate-almulla-526191.html [28 August 2014].
UAEU (2013) UAEU Essential Capabilities. Available:
hp://www.uaeu.ac.ae/provost/deputy_provost/aqa/essential_capabilitie
s.shtml [16 January 2014].
Weiss, C. E. (1998) ‘Negotiating with foreign business persons: An
introduction for Americans with propositions on six cultures’, in
Niemeier, S., Campbell, C. P. and Dirven, R. (eds) The cultural context in
business communication (pp. 51–118), Philadelphia: Benjamin.
Yaping, G., Tae-Yeol, K., Deog-Ro, L. and Jing, Z. (2013) ‘A multilevel model
of team goal orientation, information exange, and creativity’, Academy
of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 827–851.
Yuanyi, C., Lance Ferris, D. D., Ho Kwong, K., Ming, Y., Mingjian, Z. and
Ying, H. (2013) ‘Self-love’s lost labor: A self-enhancement model’,
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1199–1219.
Zander, L., Moaitis, A., Harzing, A-W., et al. (2011) ‘Standardization and
contextualization: A study of language and leadership across 17
countries’, Journal of World Business, vol. 46, pp. 296–304.
Zayed University (2009) Learning Outcomes. Available:
hp://www.zu.ac.ae/main/en/_assessment_resource/learning_outcomes.
aspx [16 January 2014].
Zhu, Y. and Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013) ‘Balancing emic and etic: Situated
learning and ethnography of communication in cross-cultural
management education’, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 380–395.
13
Multilinguaculturing
Making an asset of multilingual human
resources in organizations

Patchareerat Yanaprasart

Introduction

Linguistic diversity emerges as a major allenge to the operations of

multinational companies. In order to meet global demands, companies have
developed practices of recruiting international staff. is intensification of
professional mobility brings therefore more and more people to work
together without sharing the same language. Multilingual teams need to find
a ‘linguistic tool’ for cross-linguistic and intercultural communication. A
frequent stereotype envisages the most convenient solution as the oice of a
single language, oen English, as a global lingua franca
(Abdullah/Chaudhary, 2012).
Bearing in mind that the European Union has conceived itself as
multilingual since its beginning in 1956, ‘individual plurilingualism’
(Stiel/Carrier, 2014) has been promoted as an important prerequisite for
European multilingualism. However, what conditions must be met for
multilingualism to become an asset rather than a series of problems in this
highly mixed linguistic environment? Based on some evidence from an EU
study1 and an on-going SNSF resear project,2 we will answer this question
by analyzing the ways in whi companies in quadrilingual3 Switzerland,
representing in our view the reality of the multilingual European linguistic
landscape, manage (linguistic) diversity at work.
With the objective of exploring the interplay between top-down
policy/decisions and boom-up practices/aitudes, the apter opens with
Section 1, an overview of the core value of organizational diversity. e
purpose of Section 2 is to understand if language diversity management is
part of corporate diversity management. e pro-counter-arguments for ‘one
common language policy’ or for the ‘institutional multilingualism’ solution
will be the core topics in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. Section 5 will focus
on language practices, while the link between multilingual resources, cross-
cultural competences, and intercultural communication will be discussed in
Section 6. e concept of ‘multilinguaculturing’ will be introduced,
elaborated and explored, raising questions and avenues for further resear
in the field of intercultural communication.

1 ‘Diversity: a core value. Mixed teams, a key to

success’
A number of arguments for the positive impact of diversity on the
performance of mixed teams can be found in management literature (Fine,
1980; Cordeiro/Stites-Doe, 1997; Simons/Hope-Pelled, 1999; Bowers, 2000;
Catalyst, 2004; Kossek et al., 2006; Horwitz/Horwitz, 2007). For example,
frequent contacts between people from different cultures makes members of
mixed teams more mutually tolerant. is increases the ability to feel
comfortable in a mixed team, and that increases creativity, emphasize
Lehmann/van den Bergh (2004). Creativity, related to ‘generative and
innovative capacities’ (Kharkhurin, 2012), is associated with enhanced
divergent thinking, problem solving and system flexibility. Multicultural
teams are expected to cope beer with the allenges of task diversity and
complexity in diverse areas, argue Marquardt/ Horvath (2001). For
companies, diversity creates a beer understanding of local markets and
customers, enhances the ability to recruit people with different bagrounds,
and helps to retain qualified people (Cox/Blake, 1991).
e positive impact that diverse teams bring to the company is strongly
reflected in the discourse of our studied areas as well: ‘A diverse workforce
will make us more competitive and stronger’ <Insur A>; ‘Diversity of its
employees is the basis for the company’s long-term success’ <Ps A>; ‘A
diverse workforce is a competitive advantage’ <Agro A>; ‘We believe that it
also opens us to a broader range of business opportunities for our company’
<Bank A>; For <Public A>, ‘diversity in action is a sign of a good corporation
culture. It also makes good business sense.’ <Pharma B> adds: ‘Diversity is
more than just a buzzword; it’s critical to business success.’
From these points of view, what kind of diversity allows the companies to
make their business model more efficient? Some examples are a diverse
talent pool <Pharma A>; human diversity, diversity of perspectives and
capabilities <Agro A>; diverse personalities, skills, talents and experiences
<Ps A>; different mindsets <Bank A>; diversity of thought and opinions
<Insur A>. ese aracteristics correspond to what Page (2007) sees in
terms of diverse ways of representing the world, of creating categories, of
generating solutions to problems and of inferring cause and effect. Miller et
al. (1998) summarize all differences in knowledge, beliefs, values,
preferences, perspectives, aitudes and worldviews as cognitive diversity.
ese cognitive processes might not be a maer merely of different inputs
and teaings, but rather an inevitable consequence of using different tools
to understand the world (Nisbe, 2003). For omas/Fly (1996), diversity
should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaes to work
brought by members of different identity groups. Without that, since human
beings are not naturally born for teamwork (Dyer, 1977), differences and
specialty and uniqueness-related diversity risks are perceived as a source of
competitive advantage.
What is then the value added to being different? Sneider (2011:93–94)
suggests that ‘being different may be interpreted as an opportunity or
considered to be a source of value; being special and unique can be a source
of value or competitive advantage for individuals as well as organizations’.
As the example of <Insur A>, whi believes in ampioning uniqueness:
‘we know that your life and your experience are unique. Uniqueness in
leadership, in thought, in fact in every way we work together and live our
values.’ Conversely, diversity can bear the risk of multiplying conflicts and
increasing anges. Mistrust, misunderstandings and other sources of
conflict can delay and complicate a team’s work. Different styles of
communication, different ways of holding meetings could result in a
slowdown in creativity, claim Lehmann/van den Bergh.
How should organizations best manage and balance the need of
divergence (a need to maintain difference for creativity) and convergence
(cohesion); that is, generating new ideas while gaining agreement on
decisions and actions? How can an individual demonstrate his/her
uniqueness, value added while collaborating with others? Diversity
management (DM) is presented as a proactive strategy for maximizing the
utilization of employee potential (Bellard/Rüling, 2000) and taking
advantage of the ‘complementarity’ (Saint-Gobain, 2001) of diverse
bagrounds, professions, careers, professional cultures, experiences and
competences (Bellard/Rüling, 2000). From our study, DM stays at the top of
the agenda of <TCom A> and <Ps A>: ‘e magic word in our professional
world globally is “Diversity Management”’; ‘rough DM, <Ps A> seeks to
identify both common ground and differences, strengthen its approa to
diversity and use [it] for the success of the company.’ <Insur A> insists on
the possibility and the importance of expressing uniqueness and various
opinions: ‘If you can feel who you are, and you feel included, your
motivation and ideas will help us succeed now and in the future.’ An
inclusive environment ensures the company ‘the greatest diversity of assets
and liabilities allows us to make our business model efficient’. At this point,
Cox (2008:23) describes the gain that companies can earn if they can ‘create
a team environment in whi the potential problems of diversity are
minimized while the potential benefits are unleashed’, while Kaiser-Nolden
(2008:45) advises companies ‘to be engaged in creating conditions that
enable diversity to have a positive effect on a team’s success’. To illustrate,
<TCom A> is persuaded that ensuring ‘an open work environment’ can
allow ‘our employees to develop freely and use their full potential’. is is
the reason why ‘the national language at the place of employment is
regarded as the respective lingua franca’. is language policy is seen as a
dimension of DM practice.

2 Language factor in diversity management

e belief that language is transparent in an absolutely meanical view of
communication (Janssens et al., 2004), the use of whi tends to be purely
instrumental (Lecomte, 2012), may explain why more than 15 years ago
language was identified as the ‘forgoen factor’ (Marsan et al., 1997), ‘the
most neglected field in management’ (Reeves/Wright, 1996), the ‘orphan
management’ of international management (Verrept, 2000) or of
international business resear (Feely/Harzing, 2003). Regarding Planken
(2012), the issue of language in management resear has tended to be
overlooked ‘because it has been considered above all as a “pragmatic”
problem, whi can be solved easily by hiring translators or interpreters, or
by oosing a communal corporate language to facilitate internal
communication in multilingual environments’ (Maclean, 2006, in Planken, p.
12). As for some solars, ‘despite the widespread call for greater aention
to language as a relevant factor of business performance, enterprises are
oen reluctant towards including language within their diversity
management portfolio’ (Studer/Hohenstein, 2011:9; Manen
Spoerri/Hohenstein, 2012:7). In the words of Planken again:
As long as there is lile insight into the specific problems language – or multilingualism – causes
at the corporate and individual levels, and no way to objectively measure the impact of language
or language oice on individual or organizational effectiveness, language is likely to remain low
on the agenda.
Nowadays, since workforce diversity has become a social and organizational
reality, and all the more so because every ‘multinational corporation’ is
(Luo/Shenkar, 2006) a ‘multilingual community’, these, in turn, have created
novel communication allenges in the workplace that have been moving
from monolingual to multilingual, hence the importance of organizing
linguistic diversity (Janssens et al., op.cit). As reported by Minx (2008:69): ‘a
major allenge for multicultural teams is the language problem – when you
are unable to communicate in your native language. is is an issue that is
oen underestimated in terms of the time it takes and the possibility of
misunderstandings.’ Lehmann/Van den Bergh (2004) claim that without
possessing common means of communication, the mixed teams’ members
cannot best exploit their diverse skills. In order to take full advantage of
their strengths, organizations need to manage languages at work. For
Kameyama/Meyer (2007), language management guarantees good
communication.
In line with this new reality, becoming increasingly aware of the
importance and economics of a ‘language issue’ considered a barrier for
some solars (Asmuss, 2002; Chen et al., 2006; Adler/ Gunderson, 2008) or
an enabler/a barrier for others (Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Barner-
Ramussen/Björkman, 2005, 2007; Charles, 2007), companies develop
‘language management strategies’ (Hagen, 2005). By this we mean all
measures taken by a company to intervene in the constellation, the
construction and the implementation of the linguistic repertoires of its
members (Lüdi et al., 2009), and to accommodate language diversity, address
language needs, overcome language barriers (Holden, 1987; Blazejewski,
2006; Fredriksson et al., 2006; Harzing/Feely, 2008; Harzing et al., 2011) or
‘the costs and “noise” caused by multilingualism’ (Luo/Shenkar, op.cit).
ese studies show that language is clearly a factor to be reoned with
when looking into the effectiveness of an organization’s language policy.
3 Linguistic diversity management: the use of the
one single language (‘OLON’ solution) language
policy
When companies go international, they basically have three linguistic
options (Vandermeeren, 1998). A company can develop its own language
policies (‘Corporate languages’) by imposing its own language, by adapting
to the language of the other or by oosing a ‘neutral’ language. e
‘natural, neutral and beneficial’ value of ‘the use of English as global
language’ (Pennycook, 2001) can explain why 85 percent of international
organizations use English as their official language (Talbot et al., 2003). e
continued spread of English is partly, for Piller (2012), based on the fact that
people come to believe that they ‘need’ English. In all our studied areas,
language is perceived as essential not only by international businesses, but
also by regional ones operating in cross-border markets. us, using one
single language is seen from the companies’ management point of view as
an obvious decision: The common language is English (MU, <Pharma A>);
The common denominator is just simply English (HG, <Pharma A>); Our
corporate language is English (CJ, <Bank A>); So it’s relatively simple for us,
it’s English only (MM, <Agro A>); Finally, I think (…) [the English] language
is internationally recognized by all (MC, <Pharma B>). is is for the sake of
easier internal communication:

We expect that we will gradually swit to a single language for

TB
internal use, i.e. English. GL Even among Swiss staff?
TB Yes, this would be the holding company’s ultimate aim.
GL Hmm.
Communication would be mu easier (Tobias B, senior manager
TB
<Pharma A>, original in Swiss German).
is monolingual oice, a solution sometimes known as OLON (‘one
language only’), is probably due to the very strong social representation that
internationalization demands the use of English (Bothorel-Witz/Tsamadou-
Jacoberger, 2009). More precisely, language policy, oice or practice is a
maer of ideology (Pillar, op.cit), conceptualized as perceptions,
expectations, values and beliefs manifested in and associated with language
use (Blaledge, 2006; Blommaert, 1999). Time aer time we hear arguments
su as English ‘serves as an efficient way to connect speakers from different
linguistic bagrounds’ and forms ‘a neutral and value-free communicative
intervention that makes international business efficient and smooth’
(Steyaert/Janssens, 1997), or ‘lending itself so selflessly, efficiently and
effectively as a neutral medium for people all around the world’, English can
be used as an ‘adequate or satisfactory’ lingua franca (Alexander, 2007:10).
According to House,
English as a lingua franca is nothing more than a useful tool: it is a “language for communication”
… And because of the variety of functional uses of global English, English has also a great
potential for promoting international understanding.
(House, e Guardian Weekly, April 19, 2001)

Conversely, the efforts of top management to manage linguistic diversity by

adopting a ‘one language’ working policy, driven by the assumption that
‘one language fits all communication needs’ (Piekkari/Tietze, 2011: 267) have
been largely supported by a number of theoreticians. One of them is
Hoelin (1995), for whom
What’s needed in this new, increasingly complex world is a new language of global business, a
language where leaders see the world’s business allenges as opportunities, think with an
international mindset, act with fresh global-centric leadership behaviors, and mobilize world-class
companies.

ey appeal for a common language (Kogut/Zander, 1992): a new, universal,

language (Large, 1985) that would be unambiguous and have the facility to
describe things as they truly are, a special (code) (Peters/Waterman, 1982),
an ideal (Steiner, 1975), a shared spoken general (Hedlund, 1999) language
without the confusions of ordinary discourse. Collins (2000) uses the term of
grammar and lexicon of management. Senge (1990) calls for a new language
of relationships. A ‘short-hand’, ‘home-made’ language, exclaim Argote et
al. (2003). A shared language is recognized by Phene et al. (2005) as a
component of corporate identity, whi enables a multinational to transmit
and share knowledge. e language of management is the informal language
of know-how, the carrier of best practices, points out Holden (2002). is
‘subjective’ language is also a source of symbols encoding aitudes and
behaviours that the company wishes its employees to share. It allows people
to be able to make sense to and of ea other. For Peters/ Waterman (op.cit),
an excellent company needs a code that is a consequence of interactions
throughout the company. Moreover, Müller-Jens (2009) claims that for the
company, one corporate language has many advantages: fewer translations
to do, less time lost discussing language oice. House (2003) sees that the
official use of one corporate language brings no pressure to employees, even
if it is a foreign one for most of them (Mauranen, 2006). Job markets are
more open because it is not obligatory to speak the local language in order
to find a job (Müller-Jens).
is preferred ‘OLON’ way to cope with language diversity seems to
explain why language management resear usually does not take
multilingualism into account when dealing with the planning of internal as
well as external communication in companies (Bruhn, 2003; Yanaprasart et
al., 2013). Other studies (Cigada et al., 2001; Sewe, 2001; Vollstedt, 2002;
Nekvapil/Nekula, 2006; Kameyama/Meyer, 2007; Truot, 2009;
Nekvapil/Sherman, 2009; Apfelbaum/Meyer, 2010) have paid aention to
multilingual solutions in business by focusing either on language
management or language practices through the agents’ discourse, without
linking the social or individual representations to effective practices or
management measures. Obviously, it is the use of BELF4 (Louhiala-Salminen
et al., 2005), ‘a lingua franca of our planet’ (Abdullah/Chaudhary, op.cit),
that has monopolized an important part of the preceding resear, mainly
concentrated on a shi of companies’ language to English and on the forms
of English used at work, respectively, as well as on the consequences of
standardization, the practice of introducing a single corporate language to
facilitate internal communication in a multilingual context (e.g. Steiner,
1975; Truot, 1990, 2009; Wel et al., 2001, 2005; Wel/Piekkari, 2006;
Akar, 2002; Bilbow, 2002; Charles/Marsan-Piekkari, 2002; Barner-
Rasmussen, 2003; Feely/Harzing, 2003; Piekkari/Zander, 2005; Piekkari, 2006;
Crystal, 2007; Tietze, 2007; Mauranen/Ranta, 2009; Kankaanranta/Louihiala-
Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta/Planken, 2010).
e down side is the ‘monolingual mindset’ (Clyne, 2005). Language
policy has entailed a new problem: the absence of language oice, resulting
in naturalizing a particular language. Studies show that language selection
has consequences for organizational effectiveness. As Marsan-Piekkari et
al. (1999a) put it, a single corporate language can have positive, but also
negative, effects on internal communication processes and the formation of
knowledge-sharing networks. According to Wel/Wel (2008), even if the
adoption of a common corporate language is beneficial for the flow of
information, it oen introduces new barriers and forms distortions. ese
groups or people can feel discriminated against or uncomfortable with the
absence of linguistic oice. In fact, the policy of a single corporate language
does not remove the language barrier in face-to-face verbal interactions, but
recasts the language problem by pushing it further down the hierary and
creating a new configuration of ‘linguistic power’ (Fairclough, 1995, 2001).
Insofar as the use of the ‘right’ language can signify power (e.g., Crystal,
2003), the competence in an official language in a company is not only a
means of control, but also a key to obtaining an executive position (Piekkari
et al., 2005). Bourdieu (1991:55) argues that with a la of legitimate
competence, speakers are de facto excluded from the social domains in
whi this competence is required, or are condemned to silence; having the
right sort of linguistic proficiency can enhance access to a particular social
space or institution. Vollstedt (op.cit) quotes the example of a Japanese
subsidiary where an English-only communication demoralized Japanese
employees, and their low competence in the official company’s language
discouraged any discussion. Consequently, their American superiors
interpreted su ‘inactive’ participation as an indicator that they had not
reaed the expected performance; employees with a good command of
English got a beer assessment and were assigned more professional
responsibilities. e company finally lost many highly skilled professionals
only because they could not express themselves as well in the official
language, plus they were obligated to use one language for ‘co-lingualism’
(Balibar, 1985).
us, language oice is not only a maer of practice, but also one of
beliefs about what good language is and what is the right way to do things
linguistically. e culture of compromise and the purpose of internal
‘mutual understanding’ make the Swiss nation a Willensnation (‘nation of
the will’)5 to believe in the strengths of the ‘Swiss model’ (Kolde, 1981), to
manage/govern its linguistic/cultural diversity, including in the workplace.
is will be discussed in the next section. In terms of communication, we
can observe various forms of communication, su as the ‘“receptive
multilingualism” model’ (Werlen, 2007) or lingua receptive mode (ten ije,
2007; ten ije/Zeevaert, 2008) with whi ea citizen is allowed to speak
his/her own language and is expected to understand the one used by another
compatriot, and ‘translinguistic’ ‘language mixing’ strategy (Lüdi, 2007),
where social actors do not sti to their mother tongue but exploit their
respective linguistic repertoires to aieve communicative goals, as
illustrated in Section 4.

4 Institutional multilingualism: an ‘OLAT’

language policy in national and international
organizations in the Swiss context
Switzerland has four national languages, namely German, Fren, Italian
and Romane.6 In accordance with Swiss language policy,7 a large national
logistic business insists on the importance of developing a policy instrument
to promote an equal opportunity in mixed teams, by requesting ea of them
at the headquarters in Bern (a German speaking city) to have representatives
from all linguistic regions:
And I would say in the last six years, mixed teams have become de rigueur, you have to have
mixed teams. Mixed teams within the head office, the company policy now is you must try to
have, in every work place, a Swiss Romand, a Swiss Italian and they should always be if you’re
working the team on something that should be at least one representative from another language
area within Switzerland.
(Wanda M., HR)

We make an effort to form mixed groups and there are also guidelines for the recruitment of not
hiring only Swiss German. And if there are similar files, we also invite someone from Romandie
or Ticino.
(Annina G., original in German)

e company views itself rather as multilingual in the compass of its

philosophy of diversity management:
<PbS A> is a multilingual company and encourages multilingualism at work. ((German, Fren,
Italian and where necessary (international domains, specific topics) English are the working
languages for oral and wrien communication)). Beyond the services of its linguistic department,
it proposes language courses to its collaborators and the possibility of working in other linguistic
regions.
(Corporate webpage, 2008)

e institutional multilingualism language policy does not only concern

Swiss national companies. Many MNC, even officially monolingual English
ones, prefer to communicate with their employees in a range of languages of
their oice. Morgane C. from <Pharma B> confirms that ‘in administration
(…), I always get it in double, German and English’. German, the local
language of the Basel headquarters of <Pharma B>, is used along with
English as ‘[the English] language is internationally recognized by all’. is
‘two languages’ solution strategy is osen for bridging the linguistic gap in
internal communication, especially to ‘create an inclusive environment’
from the point of view of the communication group’s Head (DG, 2013).
Again, Tobias B., senior manager of <Pharma A>, is certainly not among
‘most people (who) think that the use of English as a corporate language
means no other languages are supposed to be used, even though they do
actually use these languages’ (Millar/Jensen, 2009):
With respect to the information for collaborators, it is a kind of a struggle I have to go through <in
my function [anonymized]>, so languages, the minimum we use is German, Fren, English: you
must always tell it again because those from the holding company [sc. apply] pressure for
everything to be in English, but well I insist upon two national languages so it is always also in
German and Fren, that is the way it is done.
(original in Swiss German)

As for Karim B., Head of HR of <Agro A>, a multilingual solution helps to

enhance the quality of work and strengthen people’s emotional involvement
with the company:
How can leaders be more evocative in the level of emotional connection that they develop with
their people to make the company a truly global one that connects in every part of the world with
the same amount of emotional resonance and impact that our leaders need to have that evocative,
resonant trait in them? We realized that to be able to drive home people across the world (…) in an
emotional way, we cannot do it by explaining to them in English.
(Karim B. <Argo A>)

According to Kansanen/Vohlonen (2010:234), ‘in an international

environment, there may be more need for emotional intelligence than
intelligence in the traditional way’. e following reflection is similar:
language oice/use play a core role in emotional and intellectual inequality,
both in efficiency (many ideas got lost) and fairness (feel at ease):
And I feel, I mean at a very personal level, I also sometimes feel the need to speak my own
language. You observe also with Karim, you observe that he found friends of the same nationality
in the company. And then he is really happy. Despite his being really fluent in English, everything
marvellous (…) I speak differently in my own language, more freely, more openly, with more self-
confidence and more security. (…) Many ideas get really lost when you oose English in su a
situation, because everybody doesn’t equally, doesn’t equally feel at ease.
(Maurice M., HR manager <Argo A>)

Notably, human emotions are involved in all business operations and are
important in personnel management, claim the authors: ‘the power of
emotions is transferred into innovation, collaboration, assurance and
persuasion. e passion to be good, be motivated to do one’s best and to feel
good about the work are factors that contribute to business success’ (idem.).
If individuals feel motivated and interested, and if they consider the task
personally relevant to themselves (Isen, 1993), these emotions would most
likely result in enhancing teamwork by encouraging curiosity and creativity,
thus stimulating innovation and problem solving (Milliken et al., 2003).
Since language and emotion are closely related (Baider/Cislaru, 2014),
how is it possible to get leaders ‘linguistically’ to lead more effectively down
through the ranks internationally; to ‘translate’ leadership style and
intercultural behaviour into boom-line results; to transmit emotional
information through different languages?
Raising the question ‘how language became a major instrument to move
people, to socialize an idea, the idea of a leadership brand’, <Agro A> is
convinced that ‘whatever we do needs to be accessible, in the way that
language can stir us deep down inside’ being a ‘language of the work’, then
‘of the head’, EFL seems not to be a ‘language of the heart’ enabling the
employees to successfully implement the corporate maxim. Indeed,
‘Whenever we publish something, it is part of our programming that we
have to publish it in so many languages and make it accessible in its deepest
sense.’ is policy illustrates a principle known as OLAT (‘one language at a
time’) or ‘monolingual multilingualism’ also called an ‘additive’ institutional
multilingualism (Lüdi et al., 2013), where many languages are used all
together, but separately, by adapting messages to the local context for a full
parallel information transmission.
Corporate language oice is an important organizational management
measure by whi different oices can be applied not by distinguishing
diotomously between monolingual and multilingual policies, but rather on
a continuum between more or less mono-multilingual behaviours, shiing
from one to another according to situations and purposes (idem.:64). Aer
all, ‘monolingual’ strategies, be it OLON or OLAT, do not always guarantee
the success of organizational interaction. e next section proposes an
example of multilingual practices in whi several languages functioned
together, following the principle of ‘all languages at all time’ ALAAT) or ‘at
the same time’ (ALAST) as communicative strategies in daily work life. An
aempt will also be made to determine in what way ‘the dominant lingua
franca’ can stand next to other languages. How far can ‘the global tool’ be
suited to ‘the local taste’ and how can we use local languages in the global
context?

5 Real-life language use: ‘ALAAT/ALAST’

solutions, multilingual ways of getting things done
Language practices among people from different language bagrounds are,
in the framework of our study, observed at close range, showing what
actually happens in their interactions. In fact, the interactants, taking into
account specific situations, have osen a strategy mu more complex than
just oosing one common language, or a fixed composition of
official/national languages, or even simply switing ba and forth between
them.
As an illustration, at <PbS A>, meetings take place in a multilingual way,
where ea member is expected to speak his/her own national language:
And we have a twice-monthly meeting, and all the languages are represented at this meeting. And
the rule, the in-house rule, is that everybody can speak their own language at meetings.
All collaborators work in their own language providing that it is one of the working languages
and this oice is useful and possible. ey dispose of appropriate auxiliary means (soware,
dictionaries, documentation) in this language where necessary for the task.
(Wanda M.)

Riard T. confirms this receptive ‘multilingual’ way of doing it, by using

‘all languages at the same time’: ‘everyone speaks in his mother tongue, so
we the speakers of German use Standard German, the Romands can in
principle speak Fren’.
Made up of more or less extensive skills in a variety of languages,
language repertoires of ea participant are exploited, allowing a flexible,
inclusive communicational environment in whi ea adapts his/her
linguistic resources to the other, avoiding ‘the exclusion’ of someone or of
making someone feel excluded:
So if I have something really important to say, where I really want that all understand it, then I do
it in both languages, English and German. If it is, um, not terribly important, then I ask myself
yes, who needs really to understand it, yes? And then I do it either in English or in German.
(Herman B. Section head, <Pharma A>, original in German)

In the following extract, a meeting of HR managers at <PbS A> headquarters

was aracterized by section ief Benjamin H.’s multilingual spee. He
began with German, then swited to English (L.13) to include Wanda M.,
who insisted on speaking her own language (English), despite her active
competence in Fren and passive competence in German, and finally
Fren (L.35) when addressing a Fren speaking minority. Although
German is the dominant language8 and acted as a lingua franca in the HR
section, three languages, whi oen were not the first language of the
respective speakers, were used here:

13 BH jetzt wäre i wahnsinnig froh wir haen immer gesagt äh

(always) I swit
14 in english for a moment (.) we have said always that we’d like to
use this a bit
15 informal way jetzt sitzen wir hier so etwas sön geordnet aber wir
haen
16 immer gesagt wo drüt uns der suh was was was liegt an an
was ähm habe
17 i für gerüte gehört ähm (.) was besäigt mi was müsste
man
18 eigentli los werden gibt es da irgendetwas (.) i finde es
irgendwie etwas
19 swierig so formell aufgestellt zu sein dafür aber gibt es etwas was
was
20 eu am Herzen Herzen liegt (4s.)
 21 WM I would just like to say that informal bit ähm (xxx) yeah I
think that if we
22 moved the tables out and sat around both sides we have more
contact because
23 this is a bit like a board meeting ((general laughs))
24 and I feel like I’m the head of the board and this is quite nice ((e
tables are moved and the meeting continues a few minutes later))
29 BH also gibt es irgendetwas wo eu auf dem herzen liegt/
30 (7s) alle wunslos glüli/
31 kann i mir nit vorstellen (…) gut dann maen
32 wir es vielleit anders habt ihr irgend etwas
33 gehört was eu besäigt was man vielleit (. .)
34 (xxxx) sollte (.) oder
35 ihr wisst son alles (13s) alors il y a pas de
36 problèmes (.) pas du tout (.) tout clair/(7s)

is example demonstrates that the communicative strategy osen by these

multilingual individuals is mu more complex than just oosing one
common working language, or respecting ‘the rule that everyone shall be
able to speak his or her language and actually this should be put into
practice’, as explained by Marlène. R. According to her colleague, Wanda M.,
what oen happens, in my experiences of meetings in other business units, I notice that Fren
speakers or certainly Italian speakers, they speak German because they’re afraid they won’t be
understood if they speak Fren. And they want their message to get (across).

Marlène. R. re-emphasizes: ‘in everyday life you always find examples of

people from the Roman-die telling me I prefer to write my mail in German
to be sure to get an answer. Su examples exist’. eir multilingual
repertoires allow the speakers to adjust their spee, adapt their language
oice and accommodate others’ communicative behaviours and
competences for a beer co-constructive result.
e observations of Kankaanranta/Louhiala-Salminen (op.cit.) provided
indications that ‘BELF was regarded by users above all as a mode for
cooperation, in whi meaning is constructed jointly. e ability to
accommodate one’s own language use to mat the proficiency level of the
other partner was seen as a particularly important contributor to BELF
effectiveness’ (Planken, op.cit:27–28). Likewise, the ALAAT or ALAST modes
in the above examples display a certain creativity of the multilingual
speakers, making the boundaries between the several languages spoken
disappear and moving creatively around in an open and variable space of
language resources.
[In mixed-teams], interaction, naturally is more visceral, it’s more probing and therefore more
cocreative, and generative and emergent (…). It’s more meeting ea other in a space in the middle
where new meanings emerge, and new creations of course. New ideas and innovations.
(Manager, HR, <Argo A>)

Rather than in the ‘additive’ concept of multilingualism (OLAT mode), a

number of languages are used ‘at the same time’ as functional, integrative
multilingual lingua franca in hybrid forms, composed of the whole range of
the speakers’ ‘repertoires’ (Gumperz, 1982; Gal, 1986; Lüdi, 2006;
Moore/Castelloi, 2008; Lüdi/Py, 2009), shared and jointly mobilized, even
imperfectly, by the actors for everyday seings interactions (Council of
Europe, 2001). Whereas the BELF effectiveness focuses on the ‘users reported
helping ea other through difficult pates to keep communication and
work going, and being tolerant of ea other’s mistakes’ (Planken op.cit:27),
functioning in a multilingual mode, where interlocutors are also aware of
their asymmetrical competence, solutions are not based on one single,
unique language. e oice of language(s) is negotiated, managed and
developed in the course of the interaction depending on the participants’
profiles and competence, allowing them to exploit their best cognitive and
cross-linguistic flexibility. From the perspective of the multilingual asset, a
possible response to this observation could be a new partnership between
the use of a lingua franca, a kind of ‘rough-and-ready’ form of the language
used (Hülmbauer, 2009; Böhringer/Hülmbauer, 2010; Seidlhofer, 2010;
Mondada, 2012) and multilingual interaction. In this sense, many uses of
(B)ELF, English ES or Plurilingual English (Canagarajah 2009) are by nature
one form of multilanguaging (Böhringer et al., 2009; Hülmbauer/Seidlhofer,
2013), mixing resources of different kinds and valorizing different cultures
and value systems:
Multilingualism doesn’t only mean several languages, but also different images, comparisons,
cultures, everything. Our problem is that we have to translate everything into English; and with
that the main part of this riness disappears. (…) Ea language opens up new vistas on reality
and offers different forms of argumentation, using several languages brings gains in knowledge.
(Global Head of Learning, <Argo A>)

As we have seen in Section 1, business leaders surveyed are particularly

insistent on the importance of mixed groups because of their different
approaes to general subjects. Hymes (1974) contends that a multilingual
person uses her languages to do different things. Considering this functional
differentiation of languages in relation to diversity of thought, ‘individual
plurilingualism’ appears to favour creativity (Furlong, 2009). New, creative,
innovative forms and meanings can emerge in shared ‘conceptual’ (Boden,
1996), ‘in-between’ (Bhabha 1994) spaces if potential conflicts between
different worldviews and value systems are surmounted by a good balance
between creativity (divergence) and cohesion (convergence) in mixed teams.
is is particularly allenging both for leaders of diverse teams and for the
teams’ members. On an individual level, ‘multilingual proficiency,
communicative facility and cultural authenticity have become key aspects of
some individuals’ business activities’, considers Piller (op.cit:87). On an
organizational level, even if it is convincing that ‘institutional’
‘multilingualism and cultural diversity have become a means of increasing
efficiency and flexibility and of enhancing profits’ (p. 91), to what extent do
multilingual practices have a positive impact on intercultural business
communication efficiency? How is ‘multilingual’ linked to ‘intercultural’
from an intercultural communication perspective (Sharifran/Jamarani, 2013;
Zhu Hua, 2013)? Guilherme et al. (2010:82) argue that, by sharing a common
language, the members of a multicultural group/team can develop a kind of
intercultural responsibility among themselves. e simple fact of
communicating through a medium that is perhaps not deeply rooted in all of
them may generate some sense of partnership, companionship, or even
complicity and solidarity. is point will be discussed in the next section.

6 Multilinguaculturing: using functional

multilingual resources in intercultural
communication perspectives
According to Glaser (2010), when group members communicate effectively
(Intercultural Communication), interact successfully with people from other
cultures (Intercultural Interaction), are able to come to terms with their
emotions (Emotional Management) and deal with different issues of
diversity (Diversity Management), they can work successfully in a
multicultural team.
One of the arguments in favour of multilingualism that emerged in the
dominant discourse of companies as well as in the social representations of
our interviewees was for interculturality (Yanaprasart, 2010; 2012a).
‘Understanding ea other’ does not simply mean speaking the same
language, but also ‘understanding ea other culturally, via the language’
(Lüdi et al., 2013). As Garcia and Otheguy (1989:2) state, ‘a serious
consequence of the spread of English has been that it has created a false
sense of mutual intelligibility’ that cultural differences are disappearing. If
members of mixed teams use their mother tongue as ‘a perceptual system
(…) in whi they have encoded their reality’ (<Agro A>) – even when the
final interaction takes place in a lingua franca – an intercultural competence
is needed to interpret the message (Bertaux, 1997). In other words, a mutual
understanding requires interpretability skills to understand others as well as
intelligibility skills to be understood (Candlin, 1982).
As opposed to ‘having culture’, a strong emphasis on ‘doing culture’,
focusing on the process of ‘doing intercultural communication’ is placed by
some solars, su as Street (1993), for whom ‘Culture is a verb’.
Guiherme/Glaser/Méndez-Garcia (2010) insist on ‘intercultural dynamics’ in
the sense that the concept of intercultural competence, hardly pre-
determined and pre-limited, should function in a dynamic action mode
(Phipps, 2007). In this sense, culture or, more specifically, cultural
differences, exist through ‘intercultural languaging’, where various ways of
doing, seeing, thinking, being or feeling come linguistically into contacts.
Phipps/Gonzalez (2004; Phipps, 2007) coined the term ‘languaging’, implying
a lengthy process of self-discovery and social discovery, of traveling ba
and forth, learning and unlearning, trying, struggling, appreciating and
transforming into an intercultural being. In our opinion, using shared
multilingual resources in a mode of multilingua-culturing, where ‘speaking
for thinking’ as well as ‘thinking for speaking’ (Slobin, 1991) or ‘thinking at
or beyond the limit’ (Hall, 1996) in linguistico-cultural ‘third spaces’, could
assume two strategic functions: the first one at a relational level, facilitating
an open, tolerant, linguistically convenient, socially acceptable and
personally comfortable communication across cultural borders, and the
second at an instrumental level, making exolingual communication more
equitable, dynamic, inclusive, participative and conceptually creative
(Yanaprasart, 2012b). ‘Multilinguaculturing, allows not only multilingual
individuals, who have extensive multilingual cross-cultural experience (…),
to use several languages to deal with a variety of situations in a culture-
specific way, but also multilingual teams to apply different “cultural cues,
interpretative frames”’ (Pavlenko, 2000), and diverse cross-cultural
‘conceptual representations and flexible cognitive capacities’ available in the
group to generate multiple solutions in a language-specific or cross-linguistic
way. In this regard, multilingual repertoire is part and parcel of the
intercultural asset. Promoting multilingual practices in a highly mixed
linguistic environment represents a key strategy for facilitating, in an
inclusive manner, the emergence of interculturality, for understanding
cultural heterogeneity (Simonton, 2003), and for interacting and not only
‘having’ language(s) and culture(s).
Conclusion
e aim of this apter is to aieve a deep understanding of diversity and
language management in the workplace as they are practiced and conceived
by the actors themselves. In light of the foregoing, a divergence between
policy documents and language practice, as well as a variety of policies,
strategies and practices, has been shown, thus disproving the common
assumption that only one lingua franca can/should be used in the
multilingual workplace. On behalf of language dynamics, multilanguaging
(multilingual practices, Makoni/Makoni, 2010) and plurilanguaging (mixed
spee; multilingual spee, Lüdi/Py, 2009) have been the solutions osen,
in many situations, in terms of efficiency (‘I won’t get my message across if I
sti to my language’) and fairness (‘participants might feel excluded if the
dominant language is uniquely used’), in a continuous trade-off between a
tendency for progressivity (speakers can make rapid progress and accept a
degree of opacity) and subjectivity (speakers try to ensure a mutual
understanding with a high degree of redundancy) (Berthoud et al., 2012,
2013). Concerning organizational diversity management, our study suggests
establishing a way of positioning multilingualism in the context of people
management strategy by giving it a truly strategic tonality, not to ‘go native’
and not only to facilitate communication, but also to promote cognitive
diversity in a team, giving parity to speakers, and especially democratizing
languages in a mixed environment.
Multilingual workplace realities are becoming increasingly multifaceted,
and a number of perspectives will be relevant to our understanding of the
angles of multilingualism at work. is underlines the importance of
ethnographically conducted case study resear in order to advance our
understanding of the allenges employees face daily at work and their
perceptions of their workplace realities. A closer ethnographic and
interactionist look into various practices may make companies look upon
multilingualism in a wholly different way and give them an answer to the
question ‘what element could accelerate or decelerate the impact of
linguistic diversity on the effectiveness of diversity management?’

Notes
1 e DYLAN project was an integrated project funded in 2006–11 under the European Union’s
Sixth Framework Program, Priority 7, ‘Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society’ (cf.
Berthoud, 2008; Berthoud et al., 2012, 2013, and hp://www.dylan-project.org for an overview).
Methodologically, the team of the University of Basel adopted a mixed-methods approa or
triangulation of methods, collecting and analyzing different types of data, comprising official
documents, interviews with agents at different hierarical levels, job ads, websites, photos, video
and tape recordings of multilingual and monolingual interactions in the workplace, and in
teaing in educational institutions. We collected approximately 65 hours of tape recordings in six
companies, about 170 interviews with around 140 people (many interviews with multiple partners)
in 18 companies. e aim was to aieve a deeper understanding of language management
measures and communicative strategies as they are used and reflected by the participants
themselves.

2 e aim of this study (2013–15) titled ‘Practices of management of diversity: measures and
indicators’ is to examine the strength and weakness of different approaes in managing diversity
at the workplace in support of the arguments of business discourse, so as to identify clues and
indicators to measure the success (or failure) of their diversity initiatives.

3 German, Fren, Italian and Rhaeto-Romance; in most cases, the fourth national language plays
only a symbolic role.

4 Business English as a Lingua Franca.

5 Defined precisely by ‘its linguistic diversity, gaining its sense of national self and expressing its
very soul through diversity’ (Grin, 1998:2).

6 About 63.7 percent of Swiss declared German as their mother tongue, Fren 20.4 per cent, Italian
6.5 per cent, and Romane 0.5 per cent (and non-national languages spoken by 9 per cent of the
residents) (Lüdi/Werlen, 2000).
 7 It reflects the interplay of three institutional principles: language territoriality (26 cantons within
their boundaries ensuring the extent and homogeneity of their language territory), language
freedom (the right of residents to use any language of their oice in the private sphere, including
language of business and commerce) and subsidiarity. For an overview, see Grin, 1998.

8 e majority of participants were German speaking. German is the local language of Bern.

Bibliography
Abdullah, S. S./Chaudhary, M. L. 2012. English as a Global Lingua Franca,
International Conference on Education. Applied Sciences and
Management, December 26–27, Dubai, 128–133.
Adler, N./Gunderson, A. 2008. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, Mason, Ohio: omson-South-Western.
Akar, D. 2002. e macro contextual factors shaping business discourse: e
Turkish case, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 40, 305–322.
Alexander, R. J. 2007. How ‘intercultural’ can a lingua franca really be?
Some remarks on ‘International Business English’. In: Dolesal,
U./Hoffmann, E./Reuther, T. (eds.), Sprache und Diskurs in Wirtschaft
und Gesellschaft. Interkulturelle Perspektiven, Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 9–21.
Apfelbaum, B./Meyer, B. (eds). 2010. Multilingualism at Work, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Argote, L./McEvily, B./Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in
organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging
themes, Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.
Asmuss, B. (2002) Strukturelle Dissensmarkierungen in interkultureller
Kommunikation. Analysen deutsch-dänischer Verhandlungen, Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Baider, F./Cislaru, G. 2014. Linguistic Approaches to Emotions in Context,
John Benjamins Publishing Cp.
Balibar, R. 1985. L’institution du français: essai sur le colinguisme des
Carolingiens à la République, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Barner-Rasmussen, W. 2003. Knowledge Sharing in Multinational
Corporations, Doctoral dissertation, 113, Helsinki: Swedish Sool of
Economics and Business Administration.
Barner-Rasmussen, W./Björkman, I. 2005. Surmounting interunit barriers:
Factors associated with inter-unit communication intensity in the
multinational corporation, International Studies in Management and
Organisation, 35(1), 28–46.
Barner-Rasmussen, W./Björkman, I. 2007. Language fluency, socialization
and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries,
Management and Organization Review, 3(1), 105–128.
Bellard, E./Rüling, C.-C. 2000. Importing Diversity Management: Corporate
Discourses in France and Germany. Genève: Cahier de reere de
l’Université de Genève.
Bertaux, D. 1997. L’enquête et ses méthodes, Paris: Edition Armand Colin.
Berthoud, A.-C. 2008. Un amp de reere à inventer. In K. M.
Lauridsen/D.Toudic (eds), Language at Work in Europe, Festsri in
Honour of Professor Wolfgang Maiewic, Göingen: V & R unipress,
127–137.
Berthoud, A.-C./Grin, F./Lüdi, G. 2012. The DYLAN project booklet. Dylan
project, main findings. (hp://www.dylan-
project.org/Dylan_en/dissemination/final/booklet/booklet.php)
Berthoud, A.-C./Lüdi, G./Grin, F. (eds). 2013. Exploring the Dynamics of
Multilingualism. The DYLAN project, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture, London: Routledge.
Bilbow, G. 2002. Commissive spee act use in intercultural business
meetings, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 40/4, 287–303.
Blaledge, A. 2006. e magical frontier between the dominant and the
dominated: Sociolinguistics and social justice in a multilingual world,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(1), 22–41.
Blazejewski, S. 2006. Transferring value-infused organizational practices in
multinational companies: A conflict perspective. In: M. Geppert/M.
Mayer (eds.), Global, National and Local Practices in Multinational
Corporations, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 63–104.
Blommaert, J. (ed.). 1999. Language Ideological Debates, Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Boden, M. A. (1996) What Is Creativity? In M. A. Boden (ed.), Dimensions of
Creativity, Cambridge: MIT, 75–117.
Böhringer H./Hülmbauer C. 2010. Englis als Lingua Franca im Kontext der
europäisen Mehrspraigkeit. In C. Hülmbauer/E. Veer/H. Böhringer
(eds), Mehrsprachigkeit aus der Perspektive zweier EU-Projekte: DYLAN
meets LINEE, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 171–189.
Böhringer, H./Hülmbauer, C./Seidlhofer, B. 2009. DYLAN Working Paper 4
on ‘Creativity and Innovation’, RT 4.2.
Bothorel-Witz A./Tsamadou-Jacoberger I. 2009. Les processus de minoration
et de majoration dans le discours sur les langues et les pratiques dans des
entreprises à vocation internationale (implantées en Alsace). In D.
Hu/R. Kahn (eds), Langues régionales, culture et développement.
Etudes de cas en Alsace, en Bretagne et en Provence, Paris: L’Harmaan,
43–91.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity.
Bowers, C. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams,
Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–328.
Bruhn, M. 2003. Integrierte Unternehmens- und Markenkommunikation.
Strategische Planung und operative Umsetzung, Stugart: Säffer-
Poesel Verlag.
Canagarajah, S. 2009. e plurilingual tradition and the English language in
South Asia. AILA Review, 22, 5–22.
Candlin, C. 1982. English as an International Language: Intelligibility vs.
Interpretability: Notes on a eme. In C. Brumfit (ed.), English for
International Communication, New York: Pergamon, 95–98.
Catalyst, D. 2004. The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and
Diversity, New York, Catalyst: hp//www.catalystwomen.org.
Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Council of Europe.
Charles, M. 2007. Language maers in global communication, Journal of
Business Communication, 44, 260–282.
Charles, M./Marsan-Piekkari, R. 2002. Language training for enhanced
horizontal communication: A allenge for MNCs, Business
Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9–29.
Chen, S./Geluykens, R./Choi, C.-J. 2006. e importance of language in
global teams: A linguistic perspective, Management International
Review, 6(46), 679–695.
Cigada, S./Mahey, M./Gilardoni, S. (eds). 2001. Communicare in ambiente
professionale plurilingue, Lugano: USI.
Clyne, M. 2005. Australia’s Language Potential, Sydney: UNSW Press.
Collins, D. 2000. Management Fads and Buzzwords, London: Routledge.
Cordeiro, J./Stites-Doe, S. 1997. e impact of women managers on firm
performance: Evidence from large U.S. firms, International Review of
Women and Leadership, 3(1), 1–20.
Cox, T. Jr. 2008. Speaking of Diversity. In: P. Köppel/D. Sandner, Synergy by
Diversity, Güterslo: Bertels-mann Siung, 22–25.
Cox, T./Blake, S. 1991. e multicultural organization, Academy of
Management Executive, 5(2), 34–47.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. 2007. English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dyer, W. G. 1977. Team Building: Issues and Alternatives, Reading: Addison
Wesley.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language, London, New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. 2001. Language
and Power, London: Longman.
Fine, M. G. 1980. Cultural diversity in the workplace: e state of the field,
Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 485–502.
Feely, A. J./Harzing, A.-W. 2003. Language management in multinational
companies, Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2),
37–52.
Fredriksson, R./Barner-Rasmussen, W./Piekkari, R. 2006. e multinational
corporation as a multilingual organization: e notion of a common
corporate language, Corporate Communications, 11(4), 406–423.
Furlong, A. 2009. e relation of plurilingualism/culturalism to creativity: A
maer of perception, International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(4), 343–
368.
Gal, S. 1986. Linguistic Repertoire. In U. Ammon/N. Dimar/K. J.
Maheier/P. Trudgill (eds), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook
of the Science of Language and Society, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 286–
292.
Garcia, O./Otheguy, R. (eds). 1989. English Across Cultures, Cultures Across
English, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grin, F. 1998. Language Policy in Multilingual Switzerland: Overview and
Recent Developments,
hp://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2009/1988/pdf/brief_2.pdf, 9 pages
Guilherme, M./Glaser, E. 2010. The Intercultural Dynamics of Multicultural
Working, London: Free Press.
Guilherme, M./Keating, C./Hoppe, D. 2010. Intercultural Responsibility:
Power and Ethics in Intercultural Dialogue and Interaction. In M.
Guilherme/E. Glaser/M. del C. Méndez-Garcia (eds), The Intercultural
Dynamics of Multicultural Working, Bristol: Multilingual Maers, 77–94.
Guilherme, M./Glaser, E./Méndez-Garcia, M. del C. (eds). 2010. The
Intercultural Dynamics of Multicultural Working, Bristol: Multilingual
Maers.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hagen, S. 2005. Language and Culture in British Business, London: CILT.
Hall, S. 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity, California: Sage Publications.
Harzing, A.-W./Feely, A. J. 2008. e language barrier and its implications
for HQ—subsidiary relationships, Cross-Cultural Management, 15(1), 49–
 60.
Harzing, A.-W./Köster, K./Magner, U. 2011. Babel in business: e language
barrier and its solutions in the HQ–subsidiary relationship, Journal of
World Business, 46(011), 279–287.
Hedlund, G. 1999. e multinational corporation as a Nearly Recomposable
System (NRS), Management International Review, 39, Special Issue 1, 5–
44.
Hoelin, L. 1995. Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive
Advantage, London: Economist Intelligence Unit/Addison Wesley.
Holden, N. J. 1987. Language Barriers as Differential Constraints on the
International Behavior of Firms. In: H. Tonkin/K. M. Johnson-Weiner
(eds), The Economics of Language Use, New York: Centre for Resear
and Documentation on World Language Problems, 119–137.
––– 2002. Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management
Perspective, London: Pearson Education.
Horwitz, S./Horwitz, I. 2007. e effects of team diversity on team outcomes:
A meta-analytic review of team demography, Journal of Management,
33(6), 987–1015.
House, J. (ursday, April 19, 2001) A stateless language that Europe must
embrace. The Guardian Weekly.
www.guardian.cp.uk/education/2001/apr19/languages.higheducation.
House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?,
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578.
Hülmbauer, C. 2009. We Don’t take the Right Way: We just take the way
that we think you will understand – e shiing relationship of
correctness and effectiveness in ELF communication. In A. Mauranen/E.
Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Solars Press, 323–347.
Hülmbauer, C./Seidlhofer, B. 2013. Chapter 18: English as a Lingua Franca in
European Multilingualism. In A.-C. Berthoud/F. Grin/G. Lüdi (eds),
Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. e DYLAN project,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 397–406.
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Isen, A. M. 1993. Positive Affect and Decision Making. In M. Lewis/J. M.
Haviland (eds), Handbook of Emotions, New York: e Guilford Press,
261–277.
Janssens, M./Lambert, J./Steyaert, C. 2004. Developing language strategies
for international companies: e contribution of translation studies,
Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414–430.
Kaiser-Nolden, E. 2008. Measurable Effects of Cultural Diversity on
Company Performance. In P. Köppel,/D. Sandner (eds), Synergy by
Diversity: Real Life Examples of Cultural Diversity in Corporations,
Gütersloh,: Bertelsmann Stiung, 44–46.
Kameyama, S./Meyer, B. (eds). 2007. Mehrsprachigkeit am Arbeitsplatz,
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Kankaanranta, A./Louihiala-Salminen, L. 2010. ‘English? – Oh, it’s just
work’: A study of BELF users’ perceptions, English for Specific Purposes,
29, 204–209.
Kankaanranta, A./Planken, B. 2010. BELF competence as business knowledge
of internationally operating business professionals, Journal of Business
Communication, 47(3), 380–407.
Kansanen, A./Vohlonen, L. 2010. Intercultural Education in International
Management. In M. Guilherme/E. Glaser/M. del Carmen Mendez-Garcia
(eds), The Intercultural Dynamics of Multicultural Working, Bristol:
Multilingual Maers, 229–240.
Kharkhurin, A. 2012. Multilingualism and Creativity, Bristol: Multilingual
Maers.
Kogut, B./Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of tenology, Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Kolde, G. 1981. Sprachkontakte in gemischtsprachigen Städten.
Vergleichende Untersuchungen über Voraussetzungen und Formen
sprachlicher Interaktion verschiedensprachiger jugendlicher in den
Schweizer Städten Biel/Bienne und Fribourg/Freiburg i. Ue. Zeitschrifte
für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte H. 37, Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Kossek, E./Lobel, S./Brown, J. 2006. Human Resource Strategies to Manage
Workforce Diversity: Examining ‘the business case’. In A. Konrad/P.
Prasad/J. Pringle (eds), Handbook of Workplace Diversity, London: Sage
Publications.
Large, A. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement, London: Basil
Blawell/Andre Deuts.
Lecomte, P. 2012. Introduction: La question du langage et de la
communication dans le management international: un défi pour les
hommes et les organisations, 6ème séminaire d’études du groupe GEM,
28–30 Mar 2012.
Lehmann, R./van den Bergh, S. 2004. Internationale crews: Chance und
Herausforderung, New Management, 3, 27–32.
Louihiala-Salminen, L./Mirjaliisa, C./Kankaanranta, A. (2005) English as
lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: two case companies, English
for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401–421.
Lüdi, G. 2006. Multilingual Repertoires and the Consequences for Linguistic
eory. In K. Bührig/J. D. ten ije (eds), Beyond Misunderstanding:
Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 11–42.
Lüdi, G. 2007. e Swiss Model of Plurilingual Communication. In J. D.
ije/L. Zeevaert (eds), Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses,
Language Policies and Didactic Concepts, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
159–177.
Lüdi, G./Barth, L. A./Höle, K./Yanaprasart, P. 2009. La gestion du
plurilinguisme au travail entre la ‘philosophie’ de l’entreprise et les
pratiques spontanées, Sociolinguistica, 23: 32–52.
Lüdi, G./Höle, K./Yanaprasart, P. 2013. Chapter 3: Multilingualism and
Diversity Management in Companies in the Upper Rhine region. In A.-
C. Berthoud/F. Grin/G. Lüdi (eds), Exploring the Dynamics of
Multilingualism. e DYLAN project, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–
82.
Lüdi, G./Py, B. 2009. To be or not to be … a plurilingual speaker,
International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(2), 154–167.
Lüdi, G./Werlen, I. 2000. Le paysage linguistique en Suisse. Recensement
fédéral de la population 2000. Office fédéral de la statistique, Neuâtel,
avril 2005.
Luo, Y./Shenkar, O. 2006. e multinational corporation as a multilingual
community: Language and organisation in a global context, Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(3), 321–339.
Maclean, D. 2006. Beyond English. Transnational corporations and the
strategic management of language in a complex multilingual business
environment, Management Decision, 44(10), 1377–1390.
Makoni, S./Makoni, B. 2010. Multilingual Discourse on Wheels and Public
English in Africa. A case for ‘vague linguistics’. In J. Maybin/J. Swann
(eds), The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies, London:
Routledge, 258–270.
Manen Spoerri, S./Hohenstein, C. 2012. Linguistic Diversity in Cooperative
Work Processes of Task-Oriented Teams, Wintherthur: ZHAW (Working
Papers in Applied Linguistics 3).
Marquardt, M./Horvath, L. 2001. Global Teams: How Top Multinationals
Span Boundaries and Cultures with High-speed Teamwork, Mountain
View: Davies-Bla.
Marsan, R./Wel, L./Wel, D. 1997. Language: e forgoen factor in
multinational management, European Management Journal, 15(5), 591–
598.
Marsan-Piekkari, R./Wel, D./Wel, L. 1999a. Adopting a common
corporate language: IHRM implications, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10(3), 377–390. ––– 1999b. In the shadow: e
impact of language on structure, power and communication in the
multinational, International Business Review, 8(4), 421–440.
Mauranen, A. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English
as lingua franca communication, International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 177, 123–150.
Mauranen, A./Ranta, E. (eds). 2009. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and
Findings, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Solars.
Millar, S./Jensen, A. 2009. Language oice and management in Danish
multinational companies: e role of common sense, Sociolinguistica, 23,
86–103.
Miller, C. C.,/Burke L. M./Gli W. H. 1998. Cognitive diversity among
upper-eelon executives: Implications for strategic decision processes,
Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 39.
Milliken, F. J./Bartel, C. A./Kurtzberg, T. R. 2003. Diversity and Creativity in
Work Groups: A Dynamic Perspective on the Affective and Cognitive
Processes that Link Diversity and Performance. In P. B. Paulus/B. A.
Nijstad (eds), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, New
York: Oxford University Press, 32–62.
Minx, E. 2008. Speaking of Diversity. In P. Köppel/D. Sandner, Synergy by
Diversity. Real Life Examples of Cultural Diversity in Corporations,
Bertelsmann Stiung, 68–71.
Mondada, L. 2012. L’organisation émergente des ressources multimodales
dans l’interaction en lingua franca: Entre progressivité et
intersubjectivité, Bulletin VALS/ASLA, 95.
Mondada, L./Nussbaum, L. (eds). 2012. Interactions cosmopolites.
L’organisation de la participation plurilingue, Limorges: Lambert Lucas.
Moore, D./Castelloi, V. (eds). 2008. La compétence plurilingue: regards
francophones, Berne: Peter Lang.
Müller - Jents, D. 2009. Auf der Jagd na den Besten, Terra Cognita, 14,
Neue Migrationslandsa, 54–57.
Nekvapil, J./Nekula, M. 2006. On language management in multinational
companies in the Cze Republic, Current Issues in Language Planning,
7, 307–327.
Nekvapil, J./Sherman, T. (eds). 2009. Language Management in Contact
Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents, Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Nisbe, R. E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners
Think Differently … and Why, New York: Free Press.
Page, S. E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better
Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
 University Press.
Pavlenko, A. 2000. New approaes to concepts in bilingual memory.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 1–4.
Pennycook, A. 2001. English in the World/the World in English. In A.
Burns/C. Coffin (eds), Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader,
London: Routledge, 78–89.
Peters, T. J./Waterman, R. H. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best-Run Companies, New York: Harpers & Row.
Phene, A./Madhok, A./Liu, K. 2005. Knowledge transfer within the
multinational firm, Management International Review, 45, Special Issue
2, 53–74.
Phipps, A. 2007. Learning the Arts of Linguistic Survival: Languaging,
Tourism, Life, Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Phipps, A./Gonzalez, M. 2004. Modern Languages: Learning and Teaching in
an Intercultural Field, London: Sage.
Piekkari, R. 2006. Language Effects in Multinational Companies: A Review
from an International Human Resource Management Perspective. In G.
Stahl/I. Björkman (eds), Handbook of Research in International Human
Resource Management, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 536–550.
Piekkari, R./Tietze, S. 2011. A world of languages: Implications for
international management resear and practice, Journal of World
Business, 46, 267–269.
Piekkari, R./Zander, L. 2005. Preface. Language and communication in
international management, International Studies of Management and
Organization, 35(1), 3–9.
Piekkari, R./Vaara, E./Tienari, J./Säni, R. 2005. Integration or
disintegration? Human resource implications of the common corporate
language decision in a cross-border merger, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330–344.
Piller, I. 2012. Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Planken, B. 2012. e Changing Landscape of Business Communication:
Developments and Directions in Resear. In P. Heynderix/S.
 Dieltjens/G. Jacobs/P. Giééaerts/E. de Groot (eds), The Language Factor
in International Business: New Perspectives on Research, Teaching and
Practice,Bern: Peter Lang, 17–40.
Reeves, N./Wright, C. 1996. Linguistic Auditing, Clevedon: Multilingual
Maers.
Saint-Gobain, 2001. Rapport annuel 2000. In Bellard, E./Rüling, C.-C. (eds),
Importing Diversity Management: Corporate Discourses in France and
Germany, Genève: Cahier de reere de l’Université de Genève.
Sewe, T. 2001. Multilingual Communication in the Global Network
Economy. In J. Esenba/T. Sewe (eds), Über Grenzen gehen –
Kommunikation zwischen Kulturen und Unternehmen, Halden: Hogs-
kolen I Ostfold, 195–209.
Sneider, S.C. 2011. Globalization: On Being Different. In S. Grosl (ed.),
Diversity in the Workplace, Surrey: Gower Publications, 89–97.
Seidlhofer, B. 2010. Giving VOICE to English as a Lingua Franca. In R.
Facinei/D. Crystal/B. Seidlhofer (eds), From International to Local
English – and Back Again, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 147–163.
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, New York, Doubleday.
Sharifran, F./Jamarani, M. (eds). 2013 . Language and Intercultural
Communication in the New Era, Abingdon: Routledge.
Simons, T./Hope-Pelled, L. 1999. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate
and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams, Academy of
Management Journal, 42(6), 662–674.
Simonton, D. K. 2003. Creative Cultures, Nations, and Civilizations:
Strategies and Results. In P. B. Paulus/B. A. Nijstad (eds), Group
Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, New York: Oxford
University Press, 304–325.
Slobin, D. 1991. Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition,
and rhetorical style, Pragmatics, 1 (1), 7–25.
Steiner, G. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, London:
Oxford University Press.
Steyaert, C./Janssens, M. 1997. Language and translation in an international
business context: Beyond an instrumental approa, Target, 9(1): 131–
154.
Stiel, G./Carrier, M. (eds). 2014. Language Education in Creating a
Multilingual Europe, Bern: Peter Lang.
Street, B. 1993. Culture is a Verb. In D. Graddol/L. ompson/M. Byram
(eds), Language and Culture, Clevedon: Multilingual Maers, 23–43.
Studer, P./Hohenstein, C. (2011) Linguistic diversity in business contexts: A
functional linguistic perspective, Wintherthur: ZHAW, Working Papers
in Applied Linguistics, 1, 27.
Talbot, M./Atkinson, K./Atkinson, D. 2003. Language and Power in the
Modern World, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ije, J. ten (ed.). 2007. Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses,
Language Policies and Didactic Concepts, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
ije Jan D. ten/Zeevaert, L. (eds). 2008. Receptive Multilingualism:
Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
omas, D. A./Fly, R. J. 1996. Making differences maer: A new paradigm
for managing diversity, Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79–90.
Tietze, A. 2007. Collecting for the Colonies. Kronos, November (n.p.)
Truot, C. 1990. L’anglais dans le monde contemporain, Paris: Le Robert.
Truot, C. (ed.). 2009. Sprawahl in europäisen Unternehmen/Choix
linguistiques dans les entreprises en Europe/Language oices in
European companies, Sociolinguistica, 23 (n.p.)
Vandermeeren, S. 1998. Fremdsprachen in europäischen Unternehmen.
Untersuchengen zu Bestand und Bedarf im Geschäftsalltag mit
Empfehlungen für Sprachenpolitik und Sprachunterricht, Waldsteinberg:
Heidrun Popp.
Verrept, S. 2000. Keynote Spee. Paper presented at the European
Association of Business Communication, Antwerp (cited in Feely, A.
J./Harzing, A-W. (2002) Forgotten and Neglected Language: The Orphan
of International Business Research,
hp://www.harzing.com/download/orphan.pdf, 32p).
Vollstedt, M. 2002. Sprachenplanung in der internen Kommunikation
internationaler Unternehmen: Studien zur Umstellung der
Unternehmenssprache auf das Englische, Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlag.
Wel, C./Piekkari, R. 2006. Crossing language boundaries in qualitative
interviewing, Management International Review, 46, 417–437.
Wel, D./Wel, L. 2008. e importance of language in international
knowledge transfer, Management International Review, 48(3), 339–360.
Wel, D./Wel, L./Marsan-Piekkari, R. 2001. e persistent impact of
language on global operations, Prometheus, 19(3), 193–209.
Wel, D./Wel, L./Piekkari, R. 2005. Speaking in tongues: e importance
of language in international management processes, International
Studies of Management and Organization, 35, 10–27.
Werlen, I. 2007. Receptive Multilingualism in Switzerland and the Case of
Biel/Bienne. In J. D. ije/ L. Zeevaert (eds), Receptive Multilingualism:
Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts. John
Benjamins, 137–157.
Yanaprasart, P. 2010. Gestion de la diversité dans les équipes plurilingues et
multiculturelles, ARBA, 22 (Acta Romanica Basiliensa), 133–179.
Yanaprasart, P. 2012a. La diversité linguistique comme ance ou comme
obstacle, European Journal of Language Policy, 4(1), 45–50.
Yanaprasart, P. 2012b. From ‘working language’ management to
management of ‘language dynamics’: Multi-lingualism and
multiculturalism as an asset for companies, Actes du 6ème séminaire
d’études du groupe GEM, Conference proceedings, Mar 2012.
Yanaprasart, P./Choremi, S./Gander, F. 2013. Chapter 7: Language Diversity
Management on Corporate Websites. In A.-C. Berthoud/F. Grin/G. Lüdi
(eds), Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. e DYLAN project,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–154.
Zhu, Hua. 2013. Exploring Intercultural Communication: Language in
Action, London: Routledge.
14
Translation in cross-cultural
management
A maer of voice

Chris Steyaert and Maddy Janssens

Translation and globalization: three (hi)stories

e biblical story of Babel tells the story of why the human race was
scaered over the face of the earth, divided, dislocated, and incapable of
communicating; we have been trying to reconnect ever since. In the movie
Babel (by the director Alejandro González Iñárritu and the screenwriter
Guillermo Arriaga), there are several stories interwoven that take place in
various locations, namely Morocco, Tokyo, and the US–Mexico border,
reflecting the filmic allenge of how to make connections out of apparent
discontinuities and dislocations (Sco, 2006). In this multilingual movie –
with its use of Spanish, Berber, sign language, and English – there is also a
need for translation. At a certain point, Susan (played by Cate Blane), on
“desultory vacation” (Sco, 2006) in Morocco, trying to repair her marriage
with her husband Riard (played by Brad Pi) aer the death of their
infant son, is shot in the ne by a bullet, fired from a passing bus.
Consternated, Riard tries to find help for his wife and he shouts the word
“help” to a passing motorist, who, alarmed, speeds off. Translation can
indeed (help to) save one’s life. According to Cronin (2013: 493), the
“inability to translate foregrounds a cultural blindness on the parts of the
traveler who finds he is not so mu an empowered citizen of the world as
the unwilling denizen of a place.” If the business of the translator is, as
Cronin argues, to understand what people actually say in a particular
location and time and to bring this knowledge to another location (the target
language), then “what the failure to translate does is to reinstate the
importance of a particular kind of time in overly spatialized and visualized
models of the global” (pp. 493–494). Without translation, the cosmopolitan
(or the global traveler) does not get connected; with translation, the global
gets in tou with the intensity and ephemerality of local lives.
Globalization is not just from recent times but, aer Babel, part of human
history. In his book Vermeer’s Hat, the Canadian sinologist Timothy Brook
(2009) analyzes six paintings of the Dut Golden Age painter Johannes
Vermeer to document the dawn of global trade in the seventeenth century.
His paintings of cool, lucid, quietly domesticated rooms have the whole
world compressed in them (Conrad, 2008). If one looks at the pearls that one
of the girls wears in his paintings, you will find an endless reflectivity, that
“writ large, nods toward the greatest discovery that people in the
seventeenth century made, that the world, like this pearl, was a single globe
suspended in space” (Brook, 2009: 23). e location is the city of Del, a
ief trading city, where Vermeer was living and working at that time, and
where the Dut East India Company was on its way to becoming the
world’s first multinational corporation. Brook tries to establish a relationship
between Dut cities and proto-globalization, between the local and the
transnational by suggesting that Vermeer’s paintings are crowded with
traces of global activity, su as a Chinese porcelain bowl, a Canadian
beaver fur hat, and a Turkish carpet. ese objects help to illustrate how
local lives were intensely connected with other, multiple communities that
are (made) visible in Vermeer’s paintings through open windows, maps in
the baground, or reflecting objects. According to Cronin (2013: 499), what
is suggested here is “a form of translation history that explores the local
place for its connections outwards, its interdependence on other languages,
cultures, places.” Every local scene is a moment of translation.
en, we move to a contemporary Babelian plurality, whi emerges from
the way Sherry Simon (2006) walks through Montreal, illustrating in her
book Translating Montreal how it has moved from a divided town in the
sixties into a very different, cosmopolitan, hybrid city today. As Simon
walks through the city, she follows the trajectories of cultural translators
and traces a history of crossings and intersections in a voyage across
languages. Exploring how the inhabitants of one specific city have engaged
with translation, Simon argues that translation is a dynamic and subtle tool
for analyzing intercultural contact:
Translation became the analytical tool I was looking for, a lens through whi I could tra the
crosstown voyage of exemplary cultural figures.[…]. Translation was also useful because it served
as a figure not only of cross-culture dialogue but also of failed encounters.
(p. 9)

In Cronin’s view, Simon’s study is an example of how through translation a

politics of place beyond place is possible, namely a “concentration on one
particular place becomes an opening out rather than a closing down, a
foregrounding of a complexity of connectedness rather than a paean to
singular insularity” (Cronin, 2013: 497).
Whether on holiday in Morocco, looking at a painting of Vermeer, or
walking through Montreal, these short sceneries illustrate our view on the
international and cross-cultural as constituted by the translocational,
questioning the dominance of the nation state in explaining all things
cultural, linguistic, or relational. In these three short stories, Cronin shows
an important relationship between translation and the cross-cultural
dynamics of globalization, namely that we have to look for moments of
translation in a divided or fragmented relationship, city, or world and how
they are performed. Ea moment of translation forms “an initiation into
unsuspected complexity” (Cronin, 2013: 500), whi we believe can help to
understand the complexity of multilingual, cross-cultural encounters. While
these three stories show the ubiquity of translation, they are in undeniable
contrast with how cross-cultural management studies tend to neglect
translation, and if they aend, they do so mostly in a tenical, reductionist
way.

Translation in cross-cultural management

Even if there has been an increasing and successful effort to counter the idea
that language is the forgoen factor in international business (IB), and cross-
cultural management (CCM) in particular, it is striking that translation
remains to be less aended in the last 15 years or “perturbing to see how
under-researed translation remains in the IB literature” (Holden &
Miailova, 2014: 907). is might be surprising as in cross-cultural exange
(whether communication, knowledge sharing or decision-making), there is
always a crossing of boundaries, whi gets regulated by translation; for
instance, translation forms a direct analogy for analyzing corporate cross-
cultural knowledge transfer (Holden & Miailova, 2014). More than 10
years ago, Janssens et al. (2004) proposed to the study of IB and CCM the
potentiality of translation studies, not only because translation is a common
part of cross-cultural activity, but especially because it has the conceptual
potential to rethink and reframe cross-cultural communication as a form of
translation, an exange between two or more language and culture systems.
is invitation is increasingly taken up, with solars giving more and more
support to the relevance of translation studies for IB and CCM (Tietze, 2008).
ey seem to realize that actually one
does not need to argue long and hard that IB is literally unthinkable and impracticable without
translation – every single day, acts of translation, whether formal or informal, accompany or form
a central element of an incalculable number of cross-border exange processes.
(Holden & Michailova, 2014: 907)

But, even if the task of argumentation seems simple, the reality of how IB
and CCM tend to deal with translation and, as a consequence, with language
and communication, is dramatic. To ascertain the current thinking on
translation, Holden and Miailova (2014) conducted a literature-scoping
study considering existing articles on translation as published in the five
most important journals in IB. eir conclusion states, without exception to
any of the journals, that the vast majority in ea of the journals “use
‘translation’ almost exclusively in terms of ba-translation,” whi is
regarded as the most effective tenique for establishing equivalence
(Holden & Miailova, 2014: 908). Su a view on translation mirrors an
instrumental view on translation, based on what is called in translation
studies the source model, whi centers on the question of how to
“correctly” translate a text from one language to another (Janssens et al.,
2004). e norm of “correct” translation is defined from the perspective of
the original text and mainly reduced to lexical items. Solars following this
model aim to formulate abstract rules to help translators ensure the
equivalence of the text to be translated. Equivalence that aims at replicating
the same situation as in the original is the central concept in this model.
Examining its theoretical assumptions, the concept of equivalence refers to a
fixed and static view on language, communication, and meaning.
Translation within this model is an act that should be able to swit from
one language to another one while keeping a given fixed meaning. Further,
the method of ba-translation is its main tool to e whether any “losses
in translation” (“traduore traditore”; Ortega y Gasset, 1937) occurred. As
translation studies has altered towards different assumptions, the principle
of ba-translation has been predominantly abandoned. e tenique of
ba-translation is now seen as showing limited awareness of the
complexity of language and languages. Ba-translation, first of all, is no
“real” translation since it is used as a lexical-philological control of a
previous text. e aempt to countere the initial message (the
“original”), either while using several translators or by careful examining
linguistic paerns, illustrates how the vicious circle excludes the actual users
and their discursive (rather than lexical) sensitivities (Hermans &
Lambert,1998). Indeed, most of the solarship on translation in IB and CCM
seems not to have read beyond the first apter of any book on translation:
 Put five translators onto rendering even a syntactically straight-forward, metrically unbound,
magically simple poem like Carl Sandberg’s ‘Fog? into, say Dut. e ances that any two of the
five translations will be identical are very slight indeed. en set twenty-five other translators into
turning the five Dut versions ba into English, five translators to a version. Again the result
will almost certainly be as many renderings as there are translators. To call this equivalence is
perverse.
(Holmes, 1988: 53)

In a more encompassing study of how solars account for their

translation decisions in IB and CCM studies (as found in four IB journals),
Chidlow et al. (2014) equally point at the dominance of a tenicist view of
translation associated with the equivalence paradigm. Likewise, they
identified ba-translation to be the tenique most commonly used in
association with equivalence, documenting that for the majority of authors
ba-translation is considered sufficient in itself. Also, translation and
translators are kept invisible as it is not mentioned how translation and
ba-translation have been effectuated. Rather, it is noted that the ba-
translation process is presented in a passive voice, evoking it as a meanical
and problem-less procedure.
In our view, the overwhelming use of ba-translation can be explained as
a methodological “reflex,” whi reflects the neo-positivist habitus of
academic resear in IB and CCM. Even if the need for an interest in
translation (studies) can be quily raised, this cannot be reduced to a
methodological problem that tenically can be solved; rather, it requires a
paradigmatic ange, whi problematizes existing assumptions and
explores new conceptions of language. ere are indeed many encouraging
signs of an awareness of su a fundamental shi, as there are pleas to go
beyond the assumptions of equivalence in favor of context-sensitive
approaes (Chidlow et al., 2014), to take a more expansive perspective on
translation (Holden & Miailova, 2014), and, thus, to incorporate
translation as a crucial part of the development of a new language-based
domain in IB (Brannen et al., 2014). One of the decisive anges in
assumptions we propose to take is the shi from a monolingualism to
multilingualism to understand language and translation (see also Janssens &
Steyaert, 2014). To do so, we turn to sociolinguistics, where solars are
reflecting and debating on how to conceptualize language in the anging
political and economic landscape of different regions of the world (Martin-
Jones et al., 2012). ese solars do not think of languages as clearly
bounded, unified systems but of language as translingual practices
(Pennycook, 2007) in social and political contexts. Rather, they highlight a
negotiated, situated approa to cross-cultural communication where
speakers use multiple linguistic resources in complex ways to express voice
(Heller, 2007; Higgins, 2009; Makoni & Pennycook, 2012).

Beyond monolingualism: language as translingual

practices
Whereas IB and CCM tend to (oen implicitly) conceive language as a
monolingual entity, we propose an alternative understanding by drawing on
recent thinking in sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2010; Heller, 2007; Makoni &
Pennycook, 2012; Martin-Jones et al., 2012). While we agree with the need
for more contextualization when it comes to understanding translation, we
argue that oen this is done in a monolingual way. Instead, we propose the
shi to multilingualism based on conceiving language as translingual
practices to express voice in a socio-political context (Blommaert, 2006;
Makoni & Pennycook, 2012; Penny-cook, 2007).
Arguing that it is time for more sophisticated models on language,
Makoni and Pennycook (2012) start their plea with the following observation
of Haugen:
e concept of language as a rigid, monolithic structure is false, even if it has proved to be a useful
fiction in the development of linguistics. It is the kind of simplification that is necessary at a
certain stage of a science, but whi can now be replaced by more sophisticated models.
(1972: 25)

Our purpose is not to provide an overview of all the perspectives of

sociolinguistics contributing to the critique of monolingual paradigm.
Instead, we concentrate on the main idea that is put forward and underlines
an understanding of language as translingual practices or the simultaneous
mobilization of multiple linguistic resources (Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). For
the purpose of this apter, we highlight the notions of multilingual
language use versus language as a monolingual discrete system, and voice
differences rather than language differences.

Language as multilingual language use

roughout sociolinguistics, there is a strong tendency to move away from a

conception of language as a discrete, unified pre-existing entity to a more
critical approa that “privileges language as social practice, speakers as
social actors and boundaries as products of social action” (Heller, 2007: 1).
Central in this shi is the realization that language is a solarly invention
that has codified local linguistic aos into phonetic, grammatical, and
lexical forms and systems, divorced from the social context in whi the
spee is being uered (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012; Nakata, 2007). is
process of invention is seen as transforming dialogical and heteroglossic
material into monological texts (Blommaert, 2008) and its focus on the
formal aspects of a language “fundamentally separates the language from
the people; it falsely separates the act of speaking from what is being
spoken” (Nakata, 2007: 37). For instance, studies of colonialism have shown
how many names for languages have been invented when colonialists
entered territories and “wanted” to sort out whi language(s) was spoken
by whom (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). For example, Mannheim (1991)
documented that the eua-people in Peru did not have a concept for
what they were speaking prior to the Spanish invasion. erefore, the notion
of language as a monolithic system, Bybee and Hopper (2001: 3) argue, has
to “give way to that of a language as a massive collection of heterogeneous
constructions, ea with affinities to different contexts and in constant
structural adaptation to usage.” e critical issue here is that people use
language, not the existence of language as discrete, preformed and
independent objects.
With this focus on language use, the emphasis is no longer on the study of
the code of language but shis to how speakers use a set of linguistic
resources. Languages must be “dis-invented” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012),
so that one comes to understand how people mobilize diverse linguistic
resources to speak. Or as Heller (2007: 2) explains, language figures as “a set
of resources whi circulate in unequal ways in social networks and
discursive spaces, and whose meaning and value are socially constructed
within the constraints of social organizational processes, under specific
historical conditions.” Focusing on multilingual speakers – but mostly all
people are bi/multi-lingual (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012) – Garcia (2009)
claims that there are no clear-cut boundaries between the “languages” that
these people draw on when they communicate with one another. To move
away from the focus on the language itself, he therefore proposes the term
“translanguaging,” referring to the multiple discursive practices in whi
these speakers engage, as they draw on the resources within their
communicative repertoires.
For instance, Harissi and colleagues (2012) discuss the language use of a
young man, born in Australia to a mother of Turkish descent and a father of
Anglo-Saxon baground, disaffected with his Turkish-Australian identity
and finding more commonalities with Japanese culture. In their analysis of a
conversation with his female Japanese supervisor, these authors examine
this young man’s fluid language use: mixing English and Japanese, and
using in-group informal Japanese language. e authors’ interest is not to
explain the swit in languages in terms of equivalence (code switing to
rely for instance on Japanese when no appropriate word in English is found).
Instead, they approa this young man’s language use as a set of linguistic
resources that he can rely on to express himself. In particular, they show
how the repeated acts of linguistic doings are an aempt to claim a new
form of identification, a fluid way of being through whi this young man is
simultaneously “the same” and “different”: claiming a Japanese identity, but
as an outsider, not showing deference to his supervisor. So, rather than
considering Japanese and English as two separate codes to speak in, the
authors show how these languages are used as resources to be able to
construct a particular subjectivity that offers new possibilities for a
Japanese-speaking Turkish Australian.
Together with the focus on language use emerges a new understanding of
multilingualism. When language is conceived as a discrete, unified system,
multilingualism is approaed as a multiplicity of language systems.
However, su a view still operates under the norm of monolingualism as
multilingualism is understood here as plural monolingualisms or the
existence of different hermetically sealed units (Heller, 2007; Makoni, 1998).
In contrast, when language is conceived as language use, a new
understanding of multilingualism emerges, one that truly moves beyond the
norm of monolingualism (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). In particular, Makoni
and Pennycook (2012) envisage a new sense of monolingualism that has at
its heart an understanding of diversity that goes beyond the pluralism of
multilingualism. In particular, they view multi-lingualism in terms of a
lingua franca in whi diverse features are blended together, reflecting ea
individual’s personal experiences. In su lingua franca multilingualism or,
in short, in a multilingual franca, “languages are so deeply intertwined and
fused into ea other that the level of fluidity renders it difficult to
determine any boundaries that may indicate that there are different
languages involved” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012: 447). In this
understanding, the notion of language as the basis of all analysis becomes
one of dubious validity. Rather, language becomes viewed as a multilayered
ain that is constantly combined and recombined.
Reflecting su understanding of multilingualism are studies in post-
colonial and urban contexts. Studies on popular culture in Africa show for
example how sampling of sounds, genres, languages, and cultures is the
norm (Pennycook, 2007) as for instance language use in parts of South
Africa may be interwoven with kwaito (a version of South African hip-hop).
Or, young people, caught up in the transition of a colonial to a post-colonial
situation that included rapid urbanization, want a way to express this new
“ethnicity,” whi gives rise to new language varieties. For example, “Sheng”
is su a Swahili/English hybrid, giving young people a global urban
ethnicity, namely “the urbanite: sophisticated, street smart, new generation,
tough” (Bosire, 2006: 192). As these hybrid languages emerge in urban or
metropolitan neighborhoods and grassroots contexts, this form of
multilingualism is also named urbi- or metrolingualism, featured by a
language use through whi people of different and mixed bagrounds use,
play with, and negotiate identities through language, allenging ethnic and
language orthodoxies through the possibilities of a new ethnic cool (Maher,
2005).

Voice instead of language

Considering language as translingual practices, the focus further shis to

voice rather than language. When individuals speak, they are considered to
be resourceful speakers, crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries to form
new linguistic and cultural possibilities (Harissi et al., 2012; Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011). Blommaert (2006: 166) captures this phenomenon under
the term voice: “the capacity to make yourself understood on your own
terms.” People express their voice through relying on particular linguistic
resources that are considered to be purposeful for the claims one wants to
aieve.
To further understand this notion of voice, we introduce the term
“repertoire”: “a collection of particular formats for using communicative
means – ‘languages’ in the traditional sense, language varieties (e.g. dialects
or specific codes), modalities (visual, gestural, intonational, aesthetic-,
topically organized styles and genres” (Blommaert, 2006: 168). Central is that
ingredients of a repertoire are specific; that is, most of our repertoire
elements are deployed in specific contexts and domains only. For instance,
we have a different sort of English for talking to our spouses than for talking
to our colleagues, and these different Englishes are non-exangeable. From
this view, the notion of a “monolingual” individual is rather absurd
(Blommaert, 2006). roughout his/ her life, an individual has built up a
repertoire consisting of more than one variety of languages. One’s mother
tongue indicates only one particular stage in one’s biographical itinerary: an
early, oral stage, whi gets quily overgrown by other language varieties,
specific registers, styles, and genres when we enter sool, higher education,
professional life, leisure, travel, and so on (Blommaert, 2006). So, an
individual’s language use thus does not only reveal his/her “origin” (you
speak German, so you must be from Germany) but his/her whole biography
and trajectory. e more we move through the world, the more we
accumulate elements of a repertoire: languages, varieties, styles, genres,
modalities. erefore, as argued by Blommaert (2010: 196), “we need to
develop an awareness that it is not necessarily the language you speak, but
how you speak it, when you can speak it, and to whom it maers. It is a
maer of voice, not of language.” is argument eoes that of Hymes (1996:
70) who argued for a focus on ways of speaking, and on “varieties and
modalities, styles and genres, ways of using language as a resource.”
Language use is therefore very likely not monolingual but rather hybrid
or multilingual as the author (even in the same “language”) may engage in
gender, professional, and individual-experiential codes to express
him/herself. Reversely, sociolinguists point out how speakers of mixed,
hybrid languages (e.g. Creole) rarely will experience their language as mixed
or hybrid (Blommaert, 2006; Mufwene, 2001). For them, “it is just their
language – a singular thing and not a composite of two different languages
with different sets of norms and rules aaed to them” (Blommaert, 2006:
170). Paraphrasing the terms monolingual and multilingual, Blommaert
(2006) considers the practical purposes as monolingual whi are aieved
through multilingual language use.
Dis-inventing language and conceiving it as translingual practices to
express voice also means a reconsideration of the relationship between
language and national identity and even a disconnection. Solars in
contemporary sociolinguistics have established that one “language” does not
straightforwardly index one subject position; rather, speakers use linguistic
resources in complex ways to perform a range of subject positions,
sometimes simultaneously. For instance, Mufwene (2001) has noted that in
Ghana, educated Ghanaian speakers find the reference to what they speak as
Ghanaian English as offensive as they perceive their English to be
indistinguishable from standard English, hereby refusing the subject position
of non-native English speaker. is implies that within a cross-language
situation, it is no longer (if it ever was) sufficient to view linguistic diversity
in terms of “ethnicity” or country of origin but other factors come into play
– differential immigration statuses, gender, age, race, economic mobility,
social class/caste, locality, and sexuality – whi result in complex blending,
mixing and reallocation processes (Blommaert, 2010). Differences between
“languages” are just one factor and the traditional notion of language – a
discrete entity with a name su as “Fren” or “English” – is a rather
“useless tool for understanding the concrete use of language in society”
(Blommaert, 2006: 167–168). Within this sociolinguistics view, our language
is never a linguistic maer only. Rather, it is a performative act where
people use and mix elements of their language repertoires (languages, style,
varieties, genres) to express their voice. In crossing and blending those
linguistic and cultural boundaries, they speak in a multilingual way that
cannot be reduced to code switing between different “languages.”

Implications for cross-cultural management:

communication and translation
is alternative conception of language as a multilingual, performative act
instead of a monolingual, fixed entity provides in our opinion far-reaing
implications for cross-cultural management. Once we no longer conceive
language as a discrete, pre-given entity, the idea of how to think about cross-
cultural communication and translation dramatically anges.

Cross-cultural communication as translingual practice

Until now, language in cross-national seings has primarily been seen as a
barrier when communicating, slowing things down and providing
distortions in geing a message and knowledge across (Harzing et al., 2011;
Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Wel et al., 2005). is view on language and
communication anges when we think of language as “language use to
express one’s voice.” Consider for instance the seings of global teams,
whi, we believe, are especially interesting because they constitute so-
called “intersections,” or spaces where bi- and multilingual individuals with
different (national, cultural, functional, organizational) bagrounds
encounter ea other and are in a position to negotiate the languages they
use and interweave (Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). Moving beyond a
monological approa, cross-cultural solars would not aim to understand
the barriers of communication or to identify reasons for the move from one
language to another (su as no equivalent term in one language to express a
particular idea) (Harissi et al., 2012). is would be premised on the
assumption about languages as discrete codes and the need to explain
movement from one to the other. Instead, when studying bi- or multilingual
speakers who are comfortable moving in and out of two or more languages,
cross-cultural solars would aim to understand how resourceful speakers,
through their translanguaging practices, try to express their voice. For
instance, the language use of a team member from Australia may be
understood as resisting his position as a low status member because he
comes from a small subsidiary. rough talking not only English but also
bringing in Danish, the “mother tongue” of a dominant coalition in the
global company, he may be able to create an alternative categorization of his
own position and identity (Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). Clearly, in
understanding the linguistic repertoires people can draw on, it is crucial that
we set aside our assumptions about the national, regional, ethnic, cultural, or
linguistic aracteristics of particular “groups” of users (Blommaert, 2010).
Colleagues, bosses, or clients are not a priori to be labeled as Danish or
Australian, but the focus is on the linguistic performance of voices,
mobilizing different linguistic resources.
 Whereas the emphasis of our multilingual conception of language is on
the fluid process of language use, it is crucial to note that speakers, in relying
on multilingual resources, also will draw on relatively fixed understandings
of language, culture, and identity to convey their voice (Janssens & Steyaert,
2014). For instance, the same Australian team member may use the Danish
word “Smørrebrød” and pronounce it in su a way to mark stereotypical
Danish. Paradoxically though, the fixity of this word and its meaning is
anged and opened up for critical examination the moment that the team
member from Australia uses it. To understand cross-cultural
communication, solars will therefore need to account for the interplay of
fixed and unfixed language elements, cultural identifications and social
relationships within fluid language use (Harissa et al., 2012; Otsuji &
Pennycook, 2011). Overall, when conceiving language as translingual
practices to express voice, cross-cultural communication focuses on how
individuals, as resourceful multilingual speakers, play in a cross-language
seing with their different linguistic resources as well as deploy fixed and
sometimes stereotypical images of languages, people, and cultures to create a
practical purpose.

Translation as a reconstruction of hybrid voice

Traditional definitions consider translation as the process through whi the

source language message is transferred from the source culture into the
target culture, with the underlying assumption that translation takes place
between linguistically and geographically separated cultures (Meylaerts,
2013). is view on translation anges when we consider language (and
culture) no longer to be a monolingual, homogeneous entity but a
multilingual, performative act. We highlight here two implications: a
different understanding of translation as the prolongation of the source
messages, and the problematic position of the translator as a broker in
reconstructing voice.
 Central to our alternative conception is that individuals and their
language use are more oen than not multilingual in themselves. is
implies that “translation is not taking place in between monolingual realities
but rather within multilingual realities” (Meylaerts, 2013: 519). As Simon
(2006) observes, translation without original where writing and translating
overlap in a creative act (Meylaerts, 2013) becomes multidirectional so that,
among other things, the distinction between source and target may lose part
of its conceptual pertinence. As argued by Meylaerts (2013: 524) when
emphasizing a multilingual perspective: “the concepts of ‘source’ vs ‘target’,
of ‘original’ vs ‘translation’ appear insufficient, altogether misleading
categories because every message is a collage of many messages in multiple
languages in an oen continuous translation ain.” Translation is then
performed as a part of a heterogeneous process of languaging, whi forms
spatial and temporal trajectories across globalized localities. It focuses on
hybrid, transmodal language use by looking at how vernaculars, resources,
styles, and intonations (tongues) are interwoven and mixed.
e emphasis on voice within this multilingual perspective further
highlights that the “problems” of translation are to a large extent all
problems of voice, or beer, the mobility of voice across contexts, audiences,
and occasions (Blommaert, 2005, 2006; Hymes, 1996). Mobility implies that
localized meaning is (sent) on its way, transferred, and, as it travels, enters
new communities of users. However, what appears as good language in one
community can be quily seen as “bad” language in another, or as
Blommaert (2006: 165) underlines, “not every element in our repertoire is
‘exportable’.” For instance, it is hard to use the dialects we know from one
language in another language, or simply in another context, su as when
giving a formal presentation; trying to speak to your boss in the way you
speak to your ildren; or trying to get help in a non-English speaking
country by shouting “help.” To document that “there is no stability in voice
across contexts, audiences and occasions,” Blommaert (2006: 167) refers to
the Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” spee. is has been a “moving”
spee to countless people, with voice to many of us, “yet it is clear that this
voice sounds differently now from when it was first heard, and that it has a
different ring to bla audiences than to white ones, to progressive ones than
to conservative ones, to young audiences than to audiences who were first-
hand witnesses to it.” So, if we would want to translate this spee, we
would not so mu focus on the intertextual movement (and thus aend to
the wrien version of this spee), but to the performance of the text, whi
comes down to being sensitive to voice, accent intonation, style, metaphors,
other resources, and how all this can re-sound in other specific, local
communities.
Translation therefore is not “just one of (textually organized) difference
that needs to be overcome by (textually organized) equivalence”
(Blommaert, 2006: 167), but rather it is to aend to (and accept) possible
differences that will emerge as various audiences are implied. For instance,
commenting on a study of translated political speees in Canada where
obvious differences and asymmetries were found (Gagnon, 2006), Blommaert
(2006) argues that su differences are to be expected, as any smart politician
will need to perform asymmetrical discourses when addressing
Francophones or Anglophones. Translation and its shi in language thus
involves a shi in style, in political persona, in viewpoint, in degree of alignment with audiences,
in traditions of understanding it, and rather than triggering it, the difference in language may just
be one particular ingredient in a more comprehensive move of recontextualization.
(Blommaert, 2006: 172)

Indeed, conceiving translation from a multilingual perspective implies that

“hybridity is a necessity, not an option” (Blommaert, 2006: 172); it is
accomplished not through equivalence but through difference. Translation is
thus not just switing between two languages, resulting in two texts, but an
at once more complex, everyday, and hybrid performance, a multi-voiced
speaking: “in translation, I have to stop speaking as a Self and start speaking
as an Other, a particular Other, a special Other, and an Other constructed as
special without me having control over it” (Blommaert, 2006: 173). is
brings us to the highly ethical question how we relate to the Other as we
reconstruct particular voices. As we think ba of the murderous scene in
the movie Babel, the motorcyclist did not run off because he did not
understand the word “help” but, as we assume, because of the voice that can
be associated with an American tourist, whi addresses him in what looks
like an agitated and dangerous context, a context he obviously did not want
to become complicit in.
Consequently, the emphasis on hybridity and voice turns the task of the
translator into a broker in boundary zones of identity work, “someone
ascribing particular identities, by carefully constructing particular voices for
others. is is not an unproblematic position” (Blommaert, 2006: 174).
Translation is not something to control or to hide, for that it is too mu an
ethical practice (Van Wyke, 2013). As it concerns the ethics of how we deal
with difference in everyday cross-cultural interaction, translation has to be
made visible, including the (work of) translators (Steyaert & Janssens, 2013).
Given the centrality of aiming to express voice through (translation in)
cross-cultural language use, we would, by way of conclusion, like to plead
for more explicit aention that needs to go to the role of translator as
carefully constructing particular voice for others. As the complexities of
translation gain more visibility, we believe we have only seen the beginning
of translation studies’ potential for IB and CCM to “shed light on the
multifarious nature of the cultural encounters and relationships among the
peoples of the world” (Van Wyke, 2013: 558), and to aend to the moments
of translation as moments of ethics in cross-cultural communication.

References
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. 2006. How legitimate is my voice? A rejoinder. Target, 18(1),
163–176.
Blommaert, J. 2008. Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of
African languages. Language and Communication, 28(4): 291–307.
Blommaert, J. 2010. e sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bosire, M. 2006. Hybrid languages: e case of Sheng (pp. 185–193). In O.F.
Arasanyin & M.A. Pemberton (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 36th
Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Sommerville: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Brannen, M.Y., Piekkari, R. & Tietze, S. 2014. e multifaceted role of
language in international business: Unpaing the forms, functions and
features of a critical allenge to MNC theory and performance.
International Journal of Business Studies, 45, 495–507.
Brook, T. 2009. Vermeer’s hat: e seventeenth century and the dawn of the
global world. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic
structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E. & Wel C. 2014. Translation in cross-
language international business resear: Beyond equivalence. Journal of
International Business Studies, 45, 562–582.
Conrad, P. 2008. A time when every picture told a story. e Guardian, 28
June 2008.
Cronin, M. 2013. Translation and globalization (pp. 491–533). In C. Millán &
F. Bartrina (Eds.), e Routledge handbook of translation studies. New
York: Routledge.
Gagnon, C. 2006. Language plurality as power struggle, or: Translating
politics in Canada. Target, 18(1), 69–90.
Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blawell.
Harissi, M., Otsuji, E. & Pennycook, A. 2012. e performative fixing and
unfixing of subjectivities. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 524–543.
Harzing, A.-W., Köster K. & Magner, U. 2011. Babel in business: e
language barrier and its solutions in the HQ—subsidiary relationship.
Journal of World Business, 46(3), 279–287.
Heller, M. 2007. Bilingualism as ideology and practice (pp. 1–24). In M.
Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approa. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hermans, J. & Lambert, J. 1998. From translation markets to language
management: e implications of translation services. Target, 10(1), 113–
132.
Higgins, C. 2009. English as local language: Post-colonial identities and
multilingual practices. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Holden, N.J. & Miailova, S. 2014. A more expansive perspective on
translation in IB resear: Insights from the Russian handbook of
knowledge management. Journal of International Business Studies, 45,
906–918.
Holmes, J. 1988. Translated papers on literary translation and translation.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Towards an
understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Janssens, M. & Steyaert, C. 2014. Re-considering language from a
cosmopolitan understanding: Towards a multilingua franca approa in
MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 623–639.
Janssens, M., Lambert, J. & Steyaert, C. 2004. Developing language strategies
for international companies: e contribution of translation studies.
Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414–430.
Luo Y. & Shenkar, O. 2006. e multinational corporation as a multilingual
community: Language and organization in a global context. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(3), 321–339.
Maher, J. 2005. Metroethnicity, language and the principle of cool.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175–176, 83–102.
Makoni, S. 1998. African languages as European scripts: e shaping of
communal memory (pp. 242–249). In S. Nuall & C. Cotzee (Eds.),
Negotiating the past: e making of memory in South Africa. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. 2012. Disinventing multilingualism: From
monological multilingualism to multilingual franca (pp. 439–453). In M.
Martin-Jones, A. Blaledge & A. Creese (Eds.), e Rout-ledge
handbook of multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mannheim, B. 1991. e language of the Inkha: Since the European invasion.
Austin: University of Texas.
Martin-Jones, M., Blaledge, A. & Creese A. 2012. Introduction: A
sociolinguistics of multilingualism for our times (pp. 1–26). In M.
Martin-Jones, A. Blaledge & A. Creese (Eds.), e Routledge handbook
of multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Meylaerts, R. 2013. Multilingualism as a allenge for translation studies (pp.
519–532). In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), e Routledge handbook of
translation studies. New York: Routledge.
Mufwene, S. 2001. e ecology of language evolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nakata, M. 2007. Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines.
Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Ortega y Gasset 1937/1992. e misery and splendour of translation (pp. 93–
112). In R. Sulte & J. Biguenet (Eds.), eories of translation. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Otsuji, E. & Pennycook, A. 2011. Social inclusion and metrolingual practices.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4),
413–426.
Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London:
Routledge.
Sco, A.O. 2006. Emotion needs no translation. NY Times, 27 October 2006.
Simon, S. 2006. Translating Montreal: Episodes in the life of a divided city.
Montreal: McGill-een’s University Press.
Steyaert, C. & Janssens, M. 2013. Multilingual solarship and the paradox of
translation and language in management and organization studies.
Organization, 20(1), 131–142.
Tietze, S. 2008. International management and language. London: Routledge.
Van Wyke, B. 2013. Translation and ethics (pp. 548–560). In C. Millán & F.
Bartrina (Eds.), e Routledge handbook of translation studies. New
York: Routledge.
Wel, D., Wel, L. & Piekkari, R. 2005. Speaking in tongues. e
importance of language in international management processes.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 10–27.
15
What do bicultural-bilinguals do in
multinational corporations?

Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen

is apter focuses on a topic that is toued upon in several recent and
currently developing streams of literature, but has yet to be explored in
depth: the roles that individuals versed in more than one culture and
language may play in contacts between units of multinational corporations.
e apter aims to summarize literature engaging with this theme and
combine it into a more complete picture of what is known and not known
about these individuals, thus identifying gaps in current knowledge to be
plugged by future resear.
Like other recent work involving the present author (Barner-Rasmussen et
al. 2014), this apter draws on the following working definitions of culture
and language. Following Bran-nen and omas (2010), culture is seen as
consisting of a culture-specific and a culture-general component. e former
concerns the specifics of a particular culture or subculture and hence has
only limited generalizability, while the laer refers to the ability to self-
reflect upon cultural processes and generalize from specific experiences to
more general paerns of cross-cultural interaction, and hence enables
operating in culturally appropriate ways across several different cultures
(omas et al. 2008). Language is defined as a set of linguistic and semantic
signals that one needs to master so as to be able to transfer meaning in that
language (Brannen 2004). Individuals can master su sets of signals to
varying degrees.
e next section highlights three streams of literature that have engaged
with different facets of the theme at hand: transfer of knowledge and
competencies in multinational corporations, cross-cultural skills, and
faultlines.

Literature review

Transfer of knowledge and competencies in multinational

corporations

Transfer of knowledge and competencies in multinational corporations is a

subfield of international business (IB) resear. Authors within this area
were early to understand the importance of cultural skills for interunit
transfer of knowledge and competencies (e.g., Hedlund 1986, Bartle &
Ghoshal 1987), and were also early to identify the relevance of language
competence in this context (Marsan et al. 1997, Marsan-Piekkari et al.
1999), although the laer line of inquiry took a long time to meld with the
mainstream of resear on knowledge transfer. A step in this direction was
taken in the work of Ghoshal and colleagues (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998, Tsai
& Ghoshal 1998) on the role of social capital in knowledge sharing
(including the cognitive dimension of social capital, whi encompasses
cultural and language competence). Other researers (e.g., Barner-
Rasmussen & Björkman 2005, 2007, Mäkelä et al. 2007) have subsequently
confirmed the existence of a linkage between knowledge transfer and social
capital, including its cultural and language dimensions. Most published
empirical work in this vein has, however, remained quantitative and focused
on the interunit level of analysis, as per tradition in the field of IB (Brannen
& Doz 2010).
Cross-cultural skills

In a seminal paper on cross-cultural recontextualization processes, Brannen

(2004) presented a convincing argument concerning the importance of
individuals’ in-depth cultural skills and blazed the trail for an inquiry into
the links between cultural and language skills. Her work implies that while
culture and language can to a certain point be learned separately from ea
other (Peltokorpi 2010, Ringberg et al. 2010), the knowledge set associated
with a particular culture cannot be fully internalized without knowing the
associated language, and vice versa. Cultural reality is created through
language, and the meaning of a given concept cannot be understood without
knowing the language in its cultural context (Brannen 2004).
omas et al. (2008) established the distinction between culture-specific
and metacognitive skills and highlighted the role that individuals versed in
multiple cultures and languages can play to bridge between groups and units
separated by culture. It has been shown that when bilingual individuals
swit languages, it activates a different cultural interpretive frame, whi
enables them to think and act differently, thus improving the cultural
appropriateness of their responses (see e.g., Dewaele 2008, Hong 2010,
Ringberg et al. 2010). Consequently, biculturalbilinguals tend to have greater
metacognitive capability than their monolingual and -cultural peers (e.g.,
Brannen et al. 2009, Hong 2010).
In the context of management across cultures and languages, this suggests
that individuals with a high level of both cultural and linguistic skills –
whi to a significant extent presuppose ea other – are particularly well
positioned to promote smooth interaction across cultural and linguistic
barriers. However, despite obvious similarities in empirical findings, this
body of work has so far been integrated with the IB literature only to a
limited extent and it is only recently that researers have begun to piece
together these findings into a more complete picture of how individuals’
cultural and language skills impact on the day-to-day operations of
multinational corporations through effects at the group and interunit levels.
 Recent studies (Mäkelä et al. 2007, Harzing et al. 2011, Barner-Rasmussen
et al. 2014) have identified individuals with high levels of language and
cultural skills as crucial links for knowledge and competence sharing
between different units in these firms. Barner-Rasmussen et al. (2014) show
that the extent to whi individuals function as ‘boundary spanners’ across
interunit boundaries is closely related to their cultural and language skills;
that culturally and linguistically skilled boundary spanners perform a
number of important and increasingly complex tasks related to the
management of interunit relationships; and that they tend to perform more
of these tasks, and more frequently, the beer their cultural and linguistic
skills are. Furthermore, the most qualified group of boundary spanners
identified in this study constituted less than 10 percent of all the individuals
engaged in any kind of boundary spanning. is indicates that boundary
spanning ability is a scarce resource that tends to follow a power
distribution, and underlines the value of competent boundary spanners for
multinational corporations.

Faultlines

A third body of literature that is relevant to our topic is that on small-group

behavior in international teams and specifically on ‘faultlines’ (Lau &
Murnighan 1998) between group members. Lau and Murnighan (1998)
described faultlines as ‘one or more attributes that can potentially subdivide
a group’ and argued that su subgroup divisions could be triggered by
between-group differences in social categories (demographic aracteristics
su as race, nationality, sex, or age), growing stronger the more aributes
are aligned in the same way. Lau and Murnighan (1998) argued that
subgroups are likely to be more salient the stronger and clearer the group’s
faultlines are; that subgroups are difficult to bridge once they have formed;
and that especially subgroups of comparable power ‘are likely to experience
intense, overt conflict.’
 Mu of the subsequent debate on this topic has centered on the nature of
subgroup differences and what makes a particular difference salient in a
particular context. Studies have identified faultlines aligned with differences
in national culture or language, but have also pointed out that faultlines are
not always based on demographic aributes and that other aributes can
interact with these.
Polzer et al. (2006) found geographical or location-based faultlines to
heighten conflict and reduce trust, and to grow stronger when a team was
divided into two equally sized subgroups of collocated members, especially
if these were homogeneous in terms of nationality. Bezrukova and
colleagues (Bezrukova et al. 2009, Jehn & Bezrukova 2010) in turn took a
cognitive perspective on faultlines, focusing on what group members
themselves perceive as faultlines and when and why they are triggered. Also
sociolinguists (Roberts 2007) have argued that cultural or ethnic baground
is a significant dimension of cross-cultural or -lingual encounters only if
made relevant in the interaction.
However, these observations have not anged the basic argument that
activated or triggered faultlines accentuate subgroup salience, heightening
conflict and reducing trust between subgroups. Importantly, recent resear
that has explicitly explored the role of language skills in this regard (Hinds
et al. 2014) shows that differences in lingua franca fluency may activate
preexisting faultlines in teams that are involved in power struggles.1

Discussion
In combination, these bodies of work indicate that at the aggregate level,
differences in culture and language may engender significant problems in
between-group relations when rendered salient by contextual factors. On the
other hand, high levels of linguistic and cultural skills have been shown to
be conducive to the sharing or transfer of knowledge and competencies
between units, and hence probably benefit also other, less complex forms of
interunit interaction.
At the individual level, linguistic and cultural skills are overlapping and
complementary, and may confer important competitive advantages on those
who possess them. Culturally and linguistically skilled boundary spanners
play an important role in international interunit relationships not only by
acting as information conduits and communicators themselves, but also by
actively engaging in micro-level interactions where they facilitate
colleagues’ interactions and intervene in conflicts and tensions. e ability
to bridge su tensions – or beer still, prevent them from flaring up – is
rare but potentially highly valuable to employers.
In terms of advice on how to deal with latent or already active faultlines,
Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) found team identification (‘meta-identity’) to
moderate the effects of activated fault-lines on group processes, so that a
strong workgroup identity decreased the likelihood that even an activated
faultline would lead to coalition formation and conflict. Relatedly, Homan et
al. (2007) found that informationally diverse decision-making groups
performed beer when they held pro-diversity rather than pro-similarity
beliefs. ese findings suggest that management of group members’ social
categorization and identification processes, and especially supporting the
emergence of a joint or shared identity, can prevent groups from splintering
into faultline-based subgroups.
How does this happen in practice? Lau and Murnighan (1998) theorized
that individual organizational members can play a role in this regard, since
‘group members with different and/ or unique combinations of aributes
may reduce the probability of subgroup formation and the kinds of
intragroup conflicts they can foster.’ In other words, individuals with
aributes transcending major faultlines might be able to dampen conflicts
across these faultlines. is turns our spotlight onto the dynamics that
underpin involvement by bicultural-bilinguals in su interactions – the
actions they take as individuals to assuage potential and actual tensions by
shaping group-level identities and the aracteristics that enable or hinder
them in doing this. e remainder of this section will be devoted to
exploring these issues with the help of three concepts: framing,
multilanguaging and intersectionality.

Framing

Framing is a ubiquitous construct in management and organizational

resear (Cornelissen & Werner 2014) and the purpose here is not to delve
into it in great depth. e starting point is simply the notion that individuals
use signals, su as gestures or words, to ‘evoke frames of interpretation for
their behaviour or communicated messages’ (Cornelissen et al. 2011: 1703,
building on Bateson 1955/1972). I follow Cornelissen and colleagues (2011) in
understanding the term ‘framing’ as an ongoing struggle or ‘contest’ where
the legitimacy of the framing effort depends on many factors. Still, in an
international context, the extent to whi a communicator is familiar with
the cultural discourse and language of her target community is likely a key
factor influencing both how her message is framed and how it is received.
is is where bicultural and bilingual boundary spanners enter the picture.
We noted that for bilingual individuals (who would to a great extent also
be bicultural, and vice versa), switing languages activates a different
cultural interpretive frame that enables them to think and act differently,
thus improving the cultural appropriateness of their responses. Further,
beyond their ability to mediate between two specific cultures and/or
languages, biculturalbilinguals are also likely to have greater metacognitive
ability, or the ability to self-reflect upon cultural processes and generalize
from specific experiences to more general paerns of cross-cultural
interaction (omas et al. 2008, Brannen & omas 2010). In the context of
daily work in a MNC, su individuals are likely to leverage their linguistic
and cultural savvy by interpreting and managing not only their own
responses but also those of others nearby, thus helping to frame day-to-day
interactions in consensual terms.
For example, in preparing with their team for a meeting with foreign
colleagues, a culturally and linguistically skilled boundary spanner is likely
to continuously and partly even subconsciously bridge the faultline between
the teams by straightening out minor misunderstandings, interpreting
strange words in e-mail messages, and explaining behavioral paerns su
as different approaes to timing or hierary. Switing thus between
cultural interpretive frames and languages as part of performing a routine
work task (preparing for the meeting), the boundary spanner would help
frame the meeting as an occasion to work together on a common issue,
rather than an encounter between two potentially antagonistic cultural and
linguistic groups. At the same time, because of his or her ability to
understand the interpretive frames of both groups, he or she would quite
naturally come to be viewed as a sympathetic contact point by both, and
hence accrue the kind of information and visibility advantages that have
been well documented in previous resear on how individuals benefit from
cultural and linguistic skills (e.g., Marsan-Piekkari et al. 1999).
In sum, the argument presented is that language- and culture-based
faultlines are a standard feature of organizational life in multinational
organizations, and that bicultural-bilinguals play a key role in alleviating
these tensions by drawing on their own ability to understand both sides,
reflect more broadly on cultural issues, and thus helping their colleagues
frame emerging allenges in ways that are constructive or at least neutral
instead of conflict-oriented. e reviewed literature indicates that from an
organizational viewpoint, systematic framing of potentially conflicted
situations in non-noxious terms and continuous bridging of boundaries
between units may be a crucial means of managing organizational faultlines.
An interesting corollary is that ‘boundary spanning’ may not always, or
even in the majority of cases, be something that people do because they
have been explicitly tasked with it. Rather, for some people, boundary
spanning and framing is impossible not to do, because it is an inherent part
of their psyological setup. Inversely, individuals laing the relevant
interpretive frames may not be able to act successfully as boundary spanners
even if they have been explicitly given the task, are evaluated on how well
they fulfill it, and have had their reward structures aligned accordingly. is
constitutes a triy allenge for human resource managers.
Multilanguaging

At the same time, and not contradicting what has been said previously about
switing between languages, I propose that an important aspect of what
bicultural-bilinguals do in multinationals is multilanguaging, or mixing
multiple languages at the same time in order to aieve specific
communicative purposes and enable a broad use of the creative resources
residing in their work environments (Lüdi et al. 2013). Despite the ubiquity
of English as a formally designated common corporate language (CCL),
most multinationals are in fact multilingual (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman
2005), and there is considerable empirical evidence that what really occurs in
well-functioning, linguistically and culturally mixed teams is that they
develop their own internal jargon that reflects the languages, cultures and
professional experience of team members while providing a platform or
‘shared conceptual space’ (Lüdi et al. 2013: 77) for their joint work.
Based on interviews in a number of European companies as part of the
EU-funded DYLAN project on multilingualism and diversity management
(Berthoud et al. 2013), Lüdi et al. (2013: 77) argue that ‘multilingualism and
multiculturalism are […] tightly knit. Multiculturalism seems to constitute a
necessary condition for exploring the benefits of multilingualism [and]
multi-lingual practices represent a key strategy, in a polyglossic society, for
facilitating the emergence of interculturality.’ I suggest that bicultural-
bilinguals play a key role also in this process. is notion is important partly
because it directs our aention from individuals’ mastery of discrete natural
languages to their input to the process of shaping the group’s joint
‘language,’ whi may include also professional language, industry
discourse, and so on. It also opens up for a beer understanding of how
group-level identities are created and strengthened through the use and
development of language, as well as the interplay between language and
culture. In sum, to quote Janssens and Steyaert (2014: 625) who have
proposed an innovative ‘multilingua franca’ approa to language in MNCs,
‘the emphasis is no longer on the study of the code of language but shis to
how speakers use a set of linguistic resources.’
Intersectionality

As a final component in this discussion, I draw on the concept of

intersectionality to argue that although there is a tendency to view their
competences in a predominantly positive light, not all bicultural-bilinguals
will find it equally easy to succeed as boundary spanners and managers of
organizational faultlines in multinationals. In any particular context, some
are likely to be perceived as more credible and/or legitimate than others due
to personal aracteristics beyond cultural and linguistic skills. Following
Zander et al. (2010: 457–458), who draw on the work of Crenshaw (1989,
1991), Collins (2000), McCall (2005) and Hanco (2007), intersectionality is
used here to refer to ‘the specific conditions that exist when one individual
holds two or more social statuses and to the simultaneous and interacting
effects of that combination’; resear taking this perspective seeks to explore
‘the ways in whi various socially and culturally constructed categories
interact on multiple levels.’
Intersectional resear (e.g., Sliwa & Johansson 2014) has shown that
aspects su as gender, personal appearance, class and ethnicity may
contribute to the extent to whi a particular individual will be accepted as a
legitimate actor in a cross-cultural context. In addition, and interlinked with
the above, perceptions of professional competence are likely to influence
how boundary spanning efforts by an individual are received by her
colleagues.
Naturally there are close links between these aspects and cultural and
language skills. Choices with regard to personal appearance are partly
culturally conditioned, and perceptions of social class and professional
competence may be influenced by one’s language skills (Sliwa & Johansson
2014). Still, it is important to note that due to intersections with other
aspects, individuals with equivalent cultural and linguistic skills may
encounter different levels of difficulty in taking on boundary spanner roles.
Conclusions and suggestions for future resear
e final sub-aim of this apter is to identify gaps in current knowledge to
be plugged by future resear, and to provide some pointers on how this
may be done.
A first observation is that we should be somewhat wary of bicultural-
bilinguals. Mu of the literature focuses on their positive aributes, but not
all they do or can do in multinational corporations is for the beer, as a
position of influence always contains the potential for abuse. With the
exception of occasional findings of linguistically fluent individuals bloing
information flows or acting as gatekeepers (e.g., Peltokorpi 2010), this point
has hardly been explored, indicating a potential for interesting, though likely
difficult, empirical resear.
Second, as briefly indicated in the literature review, researers have
struggled to balance the exploration of language and culture, historically
focusing on one or the other or failing to fully capture their empirical
linkages. Cultural and language skills reinforce ea other and current
knowledge suggests that very high levels in one are difficult to aain
without the other (Brannen 2004, Barner-Rasmussen et al. 2014). Still, these
skills do not always coexist, and even when they do, the relationship is not
necessarily linear (Peltokorpi 2010). As part of developing a more nuanced
view of this interrelationship, researers should both theoretically and
empirically approa both skills as scales, not binaries.
Nevertheless, current resear clearly implies that individuals stand a
beer ance of professional success if they align their job responsibilities
with their linguistic and cultural skills. is raises the question of culture-
specific versus culture-general competences (omas et al. 2008, Brannen &
omas 2010). e former are tied to specific cultures, the laer confer the
ability to operate in appropriate ways across several different cultures.
Multilingual individuals tend to have even greater metacognitive capability
than bilinguals, and tend to develop even higher levels of metapragmatic
awareness and ability to swit between meaning and form (Dewaele 2008,
Hong 2010, Ringberg et al. 2010). is suggests that individuals with very
high levels of cultural and linguistic skills stand a good ance of success as
mobile boundary spanners in the multinational firm, being able to leverage
their cultural meta-understanding also in contexts where they are not
intimately familiar with the language and culture.
Lau and Murnighan (2005) asked what it takes to ‘raise group members’
awareness to the level of their entire group’ and suggested that future
studies might delve deeper into the interplay between faultlines, identities,
beliefs and communication. In many cases, the most acute managerial
allenge is to cope with existing language- and culture-based faultlines
while promoting meta-identities (Jehn & Bezrukova 2010) that transcend
cultural, national and linguistic subgroups. Framing is relevant to both of
these endeavors. For example, and despite what has been said previously on
the potential of multilanguaging, an explicit requirement to use English may
certainly contribute to framing a multilingual organizational situation in
terms of equal opportunities and a ‘level playing field’ for all, thus helping
contain the language- and culture-based faultlines that are always latent in
multilingual and -cultural contexts.
Culturally and linguistically savvy boundary spanners can bridge
faultlines by simultaneously considering ‘both sides of the story’ and using
framing to help their colleagues on both sides of the faultline to do the same.
Over time, this is likely to support the emergence of a shared meta-identity,
especially if the boundary spanner is also the leader or manager of both
groups. However, a boundary spanner at lower hierarical level may be
able to help formulate and express a meta-identity in ways that will be
culturally acceptable to both parties.
Significant caution must, however, be exerted when exploring these
avenues for further resear. We should avoid treating language in the naïve
way that culture has for a long time been in the broader management
literature (cf. Brannen & Doz 2010). Mu of the literature operationalizes
‘culture’ as national culture or a mix or melding of two or more of these, and
‘language’ as one or several distinct natural languages. However, as
indicated both in the definitions used in this apter and in the treatment of
multilanguaging outlined previously, most individuals – especially in MNCs
– are in some sense multilingual. Hence, I argue that the affinity or
homophily (Mäkelä et al. 2007) created through a shared language is likely to
include components also of, e.g., company ‘speak’ and industry jargon,
whi have yet to be accounted for in empirical resear.
Analogously, there is significant variation not only between but also
within cultures (e.g., Brannen & Doz 2010, Li et al. 2013), rendering cultural
affiliation at the level of nationality a relatively coarse tool for grouping
individuals together and assuming they will feel affinity towards ea other.
e influence of national culture on corporate culture is relatively small
(Gerhart 2009), meaning that mating national cultures (e.g., sending a
bicultural Finnish-Chinese manager on an expatriate assignment to China)
should not be assumed to be – or be operationalized as – a perfect cultural
mat.
One consequence is that aempts to use ‘superior’ cultural and language
skills as selection criteria for positions are fraught with difficulty, as
individuals ostensibly well suited for certain tasks based on these criteria
may still flounder due to, for example, the wrong accent, or a level of
cultural understanding that eventually turns out to be too shallow.
Alternatively, individuals with the right cultural and linguistic competences
might struggle due to a la of sufficient professional credibility and
industry experience, whi might position them as outsiders in terms of, for
example, corporate culture. is highlights the need for more resear on
personal competences and career trajectories of boundary spanners. e
balance between linguistic/cultural skills and professional skills, and how
they develop and interact over the course of individual careers, seems
particularly interesting in this regard.
In sum, to be realistic, we must anowledge the extreme difficulty of
finding and deploying, in the right place at the right time, individuals who
combine the needed cultural and linguistic competences with relevant
professional credibility and industry experience and other intersectional
aributes rendering them easily acceptable in the intended work context.
Note
1 Hinds et al. (2014) also considered nationality (passport), whi may be seen as a proxy for
national culture, but in their analysis this variable has a subordinate role and the language-culture
link was not elaborated.

References
Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Björkman, I. (2005) Surmounting interunit
barriers: Factors associated with interunit communication intensity in
the multinational corporation. International Studies in Management and
Organisation, 35(1): 28–46.
Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Björkman, I. (2007) Language fluency,
socialization and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish
subsidiaries. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 105–128.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A. and Mäkelä, K.
(2014) Cultural and language skills as determinants of boundary
spanning within the MNC. Journal of International Business Studies,
doi: 10.1057/jibs.2014.7.
Bartle, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1987) Managing across borders: New
organizational responses. Sloan Management Review, 29 (1): 47–57.
Bateson, G. (1955/1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Berthoud, A.C., Grin, F. and Lüdi, G. (eds) (2013) Exploring the dynamics of
multilingualism: The DYLAN Project. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K., Zanuo, E. and ater, S. M. B. (2009) Do
workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines,
team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1):
35–50.
Brannen, M. Y. (2004) When Miey loses face: Recontextualization,
semantic fit and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management
 Review, 29(4): 593–616.
Brannen, M. Y. and Doz, Y. (2010) From a distance and detaed to up close
and personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in
international management resear and practice. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 26(3): 236–247.
Brannen, M. Y. and omas, D. C. (2010) Bicultural individuals in
organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 5–16.
Brannen, M. Y., Garcia, D. and omas, D. C. (2009) Biculturals as natural
bridges for intercultural communication and collaboration. International
Workshop on Intercultural Collaborations, 207–210.
Collins, P. H. (2000) It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and
nation. In Narayan, U. and Harding, S. (Eds) 2000. Decentering the
center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminine world.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 156–176.
Cornelissen, J. P. and Werner, M. D. (2014) Puing framing in perspective: A
review of framing and frame analysis across the sensemaking, social
movements and institutional literatures. Academy of Management
Annals. Cornelissen, J., Holt, R. and Zundel, M. (2011) e role of
analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimization of strategic
ange. Organization Studies, 32(12): 1701–1716.
Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A
black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory,
and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum. 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6): 1241–
1279.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008) Becoming bi- or multi-lingual later in life. In Auer, P.
and Wei, L. (Eds) 2008. Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual
communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 101–130.
Gerhart, B. (2009) How mu does national culture constrain organizational
culture? Management and Organization Review, 5(2): 241–259.
Hanco, A-M. (2007) When multiplication doesn’t equal qui addition:
Examining intersectionality as a resear paradim. Perspectives on
Politics, 5(1): 63–79.
Harzing, A-W., Köster, K. and Magner, U. (2011) Babel in business: e
language barrier and its solutions in the HQ—subsidiary relationship.
Journal of World Business, 46(3): 296–304.
Hedlund, G. (1986) e hypermodern MNC: A heterary? Human Resource
Management, 25: 9–35.
Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T., and Cramton, C.D. (2014) Language as a lightning
rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in
global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 536–561.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. and De Dreu, C. K.W.
(2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs,
information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
Hong, H. (2010). Bicultural competence and its impact on team effectiveness.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 93–120.
Janssens, M. and Steyaert, C. (2014) Re-considering language from a
cosmopolitan understanding: Towards a multilingua franca approa in
MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 623–639.
Jehn, K. and Bezrukova, K. (2010). e faultline activation process and the
effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group
outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
112(1): 24–42.
Lau, D. C. and Murnighan, J. K. (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines:
e compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of
Management Review, 23(2): 325–340.
Lau, D. C. and Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and
subgroups: e effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(4): 645–659.
Li, J., Tan, Y., Cai, Z, Zhu, H. and Wang, X. (2013) Regional differences in a
national culture and their effects on leadership effectiveness: A tale of
 two neighboring Chinese cities. Journal of World Business, 48(2013): 13–
19.
Lüdi, G., Höle, K. and Yanaprasart, P. (2013) Multilingualism and diversity
management in companies in the Upper Rhine Region. In Berthoud,
A.C., Grin, F. and Lüdi,G. (Eds) 2013. Exploring the dynamics of
multilingualism: The DYLAN Project. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 59–82.
McCall, L. (2005) e complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture & Society, 30(3): 1771–1800.
Marsan, R., Wel, D.E. and Wel, L.S. (1997) Language: e forgoen
factor in multinational management? European Management Journal,
15: 591–598.
Marsan-Piekkari, R., Wel, D. E. and Wel, L. S. (1999) In the shadow:
e impact of language on structure, power and communication in the
multinational. International Business Review, 8: 421–440.
Mäkelä, K., Kalla, H. and Piekkari, R. (2007) Interpersonal similarity as a
driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations.
International Business Review, 16: 1–22.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–
266.
Peltokorpi, V. (2010) Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries: e
influence of expatriates’ language and cultural competencies.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2): 176–188.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp B., Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Kim, J. W. (2006) Extending the
faultline concept to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated
subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(4): 679–692.
Ringberg, T. V., Reihlen, M., Luna, D. and Peracio, L. A. (2010) Bicultural-
bilinguals: e effect of cultural frame switing on translation
equivalence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1):
77–92.
Roberts, C. (2007) Multilingualism in the workplace. In Auer, P. and Wei, L.
(Eds) 2007. Handbook of multi-lingualism and multilingual
communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. 405–422.
Sliwa, M. and Johansson, M. (2014) Gender, foreignness and academia: An
intersectional analysis of the experiences of foreign women academics in
UK business sools. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(1), 18–36.
omas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J.-L.,
Poelmans, S., Brislin, R., Pekerti, A., Aycan, Z., Maznevski, M., Au, K.
and Lazarova, M. B. (2008) Cultural intelligence: Domain and
assessment. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8:
124–143.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital and value creation: e role of
intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 464–476.
Zander, U., Zander, L., Gaffney, S. and Olsson, J. (2010) Intersectionality as a
new perspective in international business resear. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 26(4): 457–466.
16
Language diversity in management
education
Towards a multilingual turn

Linda Cohen, Jane Kassis-Henderson and Philippe

Lecomte

Introduction

Language diversity has become a critical component in international

organizations today both in the business world and in the educational sector.
Previously an under-explored component of cultural diversity, language
diversity in organizations is now being studied by applied linguists and
management solars. eir resear findings lay emphasis on the de facto
multilingualism, aracterized by the interplay of different languages, in the
multicultural workplaces of today.
By looking at management education, and in particular the role of
language and communication studies, in the light of this resear this
apter focuses on the need to reconsider learning objectives to introduce
what could be called ‘a multilingual turn’ in the context of today’s business
sools, moving away from the framework previously formulated in terms
of distinct national languages and cultures. e first part of the apter
presents the theoretical baground and the key terms of the debate around
language learning and communication competencies for managers.
Emphasis is laid on the shi of focus in recent years, whi has entailed a
move away from the notion of native speaker as model in foreign language
learning, also known as second language acquisition. Resear on MNCs is
presented to support the argument for bringing language and
communication studies in management education closer to the needs of
companies today. In particular, stress is laid on understanding language use
in organizational contexts and on questioning the ready acceptance of
English as the lingua franca of international business. e apter then
shows how the cultural and linguistic diversity of the student body favours a
‘multilingual approa’ in the educational context, reinforcing real-world
contexts of interpersonal exanges that increasingly take place in a variety
of languages. e analysis demonstrates how this approa contributes to
the overall objectives of the management programme and offers students the
opportunity to learn to adapt to the diversity and complexity of a fast-
anging world. ere follows a detailed description of one particular
syllabus, whi brings together the different parts of the apter and
presents learning methods and outcomes together.

e multilingual turn: a new conceptual

framework
In the field of language learning – or second language acquisition – two
widely held principles have been allenged in recent years by applied
linguists and communication studies solars. e first is the emulation of
the native speaker as a model for the language learner, and the second is the
principle of learning through immersion in the geographical zone where the
language is spoken, also known as linguistic tourism. is apter analyses
the reasons for breaking with these paradigms and offers new perspectives
in the context of management education.
 With the intensification of connections between people of different
cultures and bagrounds, a simplistic and limited view of language has
given way to a fuller understanding of the complexity of communication
and language-related issues in the international organizations of today. is
has been facilitated by what has been termed the ‘linguistic turn’ in the
social sciences, whi has given greater recognition to the importance of
language in the social construction of reality (Vaara et al. 2005); to language
as a ‘performative act’ because using words means taking action rather then
merely using a symbolic system describing reality (Alvesson & Kärreman
2000). e field of applied linguistics has also moved on in recent years
operating a ‘multilingual turn’ in resear on second language acquisition,
whi has been hailed as no less than revolutionary questioning as it does
the monolingual foundation of theoretical and applied linguistics (Krams
2012, May 2013) and thus anowledging the ‘performative role’ of language.
Management solars and applied linguists have pointed out the
inadequacies of the traditional approa to language and cross-cultural
communication studies, stressing the need to move beyond the static and
comparative models of cultural interaction on whi it is based. As Holden
(2002) has observed, knowledge of ‘national’ languages and the cultures
associated with them is no guarantee of successful interaction in the
multilingual/multicultural seings in MNCs. In recent years, the notion of
standard national language as an appropriate object of study has been
questioned by applied linguists (Canagarajah 2007) who contend that rather
than learning the elements of one whole symbolic system, it is necessary
today to learn ‘to move between languages and to understand and negotiate
the multiple varieties of codes, modes, genres, registers, and discourses that
students will encounter in the real world’ (Krams 2012).
ese advances in resear are the result of language acquisition being
theorized within a socially embedded and open model in tune with the
shiing multilingual communities of today’s world. Resear into language
practices in multilingual teams has indicated that there is mu interplay of
languages and great flexibility in the way they are used, even within a
workplace seing that has adopted one official working language, or lingua
franca (Janssens and Steyaert 2013). Indeed, the interplay of various
languages has been described as one of the key features that aracterize
globalization today (Virkulla-Räisänen 2010). is resear has provided an
alternative perspective to the diotomy of non-native versus native speaker
(Canagarajah 2007), whi has been a basic premise in the field for so long.
At the same time, studies on the use of English as a lingua franca have
demonstrated parallels with the features of multilingual communities where
performance strategies are constantly adapted to suit anging
communicative contexts (Canagarajah 2007). English as a lingua franca is in
fact a multilingual way of using English, impacted by the different language
bagrounds of its users, and is therefore not based on the practices and
representations of native speakers.
In her work on language use in this real world of business organizations,
Nierson has pointed out the mismat between language teaing material
used to prepare students for a specific business context (meetings) and the
discursive practices actually used in concrete situations. Rather than
focusing on linguistic competence based on the native speaker as a model,
she recommends that students should learn to identify the different
rhetorical strategies that are used in exanges between speakers of different
languages (Nierson 2005). Other solars have also recommended adopting
a broader perspective in the assessment of communication skills of
employees, claiming that these should not only be based on the ability to use
a specific language system (Charles & Marsan-Piekkari 2002) but on the
impact and effectiveness of its use in a given context.
ese developments have laid the theoretical framework for a new
pragmatic approa to language teaing and learning based on the
competencies acquired through the interplay of different languages that tend
to be most oen associated with the versatility of speakers of multiple
languages. e term ‘multilingual’ refers to both of these factors in this
apter.
e multilingual turn: implications for companies
In spite of these developments in resear and their implications for
management there tends to be a la of awareness of the complexity of
communication processes and language-related issues in international
organizations (Fredriksson et al. 2006, Marsan et al. 1997, Maclean 2006,
Wel et al. 2001). Oen this results in the adoption of a lingua franca
policy, or adopting English as a corporate language, with the expectation of
facilitating knowledge transfer and interactions (Neeley 2012). Introduced to
downplay tensions of linguistically diverse teams, this policy results in
language being viewed as a vehicle to exange information with no
understanding of how language use impacts the interaction itself. Most of
the time, conflicts or inefficiencies are aributed to interpersonal or
tenological issues or to cultural differences: it is oen the case that only
‘tenical skills’ are considered important, and foreign language competence
is oen viewed simplistically as a meanical skill, with the implication that
a mastery of the linguistic system provides the tools required to operate
effectively (Marsan et al. 1997, Kassis-Henderson 2005).
Extensive resear on English as a lingua franca has identified the
consequences for IB, HRM and organizational behaviour and is increasingly
questioning the operational ramifications of this essentialist approa to
language and culture (Li et al. 2007; Neeley 2012). One criticism is that in a
diverse linguistic community, seing up a binary or antagonistic model of
‘Us vs. em’ based on the native vs. non-native speaker divide is not a
constructive mindset when it comes to solving the problems that arise from
confronting points of view. Second, learning the code of language without
understanding how language is used in context and how sense-making is
negotiated does not ensure effective communication. Individuals must meet
a minimal contextual requirement of a given situation to ensure effective
communication. Gudykunst (1991) illustrates the complexity of the allenge
by defining three aspects of context:
 the verbal context, that is, making sense of the wording and the topic; the relationship context,
that is, the structuring, type and style of messages so that they correspond to the particular
relationship at hand; and the environmental context, that is, the consideration of constraints
imposed on message making by the symbolic and physical environments.

Resear has also shown the diverse functions of language that come into
play in organizational life, emphasizing its symbolic function and its role as
a marker of individual or group identity or as a factor of exclusion or
instrument of power (Marsan-Piekkari et al. 1999; Tietze 2004). Also,
beyond representing the traditional cultures of ethnic groups, language is,
from a more dynamic perspective, the means through whi shared
understanding and shared working cultures come into being (Holden 2002).
However, in spite of this greater understanding thanks to advances in
resear, the notion of language as being at the core of the process of
management and managing continues to be ignored or sidelined. Although
foreign language skills and language knowledge is a stated requirement on
the list of international skills for future managers, the importance of
developing an awareness of variation in cultures of communication is too
rarely stressed. In fact, international executives and students usually have
‘good foreign language skills’, and have developed strategies as language
learners that allow them to express themselves clearly in ‘controlled’
situations, whi, more oen than not, resemble closed monologues. ey
therefore oen fail to aieve their goals when communicating across
languages. is stable, homogeneous notion of national language and culture
must adapt to the shiing and interdependent networks within MNCs today.
Rather than reduce language skills to those taught for application in
monolingual and monocultural national contexts, they must include the
competencies to beer meet the allenges involved in multilingual or inter-
language communication.

e multilingual turn: implications for

management education
is ‘multilingual turn’ questions the monolingual foundation of applied
linguistics and takes as a starting point the advantages of diversity-driven
language use. Recent studies have pointed to the important spanning or
bridging role played by multilingual/multicultural individuals as they use
innately acquired skills that facilitate interaction and the resolving of
tensions that oen arise among culturally and linguistically diverse teams
(Brannen & Doz 2010). A case study by Hong and Doz published in Harvard
Business Review in June 2013 shows that L’Oreal has integrated this finding
in their recruitment practices as they hire ‘managers, who by virtue of their
upbringing and experience have gained familiarity with the norms and
behaviours of multiple cultures and can swit easily among them
(emphasis ours)’. By judiciously deploying professionals with multicultural
bagrounds in emerging markets where global–local tensions are high,
L’Oreal was able to transform this contentious terrain to their competitive
advantage, resulting in double-digit growth in these regions. From being
perceived as a negative cost factor, cultural and linguistic diversity is turning
into a competitive advantage for both career opportunities as well as
corporate strategy itself. In addition, studies (cited in TL Forum 2004) have
shown that enhancing diversity awareness results in other benefits including
‘improved creativity in problem solving, development of critical thinking
skills, improved social interaction by increasing willingness to share and
appreciate different perspectives, and enhanced problem solving skills’.
In today’s complex world, companies must therefore show greater
reactivity and flexibility to adapt to the continuously anging environment.
is new situation requires a demanding skill-set ranging from cross-
cultural awareness, adaptability to new working contexts, flexibility and
permanently contextualized management thinking. Companies need well-
trained, inventive, adaptable and innovative managers, able to quily
understand issues of an ever-increasing complexity. ese qualities of the
ideal profile would be more fully aieved if the importance of
contextualizing language and communication skills were more explicitly
integrated (Cortazzi & Jin 1997).
 Both in companies and business sools decision makers have tended to
underestimate the allenges raised by language diversity in the workplace.
However, in management education today there is a growing understanding
of the need to leverage cultural diversity for in-depth practice of
intercultural communication and teamwork. is can be done by creating
culturally diverse groups composed of students of different national origins
and language bagrounds. Su a learning environment contributes to
developing the interpersonal and intercultural awareness required in
international business seings. A large part of this ‘intercultural’ awareness
is ‘interlanguage’ awareness, or an understanding of variations in
expectations and interpretations when speakers of different languages are
interacting (Kassis-Henderson 2006).
Understanding the communication allenges involved in the multilingual
seings of companies today has become one of the major learning objectives
in language and communication studies. Regarding language in business
education, until recently the tendency of language training policies in many
sools was to reduce language learning to the acquisition of a linguistic
code and were disconnected from the overall learning objectives in
management programmes. e teaing objectives of su language courses
were oen designed to mat the criteria of standardized tests, therefore the
importance of developing wider communication skills su as adapting
language to specific contexts and to speakers of other languages was
neglected. Ensuring the diversity of languages taught and enlarging the
pedagogical objectives of courses to focus more on pragmatic competencies
is a crucial strategic issue for institutions, especially in the context of
allocating limited resources. In some Fren business sools, bilingual
examinations have been introduced to accustom students to the interplay of
languages by switing from one language to another, using Spanish or
German as well as English, whi is oen the reality in the workplace when
dealing with various actors, be they colleagues, suppliers or customers. Some
classes are also bilingual, with students and faculty switing languages
according to the topic and speakers. Su practices help prepare students to
face the allenges posed by language diversity and improve their
competencies to effectively manage language diversity in international
contexts.
All in all, these developments show the need for language and
communication studies to move beyond language proficiency as a learning
goal and to widen their scope to cover managerial, organizational, strategic
issues, in whi language plays a role.
e following section looks more closely at the educational process with
the example of a course taught in a business sool in Europe.

e multilingual turn: a new pedagogical approa

As interacting within a culturally and/or linguistically homogeneous
population has become a rarity, course models based on traditional notions
of language and culture that hold the native speaker as model and impose
national boundaries as reference will not adequately prepare the student for
the type of interaction and allenges they will necessarily encounter in the
multilingual/multicultural contexts that are the norm in today’s global
economy. Preparing students to recognize, understand and acquire the
competencies to negotiate the multiple levels of linguistic and cultural
diversity must become a core objective of management education. Solars
in the field of international business education have stressed the need for
educational and pedagogical strategies to exploit the potential of language
diversity, whi enhances learning outcomes and broadens the cognitive
range of individuals (Kyvik & Mughan 2010).
As discussed earlier, resear has identified the competitive advantages
companies derive by recruiting and empowering multilingual and
multicultural managers for their innately acquired skills (Hong & Doz 2013).
As educators, we cannot allow these competencies to remain the advantage
of those randomly born to multilingual/multicultural parents – a new twist
to the native speaker privilege found in the mono- lingua franca model! e
question must therefore be asked as to how we could best transpose these
resear findings into useable skills. How can we mobilize the language
learner to first recognize and then adequately confront communicative
obstacles (Krams 2012) to become adept members of
multilingual/multicultural groups? And, ultimately, how can language and
cultural diversity beer articulate the ‘global mindset’ (Jeannet 2000) or
‘global literacy’ (Rosen 2000) that are recognized as the ‘new competencies
needed for the new economy’ (Soderberg & Holden 2002)?
A course at a European management sool with an international student
body was thus designed to enable students to beer understand what is at
play when using language in multilingual/multicultural contexts. is 12-
hour course, held over four three-hour sessions, was initially designed for 45
students of mixed nationalities enrolled in the apprenticeship tra of the
Master in Management programme. As apprentices, students have a two-
year company contract and alternate between periods of study and in-
company experience – an ideal context to apply experiential learning
methods particularly adapted to the learning objectives of this language and
communication course. is course was designed to make use of the
company terrain to identify the rea of the language factor when it comes
to interactional situations and workplace communication. Part of the
English language requirement, the course objectives go beyond improving
language skills per se and place the language learner as language user and
seeks to incite reflection as to how people effectively mobilize diverse
linguistic resources (Janssens et al. 2004) and develop rhetorical strategies in
a communicative process.
Students are first asked to narrate ‘critical incidents’ concerning
communication strategies observed in their company; by confronting these
narratives to theoretical input they question tacit assumptions concerning
effective language practices, and by doing so are more inclined to adopt
appropriate strategies in the workplace. An additional learning outcome of
the course is to understand the importance of effective language usage and
communication strategies when establishing rapport in the team-building
process (Cohen & Kassis-Henderson 2012) and to identify the factors
favouring a positive work atmosphere and satisfactory results as opposed to
those hindering work processes.
Of course, not all students are working in ‘intercultural’ contexts in the
traditional, nation-culture sense of the term. is alone incites reflection as
to what is contained in the word ‘culture’ beyond national references in
order to underline the importance of contextualizing spee and the
allenge of adopting context-appropriate strategies that will eventually lead
to mutual understanding.
As students are expecting an ‘English’ course, it is important to explicitly
shi the focus and determine objectives and identify issues in the first
session. is too incites reflection, for oen problems of communication are
due to misperception, misjudgement or mistakes regarding issues that could
have been more carefully clarified or elucidated and hence avoided. ree
questions are asked: 1) How do people communicate in your company? 2)
What are the most effective means of communication? 3) What problems are
due to communication? Students are instructed to first answer these
questions individually before exanging experience in subgroups. Finally
results are shared collectively, confronting commonalities and differences.
Students then view interviews of corporate communication experts on this
subject and compare professional discourse with their own or their
classmates’ points of view. Here they might realize that an easily dismissed
minority view was validated by an expert opinion. Discussion can then lead
to the loss in performance resulting from complacent conclusions drawn
from similar mindsets. As Ledwith and Seymour (2001) have found in
analysing group activity, similar mindsets lead to easy solutions and for this
very reason, resear findings show compa nies increasingly seek people
with a flexible perspective, a quality most oen found among multicultural
individuals, as it can lead to unexpected opportunities for product
innovation (Hong and Doz 2013).
To prepare for the second session, students are asked to read an article
about e-mail communication in MNCs by Anna Kankaaranta (2006) and to
bring in samples of e-mail communication from their workplace. e focus
of this session is to demonstrate the importance of contextualizing discourse
in the sense-making process to aieve effective communication.
Fundamental for students who are learning to use language to communicate
effectively in a multilingual environment is that identifying the different
rhetorical strategies (Nierson 2005) and adapting to the type of discourse
or genre – using language appropriate to context – may be more essential to
perform successfully in professional situations than demonstrating
impeccable language skills without taking into account how language works
in a specific context (Kankaanrata 2006). is also explains why monolingual
native speakers of English are not necessarily the most professionally
effective in linguistically and culturally diverse communities, even when
English is the lingua franca. Communicative competence, whi includes
pragmatic fluency and flexibility, is among the differentiating competencies
that have been identified in multilingual individuals (Grin & Faniko 2012).
Also necessary for effective multicultural teamwork (Iles & Hayers 1997 in
Ledwith and Seymour 2001), it must as su be among the learning
objectives of management programmes.
Day three, devoted to questioning the lingua franca policy adopted by
MNCs, is based around the case study on the ‘Englishnization’ at Rakuten
by Tsedal Neeley as presented in the article ‘Global Business Speaks English’
in the Harvard Business Review (Neeley 2012). In 2010, Hiroshi Mikitani,
Chairman and CEO of Rakuten Group, initiated a two-year English
proficiency mandate for the entire company in order to ‘cat up with the
global market’. Although oen lauded as the panacea to many operational
problems associated to internationalization, the Rakuten case stimulates a
critical discussion about the risks and consequences of implementing su a
radical language strategy within an MNC. Do boundaries and barriers
automatically disappear by using English, or are words when enounced still
cloaked in cultural prisms requiring negotiation for sense-making and
understanding? In their B2B2C Business Model, should the mandated
English-only policy be implemented for both B2B as well as B2C? As studies
have shown (Harzing & Pudelko 2012, Hong & Doz 2013), proficiency in the
local language and culture is regarded as a competitive advantage for a firm.
And what about the place of the native English speaker? In addition to the
obvious issue of undue advantage if language proficiency is a criteria for
assigning tasks or awarding promotions, the article also points to their
potential role as ‘helper, facilitator or coa’ in the language learning
process. But as the case shows, native speakers, as they too have a job to get
done, will not necessarily feel the empathy to fulfil the role of facilitator and
may even feel annoyance due to the increasing solicitations of their newly
linguistically enabled colleagues.
ese many questions lead to the final session where students are asked to
reflect upon best practices for effective language use and communication
strategies in the workplace by responding to the statement: ‘English as a
lingua-franca is sound strategy for the globalized market place, therefore
proficiency in English is enough.’ A minority of students acquiesce, still
focusing on the importance of being ‘absolutely fluent’ in English, whi for
them means using ‘the correct vocabulary and grammar rules’ in order ‘to
understand and be understood in all situations, without the possibility of
misunderstanding that can lead to awkward situations.’ However, most
demonstrate a shi in their approa, focusing now on the communicative
or performative function of language use as revealed in the following
quotes: ‘If we use some expressions of a high level like a native speaker, our
interlocutors won’t necessarily understand and our objective is just to make
ourselves clear’; or:
Two people speaking the same language are not always able to understand ea other because of
communication issues. at is why the way you say things, the way you communicate, is at least
as important as your language skills. e biggest issues come from the la of communication
skills or knowledge about other cultures rather than poor English.

Students also recognize the added value of language diversity:

Learning languages is a way of being broadminded and as a consequence be able to present new
ideas. I realize that is partly why I got my last internship. My boss knew I would be more likely to
have a different vision of the job than other students.

rough the confrontation of points of view, students are able to draw

conclusions concerning language use and communication in a professional
context and the multi-lingua franca model is introduced and reasoned as a
viable alternative.

Conclusion: language diversity as a competitive

advantage
In this apter we have shown that the traditional approa to language
learning based on the normative model of the native speaker is no longer
suited to the world of today. e increased complexity and the fast-anging
nature of today’s business environment have resulted in a complex interplay
of global strategies oen implemented through less hierarical structures,
delegated decision-making, and the taking of initiatives and responsibility
on the part of middle management within varied local markets. Recent
resear in international business shows how linguistic diversity can be a
competitive advantage in MNCs and lends support to our argument for a
multilingual approa. Commenting on the managerial relevance of their
study of language competencies, policies and practices in MNCs, Harzing
and Pudelko (2012) state that interactions with employees and clients are
likely to be most successful when a oice is offered between several
languages. is leads to their claim that ‘linguistic diversity can probably be
regarded as a competitive advantage’.
is model implies that managers require a heightened sensitivity to
linguistic and cultural diversity and these transformations must be
addressed in the educational sphere. We have shown that promoting
multilingualism facilitates these anges.
Multicultural and multilingual student groups – or teams – offer scope for
the development of the openness and adaptability required in today’s
organizations. ey also permit the development of cognitive, interpersonal,
social and communication skills in a genuinely cross-cultural learning
environment. Language diversity favours the development of these skills: the
‘intangibles’ from culture – transmied through language – generate
original perspectives reflected in the way of thinking (Wilkinson 2011).
Multilingualism helps cultivate multiple ways of reasoning, whi could
bring that competitive edge into the marketplace.
Management studies must prepare students to confront different
perspectives, to question underlying assumptions and to adapt to diverse
points of view in order to propose the appropriate solutions for a given
context. Language and communication studies therefore provide an ideal
platform to accompany businesses embarking on this ‘multilingual turn’.

References
M. Alvesson and D. Kärreman, ‘Taking the linguistic turn in organizational
resear: Challenges, responses, consequences’, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 36, 2000, 136–158.
M-Y. Brannen and Y. Doz, ‘From a distance and detaed to up close and
personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in
international management resear and practice’, Scandinavian Journal
of Management (26) 2010, 236–247.
S. Canagarajah, ‘Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and
language acquisition’, The Modern Language Journal 91 (1) 2007, 923–
939.
M. L. Charles and R. Marsan Piekkari, ‘Language training for enhanced
horizontal communication: A allenge for MNCs’, Business
Communication Quarterly 65 (2) 2002, 9–29.
L. Cohen and J. Kassis-Henderson, ‘Language use in establishing rapport and
building relations: Implications for international teams and management
education’, Revue Management et Avenir, July–August, 55, 2012, 185–
207.
M. Cortazzi and L. Jin, ‘Communication for learning across cultures’ in D.
McNamara and R. Harris (Eds), Overseas students in higher education:
Issues in teaching and learning, London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 76–90.
R. Fredriksson, W. Barner-Rasmussen and R. Piekkari, ‘e multinational
corporation as a multilingual organization. e notion of a common
corporate language’, Corporate Communication: An International
Journal 11 (4) 2006, 406–423.
F. Grin and K. Faniko, ‘Foreign language skills and intercultural abilities:
Operationalization with a large population’, Management et Avenir,
July–August, 55, 2012, 168–184.
W. B. Gudykunst, Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication,
Sage Publications, Inc. 1991.
A-W. Harzing, and M. Pudelko, ‘Language competencies, policies and
practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and
comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic
MNCs’, Journal of World Business 48 (1) 2012, 87–97. N. J. Holden,
Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management perspective,
London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2002.
H-J. Hong and Y. Doz, Harvard Business Review, June 2013.
P. Iles, and P. Hayers, ‘Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A
tentative model and case study’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 12 (2)
1997, 95–117.
M. Janssens and C. Steyaert, ‘Re-considering language from a cosmopolitan
understanding: Towards a multilingua franca approa in MNCs’,
Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 2014, 623–639.
M. Janssens, J. Lambert and C. Steyaert, ‘Developing language strategies for
international companies: e contribution of translation studies’, Journal
of World Business 39, 2004, 414–430.
J. P. Jeannet, Managing with a global mindset, Financial Times Prentice Hall,
2000.
A. Kankaaranta, ‘“Hej, Seppo, could you pls comment on this!” Internal
email communication in lingua franca English in a multinational
company’, Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 2006, 216–225.
J. Kassis-Henderson, ‘Language diversity in international management
teams’, International Studies of Management and Organization 35 (1)
2005, 66–82.
J. Kassis-Henderson, ‘Multicultural student groups: A training ground for
international management teams’, in F. H. Joanneum (Ed.), Proceedings
of the LTG Conference, ‘Implications for learning and teaching in a
globalised world’, 2006, April 6–7, Graz, Austria.
C. Krams, ‘Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA’, Critical
Multilingualism, an Interdisciplinary Journal 1 (1) 2012, 107–128.
O. Kyvik and T. Mughan, ‘e internationalisation of business: Educational
paradigms and allenges’, Journal of International Business Education
5, 2010, 179–200.
S. Ledwith and D. Seymour, ‘Home and away: Preparing students for
multicultural management’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management 12 (8) December 2001, 1292–1312.
L. Li, W. Barner-Rasmussen and I. Björkman, ‘What difference does the
location make?: A social capital perspective on transfer of knowledge
from multinational corporation subsidiaries located in China and
Finland’, Asia Pacific Business Review 13 (2) April 2007, 233–249.
D. Maclean, ‘Beyond English: Transnational corporations and the strategic
management of language in a complex multilingual business
environment’, Management Decision 44 (10) 2006, 1377–1390.
R. Marsan, D. Wel and L. Wel, ‘Language: e forgoen factor in
multinational management’, European Management Journal 15 (5) 1997,
591–598.
R. Marsan-Piekkari, D. Wel and L. Wel, ‘In the shadow: e impact of
language on structure, power and communication in the multinational’,
International Business Review 8 (4) 1999, 421–440.
S. May, The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual
education, London: Taylor & Francis, 2013.
T. Neeley, ‘Global business speaks English’, Harvard Business Review 90 (5)
May 2012, 116–124.
C. Nierson, ‘English as a lingua franca in international business contexts’,
English for specific purposes 24 (4) 2005, 367–380.
R. H. Rosen, Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national
cultures, New York: Simon & Suster, 2000.
A-M. Soderberg and N. Holden, ‘Rethinking cross cultural management in a
globalizing business world’, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 2, 2002, 103–121.
TL Forum, ‘An approa to managing diversity in student team projects’,
Seeking Educational Excellence. Proceedings of the 13th Annual
Teaing Learning Forum, 9–10 February 2004. Perth: Murdo
University. hp://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2004/caspersz.
S. Tietze, ‘Spreading the management gospel: In English’, Language and
Intercultural Communication 4 (3) 2004, 175–189
E. Vaara, J. Tienari, R. Piekkari and R. Säni, ‘Language and the circuits of
power in a merging multinational corporation’, Journal of Management
Studies 42 (3) 2005, 595–623.
T. Virkkula-Räisänen, ‘Linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources in
interaction: A Finnish manager as a mediator in a multilingual meeting’,
Journal of Business Communication 47, 2010, 505–531.
D. Wel, L. Wel and R. Marsan-Piekkari, ‘e persistent impact of
language on global operations’, Prometheus 19 (3) 2001, 193–209.
R. Wilkinson, ‘If all business education were in English would it maer?’,
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 161, 2011, 111–123.
17
Language-oriented human resource
management practices in multinational
companies

Vesa Peltokorpi

Introduction
As companies expand internationally and their foreign operations become
more dispersed, differences in natural languages start to influence
communication within and beyond their boundaries (Van den Born &
Peltokorpi, 2010). In order to cope with these allenges, multinational
companies (MNCs) have language policies for corporate communication,
documentation, and interaction (Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999). Language-
oriented human resource management (HRM) practices (e.g., language
training) present the concrete means through whi language policies are
implemented and enacted in MNCs (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012).
Language-oriented HRM practices are argued to provide various benefits
in MNCs, su as improved coordination, communication, knowledge
transfer and diffusion, learning, monitoring, and reporting (e.g., Marsan-
Piekkari et al., 1999). However, resear also provides evidence of host
country and MNC-related factors that create barriers to language-oriented
HRM practice implementation and functioning in MNCs and their globally
distributed subsidiaries (Buley et al., 2005; Ehrenrei, 2010). Since this
evidence is scaered in resear focusing more generally on language, this
apter seeks to extend our understanding of three language-oriented HRM
practices – language-sensitive recruitment, language-sensitive promotion,
and language training – in MNCs and their subsidiaries. is is done by a
review of relevant international business and international communication
literature.
e rest of this apter is organized as follows. e following section
defines and reviews resear on the above mentioned language-oriented
HRM practices in MNCs and their subsidiaries. In the third section, resear
on these language-oriented HRM practice advantages is reviewed. e
fourth section reviews resear on host country and MNC-related factors
that create barriers to language-oriented HRM practice implementation and
functioning. e fih section discusses the resear findings, and the sixth
section provides avenues for future resear.

Language-oriented HRM practices

MNCs are multilingual communities that consist of “diverse and
geographically dispersed subunits, whi encounter language barriers when
communicating with their local business community and within their global
network” (Luo & Shenkar, 2006: 321). e MNC is a multilingual community
because employees in its geographically dispersed subunits have different
native languages. To reduce language barriers, MNCs have implicit or
explicitly formulated language policies, defined as “rules and regulations
that govern language use in MNCs” (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012: 809).
Language policies are described as strategic tools used in MNCs to respond
to internal and external language demands (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). Due to its
role as the lingua franca in international business, English is the most
common corporate language in MNCs (Piekkari et al., 2005). Indeed, an
increasing number of MNCs from non-English-speaking countries have also
adopted English as their official corporate language (Harzing & Pudelko,
2013; Lauring, 2009; Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999). Language-oriented HRM
practices, in turn, are the concrete means through whi language policies
are implemented and enacted in MNCs and their subsidiaries (Peltokorpi &
Vaara, 2012).
Solars have discussed the usage and functioning of language-oriented
HRM practices in MNCs and their globally dispersed subsidiaries. For
example, Lester (1994: 43) argued that language-sensitive recruitment is “the
easiest and eapest way to approa the language problem.” Reeves and
Wright (1996) further proposed that MNCs are able to remove language
barriers by recruiting people who have the required language proficiency,
providing language training for employees who need it, and making beer
use of existing, language proficient employees. MNCs tend to use the first
two options simultaneously by placing emphasis on hiring employees with
the needed language proficiency and allocating resources to language
training to develop existing employees’ language proficiency (Charles &
Marsan-Piekkari, 2002). Viewed through the human capital theory (Beer,
1964), MNCs rely on language-sensitive recruitment to “buy” or hire
employees with the needed language proficiency from the external labor
market (Piekkari et al., 2005). Language training is used to “make” or develop
existing employees’ language proficiency. Resear also suggests that a
certain proficiency in the corporate or foreign languages can be used as a
precondition for promotion in MNCs (Piekkari et al., 2005; SanAntonio,
1987). In the following sections, I review resear on language-sensitive
recruitment, language-sensitive promotions, and language training in MNCs.

Language-sensitive recruitment

Language-sensitive recruiting refers to recruitment practices in whi a

certain proficiency in the corporate or other foreign language(s) is used as a
precondition for employment (Peltokorpi & Vaara, in press). MNCs rely on
language-sensitive recruitment to ensure that hired employees have a
certain language proficiency for effective and efficient internal and external
communication. In these recruitment practices, the required language
proficiency for prescreening purposes is oen stated in job advertisements
and further assessed during job interviews. For example, an expatriate top
manager in a study of MNC subsidiaries in Japan was reported to have
explained: “Nobody is employed without having a minimum score of 500 on
the TOEIC [Test of English for International Communication] exam”
(Peltokorpi, 2007: 77). To assure that applicants have certain language
proficiency, MNC subsidiaries in Japan are also shown to rely heavily on
recruiting consultants or headhunters (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012, in press). A
study on foreign banks in Luxembourg further shows that a precondition for
recruitment was proficiency in the company language and sometimes in
other foreign language(s) depending on the task roles (Kingsley, 2013). As a
study in a German family-owned MNC suggests, English in some
corporations is no more an asset but has turned into a sine qua non, whi
means that job candidates without certain English proficiency will not be
hired (Ehrenrei, 2010). Finally, a study in MNC subsidiaries in China
suggests that host country national (HCN) managers and engineers had to
demonstrate their foreign language proficiency in the recruitment process,
su as passing examinations in reading, speaking, and writing (Buley et
al., 2005).

Language-sensitive promotions

Language-sensitive promotions refer to promotion practices in whi a

certain proficiency in the corporate or other foreign language(s) is a
precondition for an upward movement or rise in rank in an organizational
hierary. Previous resear suggests that employee career progression in
MNCs is related to their language proficiency. For example, a study in MNC
subsidiaries in Japan shows that HCN employees promoted to managerial
ranks had to have a certain English proficiency (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012).
In this study, an expatriate top manager is reported to having explained: “No
maer how good you are in marketing or another function, you need to
speak English […] even though I have intelligent employees, I cannot
promote them” (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012: 823). Another study in a US-based
subsidiary in Japan shows that HCNs were promoted as managers in part
due to their English proficiency (SanAntonio, 1987). In addition, Swedish as
the corporate language is found to influence promotion practices in a
Finnish–Swedish bank merger (Piekkari et al., 2005). In a similar manner,
corporate language proficiency in Germany-based Siemens is shown to be a
requirement for reaing managerial level (Fredriksson et al., 2006). In the
study, a top executive in Germany is reported to explain: “language skills are
very important, the higher one gets on the managerial level, the more
language becomes a must […] should know at least both of the official
languages” (Fredriksson et al., 2006: 417). Siemens was reported to use
English and German in corporate communication and leave the issue of
official corporate language ambiguous to avoid negative reactions from
dominant language groups.

Language training

Language training refers to development of incoming and existing

employees’ proficiency in the corporate or other foreign language(s).
Resear provides evidence of the importance and conditions placed on
company-sponsored language training in MNCs. For example, a study shows
that language training was considered important and widely used to reduce
language barriers in German subsidiaries in Japan (Harzing et al., 2010).
Language training in the subsidiaries took place mainly in employees’ own
time, while it was given a high priority in some subsidiaries (Harzing et al.,
2011). Other studies suggest that subsidiaries either partially or wholly pay
for language education, offered either internally in the subsidiary premises
or local language institutions (Harzing & Pudelko, 2013; Peltokorpi, 2010). In
addition, a case study in a Finnish–Swedish bank merger suggests that
language training can take a number of different forms, ranging from self-
study and basic external training courses to personal training and intensive
courses in home country and abroad (Piekkari et al., 2005). Usage of different
training methods depends on the financial situation (Harzing & Feely 2008)
and emphasis placed on employee language competency development
(Harzing et al., 2011). MNC subsidiaries are also shown to impose conditions
on company-sponsored training, su as a certain grade aieved (Harzing
et al., 2011). Company-sponsored language training is also offered selectively
only to certain employees. For example, in a Finnish MNC, Kone Elevators,
company-sponsored language training is limited to middle and top
managers with a certain English proficiency (Charles & Marsan-Piekkari,
2002).

Benefits of language-oriented HRM practices

Language policies and language-oriented HRM practices are identified to
provide various important benefits in MNCs, su as improved coordination,
control, monitoring (Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Van den Born & Peltokorpi, 2010),
communication, knowledge transfer, mutual understanding, learning,
reporting, and collective identity (Charles & Marsan-Piekkari, 2002;
Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2004). Unfortunately, only a few
solars have explicitly linked language-sensitive HRM practices to
subsidiary or MNC-level outcomes. As an exception, Wang et al. (2004)
connected language training to knowledge transfer. eir interview study in
MNC subsidiaries in China indicates that young HCN employees, in
particular, were motivated to study English and that language training
facilitated knowledge transfer from headquarters (HQ). A case study in a
Finnish MNC, Kone Elevators, suggests further that language training, due
to increased average language proficiency, improved inter-unit
communication (Charles & Marsan-Piekkari, 2002). Interestingly, a recent
mixed method study in MNC subsidiaries in Japan suggests that language-
sensitive recruitment can have productive and counter-productive effects on
knowledge transfer related to communication competence, networks,
identity, and power (Peltokorpi & Vaara, in press).
In addition, resear suggests that corporate language proficiency
provides various benefits to HCNs especially in subsidiaries with language-
sensitive promotion practices and low average language proficiency. As
mentioned previously, a study in a US-based subsidiary in Japan shows that
expatriates recommended HCNs to be promoted in part because of their
English proficiency (SanAntonio, 1987). In addition, resear shows that
HCNs with high corporate language proficiency act as key annels of
communication and knowledge transfer between HCNs and expatriates in
subsidiaries, and subsidiaries and other units in MNCs (Marsan-Piekkari
et al., 1999; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012). ese centrally positioned individuals
are further found to accumulate informal power far beyond their formal
rank in subsidiaries (Blazejewski, 2006; Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999;
Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012; SanAntonio, 1987). In summary, foreign language
proficiency is shown to be an important part of employee career capital.

Barriers to language-oriented HRM practices

While the positive effects can be self-evident, resear suggests that various
host country-related factors, su as availability of labor proficient in the
corporate language, MNC host country legitimacy, regulatory context, and
home and host country relations, create barriers to language-oriented HRM
implementation and functioning. Further, various MNC-related factors, su
as resource/time constraints to language proficiency
acquisition/development, and language-proficiency related conflicts, are
shown to influence language-oriented HRM practices. In the following
sections, I review resear on these barriers to language-oriented HRM
practices.
Host country-related factors

Challenging language-sensitive recruiting as “the easiest and eapest way

to approa the language problem” (Lester, 1994: 43), the host country labor
market is shown to create barriers to the implementation and benefits of this
language-oriented HRM practice. For example, the average low host country
English proficiency is found to influence Western MNC subsidiary
operations in China (Buley et al., 2005), Japan (Peltokorpi, 2010; Peltokorpi
& Vaara, in press; SanAntonio, 1987), and South Korea (Park et al., 1996). In
Japan, recruiters in Nordic subsidiaries were not either able or willing to use
language-sensitive recruitment practices because of the low English
proficiency and the misalignment of language and functional competencies
among HCN job applicants (Peltokorpi, 2010). In a German MNC, hiring
HCNs on the basis of their English rather than on their tenical
competencies is also shown to have ended with the MNC “geing a bloody
nose” (Ehrenrei, 2010: 417). In addition, a study on the English language e-
recruiting system in two European MNCs suggests that job applicants in
some countries cannot understand English language advertisements
(Heikkilä & Smale, 2011). In this study, a HR manager in Brazil is reported to
explain: “We have only managed [to] receive 15 CVs in the whole Brazil for
tenicians” (Heikkilä & Smale, 2011: 309). In the same study, English
language job advertisements in the Internet web sites produced a flow of
applications from individuals with sufficient language proficiency but
without the needed functional skills.
In a related manner, resear suggests that MNC aractiveness to HCNs
influences language-oriented HRM practices in subsidiaries. For example,
HCNs in Japan in general are not interested in working with foreigners and
foreign companies (SanAntonio, 1987), and not willing to forgo the “life-time
employment security” offered in domestic companies (Ono, 2007: 269). In
Japan, domestic firms continue to be the most desirable employers in annual
surveys (Ono, 2007) and those who work for foreign-owned firms are still
viewed as a group of “maveri Japanese” who have “displaced loyalties or
could not cope with the Japanese environment” (Kang, 1990: 216). In
contrast, English proficient HCNs are found to be more aracted by Western
MNCs than domestic companies in China (Turban et al., 2001). In addition,
resear provides evidence of language and ethnicity-based ethnocentric
HRM practices in Japanese subsidiaries (Lincoln et al., 1995; Yoshihara et al.,
2001). Senior positions in most Japanese subsidiaries continue to be filled by
Japanese expatriates, making nationality and the Japanese language an
important source of power (Yoshihara et al., 2001). In Japanese subsidiaries,
su a “glass ceiling” effectively restricts the upward mobility of HCNs and
makes them pursue different career paths. us, it is not surprising that
HCN talent is not oen aracted by Japanese subsidiaries (Yoshihara et al.,
2001).
e regulatory context and labor union pressure can further affect
language-oriented HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries. In France, the
Toubon Law (Law 94–665 of 4 August 1994, relating to usage of the Fren
language) requires Fren to be used in all workplaces, in commercial
contracts, and in some other commercial communication contexts. is law
is shown to affect language management in MNC subsidiaries in France.
One well-known case involves US-based General Electric Medical Systems
(GEMS) near Paris (Deneire, 2008; Dowling, 2009). Trade unions reacted
against the imposition of English language on tenicians who, as a result of
translated documentation, did not understand the instructions
accompanying the medical equipment they were installing (Deneire, 2008).
ey went to court and won their case in 2005 on the basis of the Toubon
Law that stipulates: “All documents that include obligations for workers or
instructions that workers need to know for the execution of their job need to
be made available in Fren” (Deneire, 2008: 189). GEMS appealed the case,
but the Court of Appeals confirmed the condemnation, ordering the
company to pay €580,000, and €20,000 for any document that remained
untranslated aer three months following the trial. Similar demands have
also been introduced to other MNCs in France. In addition, trade unions
promote “the right to work in Fren in France” and emphasize the
“discriminating effects of the supremacy of English in the workplace”
(Deneire, 2008: 189). Laws in some other jurisdictions, su as Belgium and
ebec, also mandate that HR communications be in the local language.
Further, historical and political relations among host and home countries
are shown to increase resistance and create emotional barriers to language-
oriented HRM practices. For example, a case study in the Finnish–Swedish
merger shows that Finnish employees resisted an official corporate language
in part due to historical reasons (Vaara et al., 2005). While regarded by the
top management as a pragmatic decision based on cost savings, the oice of
Swedish as the corporate language reproduced post-colonial identities
especially among Finnish employees with insufficient Swedish proficiency.
In addition, a case study in global teams in a US-based MNC indicates that
some Fren employees were less than enthusiastic about the “invasion” of
American concepts, material artifacts, and language, expressing a national
resistance to what they saw as an incursion upon Fren culture (Baba et al.,
2004). e introduction of American ways of doing business by Fren
employees was perceived as an example of American (and English language)
domination.

MNC-related factors

For MNCs, language-sensitive recruitment and training imposes cost and

time constraints (Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999). In Switzerland, the
premium for English proficiency is estimated to range from 12 percent to 30
percent (Grin, 2001). In ebec, bilingual francophone men earn a 6.32
percent premium over their unilingual counterparts with equivalent
education and expertise (Vaillancourt, 1996). us, language-sensitive
recruitment is oen accompanied with higher compensation costs. It takes
considerable time for a given person to rea a level of operational fluency
in another language, though the actual amount of training time varies
depending on individual’s aptitude and motivation to learn. For example,
Sauliere (2013) estimated that when undertaking 20 hours of language
training per year (observed to be the average in many MNCs), it takes about
five years for a given individual to move up one level of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages. An interview study in
China further shows the difficulty in activating the participants through role
plays, discussions, and employee presentations because these methods are
seldom used in the Chinese educational system (Björkman & Lu, 1999).
While initially motivated, resear shows that employees tend to have
limited time and capacity to invest in language training (Goodall et al.,
2006/2007; Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011; Piekkari et al., 2005). For example,
realizing the importance of interacting with HCNs, some American
expatriates started learning Mandarin but many of them quily gave up
(Goodall et al., 2006/2007). In the study, an expatriate is reported to explain:
“Chinese is too difficult to learn […] I am in China to run a business, not to
go ba to sool. I don’t have time for all the ba-to-sool stuff” (Goodall
et al., 2006/2007: 64–65).
Perhaps because of limited resources, MNCs are found to rely on
language-sensitive recruitment without language training (Blazejewski,
2006) and to limit language training in subsidiaries to middle/top managers
with a certain English proficiency (Charles & Marsan-Piekkari, 2002) and
employees in frequent foreign language interactions (Piekkari et al., 2005).
Even if provided access to company-sponsored language training, language-
sensitive recruitment and promotion practices are found to create a division
between employees with and without corporate language proficiency. For
example, studies in MNC subsidiaries in Japan indicate that while recently
hired young HCNs proficient in English had access to expatriates, older
HCNs with insufficient English proficiency felt excluded from the
communication network (Blazejewski, 2006; SanAntonio, 1987). At Fren
GEMS, older managers were described as puing considerable effort into the
learning of English but having the impression that their English proficiency
would never be good enough to compete with their younger colleagues and
with English native speakers (Deneire, 2008). As a result, Fren employees
with low English language skills preferred to remain silent, leading to
frustration and resistance and to a waste of unique experience and expertise
for the company (Deneire, 2008). In a similar vein, other studies suggest that
employees with insufficient language proficiency refrain from
communicating through language boundaries (Blazejewski, 2006; Park et al.,
1996; Peltokorpi, 2007; Piekkari et al., 2005).
Furthermore, language-sensitive promotion practices are shown to
increase feelings of procedural injustice. For example, Swedish as the
corporate language in the Finnish–Swedish bank merger operated a “glass
ceiling” that effectively excluded non-Swedish-speaking employees from
geing promoted (Piekkari et al., 2005). Some Finnish-speaking employees
blamed their Swedish-speaking colleagues for unearned promotions
(Piekkari et al., 2005). ese employees further raised doubts as to whether
employees with language advantage were promoted due to their language
proficiency without sufficient professional competence or experience.
Finnish employees with insufficient Swedish proficiency also sought to
escape Swedish language through lateral internal mobility. In a related
manner, a study in Nordic subsidiaries in Japan shows that HCN employees
were against language-based promotions (Peltokorpi, 2010). In the study, a
Japanese manager was reported to complain: “Engineers gied in their task
domain are in a disadvantageous position due to their poor English skills.
But language skills enable women to gain beer positions. Many [HCN]
employees think that is strange” (Peltokorpi, 2010: 183). In addition to
increasing ances for language and functional competence misalignment in
promotions (Ehrenrei, 2010), resear indicates that employees with low
corporate language proficiency decide to ange employers rather than
develop their language proficiency (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012; Piekkari et al.,
2005).

Discussion
While language-oriented HRM practices have been presented as effective
ways to remove language barriers in MNCs (Lester, 1994; Reeves & Wright,
1996), this review suggests various barriers to their implementation and
functioning in MNCs. For example, language proficiency development
requires substantial investments both from employees and their employers.
Resear suggests that employees may rather ange their employers instead
of developing their language proficiency (Vaara et al., 2005). In addition, this
review suggests that language-oriented HRM practices need to be aligned
with host country factors. Since uniform implementation of language-
oriented HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries can lead to suboptimal results,
contextual adaptations are needed. For example, MNC subsidiaries in
countries with a low average proficiency in the corporate language could
selectively recruit a few key HCNs with sufficient corporate language
proficiency and allocate resources for language training. In support, resear
suggests hierarical and functional differences in corporate language
proficiency in MNCs (Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2012; Peltokorpi &
Vaara, 2012). In MNC subsidiaries with language-sensitive promotion
practices, incoming employees could also be provided clear understanding of
the language proficiency required for promotions. is way, MNCs might be
able to reduce language proficiency-related perceptions of unfairness.
In summary, the review suggests that MNCs by their nature are
multilingual entities. However, language and language-oriented HRM
practices in MNCs and their subsidiaries have not received the resear
aention they deserve. In studies on entry modes and knowledge transfer,
for example, language has either been overlooked completely or assumed to
be embedded within the broader concept of national culture and measured
by a single cultural distance index. Alternatively, researers have
overlooked language by expecting all employees in MNCs to be proficient in
the corporate language. In addition to providing previous resear evidence
that all employees in MNCs are not proficient in the corporate language
(Marsan-Piekkari et al., 1999), this review also shows that surprisingly few
researers have examined language-oriented HRM practices and their
consequences in MNCs. Resear on language training has also focused on
expatriates even though language requirements are extended on HCNs in
subsidiaries. To disentangle the complex, multifaceted effects of language
and language-oriented HRM practices in MNCs more resear in this
domain is needed.

Future resear
e review provides interesting avenues for future resear. First, future
resear could focus on various MNC and subsidiary-level outcomes of
language-oriented HRM practices, su as communication, knowledge
transfer, and organizational identity. In future resear, mixed method and
multilevel analyses are suggested. Second, because previous resear has
suggested that language-sensitive promotion practices increase unfairness
conceptions among employees (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012; Vaara et al., 2005),
it would be interesting to examine procedural justice conceptions in MNCs
aer anges in language policies and language-oriented HRM practices.
ird, comparative resear would help to provide more information, for
example, about language-related social identities in different companies and
countries. Longitudinal studies including several language-related HRM
practices, in turn, would help to provide more information about the
efficiency of these practices and their relation to numerous important
outcomes, su as subsidiary performance, voluntary turnover, and
knowledge transfer. Fourth, although language-oriented HRM practices have
been linked with corporate strategic orientation (Luo & Shenkar, 2006;
Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012), more resear in this area is needed. In closing, I
hope that this review and the resear directions provided pave the way for
future work on language-oriented HRM practices in MNCs and their
subsidiaries.

References
Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. 2004. e contexts of
knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 547–587.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Aarnio, C. 2011. Shiing the faultlines of
language: A quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in
MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 288–295.
Beer, G. S. 1964. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with
special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Björkman, I., & Lu, Y. 1999. e management of human resources in
Chinese–Western joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 34(3), 306–
324.
Blazejewski, S. 2006. Transferring value-infused organizational practices in
multinational companies: A conflict perspective. In M. Geppert & M.
Mayer (Eds.), Global, national and local practices in multinational
corporations (pp. 63–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buley, P. J., Carter, M. J., Clegg, J., & Tan, H. 2005. Language and social
knowledge in foreign-knowledge transfer to China. International Studies
of Management and Organization, 35(1), 47–65.
Charles, M-L., & Marsan-Piekkari, R. 2002. Language training for
enhanced horizontal communication: A allenge for MNCs. Business
Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9–29.
Deneire, M. 2008. English in the Fren workplace: Realism and anxieties.
World Englishes, 27(2), 181–195.
Dowling, D. C. 2009. English is not a multinational company’s exclusive
language. Labor & Employment Law, 37(1), 5–10.
Ehrenrei, S. 2010. English as a business lingua franca in a German
multinational corporation. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4),
408–431.
Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. 2006. e
multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: e notion of a
common corporate language. Corporate Communication: An
International Journal, 11(4), 406–423.
Goodall, K., Li, N., & Warner, M. 2006/2007. Expatriate managers in China:
e influence of Chinese culture on cross-cultural management. Journal
of General Management, 32(2), 57–76.
Grin, F. 2001. English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World
Englishes, 20, 65–78.
Harzing, A-W., & Feely, A. J. 2008. e language barrier and its implications
for HQ—subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal, 15(1), 49–61.
Harzing, A-W., & Pudelko, M. 2013. Language competencies, policies and
practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and
comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic
MNCs. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 87–97.
Harzing, A-W., Köster, K., & Magner, U. 2011. Babel in business: e
language barrier and its solutions in the HQ—subsidiary relationship.
Journal of Word Business, 46(3), 279–287.
Heikkilä, J-P., & Smale, A. 2011. e effects of ‘language standardization’ on
the acceptance and use of e-HRM systems in foreign subsidiaries.
Journal of World Business, 46(3), 305–313.
Kang, T. W. 1990. Gaishi: The foreign company in Japan. Tokyo: Charles E.
Tule Company.
Kingsley, L. 2013. Language oice in multilingual encounters in
transnational workplaces. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 34(6), 533–548.
Lauring, J. 2009. Managing cultural diversity and the process of knowledge
sharing: A case from Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
25(4), 385–394.
Lester, T. 1994. Pulling down the language barrier. International
Management, 49(6), 42–44.
Lincoln, J. R., Kerbo, H. R., & Wienhagen, E. 1995. Japanese companies in
Germany: A case study in cross-cultural management. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 34(3), 417–440.
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. 2006. e multinational corporation as a multilingual
community: Language and organization in a global context. Journal of
 International Business Studies, 37, 321–339.
Marsan-Piekkari, R., Wel, D., & Wel, L. 1999. Adopting a common
corporate language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10(3), 377–390.
Ono, H. 2007. Careers in foreign-owned firms in Japan. American
Sociological Review, 72(2), 267–290.
Park, H., Hwang, S. D., & Harrison, J. K. 1996. Sources and consequences of
communication problems in foreign subsidiaries: e case of United
States firms in South Korea. International Business Review, 5(1), 79–98.
Peltokorpi, V. 2007. Intercultural communication paerns and tactics: Nordic
expatriates in Japan. International Business Review, 16(1), 68–82.
Peltokorpi, V. 2010. Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries: e
influence of expatriates’ language and cultural competencies.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 176–188.
Peltokorpi, V., & Clausen, L. 2011. Linguistic and cultural barriers to
intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries. Asian Business &
Management, 10(4), 509–528.
Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. 2012. Language policies and practices in wholly
owned foreign subsidiaries: A recontextualization perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, 43(9), 808–833.
Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. in press. Knowledge transfer in multinational
corporations: Productive and counterproductive effects of language-
sensitive recruitment. Journal of International Business Studies.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säni, R. 2005. Integration or
disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate
decision in a cross-border merger. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16(3), 330–344.
Reeves, N., & Wright, C. 1996. Linguistic auditing. Clevedon: Multilingual
Maers.
SanAntonio, P. M. 1987. Social mobility and language use in an American
company in Japan. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3/4),
191–200.
Sauliere, J. 2013. Corporate language: The blind spot of language policy?
Reflections on France’s Loi Toubon. Retrieved from:
hp://www.academia.edu/3138300/Corporate_language_e_blind_spot
_of_language_policy_Reflections_on_Frances_Loi_Toubon
Turban, D. B., Ching-Ming, L., Ngo, H-Y., Chow, I. H. S., & Si, S. X. 2001.
Organizational aractiveness of firms in the People’s Republic of China:
A person-organization fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
194–206.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säni. R. 2005. Language and circuits of
power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(3), 595–623.
Vaillancourt, F. 1996. Language and socioeconomic status in ebec:
Measurement, findings, determinants, and policy costs. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 121, 69–92.
Van den Born, F., & Peltokorpi, V. 2010. Language policies and
communication in multinational companies: Alignment with strategic
orientation and human resource management practices. Journal of
Business Communication, 47(2), 97–118.
Wang, P., Tong, T. W., & Koh, C. P. 2004. An integrated model of knowledge
transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of World
Business, 39(2), 168–182.
Yoshihara, H., Okabe, Y., & Sawaki, S. 2001. Eigo de keieisuru jidai – Nihon
kigyo no chosen. Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing.
18
Company linguistic identity and its
metaphorical dimensions
Purasers, personnel and products through
the perspective of metaphors

Magdalena Bielenia-Grajewska

Introduction

Modern companies can be aracterized by key issues that determine the

way they function. One of these issues is related to a la of geographical
boundaries and the intense mobility of people and products. In addition,
tenological advancement makes access to information on merandise and
services easier and quier. ese notions lead to the growing importance of
communication, a domain that relies heavily on communication is
marketing since selling products or services entails communicating their
value and facilitating the decision-making processes that customers partake
in. us, marketing as su has to be studied by taking into account the
linguistic aspect of offering merandise and contacting existing and
potential customers.
Observing different aracteristics of language offers a figurative
dimension that opens up the possibility of an interesting study in relation to
organizational features. One of the reasons for the importance of treating
metaphors with great care in cross-cultural communication is the issue of
translatability; metaphors, being culture-specific, are difficult to translate
(Holden & Glisby 2010). us, although many metaphorical names are
understood by representatives from different cultures, there are also some
that have to be rendered in another (e.g. descriptive) way in texts directed at
users coming from different cultural and linguistic communities. As far as
the methodology of studying metaphors in international business is
concerned, there are many ways to investigate this issue. One of them is to
look at this concept from the perspective of company linguistic identity that
offers both the inner and outer dimensions of language-related issues in
modern organizations. Since the aim of this apter is to draw the reader’s
aention to aspects that are crucial to modern companies, related to cross-
cultural communication and intercultural marketing, the discussion is thus
focused on the metaphorical dimension of purasers, personnel and
products.

Company linguistic identity

e discussion of the role of language in modern cross-cultural management
can be organized around the concept of company personae since the
multidimensionality of identity provides an interesting framework for an
investigation into relations between individuals and organizations (Blader et
al. 2007). Resear on identity in companies is focused on the internal and
external axes, thus concepts of corporate identity and organizational identity
are employed to discuss these intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions.
Corporate identity is a concept connected with the external dimension of
a company, displaying how a company is perceived by stakeholders,
whereas organizational identity is related to the internal sphere of
organizations since it deals with how the company is perceived by workers
(Cornelissen 2008b; Hamilton & Gioia 2009; Vella & Melewar 2008; Wheen
& Goldfrey 1998). Observing the creators of identity, corporate identity
reflects the manager’s role in shaping communication, whereas
organizational identity is formed by workers in informal interactions
(Rughase 2006). us, corporate linguistic identity as a concept stresses the
role of language as an important tool in shaping the company’s image, with
branding being one of the important determinants of communication
between companies and stakeholders. And since a brand is a linguistic and a
non-linguistic representation of products or services, it is language that
forms and sustains su notions as logos and slogans that create the image
of the company in the eyes of the stakeholders.
Analysing the proliferation of products and services on the modern
market, branding is also connected with reducing the substitutability of
brands by showing a customer how socially or psyologically significant a
brand is (Foxall & Srezenmaier 2003). One of the ways this is done is by a
selective usage of linguistic tools that aim at showing the uniqueness and
importance of the offered merandise. Branding is also conducted by
altercasting, a strategy that aims at forcing people into social roles, where
expressions used, su as “you as an ambitious person should …” (Roebu
2011), are supposed to stimulate customers’ reactions.
Apart from the personalized orientation in branding, aieved by
concentrating on one’s individual needs and expectations, language belongs
to the markers of the brand community that encompass consumer
communities sharing enthusiasm, interest and liking towards a brand
(Zaglia 2013). us, linguistic branding aims not only at stressing one’s
individual preferences but also at making customers feel a part of the
desired community. On the other hand, organizational linguistic identity is
concerned with the role of language at the internal level of companies, while
the notion of organizational linguistic identity is oen not noticed during
the ordinary performance of organizations but becomes especially visible in
moments of ange, for example, when new workers (e.g. expats) become
team members. In this case, both individual and social factors shape the
linguistic dimension of one’s corporate performance.
 Analysing the individual linguistic sphere, su factors as aitudes to the
host culture, assignment factors (phase, time, culture, occupation) and
language-related benefits determine the linguistic performance of
newcomers. As far as the societal corporate linguistic dimension is
concerned, su components as in-company linguistic issues, the language
policy in companies, corporate communication and hierary in
organizations play an important role in linguistic activities at the internal
level (Bielenia-Grajewska 2010). Moreover, language at the inner dimension
determines staffing policies, being a crucial factor in sales. For example, in
manufacturing industries salespeople are assigned countries where they can
perform according to their linguistic skills (Chien & Moutinho 2008). us,
the linguistic competence of salespeople is a decisive factor in gaining
foreign assignments. In addition to this, as far as exports are concerned,
those with linguistic skills make more innovative decisions and use
information in a responsible way (Williams & Chaston 2004). Additionally,
foreign language skills determine company success on international markets
(Mughan 2009), with, for example, imports being determined by linguistic
competences that facilitate intercultural contacts and the proper selection of
the available and advertised merandise.
Since a company does not exist in a cultural and linguistic vacuum and it
is difficult to pose any rigid boundaries between private and professional life
as well as on-site and off-site performance, internal and external dimensions
are interrelated in the way organizations communicate on the micro, macro
and meso levels. us, the term company linguistic identity has been created
and used by the author to adopt a resear perspective that incorporates the
inner and outer complexities of business entities. is term offers a more
holistic approa to the linguistic side of the organizations in focus and
exemplifies the network approa to modern organizations (e.g. Bielenia-
Grajewska 2011). Following this line of investigation, those resources and
strategies related to the linguistic performance of organizations can be called
company linguistic identity capital, whi creates a positive professional
environment among internal and external stakeholders by observing
communicative norms that respect and protect individual linguistic rights.
At the same time, company linguistic identity capital can be perceived in
terms of profit, at both the individual and company level, concentrating on
the possibilities and ances related to the linguistic dimension of
companies. Indeed, analysing the linguistic policy of organizations, it aims
at protecting individual linguistic rights and stimulating effective corporate
communication at the same time (Bielenia-Grajewska 2013). In addition to
this, apart from its communicative dimension, company linguistic identity
capital can also serve ethnographic functions, being a reservoir for the
corporate rituals, company myths and other linguistic elements that shape
the history of a company and stimulate the perception of a business entity as
a source of tradition and long-term experience.
Figurative language that offers a multidimensional approa to
understanding words and phrases constitutes the most important of
communicative tools. Researing the variety of symbolic tools and their
functionality in modern discourse, metaphors have been selected for a more
detailed discussion. Among other non-literal forms of communication,
metaphors tend to be the most popular in business communication. For
example, relying on well-known domains in the organizational
communication taking place between individuals representing different
levels of expertise, and coming from different cultural bagrounds,
facilitates efficient and qui corporate dialogue. In addition, as will be
discussed in the coming sections, metaphors may offer a complex way of
studying company identity by examining the symbolic dimension of its
components.

Metaphors in cross-cultural communication

ere are various reasons for the popularity of metaphors in cross-cultural
communication. First of all, the metaphoric-oriented approa in
organization studies is related, among others, to the metaphoric perspective
of modern communities oen described as tribes or villages, whi have at
the same time contradictory features, mutual aracteristics and interrelated
elements (Maffesoli 2008). For example, the metaphor of the tribe stresses
su features of postmodern societies as the importance of passion, locality
and emotion (Cova & Cova 2002) in the life of individuals. is focus can
also be observed in modern cross-cultural business since feelings and
regional identity are oen stressed in branding strategies. It should also be
mentioned that conspicuousness is very important due to the diversity of the
modern world as well as the abundance of products and services available in
it (Lanham 2006). Since metaphors shape the way people perceive reality
(Cornelissen 2008a), they are therefore a very effective tool in cross-cultural
communication. Because of this, the dialogue on business issues can be
perceived in terms of organizational metaphors, and the way this perception
mirrors the performance of companies can be elaborated in greater detail.
erefore, analysing the role of identity in perceiving individuals and
companies, organizational metaphors can be discussed through the prism of
company identity issues, namely, by researing its key elements.

Metaphors and company identity

To communicate an identity is not simply to transfer a concept, an idea or a
mental representation but to open a path for negotiations with others, for
mutual adjustments of the surrounding world, in order to rea a shared
definition of situations and to allow the continuous evolution of personal
biographies (Volonté 2006). Since identity constitutes an important notion in
brand management (Burmann et al. 2012), metaphors take part in the
process of creating institutional image or organizational identity (Giacconi
2011). First of all, metaphors are used in organizational discourse since they
allow the description of intangible issues, ones not represented by numbers
(Bimann 1999). Second, one metaphorical domain can be used to mirror
various conditions, both positive and negative. An example can be the field
of nature, with su metaphorical extensions as Nature is Beauty and Nature
is Beast (Bruhn & Kirgeorg 2007). erefore, depending on the situation in
the business entity, nature can be used to display the complexities of
company notions and the role of internal and external conditions in shaping
its performance. For example, su natural phenomena as hurricanes,
tornadoes or floods can be used to show the sudden and important anges
in a company, potentially involving a large number of stake-holders, at both
internal and external levels. Moreover, the multidimensionality of issues and
situations modern companies have to face results in a multitude of symbols
used in cross-cultural communication. Consequently, metaphors from
different domains are used to display a company identity in modern
business.
As far as identity shaping is concerned, the following metaphors can be
used to aracterize organization: organization as a teacher, organization as
a network, organization as a protector, organization as a traditionalist,
organization as a travel guide and organization as a family (Bielenia-
Grajewska 2014a). Among this diversity of metaphors, the metaphor of the
network is among one of the most popular ones in organization studies and
marketing (e.g. Mascia 2009; Morgan 2006; Oggero 2004). e popularity of
network metaphors is determined by various factors. First of all, a network
can be used as the metaphor for belonging to complex societies, being at the
core of its processes (Di Nicola 1998). Second, this metaphor stresses the
interrelation of organizational life and how its interdependency shapes the
organization as su. Adopting this line of thinking, company identity can
be viewed as the coexistence of two company dimensions, its external and
internal level. us, this type of a network is composed of both
organizational and corporate identity since they determine the position of
the business entity on the global market. Moreover, this interdependency
can be examined from two sides; connectivity is related at the same time to
some mutual benefits of having access to network sources as well as to the
potential danger of network failure when one element ceases to function
properly. For example, negative organizational identity, torn by internal
conflicts and a bad working atmosphere, diminishes the position of
corporate identity in the eyes of stakeholders. To illustrate this feature,
working conditions in a company and a respect for employees’ rights can
determine the opinion of stakeholders as to the business entity and their
subsequent selection of products.
To discuss the metaphorical dimension in greater detail, aention is
focused on three facets, indispensable in the creation of both organizational
and corporate identity: personnel, products and purasers. us, the
interrelation can be illustrated by the 3P’s model of company linguistic
identity and its metaphorical dimension.

Figure 18.1 3P’s model of company linguistic identity and its metaphorical dimension

Metaphors and personnel

Since organizational linguistic identity is connected with the place and role
of language in companies, the linguistic representation of this type of
identity focuses mainly on employers and employees as well as their
communicative behaviours. Analysing the multidimensionality of symbolic
language in organizational seings, metaphors can also be used to describe
the role of individuals in corporate performance. Taking into account the
human aspect of organizations, the metaphor organization is a psychological
construct is important for the discussion of identity and cross-cultural
business.
An organization is created and maintained by the conscious and
unconscious processes that develop in the minds of individuals. Moreover,
the values aracteristic of organizations are shaped by the psyological
constructions of managers (Oggero 2004). In addition, the relations between
employees and employers, managers and staff, can be discussed by using
metaphors. In organizational discourse, metaphors are oen used to describe
one’s aracter and features, because in comparison with standard
expressions, metaphors offer the possibility of talking indirectly about one’s
aracteristics, by concentrating on a well-known concept. ey thereby
offer personnel the possibility to express their dissatisfaction or talk about
the aracteristics of supervisors without criticizing them directly, while
using common metaphors, known and understood exclusively by a given
community, also enhances group cohesiveness and trust. us, they help to
create a corporate lingo, inclusive of metaphors, stimulate a feeling of
belonging among workers, and shape an organizational personae.
In addition to this, symbolic language has educational purposes.
Metaphors are used by managers in communicating with employees since,
by relying on well-known concepts, they can explain novel or even
complicated organizational issues in relatively simple terms. is function is
especially useful in companies aracterized by a diversified workforce;
metaphors, relying on common concepts, offer qui and efficient
communication among employees speaking different languages and
possessing various levels of specialized knowledge. For example, several
terms coming from the world of mergers and acquisitions, su as white
knight or sleeping beauty evoke immediate connotations also among those
who do not specialize in the area of takeovers. is feature of symbolic
language can be observed especially in ange management or risk
communication. For example, relying on metaphors coming from natural
disasters may facilitate the understanding of financial crises as sudden,
unexpected and to some degree uncontrollable events, having a relatively
large scope of influence. us, su words as hurricane, tornado or
earthquake are used to denote the dynamics of financial crises or disease
outbreaks, for example. As far as taxonomic purposes are concerned,
metaphors are also used in various classifications of personnel types as well
as in everyday corporate dialogues. Su metaphorical names as white
collars or blue collars are used to denote the type of job (intellectual or
manual) performed by a given person (Bielenia-Grajewska 2014b).
Additionally, metaphors offer the opportunity to help draw the typology of
corporate cultures. For example, the classification provided by Hat et al.
(2009) includes the following typology of leadership: manager, artist and
priest.

Metaphors and purasers

Corporate linguistic identity encompasses the outer language-related
dimension of companies and includes the linguistic dimension of puraser
behaviours, su as their selection of products and their perception of
company identity. As has been discussed in the previous part of this article,
metaphors are employed, among other devices, to denote products and
shape their recognition among the broadly understood stakeholders.
Metaphors are also used to denote customers themselves, while nowadays a
swit from consumer as computer metaphor to consumer as communicator
metaphor can be observed (Foxall et al. 2006). In addition, metaphorical
names of customers can be found in the area of investment, with minnows
denoting small investors, whereas fat cat standing for shareholders in
possession of large capital.
e postmodern perspective and its metaphors stress the active role of
consumers in responding to organizational communication. e
metaphorical dimension of purasers can also be exemplified in their use of
metaphors in describing products and services. As far as the clinical inquiry
approa is concerned, metaphors, as elements of language and thought,
provide a ri source of information about how people make sense of their
lives and how they can be used to study the way customers perceive their
life (Kram et al. 2012). As far as the description of consumer behaviour is
concerned, metaphors from physics and material science are used, su as
the concept of percolation to study consumer adaptation processes (Winsor
1995). One can also find the influence of horticulture in marketing, with the
metaphor of graing used to denote knowledge circulation in organizations
(Madhavaram & McDonald 2010). Metaphors may also stress the different
opinions of customers and identify them by showing their preferences. For
example, a plane ride may be described by some customers as an adventure,
whereas others may use a prison metaphor (Goodwin 1996) to describe this
form of travel. As far as other examples are concerned, metaphorical
perception can also be found among the users of hotels. Dissatisfaction with
accommodation facilities oen focuses on the size or quality of rooms or the
location of the hotel itself. To picture the negative aspects of the stay, rooms
are oen compared to places of isolation, su as a prison or a desert or
different forms of animal habitation, su as a delve, a burrow or a kennel.
In su cases, metaphors facilitate interactions among customers as far as
products or services are concerned, by picturing one’s feelings, emotions or
reactions with powerful concepts coming from well-known domains.
As has been discussed in the previous section on metaphors and
personnel, metaphors offer an effective discussion among purasers with
different knowledge on products and varied foreign language skills. ey
also serve to be more effective in cross-cultural dialogue than elaborate
sentences and sophisticated specialized terminology.

Metaphors and products

Taking into account the fact that products are manufactured at the internal
level of companies for the benefit of mainly externally located stakeholders,
products belong simultaneously to organizational linguistic identity and
corporate linguistic identity. e link between identity and goods can be
observed at different levels. As far as the puraser dimension is concerned,
customers use merandise to display their identity, for instance to highlight
some aspects of their individuality. us, products are used to stress features
of one’s personality, and consequently, they create the image of an
individual person in the eyes of others. Moreover, products are used by
individuals to show the group dimension of their life; opting for a
commodity can be associated with being a part of a given community.
Looking at the personnel dimension, meanwhile, products mirror company
identity; they form, directly and indirectly, customers’ opinion on companies
and their performance. Moreover, the aracteristic features of products also
shape the viewpoint of the broadly understood stakeholders, while this link
between products and company identity can be viewed from, for example,
the linguistic dimension.
Observing the popularity of metaphors in creating the personae of
business entities, it is certain that they have a role in creating products and
determining their success or failure on the competitive market. e
determinants underlying the role of metaphors in marketing products are as
follows. First of all, metaphors stimulate qui and effective communication
since they rely on imagery and symbolism widely understood by the
receivers of information (e.g. Bielenia-Grajewska 2009; Brown 1994;
Mladenov 2006). us, well-known concepts and ideas stimulate the
understanding and perception of novel marketing products and services.
Second, by using metaphors one can present complicated issues in very few
words (Tilley 1999) and scientific data in simple terms (De Fiore 2005).
erefore, metaphors may enhance the understanding of information on
products or services, with a relatively low number of phrases or words used
to convey the presupposed meaning. At the same time, metaphors may leave
place for ambiguity, by presenting only some facets of a multidimensional
reality (Spicer & Alvesson 2011). e laer feature can be used to aieve
different aims in marketing. One of them is the possibility to hinder some
standpoints or leave them unnoticed, by drawing the aention of the
customers to different issues as it should also be remembered that metaphors
stress some aspects of experience, downplay other issues or do not exemplify
other notions (Rindfleis 1996).
In relation to the above, the multidimensionality of metaphors is also
linked with their other features, so that metaphors are connected with the
dislocation of communicative responsibility since an interlocutor has to
denote the meaning (Zai 1993). At the same time, the ambiguous nature of
metaphors can be used to direct products aimed at a different audience. In
addition to this, since not everything is said or made explicit, metaphors
leave room for one’s own understanding and perception of reality. For
example, metaphors can be explained by using one’s experience or
baground and, consequently, the perception of a metaphorical label can
vary among different stakeholders. In this case, one metaphor can evoke
different reactions among the target audience. Moreover, metaphors allow
the presentation of emotions that cannot be verbalized since some
expressions or words are missing.
Another important issue connected with metaphors in marketing is their
role in aracting customer aention since metaphors enhance curiosity and
draw one’s interest (Charteris-Bla 2007; Denning 2007), showing the
complexities of reality (Giusti & Cioa 2005). ese features of metaphors
are used in marketing too, for example, in introducing products (Lizza 2011)
and services (Holmqvist & Grönroos 2012). Furthermore, metaphors can
serve the function of communication tools to elicit meaning when customer
preferences for services or products are established, while they also create a
perception of new merandise by relying on the meaning established in
well-known products, su as when the commercialization of novel goods
takes place.
In addition, metaphors are used to link producers’ mental maps with
anging consumer mental representations (Teiert et al. 2006). In the case
of merandising products, life cycle metaphors are used to denote different
stages in product life on the market, that is, their birth, growth, maturity and
decline (Kiten 2008). Brands can also be perceived through the perspective
of animism and anthropomorphism, picturing brands as humanlike entities
in the eyes of consumers (Avis et al. 2012). us, the metaphors used in
marketing can stress the dynamic aracter of a brand and its possibility to
adapt to new market conditions. Moreover, since they evoke connotations
among consumers, metaphors facilitate the selection of products or services
that suit one’s needs or personal aracteristics. Consequently, the figures of
animals are used to stress the features of products or services offered.
Examples might include tigers, bears, crocodiles, owls and cows, whi are
visible in the name of a product itself (verbal metaphor) or in its logo
(verbal/pictorial metaphor). Apart from stressing some aracteristic
features of products, animal logos can also highlight the origin of the whole
product or its components, an example being the figure of a cow used in
marketing dairy products or sweets. As far as services are concerned, the
domain of compensation paages for managers is very metaphorical. Su
metaphorical names as golden parachute or golden umbrella denote various
types of compensation for employees upon the termination of employment
(Bielenia-Grajewska 2014b).

Conclusion
e aim of this contribution has been to elaborate on the linguistic
dimension of modern marketing. To discuss the role of language in the
marketing performance of modern organizations, the concept of company
linguistic identity has been introduced and presented from a metaphorical
perspective. e discussion has centred round the issues of personnel,
products and purasers to discuss different types of metaphors and their
role in identity creation, accommodation and performance in the market
reality of the twenty-first century. Although the domains of personnel,
product and puraser metaphors are approaed and used in different ways
and for different purposes, they are present in the linguistic representation of
individuals and products. eir presence is especially important in periods of
high diversity of stakeholders and diversified linguistic needs, when efficient
and economical communication is a top priority. us, the linguistic
dimension of company identity constitutes an important part of theoretical
and practical marketing studies. Since modern organizations are diversified
in terms of culture and language, linguistic perspectives are important parts
of resear in cross-cultural management. In addition, the symbolic
perspective offers a discussion on the cultural baground of metaphorical
domains and their application in cross-cultural seings. Furthermore, the
resear presented here can be a starting point for a further study on the
metaphorical dimension of diversified corporations, industries and
economies. As well as this, taking into account the growing role of
neuroscience in human and social studies, investigations into the cross-
cultural aspects of neuromanagement may offer new insights into the
discourse on symbolism in modern organizations. Moreover, su an
approa may lead to interdisciplinary studies, providing a bridge between
scientific domains that appear to be unrelated and a platform of discussion
for researers and practitioners.

References
Avis, M., Aitken, R. and Ferguson, S. (2012) “Brand relationship and
personality theory: metaphor or consumer perceptual reality?”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 311–331.
Bimann, R. (1999) Chance – Identität: Impulse für das Management von
Komplexität, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2009) “e role of metaphors in the language of
investment banking”, Iberica, No. 17, pp. 139–156.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2010) “e linguistic dimension of expatriatism –
hybrid environment, hybrid linguistic identity”, European Journal of
 Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, Vol. 1, No. 2/3, pp. 212–
231.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2011) “Corporate networking”, in Barne, G. A.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of social networks, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc., pp. 182–187.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2013) “Corporate linguistic rights through the prism
of company linguistic identity capital”, in Akrivopoulou, Ch. M. and
Garipidis, N. (Eds.), Digital democracy and the impact of technology on
governance and politics: new globalized practices, Hershey, PA: IGI
Global, pp. 275–290.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2014a) “CSR online communication: the
metaphorical dimension of CSR discourse in the food industry”, in
Ten, R., Jones, B. and Sun, W. (Eds.), Communicating corporate social
responsibility: lessons from theory and practice, Bingley: Emerald, pp.
311–333.
Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2014b) “Mobbing, niebieskie kołnierzyki i gorące
biurka. Zapożyczenia i meta-fory w zarządzaniu zasobami ludzkimi”,
Edukacja Ekonomistów i Menadżerów, No. 1, Vol. 31, pp. 11–26.
Blader, S. L., Wrzesniewski, A. and Bartel, C. (2007) “Identity and the
modern organization: an invitation”, in Blader, S. A., Wrzesniewski, A.
and Bartel, C. (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 3–16.
Brown, V. (1994) “e economy as text”, in Bahouse, R. (Ed.), New
directions in economic methodology, London: Routledge, pp. 368–382.
Bruhn, M. and Kirgeorg, M. (2007) “Marktorientierte Führung im Wandel
von Umweltbewusstsein und ökologisen Rahmenbedingungen”, in
Bruhn, M., Kirgeorg, M. and Meier, J. (Eds.), Markorientierte Führung
im wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Wandel, Wiesbaden: Gabler
Verlag, pp. 83–114.
Burmann, Ch., Halaszovi, T. and Hemmann, F. (2012) Identitätsbasiertes
Markenmanagement: Ein innovativer Ansatz zur Führung von Marken,
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Charteris-Bla, J. (2007) The communication of leadership: the design of
leadership style, Abingdon: Routledge.
Chien, Ch. S. and Moutinho, L. (2008) Problems in marketing: applying key
concepts and techniques, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2008a) “Metaphor”, in orpe, R. and Holt, R. (Eds.), The
Sage dictionary of qualitative management research, London: Sage
Publications Ltd, pp. 128–129.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2008b) Corporate communication: a guide to theory and
practice, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2002)
“Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the
conduct of marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 5/6,
pp. 595–620.
De Fiore, L. (2005) “Comunicare il risio in medicina, dialogare sul risio
per la salute”, Bolletino d’informazione sui farmaci, 3, pp. 126–129.
Denning, S. (2007) The secret language of leadership: how leaders inspire
action through narrative, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Di Nicola, P. (1998) La rete: metafora dell’appartenenza. Analisi strutturale e
paradigma di rete, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Foxall, G. R. and Srezenmaier,
T. C. (2003) “e behavioral economics of consumer brand oice:
Establishing a methodology”, Journal of Economic Psychology, No. 24,
pp. 675–695.
Foxall, G. R., Goldsmith, R. E. and Brown, S. (2006) Consumer psychology for
marketing, London: omson Learning.
Giacconi, P. (2011) C’era una volta. Un cantastorie in azienda, Milan: Franco
Angeli s.r.l.
Giusti, E. and Cioa, A. (2005) Metafore: nella relazione d’aiuto e nei settori
formative, Rome: Sovera Multimedia. Goodwin, C. (1996) “Moving the
drama into the factory: the contribution of metaphors to services
resear”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 13–36.
Hamilton, A. and Gioia, D. A. (2009) “Fostering sustainability-focused
organizational identities”, in Roberts, L. M. and Duon, J. E. (Eds.),
Exploring positive identities and organizations: building a theoretical
and research foundation, New York: Routledge, pp. 435–460.
Hat, M. J., Kostera, M. and Koźmiński A. K. (2009) The three faces of
leadership: manager, artist, priest, Malden, MA: Blawell Publishing.
Holden, N. and Glisby, M. (2010) Creating knowledge advantage: the tacit
dimensions of international competition and cooperation, Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business Sool Press.
Holmqvist, J. and Grönroos, Ch. (2012) “How does language maer for
services? Challenges and propositions for service resear”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol.15, No. 4, pp. 430–442.
Kiten, P. J. (2008) “Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis: an
introduction”, in Kiten, P. J. (Ed.), Marketing metaphors and
metamorphosis, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1–9.
Kram, K. E., Wasserman, I. C. and Yip, J. (2012) “Metaphors of identity and
professional practice: learning from the solar–practitioner”, The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 304–341.
Lanham, R. A. (2006) The economics of attention: style and substance in the
age of information, Chicago: e University of Chicago Press.
Lizza, P. (2011) La cultura aziendale. Profili di analisi e di management,
Milan: Giuffrè Editore.
Madhavaram, S. and McDonald, R. E. (2010) “Knowledge-based sales
management strategy and the graing metaphor: implications for theory
and practice”, Industrial Marketing Management, No. 39, pp. 1078–1087.
Maffesoli, M. (2008) Czas plemion. Schyłek indywidualizmu w
społeczeństwach ponowoczesnych, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Mascia, D. (2009) L’organizzazione delle reti in sanità. Teoria, metodi e
strumenti di social network analysis, Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Mladenov, I. (2006) Conceptualizing metaphors: on Charles Peirce’s
marginalia, Abingdon: Routledge. Morgan, G. (2006) Images of
organization, London: Sage.
Mughan, T. (2009) “Exporting the multiple market experience”, in Feng, A.,
Byram, M. and Fleming, M. P. (Eds.), Becoming interculturally competent
through education and training, Bristol: Multilingual Maers, pp. 32–52.
Oggero, L. (2004) L’organizzazione è una metafora. Viaggio di dodici
metafore nella dimensione organizzativa, Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Rindfleis, A. (1996) “Marketing as warfare: reassessing a dominant
metaphor”, Business Horizons, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 3–10.
Roebu, K. (2011) Neuromarketing: high-impact strategies – what you need
to know: definitions, adoptions, impact, benefits, maturity, vendors,
Newstead: Emereo Publishing.
Rughase, O. G. (2006) Identity and strategy: how individual visions enable
the design of a market strategy that works, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Spicer, A. and Alvesson, M. (2011) “Metaphors for leadership”, in Alvesson,
M. and Spicer, A. (Eds.), Metaphors we lead by: understanding leadership
in the real world, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 31–50.
Teiert, T., von Wartburg, I. and Braterman, R. (2006) “Tacit meaning in
disguise: hidden metaphors in new product development and market
making”, Business Horizons, No. 49, pp. 451–461.
Tilley, Ch. Y. (1999) Metaphor and material culture, Malden, MA: Blawell
Publishers Ltd.
Vella, K. J. and Melewar, T. C. (2008) “Explicating the relationship between
identity and culture. A multi-perspective conceptual model”, in Melewar,
T. C. (Ed.), Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation,
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 3–34.
Volonté, P. (2006) “Introduzione”, in Bovone, L. and Volonté, P. (Eds.),
Comunicare le identità. Percorsi della soggettività nell’età
contemporanea, Milan: FrancoAngeli, pp. 9–24.
Wheen, D. A. and Goldfrey, P. C. (1998) Identity in organizations: building
theory through conversations, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Williams, J. E. M. and Chaston, I. (2004) “Links between the linguistic ability
and international experience of export managers and their export
marketing intelligence behaviour”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 463–486.
Winsor, R. D. (1995) “Marketing under conditions of aos: percolation
metaphors and models”, Journal of Business Research, No. 34, pp. 181–
189.
Zaglia, M. E. (2013) “Brand communities embedded in social networks”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 216–223.
Zai, A. (1993) La metafora nella comunicazione familiare e gruppale,
Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
Section 3
Cross-cultural management resear and
education

Editor: Gavin Jack

19
Introduction: cross-cultural
management resear and education

Gavin Jack

Introduction
Driven by geopolitical anges in the international business environment
(notably the rise of the BRICS nations) and mounting criticisms of the static
models and narrow theoretical terrain of cross-cultural management (CCM),
there is an urgent need for innovative, interdisciplinary approaes to
resear and education that transcend the field’s limited theoretical,
methodological and geographical boundaries. e seven apters comprising
this section have taken up the allenge not only to critique existing
perspectives, but more importantly to advance fresh approaes and
practices to researing and teaing CCM situated in varying theoretical,
historical, geographical, cultural and pedagogical contexts. Together, these
apters are intended to model distinctive and exciting perspectives for
teaers and researers of CCM, and to inspire solars to participate in the
re-invention and pluralization of our disciplinary sub-field for future
researers and future students. In these opening remarks, I outline briefly
three key problematics that the field continues to face as a contextualizing
device for introducing the content of the seven substantive apters.
ree key problematics for CCM resear and
education
While the seven apters in this section are focused either on resear or
education (the first three on resear, the second four on education), they
share an interest in taling one or more of three key and inter-related
problematics in the contemporary field of CCM. e first of these
problematics is enabling the field to address the continuing, and limiting,
hegemony of functionalist and positivist paradigmatic thought and practice,
and to consider how we might generate greater levels of epistemic diversity
in CCM resear and education. is issue has been long recognized (see, for
instance, Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Redding, 1994), yet the hegemonic
workings of the discipline have been su that despite continuous calls for a
more inclusive theoretical base and for methodological pluralism (Ja et al.,
2008), alternative worldviews and strategies for generating knowledge about
CCM remain on the periphery of the sub-field. To be clear, there is
contestation and dissensus within the dominant paradigm about what
constitutes the most appropriate approa to, for example, construct and
scale development, and especially to assure ecological validity (see, for
instance, Smith’s [2006] commentary on the Hofstede/ GLOBE debates in
the Journal of International Business Studies). However, these debates are
typically highly tenicist in nature, and aimed at refining method within a
taken-for-granted post-positivist worldview. e unfortunate effect is to
reproduce a separation of theory and method that mitigates against
metatheoretical reflexivity (Ja & Westwood, 2006). Su reflexivity is a
pre-condition for discussions about and across different paradigmatic
perspectives, especially those associated with other disciplines in the
humanities and social sciences. e first key goal of this section is to enable
and provoke interest in metatheoretical conversations within the field. ese
metatheoretical conversations can pertain not only to appropriate paradigms
for the conduct of resear, but also to the assumptions that underpin CCM
pedagogy and curriculum design and associated student learning activities.
 Problematics two and three are inter-related and deal with both
longstanding and more recent concerns in the international and cross-
cultural management literature with context and location: the enduring etic–
emic debate; and more contemporary calls for more context-sensitive and
indigenous theory development. Kenneth Pike’s (1971) linguistic distinction
between the (phon-)etics and (phon-)emics that aracterize spee paerns
is a conceptual staple for CCM researers, though it is a distinction
employed to a number of different ends (sometimes at quite a distance from
Pike’s original studies). Most typically an etic perspective refers to the
deployment (imposition) of the researer’s (outsider) categories for
generating data about cultural knowledge in a particular seing, while the
emic signifies the insider’s perspective for understanding a cultural system
from within. Debates pertaining to the appropriate role for ea perspective
in the generation and teaing of CCM knowledge encompass a variety of
contestations, including:

Critiques of the imposition of outsider categories into local resear

seings, notably in cases where Western/Global North-derived
management theory (and practice) is exported for use in non-
Western/Global Southern seings. ere is a long history of criticism
of the universalizing pretensions and ethnocentric assumptions
underpinning (US/Western European) management theory, with
more recent essays noting the dominance of English-language and
North American perspectives in putatively ‘global’ management
knowledge (Tsui, 2007). Critical essays exist, both within and outside
the management discipline, of the dangers of simply ‘copying and
pasting’ (metaphorically speaking) the resear agenda and
pedagogical materials of the Global North by researers and
teaers in other seings (Ibarro-Colado, 2006), notably the danger
that su processes thwart the development of indigenous social
sciences (Alatas, 2003).
Debates about contextualization strategies (of resear design and
data analysis, or when writing student textbooks) to ‘mitigate’ the
 risks of imposing culturally insensitive or irrelevant etic perspectives
(Rousseau & Fried, 2001). While important, these strategies are
typically aimed at rendering normal scientific approaes in the field
more context-sensitive. at is to say, rather than critiquing the
cultural underpinnings of those very approaes, they work within
the limits of mainstream management science.
Solarly conversations on context-specific and context-sensitive
strategies for endogenous construct and indigenous theory
development (Tsui, 2004), and for valuing indigenous management
knowledge from locations typically/historically located at the
periphery or the semi-periphery of global management knowledge.
Driven in particular by solars from BRICS countries (and Asian
management solars), researers are looking to understand the
insights into practice that non-Western and BRICS organizations
(especially multinationals) can offer the West, and to develop theory
from locales that have traditionally been positioned as mere sites for
data collection and or receptacles for outsiders’ expert knowledge
(Connell, 2007).
Valuing and aempting to integrate both context-specific/-sensitive
cultural knowledge with cognitive/behavioural paerns that are
generalizable across a number of cultural systems into resear
studies and curriculum design.

ese varied and ongoing intellectual conversations provide an important

baground for the contributing apters. e second key goal of this
section, then, is to develop and advance new possibilities for CCM resear
and education that engage the continued utility of the etic–emic distinction
and of questions of location and contextual relevance for the development of
cuing-edge solarship and pedagogical practice.
Individual contributions addressing the
problematics
In the first of three apters on resear that open this section, Jia He and
Fons J.R. van de Vijver build a case and offer specific strategies for
advancing the methodological rigour – and more specifically the ecological
validity – of CCM resear. Conversing with and within a post-positivist
approa, the point of departure for their apter is the belief that the
development of CCM resear requires a reconciliation and an integration of
etic and emic perspectives not only at a theoretical level, but also at a
methodological one. ey suggest three ways of aieving this goal: first, by
combining culture-general and culture-specific aspects of management and
organizational constructs in theory development, and using mixed methods;
second, by using their proposed taxonomy of concepts for minimizing bias
and ensuring equivalence in resear design and measurement; and finally,
by adopting a multilevel approa to resear design and analysis, using
nested structures and multilevel modelling. He and van de Vijver’s apter
advances mainstream methodological discussions in nuanced and detailed
ways by offering a vision for resear practice that manifests the interplay of
etic and emic perspectives in the domain of methodology and resear
design.
A very different vision for the development of CCM resear – one
‘beyond positivism’ – is offered by Ajnesh Prasad. e continuing hegemony
of positivist approaes moulded using a Hofstedean approa means that
alternative paradigms for the construction of knowledge remain on the
outside of the field. Prasad argues provocatively for greater paradigm
pluralism within CCM (a scenario that would enable a beer understanding
of the complexities and power relations aendant to cultural processes
associated with CCM), as the basis for creating a more inclusive and
epistemically diverse field. While other apters in this Companion also call
for a more inclusive paradigmatic terrain, Prasad draws distinctive aention
to the potential for interpretive, critical theoretical (notably postcolonial)
and most especially Foucauldian approaes. Prasad advocates greater use of
the Fren philosopher Miel Foucault’s concept of genealogy and a
genealogical approa to conducting resear not only to study power
relations as they articulate in knowledge construction, but also as a mode for
the emancipation of knowledge systems historically and currently
subjugated by Western solarship.
Alfredo Behrens’s apter extends the theme of how CCM researers –
in his case, located in the context of Latin America – might break the ties
and thus the dependency on Western theoretical and methodological
perspectives. antitative survey work dominates Latin American CCM
resear, an example of neo-colonialism as it both subjugates local
knowledges to the alien cultural categories underpinning survey items and
oen involves locals playing the role of local data collectors while a priori
theory/testable hypotheses are generated elsewhere. Behrens describes
existing alternatives to this dominant paradigm in Latin America (CCCM
[critical cross-cultural management] and CMS [critical management
studies]), but points to their respective weaknesses as part of a broader
discussion about why it is that local researers have failed to generate
effective theoretical and methodological alternatives to the questionnaire
survey approa. Behrens makes a case for integrating CCCM and CMS
approaes through the development of a critical cultural methodology
based on the use and discussion of existing artefacts associated with
(national) popular cultures. To illustrate, Behrens presents a fascinating
content analysis and cultural discussion of the significance of the national
anthems of five different Latin American nations for generating locally
based, relevant and diverse understandings of management and organization
in/of Latin America.
In the next two apters, the focus shis from resear to education, but
the importance on developing local understandings is retained. Both
apters offer historical accounts of the development of CCM education
from two BRICS nations – China and Russia – and take us up to the present
day. Despite the different locations, both share a common badrop in so far
as the historical evolution of CCM education in these seings is a story
about how Western approaes to theory, pedagogy and textbook design
(among other things) have been exported, appropriated and contextualized –
or otherwise – in these seings over time.
Yunxia Zhu and Zhaohui Wang use the etic–emic distinction to trace the
development of CCM education in China, highlighting the dominance in the
1980s and 1990s of Western etic approaes based on cultural typology
frameworks. Over the last ten years, however, anges have been afoot as
critical work on (Western) CCM has resonated in the Chinese context, and
as anges in the political economy have encouraged Chinese solars to
consider how best not only to resear their own anging economy and
society, but also how best to prepare their students for international
experiences. Chinese solars have developed strategies either for
contextualizing etic theories to make them more relevant and
understandable in a Chinese context (e.g. through the use of Chinese films as
teaing materials) or by developing indigenous theoretical and pedagogical
content (e.g. developing textbooks in Mandarin with indigenous concepts,
cases and examples). In the CCM educational space in China, however, Zhu
and Wang note that an integrated etic–emic framework is yet to appear.
Chinese solarship is thus an exciting space that all CCM solars should
look to not only with respect to resear, but also for innovative pedagogy.
Sheila M. Puffer, Daniel J. McCarthy, Anna Gryaznova and Vyaeslav
Boltrukevi provide an overview of the development of CCM education in
Russia, noting how a variety of evolving institutional and cultural
circumstances in pre-perestroika and post-Soviet times enabled and
constrained its developmental possibilities. In the immediate post-Soviet
context, the desire for Western management knowledge as part of the
transition towards a market-oriented economy led to the (haphazard and
sometimes ineffective) transfer of Western management theory and
pedagogical teaings into Russia without adaptation. Russian culture was
typically viewed as an impediment to the successful ‘implantation’ of
Western ideas. But things are anging. Since 2010, state intervention into
the national knowledge management system through the newly created
Ministry of Education and Science has generated propitious conditions for a
renewed focus on developing cross-cultural education for managers, based
on local Russian expertise and capacity. e emphasis on tenology and on
applied learning means that the development of cross-cultural capability and
empathy among Russian managers is closely tied to practice. e apter
showcases examples from leading business sools (e.g. Moscow State
University’s various MBA programmes) and Russian organizations with
highly-developed in-house training and education programmes (e.g. Russian
Railways, Rosatom) of best practice in (applied) cross-cultural management
education.
In the final two apters of this section, education is still the theme but
with a more prominent focus on pedagogy and curriculum design. For
teaers of CCM, these apters offer examples of cuing-edge teaing
strategies and activities that might enhance student learning about CCM.
Prue Holmes situates her apter in a social constructionist paradigm of
student learning about and through intercultural encounters. She argues that
students are not well served either by teaing them static values typologies,
nor by drawing upon limited conceptions of intercultural competence from
the adjacent discipline of intercultural communication. Located in the field
of languages and intercultural communication, Holmes’s apter brings
recent debates about the concept of intercultural competence and the shi to
a so-called ‘capability’ approa into management, as well as ideas about
culture from anthropology and cultural studies. is interdisciplinary move
should open up debate in CCM about the best ways of developing
pedagogical strategies that recognize and work with the contemporary
complexities and fluidities of the culture concept in a multilingual
multicultural working world. Holmes gives us a number of excellent
examples of student learning activities and forms of assessment (e.g.
interactional assignments, overseas study) that enable experiential learning
that is sensitive to the emotional and relational nature of intercultural
encounters.
In the final apter in this section, Sarah Robinson continues the theme of
developing educational approaes to CCM beyond the use of static models
of culture, and to enabling modes of student learning through real-time
cross-cultural interactions. Her apter offers a unique student-informed
perspective on cross-cultural learning; that is to say, one that is built upon
the insights shared by 46 UK-based MBA students about their international
learning experience during their degree. Robinson argues that cross-cultural
pedagogy should be led by student experience, and to this end suggests that
the concept of ‘Bildung’ (from the German ‘Bildungsroman’ – a metaphor
for thinking about self-discovery as a journey) can helpfully frame and
support students’ self-reflection and learning in intercultural encounters.
rough an analysis of the interview data collected as part of this original
and highly evocative resear study, Robinson outlines a number of different
stages in the students’ learning journey. She then maps a series of teaing
and learning activities that CCM solars will find highly useful at ea of
these stages, ensuring the relevance of teaing to student learning.

Conclusion
It is an exciting time to be researing and teaing in the field of cross-
cultural management. e seven apters in this section engage with the
core problematics I have outlined to offer fresh perspectives beyond the
static models of cultural interaction, West-centric theory and aggregate
models of cultural difference that dominate the field. e apters take
seriously the need for more metatheoretical reflexivity, interdisciplinary
thinking and deep consideration of the implications of location and context
for our teaing and resear. Of course there are limitations in the scope
and coverage of this section; it would certainly have been wonderful to have
had contributions from solars in/about Africa or India in their full
diversity and dynamism. As su, I would like to think that this section
functions as an invitation to a hospitable discursive space for future solars
interested in opening up towards a more theoretically and geographically
inclusive cross-cultural management.
References
Alatas, S.F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour
in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51: 599–633.
Boyacigiller, N.A. & Adler, N. (1991). e paroial dinosaur: Organizational
science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 262–
290.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in
Social Science. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Ibarra-Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in
Latin America: inking otherness from the margins. Organization,
13(4): 463–488.
Ja, G. & Westwood, R. (2006). Postcolonialism and the politics of
qualitative resear in international business. Management International
Review, 46(4): 481–501.
Ja, G., Calás, M.B., Nkomo S.M. & Peltonen, T. (2008). Critique and
international management: A n uneasy relationship? Academy of
Management Review, 33(4): 870–884.
Pike, K. (1971). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of
Human Behaviour (2nd ed.). e Hague: Mouton.
Redding, G. (1994) Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil
bed? Organization Studies, 15(3): 323–359.
Rousseau, D. & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing
organizational resear. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 1–13.
Smith, P.B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: e
GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(6): 915–921.
Tsui, A. (2004). Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for
high quality indigenous resear. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
21: 491–513.
Tsui, A. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International
management resear in the academy and beyond. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6): 1353–1364.
20
Bridging etic and emic approaes in
cross-cultural management resear

Jia He and Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Introduction
Resear in management across cultures has proliferated during the past
decades. e diversity and complexity of the field is accompanied by
considerable debate, oen based on methodological grounds. In particular,
dominant universal frameworks su as those proposed by Hofstede and the
GLOBE project (adopting an etic approa) strive to provide a panoramic
view, whereas indigenous studies (adopting an emic approa) aempt to
capture close-up dynamics (Eglene & Dawes, 2006; Miller et al., 2011). At
first glance, the etic and emic approaes seem to drive resear in different
directions. However, they are not an either/or polarity, and various
perspectives have been suggested to reconcile the false diotomy (Ja et
al., 2013). We argue that further advancement in cross-cultural management
is in part contingent on the integration of both approaes with rigorous
resear methodology. is apter describes and illustrates ways in whi
this integration could take place.
We argue that it is important for students and researers of cross-
cultural management resear to go beyond the traditional diotomy
between etic and emic studies and to appreciate their complementary
nature. Drawing on valuable experience gained in cross-cultural methods
(Van de Vijver, in press; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997; Van de Vijver &
Tanzer, 2004), we propose to bridge the gap between the etic and emic
resear traditions through three routes: (1) combining the etic and emic
approaes; (2) minimizing bias and ensuring equivalence in cross-cultural
comparative studies; (3) a multilevel approa. Greater methodological rigor
will enhance comparability of results across studies and will lead to
incremental insights in cross-cultural management.
In this apter, we first present methodological concerns with both etic
and emic approaes in cross-cultural management resear. We then
introduce a combined approa that takes into consideration both the
universal and culture-specific aspects in management dynamics. Next, we
present a framework of bias and equivalence, key concepts in cross-cultural
resear, with examples from management studies, and suggest how we can
use this framework to increase the ecological validity of studies. Finally, we
illustrate multilevel analysis as a means to bridge cultural-and individual-
level similarities and differences.

e etic and emic resear traditions and their

problems

The etic approach

If we want to take sto of what has been aieved in comparative cross-

cultural management resear (from an etic approa), there is an
impressive array of findings. However, in our reading of the literature, the
many individual trees (of resear findings and frameworks) are in sear of
a forest. e field is troubled by a la of cumulative, replicable findings. As
a small example, let us take a closer look at a key topic in this line of study:
What are the value dimensions of culture? Before the pioneering work of
Hofstede (1980), culture was not factored into management theories. With
his four (Hofstede, 1980) and recent six cultural dimensions (Hofstede et al.,
2010), the topic has enjoyed mu resear interest. Later authors have
reduced and expanded these dimensions while others have proposed a
completely different typology. Using a similar approa to Hofstede’s,
Swartz (1999) identified seven culture-level values that can be represented
in a two-dimensional space; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997)
postulated seven (somewhat different) dimensions; the social-axioms project
by Bond and colleagues (Bond et al., 2004) proposed two culture-level
dimensions; and nine dimensions were reported in the GLOBE leadership
project (House et al., 2004). Smith (2006) compared the Hofstede and GLOBE
project, arguing that there are various methodological differences between
these studies, whi preempt a direct comparison or a comparison of the
relative merits and shortcomings of the various studies. e question can be
asked to what extent aggregated reports based on self-perception or
perception of others could truly represent cultural aracteristics. Cross-
cultural management resear would benefit from going beyond the long
preoccupation with aggregate models of culture and cultural differences.

The emic approach

It is difficult to accommodate the diversity in cross-cultural management

findings under a universal theoretical roof, as management theories and
practices are tied to various contexts that cannot be fully aracterized by
universal frameworks (Miailova, 2011; Prasad, 2009). Clearly, not all
observed cross-cultural variability in etic studies may be a consequence of
universally applicable factors or antecedents. Cross-cultural management
studies using an emic approa can provide incremental value and identify
culture-specific management issues (Lo & Miailova, 2010), yet these
studies also have their methodological allenges. To begin with, since most
current instruments were developed and tested in Western cultures, their
applicability in non-Western cultures is not a foregone conclusion (e.g.,
Stening & Zhang, 2007). So, like etic studies, emic studies need to show the
validity and reliability of their instruments. Moreover, findings of emic
studies do not always converge with findings from etic studies, in whi
case some integration is needed. For example, Smith et al. (2007) in their
study of sources of guidance found that managers in four Arab countries
showed different paerns aributable to differences in whi these Arab
countries were influenced by globalization. is finding casts doubt on the
conclusion of a relatively uniform Arabic leadership style drawn from the
GLOBE project. Emic studies can help to identify the cultures and conditions
of applicability of etic studies. Emic and etic studies of similar topics are not
comparable with ea other but provide their own, complementary
perspectives on management.

Combining the etic and emic approa

e previous review suggests that both the etic and emic approaes have
certain methodological advantages and disadvantages, yet it seems difficult
to escape from the impression that differences between etic and emic
approaes have been vastly overrated and that both approaes are more
complementary than oen assumed. Smith et al. (2012) studied to what
extent presumably indigenous concepts dealing with informal ways to
aieve influence in business organizations could also be found in other
cultures (guanxi in China, wasta in Arab nations, jeitinho in Brazil, svayazi
in Russia, and “pulling strings” in Britain). ey found that managers in
these five countries judged the indigenous concepts from other cultures not
to be less representative of what happened in their organizations than
concepts from their own culture. In several instances, a non-local concept
was indeed perceived as more typical for one’s own country than the local
concept. It seems that people across cultures were easily recognizing these,
even if a precise term was absent from their language. e study illustrates
that presumably emic constructs may have etic components. Similarly, etic
constructs may have emic components. Even if to the best of our knowledge
extro-version is universal (e.g., McCrae & Allik, 2002), that does not yet
mean that a single set of items can be used to assess extroversion in all
cultures.
In light of the allenges exemplified by studies using an etic or emic
approa, a combined approa taking into consideration both the
methodological rigor and cultural sensitivity in a study may be preferred (F.
M. Cheung et al., 2011). A combined approa involves an integrated and
balanced treatment of culturally universal and specific aspects. It can take
place with the use of a combination of etic and emic measurements or the
use of mixed methods (i.e., use both qualitative and quantitative methods).
An example can be found in a study by Suryani et al. (2012). Starting with a
qualitative study of the indigenous aracteristics of Indonesian leadership,
the authors developed a local questionnaire to tap into these indigenous
aracteristics and administered it to managers in Indonesia. Two styles
were identified: benevolent paternalism and transformational leadership.
Next, a local questionnaire, based on the qualitative study, and the
leadership questionnaire from the GLOBE project were jointly administered
to another group of Indonesian managers, and it was found that Indonesian
leadership had one component involving a more local modernization
dimension (as identified in the indigenous study) and another more
universal person- versus team-oriented leadership dimension (as identified
in the GLOBE project). For constructs with presumed universal applicability
(e.g., leadership, work-related values, management styles), su a
questionnaire-based approa is feasible, and a combined emic–etic
perspective can help to draw ecologically valid conclusions. Mixed methods
(combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods) are recommended
when the target constructs only partly overlap across cultures and cannot be
captured by a single method, su as a single questionnaire administered in
all groups. Du Plessis (2011), in her study of multicultural teamwork, first
used a quantitative survey to confirm the teamwork paradoxes within
multicultural organizational environments, and then applied interviews to
explore cross-cultural conflicts and their management.
Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural resear
A second route that is expected to enhance the development of the field
involves carefully dealing with methodological allenges in comparative
resear. It usually comprises the minimization of bias and the evaluation of
equivalence. We recommend that researers heed the pitfalls (i.e., bias) in
every step of a comparative study, and mindfully work towards bias-free or
bias-controlled results. In this section, we introduce sources of and remedies
to different types of bias and the corresponding levels of equivalence.

Taxonomy of bias

Bias refers to systematic errors that jeopardize the validity of instruments

applied in different cultures. ree types of bias (i.e., construct, method, and
item bias) can be distinguished, depending on whether the invalidity results
from the theoretical construct, measurement instrument, or specific items
(Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Construct bias occurs when score differences on the indicators of a
particular construct do not correspond to differences in the underlying trait
or ability. Construct bias is present when there is only a partial overlap in
the definition of a construct across cultures, or when not all relevant
behaviors associated with the construct are sampled (Van de Vijver &
Poortinga, 1997). Take collectivism as an example. Hofstede conceptualized a
single collectivism dimension, whereas two separate dimensions of
collectivism (institutional collectivism and family collectivism) were
identified in the GLOBE project. Even though similar labels were employed,
items used to measure these dimensions were quite different. Smith (2004)
reported a significant correlation of the Hofstede dimension with the
institutional collectivism value, but not with the family collectivism value,
indicating construct bias between resear traditions.
Method bias is a generic term for nuisance factors from sampling
semes, instrument features, or administration processes. Sample bias is the
incomparability of samples due to cross-cultural variations in aracteristics,
su as gender, education, and religious belief, whi are associated with
target measures. It is necessary to take into account the sample
aracteristics in cross-cultural comparisons. Instrument bias involves
systematic errors deriving from instrument aracteristics su as self-report
bias in Likert-scale measures. e systematic tendency of respondents to
endorse certain response options on some basis other than the target
construct (i.e., response styles) may impact the validity of the cross-cultural
comparison. Various strategies have been proposed to account for their
effects. Swartz (1999) applied a within-cultural score standardization
procedure to counter response styles when constructing the cultural value
dimensions. Hanges (2004) used standardized scores to predict the raw
scores in a regression analysis. e raw scores were then compared with the
predicted scores in t tests to identify cultures exhibiting substantial response
styles in the GLOBE project. However, it was suggested that differences
measured by the GLOBE dimensions and personality may represent
culturally endorsed styles of responding to surveys, whi speaks against the
correction for response styles (Van Emmerik et al., 2010).
Administration bias comes from administration conditions (e.g., data
collection modes, group versus individual assessment), ambiguous
instructions, interaction between administrator and respondents (e.g., halo
effects), and communication problems (e.g., language differences, taboo
topic). For instance, Harzing (2006) found that managers in non-English
speaking countries displayed more extreme response styles when they filled
out the questionnaire in their native language than in English. To
summarize, method bias can have a global influence on cross-cultural score
differences (e.g., mean scores of measures vulnerable to method bias can
shi upwards or downwards). If not appropriately taken into account in the
analysis of data, method bias can be misinterpreted as real cross-cultural
differences.
An item is biased if persons with the same trait, but coming from different
cultures, are not equally likely to endorse the item (Van de Vijver & Leung,
1997). It can derive from poor translation, inapplicability of item content in
different cultures, and items that trigger additional traits or items with
ambiguous connotations. In their study of arismatic leadership, Lian et al.
(2011) identified item bias in “exciting public speaker,” whi, in the Chinese
context, was viewed as an indicator of unconventional behavior rather than
articulating a strategic vision.

Taxonomy of equivalence

e previous section on bias deals with the nuisance factors that may have
an impact on the comparability of data in different cultural groups.
Corresponding to the types of bias, a hierarical classification of
equivalence has been proposed to indicate the measurement levels at whi
scores obtained in different cultural groups can be compared (Van de Vijver
& Leung, 1997). ree levels of equivalence are distinguished, namely
construct equivalence, metric equivalence, and scalar equivalence.
A prerequisite for any cross-cultural comparison, construct equivalence is
aieved if the same theoretical construct is measured in ea culture.
Without construct equivalence, any cross-cultural comparison would
amount to comparing apples and oranges, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Researers need to explore the structure of the construct and adequacy of
sampled items. When a construct does not have the same meaning across
cultures, researers need to anowledge the incompleteness of
conceptualization and only compare the equivalent sub-facets.
Metric equivalence indicates that measures of interval or ratio level have
the same metric (measurement unit) but different origins. With metric
equivalence, scores can be compared within cultural groups (e.g., male and
female differences can be tested in ea group), and mean paerns and
correlations across cultural groups, but scores cannot be compared directly
across groups.
Scalar equivalence, as the highest level of equivalence, means that scales
have the same measurement unit and origin. With scalar equivalence, scores
obtained are bias free and can be compared directly. For (and only for) this
level of equivalence, analyses of variance and t tests to examine cross-
cultural differences in means can be performed.

Strategies to minimize bias

Many strategies are available to deal with bias at different stages of a cross-
cultural study, and we focus on non-statistical strategies at the design and
administration stage and the statistical tools that can detect and control for
bias. An overview of the types of bias and non-statistical strategies to
minimize them is presented in Table 20.1.

Table 20.1 Non-statistical strategies to deal with various types of bias

Type of bias Strategies

Decentering (i.e., simultaneously developing the same

instrument in several cultures)
Construct
Convergence approa (i.e., independent within-culture
bias
development of instruments and subsequent cross-cultural
administration of all instruments)
Use of informants with expertise in local culture and
language
Use samples of bilingual subjects
Construct Use of local surveys (e.g., content analyses of free-response
bias and/or questions)
method bias Non-standard instrument administration (e.g., think aloud)
Cross-cultural comparison of nomological networks (e.g.,
convergent/discriminate validity studies, monotrait-
multimethod studies, connotation of key phrases)
Method bias Extensive training of administrators (e.g., increasing cultural
sensitivity)
Type of bias Strategies

Detailed manual/protocol for administration, scoring, and

interpretation
Detailed instructions (e.g., with sufficient number of examples
and/or exercise)
Use of context variables (e.g., educational baground)
Use of collateral information (e.g., test-taking behavior or test
aitudes)
Assessment of response styles
Use of test-retest, training and/or intervention studies
Judgmental methods of item bias detection (e.g., linguistic
and psyological analysis)
Item bias Documentation of "spare items" in the test manual whi are
equally good measures of the construct as actually used test
items

Analytical strategies to detect bias and ensure equivalence mainly involve

factor analysis at the scale level and differential item functioning analysis
(DIF) at the item level. Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) can be used to e construct bias,
whereas CFA is also capable of detecting item bias. When the underlying
structure of a construct is not theory-driven or sample sizes are small, EFA is
preferred. e use of EFA, CFA, and various other dimensionality-reducing
teniques to study construct bias is based on the following reasoning:
identical constructs are measured in all groups if the structure of an
instrument, as observed in these teniques, is the same across cultures. So,
invariance of the number of factors and factor loadings is evidence of
construct equivalence. Comparisons of multiple cultures can be conducted
either in a pairwise or in a one-to-all manner (in the laer case ea culture
versus the combined solution). e computation of Tuer’s phi coefficient
in target rotations is to evaluate factor congruence (Van de Vijver & Leung,
1997). Using an EFA approa, Shipper (2004) compared the factor structure
of management skills in three countries by computing correlations of factor
loadings in these countries, from whi he demonstrated the construct
equivalence.
When the structure of the construct is based on theory or previous work,
CFA is oen employed to e construct and item bias. CFA can test a
hierary of factor models (G. W. Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). A summary of
the hierarically nested models that can be tested is presented in Table 20.2.
Among all the models, the measurement weights and intercepts invariance
are the most important aspects, but there is no agreement in the literature
about the importance of the other types of invariance.
Tests of measurement invariance with multigroup CFA have been
frequently used in management resear (G. W. Cheung & Lau, 2012).
Caligiuri et al. (2010) eed the configural invariance of an instrument
assessing the need for aievement, affiliation, and power across diverse
cultures (e.g., China and Finland) before using these measures to predict
employers’ reputation. Van Emmerik, et al. (2008) demonstrated the
invariance of measurement weights, structural covariance, and
measurement residuals in the leadership styles across ten cultural clusters
before investigating the effects of culture and gender on leadership
behaviors across cultures.
DIF analysis is meant to identify items that function differently across
cultures. ere are many models and procedures one can follow to detect
uniform and non-uniform item bias, including ANOVA, logistic regression,
item response theory, and structural equation modeling (Zumbo, 2007).

Table 20.2 Nested models in multigroup confirmatory factor analysis

Hierarchical Interpretation of level of

Operationalization
models equivalence
Hierarchical Interpretation of level of
Operationalization
models equivalence

Same paern of Same latent constructs are

1. Configural
observed and latent measured, using the same
invariance
constructs indicators (no metric equivalence)
Factor loadings in the
2. Same latent factor(s) is/are
measurement part in
Measurement measured across groups, indicating
ea cultural group are
weights construct and metric equivalence
identical
All items represent the same
Items have the same
3. Intercept between-group difference,
intercept (latent mean)
invariance indicating free of item bias and full
across cultures
score equivalence
e range of scores on the latent
4. Structural e error variance of the
factor does not vary across cultures,
residual latent factor is identical
indicating full score equivalence
5. Error variances of the Groups use the same range of the
Measurement observed items are construct continuum, indicating full
residuals identical score equivalence

Bias analyses, like a DIF analysis, can identify items or other instrument
features that do not behave the same way in different groups. Bias could be
indicative of emic aspects (e.g., the item does not apply in a specific cultural
group), but it could also identify method problems, su as translation
errors. So, if bias is found, additional analyses are needed to understand its
nature.

A multilevel approa
A third route to improve the ecological validity of resear results is through
multilevel analysis. Multilevel models have been developed to model
phenomena in domains su as management with nested structures (e.g.,
employees nested in organizations or organizations nested in cultures)
(Snijders & Bosker, 2011). Miailova (2011) has proposed factor contexts
and contextualization in theory development of cross-cultural management,
and multilevel models as promising tools to realize this goal. When we
predict employees’ performance in cross-cultural contexts, we could use
both individual-level predictors (e.g., motivation, education, and skills) and
organizational-level or cultural-level predictors (e.g., structure of the
organizations and cultural values). Conventional statistical analyses, su as
regression analysis, fail to account for the data dependency across levels
(employees are nested within their organizations). In a multilevel analysis,
one can compute individual regression lines relating performance
(dependent variable) to motivation (independent variable) at an individual
level (ea employee has his or her own regression line) and then model
individual differences in the regression parameters (intercept and slope
differences as the dependent variables) on the basis of organizational
structure or culture (independent variables) at a higher level. As an example,
Van Emmerik et al. (2010) explored the associations of managers’ motives in
relation to gender and culture-level personality and cultural orientations;
they found that female managers had higher aievement and affiliation
motives, and that cultural dimensions of performance orientation, humane
orientation, power distance, and aggregated personality traits were
associated with these motives.
Multilevel modeling is also used to address the issue of cross-level
(in)equivalence: Do constructs at an individual level or organizational level
still have the same psyological meaning when these are aggregated at
country level (Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002)? Su an analysis could
answer questions su as the degree to whi organizational cultures
converge or deviate from national cultures (Nelson & Gopalan, 2003), or if
the individual- and culture-level value structure are the same (Fiser et al.,
2010). ese multilevel analyses are useful tools to delineate etic and emic
aspects of cross-cultural data sets.

Conclusion
Reconciliation of the etic and emic approaes in cross-cultural management
resear can be expected to advance the field. On the one hand, we need to
be more critical about the universal frameworks and promote indigenous
studies that move away from West-centric traditions. On the other hand, the
idea that management practices are so tied to their cultural contexts that no
universal features can be found is counterproductive. We need to go beyond
the ideological stance that etic and emic approaes are incompatible and
are derived from very different world views. Murray and Kluhohn (1953)
wrote that ea human is a being like all other human beings, like some
other human beings, and like no other human being. e same is true in our
view for organizations. Coming to terms with this diversity requires a
combined emic–etic approa. Making the best use of both approaes can
lead to incremental knowledge accumulation. We introduced the
methodological problems associated with both etic and emic approaes and
proposed three viable routes that can contribute to the higher ecological
validity of cross-cultural management resear: a combined approa,
mindfully minimizing bias and ensuring equivalence, and a multilevel
approa. We hope that readers of the apter will recognize the
methodological allenges, utilize the strategies outlined, and contribute to a
culture-informative understanding of management.

References
Bond, M.H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K-K., De Carrasquel, S.R. and Lewis,
J.R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates
across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(5): 548–570.
Caligiuri, P., Colakoglu, S., Cerdin, J-L. and Kim, M.S. (2010). Examining
cross-cultural and individual differences in predicting employer
reputation as a driver of employer araction. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management 10(2): 137–151.
Cheung, F.M, Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leong, F.T.L. (2011). Toward a new
approa to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist
66(7): 593–603.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2012). A direct comparison approa for testing
measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods 15(2): 167–
198.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes
for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2):
233–255.
Du Plessis, Y. (2011). Exploring teamwork paradoxes allenging 21st-
century cross-cultural conflict management in a multicultural
organizational context. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 12(1): 49–71.
Eglene, O. and Dawes, S.S. (2006). Challenges and strategies for conducting
international public management resear. Administration & Society
38(5): 596–622.
Fiser, R., Vauclair, C-M., Fontaine, J.R.J. and Swartz, S.H. (2010). Are
individual-level and country-level value structures different? Testing
Hofstede’s legacy with the Swartz Value Survey. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 41(2):135–151.
Hanges, P.J. (2004). Response bias correction procedure used in GLOBE. In
R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (eds.)
(737–752). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of
62 culture. ousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Harzing, A-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey resear: A
26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
 6(2): 243–266.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds.)
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Ja, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M.Y., Priard, C., Singh, K. and
Wheen, D. (2013). Refining, reinforcing and reimagining universal and
indigenous theory development in international management. Journal of
Management Inquiry 22(2): 148–164.
Lian, H., Brown, D.J., Tanzer, N.K. and Che, H. (2011). Distal arismatic
leadership and follower effects: An examination of Conger and
Kanungo’s conceptualization of arisma in China. Leadership 7(3): 251–
273.
Lo, K. and Miailova, S. (2010). Lessons from beyond the Great Wall: What
cross-cultural management researers can learn from the Middle
Kingdom. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and
Management 1(2/3): 188–196.
McCrae, R.R. and Allik, J. (eds.) (2002). The five-factor model of personality
across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Miailova, S. (2011). Contextualizing in international business resear:
Why do we need more of it and how can we be beer at it.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 27(1): 129–139.
Miller, V.D., Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., Myers, K.K. and Shumate, M. (2011).
Advancing resear in organizational communication through
quantitative methodology. Management Communication Quarterly 25(1):
4–58.
Murray, H.A. and Kluhohn, C. (1953). Personality in nature, society, and
culture. 2nd edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Nelson, R.E. and Gopalan, S. (2003). Do organizational cultures replicate
national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection and reciprocal opposition in
the corporate values of three countries. Organization Studies 24(7): 1115–
1151.
Prasad, A. (2009). Contesting hegemony through genealogy: Foucault and
cross cultural management resear. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management 9(3): 359–369.
Swartz, S.H. (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology 48(1): 23–47.
Shipper, F. (2004). A cross-cultural, multi-dimensional, nonlinear
examination of managerial skills and effectiveness. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies 10(3): 91–103.
Smith, P.B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural
communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(1): 50–61.
Smith, P.B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: e
GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies
37(6): 915–921.
Smith, P.B., Aoui, M. and Harb, C. (2007). Unity and diversity in Arab
managerial styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
7(3): 275–289.
Smith, P.B., Torres, C., Leong, C.H., Budhwar, P., Aoui, M. and Lebedeva,
N. (2012). Are indigenous approaes to aieving influence in business
organizations distinctive? A comparative study of guanxi, wasta,
jeitinho, svyazi and pulling strings. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 23: 333–348.
Snijders, T.A.B. and Bosker, R.J. (2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction
to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 2nd edition. London: Sage.
Stening, B.W. and Zhang, M.Y. (2007). Methodological allenges confronted
when conducting management resear in China. International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management 7(1): 121–142.
Suryani, A.O., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Poortinga, Y.H. and Setiadi, B.N. (2012).
Indonesian leadership styles: A mixed-methods approa. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology 15(4): 290–303.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of
culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Niolas
Brealey Publishing.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. (in press). Methodological aspects of cross-cultural
resear. In M. Gelfand, Y. Hong and C.Y. Chiu (eds) Advances in
Culture and Psychology (Vol. 5). New York: Oxford University Press. Van
de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of
comparative research. ousand Oaks:
Sage.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Poortinga, Y.H. (1997). Towards an integrated
analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 13(1): 29–37.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Poortinga, Y.H. (2002). Structural equivalence in
multilevel resear. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(2): 141–156.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Tanzer, N.K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-
cultural assessment: An overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie
Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology 54(2): 119–135.
Van Emmerik, H., Euwema, M.C. and Wendt, H. (2008). Leadership
behaviors around the world: e relative importance of gender versus
cultural baground. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 8(3): 297–315.
Van Emmerik, H., Gardner, W.L., Wendt, H. and Fiser, D. (2010).
Associations of culture and personality with McClelland’s motives: A
cross-cultural study of managers in 24 countries. Group & Organization
Management 35(3): 329–367.
Zumbo, B.D. (2007). ree generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it
has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment
Quarterly 4(2): 223–233.
21
Beyond positivism
Towards paradigm pluralism in cross-cultural
management resear

Ajnesh Prasad

Introduction

While the proliferation of solarship on cross-cultural management (CCM)

has offered important insights on myriad aspects of the phenomenon, the
resear domain has largely been predicated on a positivist orientation.
Positivism, as a philosophical concept, ‘involve[s] a commitment to a unified
science, and the adoption of methodologies of the natural sciences to explain
the social world’ (Smith, 1996: 11). Positivism is undergirded by a distinct set
of ontological and epistemological assumptions concerning the nature of
social reality and presents one way of understanding social phenomena
(Morgan & Smirci, 1980). While some segments of the academic
community afford mu credence to positivism, as solars who have
argued for greater paradigm pluralism in organization and management
studies have rightly noted, novel, interesting, and critical findings can be
ascertained by applying different paradigmatic approaes to a particular
phenomenon (Primecz et al., 2009; Redding, 1994; Tsui, 2007; Wel et al.,
2011). e aim of this apter is to extend this line of argument by
considering how CCM resear might theoretically and empirically benefit
from diligent engagements with paradigm pluralism.
Before proceeding, certain caveats should be provided. I do not contend
that the entire corpus of CCM resear has exclusively adopted a positivist
approa or that alternative paradigms have not previously been invoked to
analyze various topics within this resear domain.1 e field of CCM has,
indeed, become far too nuanced for su a claim to hold true. Rather, my
mu more humble argument is that paradigm pluralism has not kept pace
with the overall proliferation of solarship in CCM; relative to positivist-
based CCM resear, whi has grown exponentially – especially since
Adler (1983) wrote her classic article on the state of the field – resear
adopting alternative paradigms has significantly lagged behind. As su,
conscientious solars in the field are arged with the task of moving
towards rectifying this predicament by engaging paradigms that provide
alternatives – even antithetical – to positivism in future CCM studies.
e remainder of this apter is presented in three substantive sections.
First, I provide an overview of positivism in CCM resear. In this section, I
begin with a discussion of Geert Hofstede’s legacy in CCM resear as one
explanation for the intellectual hegemony that positivism currently enjoys
in the field. I then turn to examine some of the recent work in the area
focusing particularly on the undergirding positivist predilection in CCM
resear. Second, I discuss the emerging body of resear from the critical
tradition that has effectively used various strands of critical theory and
interpretive methodologies to conceptualize CCM issues. ird, I return to
Miel Foucault’s idea of genealogy to provide one alternative for pursuing
future resear in CCM, while concurrently repudiating the underlying
ethos of positivism.

Paradigmatic hegemony in extant CCM resear

Hofstede’s legacy

Positivist approaes to CCM can be traced, to a significant extent, to Geert

Hostede’s (1980) influential work on national culture. As su, it is perhaps
most apt to begin with some consideration of Hofstede’s legacy in CCM. In
his influential text Culture’s Consequences, Hofstede sets out on the loy
project to identify the underlying dimensions of national culture through an
extensive empirical study of IBM. He ultimately develops a framework that
defines and measures national culture along four dimensions: power
distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity (Hofstede
would add time orientation and indulgence versus restraint as the fih and
sixth dimensions, respectively, in subsequent works [Hofstede et al., 2010]).
Insofar as the dimensions allowed solars – and practitioners – to neatly
map where different groups and communities are located culturally,
Hofstede’s framework gained immediate and sustained currency (Tung &
Verbeke, 2010). Indeed, Hofstede offered a relatively orderly framework,
thereby turning the highly complex and multifaceted process of capturing
culture into a science of sorts. e influence that the typology generated
among researers in the field may be aributed to its many perceived
benefits; perhaps, most importantly, in possessing acute knowledge of a
nation’s culture allowed for the development of optimal systems of
management and control at the organizational and, more broadly, at the
societal level. For managers, this meant that tools could be developed for
effective intra- and inter-organizational governance across regions with
diverse cultures.2 While researers in organization and management studies
have modified or otherwise extended Hofstede’s framework in an effort to
adapt it to the increasing complexities of contemporary workplaces
(Kirkman et al., 2006; Tang & Koveos, 2008), the salience of the cultural
dimensions has been largely maintained even more than three decades aer
its original publication.
One of the primary concerns with Hofstede’s culture typology is the
assumption of universality that is laden within it. It assumes that any and all
cultures can be measured along the four (and later six) dimensions. Lile
consideration is afforded to account for the idiosyncratic elements of local
culture. On this point, McSweeney (2002: 112) notes: ‘e limited
aracterization of culture in Hofstede’s work, its confinement within the
territory of states, and its methodological flaws mean that it is a restricter
not an enhancer of understanding particularities.’ Likewise, in revisiting the
data and analysis used by Hofstede to aggregate cultural differences across
countries, Gerhart and Fang (2005) identify the very problematic
assumptions upon whi Hofstede’s claims were drawn. As su, they stress
that national cultural differences should not be analyzed in isolation, but
rather for them to be considered alongside other contextual influences, su
as the culture of organizations (for an overview of the critique against
Hofstede’s work, see Ja & Westwood, 2009). Moulees (2007) questions the
absence of women’s voices in the empirical study upon whi Hofstede’s
text is based. Taking another perspective, Ailon (2008) illuminates how
Hofstede’s framework is grounded in the simultaneous devaluation of the
Other and the overvaluation of the West. In this way, ‘Culture’s
consequences bears witness to the discursive pressures and imaginative
temptations that guide Western thought about its own identity in the global
realm’ (Ailon, 2008: 899). is is perhaps a corollary of ethnocentric
researers’ tendency to ‘use our own culture as an interpretive framework,
because it is a system of preconceptions and prejudices whi allows a short
cut to conclusive findings’ (Usunier, 1998: 137).
Taken collectively, this line of critique underscores how Hofstede’s
framework reflects the universalizing tendencies that are one of the
hallmarks of Western logic – thus, once again failing to properly recognize
the aributes of non-Western segments of the world. However, it is in
negating these very issues that permits the culture concept to be empirically
studied in a rather unproblematic manner and for positivism to aieve the
dominant paradigmatic status that it has in CCM resear.

Positivism in CCM research

Extending from Hofstede’s watershed work, mu of CCM resear is
ontologically and epistemologically framed in claims to realism, a
cornerstone of positivist logic (Yeganeh et al., 2004). Ontological realism
conceives of reality as a concrete structure (Morgan & Smirci, 1980: 492).
Yeganeh and colleagues (2004: 67) explain that in terms of CCM, ‘[t]he
realism ontology views culture as existing, stable, and real systems of beliefs
and practices. erefore, it is argued that culture as an independent and
objective phenomenon can be accurately measured, observed and
investigated.’ ey further write, ‘the researer perceives reality as tangible,
concrete, stable, hard and real with deterministic relations among its
constituent parts’ (67, emphasis mine). From this positivist perspective,
culture is read as being static rather than the outcome of a socially
constructed process that is subject to liminal negotiations (on the laer
point, see Bhabha, 1994; Frenkel, 2008).
In writing the introduction for their special issue on the broader field of
international management in the Academy of Management Review, Ja et
al., (2008) offer further reflections on the intellectual hegemony possessed by
positivism in CCM. ey note that, given the scope of its disciplinary gaze, it
is rather surprising and disconcerting that it remains a field that has
exhibited significant recalcitrance in ‘adopt[ing] metatheoretical reflexivity.’
ey further explain:
IM, be it comparative/cross-cultural management, the national business systems approa,
institutionalist perspectives, or the intersections of all of these with the broader international
business (IB) literature and its focus on the multinational corporation (MNC), has remained for the
most part firmly rooted in traditional functionalist positivism, with lile reflexivity about the
claims and consequences of su an epistemological stance.
(Jack et al., 2008: 871)

is dearth of metatheoretical reflexivity coupled with the domination of

positivism has led Bjerregaard et al., (2009: 207) to observe that culture’s
institutionalized definition renders it to be ‘static, formal mental codes and
values abstracted from the context of valuation.’ ey argue that for
branes of CCM resear to fruitfully move forward there is a growing
need to understand culture as a contextually defined dynamic process.
 e hallmark of positivism – the pursuit for ‘quantification,
generalizability and objectivity’ (Gales, 2003: 133) – has come to pose some
significant implications for knowledge construction in CCM. Here, I will
note two of the most pressing implications. First, and as Gales (2003)
observes, researers in the field of CCM utilize theory and empirical
instruments that are habitually developed in the West and apply them –
sometimes without due adaptation – to other cultures and contexts. In
reviewing a small sample of resear on cultural differences, he finds
validation for this point. CCM resear on work-related self-esteem and
satisfaction with supervision (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994), justification of
unethical behavior (Parboteeah & Cullen, 2002), job preferences (Harzing &
Maznevski, 2002), and work orientation (Cheung & Rensvold, 1999) reveal
how theory and resear derived in the West are applied improperly to other
cultures (cf. Gales, 2003: 133).
A second implication emerging from the positivist approa to CCM is
the imprudent negation of the complexities of culture. Yeganeh and
colleagues (2004: 68–69) succinctly articulate this point:
Since culture is a very complicated and fuzzy concept, the researers adopting a
positivistic/analytical approa try to oose for parsimonious models (e.g. Hofstede, 1980)
utilizing as few variables as possible, with the variables being of an objective kind. On the other
hand, by operationalization, they try to reduce the complex concepts su as culture to concrete
indicators. Of course, these parsimonious and highly operationalized models may facilitate the
resear design, but at the same time they may distort the concepts and reliability of results …
Since mu of this resear is looking for a supposed narrow causal relationship, it focuses only on
very limited aspects of phenomena under investigation and fails to provide an in-depth
understanding of cultural phenomena.

In sum, culture’s nuances and idiosyncrasies are largely rendered invisible in

accepting positivism’s ontological and epistemological assumptions and in
undertaking methodological approaes that cohere to these assumptions. In
the process, Western epistemological structures are tacitly, though
erroneously, awarded a veneer of universal relevance.
Recent developments in CCM from the critical
tradition
While positivism has and continues to dominate CCM resear, in recent
years the field has witnessed the emergence of work espousing alternative
paradigms from critically orientated solars. e corpus of this critical
work does not ascribe to positivism’s philosophical underpinnings and
emphasizes the need to understand the nuances of context (Alvi, 2012). is
line of solarship has mainly come to fruition through the astute
deployment of critical theoretical frameworks and interpretive
methodologies. Critical theoretical frameworks and interpretive
methodologies have proven useful in subverting the ontological and the
epistemological claims made, and subsequently crystallized, by the positivist
tradition in CCM resear.

Critical theoretical frameworks

Critical theory constitutes a wide range of theoretical perspectives including,

but not limited to, postmodernist, poststructuralist, postcolonial,
psyoanalytic, and queer thought. Common amongst these diverse
perspectives is resistance to a deterministic logic that fails to account for the
nuances and the variability in culture (Prasad, 2012). While ea of these
theoretical perspectives have been variably applied in the field, given the
scope of CCM, postcolonial theory – as ‘an aempt to investigate the
complex and deeply fraught dynamics of modern Western colonialism and
anticolonial resistance, and the ongoing significance of the colonial
encounter for people’s lives both in the West and in the non-West’ (Prasad,
2003: 5; also see Ja et al., 2011; Joy & Poonamallee, 2013) – has, arguably,
gained the most currency among the members of the critical academy.
One of the best examples of postcolonial solarship on CCM issues is
found in Mial Frenkel’s (2008) conceptual article on how Homi Bhabha’s
(1994) insights can inform the field’s prevailing understanding of knowledge
transfer. Rather than yielding to mainstream depictions of knowledge
transfer, whi render the phenomenon ‘as a tenical, almost physical,
usually one-directional process’ (Frenkel, 2008: 928), Frenkel invokes
Bhabha’s ideas of mimicry, hybridity, and the third space, in an effort to
imbue due consideration of power into how knowledge management might
be analyzed and understood. rough this examination, researers discern
how CCM processes endemically occur at liminal sites where – although
they continue to be subjected to various hegemonic power dynamics and
socio-political hieraries – culture must be negotiated and renegotiated. In
this way, Frenkel discloses how culture, far from being a discrete entity that
can be tidily demarcated along geographical, ethnic, or linguistic lines, is
instead a hybrid corollary – the outcome of innumerable cross-cultural
negotiations.
Numerous other solars have identified the benefits of postcolonial
theory to the field. Fougère and Moulees (2012) adopt a postcolonial
perspective to deconstruct how claims for cultural sensitivity forwarded in
international business textbooks discursively propagate the opposite. Joy and
Poonamallee (2013) use a postcolonial approa to identify important
management subjects that have been overlooked or outright ignored in the
mainstream literature on pedagogy. In presenting an overview of its utility,
Westwood (2006) illuminates how postcolonial thought is not only a
valuable resource in critiquing the dominant paradigms in the field, but it
also presents an avenue by whi to reimagine the field’s parameters and
assumptions.

Interpretive methodologies

Another path by whi positivism has been repudiated is through the

exercise of interpretive methodologies. In summarizing some of the virtues
of interpretive methodologies, Prasad and Prasad (2002: 6–7) write:
 Contemporary interpretive resear refuses to play by the rules of positivism, or to be confined,
policed, and disciplined by outdated notions of its limits. In practice, this implies several things.
First, interpretive resear is commied to the broad philosophy of social construction (Berger &
Lumann, 1967), whi sees social reality as a constructed world built in and through meaningful
interpretations. e goal of the researer, therefore, is not to capture some preexisting or ready-
made world presumed to be available out there but to understand this process of symbolic
‘worldmaking’ (Swandt, 1994) through whi the social world is ongoingly accomplished. is
ontological and epistemological commitment is at the heart of interpretive resear and renders
positivistic questions about its reliability and generalizability somewhat pointless.

In sum, the philosophy upon whi interpretive methodologies are

predicated is one that considers aspects of culture to be in a process of
constitution and reconstitution rather than static. Culture is not, and cannot
be, immutable.
Given its potential, it is not surprising that in writing their introduction
for a special issue on qualitative methods in the Journal of International
Business Studies, Birkinshaw et al. (2011) adamantly call for more grounded
methodological approaes to study IB phenomena, including CCM.
Miailova (2011) eoes this call by emphasizing the urgent need for
explicit engagements with context in IB. Extending these points, Westney
and Van Maanen (2011) observe a need for more grounded ethnographic
studies on those who are ‘managed,’ rather than a continued focus on the
culture of the ‘executive suite.’ Interpretive-orientated grounded studies are
crucial for the advancement of the field. Instead of seeking to identify causal
relationships between antecedents and outcomes, whi is the hallmark of
positivist-motivated CCM resear, interpretive methodologies, by and
large, will provide insights into the process underlying social phenomena
and will illuminate its cultural specificities.
Responding to these calls for more interpretive resear, some researers
have undertaken rigorous empirical work in the area (Ailon-Souday &
Kunda, 2003). Consider, for example, Fiona Moore’s (2011) study on post-
acquisition organizations using the case of BMW MINI. Moore employs
holistic ethnography to discern the ‘tacit … process of cultural negotiation’
(p. 666). rough a careful ethnographic study across multiple groups, she
accounts for the processes by whi (national) culture is ‘understood and
perceived’ by individuals in a post-acquisition organization (p. 666, emphasis
in original). Interpretive methodologies, su as holistic ethnography, are
well-versed in highlighting the process dynamics of CCM phenomena,
whi has been a largely silenced issue in positivist approaes.

Bringing Foucault in
Extending from the interpretive tradition, several resear paths have been
identified by critical solars to advance CCM – and related streams of –
resear. ese include a return to indigenous resear (Holtbrügge, 2013),
the rigorous use of case studies (Wel et al., 2011), and critical engagements
with advancements in external disciplines su as anthropology
(Bjerregaard et al., 2009). For the purposes of this apter, I propose Miel
Foucault’s idea of genealogy as one important trajectory for repudiating
positivism and moving CCM resear forward (see also Prasad, 2009).

Conceptualizing Foucauldian genealogy

Foucault underscored the importance of studying hidden and marginalized

knowledges (Sco, 1990). More specifically, Foucault (1980) contends that
there is an intellectual mandate to ‘[insurrect] subjugated knowledges’ (p.
81). According to him, subjugated knowledges are ‘those blocs of historical
knowledge whi were present but disguised within the body of
functionalist and systematizing theory and whi criticism – whi
obviously draws upon solarship – has been able to reveal’ (1980: 82).
Foucault elaborates further that the importance for solars to engage with
genealogical analysis of subjugated knowledges is to identify those aspects
of lived realities that are invalidated or otherwise not captured by prevailing
discourses. is includes foremost an analytical emphasis on the experiences
of the systematically oppressed insofar as it is the experiences of this group
that have been rendered invisible in historical discourses, or what Spivak
(1988) describes as the ‘writing of history’ and what Lyotard (1984) calls
‘grand theorizing.’ What ultimately emerges, therein, is the case for
conducting genealogy or, what Foucault (1980: 83) refers to more precisely
as, ‘a multiplicity of genealogical researes.’
In considering the analytical scope of the genealogy, Foucault did not
overlook its methodological potential; albeit, he did not provide solars
with a synthesized guide from whi to conduct empirical resear (Kendall
& Wiham, 1999). Nevertheless, the genealogy qualifies as an informative
sociologically based historical method, whi solars can adopt when
pursuing resear on discursive power and its socio-political consequences
within and on various cultural arenas (Mukerji, 2007). As a method,
genealogy is well equipped to study power at the extremities; this power
should be presented in ascending analysis (Foucault, 1980). On the laer
point, Jorgensen (2002: 41) advises: ‘Start from a detailed study of concrete
organizational practices. Analyze these one by one and put them in the right
ronology and context.’ He further adds: ‘en the larger paerns and their
contradictions slowly emerge. Phenomena of a more global kind thus
gradually emerge through the detailed study of practices. at is, more
general social paerns have to emerge from a study of specific practices’ (for
comprehensive overviews of how precisely the genealogy can be enacted as
a method, see Jorgensen [2002] and Kearins and Hooper [2002]).

Genealogy and CCM research

Foucault was always conscientious about genealogy’s underlying political

project. us, for him, genealogies provide a concerted effort to ‘emancipate
historical knowledges’ of the subjugated (Foucault, 1980: 85). Perhaps given
this promise, the concept of genealogy has acquired mu currency in social
science resear; although, to date, it has gained relatively less resonance
within the field of organization and management studies. is is unfortunate
in that genealogies can impart many novel insights to the field, and
particularly to the area of CCM resear. With the hopes to catalyze future
critical resear in the area, I now turn to identify two interrelated benefits
for undertaking genealogical analysis in CCM.
First, Foucauldian genealogies have the potential to repudiate the
proclivity of universality that is central to many organizational theories
(Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006). at is, a prudent genealogical analysis discloses
the culture- and context-specific nature of organizational phenomena by
focusing on ‘concrete organizational practices’ as they unfold within a
particular time and space (Jorgensen, 2002: 41). It offers a reference point of
how su practices prevail in similar or different variations – or, in some
cases, do not exist at all – across cultures. What is ascertained here is that
organizational theories cannot be symmetrically applied across cultures, at
least without due consideration of varying localized cultural dynamics. It is
these very idiosyncratic cultural dynamics that can be revealed through an
astute engagement with genealogical analysis.
Second, Foucauldian genealogies respond to the prevalent accusation from
critical management studies solars that organizational theories have
systematically wrien out or hidden the most marginalized constituents of
society (e.g. Cooke, 1999). Dye et al. (2005: 1389) note, for example, how
within Maslow’s hierary of needs, ‘the voices of gay men and blas were
suppressed.’ As already mentioned, Moulees (2007) points to how the
voices of women are absent in Hofstede’s work on culture. Akin to the
previous point, by engaging in genealogical traces of the systematically
oppressed, new insights develop on alternative forms of organizing and
alternative expressions of organizational behaviour. In sum, Foucauldian
genealogies amplify the experiences of oppressed groups – it permits
subjects who have, heretofore, been relegated at the periphery of
organizational discourses to gain a type of genealogical-based remembrance.
As su, for CCM solars, this approa is able to ‘listen’ to the voices
those subjects previously silenced through dominant positivist approaes in
the field.
In short, Foucauldian thought can profoundly inform CCM resear and,
for this reason, it ought to be utilized further by solars in the field. Most
importantly, genealogical analysis substantively undermines the
ethnocentric – but all too oen, unclaimed – assertion of ahistorical
universality (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006). Genealogies contextualize
knowledge within the particularities of ‘localized’ dynamics so as to
illuminate cultural nuances, idiosyncrasies, and divergences (see Jorgensen,
2002). In the process, they show the inherent fallacies in scientific knowledge
production that assigns ontological supremacy to Western epistemological
claims.

Conclusion
Positivism has clearly acquired intellectual hegemony in extant CCM
resear. While there is a small but growing literature in the area by
critically orientated researers, there must be a more concerted effort to
ontologically, epistemologically, and methodologically diversify the resear
being pursued in the domain of CCM. is apter presents Foucault’s
genealogical approa as one potential trajectory by whi paradigm
pluralism can be fruitfully realized. At the very least, aieving paradigm
pluralism will expand how CCM knowledge is constructed and beer
recognize the voices of the diverse people that are studied.

Notes
1 It is also worth noting that a singular positivist approa does not exist. Positivist solars differ on
myriad issues. For example, two leading conceptions of culture that have been deployed in CCM
resear, represented by Hofstede and GLOBE, differ on statistical questions su as how best to
aggregate individual-level data in an effort to understand national-level culture (see Smith, 2006).

2 It should be underscored that although these are some of the ways in whi Hofstede’s typology
has been operationalized by various researers and practitioners (e.g. as a tool for prediction),
 Hofstede did not necessarily intend or want for his work to be used in su ways.

References
Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management resear: e ostri and the
trend. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 226–232.
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a
value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33(4):
885–904.
Ailon-Souday, G. & Kunda, G. (2003). e local selves of global workers: e
social construction of national identity in the face of organizational
globalization. Organization Studies, 24(7): 1073–1096.
Alvi, F. H. (2012). Rethinking the institutional contexts of emerging markets
through metaphor analysis. Management International Review, 52(4):
519–539.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and
generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for
qualitative methods in international business resear. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42(5): 573–581.
Bjerregaard, T., Lauring, J., & Klitmøller, A. (2009). A critical analysis of
intercultural communication resear in cross-cultural management:
Introducing newer developments in anthropology. Critical Perspectives
on International Business, 5(3): 207–228.
Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across
groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of
Management, 25(1): 1–27.
Cooke, B. (1999). Writing the le out of management theory: e
historiography of the management of ange. Organization, 6(1): 81–105.
Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Maslow: Man interrupted:
Reading management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10):
 1375–1395.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings
1972–1977. NewYork: Pantheon.
Fougère, M. & Moulees, A. (2012). Disclaimers, diotomies and
disappearances in international business textbooks: A postcolonial
deconstruction. Management Learning, 43(1): 5–24.
Frenkel M. (2008). e multinational corporation as a third space: Rethinking
international management discourse on knowledge transfer through
Homi Bhabha. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 924–942.
Frenkel, M. & Shenhav, Y. (2006). From binarism ba to hybridity: A
postcolonial reading of management and organization studies.
Organization Studies, 27(6): 855–876.
Gales, L. M. (2003). Linguistic sensitivity in cross-cultural organizational
resear: Positivist, post-positivist and grounded theory approaes.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2): 131–140.
Gerhart, B. & Fang, M. (2005). National culture and human resource
management: Assumptions and evidence. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(6): 971–986.
Harzing, A. & Maznevski, M. (2002). e interaction between language and
culture: A test of the cultural accommodation hypothesis in seven
countries. Language and Intercultural Communication, 2(2): 120–139.
Hofstede, G. (1980 [2001]). Culture’s consequences: International differences
in work related values. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind (3rd Ed.).Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Holtbrügge, D. (2013). Indigenous management resear. Management
International Review, 53(1): 1–11.
Ja, G. & Westwood, R. (2009). International and cross-cultural
management studies: A postcolonial reading.Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Ja, G. A., Calás, M. B., Nkomo, S. M., & Peltonen, T. (2008). Critique and
international management: An uneasy relationship. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4): 870–884.
Ja G., Westwood R., Srinivas N., & Sardar Z. (2011). Deepening,
broadening and re-asserting a postcolonial interrogative space in
organization studies. Organization, 18(3): 275–302.
Jorgensen, K. M. (2002). e meaning of local knowledges: Genealogy and
organizational analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(1): 29–
46.
Joy, S. & Poonamallee, L. (2013). Cross-cultural teaing in globalized
management classrooms: Time to move from functionalist to post-
colonial approaes? Academy of Management Learning and Education,
12(3): 396–413.
Kearins, K. & Hooper, K. (2002). Genealogical method and analysis.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(5): 733–757.
Kendall, G. & Wiham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s methods: Introducing
qualitative methods. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s
Consequences: A review of empirical resear incorporating Hofstede’s
cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(3): 285–320.
Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McSweeney, B. (2002).
Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:
A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–
118.
Miailova, S. (2011). Contextualizing in international business resear:
Why do we need more of it and how we can be beer at it?
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1): 129–139.
Moore, F. (2011). Holistic ethnography: Studying the impact of multiple
national identities on post-acquisition organizations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42(5): 654–671.
Morgan, G. & Smirci, L. (1980). e case for qualitative resear. Academy
of Management Review, 5(4): 491–500.
Moulees, A. (2007). e absence of women’s voices in Hofstede’s Cultural
Consequences: A postcolonial reading. Women in Management Review,
 22(6): 443–455.
Mukerji, C. (2007). Cultural genealogy: Method for a historical sociology of
culture or cultural sociology of history. Cultural Sociology, 1(1): 49–71.
Parboteeah, K. P. & Cullen, J. B. (2002). Managers’ justification of unethical
behaviors: A 28 nation social institutions approa. Best Papers
Proceedings, Academy of Management. Denver, CO.
Prasad A. (2003). e gaze of the other: Postcolonial theory and
organizational analysis. In A. Prasad (Ed.) Postcolonial theory and
organizational analysis: A critical engagement (3–45). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Prasad, A. (2009). Contesting hegemony though genealogy: Foucault and
cross cultural management resear. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 9(3): 359–369.
Prasad, A. (2012). Beyond analytical diotomies. Human Relations, 65(5):
567–595.
Prasad, A. & Prasad, P. (2002). e coming of age of interpretive
organizational resear. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1): 4–11.
Primecz, H., Romani, L., & Samann, S. (2009). Multiple perspectives in
cross-cultural management. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 9(3): 267–274.
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil
bed? Organization Studies, 15(3): 323–359.
Riordan, C. M. & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-
cultural resear: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-
related measures in an equivalent manner? Journal of Management,
20(3): 643–671.
Sco, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: e
GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(6): 915–921.
Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M.
Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (11–46).
 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson and L.
Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (271–313).
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tang, L. & Koveos, P. E. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede’s cultural
value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39(6): 1045–1063.
Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International
management resear in the academy and beyond. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6): 1353–1364.
Tung, R. L. & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving
the quality of cross-cultural resear. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41(8): 1259–1274.
Usunier, J-C. (1998) International and cross-cultural management research.
London: Sage.
Wel, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, E.
(2011). eorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for
international business resear. Journal of International Business
Studies, 42: 740–762.
Westney, D. E. & Van Maanen, J. E. (2011). e casual ethnography of the
executive suite. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 602–607.
Westwood, R. (2006). International business and management studies as an
orientalist discourse: A post-colonial critique. Critical Perspectives on
International Business, 2(2): 91–113.
Yeganeh, H., Su, Z., & Chrysostome, E. V. M. (2004). A critical review of
epistemological and methodological issues in cross-cultural resear.
Journal of Comparative International Management, 7(2): 66–86.
22
Beyond West-centrism
e way forward for cross-cultural
management in Latin America1

Alfredo Behrens

Introduction

An active network of management studies has emerged in post-war Latin

America now pursuing three key approaes to cross-cultural management
inquiry that either involve mainstream positivist resear or take a critical
stance towards it. Among the first group, there are prominent examples su
as Hillal’s (2006) work, whi piggy-bas on a multinational survey
resear project, opening it to critiques similar to those made of Hofstede’s
(1980) work (McSweeney 2002). Within mainstream approaes there is also
work focusing on subcultures within one large country (Lenartowicz & Roth
2001; Lenartowicz et al. 2003), or across Latin American countries
(Lenartowicz & Johnson 2002), including Lirell and Cruz’s (2013)
comparative work on leadership styles across geographical extremes
(Mexico and Chile). While these studies have of course illuminated the field
to date, they have also failed in mating values to behaviour, having
rendered not mu more than quantitative stereotypes along a bipolar
continuum (e.g. individualism–collectivism). e shortcomings of this
mainstream approa become obvious when the stereotypes fail to predict
behaviour, as noted in the cultural paradoxes referred to by Osland and Bird
(2000), when members of a cultural group, depending on circumstances,
adopt the behaviour of a different one. Hybrid studies, based on both
qualitative and quantitative survey data, are an explicit recognition of the
shortcomings of mainstream cross-cultural management studies and can be
effective as long as the qualitative analysis, whi is used to contextualize
the survey, is embedded in the local culture (Dupuis 2014).
In parallel with the development of mainstream positivist resear in
Latin America, a Critical Management Studies (CMS) stance has emerged.
is approa focuses more on critiquing the paroial nature of West-
centric perspectives on management, and conceptualizing management as a
social construct, neither universal nor ahistorical, whose effectiveness
depends on context. In Latin America, CMS largely remains a critical
approa to theory with lile fieldwork to ground it. An important impetus
for the development of CMS in Latin America has been the work of the
Latin American Social Science Council (CLACSO). CLASCO has provided
an important critical theoretical framework through its associated
publications, underpinning the revision of management. Among these
publications are books su as Politics and Social Movements in a Hegemonic
World by Borón and Leini (2005) and Lander’s (2005) The Coloniality of
Knowledge as well as significant contributions by Ernesto Mignolo (2011).
Figure 22.1 Abandoning the West-centric ship

A third and more recent approa that is also critical of mainstream

cross-cultural management in Latin America has relied on revealing the
cultural significance of local literature, videos and cartoons to aracterize
cultural expressions (Behrens 2009a). is approa – whi I label Critical
Cross-Cultural Management (CCCM) in this apter – has also drawn upon
international surveys but uses different stimulus material to generate
responses: specifically, popular cultural resources (rather than baeries of
survey items). For example, in my own work, I have compared the reactions
of respondents from different cultures to the well-known Warner cartoon
Coyote and the Roadrunner (Behrens 2009b), as well as the preference of
different cultures for video-recorded expressions of arisma of CEOs
(Behrens 2010). However, this CCCM approa has remained local and has
not yet produced an alternative managerial framework.
In sum, CMS themes are only an arm’s length away from Critical Cross-
Cultural Management studies, but they have evolved separately. Both are a
protest regarding the omission of context in mainstream management
resear. CMS provides a ri theoretical underpinning, whi CCCM
illustrates with evidence. Together they are likely to become even more
persuasive and to that end, this apter aims to integrate CMS and CCCM as
displayed in Figure 22.1 as a way forward for cross-cultural management in
Latin America.
e apter is organized as follows. It will begin by pointing out the
decreasing returns to scale of mainstream management survey-based
resear. I then move on to describe and account for the la of
responsiveness by Latin American business sools to filling the need for
alternative management resear approaes and resear tools. Next, I will
argue that the dissenting voices in Latin American management resear
might do beer to concentrate on improving their suggestions by offering
more added value. Finally, I will suggest alternative avenues of management
resear within the means available to Latin American business sools,
while still focused on local needs, su as social inclusion, environmental
sustainability and higher productivity.

Limitations of CCM in the Latin American context

As multinationals expanded aer World War II, the need for comparable
behavioural perspectives became greater and, in keeping with the prevailing
positivist paradigm, ‘robust’ measures were preferred over ‘soer’
alternatives. An example of this is the Hofstede survey (1980) and variations
of it. Hofstede’s work was large and pioneering but not exempt from
criticism of its methods (McSweeney 2002). For instance, large world
surveys, su as Hofstede’s, are likely to encompass countries in different
macroeconomic circumstances. In the 1960s and 1970s in Uruguay an IBM
job was about the best a worker could hope for, while countrymen and
women were emigrating in droves in sear for jobs as far away as
Australia, Canada and the USA (Pellegrino & Vigorito 2005). Against this
uncertain context, Uruguayans (including those at IBM) could be expected
to have shown anxiety or nervousness at work. As su, not looking for
another job should not have been interpreted, as it was in Hofstede’s work,
as Uruguayans displaying an orientation towards ‘Uncertainty Avoidance’.
Indeed, the ones who were looking for far away jobs were not surveyed! See
Figure 22.2.

Figure 22.2 Uruguay’s net yearly migration

However, perhaps the most aggravating consequence of the resear bias

rendered by quantitative surveys is the apparent scientific legitimation of
alien beliefs about the societies under study. is imposition of an outsider’s
view of a local culture is neocolonial in perspective.

Why have business sools in Latin America not

developed alternative managerial paradigms?
Management is largely a European and American construct of rationalism
styled à la northern European and American interpretations. It did not and
does not reflect the contextualization necessary to be effective elsewhere. To
reframe mainstream management issues and its methodology, the work of
Mignolo (2000) provides some important food for thought, especially his
thinking on coloniality, subaltern knowledges and the concept of border
thinking. Colonization is understood as an increasing ‘marginalisation and
suppression of non-mainstream contributions to knowledge as generated
from the regions presumed to be intellectually colonized’ (Escobar 2007:
207). To redress this discrimination, Alcadipani (2009) has called for a
symmetrical understanding of management where border thinking is not
considered ‘rudimentary’ and out of the mainstream academic environment.
Faria (2010) believes that the asymmetry between competing resear
approaes has been lessened by non-mainstream contributions to
management, whi have rendered mainstream management studies more
permeable to more diverse voices.
Both CCCM and CMS are still to offer an effective management
alternative. ere may be two reasons for this. Latin American business
sools mimic West-centric business sools’ perspectives while the
production of alternative knowledge is still somewhat haphazard. In part
this happens because, as Mignolo suggests, students of management at the
periphery have been taught to see themselves as receivers of knowledge
rather than as generators of it. is perspective is reflective of the historical
development of Latin American business sools. Latin American sools
were developed or expanded under the auspices of the USA as part of an
overall Cold War policy for the containment of communism (Alcadipani &
Bertero 2012: 291–295). is is how Costa Rica and Nicaragua’s INCAE
became an offspring of the Harvard Business Sool, and the Sool of
Business Management of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas in São Paulo an off-
shoot of the University of Miigan.
At present, mu of the discomfort of solars active in Critical
Management Studies, particularly in Latin America, stems from the
underrepresentation of diverse voices in international journals (Alcadipani
et al. 2013). I believe this scenario is not so mu an issue of denying
alternative perspectives (Ibarra-Colado et al. 2010: 88), as it is only natural
that US management associations and academic worldviews should be
predominant in leading international management journals, if for no other
reason than because it is an issue of sheer numbers. However, this does not
mean that their main journals should be paroial, and paroial they are.
For instance, almost 90 per cent of the editorial board members of the
Academy of Management Journal reside in the USA and Canada (Behrens
2012). Besides, the performance of editors at top journals is held to a hard
yardsti: the number of citations that published articles generate for the
journal. is leads editors to favour perspectives aligned with the interests
of their readers, whi are mostly in North America and Europe, implicitly
discriminating against viewpoints relevant to the periphery.
Having said this, the current struggle to have dissenting voices accepted
in top international journals could also be the fault of the authors. For
instance, while the production of management papers in Argentina, non-
mainstream or not, typically do not make it to top foreign management
journals, some economics papers do in their respective fields (Gantman
2010). is happens in Brazil and is likely to happen in other countries as
well. A painful question that begs an answer is: Is the American
Management editorial community more exclusive than the American
Economics one, or is the Latin American production of Economics of a
higher standard than that of Management? Perhaps an even more painful
question is whether Latin Americans’ penant for collectivist cronyism
allows enough to be done only to improve quality but at least to discourage
ethical deviations su as plagiarism. e laer is most common in papers
arising from the periphery (not necessarily Latin America) where 42 per cent
showed confirmed plagiarism (Honig & Bedi 2012: 113).
e current protestations of Critical Management Studies in Latin
America eo similar protests by economists in the 1950s. en, the la of
development in Latin America, it was argued, stemmed from an adverse
evolution of the terms of trade with more advanced economies (Wynia 1990:
115). e protestations of both Latin American solarly communities
(economics and management) seem to point to a fatalist readiness among
Latin Americans, whi leads them to play more readily the role of victims
rather than that of masters of their own destiny, whether in the fields of
economics or management. An expression of this fatalist readiness is present
in mu of the region’s literature and melodramatic filmography (Sadlier
2009: 10).
e fact is that management training in Latin America follows a dogma
that does not make room for local ideas and turns managers into consumers
of barely relevant literature (Gantman & Parker 2006). is is detrimental to
the dissemination of indigenous forms of management or leadership, whi
may be more suitable to the place (Behrens 2103b: 230–232). But the failure
to elicit these indigenous managerial teniques is not as mu the fault of
foreigners as it is of locals who have mostly come to believe that there is
nothing to be learned if it is not sanctioned abroad (Caldas 1997; Moa et al.
2001). Perhaps this is why there is su a loud cry regarding the
underrepresentation of Latin American production in top world
management journals. Otherwise Latin Americans should not be mu
concerned, except for the fact that faculty promotions may hinge on
appearing in those journals, whi, in itself, is evidence of intellectual
colonization.

What must be done in Latin America to break the

cycle?
First of all, it would only be fair to take part of the blame. Management is a
highly pragmatic field. Yet while Latin American critical management
resear is not producing enough of what can be put to good use (given its
theoretical rather than applied focus), Critical Cross-Cultural Management
studies so far have focused on identifying cultural differences, but less on
what to do with that knowledge. is is one reason why the region should
move away from static West-centric cultural models, whi predominate in
CCM. However, if Latin Americans do not add value to their CCM or CMS
management resear, it will face the risk of becoming an ‘empty signifier’
(Mandiola 2010: 165); academically legitimate topics, su as epistemology,
literature reviews or conventional surveys, can only go so far in making a
difference to everyday life on the ground.
ere is nothing wrong with producing practical knowledge. Aer all,
increasing productivity is the only way to support higher rates of economic
growth and thus benefit the vast majority of the people whose efforts allow
our resear to take place. If the brainwork of academics does not contribute
to the welfare of those who toil with their muscles, including mu of the
native Andean population or many of the descendants of African slaves in
Brazil and elsewhere still do, we are not only failing them, but quite likely
using them as well, in the most straightforward exploitative interpretation of
internal colonialism (Behrens 2013b). Scant resear funding is not the real
issue for the la of locally applicable managerial output. e fact is that not
mu funding is necessary when creativity is available. e creative strategy
requires alternative methodologies as suggested by Smith (1999), leing
people demonstrate local meanings to researers. is may mean
interpreting literature, videos, art, even graffiti, and from this, a viable
alternative managerial framework may evolve.
For example, rather than aempting to run extensive values-typology-
based world surveys, I have opted to measure different cultural reactions to
the same stimulus. I have asked MBAs across the world to state who they
root for in the Warner cartoon: e Coyote or the Roadrunner? It turns out
that while Waspish Americans and the British root for the Coyote, Latin
Americans tend to side with the Roadrunner (Behrens 2009b). I have also
asked MBAs across the world to select their preferred style of leadership
among several six-second muted videos of business leaders addressing their
followers. Not surprisingly, Brazilians and Indians seled for the Brazilian
paternalist type business leader and in second place the American
paternalist leader of Southwest Airlines (Behrens 2010). Simple as this may
seem, this piece of work allows us to reveal not only that arisma may be
required of business leaders (House et al. 2000), but also that arisma
means different things to different people, and that leaders of subsidiaries
appointed from headquarters may not display the style of arisma required
at subsidiaries. In the next section of the apter, I offer a further example of
how locally available cultural resources can be used to develop novel
insights into local managerial practices.

National anthems in Latin America as war cries

e social, political and business implications of Latin American national
anthems offer another example of how to use readily available cultural
expressions to develop management knowledge. I suggest that the peaks of
combativeness espoused in selected Latin American national anthems may
explain heavy-handedness in the country’s business environment. National
anthems cannot be called war cries, but they resemble the laer in that they
feed the rallying symbol of the tribe. ey are statements by means of whi
a group expresses its distinctiveness with regards to outsiders, contributing
to an identity that in Latin America has superseded regimes, in as mu as
regimes have anged but national anthems have not. Indeed, national
anthems offer the sense-making metaphors of the social order (Cerulo 1989),
whi suggests that nineteenth-century national anthems still today
contribute to reinforce the aitudes of the peoples. e national anthems’
different degrees of combativeness may be associated with different
proclivities to engage in conflict or defiance, as well as the selection of
heroes, and the way leaders address their followers (Behrens 2013a). I will
illustrate these insights in three steps: first, through the difference in
combativeness expressed in the national anthems; second, how this
illustrates differences in political and foreign policy aggression; and last,
how these aitudes spill over to the business environment.
To investigate the degree of combativeness in the lyrics of selected
national anthems, I analysed their text content, particularly their expressions
of defiance and confrontation, and organized the laer as a percentage
distribution, whi I portray in Figure 22.3.
Figure 22.3 Share of population dead or disappeared during a Latin American ‘dirty war’ or a drug
related one

e Brazilian national anthem expresses the lowest level of expressions of

defiance and confrontation and the rest of the graph shows an increasing
gradient of combativeness from the Uruguayan anthem to the Mexican one,
with the Chilean anthem a close runner-up to the Mexican one.
e repetition of the anthems among soolildren and on public
occasions may legitimize ruthlessness as a means of conflict resolution:
wiping out the adversary, in lieu of negotiating, can be taken as an extreme
adversarial stance. is is illustrated in Figure 22.3, whi also portrays the
relative number of the dead and ‘disappeared’ in the ‘dirty war’ of the 1960s
and 1970s in Latin America, as well as the dead and ‘disappeared’ in a war
against drugs in Mexico. Figure 22.3 illustrates that the countries with the
most aggressive national anthems are also the ones with the largest human
rights violations, illustrating a potential link between words and deeds.
e difference in combativeness in national anthems between Argentina
and Brazil is reflected in their foreign policy. For instance, Argentines, mu
less influenced by African Ubuntu or the negotiating Portuguese traders’
mentality than Brazilians, are known to be less yielding (Behrens 2009a).
Argentines, on account of a maer of national dignity, would declare war
(1982) on a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over
a territorial dispute concerning the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Brazilians
had a similar territorial dispute with Paraguayans over islands that would
surface on the bed of the river Paraná only during the dry season. Brazilians
advanced a solution: to build a hydroelectric dam to permanently submerge
the islands in the lake and to build a hydroelectric dam, agreeing to evenly
share with Paraguay the electricity to be generated by the dam at Itaipú.
Having agreed to a lake that would eventually sink the bone of contention,
there was no purpose in further arguing over the islands. is case also
illustrates the link between words and foreign policy.
Given the contentiousness expressed in the Argentinian national anthem
and shown in its relations with its neighbours, similar aitudes are likely
manifest as well in the country’s business environment.2 Indeed, even
considering only the past 15 years, there is ample evidence of su
Argentinian heavy-handedness, su as the world’s largest default on
foreign sovereign debt in history (Cave 2001) and the ensuing renegotiation
conducted by the late President Néstor Kirner (Biel 2005), or the 2006
negotiation regarding a tax to be levied on natural gas exports to Chile
(Oxford Analytica 2006). Argentina also bloed the throughway of an
international bridge connecting with Uruguay on account of an alleged
polluting paper plant to be built in Uruguay and engaged in arm-twisting
Spanish ENCE, whi had important business in Argentina but intended to
invest in paper plants in neighbouring Uruguay (BBC 2010; The Economist
2006).
 Argentina has repeatedly wielded a heavy hand with its weaker
neighbours and also with foreign direct investors su as when it comes to
concessions for utilities including the reversed privatization of waterworks
(Dagdeviren 2011), or the reversed oil and gas concession to Repsol
(Bronstein 2012). When it comes to aggression in business, Argentinians
may even turn it against themselves: su heavy-handedness is also manifest
at the workplace making Argentina one of the countries singled out by the
International Labour Organization (ILO) as one of the countries with highest
rates of assault and sexual harassment in the workplace (Bolger 1998).
To explain these differences in the New World south of Rio Grande, I
trace them ba to those between the Spanish conquistador and the
Portuguese merant. It was the Portuguese who found the route to the Far
East and became merants. e laer thrive on harmony; while the
Spaniards initially found land but not mu more, reinforcing the Spanish
belligerent aristocratic rule and moral codes that prevailed at the time of the
discovery, including pillage (Pike 2012). at was the mindset that spilled
over to Spanish-speaking America, whi is reflected in its literature, as in
the Argentine case of a defiant nineteenth-century Martin Fierro (Hernandez
et al. 1974). is literary aracter would take no prisoners aer a knife duel,
shaping an Argentinian culture unforgiving of defeat; so mu so that over
400 Falkland (Malvinas) war veterans commied suicide in Argentina upon
their return, defeated (Clifford 2009). Argentina’s neglect of the vanquished
drove the veterans to desperation and ultimately to suicide.
Besides a preference for non-confrontation, the Portuguese traders
enslaved Africans thus bringing African Ubuntu into Brazil (Mangaliso &
Damane 2001) to a mu greater extent than Spanish America. Ubuntu is a
worldview calling for collaboration and is manifest in Brazilian samba
sools, where Brazilians join in for the benefit of the whole, and deliver a
world class show for no pay. Samba sool organizations thus hold a
valuable secret for productivity in business organizations (Behrens 2013c).
Conclusion
All of these considerations suggest a greater need for Critical Cross-Cultural
Management and Critical Management Studies to resort to alternative
methodologies to generate more practically oriented resear outcomes.
Mainstream positivist methods seem to have hit diminishing returns to
scale, and integrating CCCM and CMS approaes seems the best way
forward. Alternative and economically feasible studies would recommend
Latin American management resear focus to a greater extent on readily
available material, whi one can put to deeper scrutiny. e comparison of
national anthems is only one suggestion. Other similar studies could
compare Carnival celebrations across Brazil, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago
and Haiti and should reveal that African Ubuntu has had a more important
influence in the New World than the aspirational European languages
practised there may suggest. One could also compare across countries the
different Weltansauungs underlying the main aracters of our literature
or even cartoons and songs.
Without this methodological ange, Latin American solars are unlikely
to work towards seeing themselves under their own lenses and therefore
being capable of developing socially inclusive managerial teniques beer
auned to their own culture. is will require a beer understanding of
preferred leadership styles and the role of trust in team work, as well as the
benefits of internal referrals to consolidate autonomous teams, the
deleterious impact of individual rewards for work done in teams and finally,
a beer understanding of the drivers of engagement at work.

Notes
1 I am very thankful to Gavin Ja and Ernesto Gantman for their careful comments on an earlier
version of this piece.
 2 I am currently researing into similar aitudes towards the private sector in the other countries.

References
Alcadipani, R. (2009). From global management to mundial management:
Insights from Latin America to a symmetrical epistemology of
management. Encontro Anpad, September: 19–23. São Paulo, Brazil.
Alcadipani, R. & Bertero. C. O. (2012). e Cold War and the teaing of
management in Brazil: the case of FGV-EAESP. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, 52(3): 284–299.
Alcadipani, R., Cooke, B., Chanlat, J.F., & Cunliffe, A. (2013). Panel 5, Studies
of Organizations under Anglo-Saxon Hegemony. 8th Iberoamerican
Academy Conference December, São Paulo, FGV-EASP.
BBC (2010). ‘Conflicto de las papeleras: una condena moral.’ April 21, 2010.
hp://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2010/04/100420_2226_la_h
aya_fallo_papeleras_analisis_fp.shtml Accessed November 25, 2012.
Behrens, A. (2009a). Culture and management in the Americas. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Behrens, A. (2009b). Coyotes vs. road runners: Managing in the Americas.
HBR Blog Network, August 27. hp://blogs.hbr.org/2009/08/coyotes-vs-
road-runners-managi/Accessed November 22, 2014.
Behrens, A. (2010). Charisma, paternalism, and business leadership in Latin
America. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(1): 21–29.
Behrens, A. (2012). e International Business academic and business
ecosystem is misaligned, but alignment may miss the larger resear
goals. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54: 239–243.
Behrens, A. (2013a). oughts on business leadership in emerging markets: A
side effect of economic colonialism or simply poor management?’
Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(2): 227–234.
Behrens, A. (2013b). Para resolver o problema da discriminação de mulheres
e negros em cargos de efia nas empresas privadas. Nota de discussão
 interna. Faculdade FIA, São Paulo, Brazil, Maio.
Behrens, A. (2013c). What corporations can learn from a 4,000-person parade
extravaganza (seriously)’, HBR Blog Network October 30.
hp://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/what-corporations-can-learn-from-a-4000-
person-parade-extravaganza-seriously/Accessed November 22, 2014.
Biel, M. (2005). Default and debt swap in Argentina: Kirner’s fair
haircut. Transnational Economic Law Research Center, Martin-Luther-
University. Germany. hp://telc.jura.uni-
halle.de/sites/default/files/telc/PolicyPaper12.pdf Accessed December 12,
2012.
Bolger, A. (1998). Eight hours of threats, bullying and assault: Management
violence at work. Financial Times [London (UK)] 20 July 1998 p. 13.
Borón, A. and Leini, G. (2005). Introduction. In Atilio Borón (Ed.), Politics
and social movements in a hegemonic world: Lessons from Africa, Asia,
and Latin America (pp. 11–34). Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
hp://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/sursur/politics/Intro.rtf.
Bronstein, H. (2012). Argentina nationalizes oil company YPF. Chicago
Tribune, May 4. hp://articles.icagotribune.com/2012-05-04/news/sns-
rt-us-argentina-ypre8421gv-20120503_1_argentina-risks-ypf-spain-s-
repsol Accessed December 27, 2012.
Caldas, M.P. (1997). Santo de casa não faz milagre: condicionantes nacionais
e implicações organizacionais da fixação brasileira pela figura do
‘estrangeiro’. In F.P. Moa and M.P. Caldas (Eds), Cultura
organizacional e cultura brasileira (pp. 73–93). São Paulo: Atlas.
Cave, A. (2001). Argentina to default on $132bn debts. The Telegraph,
December 24.
hp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2746711/Argentina-to-
default-on-132bn-debts.html Accessed January 7, 2013.
Cerulo, K. (1989). Sociopolitical control and the structure of national
symbols: An empirical analysis of national anthems. Social Forces, 68(1):
76–99.
Clifford, T. (2012). Suicides outpace combat deaths, and benefits access a
struggle, for veterans of Falklands/Malvinas War. hp://truth-
 out.org/news/item/8513-veterans-of-falklands-war-fight-for-benefits-as-
suicides-outpace-combat-deaths Accessed February 27, 2015.
Dagdeviren, H. (2011). Political economy of contractual disputes in private
water and sanitation: Lessons from Argentina. Annals of Public &
Cooperative Economics, 82(1): 25–44.
Dupuis, J.P. (2014). Why critical intercultural communication studies are to
be taken seriously in cross-cultural management resear? International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(April): 127–132. Economist,
The (2006). e Americas: Arm-twisting; Argentina and Uruguay’.
October 7, p. 68.
hp://sear.proquest.com.ezproxy.london.edu/docview/224015063
Accessed December 12, 2012.
Escobar, A. (2007). Worlds and knowledges otherwise: e Latin American
modernity/coloniality program. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3): 179–210.
Faria, A. (2010). To, from and beyond the margins. Management Research:
The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 8(1): 221–
233.
Gantman, E. (2010). Solarly management knowledge in the periphery:
Argentina and Brazil in comparative perspective (1970–2005). Brazilian
Administration Review, 7(2): 115–135.
Gantman, E. and Parker, M. (2006). Comprador management? Organizing
management knowledge in Argentina (1975–2003). Critical Perspectives
on International Business, 2(1): 25–40.
Hernandez, J., Carrino, F. G., and Carlos, A. (Eds) (1974). The Gaucho Martin
Fierro. Albany: SUNY Press.
HiIlal, A.V.G. (2006). Brazilian national culture, organizational culture and
cultural agreement: Findings from a multinational company.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2): 139–167.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Honig, B. and Bedi, A. (2012). e fox in the hen house: A critical
examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of
 Management. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(1):
101–123.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-intanilla, S.A., Dorman, P.W., Javidan, M.,
Dison, M., and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2000). Cultural influences on
leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE.
hp://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/l_ange/publications/House/Cultu
ral%20Influences%20on%20Leadership%20-%20House%20.doc Accessed
November 22, 2014.
Ibarra-Colado, E., Faria, A., and Guedes, A. (2010). Introduction to the
special issue on critical international management and international
critical management: Perspectives from Latin America. Critical
Perspectives on International Business, 6(2–3): 86–96.
Lander, E. (Ed.) (2005). La colonialidad del saber: Eurocentrismo y ciencias
sociales, Perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Lenartowicz, T. and Johnson, J. (2002). Comparing managerial values in
twelve Latin American countries: An exploratory study. Management
International Review. 42(3): 279–307.
Lenartowicz, T. and Roth, K. (2001) Does subculture within a country
maer? A cross-cultural study of motivational domains and business
performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2):
305–325.
Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J., and White, C. (2003). e neglect of
intracountry cultural variation in international management resear.
Journal of Business Research, 56(12): 999–1008.
Lirell, R. and Cruz, E. (2013). North and South Latin America: Influence of
values on preferred leader behaviour in Chile and Mexico. Journal of
Management Development, 32(6): 629–656.
Mandiola, M. (2010). Latin America’s critical management? A liberation
genealogy. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6(2–3): 162–
176.
Mangaliso, M.P. and Damane, M.B. (2001). Building competitive advantage
from ‘Ubuntu’: Management lessons from South Africa [and executive
commentary]. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3): 23–24.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human
Relations, 55(1): 89–118.
Mignolo, W.D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern
knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mignolo, W.D. (2011). El vuelco de la razón: diferencia colonial y
pensamiento fronterizo. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Signo.
Moa, F., Alcadipani, R., and Bresler, R.B. (2001). A valorização do
estrangeiro como segregação nas organizações. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea, Edição Especial: 59–79.
Osland, J. and Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural
sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1):
65–77.
Oxford Analytica (2006). Daily Brief Service, CHILE/ARGENTINA: Energy
politics drive relations, July 24.
Pellegrino, A. and Vigorito, A. (2005). Emigration and economic crisis:
Recent evidence from Uruguay. Migraciones Internacionales, 3(1): 57–81.
Pike, R. (2012). Aristocrats and traders: Sevillian society in the sixteenth
century. The Library of Iberian Resources. Chapter 2: Section 3, e Elite.
hp://libro.uca.edu/aristocrats/aristocrats2-3.htm#N_3_ Accessed April
26, 2012.
Sadlier, D.J. (2009). Latin American melodrama: Passion, pathos, and
entertainment. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous
peoples. London: Zed Books.
Wynia, G.W. (1990). The politics of Latin American development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
23
e present and future of cross-
cultural management education in
China
Towards an integrated etic–emic approa

Yunxia Zhu and Zhaohui Wang

Introduction

With the rapid pace of reform of the Chinese economy (starting in 1978),
Western business people are increasingly interacting with their Chinese
business counterparts in international business and management. is
tendency has become even more intensified since China joined the World
Trade Organization in 2001. Alongside this trend, there arose a need for
cross-cultural management (CCM) education for training Chinese managers
to interact effectively with the rest of world. As part of its modernization
process, the Chinese government is trying to build capacity within the
nation for management education and CCM education has thus become an
important subject area for both undergraduate and postgraduate programs.
However, a key allenge in the development of CCM education in China
has been and remains that cross-cultural textbooks are oen ‘imported’ from
the West and applied to the Chinese contexts just like other management
courses. As noted by extant resear (e.g. Lau & Roffey, 2002), some
management in general may not fit well into local contexts as these theories
are oen developed in Western seings and exported with no adaptation.
Worse still, cross-cultural training programs are heavily dependent on
cultural dimension theories (e.g. Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism
dimension), whi so far have been proven to be less than effective even in
Western contexts (Festing & Maletzky, 2011; McSweeney, 2002). ese cross-
cultural theories have been critiqued as ‘sophisticated stereotypes’ (Osland
et al., 2000) since they derive from an outsider’s, or an etic, viewpoint. is
etic perspective remains prevalent in Western CCM resear and education,
while an emic, or insider’s culture-specific perspective, has been less
emphasized in cross-cultural resear and education. A similar situation
may also be discerned in Chinese cross-cultural education.
Following Pike (1967), we propose that both etic and emic perspectives –
viewing cultural learning as a process of incorporating universal and
culture-specific views and theories – are necessary for effective cross-
cultural education. His view has been supported and substantiated by other
solars in the disciplinary areas of psyology, sociology and cross-cultural
resear (Berry, 1989). It is therefore imperative to incorporate an emic
perspective in CCM in order to have a balanced view when interpreting
cultures. In particular, the emic approa is useful for learning how to
generate a ‘thi description’ of culture (Geertz, 1973). Incorporating an
etic– emic approa (i.e. one that combines both perspectives) has already
posed extensive allenges to cross-cultural education in general (Morris et
al., 1999; Zhu & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2013). It would be interesting to see
what allenges China may experience as a country with a strong Confucian
cultural tradition but also with extensive Western influence as a result of
economic reform. Will some of the allenges we are experiencing in the
West also prevail there? Or will there be some unique allenges for theory
integration since Chinese culture has very ri sources of indigenous
theories of its own? To answer these questions, this apter aims to identify
the trends and trajectory of CCM education in China in the past three
decades and to highlight the implications for CCM learning in general.
 e apter is organized into three sections. First, it provides an overview
of CCM education programs and the major approaes used in China.
Second, it discusses the emerging trends and allenges of integrating the
etic–emic approa for teaing CCM followed by theoretical and
pedagogical implications and recommendations for CCM resear and
education.

Etic and emic approaes to CCM resear and

education
In this section we outline major approaes to CCM based on the distinction
between etic and emic perspectives. In suggesting the integration of both
concepts in CCM, we hope to distance education from the long
preoccupation with aggregate models of culture and cultural differences and
encourage a less West-centric stance about the domain’s subject maer.
According to Berry (1989), an imposed etic approa is defined as one
derived from one particular or local context but imposed onto another as if
it were universal (or universally valid) in application. As noted by Jason
and Niblo (2003), the majority of published work on cross-cultural
comparison has used ‘imposed etic’ designs, masking their paroial origins.
e imposed etic approa is also known as the ‘exploitation approa’
(Tsui, 2006). e exploitation approa involves the application of a
commonly used theory in a ‘new’ context su as using Hofstede’s
individualism vs. collectivism dimension in a Japanese context. e danger
with su an exploitation or imposed etic approa is that it risks the serious
possibility of missing the truly important communication or management
issues in the specific context (Tsui, 2006; Ja et al., 2013). In spite of the fact
that the world has shied from ‘West leads East’ to ‘West meets East’,
management resear involving cross-national or cross-cultural dimensions
is still largely ‘Western’-oriented with only limited reference to local
cultural contexts (Fang, 2012; Li, 2012; Zhu & Hildebrandt, 2013). is is true
in the area of the comparative study of cultures and communication. CCM
researers and educators, by and large, still rely on the etic approa (e.g.
cultural dimensions) as a major theoretical framework, an approa that can
suffer from a generalization of cultures (Morris et al., 1999).
Etic and emic perspectives can, however, be integrated to study a cultural
phenomenon from both an insider’s and an outsider’s perspective (e.g. Berry,
1989; Pike, 1967). Su etic–emic integration toward an overall framework
resembles a mosaic-style unity-in-diversity (Li, 2012). e etic–emic is
especially relevant for comparing cultures with a balanced view. Some
researers have made aempts to combine the two approaes (e.g. Henze
& Andrews, 2009; Lauring, 2011; Zhu, 2005, 2009). From a pedagogical
perspective, Henze and Andrews (2009) incorporated a local cultural context
perspective in their study abroad program, in whi they particularly
encourage students to live as the locals do, and make sure the course grows
local roots.
More recently, Zhu and Hildebrandt (2013) identified two key roles the
emic perspective can contribute to CCM understanding. First, the use of
emic theory complements etic cultural theories by offering more nuanced
analysis. For example, the etic approa in Hall’s (1976) high- and low-
context culture theory may interpret the Chinese style of Chinese sales
promotion leers as indirect and English sales leer as linear and direct.
However, the taken for granted ‘indirect’ Chinese style actually indicates a
clear qing (positive affect) persuasive orientation. Specifically, based on the
responses of the Chinese managers they interviewed, they identified two
types of qing including respect and warmth or affection towards the reader.
Second, emic sources of knowledge may offer additional insight for
appropriate cross-cultural adaptation. People can extend their linguistic
repertoires (Hymes, 1974) through learning from other cultures from the
emic perspective. With the extended repertoires of communication, one
would avoid mimiing another culture at the surface level or exaggerating
other cultural behaviours (e.g. showing excessive respect or warmth).
CCM education in China: an overview
Using the etic and emic concepts outlined previously, we now provide an
overview of the historical development of CCM education in China in the
past three decades.

The etic approach

e etic-driven stage started at the beginning of 1980s and lasted about ten
years. Alongside rapid economic development and opening-up to the world,
this period has witnessed a trend of introducing Western cross-cultural
theories to China as a response to the imperative of connecting with other
countries, especially so-called developed ones. As a result, the etic approa
was established as a dominant approa in China as in the West. As a major
feature, the etic approa involved introducing Western theories and
methodologies of CCM resear and training into Mainland China. is
period is also aracterized by translating or adapting a variety of textbooks
wrien by Western solars (e.g. Deresky, 2008; Harris & Moran, 1979;
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997) in Mainland China and applying
cultural dimension models to explaining cross-cultural issues.
Harris and Moran’s text was among the earliest to enter Chinese CCM
classrooms followed by more recent texts. Among them, the two textbooks
by Deresky (2008) and Luthans and Doh (2012) appeared to be the most
popular, because they have been translated into Chinese, offering access to
CCM programs from both Western/English-speaking and Chinese
perspectives. In general, CCM has been accepted as an important and useful
subject for management education in both undergraduate and postgraduate
programs. One of the reasons for this might be that the contrastive approa
is quite appealing to Chinese solars and students. In particular, some of
the dimensions su as individualism vs. collectivism are also easy for
people to recognize. For centuries, individualism has been seen as a negative
value (vis-à-vis positive values of collectivism) in history as well as in the
former communist China. e etic approa applied to Chinese cross-
cultural education is simply a reflection of the overall trend of adopting
Western theories in management resear and education in China (Tsui,
2006). To a large extent, then, the theoretical foundation in Mainland China
is a result of a direct transplantation process from the West, representing a
replica of the cultural dimension paradigm largely based on cultural value
dimensions (e.g. Browaeys & Price, 2011; Deresky, 2008; Hofstede, 1980, 2001;
Harris & Moran, 1979; Luthans & Doh, 2012; Trompenaars & Hampden-
Turner, 1997).
An additional limitation with the imposed etic approa is that it
overlooks the importance of context. China represents a very complex
situation of not only interacting with foreign countries in international trade
but also having a variety of subcultures in organizational contexts (e.g. joint-
ventures, MNCs, SOEs and private enterprises) and regional contexts (e.g.
dynamic anges taking place in metropolitan and rural cultures since
economic opening-up in 1978). ese contexts may provide very interesting
sources of cross-cultural encounters, whi need to be investigated and
incorporated into teaing. Real-life encounters may help to address some of
the problematic issues with the etic approa. However, there continued to
be a clear separation of the etic cultural dimension theory from the situated
cultural practice in Chinese contexts (su as the organizational and regional
dynamics noted earlier) and so the context-free tendency of generalizing
cultural dimensions remained a dominant pedagogical approa during this
period.
We conducted a sear of the CNKI publication soware database
developed by Tsinghua University, and found more than 1,000 journal
papers published by Chinese solars on CCM in China. Although many of
these studies (e.g., Ma 1996) laed the depth of critiques as in the West, this
trend represented a need for conducting resear in Chinese contexts. ese
exanges and publications also have led to the need to contextualize CCM
education in China. For example, a number of elite universities across the
country have run regular workshops to explore how to contextualize CCM
theories in education in China (Ma, 1996; Wang & Chen, 2008). Other
universities have even institutionalized CCM exange workshops
sponsored at the university level. For example, the Vice Chancellor of Jinan
University in South China has prioritized and promoted CCM education
across the whole university. A number of business sools, especially in
Shanghai and Beijing, also followed suit to prioritize CCM education,
borrowing theories from the West to best meet the needs of the Chinese
business contexts. ese exanges undoubtedly show that business sools
are paying great aention to developing CCM talent as an important part of
the management education.

Contextualizing the etic approach

e second stage in the historical development of CCM in China began in

the mid-1990s and continues up to today, and involves the contextualization
of the etic approa. ere is an emerging trend in textbooks to make CCM
theories more relevant to the Chinese context. For example, Chinese solars
started writing their own textbooks in order to meet the urgent need for
understanding other cultures (Chen, 2005; Hu, 1995). Although the etic trend
still prevails, more aention is being given to applying theory to local
contexts and scenarios. is trend represents a further improvement in the
CCM teaing approa thanks to the growing critiques of polarized cultural
dimensions (e.g. Hofstede, 2001). As substantiation, we seared through the
CNKI database and found that there are more than 30 papers critiquing
Hofstede’s theories published in the past five years in China. In a more
recent study, You and Chen (2010) use a discourse approa to analyze
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and have identified significant biases and
polarized stereotypes embedded in these dimensions. ese criticisms,
although appearing only recently, have eoed those studies that have been
ongoing for more than ten years in the West (e.g. Holden, 2004; McSweeney,
2002; Venaik et al., 2013). ose studies have also exercised influence on
CCM education and Chinese teaers have applied them in the classroom
and encouraged students to be more critical of Western cross-cultural
theories.
Consequently, the critical resear trend seems to have played a role in
triggering a surge of CCM texts in Chinese compiled by Chinese solars
(e.g. Chen, 2005; Fan, 2004; Hu, 1995; Ma, 2004; Xi, 2004; Zhang, 2003; Zhu,
2001). Among them, one of the most popular texts seems to be Kua Wenhua
Guanli (Cross-cultural Management) compiled by Chen (2005), who
interpreted etic theories with an effort to meet the needs of the Chinese
businesses. Although Chen (2005) did not introduce any local Chinese
theories, she made a contribution to contextualizing etic theories as a
bicultural solar (she was born and raised in China, also having lived and
worked in the United States for nearly 30 years).
is period can be aracterized by the use of three types of
contextualization strategy. e first is related to experiential learning about
how authors learn another foreign culture through their overseas
experience. ese examples, very oen personal and anecdotal, seem to be
quite useful and convincing to the Chinese eye although the scenarios can
be very limited to a regional culture or seing (e.g. Chen’s [2005] culture
sho she experienced as an overseas student in New Jersey). e second
type has a broader scope oen embracing a significant social phenomenon in
China. Chen (2005) uses ‘aoliu’ (潮流) or group trend as a typical example
of ‘collectivism’ or ‘group orientation’. In the 1990s, with the introduction of
the economic opening-up, business careers suddenly became popular in
Chinese society. Subsequently, people of various professions started to
follow the trend of starting their own businesses. Even universities took an
active part in establishing their own firms (e.g. in international trade) in
South China (the more developed regions of China at that time) and some
universities in Beijing even tore down their campus walls to open up shops
to the public. is blind ‘collectivistic’ rush to cat ‘aoliu’ or group trend
can also be identified in Chinese history (e.g. a collective trend for young
people to join the army as the best career during the communist period).
e third type of contextualization strategy involves the use of popular
Chinese films to illustrate cultural dimensions. A number of Chinese movies
were discussed in Chen (2005) to exemplify cultural differences. For
example, she used the movie Gung Ho ( 恭 贺 ) to show how cultures
expressed emotions differently. When delivering a sales promotion spee
filled with humour and jokes to a group of Japanese potential buyers, Han,
the main aracter, thought he failed to aract the audience’s aention, as
they appeared to be silent and emotionless. However, one week later, the
Japanese group actually accepted his proposal, saying that he gave a
wonderful presentation. Chen (2005) devoted a whole section to cross-
cultural issues in contemporary movies. In this way, the use of films
immediately puts students in contexts so that they can make sense of the
etic concepts through familiar seings in the films.

Incorporating the emic perspective

Most recently, there has been a turn to indigenous theories in the Chinese
context. e turning point to incorporate indigenous theories began with the
publication of the special issue in Management and Organizational Review
in 2009 (Barney & Zhang, 2009; Leung et al., 2009; Wheen, 2009), whi is
composed of some cuing-edge works by the Chinese management resear
community. In general, these solars put a greater stress on the East not
only as a site of translating Western theories but also a location of theory
production. eir views provide a favourable environment for introducing
local theories in CCM education in China.
A number of textbooks emerged as a response to the indigenous resear
trend on Chinese management (Wang, 2009; Wang & Zhu, 2013; Yan, 2011;
Zheng, 2010; Zhang & Yu, 2013). Chinese solars began to pay aention to
incorporating Chinese management theories, as well as other theories from
Asia (Japanese and Korean management theories), into textbooks.
Specifically, indigenous incorporation includes (1) using insiders’ views to
understand local target cultures; (2) developing novel constructs and
theoretical frameworks from a Chinese perspective to explain a unique
Chinese phenomenon; and (3) developing Chinese theories with global or
universal implications. We detail these three aspects as follows.

Using an insider’s perspective for understanding

target cultures
Understanding an insider’s perspective is seen as an important aspect of
learning culture and aention is given to both Chinese and other culture-
specific perspectives. Wang (2009) uses films as a tool to study culture-
specific behaviour through reflective learning in class. For example, he
introduces the film Guasha Treatment (a traditional treatment to ease pains
through scraping the skin oen resulting in light bruising) to illustrate
Chinese culture-specific practices. is film is about how the grandfather
gave his grandson some Guasha treatment to release his pain and the seing
is an American sool where the grandson was enrolled. On seeing the
bruises, his teaer immediately reported the case to the police. Eventually
the police had to separate the ild from the family to stop this practice until
they eventually understood the meaning of Guasha treatment. is type of
exercise offers further evidence to show how films are a useful tool for
studying culture-specific meanings.
In addition, examples of local perspectives for understanding foreign
markets are incorporated in textbooks (e.g. Yan, 2011; Zhang & Yu, 2013).
Wang (2009) includes a best-case example of Hair, the leading refrigerator
company. is company has a strategy to meet the needs of local markets
across countries through extensive resear about product designs and
customer needs. To tailor this need, Hair has 29 manufacturing bases, 16
industrial parks and eight Resear and Development centers in the Middle
East, Africa, Europe, North America and Asia. ey have localized their
production and designed products tailored to meet local needs. Similar
examples can also be found in Chen about how successful foreign firms (e.g.
Kentuy Fried Chien and McDonald’s in China) adopted a Chinese
perspective in development of their clientele base.

Applying Chinese theory to the Chinese context

Some key Chinese specific concepts appear in Chinese CCM textbooks,
including interpersonal relationships (i.e. guanxi), Chinese leadership style
and motivation meanism. It is generally anowledged by Chinese
solars that the core of Chinese management includes a people orientation
and harmony. Emphasis on a humanistic approa is heavily influenced by
the Confucian philosophy of ren (compassion) and yi (righteousness). For
example, Zhang and Yu (2013) noted Confucianism as an important
component of Chinese management systems, openly expressing care for
their employees and treating employees like family members. is emic
view complements the etic approa by offering in-depth explanations about
‘collectivistic’ culture deeply embedded in the age-old philosophical
tradition of Confucianism.

Developing emic or Chinese theories with global

or universal implications
Just like some of the etic theories, emic perspectives can be developed into
new theories applicable to a wider range of contexts and cultures, also
known as a derived etic approa (Berry, 1989). One example can be found
in the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) study based on Confucian
teaings, whi was carried out in response to the concern that cultural
questionnaires are usually prepared by Western academics and therefore
may be bound by a Western cultural outlook. However, su universal or
global implications seem to be understated in the Chinese CCM textbooks
although Chinese theories were introduced from an insider’s perspective. As
noted earlier, Chinese theories were used to explain the specific contexts
(e.g. the application of ren-yi in the Chinese context) rather than deriving
new and universal theories for CCM in general.

Discussion and recommendations

In this apter, we have shown that China has just started its long mar
towards emic theory development and more needs to be done to deepen
CCM resear, whi may create new momentum and insights for CCM
education and training. To this end, we propose the following
recommendations for CCM education in China.
First, it is imperative to further develop emic theories especially with a
goal of deriving global implications. For example, a more recent
development in deriving etics from emic sources can be found in Fang’s
(2012) yin-yang cultural perspective for studying the paradox of culture.
Based on the indigenous Chinese philosophy, Fang proposes an alternative
approa to culture. Specifically, Fang posits that ‘potential paradoxical
values coexist in any culture; they give rise to, exist within, reinforce, and
complement ea other to shape the holistic, dynamic, and dialectical nature
of culture’ (Fang, 2012: 25). It is recommended that more emic theories
should be incorporated for deriving universal implications. With the ri
history that China has, Chinese sources of theory may provide promising
potential for further development of theories with global implications.
Second, it is imperative to incorporate activity-based learning to practice
culture. To this end, Zhu and Bargiela-Chiappini’s (2013) SiCuLA (situated
cultural learning) model can be of relevance for training students in taking
an emic perspective. Chinese education is well-known for its approa based
on rote memorization and learning in classrooms and also for its la of
hands-on experience and critical thinking (Ma, 1996; Wang & Chen, 2008).
Although real-life cases have been introduced into classrooms, it is still a
long way for China to finally cat up with some of the more advanced
programs in the West su as overseas global leadership training programs
and student internship training in international organizations. So far, lile
has been done to establish links to industry or real-life situations in Chinese
CCM programs. is can be related to the whole education system, whi
las experiential learning or hands-on experience. Yet, China may offer
promising and exciting cross-cultural sites with an abundance of
opportunities to learn CCM in real-life situations in future.
A third allenge is related to teaers’ experience. Many Chinese
academics teaing CCM may not have been overseas or have limited
exposure to the outside world (Wang & Zhu, 2013). It would be very
allenging for them to tea foreign cultures without having first-hand
experience about these cultures. In addition, it will also be difficult for them
to realize the importance of situated learning or experiential learning about
culture, whi has been extensively discussed and promoted as a recent
trend in the West (Zhu & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2013). So to ange this
situation, appropriate training relating to cultural exposures needs to be
provided to Chinese academics where relevant.

Conclusion
Regardless of the aforementioned allenges confronted by Chinese CCM
educators, the trajectory of CCM education is promising. With a short
history of teaing CCM, China has already witnessed significant
development on its path towards integration of the etic and emic
approaes. Chinese academics have paid increasing resear aention to
CCM resear and pedagogical activities. is momentum is bound to
continue, and animate the development of CCM education towards a more
integrative etic–emic approa.
References
Barney, J., & Zhang, S. (2009). e future of Chinese management resear:
A theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of
management. Management and Organization Review, 5: 15–28.
Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics–emics-derived etics: e operationalization
of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(6): 721–735.
Browaeys, M., & Price, R. (2011). Understanding cross-cultural management.
2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the sear for
culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
18(2): 143–164.
Deresky, H. (2008). International management: Managing across borders and
cultures. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Fang, T. (2012). Ying Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
Organization Review, 8(1): 25–50.
Festing, M., & Maletzky, M. (2011). Cross-cultural leadership adjustment: A
multilevel framework based on the theory of structuration. Human
Resource Management Review, 33: 186–200.
Geertz, G. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Harris, P. R., & Moran R. T. (1979). Managing cultural differences. Houston:
Gulf Publishing Co.
Henze, B. R. & Andrews, D. C. (2009). Teaing professional writing in a
study abroad program. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(2): 5–20.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Holden, N. J. (2004). Why marketers need a new concept of culture for the
global knowledge economy. International Marketing Review, 21: 563–
572.
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic
approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ja, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M. Y., Priard, C., Singh, K., &
Wheen, D. (2013). Refining, reinforcing and reimagining: Universal and
indigenous theory development in international management. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 22(2): 148–164.
Jason, M. S., & Niblo, D. M. (2003). e role of qualitative methodology in
cross-cultural resear. Qualitative Research Journal, 3(1): 18–37.
Lau, A., & Roffey, B. (2002). Management education and development in
China: A resear note. Labour and management in development, 2: 3–
18.
Lauring, J. (2011). Journal of Business Communication, 48(3), 231–255.
Li, P. P. (2012). Toward an integrative framework of indigenous resear: e
geocentric implications of Yin-Yang balance. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management. 29(4): 849–872.
Leung, K., Li, P., Chen, C., & Luo, J. (2009). Call for papers: Management and
organization review: Special issue on indigenous management resear
in China. Management and Organization Review, 5: 431–432.
Luthans, F., & Doh, J. P. (2012). International management: Culture, strategy
and behaviour. 8th edition. Boston:Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Ma, C. (1996). Zhongwei gongshang guanli jiaoyu de bijiao yanjiu (A
comparative study of MBA program education in China and other
countries). Xuexi yu Shijian (Learning and Practice), 6: 22–24.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human
Relations, 55(1): 89–118.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Liel, B. (1999). Views from inside
and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice
judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24: 781–796.
Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Delano, J., & Mahew, J. (2000). Beyond sophisticated
stereotyping: Cultural sense-making in context. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(1): 65–77.
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of
human behavior. e Hague: Mouton.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding diversity in global business. London: Niolas Brealey
Publishing.
Tsui, A. S. (2006). Editorial: Contextualization in Chinese management
resear. Management and Organization Review, 2: 1–13.
Venaik, S., Zhu, Y., & Brewer, P. (2013). Looking into the future: Hofstede
long term orientation versus GLOBE future orientation. Cross-cultural
Management: An International Journal, 30(5): 469–482.
Wang, L., & Chen, Y. (2008). Cong kua wenhua guanli lilun dao guanli
jiaoyu shijian (From cross-cultural management theory to the practice of
cross-cultural management education). Weilai yu Fanzhan (Future and
Development), 5: 60–63.
Wheen, D. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and
theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and
Organization Review, 5: 29–55.
You, Z., & Chen, J. (2010). Biases in cross-cultural management resear: A
critical discourse analysis of Hofstede’s cultural paerns. Foreign
Languages in China, 2: 93–98.
Zhu, Y. (2005). Written communication across cultures: A sociocognitive
perspective on business genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zhu, Y. (2009). Managing business relationships in New Zealand and China:
A semantic perspective. Management International Review, 49: 225–248.
Zhu, Y., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Balancing emic and etic: Situated
learning and ethnography of communication in cross-cultural
management education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 12(3): 380–395.
Zhu, Y., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (2013). Effective persuasion of international
business sales leers: An emic– etic perspective. Management
International Review, 53(3): 391–418.
Chinese CCM textbooks cited

Chen, X. (2005). Kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management). Beijing:

Tsinghua University Press.
Fan, W. (2004). K ua wenhua guanli: Quanqiu hua yu defang hua de
pingheng (Cross-cultural management: A balance between globalization
and localization). Beijing: China Foreign Language Education Press.
Hu, J. (1995). Kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management). Guangzhou:
Jinan University Press.
Ma, C. (2004). Guoji qiye kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management
for international corporations). Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Wang, Z. (2009). Kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management). Beijing:
Beijing University Press.
Wang, Z., & Zhu, Y. (2013). Guoji qiye guanli (International management).
Shanghai, Beijing University Press.
Xi, X. (2004). Kua wenhua guanli fangfa (Strategies for cross-cultural
management). Beijing: China Economics Press.
Yan, X. (2011). Kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management). Beijing:
Beijing University Press.
Zhang, J. (2003). Kua wenhua guanli: Yimen quanxin de guanli kexue
(Cross-cultural management: A new theory of management). Hefei:
Anhui Science and Tenology Press.
Zhang, Z., & Yu, F. (2013). Kua wenhua guanli (Cross-cultural management).
Dalian: Northeast Finance and Economics University Press.
Zhu, J. (2001). Kua wenhua guanli: Pengzhuang zhong de xietong (Cross-
cultural management: Collaboration in the process cultural friction).
Guangzhou: Guangdong Economics Press.
24
e evolution of a cross-cultural
perspective in Russian business
education

Sheila M. Puffer, Daniel J. McCarthy, Anna

Gryaznova and Vyacheslav Boltrukevich

Introduction
In spite of its impressive progress over the past two decades, Russia is still
faced with serious allenges including a declining workforce, rampant
corruption, and underinvestment in infrastructure. To these allenges we
would add the dearth of managerial and executive talent needed to support
the country’s ambitions in the global economy. is, along with the
country’s other allenges, requires a management education infrastructure
that produces su managers, and incorporates an international and cross-
cultural perspective in the process. is apter addresses the ways in whi
cross-cultural learning for managers in Russia has been enabled and
constrained by a constantly evolving institutional environment and internal
cultural circumstances.
Management education: a longitudinal perspective

Early period of business education

Prior to 2004, Russian management education can be ronicled into four

periods: the Preperestroika Period (1970s to mid-1980s), the Romantic Period
(from the late-1980s to 1992), the Consolidation Period aer the fall of the
Soviet Union (1992–1999), and Entering the Global Economy (1999–2004)
with different emphases on business and management education during ea
period (Judge et al., 2004). Management education during Soviet times was
limited to programs on the centrally planned economic system and its
relation to communist ideology (Puffer, 1981). Aer the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991, to serve the needs of an emerging market-oriented
environment, dozens of management programs sprang up across Russia to
tea management practices prevalent in market-based economies (Kozlova
& Puffer, 1994). Additionally, new business sools and programs were
developed, including partnerships with established Western and Asian
business sools (McCarthy, 1991; Vikhanski & Puffer, 1993).
During the 1990s and early 2000s, the results of these programs varied
widely due to inappropriate teaing and learning methodologies (Gilbert &
Gorlenko, 1999), and managers reared in the Soviet system oen were not
willing to learn new approaes to a anging economic system (Czinkota,
1997; Holden & Cooper, 1994; Warner et al., 1994; Zhuplev & Shein, 2008).
Additionally, some Western management training consultants failed to
develop sufficient cultural intelligence about the complexity of Russian
culture (Gilbert & Cartwright, 2008). Still, major progress was made during
the later 1990s and early 2000s in influencing management practice toward a
more market-oriented management approa. e laun of the Presidential
Program of Professional Management Preparation in 1998 was an important
milestone in creating the infrastructure and ecosystem of mass management
education. e objective was to expose Russian managers to best
international practices by sending them to internships abroad (Gilbert &
Gorlenko, 1999; Struyk, 2007).

Entering the global economy: knowledge transfer, knowledge

management, and the role of culture

During the 2000s, it was apparent that the strategic objective of

transforming the Russian economy, including increasing productivity and
efficiency of businesses, could not be addressed by the simple transfer of
Western best practices. It required Russian companies to develop complex
systems of knowledge management and to operationalize ways to utilize
knowledge transferred from outside sources, foreign or domestic. Also, the
economic potential of the Russian domestic market had been recognized by
major foreign businesses that served as another annel to bring to Russia
not only investment but also management teniques.
Viewing the evolution of management education in Russia through the
lens of knowledge transfer and management adds considerable insight to
evaluating the results that occurred during that transition period.
Knowledge transfer refers to “a process of systematically organized
exange of information and skills between entities” (Wang et al., 2004: 173).
Clearly, aempts to transfer Western management knowledge and
pedagogical teniques without adapting them to the Russian context caused
many of the issues that arose during the country’s first two decades of
developing management education. Many su issues were based on a
limited understanding of Russian culture and the country’s institutions on
the part of mostly well-intentioned foreign educators, consultants, and
advisors, primarily from the US and Europe. In response, by around 2010,
programs began to implement knowledge transfer and knowledge
management processes whereby Russian managers had an opportunity to
acquire knowledge from managers more experienced with a market
economy (Danis et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2008).
 Earlier studies had emphasized the need for Russia to develop its
knowledge industry, on the premise that the efficient use of knowledge is the
most important factor in the transition to a market system (Kuznetsov, 2004).
Su a result would depend upon Russians developing and embracing
programs that were consistent with Russian culture, and outsiders
appreciating that particular context, thus reducing the potential for a
cultural collision (Holden et al., 1998). In a learning environment, “culture
shapes the processes by whi new organizational knowledge – with its
accompanying uncertainties – is created, legitimated, and distributed”
(DeLong & Fahey, 2000: 126). Russian culture has been recognized as an
impediment to the effectiveness of Western management training
(Miailova & Hollinshead, 2009), including resistance to ange and to
accepting new knowledge (May et al., 2011). Other cultural impediments
include a distrust of outsiders and the knowledge they may seek to transfer
(Ayios, 2004), as well as knowledge hoarding and reluctance to share
knowledge (Miailova & Husted, 2003).
at said, university and corporate education programs illustrate how
knowledge transfer and knowledge management have been developed by
Russians for Russians, and done so successfully.

Signs of progress in linking management education to practice

A major ange to Russia’s national knowledge management system had

occurred by 2010. e recently created Ministry of Education and Science
had decided not only to integrate education and science in the high
tenology sector, but also to align that education with practicing
businesses, especially tenology startups. is ange required universities
to become involved in resear, primarily in tenology. ese new
institutions, called national resear universities, through linking with
businesses, were expected to become centers of applied tenology. By 2010,
there were 29 national resear universities linking education with
innovation and management practice. is ange was a major internal
cultural shi within knowledge management, moving to a new education-
practice paradigm (McCarthy et al., 2014).
Management education in universities and some other institutions had
evolved to a point where a wide range of undergraduate, graduate, and
executive-level educational programs had been created. ere was an
abundance of su programs at most major universities su as Moscow
State and St. Petersburg State, Skolkovo Graduate Sool of Management,
e Russian Academy of the National Economy and Public Administration,
and the Higher Sool of Economics. Some institutions, su as the recently
created Skolkovo Sool, offered only graduate programs like many top
universities in the United States and Europe. Additionally, in light of these
anges in the national knowledge management system, as well as other
factors, leading Russian companies began to establish their own internal
programs of corporate education. Su executive MBA and corporate
education programs had the objective of linking their management
education programs more closely with practice. Individual companies, of
course, focused more on their own objectives and needs, whi included
specific functional topics as well as a general management focus.
To illustrate successful programs created by Russians, we now discuss the
Executive MBA and corporate programs offered by Moscow State
University, as well as corporate education programs offered internally at two
large Russian state-owned companies. Cross-cultural perspectives are
embedded in and cultivated through these programs.

Moscow State University’s executive MBA and

other programs

A world-class university
Lomonosov Moscow State University is the leading university in Russia and
the Commonwealth of Independent States. Its business sool is also a leader
and features an Executive MBA (EMBA) program with a substantial
international component. It also has other programs in its academic
portfolio, including a Baelor of Management, a Master’s in International
Business, a doctoral program, and other MBA programs including the
standard MBA and an MBA in Production Systems, as well as non-degree
executive education programs.
e Business Sool, founded in 1989, is one of the first business sools
in Russia. It began as part of the Economics Department and offered short-
term executive education programs to the corporate sector of new
enterprises founded aer the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. It became a
separate department within the university in 2001. e Business Sool has
been ranked consistently among the top five Russian business sools since
2007 when the leading national magazine “Secret Firmi” started its annual
ratings based on alumni surveys (Secret Firmi 2007–2013). e Sool has
been recognized as the leading business sool in Russia three times in 2007,
2008, and 2010. Additionally, its Baelor’s program is accredited by the
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and is also one
of the few programs in Russia with EPAS accreditation. e Sool
anticipated and reacted to the needs of Russian managers and their
companies by offering the MBA degree in various forms from the general
MBA to specialized MBAs. e Dean and others realized early on the need
to offer a substantial international component in all of its programs, most
notably in the Executive MBA.
Over the years, the Sool has placed increasing emphasis on
international and cross-cultural aspects in all of its programs. e Sool
engaged in knowledge management by taking a number of initiatives
including hiring visiting and permanent faculty from business sools
abroad, in addition to sending their own faculty and administrators to visit
universities in the US, Europe, and Japan. ese activities were in addition to
Moscow State’s nearly 25-year relationship with Northeastern University in
Boston, whi assisted in the design of various programs, and also engaged
in faculty and student exanges and conferences. e Sool has also
become very active in international academic associations including the
accrediting institution EFMD.

Executive MBA

e Executive MBA Program is aimed at top-level managers of corporations

and owners of mid-size companies, admiing 25 students annually who take
nine modules over 18 months. e major objective is to enable participants
“to become different” by creating a global mindset as well as providing a
foundation for taking leadership roles in society as well as within their
companies. In contrast to the MBA program, the EMBA content is more
global and strategic rather than operational. To support this focus, meetings
are held with top managers and visits are made to multinational companies
operating in Russia su as 3M, Boeing, and Kaspersky Lab. Modules include
Business in the Environment, Finance and Investments, Human Capital,
Operational Excellence, and Managing Change. A strong international
component includes a week-long module on innovation management held at
Northeastern University in Boston featuring lectures, company visits, and a
cultural component. Another module is conducted in Kazakhstan. Students
are also encouraged to take part in internships available in Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and elsewhere. e cross-cultural aspect of the EMBA program is
reinforced with lectures by visiting faculty from Western and Asian partner
universities. e effectiveness of the EMBA program is reflected in highly
positive testimonials of numerous 2012 graduates, a representative comment
being: “e program created a new life for the students, one full of new
hopes, possibilities and a foundation of aievements for success in
business” (Boltrukevi, 2012).

Part-time MBA Program

e Part-time MBA Program, launed in 2001, was the Business Sool’s
first regular open enrolment program as opposed to offerings for specific
companies. e program is aimed at aracting students with three to five
years of managerial experience and currently admits 30 students. e
program is mu like that of a Western MBA, and is offered on a part-time
basis with nine modules over 18 months. e content is functionally
oriented, with modules including Managing Organizations, Finance and
Investments, Operations, Strategy, Human Resources, and Leadership.
Students learn and practice new knowledge, skills, and self-understanding in
their workplaces. e program culminates with a project focused on
business issues within the students’ companies, aimed at enabling students
to make significant improvements su as reorganizing a function or
department, developing new products, or initiating new projects. All
programs are delivered in Russian, whi is both an advantage and
disadvantage. It provides the opportunity to work with Russian target
audiences including the corporate sector where only a small percentage of
employees speak fluent English. However, it does not allow effective
interaction with English-speaking audiences including those abroad.

MBA in production systems

MBA programs in Russia focusing on general management remain popular,

but specialized Master’s programs have gained more prominence recently.
Moscow State Business Sool has developed a specialized MBA program in
production systems, recognizing the need for many companies including
state-owned and former state-owned firms to upgrade their antiquated
production systems. e program, delivered on a part-time modular basis,
was developed in 2005 based on worldwide expertise in both production
systems and learning programs. is program is offered to two Russian
production processing giants, Basic Element and United Metallurgical
Company, and has the potential to become an open enrolment program for
managers in smaller manufacturing companies.
 e Kaizen Institute, a worldwide consulting company in this field,
provided the program content, with Harvard Business Sool’s operations
management department as well as the Lean Institute consulting on the
program design. Additionally, the Business Sool drew from the experience
of MIT’s Leaders for Manufacturing program. Its aim is to transform
middle-level managers by introducing them to modern production systems
and providing them with modern tools and teniques for increasing the
efficiency of processes within their companies. Modules cover topics su as
Improving Processes, Improving ality, Transforming Production Systems,
Paradigm Change, and Managing People. ere are two one-week
internships in factories, where students learn about the features of the
plant’s production systems, and also practice implementation of
management tools learned in courses. e program continues to innovate in
content and design, including the addition of international experiences su
as offering internships in Turkey and employing experts with relevant
international experience.

Corporate management development programs

Delivering professional training and education to employees has
traditionally been an important function of Russian companies. e last five
years have seen the rise of Corporate Universities and Academies in Russia
to specifically address gaps in the management education of company
managers. In many cases, corporate universities deliver highly customized
educational programs in cooperation with Russian and international
business sools, oen co-branded. State-owned companies appear to be at
the forefront in offering su company-focused programs.

Russian Railways
Russian Railways, a state-owned company employing about one million
people, is a notable example. Its educational unit, the Corporate University
of Russian Railways (CURR), has a mission to provide corporate business
education to top managers to support the Strategy of the Development of
Railroad Transportation through 2030 (www.rzd.ru). CURR programs are
based on the corporate competencies identified by Russian Railways and
aims at blending new management skills with high professionalism of the
company’s top managers. e objectives of CURR are to provide systematic
and regular development opportunities for top managers, to promote a
common vision and approaes to managerial jobs, to contribute to the
development of efficient management teams, to create a foundation for
innovation for the company’s future, and to contribute to the development
of the company’s corporate culture and leadership style.
To fulfill su an ambitious agenda, CURR has engaged in a number of
training, development, and HRM-related activities, including: top
management assessment as the foundation of the company’s model of
essential corporate competences; delivery of the Corporate Leader program
consisting of three semesters totaling 150–170 hours of instruction;
methodological support for the design and implementation of Individual
Development Plans (IDP) for top managers; delivery of individual
development programs in accordance with top managers’ requests and their
IDPs; and methodological support for assessment, education, and
development of other employees. e target audience of CURR is its 1,500
top managers. e performance of CURR is evaluated based on progress of
participants in developing corporate competencies, as well as participants’
feedba based on a Leadership Index survey conducted independently.
CURR cooperates with Russian and international educational institutions.
For example, for the last five years the company has been cooperating with
the Stoholm Sool of Economics in delivering an Executive MBA
program. e program has graduated 192 employees, of whom 38 percent
are reported to have been promoted.
Education is an activity of the company required by its by-laws and is not
limited to CURR. Russian Railways has a 130-year history of operating non-
public educational institutions at all levels, beginning in tsarist times and
extending through communist times to the present day. Its educational
network has been designed and developed to fill the gaps in the availability
of public education across remote areas of Russia. e network consists of 11
institutions of higher education including universities and colleges of
railway transportation, as well as 289 sools and pre-sools located mainly
in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East. e locations are primarily cities
where Russian Railways is a major employer or where the Russian Ministry
of Education does not offer services, with Russian Railways providing
education to more than 42,000 students. For this company employing over a
million people, it is critical to have su an educational system that builds
loyalty among potential future employees from a very early age.
e company also pays serious aention to upgrading and developing its
mid-level employees, specialists, and workers. is activity is supervised by
the Vice-President for HR and Social Issues and the Head of the HR
department. e Corporate Center of Development of Professional
Education of Personnel is an independent unit of Russian Railways, created
in 2007. e Center offers methodological support and coordination of
training and development programs of Russian Railways and its dependent
units. Additionally, it monitors the qualifications of personnel, organizes
sociological and psyological studies, develops and implements new
educational tenologies, and coordinates cooperation with higher and
tertiary professional educational institutions involved in railway
transportation.

Rosatom

In contrast to the domestic orientation of Russian Railways’ management

education programs, companies involved in international business oen
require cross-cultural learning experiences. One of the most notable cases of
cross-cultural learning among Russian companies is Rosatom’s Global
Leaders program, whi has been designed and implemented as part of a
company-wide strategy aimed at the firm’s transformation into a global
company.
Rosatom is a state-owned nuclear corporation doing business in more
than 40 countries, and its recent orientation is to reconfigure and transform
itself into a global company (www.rosatom.ru; Strana Rosatom, 2013). All
strategic decisions are made in this context since international markets
contribute significantly to current corporate income and are expected to
continue to do so. Expanding abroad has required the corporation to
implement anges related to the development of competencies to operate
successfully in host countries. e transformation into a global company of
a state corporation with a long and successful baground has been a very
ambitious project, requiring anges not only in business processes, but also
in organizational culture. ese anges have occurred within the areas of
local presence, personnel and corporate culture, alliances and coalitions,
products and tenologies, finance, and transparency.
In order to initiate and support anges in the organizational culture and
employees’ mentality, Rosatom developed its Global Leaders program, whi
is positioned not only as an educational project, but as part of a ange
management program. It aims at identifying and supporting employees who
will become ange agents and will contribute to the implementation of
Rosatom’s strategic objectives in the global markets. e program is
designed as a model of an “altered reality,” whi creates opportunities for
participants to communicate with people to whom they normally would not
have access. Doing so allows them to go beyond the borders of their
functional and departmental responsibilities, as well as beyond their
traditional corporate and national cultural boundaries. e program is not
expected to bring qui returns, and program participants are anticipated to
become vital to Rosatom’s global leadership in five to ten years. e
fundamental objective is not only to develop the global competencies of
participants, but also to create a community of people who would share the
same values and commitment to transform Rosatom into a global company.
Participation in the program is open to all Rosatom employees. Selection
is based on screening applications submied to Rosatom’s corporate website.
An assessment is made of competencies, proven leadership and professional
records, motivation to develop, English language proficiency, and
demonstrated international baground. Around 50 candidates are enrolled
every year. e program is implemented in cooperation with one of Russia’s
leading business sools as well as a leading consultancy firm, and consists
of an academic component, international field trips, and implementation of
global projects. To highlight the global dimension of the program, it is
delivered in English with no translation provided.
e program has a unique governance structure including a Supervisory
Board, whi consists of Rosatom top managers, and a Board of Experts that
also includes Rosatom top managers, as well as representatives of leading
consulting companies. e program also involves all major international
partners of Rosatom su as EDF, Fortum, Rolls-Royce, and other companies
that host program participants and organize workshops for them along with
peers from these host companies.

Conclusions, implications, and recommendations

Much progress but at an uneven pace

Management solars and practitioners must recognize that progress in

knowledge transfer and management will likely be uneven. e evolution of
Russian business education has emphasized the issues that arose when
practitioners, whose experience was anored in the Soviet period, were
oen unable to absorb new market-based knowledge. is situation was
exacerbated by generally well-intentioned Western experts including
professors and consultants who were unfamiliar with and/or insensitive to
the importance of Russian culture in transferring knowledge within an
educational process. However, as the evolution progressed, the readiness of
both knowledge transferers and transferees improved markedly. ese
conditions in Russia have led to contributions to a general theory of
knowledge sharing (May & Stewart, 2013).

Self-improvement is important

Practitioners and solars must recognize the importance of the level of the
recipient’s readiness and receptivity to embrace new knowledge (Holden,
2002). Progress in Russian management education has been due in part to
the transfer of knowledge from leading Western sources that have been
successfully adapted to the Russian context. is was accomplished in large
measure by receptive Russian academics who had gained deep
understanding of management in market economies by living, studying, and
working in the West. ey were then able to successfully adapt their own
experiences and transfer the knowledge gained to other Russian academic
colleagues and practicing managers through their efforts as university
professors and administrators, as well as their consulting work. Additionally,
many were able to persuade Westerners to work in their institutions,
professionals they felt could successfully impart their knowledge in the
Russian context.

It’s a global world for management education requiring a cross-

cultural component

Practitioners and solars should recognize that leading Russian universities

and corporate programs have increasingly focused on the international
orientation of managers in large Russian companies. Russian managers in
both types of educational programs are already involved in cross-cultural
business situations in at least two ways. Some are already working in or
with foreign MNEs located in Russia, while others are doing business in
various parts of the world as their companies have expanded organically or
through mergers and acquisitions. us, like elsewhere (Holden & Glisby,
2010), cross-cultural management expertise has been recognized as a
necessary element of Russian management education, an important
objective of whi is developing a global mindset.

Knowledge transfer and management are key

ose transferring knowledge to Russian business managers must recognize

the implications of Russian culture, values, aitudes, and behaviors that can
limit the absorptive capacity of knowledge receivers (May et al., 2005). Yet
they themselves must recognize the limitations of their own absorptive
capacity when Russians aempt to transfer knowledge ba to them
(Miailova & Jormanainen, 2011). Absorptive capacity refers to “the ability
to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to
commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 128), whi can involve a two-
way street.

Do not understimate, but utilize, Russian expertise

e evolution of Russian management education shows the maturity that

has developed around cultural awareness in some Russian institutions,
particularly leading business sools and corporations. Professionals within
those organizations, particularly business sools, have been researing,
developing, and publishing their own materials su as textbooks, articles,
and cases tailored to the Russian context, oen working with Western
colleagues in the process. Russian academics and consultants with
experience in the market economy initially facilitated the transfer of
Western knowledge to Russian practitioners. While transferring that
knowledge, they subsequently began transferring knowledge about Russian
business and practices to international audiences, thus completing the two-
way transfer process.
 e accomplishments of Moscow State University Business Sool, as well
as corporate programs at Russian Railways and Rosatom, aest to the
competence of Russian management education experts to receive and create
new knowledge. Russian business sools remain the major facilitators of
transferring management knowledge from abroad to Russians, as well as
transferring Russian knowledge to foreigners. e development of su
Russian knowledge is grounded in the anging Russian business context as
well as its increasing internationalization supported by the growing cohort
of Russian managers educated abroad. We see these developments as
evidence that the knowledge management process has become embedded in
these institutions as well as in leading Russian companies.

References
Ayios, A. (2004). Trust and Western—Russian business relationships.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Boltrukevi, V. E. (2012). Стать другими: выпускники вшб МГУ о
программе Executive MBA (Becoming different: Lomonosov MSU
Business Sool graduates on the MBA program). Vestnik Moskovskogo
Universiteta, 24(1): 115–141.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35: 128–152.
Czinkota, M. R. (1997). Russia’s transition to a market economy: Learning
about business. Journal of International Marketing, 5(4): 73–93.
Danis, W. M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). e impact of
managerial networking intensity and market-based strategies on firm
growth during institutional upheaval: A study of small and mediumsized
enterprises in a transition economy. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41(2): 287–307.
DeLong, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to
knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4): 113–
127.
Gilbert, K., & Cartwright, S. (2008). Cross-cultural consultancy initiatives to
develop Russian managers: An analysis of five Western aid-funded
programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4): 504–
518.
Gilbert, K., & Gorlenko, E. (1999). Transplant and process-oriented
approaes to international management development: An evaluation of
British-Russian co-operation. Human Resource Development
International, 2(4): 335–354.
Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management
perspective. New York: Wiley.
Holden, N. J., & Cooper, C. (1994). Russian managers as learners:
Implications for theories of management learning. Management
Learning, 25(4): 503–522.
Holden, N. J., & Glisby, M. (2010). Creating knowledge advantage: The tacit
dimensions of international competition and cooperation. Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business Sool Press.
Holden, N. J., Cooper, C. L., & Carr, J. (1998). Dealing with the New Russia:
Management cultures in collision. New York: Wiley.
Judge, W., Miassoedov, S., & Naoumova, I. (2004). e past, present and
future states of Russian management education. International Journal of
Business & Management Education, 12: 1–20.
Kozlova, T., & Puffer, S. M. (1994). Public and private business sools in
Russia: Problems and prospects. European Management Journal, 12(4):
462–468.
Kuznetsov, E. (2004). Meanisms to stimulate innovation-based growth in
Russia. Problems of Economic Transition, 46(9): 35–65.
May, R. C., & Stewart, W. H. (2013). Building theory with BRICs: Russia’s
contribution to knowledge sharing theory. Critical Perspectives on
International Business, 9(1/2): 147–172.
May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2005). Transferring management
knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approa. Academy of
Management Executive, 19(2): 24–35.
May, R. C., Stewart, W. H., Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., & Ledgerwood, D.
E. (2011). Predictors of individual knowledge acquisition commitment in
a post-Soviet seing. Management International Review, 51(5): 697–728.
McCarthy, D. J. (1991). Developing a program for Soviet managers. Journal
of Management Development, 10(5): 26–31.
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W.
H. (2008). Overcoming resistance to ange in Russian organizations: e
legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3): 221–
235.
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., Graham, L. R., & Satinsky, D. M. (2014).
Emerging innovation in emerging economies: Can institutional reforms
help Russia break through its historical barriers? Thunderbird
International Business Review, 56(3): 243–260.
Miailova, S., & Hollinshead, G. (2009). Western management training in
Eastern Europe: Trends and developments over a decade. Human
Resource Development International, 12(2): 117–133.
Miailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian
firms. California Management Review, 45(3): 59–77.
Miailova, S., & Jormanainen, I. (2011). Knowledge transfer between
Russian and Western firms: Whose absorptive capacity is in question?
Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(3): 250–270.
Puffer, S. M. (1981). Inside a Soviet Management Institute. California
Management Review, 24(1): 90–96.
Rosatom. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2013, from hp://www.rosatom.ru
Russian Railways. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2013, from
hp://www.rzd.ru
Secret Firmi (Secret of the firm). (n.d.). Business School rankings 2007–2013.
Retrieved September, 2013, from hp://www.strana-rosatom.ru.
Strana Rosatom. (n.d.). Retrieved September, 2013, from hp://www.strana-
rosatom.ru
Struyk, R. J. (2007). Factors in successful program implementation in Russia
during the transition: Pilot programs as a guide. Public Administration
and Development, 27(1): 63–83.
Vikhanski, O. S., & Puffer, S. M. (1993). Management education and
employee training at Moscow McDonald’s. European Management
Journal, 11(1): 102–107.
Wang, P., Tong, T. W., & Koh, C. P. (2004). An integrated model of
knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of
World Business, 39(2): 168–182.
Warner, W., Denezhkina, E., & Campbell, A. (1994). How Russian managers
learn. Journal of General Management, 19(4): 69–88.
Zhuplev, A., & Shein, V. (2008). Emerging issues and trends in business and
management career development under the market transformation in
Russia. Journal of International Management, 2(1): 89–106.
25
Intercultural encounters as socially
constructed experiences
Whi concepts? Whi pedagogies?

Prue Holmes

Intercultural encounters in the workplace are frequently plurilingual,

intercultural, socially constructed interactions that are situated in time,
place, space and purpose. Competence in one encounter can very quily
manifest as incompetence in another supposedly similar context. is
complexity puts into question formulaic, essentialist models of intercultural
communication and competence that have aracterized mu cross-cultural
business/management education. While these approaes provide some
insights into behaviour and communication of people in ‘Culture X’, they
oen result in stereotyping, grounded in ethnocentric and prejudiced
aitudes; and this stereotyping, in turn, may lead to ‘othering’.
One response to these static models of how culture is understood has seen
the rise in popularity of theories and models of intercultural competence,
oen subscribing to the idea that communication with (cultural) others
should be both ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ to enable individuals to ‘aieve
their goals’. is position is exemplified in the definition offered by Spitzberg
and Changnon (2009)—whi emerged from their seminal synthesis of
multiple models of intercultural competence—as ‘the appropriate and
effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or
another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behaviour
orientations to the world’ (p. 7). us, the term ‘intercultural competence’
and the variety of models, frameworks and theories in its name, have come
to be seen by some in the cross-cultural communication literature as both a
panacea and a solution when interacting with people from other cultures.
In this apter I begin by outlining some reasons why traditional cross-
cultural management education and training approaes are no longer
appropriate in the second decade of the twenty-first century, and some
shortcomings of the theoretical concept ‘intercultural competence’. I discuss
how terms su as ‘culture’ and ‘identity’, when no longer treated as solid
and static states, and multilingualism offer possibilities for new
understandings of intercultural encounters. In my own teaing approa I
encourage students to engage in practices and in resear and assessment
tasks that invite them to move beyond a preoccupation with aggregate
and/or static models of culture and cultural differences. By drawing on
social constructionism as a theoretical standpoint for understanding and
experiencing intercultural encounters, I provide a possible pedagogy and
possible assessment approa that invites learners to consider more deeply
the nature of intercultural encounters, and simultaneously, monitor their
own intercultural communication within them.

e limits of traditional approaes to cross-

cultural communication
e need for frameworks for understanding culture and difference emerged
with the deployment of foreign nationals to other countries in the wake of
World War II (Martin & Nakayama 2012). Several cultural values
frameworks emerged and have remained popular in cross-cultural
management education (e.g. Hall 1998; Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars
1998; Hofstede 1980; House et al. 2004; Kluhohn & Strodtbe 1961). ese
cultural dimensions frameworks tended to conceptualize culture as bounded,
and adhering to rule-based paerns of beliefs, values and communication
norms. e shared value orientations (or dimensions) represented the most
deeply felt beliefs shared by a cultural group and a shared perception of
what ought to be, rather than what is (Martin & Nakayama 2012). e
frameworks, informed by social science approaes, permit generalizations
and predictions about communication and behaviour within a particular
culture (or nation-state); however, Hofstede (1980) warned that his cultural
dimensions model should not be used for predictive work. Further social
science approaes include Gudykunst’s (2005) anxiety uncertainty
management theory, and Ting-Toomey’s (2010) face negotiation theory,
whi presents variables of collectivism and individualism to measure face
negotiation strategies used to manage or avoid conflict. Similarly, cross-
cultural psyologists (e.g. Cushner & Brislin 1996; Pederson 2001) have
drawn on variables of nationality, ethnicity, personality and gender to
measure cultural difference.
Su models have been widely used in management diversity training
(Landis et al. 2004). e training programmes that draw on them provide
guidelines, rules, ‘how to’ manuals, steps, progressions and scales for
self/other assessment (e.g. to demonstrate intercultural competence) or
measurable learning outcomes. Su tangible evidence is important for
organizations in justifying the application of training programmes, or for
universities in identifying pathways to developing students’ intercultural
and global competencies for employability.
While su frameworks and categorizations may be useful as sense-
making strategies for human behaviour, they are soon rendered unhelpful
when people find that what worked in one time and place failed in the same
place a day later, or what worked in one context also succeeded in quite a
different context. Holliday et al. (2004, p. 3) argue that su approaes lead
to ‘otherization’ where the other is imagined as ‘alien and different to “us”
in su a way that “they” are excluded from “our” “normal”, “superior” and
“civilized” group’. Furthermore, Hofstede’s work has already been heavily
discredited methodologically and theoretically, as drawing on Western-
centric models that make sense of the other through an imperial and
colonial gaze (Chuang 2003; McSweeney 2002). Intercultural communication
is about establishing commonalities and similarities as well as boundaries,
building bridges as well as isolating and negotiating points of difference, and
engaging in conflict in order to recognize competing and partisan
standpoints.

Intercultural competence: panacea or problem?

While the social science frameworks described have been heavily criticized,
the concept of inter-cultural competence has emerged in the past 25 years as
a tour de force. Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) definition (provided at the
outset) addresses the focus in many models on the individual per se and
individual traits, reflecting ‘decades of systems-theoretic perspectives’ (p. 7).
By focusing on an individual’s goal aievement and end results, the
definition responds to the limited aention paid to the emotional and
relational aspects of (intercultural) communication and how people manage
intercultural relations, and shared experience and understanding. Barre
(2011) highlights further problems with many of these models in that they
have ethnocentric biases, e.g. they were developed in the US, tested in
restricted and limited conditions (e.g. oen among monocultural populations
of students in large undergraduate university courses as data sources), and
therefore la cross-cultural generalizability. However, it could be argued
that any model that aempts to provide some kind of generalizability from
one (cultural) context to another may in itself be problematic.
Perhaps the most influential model of intercultural competence has been
that of Byram (1997). His model, conceived initially for application within
the context of foreign language education, is constructed around five savoirs
that reflect skills, knowledge, aitudes, behaviours and critical cultural
awareness. While the model is still highly influential internationally, Byram
(2012) himself has gathered five criticisms of it as follows: the model 1) fails
to adequately handle the affective dimension (for example, see Borghei’s
2011 analysis); 2) is considered structuralist, i.e. a set of stable savoirs that
permit categorization, whereas a post-structuralist account would see the
savoirs as inseparable (see Krams 2009); 3) treats language and culture as
two separate entities (see Risager 2012); 4) neglects nonverbal
communication; and 5) presents a nationalistic and essentialist
understanding of culture (see Belz 2007). Finally, aempts to assess
intercultural competence are under construction, but how to assess, in
particular, the affective dimension, still remain unresolved (e.g. Deardorff
2009 and in press; Fantini 2009).
e savoir that has continued to gain aention has been savoir s’engager
(the ability to interpret, evaluate and negotiate, on the basis of explicit
criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and others’
cultures, whi may lead to some degree of acceptance of new ideas). is
critical cultural awareness is important in becoming an ‘intercultural citizen’
(Byram 2008), who can reflect on intercultural encounters, behave and
interact ethically, and take action to address issues of injustice. Porto’s (2014)
pedagogic study is illustrative of this concept in action. She describes an
action resear project to develop online intercultural citizenship experience,
through a comparative methodology that involved online interaction
between 50 English foreign language teaer trainees in a university in
Argentina and 30 Spanish language students in a university in the United
Kingdom (UK). Students exanged texts (e.g. photographs, posters,
powerpoint slides, wrien reflection logs, videos, advertisements)
concerning the Malvinas/ Falklands war in 1982. eir exanges were
aracterized by processes of comparing and contrasting at different levels
(e.g. intergenerational, past/present orientations, differing points of view),
de-centring (placing oneself outside of the context to engage in critical
reflection) and critical evaluation and reflection. rough their exanges
they developed a critical perspective of these texts and an international
identification and understanding of the war, different from their national
and regional one. Porto noted that ‘the highest levels of criticality as in
Barne (1997) were observed, namely the refashioning of traditions and the
transformatory critique in action’ (p. 257).
Despite the limitations and criticisms outlined of Byram’s and others’
models of intercultural competence, their application is evidenced in
multiple domains, e.g. management, healthcare, counselling, social work,
education and psyology. ey continue to aract aention as training and
measurement tools, but need cautionary treatment, given these limitations.

e need for new conceptualizations

e phenomenon of globalization allenges the usefulness of the previously
discussed static models, and their accompanying notions of a bounded
nation-state and ‘national culture’. Borders have become porous as people
pass easily—and increasingly, uneasily—through them. Languages, religions,
cultural practices and beliefs are relocated, reconstructed, negotiated,
contested and endorsed among local people, migrants, traders, border guards
and police, officials, translators and interpreters. Whether at borders, in the
workplace or in the community, these new social, political and economic
conditions of the twenty-first century require critical understandings of
culture, identity and language that question power positions and
individuals’ rights of spee and representation (Krog 2011). How people
(re)present themselves in these complex spaces, and the (intercultural)
communicative abilities they demand allenge the traditional theoretical
and pedagogical approaes found in intercultural communication and
cross-cultural management education.

Culture and representation

Understandings of culture have become more complex. For example,

Hannerz (1992 as cited in Risager 2012) allenges the concept of culture as
‘enculturation’ or learned paerns of behaviour, transmied over time from
generation to generation, shared by the people living in that group, and
consisting of shared symbols and artefacts. According to Hannerz,
individuals bring their ideas and modes of thought, developed throughout
their life histories, to encounters. ese are made accessible to others and to
the public in communication, and in other creative ways, and then spread
among local and more widespread populations and within and across social
relationships. is situation therefore favours a post-modern
conceptualization of culture: one that accommodates complexity and
fracture, displacement and replacement, (re)construction and (re)negotiation,
and shaping and reshaping in accordance with flows of people and the
languages and the cultural practices they carry with them (Grossberg 1996;
Risager 2012). For example, Shi-Xu (2001, p. 283) defines culture as:
a set of meaningful practices, where meanings oen have to do with su things as the origin,
race, ethnicity, religion, language, nationality and paerns of thinking and acting, associated with
a particular group of people from a particular geo-political place and historical time, and where
practices are constituted in historically situated, social, largely discursive, interaction. In this
sense, su meaningful practices are forms of cultural and historical subjectivity, as opposed to
cultural ‘facts’ upheld by positivism.

us, the term ‘culture’ calls for a broader understanding and consideration
of a range of related concepts: multiple identities, essentialism,
ethnocentrism, prejudice, power, hybridity (and its opposite,
monoculturalism), difference (and similarity), agency (and group affiliation)
and resistance (and compliance). In this light, understanding the meaning of
culture, and how people oose to represent themselves within their own
cultural community in intercultural encounters—anywhere— becomes a
complex undertaking.

The multifaceted nature of identity

A second complication lies in the complexity of identity. Critical

understandings of identity (e.g. Hall 1991; Holliday 2010a, 2010b) recognize
the multifaceted, relational, contingent and contextual nature of an
individual’s identity, anowledging the influence of history, geography
(region, locality), religion, nationality, language, ethnicity, gender, power,
ethics and less commonly discussed notions of social class/status,
privilege/disadvantage, (dis)ability, education, emotion, kinship positions
and societal and family roles. Making sense of the interplay among these
variables means that assigning identity markers to individuals becomes
meaningless: identity is a fluid or liquid ambiguous concept (Dervin 2012)
brought into being in interaction and through the relationships people hold
with one another, whether proximate or distant. Holliday (2012, 2013) and
Holliday et al. (2004) offer many case studies that illustrate how identity is
assigned to individuals, usually erroneously, drawing on specific variables—
particularly national, linguistic, ethnic—whi can result in ‘otherizing’ or
peripherizing a person’s identity, rendering an individual feeling less than
they are. Instead, he promotes the notion of critical cosmopolitan identities
that allow individuals to perform their multiple roles and project a different,
more authentic image of who they are through their own agency and
discursive practices. Teaers and practitioners are encouraged to draw on
these examples in their teaing of intercultural communication.

Multilingualism and linguacultures

Within the United States’ tradition of intercultural communication, Noels et

al. (2012) note that language is ‘at best tangential’ in resear, perhaps
because the ‘use of one single, dominant language [English] is assumed’
along with an ‘emphasis on the non-linguistic aspects of culture and
communication during its formative years’ (p. 59). is omission ignores the
importance of the spread of languages in the context of globalization. In fact,
Risager (2012, p. 101) reminds us that ‘language is intimately related to
nation, people, and culture’. Drawing on Hannerz’s ideas of cultural
complexity and global cultural flows, she introduces the concept of
‘linguaculture’, suggesting that the ways in whi languages are used and
practised depends on the functions their users put them to in specific
contexts, and also on the linguistic resources users bring, resources that are
developed during a person’s socialization and life history. Just like culture,
people carry their linguistic resources from one cultural context to another.
Rural– urban migrations and south–north shis of peoples create hieraries
and struggles among language users for power and recognition (Bourdieu
1991; Risager 2012). Examples of lingua-cultures are evidenced in
Blommaert’s (2013) ethnographic study of a Belgian locality. Dut linguistic
forms, displayed in signage, merge with the languages of the people
migrating into the community to respond to their social, cultural, religious
and economic needs. Pennycook’s (2011) resear on metrolingualism in
workplaces in Sydney shows how workers use multiple languages in various
contexts to carry out work and socially related tasks. ese studies illustrate
how linguistic oice is informed by the micro-context of interactions, e.g. at
local level in terms of languages in use in the community or workplace, or at
the macro-level where the state oen determines the language regime, e.g. in
sools, and again, in the workplace (Piller 2011).
To conclude, the conceptualizations of culture, identity and language
described here open up new lines of investigation in cross-cultural
management education, anowledging the complexity and fluidity entailed
in ea concept. ey render intercultural encounters as sites for mutual
engagement where individuals perform appropriate identities and jostle for
power and recognition of their multiple roles drawing on linguistic resources
—both prescribed according to context, and improvised according to need.
Understanding culture, language and identity as socially constructed in
intercultural cultural communication offers new ways for understanding
others, but more importantly, new ways for engagement and social
inclusion.

Beyond intercultural competence: new concepts,

new pedagogies
Recent solarship has addressed the concept of intercultural dialogue as a
way of negotiating positions of difference and working through conflict
towards peace, reconciliation and democracy. However, the concept has
been criticized for its failure to recognize the similarities people share in
encounters, and its use as a tool to promote European integration and
feelings of belonging within the EU (Hoskins & Sallah 2011) and as a
political instrument to manage cultural diversity and variation (Näss 2010).
Phipps (2014, p. 108) is strident in her critique:
[T]his concept is one whi may work and make sense in stable, open and equal jurisdictions
where there is relative ‘freedom from fear and want’, but … it is at best, limited and at worst,
dangerous when used in situations of conflict and aggression and under the creeping conditions of
precarity whi mark out the present form of globalisation.

Further or alternative approaes have developed in response to the

limitations of theories of intercultural competence, for example, by
foregrounding ethics, social justice and responsibility. To this end, Crosbie
(2014) has developed a capability approa, trialled as an action-resear
project among language learners, through content and language integrated
learning in the English language classroom of an Irish university. She draws
on Nussbaum’s idea of capabilities in democratic citizenship education, and
Sen’s notion of individuals’ freedom in reasoning and decision-making. By
emphasizing ‘the freedom and agency that an individual has to be and to
act’, she encourages her learners to make ethically informed oices and
respond to critical issues of social and ethical injustices. Ferri (2014),
drawing on the work of Levinas, argues for an ethical model that
anowledges the interdependence of Self and Other, the role of power, and
an awareness of the position of the self as a potential all-knowing subject
capable of silencing others. is understanding of intercultural dialogue
resonates strongly with calls for non-Euro/US-centric approaes to
intercultural communication that point to the importance of relationality,
harmony and the circularity of human existence (Miike 2007). ese
approaes provide new ways of conceptualizing and teaing intercultural
communication.
 In addition, in a previous publication (Holmes 2012), I summarized more
recent developments in management education. For example, several
trainers and researers have drawn on interpretive/experiential learning
approaes, e.g. Mughan (2009) in his small- to mediumsized enterprises
resear, and Tomalin’s (2009) learning cycle—activity, debrief, conclusion,
implementation—drawing on Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning modes.
Others have explored critical intercultural action and reflexivity, e.g. Ja’s
(2009) critical work that invites his learners to examine and question the
hegemony and cultural imperialism of the dominating colonial structures
responsible for (Eurocentric) managerialism, and to develop in Foucault’s
terms, ‘practices of liberation’ (1984, p. 102, as cited in Ja 2009); that is,
other ways of relating to oneself and others. A third theme—intercultural
teamwork—encourages learners to appreciate the complexity of teamwork
processes, the inherent ethnocentric values of team members, the range of
emotional responses engendered by teamwork and issues of resistance by
engaging in learner/teaer dialogue and co-constructed learning
(Coburn-Wooen et al. 2008). Guilherme et al. (2010) have initiated a
model of intercultural responsibility that facilitates teamwork in
intercultural teams in the context of the European workplace. ey invite
learners to ‘look for the Other in ourselves’, to engage in a critical cycle of
‘reflective, exploratory, dialogical and active stance towards cultural
knowledge and life’ through processes of self and social discovery, and
‘languaging’ (p. 4).
is overview of approaes, related studies and their critiques indicates
that studying inter-cultural encounters is a complex maer, whi requires
tools of understanding and interpretation that permit complex description
and analysis. is new situation creates possibilities for researers and
teaers. In responding to these allenges I now turn to my own approa,
where I draw on critical/interpretive theories and methodologies, to develop
a pedagogy of intercultural encounters.
A social constructionist approa to teaing
intercultural encounters
How people interact with others, in whatever context, is very mu
influenced by the ability to recognize, but also braet, one’s own specific
worldview (ontology), knowledge claims (epistemology) and understandings
of the standard ‘rules’ of intercultural engagement (methodology). I
understand intercultural communication as a socially constructed affair,
where ways of speaking, doing, believing and hoping are displayed, shared
and contested among interlocuters in the here and now. Mu of this
(reflexive) understanding has emerged from my own experiences as a
teaer and researer in diverse linguistic, cultural, historical, social and
geographical locations, e.g. Italy, China, Austria, Hong Kong (Holmes 2014).
I see intercultural communication as aracterized by how communicators
understand and interpret the inter-relationship of notions of context, power,
communication ‘rules’ and rituals (see, for example, Holliday 2012; Martin &
Nakayama 2012), and relationality (e.g. Miike 2007). ese understandings
and interpretations guide interlocutors’ interactions, and in the process of
communication, further (re)construction, (re)negotiation and
(re)presentation is likely: perspectives and understandings are upheld and/or
modified through experience and interaction.
ese understandings have helped me to realize that preparing people for
working, living and/or studying in another place requires complex and
nuanced tools and pedagogies. Learning about others, including significant
others and neighbours, is a lifelong endeavour. I now describe two examples
of ‘intercultural pedagogy’: one from my own resear that invites learners
to explore and reflect on the intercultural situations they encounter through
student-centred teaing, learning and resear approaes; and another, a
joint European project entitled Intercultural Education Resources for
Erasmus Students and their Teaers (IEREST), whi offers a suite of
intercultural developmental and critical awareness-raising activities for a
stay abroad.
 e first resear project focuses on developing students’ self-
understanding of their intercultural capabilities through intercultural
encounters with a cultural Other. Students were assigned a resear task
requiring them to engage in extended intercultural interaction with someone
from another culture over several encounters through processes of
preparation, engagement, evaluation and reflection—the PEER approa
(Holmes & O’Neill 2010, 2012). Drawing on their intercultural
communication and experience in the context of those encounters, they then
wrote an auto-ethnography of their experience in whi they reflected on
and evaluated their own intercultural competence. e findings from their
auto-ethnographies suggested that defining, acquiring and evaluating
intercultural competence is complex, messy and iterative. e findings
indicated that communication is influenced and/or constrained by religious,
cultural, ethnic and value differences, and may involve (re)construction and
(re)negotiation of an individual’s inter-cultural communication and identity.
e outcomes of the project indicated the importance of reflection on
intercultural experience in understanding and assessing one’s own
competence. Further, the intercultural encounter proved to be a useful place
for this experience.1
I have also used socially constructed interactional assignments prior to
this project. For example, business students in New Zealand and Israel
produced and exanged a five-minute video clip of a sales presentation of
an academic program in their university and then evaluated the video and
exanged responses for discussion and feedba. e task enabled students
to understand the complex cultural interpretations individuals apply to
professional texts and thus develop their potential in global professional
communication.2 A second activity required student researers to
undertake an e-mail and follow-up face-to-face interview with an
immigrant to investigate how ICTs shaped the immigrants’ communication
practices, and consequently, how those practices impacted the selement
process (at work and socially). Students learned valuable resear skills and
interviewing teniques, how to manage intercultural interactions within
the interviews and how to build relationships through rapport and trust as
they arranged and conducted the interviews (see Holmes & Janson 2008, for
an account of this pedagogy).
e second resear project, IEREST, consists of intercultural activities for
pre-, during- and post-stay abroad. e activities aim to expose mobile
students (ERASMUS/international) to understandings of interculturality that
are reflected in the critiques I have raised earlier, and that question many of
the long-standing assumptions in the field. e activities encourage students
to understand culture as a fluid, socially constructed concept, that people
hold multiple identities and oose when and how to perform these, and
that power is central in intercultural communication encounters. e
activities, drawing on video clips, texts, interviews and students’ own
interactions and experience are informed by Kolb’s (1984) modes of
experiential learning. For example, in preparing for study abroad, students
aend workshops to discuss and engage with concepts of stereotyping,
essentializing, prejudice, racism (promulgated by media representations of
others) and the narratives people tell of themselves or are told of them by
others. ey encourage students to critically reflect on their own
engagement with others, but also on how understandings of others are
socially constructed by the communicative practices of the people,
organizations and structures in society.3
rough the experiences students gain from these resear projects, and
in their reflections on them, students are in a beer position to take action,
to work ethically and responsibly with others through negotiated
understandings. ese projects enable them to develop a sense of self,
including understandings of their own cultural, religious, historical,
gendered, local/regional, etc. identity, an important transformative stage in
developing responsible and ethical communication as global citizens. While
these activities are designed for Erasmus (European Community Action
Seme for the Mobility of University Students) students going abroad in
particular, they could also be used to prepare other study-abroad students
for intercultural experience, and applied to other intercultural learning
contexts, e.g. modules on intercultural communication/
competence/encounters, promoting intercultural understanding and
engagement in the context of internationalization between international and
non-international students and developing intercultural competencies for
employability in the (global) workplace.

Conclusion
In this apter I have argued that complex paerns of migration, selement
and mobility have resulted in communities of people who may or may not
share languages, histories, geographical displacement and replacement,
memories and so on. In the twenty-first century people must jostle for
employment and social, economic and political legitimacy in the face of
stable and unstable governments, corporations, organizations and language
regimes. ese unseled times call into question the usefulness of earlier
static and essentialist models of culture and cultural difference—the staples
of intercultural communication textbooks and training programmes.
Instead, students need new ways of learning how to connect, work
together and learn (Edwards & Usher 2008). Teaers need methods that
allow their students to experience and explore intercultural interactions, to
encounter similarity and difference in real-life contexts. Students need ways
of understanding how interlocutors socially construct their own and others’
identities in and through intercultural communication. is understanding
can be developed by teaers providing real-life opportunities for prolonged
engagement with other people in communities, the workplace, or via study-
abroad experience. I have offered several examples of student resear
activities and tasks that facilitate this approa. In addition, experiential
activities found in vignees, case studies, problem-solving activities, online
or web-based training tools and online intercultural exanges (e.g., O’Dowd
2007; Storti 2009) are useful in this aim.
However, teaers should evaluate all framework, models and methods
according to how they promote intercultural learning. ey should esew
static, essentialist descriptions of cultures and nations in favour of
approaes that facilitate understandings of identity and culture as fluid,
dynamic and socially constructed, and that encourage critical questioning of
positionality, power and who speaks for whom in what language(s). Finally,
teaers should select approaes and methods according to the insights that
they evoke in learners about interculturality, rather than for ‘successful’
intercultural communication. As Phipps (2013) reminds us, realizing one’s
own incompetence also creates new and other possibilities for engagement.

Notes
1 e details of how this resear assignment for students was developed and taught is described in
an earlier publication (Holmes & O’Neill, 2010), whi outlines the pedagogy and method
employed with students; and a later publication (Holmes & O’Neill, 2012), whi provides a
theoretical understanding of students’ understandings of their own developing intercultural
competence through a sustained series of intercultural encounters with a ‘cultural other’.

2 See Zaidman and Holmes (2009) for an account of this study and its pedagogy.

3 e IEREST project has produced materials to prepare study-abroad students for intercultural
interaction prior to their departure, once in their study-abroad context, and then when they have
returned to their home institution. More about the project and activities are available at
hp://www.ierest-project.eu/).

References
Barre, M. (2011). Intercultural competence. Statement series. Retrieved
from
hp://www.theewc.org/uploads/content/Intercultural%20Competence.pd
f
Belz, J. A. (2007). e development of intercultural competence in online
interaction. In O’Dowd, R. (Ed.), On-line intercultural exchange: A
 practical introduction for foreign language teachers (163–215). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Maers.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes:
Chronicles of complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Borghei, C. (2011). A critical stance on the assessment of intercultural
competence: Some ethical issues. CEFcult seminar, 11 September,
Chambéry, France. hp://cefcult.eu/data/Claudia_Borghei.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative
competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers. Byram, M. (2008). From
foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship:
Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Byram, M.S. (2012). Re-visiting intercultural communicative competence.
Paper presented at the CultNet Conference, 27–29 April, Sool of
Education, Durham University.
Chuang, R. (2003). A postmodern critique of cross-cultural and intercultural
communication resear:Contesting essentialism, positivist dualism, and
Eurocentricity. In W. Starosta and G-M. Chen (Eds.) Ferment in the
intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (24–55). ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Coburn-Wooen, C., Holmes, P., & Simpson, M. (2008) (Guest Editorial).
Teaing teamwork in business communication/management programs.
Business Communication Quarterly, 71: 417–420. Crosbie, V. (2014).
Capabilities for intercultural dialogue. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 14(1): 91–107.
Crosbie, V. (2014). Capabilities for intercultural dialogue. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 14(1): 91–107.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide.
ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In
D. Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (477–
491). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. (in press). Demystifying outcomes asssessment for
international educators: A practical approach. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Dervin, F. (2012). Cultural identity, representation and othering. In J. Jason
(Ed.) Routledge handbook of intercultural communication (181–194).
London & New York: Routledge.
Edwards, R. & Usher, R. (2008). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place
and identity. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4): 490–492.
Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D.
Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (456–
476). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferri, G. (2014). Ethical communication and intercultural responsibility: A
philosophical perspective. Language and Intercultural Communication,
14(1): 7–23.
Grossberg, P. (1996). Identity and cultural studies – Is that all there is? In S.
Hall and P. du Gay (Eds.) Questions of cultural identity (87–107).
London: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B. (2005). An Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM)
theory of effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In
W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.) Theorizing about intercultural communication
(281–323). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guilherme, M., Glaser, E., & Mendez-Garcia, M.C. (2010). The intercultural
dynamics of multicultural working. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Hall, E.T. (1998). e power of hidden differences., In M.J. Benne (Ed.) Basic
concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (53–68).
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A.D. King
(Ed.) Culture, globalization and the world-system (40–68). New York:
Palgrave.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1998). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Holliday, A. (2010a).
 Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 10(2): 1–13.
Holliday, A. (2010b). Cultural descriptions as political cultural acts: An
exploration. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(3): 259–272.
Holliday, A. (2012). Culture, communication, context, and power. In J.
Jason (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of intercultural communication
(37–51). London: Routledge.
Holliday, A. (2013). Understanding intercultural communication: Negotiating
a grammar of culture. London: Routledge.
Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004). Intercultural communication:
An advanced resource. London:Routledge.
Holmes, P. (2012). Business and management education. In J. Jason (Ed.)
The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication
(466–482). London: Routledge.
Holmes, P. (2014). Researing Chinese students’ intercultural
communication experiences in Higher Education: Researer and
participant reflexivity. In J. Byrd-Clarke and F. Dervin (Eds.) Reflexivity
and multimodality in language education: Rethinking multilingualism
and interculturality in accelerating complex and transnational spaces
(100–118). New York: Routledge.
Holmes, P., & Janson, A. (2008). Migrants’ communication practices with
ICTs: Tools for facilitating migration and adaptation? International
Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 4: 51–62.
Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2010). (Auto)ethnography and (self)reflection:
Tools for assessing intercultural competence. In J. Tsau and S. Houghton
(Eds.) Becoming intercultural: Inside and outside the classroom (167–
193). Cambridge: Cambridge Solars.
Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural
competence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(5): 707–718.
Hoskins, B., & Sallah, M. (2011). Developing intercultural competence in
Europe: e allenges. Language and Intercultural Communication,
11(2): 113–125.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.)
(2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ja, G. (2009). A critical perspective on teaing intercultural competence in
a management department. In A. Feng, M. Byram and M. Fleming (Eds)
Becoming interculturally competent through education and training (95–
114). Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Kluhohn, F., & Strodtbe, F (1961). Variations in value orientations.
Chicago: Row: Peterson.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krams, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Krog, A. (2011). In the name of human rights: I say (how) you (should) speak
(before I listen). In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage
handbook of qualitative research 4th edition, (381–386). ousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Landis, D., Benne, J.M., & Benne, M.J. (Eds) (2004). Handbook of
intercultural training 4th edition. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2012) Intercultural communication in contexts
6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human
Relations, 55: 89–118.
Miike, Y. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in
communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74: 272–278.
Mughan, T. (2009). Exporting the multiple market experience and the SME
intercultural paradigm. In A. Feng, M. Byram, and M. Fleming (Eds.)
Becoming interculturally competent through education and training (32–
51). Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Näss, H.E. (2010). e ambiguities of intercultural dialogue: Critical
perspectives on the European Union’s new agenda for culture. Journal of
 Intercultural Communication, 23. Retrieved from
hp://immi.se/intercultural.
Noels, K.A., Yashima, T., & Zhang, R. (2012). Language, identity and
intercultural communication. In J. Jason (Ed.) Routledge handbook of
language and intercultural communication (52–66). New York:
Routledge.
O’Dowd, R. (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for
foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Pedersen, P. (2001). Multiculturalism and the paradigm shi in counselling:
Controversies and alternative futures. Canadian Journal of Counselling,
35(1): 15–25.
Pennycook, A. (2011). Social inclusion and metrolingual practices.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4):
413–426.
Phipps, A. (2013). Linguistic incompetence: Giving an account of researing
multilingually. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(3): 329–
341.
Phipps, A. (2014). ‘ey are bombing now’: e meaninglessness of
‘intercultural dialogue’ in times of conflict. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 14(1): 108–124.
Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL online project
in Argentina. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(2): 245–
261.
Risager, K. (2012). Linguaculture and transnationality: e cultural
dimensions of language. In J. Jason (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of
language and intercultural communication (101–115). London:
Routledge.
Shi-Xu (2001). Critical pedagogy and intercultural communication: Creating
discourses of diversity, equality, common goals and rational–moral
motivation. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 22(3): 279–293.
Spitzberg, B., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural
competence. In D. Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage handbook of intercultural
competence (2–52). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storti, C. (2009). Intercultural competence in human resources. In D.
Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (272–
286). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2010). Intercultural conflict interaction competence: From
theory to practice. In M. Guilherme, E. Glaser, and M.C. Mendez-Garcia
(Eds.) The intercultural dynamics of multicultural working (21–40).
Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Tomalin, B. (2009). Applying the principles: Instruments for intercultural
business training. In A. Feng, M. Byram and M. Fleming (Eds) Becoming
interculturally competent through education and training (32–51).
Clevedon: Multilingual Maers.
Zaidman, N., & Holmes, P. (2009). Business communication as cultural text:
Exange and feedba of promotional video clips. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 33: 535–349.
26
In sear of an international
experience
Towards a ‘Bildung’ understanding of MBA
learning

Sarah Robinson

Introduction

is apter explores the professional and personal developmental aspects of

internationalized management education by focusing on the whole student
experience rather than on expected outcomes of taught programmes.
Drawing on a study of 46 full-time MBA students at UK universities, it
considers to what extent the overall learning experience can help students to
prepare for the complexity of the international workplace. It presents stories
demonstrating how cross-cultural encounters help students widen their own
spheres of reference, question deeply held assumptions about other cultures
and nationalities, overcome conflict and the discomfort of the unfamiliar
and find coping strategies for dealing with difficult interpersonal situations.
is study uses Bildung, the idea of a journey or voyage as a shared learning
experience (Prange 2004), to reflect on what we can learn from students’
understandings of their lived experiences as a means of developing student-
informed approaes to cross-cultural learning. is apter makes a
distinctive contribution by bringing the study of cross-cultural management
nearer the actual practice of international business through drawing on the
experiences of students both with work experience and with ambitions to
develop as international managers. Second, through using the Bildung
metaphor, it aims to move beyond static models of complex cultural
interactions to ways of encouraging and supporting students to develop
through real-time cross-cultural interactions. It also suggests means for
cross-cultural educators to learn from their students and develop practice-
informed pedagogical frameworks for working with and learning from
cross-cultural nuance and complexity.

e internationalization of management education

in context
e internationalization of education is becoming an international
phenomenon as pursued by a variety of Higher Education (HE) systems and
governments, including Australia, Malaysia and the UK (see Warwi &
Moogan 2013). Although ‘internationalization’ is a hard concept to define
(Callan 2000), Knight (2003: 2) provides a working definition of the
internationalization of HE as ‘the process of integrating an international,
intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of
post-secondary education’. However, resear on internationalization in HE
has highlighted some la of clarity in institutional agendas and how these
relate to the practice of teaing and learning (Peelo & Luxon 2007; Turner
& Robson 2007; Warwi & Moogan 2013).
Internationalization of management education faces specific allenges
including how it can (a) support the professional development demands of
an increasingly international workplace in the context of global socio-
economic anges (Edwards et al. 2003); (b) accommodate the increasingly
discerning international needs of students within well-embedded existing
knowledge systems (Jaya 2001; Sturdy & Gabriel 2000); and (c) cater for
growing student diversity and the desire for an international learning
experience (Case & Selvester 2000; Robinson 2006).
Responding to imperatives to cater for the needs of ‘aspiring international
managers’ (Case & Selvester 2000: 21) and develop an ‘international literacy’
(Edwards et al. 2003: 191), approaes have included standardized
‘tenicist’ (Grey & Mitev 1995) approaes to ‘dealing with’ difference and
otherness that border on cultural stereotyping (Riards 1997). ere have
also been issues about reproducing established assumptions and values
about what ‘international’ is or should be (Case & Selvester 2000: 12) and
there remain questions around how to develop the ability to think
comparatively and critically about difference (Reynolds & Trehan 2003;
Robinson 2006). Additionally, there are questions of how to link generic
management knowledge to specific contextual practice (Edwards et al. 2003:
185) and questions as to what constitutes international content and
curriculum. ere has been a tendency (a) to present Western constructions
as international (De Vita & Case 2003; Grey 2004) or (b) to add to or ‘infuse’
existing culturally situated curricula with cases and examples taken (and
decontextualized) from wider cultural seings (De Vita & Case 2003), thus
providing a ‘veneer of internationalisation’ (Edwards et al. 2003: 186). Su
knowledge may be out of date, biased and potentially offensive or
embarrassing to students (Robinson 2005).
How then can approaes to pedagogy and course delivery respond to
these allenges? Critical Management Education (CME) approaes (whi
highlight issues of power and possible forces of oppression leading to
emancipatory understanding of roles and positions) have been helpful in
informing the development of an international pedagogy. Here the
knowledge baground and experiences of the students are actively drawn
on and reflected on (Currie & Knights 2003; Ellio & Reynolds 2014) using
‘critical thought, self-analysis and reflection in international and inter-
cultural seings’ (Edwards et al. 2003: 191). Su critical reflection, Case and
Selvester (2000: 20) argue, is also required from the international educator,
who should try ‘to pay due reflexive deference to the historical, social and
geographical context of the knowledge and skills he or she brings to the
learning area’. is apter therefore links to practice by considering ways
of preparing students for cross-cultural work contexts and by discussing
anges to the practice of cross-cultural pedagogy with reference to
empirical resear presented in the following sections.

Researing the student experience

Studies of the international learning experience identify its commonly
disorienting and uncomfortable nature and the identity allenges it
presents for many students, whi might make learning from this difficult
(Currie 2007; Sliwa & Grandy 2007). Very rarely have the students been
asked what they want or expect from the experience of studying in an
internationalized environment and what they find useful and helpful either
in terms of developing themselves as international managers or for an
(imagined) international workplace (Ellio & Robinson 2012).
In responding to this gap, examining MBA students’ experiences is
pertinent because, as post-experience students with an immediate
connection to the world of work, they have concrete ideas about what skills
and behaviours they need to develop for their return to the workplace. is
connection has been explored in several studies including Ituma et al.’s
(2007) comparative study of former MBA students who had returned to
work. ey found differences in what students had taken from the
experience, with Chinese participants especially valuing the tenical skills
they acquired, whereas UK-based participants placed emphasis on personal
and interpersonal skill components (Ituma et al. 2007: 67). On the other
hand, using the concept of liminality, Simpson et al.’s (2009) study, drawing
on semi-structured interviews with Chinese former MBA students who
studied in the UK and returned to China, explores the transient nature of the
MBA experience. ese findings show a more developmental ‘time out of
time’ experience, a time away from work and distanced from the demands
of one’s own immediate context, whi can allow for reflection and an
emphasis on skills development but also provides an opportunity for
questioning and refocusing before embarking on the next stage of the career
journey.
Developing this idea, Ellio and Robinson’s (2012) study looks at
expectations or ‘imaginaries’ of MBA students, regarding what they imagine
the experience will bring them in terms of their future careers and personal
and professional development. Contrasting these with the sools’
projections of the learning experience through their websites, Ellio and
Robinson (2012) argue that the student experience is complex and nuanced,
involving in particular informal and inter-cultural learning from ea other.
Gabriel and Griffiths’s (2008) study of student experiences on one MBA
programme of working in international learning groups found, however,
mixed results: they argue that the ability of learning groups to see the
relevance of the experience to the future workplace depends to an extent on
the success of the group in overcoming difficulties and building mutual
respect within the group. Where this did not happen, unhappiness led to a
questioning of the legitimacy of the exercise. Empirical work that further
explores the benefits and issues raised by the complex and nuanced nature
of this ‘time out of time’ experience is presented as follows.

e MBA as development experience

is section draws on my study of five top-ranked UK MBA courses.
Cohorts with large numbers of different nationalities were osen and access
was sought through the head of the business sool, with emails for request
to interview circulated to students by the MBA director. e email outlined
the project and emphasized a desire to discuss the development of cross-
cultural skills and an international learning experience. From over 60 replies,
46 interviews were conducted, the emphasis being on aieving a cross-
section of nationalities and gender balance. e resear aimed to develop a
student-informed model of international management education, so posed
the questions: (1) What can we learn from our students’ understandings of
their lived experiences? (2) How can we conceptualize the findings and
identify ways of developing alternative frameworks for international MBA
education? Primary content analysis of interview transcripts revealed
detailed and vivid descriptions of the whole MBA experience. Motivations
for study abroad (or study within an international class) revealed a quest for
intercultural exange and learning about different cultures: ‘I hope to get
1
opportunity to understand, how Western people think’ (U1R4 ); and a desire
to participate in the international learning environment ‘(I wanted) A very
global perspective’ (U1R8). End-of-course reflections focused on the personal
and emotional allenge and life-anging elements of the experience: ‘I felt
very frustrated’ (U2R16), (it’s) ‘a kind of experience you can’t forget – you
will remember forever’ (U3R8) and also on the role of the programme in
allowing su learning to take place: ‘the context was created by the course’
(U3R10).
e study therefore looked at MBA learning as a holistic, individually
centred ‘learning journey’, whi parallels mu incidental workplace
learning and gives insights into how su deep developmental learning can
be encouraged and supported and linked to the world of practice. e study
draws on the concept of Bildung in developing the idea of management
education as a shared learning experience (Prange 2004). Translated roughly
as ‘learning’, the concept of Bildung may be best known with reference to
the Bildungsroman (the novel of Bildung) as developed in particular by
Goethe,2 whi shows a young person on a journey of learning from other
people and also of learning through the journey itself, where self-
development comes through meeting and learning from others (Kerr &
Robinson 2009). e Bildungsroman can be understood as the metaphorical
journey of a young person, whose learning is sometimes embedded in a
narrative journey. e concept of Bildung has been applied to foreign
language learning as a means of exploring the cultural and emotional
aspects of periods abroad (see Coffey & Street 2008). Within that field a new
emphasis on related ideas su as ‘Romanticism’, or ‘learning through the
emotive self’, are being employed in reaction to dominant instrumental
paradigms of language learning (Ros i Solé & Fenoulhet 2013), suggesting
instead a need to focus on the more emotive and developmental aspects of
cultural learning (Coffey 2013; McNamara 2013).
Bildung is used here as a means of focusing on the various stages and
features of the learning experience, whi are drawn out through substantial
extracts from the MBA students’ narrative journeys.3 rough these
extracts, students are le to speak for themselves, giving the reader a ance
to reflect on the sense of movement and development narrated and to notice
the importance and prevalence of emotions and creativity in the learning
process. As su, an (auto-) biographical ‘creative life writing’ approa (see
Phipps 2007; McNamara 2013) is adopted.

Starting out: the moment of crisis

Typically the Bildungsroman begins with a crisis for the protagonist,

something that acts as a spur to the journey, a turning point in life (Morei
1987: 175). In this extract a student from Sri Lanka outlines her motives for
doing an MBA in the UK.
I was working in my family firm in the last couple of years … and then I realised it is not exactly
what I want to do further on with the kind of commitment I didn’t feel capable of making and we
had I guess decided that I needed to move on. So I sorted out the family affairs and this is a great
thing now. I needed a ange I needed a break I’ve been working for eight years previously so a
good time. And an MBA would sort of help to build on what I had learnt that was what I was
expecting to build on all that work experience and also as a catalyst for anging direction that
was a main. … I’d been working in finance and also running the family business more on the
administration and finance grounds and I could say there was an element of I’m a bit stu in the
rut. I’m si of this, this is not making me happy anymore so that was a major reason to go into an
MBA.
(‘Athula’) (U4R1)

Here we see clear motivations, both personal and professional. ‘Athula’

shows that she has ideas and skills that need to be developed, but she also
recognizes a need for reflection and stotaking, a consideration of what to
do and where to go next. Here the importance of the ‘time out of time’ from
everyday routine and removed from everyday commitments seems to open
up the desire for learning and a creative approa as to what to do next (not
yet determined). Isolation and loneliness in her past role is also implicit,
perhaps emphasizing the importance of sharing experiences with peers in
terms of considering and evaluating future avenues. Her experience starts
with being clear on how her former role was stifling and anowledging the
reasons for this whi provides a segue into examining her role within the
existing social order and what she might want or need to do in order to
allenge or break away from this.

Lost in translation: transition and discomfort

Central to an understanding of the Bildungsroman is that it encodes an

examination of the relationship between an individual and the social order.
It presents the protagonist as an individual who is in ‘conflict with the
world’, who cannot reconcile ‘inner’ ideals with the ‘outer’ demands of
society (Morei 1987: 227). is realization may have been a trigger for
enrolling, as in the previous example, or something that becomes apparent
due to interactions with international peers within the confines of the
classroom. In the following extract a Chinese student describes how he
initially felt an outsider within the group work experience, even though he
had considerable skills to offer.
in the first term I felt very frustrated because of the group work. I was good at maths and I passed
but when I was in our course work group work I found in the first term I didn’t get respect from
my colleagues … I think the British people they are very proud they are British, sometimes they
didn’t listen other countries students, now in the second term I found out my problem and I’ve
tried to improve my English. I’ve tried to speak a lot and to put more resear for my course work
for my group work and in the second term I found it beer … if I want to do my part for example,
for four pages just A4 pages I spend two days, I know I must do well to get their respect, now I
think it’s fine.
(‘Wong’) (U2R16)
Striking aspects here are the anowledgement of prejudice, the inequalities
of language hieraries and a strong desire to prove himself, leading to
considerable personal skills development rather than directly allenging the
group assumptions. However, the feelings of discomfort that spurred the
self-improvement are reflected by the final comment ‘now I think it’s fine’;
so a pertinent question might be to what extent the other students noticed
and learned from the way the situation affected this student. Although the
Bildung journey can oen be quite solitary, learning from fellow travellers
in a reciprocal relationship can also be an important part of the experience
as illustrated by the next story.

Fellow travellers: meeting and learning from others

is extract illustrates Bildung as a shared learning experience (Prange

2004). Here a Nigerian student talks4 about forming close cross-cultural
relationships through allocated groups whi served to get the work done
but also to allenge long-held prejudices.
like my tutor group, we’ve got an Iranian, we have an Italian, we have a British, we’ve somebody
from Taiwan, so, myself from Nigeria, it’s you know it’s something of a combination that probably
if not for that tutor group, all of us wouldn’t have really goen that close but then because all of
us we do the assignments together, your group work is going to contribute to your final score, so
you want to get it done as mu as possible you have to help you know. So with time you see
yourself actually discussing more with the other person trying to know more about the other
person, you know like, I have to say it’s not a small thing. Let me give you this example, I’m from
Nigeria, happen to come from the southern part whi is Christian dominated and a typical
Nigerian from the south looks at Muslims as if the majority are out to make trouble all the time,
but then having come to the class and really stayed with some Muslims and interacted with them
I now see it’s just a minority. So it’s really helped a lot I mean geing to know people intimately,
because it’s not just class work, actually.
(‘Femi’) (U2R9)

Here we see evidence of some very deep reflection on, and questioning of,
long-standing beliefs. Being out of one’s own socio-cultural context and
interacting with people with different cultural bagrounds and world views
can be important in allenging cultural stereotypes and also in stimulating
reflection on deeply held social mores, aitudes to formality and social
interaction as illustrated by the next example.

Changing places: experimentation and lifestyle change

In the Bildungsroman, the narrative can reflect an inner or outer journey

that is sometimes combined with a movement geographically or socially. In
this extract a Chinese student describes how the physical ange of space (to
shared student accommodation in London) led to communal experience
resulting in questioning of cultural values and lifestyle anges.
It is not only from study that I learn. From study we get to know some stuff … but the knowledge
is partly from the life, I’ve got to know different people and about different cultures. For example, I
live in the university hall I’ve made some friends from Italy from Spain, from France so we oen
have dinner together at the weekend. e guy from Italy’s a good cook he always cooks some
Italian pasta. Actually from my point of view it’s too simple food you know, the first time he
invited me to the dinner I expected some kind of special dishes so he just cooked some pasta with
sauce but he cooked it very carefully you know it tasted special. But you know from Chinese point
of view if I invite you to have dinner we have to have a lot of dishes or you don’t show respect.
And the very serious learning you know from that event I understood that different people have
different cultural baground with different behaviour and I think dinner is for the class to get
together to have fun, talking, have wine, have a coffee its not just for food … its it anged me a
lot …
(‘Yong’) (U2R7)

e social experiences shared during course down-time can play an

important part in the whole experience and is rated here as ‘very serious
learning’. e amount of reflection on what might seem a commonplace
experience is quite striking and perhaps illustrates the student is engaging
with a journey of experimentation and questioning leading to some revised
aitudes towards eating and entertaining. Similar reflection and resulting
anges to practice can be seen in the next extract.

Stocktaking and moving on: acknowledging and using the learning

Returning to more formal elements of the programme, a Chinese student is
here working through how difficulties in group contexts brought her an
intense and unforgeable experience, whi resulted in lessons and
understandings and skills development applicable beyond the course.
It’s quite interesting there were a lot of serious conflicts but at the same time you will find a kind
of period of experience you can’t forget – you will remember forever … It comes from I think it
comes from a lot of reasons I think cultural differences, and language yeah language. … You feel
the tension that comes from time pressure and also sometimes you also find communication is not
easy and even for people who come from the same baground. It’s not easy to persuade or let the
other people to buy into your idea and some people are not used to listening to other people so
you should deal with all kinds of people. And some are quite demanding but some do not
prioritise study or the specific course so there are different reasons why people have different
behaviours in the group but at least you should have the assignment, get it done, finished!
(‘Yan Bin’) (U3R8)

Su stotaking on the experience, where they have got to, and what they
still need to develop in terms of work-relevant skills typically occur when
students are starting to look for jobs and thinking about how to present their
learning over the year to potential employers at interviews. Indeed some of
the resear participants saw the resear interview as an opportunity to
prepare or practice their interview story about the distance travelled during
the course, possibly implying that su links were not being developed
within the programme structure.

Supporting personal and professional experiences

Many themes in the student stories, about give and take, cultural
inequalities and language hieraries, about the frustrations of self-
expression, have direct relevance to the allenges faced in cross-
cultural/international work environments. e resear highlights that
students have worked through these difficulties largely unsupported by
formal course meanisms. is raises the question of how su a process
can be controlled and facilitated – or whether it is beer to leave well alone
and let these processes happen ‘incidentally’. e international emphasis
placed on su courses both in student expectations and in course publicity
seem to suggest that su processes should not be le entirely to ance. A
starting point might be to think about how ea of the stages of the journey
illustrated previously can be supported through different aspects of the
curriculum, course design, skills development and organized activities (see
Table 26.1).

Table 26.1 Summary of suggested learning activities

Stage in
Suggested activities
journey

Preparing for study: stotaking of motivations and

Starting out
ambitions, induction and creating an inclusive environment
Seing ground rules, improving communication skills,
Learning
including considering ways of ’giving voice’ and turn
through group
taking, considering the role and purpose of group work and
interaction
debriefing on the process
Individual
anges and Recording and discussing cultural and personal learning
questioning of (use of diaries and memory work)
assumptions
Learning along Recognizing the role of social events in drawing out and
the way sharing experience
Anowledging
Helping students to repaage/present their learning as
distance
work-relevant
travelled

First, induction and ongoing facilitation certainly play an important role

in seing an international atmosphere and the establishment of ‘the rules of
the game’. Clear statements both in the course documentation (e.g. websites)
and at faculty and university levels as to the fostering of international
standards all help to set the tone (Robinson 2005). Induction programmes
that focus on similarities and differences might prepare the ground for
future discussion and debate (Gabriel & Griffiths 2008). But where cultural
difference is largely ignored, the difficulties that occur later seem to be more
difficult to cope with and go on festering rather than being openly debated
(Robinson 2006). Consideration of the allenges faced by students re-
entering study (Griffiths et al. 2005) and their reasons and ambitions for
doing this can help them to set their own personal development agendas.
e use of an advisor or mentor to keep the reflective process going,
encouraging students to question and reflect on their experiences, in
conjunction with good induction and prolonged group work where students
can get to know ea other well, can become effective for intercultural
learning (Robinson 2005). In considering the role and purpose of group work,
writers have highlighted the importance of preparation and reflection (Baker
& Clarke 2010; see also Sliwa & Grandy 2006), while others have suggested
the use of action learning sets to actively reflect on the learning process
(Sharan 2010). In terms of both dealing with, but also learning from, the
inevitable conflict issues of facilitation and de-briefing, an inclusive
pedagogy that allows student voices with different forms of contribution and
participation is required. For example, the use of reflective essays and
empirical resear on the process as part of a course (e.g. HRM or Managing
Diversity) or as a project topic (Ellio & Reynolds 2014); or other means of
encouraging reflection, e.g. use of novels (Sliwa et al. 2013).
Opportunities to network outside one’s immediate circle can be afforded
by the provision of social events and inclusive social spaces. Again a tutor or
advisor to encourage students to engage in inclusive social activities could
be helpful in spoing opportunities and facilitating the process.5 Capturing
the learning along the way may include placing more emphasis on
encouraging students to record and reflect on their understanding in order
to present their learning. is may include discussing and debriefing on the
group work experience (see Sweeney et al. 2008 on using reflective diaries,
learning sets or memory work).
Conclusion
is apter has addressed some of the stated aims of the Companion in the
following ways: first, by striving to bring cross-cultural management nearer
to the actual practice of international business through learning from the
experiences of students with both work experience and ambitions to develop
as international managers; second, through using the Bildung metaphor, it
has demonstrated a means of moving beyond static models of complex
cultural interactions to ways of encouraging and supporting students to
develop through real-time cross-cultural interactions. e concept of
Bildung, in classifying and analysing student experiences in an international
learning environment, helps to uncover powerful learning. e different
stages of the Bildung journey demonstrate the role of emotion and personal
ambitions in the wider experience, reflected through moments of discomfort
or happiness whi might be considered as paths to learning (Currie 2007).
e concept of Bildung can help educators not to dismiss events in the wider
learning journey as irrelevant to the formal curriculum but instead to
understand them in the context of a journey or quest for wider personal and
professional development, set within wider socio-political bagrounds.

Notes
1 is labelling refers to the university business sool studied (1–5) and the respondent number in
order of interview. is has been le to illustrate the range of responses and also some of the
similarities between resear sites.

2 See Wilhelm Meister’s Lehrjahre (Goethe 1795–96).

3 e students’ oral narratives have been tidied up grammatically and lightly edited to make them
more readable as wrien text.

4 is extract first appeared in Robinson (2006).

 5 An example from the resear was given of the visit of a Russian ballet company to the city. e
advisor allocated to the MBA group suggested that a trip be arranged and prior to the visit the
Russian students were asked to give a talk about the development of Russian ballet.

References
Baker, T. and Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learning – A double-edged sword:
A cooperative learning model for use with diverse student groups.
Intercultural Education, 21(3): 257–68.
Callan, H. (2000). Higher Education internationalization strategies: Of
marginal significance or all-pervasive? The International Vision in
Practice: A Decade of Evolution, 25(1): 15–24.
Case, P. and Selvester, K. (2000). Close encounters: Ideological invasion and
complicity on an international management Master’s programme.
Management Learning, 31(1): 11–23.
Coffey, S (2013). Strangerhood and intercultural subjectivity. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 13(3): 266–282.
Coffey, S. and Street, B. (2008). Narrative and identity in the language
learning project. Modern Language Journal, 92(3): 452–464.
Currie, G. (2007). ‘Beyond our imagination’: e voice of international
students on the MBA. Management Learning, 38(5): 539–56.
Currie, G. and Knights, D. (2003). Reflecting on a critical pedagogy in MBA
education. Management Learning, 34(1): 27–49.
De Vita, G. and Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the internationalisation agenda
in UK Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4):
383–397.
Edwards, R., Crosling, G., Petrovic-Lazarovic, S. and O’Neill, P. (2003).
Internationalisation of business education: Meaning and implementation
. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2): 183–192.
Ellio, C. and Reynolds, M. (2014) Participative pedagogies, group work and
the international classroom: An account of students’ and tutors’
 experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2): 307–320.
Ellio, C. and Robinson, S. (2012). MBA Imaginaries – projections of
internationalisation. Management Learning, 43(2): 157–181.
Gabriel, Y. and Griffiths, D. S. (2008). International learning groups:
Synergies and dysfunctions. Management Learning, 39(5): 503–518.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business sools: e contribution of critical
management education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 3(2): 178–196.
Grey, C. and Mitev, N. (1995). Management education, a polemic.
Management Learning, 26(1): 73–90.
Griffiths, D., Gabriel, Y. and Winstanley, D. (2005). Learning sho: e
trauma of return to formal learning. Management Learning, 36(3): 275–
297.
Ituma, A., Simpson, R., Woods, A., Bo, X., Sturges, J. and Weight, P. (2007).
Forms of capital and career benefits of the MBA in China and the UK.
International Journal of Management Education, 6(2): 63–79.
Jaya, P. (2001). Do we really ‘know’ and ‘profess’? Decolonizing
management knowledge. Organization, 8(2): 227–233.
Kerr, R. and Robinson, S. K. (2009). e metaphor of the journey: Beyond the
MBA and ba to Bildung. Unpublished conference paper, EGOS
Barcelona, July.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International
Higher Education, 33: 2–3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaes, and
rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31.
McNamara, T. (2013). Crossing boundaries: Journeys into language.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(3): 343–356.
Morei, F. (1987). The way of the world: The Bildungsroman in European
culture. London: Verso.
Peelo, M. and Luxon, T. (2007). Designing embedded courses to support
international students’ cultural and academic adjustment in the UK.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1): 65–76.
Phipps, A. (2007). Learning the arts of linguistic survival: Languaging,
tourism, life. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Prange, K. (2004). Bildung: a paradigm regained? European Educational
Research Journal 3(2): 501–509.
Reynolds, M. and Trehan, K. (2003). Learning from difference. Management
Learning, 4(2): 163–80.
Riards, D. (1997). Developing cross-cultural management skills:
Experiential learning in an international MBA programme. Management
Learning, 28(4): 387–407.
Robinson, S. (2005). Internationalisation and the MBA: A hermeneutic
analysis of students’ expectations, needs and experiences. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
Robinson, S. (2006). Reflecting on the ‘International group working
experience’: A study of two MBA programmes. International Journal of
Management Education, 5(2): 3–14.
Ros i Solé, C. and Fenoulhet, J. (2013). Romanticising language learning:
beyond instrumentalism. Language and Intercultural Communication,
13(3): 257–265.
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning: A diversified pedagogy for diverse
classrooms. Intercultural Education, 21(3): 195–203.
Simpson, R., Sturges, J. and Weight, P. (2009). Transient, unseling and
creative space: Experiences of liminality through the accounts of Chinese
students on a UK-based MBA. Management Learning, 41(1): 53–70.
Sliwa, M. and Grandy G. (2007). Real or hyperreal? Cultural experiences of
overseas business students. Critical Perspectives in International
Business, 2(1): 8–24.
Sliwa, M., Sorensen, B. M. and Cairns, G. (2013). You have to oose a novel:
e biopolitics of critical management education. Management Learning
online first, Sept 2013, pp. 99–144.
Sturdy, A. and Gabriel, Y. (2000). Missionaries, mercenaries or car salesmen?
MBA teaing in Malaysia. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7): 979–
1002.
Sweeney, A., Weaven, A. and Herington, C. (2008). Multicultural influences
on group learning: A qualitative higher education study. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2): 119–32.
Turner, Y. and Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and cooperative impulses to
internationalisation: Reflecting on the interplay between management
intentions and the experiences of academics in a British university.
Education, Knowledge and Economy, 1(1): 65–82.
Warwi, P. and Moogan, Y. (2013). A comparative study of perceptions of
internationalisation strategies in UK universities. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 102–123.
Section 4
e new international business landscape

Editor: Fiona Moore

27
Introduction: the new business
landscape
Transformational perspectives

Fiona Moore

It is a common truism that science fiction is less about prediction than it is

about the present. Nineteen Eighty-four (Orwell, 1949) was not wrien as an
explicit prediction about life in the 1980s, but a comment on life in the 1940s
(the fact that some of it is still relevant to the 2010s is not so mu a
testament to the author’s predictive abilities as an indictment of present-day
geopolitics). Likewise, the allenge of editing a section about new business
landscapes is that of describing the significance of the most important trends
today, while being aware that hindsight is generally beer than foresight.
A good example of this can be found in the literature on Japanese
business from the 1970s through the early 1990s. At this time, many works
were wrien implying that the Japanese model was the way of the future,
and encouraging American and European businesses to adopt Japanese
business traits as best practice (e.g. Dore 1973, Kamata 1983, Woma et al.
1990). Following the bursting of the Japanese bubble economy, the flow of
su articles and books abruptly stopped. However, while it would be easy
to dismiss the focus on Japanese management as a misguided fad in the
management literature, this would be far too simple. For one thing, despite
receiving less aention in the popular press, Japan remains quietly dominant
in economic and design terms in the Asian business world (Economic
Outlook 2011, Dien 2011: 40). For another, while many have debated how
transferable the Japanese business model is (Sako 1994), ‘lean production’
has been at the very least hugely influential on the rest of the manufacturing
world (Graham 1995). Finally, the bursting of the bubble illustrated that
what were seen as key aspects of the Japanese model, su as lifetime
employment and seniority wages, were in fact the result of Japan’s economic
situation at a particular moment in time (Sakai 2000). As anthropologist
Colin Turnbull made the mistake of assuming that the conditions he
observed among the Ik represented a terminal social decline, when more
recent views suggest a less pessimistic outlook (Turnbull 1972, Abraham
2000), so researers in cross-cultural management studies must be careful to
situate any business phenomenon in its social and temporal context, and to
consider that their ultimate influence may be different to what we initially
observed.
e papers in this section fall into three general categories (and most fall
into more than one): geopolitics, new developments in management practice
and new developments in theory. Ea of the papers provides an image of a
particular trend or phenomenon as it is experienced in the mid-2010s, and
the section as a whole therefore serves as an illustration of the overlapping
new business landscapes influencing the world today.

Geopolitics
e designation ‘new business landscapes’ presents us with a geographical
metaphor to designate recent developments. is is singularly appropriate
for cross-cultural management, as mu of the discipline has to do,
implicitly at least, with borders and with boundary work but, as recent
studies have shown, boundaries are complicated things (e.g. Søderberg &
Holden 2002, Faraj & Yan 2009). As Brannen (2009) observes, culture in
business is not entirely like a hard, indivisible billiard ball, or a malleable
plasticine ball, but has aspects of both, sometimes even at the same time.
Many of the papers in this section, therefore, focus on developments in
geography, social identity and the ways in whi they influence new
developments in management.
It is not surprising, given the newly powerful role of the BRIC economies
and the increase in academic interest in the developing world, that two of
the papers in this section draw their examples from China and India
respectively. However, other papers in this section focus also on emerging,
or anging, economies, whi are not as easily identifiable by clever
acronyms. DeVriese’s apter explores concepts of gender and
entrepreneurship in the Middle East, for instance, and highlights crucial
developments in an area of the world that is currently undergoing social and
political upheavals that could ange its relationship to the business world
as a whole; the role of women in Emirati businesses during, and aer, the
‘Arab Spring’ is currently very mu in flux, and therefore an examination
of female entrepreneurship in this area highlights what could possibly be a
very significant sociopolitical development.
Likewise, although Scandinavia does not generally feature in discussions
of economies and societies in flux, two papers in this section highlight
anges in Scandinavian and Nordic societies. Mixa’s apter analyzes the
role of Icelandic ‘national culture’ in the country’s banking crisis, providing
a more complex analysis of the situation than the traditional metric-focused
models allow, and providing thoughtful insights into the transformations
that may come in the wake of the 2008 recession. Guormsen’s apter,
meanwhile, considers Scandinavian and Nordic managers as expatriates,
considering how they define the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ when living and
working in Asian societies. It is not only the business landscapes of
developing countries that are anging in ways that deserve academic
interest.
Finally, shis in global power are reflected in the papers in this apter.
While the global business world, and the discipline of management studies,
has been dominated by the USA since World War II, two apters, by
Søderberg, and Kshetri and Alcantara, deal in part with American
dominance in both areas being allenged by concepts, philosophies and
voices from other parts of the world, as the geopolitical landscape anges in
response to shis in global power. Bik, likewise, considers how the
dominance of so-called ‘Western’ philosophies and practices in accounting is
being allenged by those from other cultural traditions. As the geopolitical
landscape anges, so too does cross-cultural management.

New developments in management practice

Several of the apters in this section focus explicitly on anges in
management practice caused by developments in the global business world.
DeVriese’s apter, for instance, casts a critical eye over the trend towards
entrepreneurship among women in the United Arab Emirates, who find
numerous social barriers to their employment and/or advancement in more
conventional areas, celebrating their aievements while also questioning
whether the trend is a positive one that will allow more women into the
business world, or a gheoizing one that will exclude women from other
forms of participation. It is also worth asking whether, as with Britain in the
1980s, the few success stories are being presented as the norm while the
majority of failed enterprises are downplayed. Bik’s apter focuses on the
impact of globalization on a specific area of management, as auditing
manages to become one of the few truly global forms of business, and yet
also has to adapt, on a more tacit level, to local cultures, with their differing
expectations and practices.
Likewise, the combination of border-spanning tenologies with the new
moves towards protectionism on the part of various governments, as the
post-9/11 security consciousness and politicians’ responses to local demands
for greater employment lead to an unresolvable tension. At the same time as
politicians announce plans to develop ‘local Internets’ as a form of social
control as mu as in response to leaked revelations about international
spying activities, the inability of the Chinese government to completely
prevent its citizens from accessing outside Internet sources suggests that
su aempts may be futile. Likewise the increasing power of Google rivals,
and arguably exceeds, that of many national governments. Kshetri and
Alcantara’s apter considers the role of cybercrime in business: while the
specific area of crime is a new development, the apter shows how the
definitions, practice, fear and punishment of cybercrime are linked to far
older concepts rooted in local cultures and their concepts of legality. Jensen’s
apter, on the other hand, considers how new tenologies and cross-
border collaborations are used to facilitate cross-border knowledge sharing,
innovation and collaboration, while also encouraging responsiveness to local
tastes and interests. While the tensions between global and local arguably
inform every paper in this volume, these apters consider the new
developments in management that have emerged from globalization.

New developments in theory

As well as documenting new landscapes of business, several of the apters
in this section consider new landscapes of management theory. As the world
anges, so the field itself seeks out more nuanced definitions of culture, and
new methodologies for exploring, understanding and analyzing them.
Bozkurt, for instance, considers how the role of the cross-cultural manager
has anged from a narrow, expatriation-focused one to a more complex and
multilayered role, and to do this, views them through the lens of ‘corporate
actors’ possessing ‘intellectual, social and psyological capital’; viewed in
this way, managers ange from merely instruments of business, to
sociopolitical agents embedded in complex transnational discourses.
Guormsen’s paper brings in the concept of the Self/Other opposition from
anthropology to understand expatriation, reflecting how the binary
constructs of the Cold War and the War on Terror are developing and
anging, through the emergence of the BRICs and the questioning of
neoconservative and neoliberal constructs.
Other papers explore new takes on the traditional subjects of cross-
cultural management studies. Søderberg rethinks the literature on teams;
although teamwork has been of great interest in IB studies since the 1990s
(Zhou & Shi 2011), Søderberg considers teamwork as a global activity and
from a non-Western (in this case, Indian) perspective, to beer understand
the new social landscape in whi teamwork takes place. Bo, likewise,
marries the literature on transformational leadership with the literature on
cultural difference, considering how concepts of leadership vary globally
and seeking to identify cross-cultural paerns. All these cases indicate how
even concepts that are well-studied in business and management literature
deserve rethinking in the context of the current business landscape.

Conclusion
e papers in this section do not constitute prediction, or aempts to
second-guess, the ultimate impact of new developments in business. Rather,
they constitute a snapshot of the present context. Some of the new social,
managerial and theoretical landscapes will endure; others will prove to be
more temporary situations. All, however, are worth considering as a map of
the new business landscape, and with a view to considering what is
significant to cross-cultural management, now and for the future.

References
Abraham, C. (2000) e mountain people revisited. Uganda Journal, 46 (1):
111–114.
Brannen, M. Y. (2009) Culture in context: New theorizing for today’s
complex cultural organizations. In C. Nakata (Ed.) Beyond Hofstede:
culture frameworks for global marketing and management. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 81–100.
Dien, P. (2011) Global shift [6th ed.]. London: Sage.
Dore, R. P. (1973) British factory, Japanese factory: The origins of national
diversity in industrial relations. London: University of California Press.
Economic Outlook (2011) Japan. Economic Outlook, 35 (3): 50–51.
Faraj, S. and Yan, A. (2009) Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94 (3): 604–617.
Graham, L. (1995) On the line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese model and the
American worker. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Kamata, S. (1983) Japan in the passing lane: An insider’s account of life in a
Japanese auto factory. London: G. Allen and Unwin.
Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen eighty-four. London: Seer and Warburg.
Sakai, J. (2000) Japanese bankers in the city of London: language, culture and
identity in the Japanese diaspora. London: Routledge.
Sako, M. (1994) Training, productivity, and quality control in Japanese
multinational companies. In M. Aoki and R. Dore (Eds) The Japanese
firm: Sources of competitive strength. London: Routledge, pp. 84–116.
Søderberg, A. and Holden, N. (2002) Rethinking cross-cultural management
in a globalizing business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 2 (1): 103–121.
Turnbull, C. (1972) The mountain people. New York: Simon and Suster.
Woma, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. (1990) The machine that changed the
world. New York: Rawson.
Zhou, W. and Shi, X. (2011) Special review article: Culture in groups and
teams: A review of three decades of resear. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 11 (1): 5–34.
28
Global innovation through cross-
cultural collaboration

Karina R. Jensen

Introduction
e anging global business landscape is demanding a rapid time to market
with a customer-centric focus and continuous innovation on a global scale.
e evolving economy and marketplace demand an organization that can
quily innovate and adapt to global ange. In response, the current cross-
cultural and networked business environment has created a growing need
for knowledge-sharing within multinational corporations (MNCs). e
benefit of an organization’s global mindset derives from the ability to build
cognitive bridges across local market needs and the company’s own global
experience and capabilities (Govindarajan & Gupta 2001). is requires
organizations to leverage cross-cultural team knowledge in order to improve
the design and introduction of new products and services worldwide.
In this apter, the author explores how MNCs can facilitate the cross-
cultural collaboration process in order to effectively conceive and execute
innovation strategies for new products. rough the literature review and a
recent global study, organizational meanisms that influence cross-cultural
collaboration and knowledge-sharing are identified between the global
project leader and the geographically distributed team responsible for the
global product laun project, from concept to market. Literature has paid
great aention to the conditions for global teamwork and collaboration
within the context of new product development (NPD) resear. However,
there has been lile aention paid to the process of cross-cultural
collaboration in planning and executing new products for international
markets. While existing literature has shown the importance of global
knowledge integration and team collaboration capabilities, it has not
explored how this process is aieved in orestrating cultural knowledge
resources to enhance global innovation. is provides a significant
opportunity to advance existing theoretical understanding while assisting
organizations in the development of cross-cultural knowledge-sharing
capabilities that serve as competitive advantage in conceiving and
introducing new products and services for international markets.

e role of cross-cultural management in the

global innovation process
Organizations play a critical role in mobilizing tacit knowledge and
nurturing dynamic knowledge creation processes. In order to strengthen the
creative tension between tacit and explicit knowledge, collaboration can be
expanded through an interactive amplification or joint creation of
knowledge (Nonaka 1994). Although companies realize the need to create
and share knowledge across cultures and functions, it has been difficult to
facilitate exange between geographically distributed team members
working at global headquarters and local subsidiaries. Knowledge transfer
requires the development of strong and trustworthy relations, especially
within organizational boundaries, including cognitive, structural, and
relational capital (Jansen et al. 2008). Moreover, cross-cultural collaboration
serves an important role in nurturing and sustaining knowledge-sharing
throughout the organization. Inter-team and intra-team cooperation have
been found to serve as significant determinants of knowledge generation by
subsidiaries (Mudambi & Navarra 2007). e resource-based view of the firm
is also important due to the ‘perceived value of knowledge’, where the
quality of the relationship between the recipient and the source are key in
successful cross-border knowledge transfer (Deepak et al. 2008). erefore, it
is important to consider cross-cultural collaboration and knowledge-sharing
as critical factors for international market success in developing new
products and services.
Global products, new tenologies, and distributed teams have created a
greater need for co-creation and collaboration. In order to integrate global
and local perspectives, social embeddedness and relations become essential
in the development of strategy and capabilities through shared
understanding and interactions in strategy-making (Regner & Zander 2011).
Moreover, knowledge flow becomes an important consideration where
knowledge aligns with the work-flow of an organization. ere are three
elements that aracterize and shape the management of knowledge flow:
solution, experience, and social creation (Nissen & Snider 2003). Knowledge
as solution or experience is converted from tacit to explicit knowledge
whereas social creation involves social processes that lead to knowledge
creation and sharing. In order to effectively manage and influence
knowledge flow, there is the concept of knowledge governance where the
selection of organizational structures and meanisms can influence the
processes of using, sharing, integrating, and creating knowledge (Miailova
& Foss 2009). In this apter, knowledge-sharing is defined as ‘the provision
or receipt of task information, know-how and feedba on a product or
procedure’ (Hansen 1999, Foss et al. 2010), whi is oen a crucial
antecedent to knowledge creation (Cohen & Levinthal 1990, Nonaka 1994,
Tsai 2001). e focus is thus on the role of knowledge-sharing in shaping
knowledge flow for global innovation projects requiring cross-cultural team
collaboration within the MNE network.
e role of culture and its relationship to knowledge-sharing and
innovation practices is important to consider for understanding cross-
cultural collaboration. Adler (1997) emphasizes the role of cultural diversity
as a key resource in designing and developing global learning organizations.
In examining the historical literature on cultural dimensions, there is a
strong emphasis on managing cultural differences rather than optimizing
differences and similarities. Hofstede and GLOBE frameworks have been
criticized for being overly reliant on certain levels of analysis and not
exploring the dynamics of cultural contact (Kirkman et al. 2006 and Javidan
et al. 2006). Concepts addressing cross-cultural interaction needs have
emerged su as cultural intelligence (Inkson & omas 2004) and global
mindset for leadership competencies as measured in intellectual,
psyological, and social capital (Govindarajan & Gupta 2001, Javidan et al.
2010). Holden (2002) has advanced cross-cultural management theory
through the knowledge-based concept of participative competence through
the facilitation of interactive translation and knowledge-sharing activities.
Furthermore, resear on intercultural interaction and cultural synergy
(Adler 1983, Boyacigiller 2003) shows the importance of understanding in
whi conditions universal (paerns common to all cultures) and pluralistic
(culturally specific paerns) approaes can be used. ese models are
helpful in understanding cross-cultural interactions in general while they do
not address organizational meanisms and particular cross-cultural
interactions required for global product and service innovation.
In order to understand the cross-cultural knowledge-sharing process, it
becomes necessary to examine interactions among cross-cultural and
geographically distributed team members. When considering innovation
systems as social systems, there is a process of ‘social making’ of
innovations that can define a socially accepted space determined by cultural
interactions including affective frames of identity and difference, cognitive
frames of knowledge and normative sets of values, norms, and beliefs
(Pohlmann et al. 2005). In examining convergent and divergent team
processes, geographically distributed teams can be effective in bringing
together divergent viewpoints in producing new organizational capabilities,
whi require the recognition and validation of their existence (Baba et al.
2004). Moreover, cross-cultural collaboration serves an important role in
nurturing and sustaining knowledge-sharing throughout the organization.
Inter-team and intra-team cooperation have been found to serve as
significant determinants of knowledge generation by subsidiaries (Mudambi
et al. 2007). In facilitating communication between geographically
distributed teams, Earley and Mosakowski (2000) showed that organizations
need psyologically safe communication for innovation and Gibson and
Gibbs (2006) argue that unique meanisms can create a psyologically safe
communication climate that increases innovation. Positive aitudes towards
cultural diversity (Bounen et al. 2008) can increase project and innovation
performance and cross-national learning can enable teams to leverage
distance and differences (Cramton & Hinds 2005). In order to understand
how to facilitate cross-cultural collaboration for advancing global
innovation, further resear is required concerning the influence of cross-
cultural interactions between cross-cultural and geographically distributed
team members.

Study on global innovation and cross-cultural

collaboration
In order to examine the nature of cross-cultural interactions between the
global project leader and the geographically distributed team, a qualitative
resear study was conducted in order to investigate how MNCs can
facilitate the cross-cultural collaboration process for strengthening global
innovation capabilities. e field resear was conducted from June 2011 to
February 2012 through interviews using semi-structured questionnaires with
senior managers based in headquarters who are responsible for cross-
cultural teams and the conceptualization, planning, and project management
of global product launes. e resear results include interviews with 60
senior managers from 32 MNCs based in Europe, Asia, and the US from
tenology-driven industries including information and communication
tenologies, automotive, and health care.
e focus is placed on knowledge-sharing practices for the project
collaboration process involving planning and execution phases, examining
critical incidents, and resolutions. By identifying causal interactions, it is
possible to examine the influence of organizational meanisms upon team
leadership and team dynamics in creating and sustaining an effective
knowledge-sharing process for global innovation. e model evaluates
organizational meanisms in order to demonstrate their influence and
impact upon team leadership and project performance for conceiving and
delivering new products. Furthermore, knowledge governance meanisms
(Foss et al. 2010) allow for an examination of meanisms and structures at
the organizational or macro level that influence behaviors of knowledge-
sharing at the micro or individual level. e identification of organizational
meanisms and explanation of causal meanisms or interactions during
the project process are applied to this resear.

Challenges for cross-cultural interactions

In order to understand the nature of interactions during the global product
laun project, it is necessary to identify the type of information that is
critical for effective planning and execution of a new product concept to
international markets. e process of knowledge-sharing is focused on the
provision or receipt of local market information, know-how and feedba on
a new concept for creation and introduction to international markets. As
shown in Figure 28.1, it moves in a cyclical nature with an idea generation
or ideation phase, followed by concept validation, planning, execution, and
the local market introduction or laun. e front-end process involves key
elements of product strategy formulation and communication, opportunity
identification and assessment, idea generation, product definition, project
planning, and validation (Khurana & Rosenthal 1998). In reviewing the most
critical information sought by global project leaders for the planning phase,
there is a strong focus on local market, customer, and product knowledge.
ere is a need to understand local market potential by examining trends,
size, growth, and competition factors. en there is the necessity to
understand the customer profile, preferences, needs, and expectations in
developing a suitable product offering. In order to evaluate a feasible
business plan, the global project leader also needs to determine product
feature localization, pricing, and resource needs for marketing and sales
activities. Finally, there is the need to assess financial resource allocation
dependent upon budget needs in relation to forecasted revenue for the local
market. e planning phase requires alignment between the project leader in
headquarters and the team members in local markets in order to ensure the
product strategy meets local market expectations.
When examining critical knowledge required for the planning and
execution phases of the global laun project, the planning phase is
identified as the critical point of interaction between global project leaders
in HQ and the local teams based in subsidiaries. Local market, customer, and
product knowledge is sought by the global project leader where customer
validation, resource allocation, and local product feature needs are critical
for planning. e planning phase relies upon knowledge of local market
requirements to determine the level of standardization or adaptation
required for a new concept. Knowledge concerning customer preferences,
local user practices, and local market trends are essential during this phase
where the local manager can provide insights to customers and markets.
Figure 28.1 Global innovation project cycle and laun process
Source: Dr. Karina R. Jensen, 2013–14

e main point of conflict that exists between the global project leader
based in HQ and the local team members is the perception and
understanding of global and local team roles in conceiving and bringing new
products to market. e project collaboration process primarily involves
centralized planning at HQ with decentralized execution driven by the
global project leader and local team members in key markets. e global
project leader in HQ is driving centralized planning, ideation, and validation
processes without or with limited participation by local team members. e
la of knowledge-sharing during the conception and planning process
prevents or limits local team members from contributing their cultural and
functional knowledge about local customer and market requirements. is
strategy results in new concepts and products that are poorly adapted to
local market and customer needs; yet, the local team is expected to serve an
active role in the execution of the product laun in their local market. e
local team members usually do not have the opportunity to contribute to the
creation of a new product solution during the planning phase, whi could
result in a solution that meets local customer needs. Instead, the local team
is expected to sell a global or standard solution that does not always meet
local customer needs. is contributes to reduced interest and motivation to
marketing and selling the new product as well as reduced motivation to
contribute to the creation and implementation of new concepts for future
product introductions.

Cultural values and knowledge-sharing allenges

ere are allenges in knowledge-sharing for local markets, especially
prevalent in emerging markets, where communication and information are
not fully understood during project collaboration. e la of a
communication structure where local team members are not always able to
present information in a manner that is understood and appreciated by the
project leader and senior management team in headquarters is a allenge.
In addition, there is difficulty in understanding the language and
communication styles of team members when using English in
communicating specific needs and requirements. is is further complicated
by the la of travel and physical presence of team members in headquarters
and subsidiaries combined with the issues of using various online media and
communication tenology tools that may la the efficiency, clarity, and
trust-building elements of face-to-face communication. is creates a greater
need to develop relationships within the MNC network in order to aieve
global laun project objectives. e elements of geographic and cultural
distance create less interaction and communication between the global
project leader and geographically distributed team members, whi
contributes to a la of trust and knowledge-sharing.
e global study showed that a majority (82 percent) of global project
leaders believe that national culture plays a role in knowledge-sharing
practices. e observations and experiences of study participants focused on
four distinct areas of knowledge-sharing: structure, power, initiative, and
openness. Structure relates to differences in how knowledge is organized and
presented. e perception and value of knowledge as power is closely linked
to the ability to share knowledge within teams. Team members that work
within cultures and local markets that display a strong hierarical structure
have difficulty sharing knowledge since it is viewed as power and ownership
of expertise for the individual that holds the knowledge. Initiative relates to
taking responsibility for communicating new knowledge or ideas, and
openness relates to the degree of knowledge-sharing conducted in relation to
communication frequency, conflict management, and the internal hierary.
In examining Western and Eastern knowledge-sharing practices and
cultural differences, it is evident that power, conflict avoidance, ownership,
and communication styles can serve as allenges for the project leader and
the geographically distributed team. ese cultural differences support the
cultural knowledge-sharing factors identified in the global study – structure,
power, openness, and initiative. For example, Chinese and Asian knowledge-
sharing practices may differ in the degree of openness and initiative taken
by team members due to the role of management power in the
organizational hierary. Global project leaders and team members need to
consider differences in communication styles as well as the view of conflict
management. Cultural differences in the knowledge-sharing structure,
management power, and initiative should also be considered. Local team
members in Asia may have traditional values for dialogue, knowledge as
power, and saving face. However, these views can be integrated and
transformed through global dialogue and communication involving the
global project leader and geographically distributed team members. is
requires aention to organizational meanisms and communication
practices that promote trust and knowledge-sharing.
Trust-building for global project leaders and cross-cultural team members
involved in global innovation projects demands cultural empathy and
understanding. It requires the ability to gain knowledge and understanding
of the cultural context and practices for building trust. is requires open
communication to drive transparency and conduct open and honest dialogue
with local team members. It is important to provide sufficient knowledge for
local team members to understand the context of the global laun project
and how they can contribute to the front-end innovation process. Moreover,
the ability to act and deliver on promises appears to be the most critical
element to building trust for local team members since it is linked to project
collaboration during the front-end innovation process. It is the ability of the
project leader to recognize, respond, and deliver on requests in order to
facilitate collaboration with local team members.

Facilitating cross-cultural collaboration

e literature review and global study have confirmed the anging
demands of aieving innovation in a dynamic and global marketplace. e
growing role of emerging markets in international innovation has placed
increased importance on understanding cultural practices and responding to
the particular needs of local consumers. While a global and centralized
strategy-making process may have been applied in the past, MNCs are now
discovering that a local approa to strategy-making for global innovation
projects can aieve increased collaboration and responsiveness to
international market opportunities. Emerging markets especially require
more aention to cultural understanding and relationship-building in
sharing and co-creating knowledge for the front-end innovation process.
Both mature and emerging markets represent culturally diverse consumers
where organizations need to meet expectations for innovative solutions,
time to market, and competitive products.
e cross-cultural collaboration model demonstrates the optimal
orestration of organizational meanisms in order to increase knowledge-
sharing during the global innovation process as well as ensuring a positive
impact on project performance. Figure 28.2 shows the organizational
resources and routines that have a positive influence on cross-cultural
collaboration and laun performance. e final model evaluates the global
product innovation process in terms of three elements: organizational
resources that promote cross-cultural collaboration, global innovation
process and collaboration capabilities, and global product laun
performance.
An increased level of cross-cultural collaboration is determined through
the interdependent orestration of the following organizational
meanisms:

an innovation strategy that is focused on a local to global strategy-

making process;
the development of an organizational culture with an emphasis on
cultural empathy, knowledge-sharing, and creativity;
a global project leader with an approa that integrates decisive,
inclusive, communicative, and empowering leadership skills to
facilitate cultural empathy, communication, and creativity;
a knowledge-sharing structure that emphasizes collaborative roles
for local team members during the global innovation project process;
communication vehicles that emphasize more face-to-face
interaction than virtual interaction increase trust-building and
collaboration;
an emphasis on knowledge-sharing during the planning phase as
well as the ideation and validation phases increases cross-cultural
collaboration, whi positively impacts project performance for
improved time to market, product localization, customer demand,
and local sales results.
Figure 28.2 Cross-cultural collaboration model
Source: Dr. Karina R. Jensen, 2013–14

Conclusion
e literature and study have demonstrated the need for increased cultural
understanding and collaboration between the global project leader and the
geographically distributed teams in order to accelerate innovation and
responsiveness to international markets. ere is a la of communication
and participation of local team members in the front-end innovation process
where local market knowledge is most critical for the effective execution and
success of new product introductions. e emphasis on a global innovation
strategy and centralized planning at HQ with decentralized execution at
subsidiary locations reduces the motivation of local team members to
collaborate on the product introduction, whi impacts market performance.
e study demonstrates that increased cross-cultural collaboration can be
aieved through a focus on knowledge-sharing and participation during the
global innovation process, specifically the planning, ideation, and validation
phases. e orestration and reconfiguration of organizational resources
combined with project collaboration routines promote improved
performance and local market results.
Cross-cultural collaboration and knowledge-sharing require consideration
of specific organizational meanisms and components that
interdependently create a common space and environment for innovation.
is environment involves organizational meanisms su as a local to
global innovation strategy; an organizational culture focused on cultural
empathy, collaboration, and creativity; and a knowledge-sharing structure
where local team members have specific roles. In order to sustain a
collaborative dialogue between cross-cultural teams, the global project
leader serves an important role as knowledge facilitator. Sharing knowledge
between cultures requires special aention to the structure and delivery, the
role of power, the degree of openness, and ability for initiative-taking. MNCs
need to consider communication vehicles that emphasize face-to-face
interaction to facilitate trust and relationship-building where
communication tenologies sustain continued interactions throughout the
innovation process.
In order to seek potential solutions for providing more effective
knowledge-sharing processes and tools, MNCs need to consider
organizational resources that can help facilitate knowledge-sharing and
contribution from team members. e most effective practices include
increased travel and face-to-face interaction, local engagement, a common
space for cross-cultural team collaboration, tenology platforms for
ideation and knowledge-sharing, and a supportive organizational
environment with time for knowledge-sharing and cross-cultural learning.
Project collaboration and knowledge-sharing can be strengthened through
specific cross-cultural learning and communication vehicles involving
cultural immersions, cross-fertilization meetings, and knowledge-sharing
forums and tools. It is important to create the space, time, and resources
dedicated to collaboration and innovation worldwide.
Implications for cross-cultural management
is apter examines a topic that is receiving increased aention from
MNCs due to the focus on global collaboration within innovation
management. e ability of global and local project teams to effectively
share and communicate ideas and solutions may influence project
performance linked to product innovation, timely product introductions, and
international sales and market opportunities. Since there is a la of
empirical resear conducted with organizations on cross-cultural
collaboration and global innovation projects, there is a significant
opportunity to advance resear within innovation management while
assisting managers and organizations in the development of cross-cultural
collaboration capabilities that strengthen innovation performance and
international market results.
In order to increase success in conceiving and executing innovation
strategies for international markets, cross-cultural collaboration may serve
as an important factor and competitive advantage for MNCs in accelerating
innovation and market responsiveness. Cross-cultural team interactions
facilitate the sharing of local market knowledge, cross-cultural
understanding, and the creation of new ideas. is outcome extends resear
concerning cultural synergy (Adler 1983, Holden 2002) and the role of cross-
cultural collaboration and knowledge-sharing in innovation management.
While advancing resear in an emerging field, the study advances
organizational understanding of cross-cultural collaboration practices that
respond to the anging innovation needs of the global marketplace.
is apter presents a model for understanding the organizational
meanisms that influence cross-cultural collaboration practices when
bringing new products to international markets. e purpose of the cross-
cultural collaboration model is to provide an explanatory framework for
identifying meanisms that facilitate knowledge-sharing between the
project leader and cross-cultural teams when conceptualizing and
introducing new products and services around the world. In facilitating the
ability to share and co-create knowledge, the model identifies a collaborative
process that can assist managers and teams to effectively conceive and
introduce new products and services. In this way, MNCs can consider the
orestration and configuration of cross-cultural team knowledge as a
resource and competitive advantage in accelerating innovation for
international markets.

References

Books

Adler, Nancy J. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior.

Cincinnati: Southwestern College Publishing, 1997.
Govindarajan, Vijay and Gupta, Anil. The Quest for Global Dominance:
Transforming Global Presence into Global Competitive Advantage. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley & Sons, 2001.
Holden, Nigel J. Cross-cultural Management: A Knowledge Management
Perspective. Great Britain: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Inkson, Kerr and omas, David C. Cultural Intelligence. San Francisco:
Berre-Koehler, 2004.

Chapters

Boyacigiller, Nakiye A. et al. Conceptualizing Culture: Elucidating e

Streams of Resear in International Cross-cultural Management. In
Punne, B.J. and Shenkar O. (Eds.) Handbook for International
Management Research. Ann Arbor: University of Miigan Press, 2003,
pp. 99–167.
Miailova, Snejina and Foss, Nicolai. Knowledge Governance: emes and
estions. In Snejina, M. and Foss N. (Eds.) Knowledge Governance:
 Processes and Perspectives, UK: Oxford Press, 2009, pp. 1–24.

Articles

Adler, Nancy J. “A typology of management studies involving culture”,

Journal of International Business Studies, Fall 1983, 29–46.
Baba, Mariea L., Gluesing, Julia, Ratner, Hilary and Wagner, Kimberly H.
“e contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed
team”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2004: 25, 457–587.
Bounen, Ricarda B., Ratzman, Martin and Winkler, Vivian A. “Cross-
cultural innovation teams: Effects of four types of aitudes towards
diversity”, Journal of International Business Strategy, Mar 20, 2008: 8–
2, 26–36.
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990: 35,
128–152.
Cramton, Catherine D. and Hinds, Pamela J. “Subgroup dynamics in
internationally distributed teams:Ethnocentrism or cross-national
learning?”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 2005: 26, 231–263.
Daa, Deepak K., Kedia, Ben L., Perez-Nordtvedt, Liliana, and Rasheed,
Abdul A. “Effectiveness and efficiency of cross-border knowledge
transfer: An empirical examination”, Journal of Management Studies,
2008: 45–4, 714–744.
Earley, Christopher P. and Mosakowski, Elaine. “Creating hybrid team
cultures: An empirical test of trans-national team functioning”, Academy
of Management Journal, 2000: 43–1, 26–49.
Foss, Nicolai J., Husted, Kenneth, and Miailova, Snejina. “Governing
knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance
meanisms, and resear directions”, Journal of Management Studies,
2010: 47–3, 455–482.
Gibson, Cristina B. and Gibbs, Jennifer L. “Unpaing the concept of
virtuality: e effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence,
 dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Sep 2006: 51–3, 451–495.
Hansen, Morten T. “e sear-transfer problem: e role of weak ties in
sharing knowledge across organization subunits”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1999: 44–1, 82–111.
Jansen, Justin J. P., Lyles, Marjorie A. and van Wijk, Raymond. (2008).
“Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Management Studies, June, 2008: 45–4, 830–853.
Javidan, Mansour et al. “Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their
consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s
approaes”, Journal of International Business Studies, 2006: 37, 897–914.
Javidan, Mansour, Teagarden, Mary and Bowen, Dave. “Making it overseas”,
Harvard Business Review, April 2010: 109–113.
Khurana, Anil and Rosenthal, Stephen R. “Towards holistic ‘front ends’ in
new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
1998: 15–1, 57–74.
Kirkman, Bradley L. Lowe, Kevin B. and Gibson, Cristina B. “A quarter
century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical resear
incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework”, Journal of
International Business Studies, 2006: 37, 285–320.
Mudambi, Ram, Mudambi, Susan M. and Navarra, Pietro. “Global
innovation in MNCs: e effects of subsidiary self-determination and
teamwork”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2007: 24, 442–
455.
Nissen, Mark E. and Snider, Keith F. “Beyond the body of knowledge: A
knowledge-flow approa to project management theory and practice”,
Project Management Journal, June, 2003: 34–2, 4–12.
Nonaka, Ikujiro. “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”,
Organization Science, 1994: 5,14–35.
Pohlmann, Markus, Gebhardt, Christiane and Etzkowitz, Henry. “e
development of innovation systems and the art of innovation
 management – Strategy, control, and the culture of innovation”,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Mar 2005: 17–17, 1–7.
Regner, Patri and Zander, Udo. “Knowledge and strategy creation in
multinational companies”, Management International Review, 2011: 51,
821–850.
Tsai, W. “Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks”, Academy of
Management Journal. 2001: 44, 996–1004.

Senior managers at MNCs interviews

Field resear interviews by author. June 2011 – February 2012: On-site and
telephone interviews conducted with 60 global project leaders responsible
for global product launes involving planning and execution while
collaborating with or managing cross-cultural teams at 32 MNCs based in
North America, Europe, and Asia in the automotive and information
communication tenologies industries:

Adobe, Alcatel-Lucent, Apple, Applied Materials, BMW, Cisco, EMC,

Ericsson, Essilor, Fiat, Ford, GE Healthcare, Google, Hitai, HP, HTC,
Hyundai, Infosys, Intel, Lenovo, Mazda, Microso, Motorola, Nokia,
Oracle, Philips, Renault, Samsung, SAP, Siemens, Symantec, and Toyota.
29
Culture in the audit file
An empirical reflection on the cross-national
cultural ‘native categories’ used by auditors
in a ‘Big 4’ professional services firm

Olof P. G. Bik

Introduction

In-depth understanding of the impact of cross-national cultural differences

on workplace behaviour is particularly relevant for professional services
firms, in whi people, knowledge and professional judgment are the main
drivers of the production process. International accounting organisations
(generally called the ‘Big 4’ global audit firms) are su ‘knowledge
intensive firms’ (Holden 2002). More than any other profession, auditing has
been able to capture its core values and behavioural principles in one single
set of global auditing standards. is is important because multinationals
and global capital markets expect the same audit quality throughout the
world. ey therefore pursue homogenisation of worldwide audit practices
to increase consistency of quality throughout the global organisation (e.g.
Jenkins et al. 2008). Nevertheless, as ‘global firms’, they are faced with
numerous cross-national (cultural) differences whi impact the behaviour
of their professionals and thereby also their audit processes and quality.
Results of prior resear into the impact of cross-national cultural
differences on auditors’ behaviour are mixed, while predominantly
employing the cultural taxonomies of acclaimed constructs and dimensions
that take societal culture as their unit of analysis (su as House et al. 2004).
While anowledging that su constructs and dimensions are not
necessarily valid in and of themselves from a scientific stance, this apter
takes an alternative approa by presenting a grounded-theory based
empirical and in-depth view into the actual day-to-day cross-cultural
practice of a multinational company, in this case a ‘Big 4’ global audit firm
(based on Bik 2010).
First, in doing this, the apter contributes to a more comprehensive and
empirically grounded understanding of the impact of cross-national cultural
differences on auditors’ professional behaviour and on the effectiveness of
firm-wide systems of coordination. Second, the apter provides an
opportunity to explore how this cultural interaction may be explained by the
mu-applied cultural taxonomies and illustrates their practical usability
and explanatory power as synthesising frameworks for understanding,
structuring and expressing the ‘native categories’ of cultural– national
cultural differences observed by auditors in daily life. ‘Native categories’ ‘are
oen used as a means by whi people define their own identities as
members of particular groups, and the aracter traits of others in different
groups’ (Moore 2012: 626). Buley and Chapman define ‘native categories’
as every society’s ‘own specific words and categories, whi were, at every
level, socially derived and mediated’ and ‘self-generated and valid in any
local context’ (1997: 283). Su expressions may very well differ both from
country to country and from the dimensions of the cultural taxonomies.

Global auditing and auditors’ behaviour

e fundamental principles and raison d’être of the auditing profession can
be found in the agency theory (e.g. Jensen & Meling 1976), i.e. in the
separation of control (management) and ownership (an oentimes large and
widespread group of shareholders). e audit profession has its origins in
the verification of management representations in financial reporting to
shareholders (one of the main accountability meanisms of corporate
governance), i.e. an independent external audit of financial statements (e.g.
Hayes et al. 2005).
e auditing profession is dominated by the multinational professional
service firms currently known as the ‘Big 4’ (Deloie, EY, KPMG, and PwC),
whi are among those professional services firms whose performance and
effectiveness are largely dependent on the behaviour of their own
professionals irrespective of the existence of guidance and standards. ey
pursue homogenisation of worldwide audit practices and related policies to
increase consistency of quality throughout their global organisations (e.g.
Jenkins et al. 2008), among other things through International Standards on
Auditing.
A typical aracteristic of the auditing profession is the sensitive balance
between a professionally intimate client relationship on the one hand and
the need for accountability to a wide variety of third parties, underpinned
by professional requirements of objectivity, confidentiality, due care and
independence on the other hand (e.g. Dillard & Ferris 1989). Central to the
professional behaviour of auditors is the audit judgment and decision-
making process, whi comprises the following main components (based, for
example, on Birnberg and Shields 1989 and Nelson and Tan 2005):

identifying, assessing and responding to risks in focusing the audit

procedures to be performed;
asking probing questions (i.e. sceptical judgments and decisions) to
corroborate management’s representations and (contradictory) audit
evidence;
ethical judgments and decision-making to rea informed decisions
as to audit procedures appropriate to the audit engagement;
 knowledge sharing and consultative behaviour as critical processes
of quality control and intelligently performed audits; and
reporting and discussing the outcome of the audit and the
negotiations involved in resolving important audit findings.

is categorisation is used for analysing the findings later in this apter.

Prior resear into the cultural impact on auditors’

behaviour shows mixed results
International audit firms are faced with numerous cross-national differences
affecting the audit process, among whi are cross-national cultural
differences.1 Mu is still unknown about the direct impact of cross-national
cultural differences on auditors’ professional behaviour (e.g. Chanani &
MacGregor 1999: 26). Barret et al. (2005: 1) show that, despite International
Standards on Auditing, ‘auditors exercise considerable discretion in response
to local relationships and risks [linking] the local and the global in a
dialectical manner’. ese standards have been wrien from a
predominantly ‘Western’ perspective and are culture-bound and culture-
blind. For example, ‘the strong independence-based focus of Western
auditing practice reflects individualist cultural values’ (Cohen et al. 1995: 43)
and ‘is based on the so-called Western view of the individual as an
independent, self-contained, autonomous entity’ (Patel & Psaros 2000: 317).
erefore, ‘culture is more likely to be the default’ (Leung et al. 2005: 369),
especially because these standards are su that professional judgment is
required to apply them. Indeed prior resear suggests that cross-national
cultural differences may affect auditors’ judgment and decision-making
processes thereby potentially impacting the audit process and its quality.
Solars studying the cultural impact have generally used a limited
number of well-known taxonomies of cross-national cultural differences.
Most of them employed Hofstede’s cultural taxonomy (e.g. 1980, 2001). But
many of these studies did not empirically validate its inferences (e.g. Cohen
et al. 1995; Lin & Fraser 2008). Studies that empirically tested for Hofstede’s
dimensions showed mixed results (e.g. Yamamura et al. 1996; Smith & Hume
2005). Arnold et al. (1999), however, were able to show that Hofstede’s
individualism–collectivism dimension explains variations in European
auditors’ independence and states of mind in their client relationships (a
premise of professional scepticism). e cultural dimensions of House et al.
(2004) are not yet widely applied in auditing resear, but are increasingly
being used in other fields of resear (e.g. Parboteeah et al. 2005; Cieslewicz
2013).

An alternative approa for an empirical insight

into daily cross-cultural practice
Although analysing cultures through su cultural taxonomies has been
proven to work well, their use has inherent limitations. First of all, cultural
dimensions are inherently artificial constructs and oversimplifications (e.g.
Hofstede 1996) and/or generalisations of a whole population with a risk of
‘stereotyping’ within national borders (e.g. House et al. 2004: 22). Second,
cultures are composed of individuals, but when comparing cultures at the
societal level su multilevel inferences ‘can be fallacious because of a
difference in meaning of constructs at the individual and cultural levels’
(Van de Vijver & Leung 1997: 125). Last is the notion that national cultures
on the one hand and organisational and professional cultures on the other
hand are phenomena of a different order. ere is no general consensus as to
the effect of and interaction between societal, organisational and
professional cultures (House et al. 2004: 664). Wong-On-Wing and Lui (2013)
are among the first to explore alternative methods of cross-cultural resear
in the field of auditing.
Given the state of cross-cultural resear in auditing and the fact that
cultural taxonomies are rather more cultural artefacts for us in practice than
they are scientific tools for explaining cultural differences, an alternative
approa has been taken to explore further possible explanations of the
impact of cross-national cultural differences on auditors’ professional
behaviour.

Methodology
A grounded theory approa is employed to provide an empirical insight
into how cross-national cultural differences actually play out in the day-to-
day global practice of an international audit firm. Grounded theory offers a
sound and structured way of analysing what is happening in the world of
international auditing and the issues it faces in terms of cross-national
cultural differences in auditors’ behaviour. Emergence of concepts and
theory is central to grounded theory (e.g. Glaser 1992; Strauss & Corbin
1998). It is an analytical resear approa in whi meanings are inferred
from the data collected, rather than imposed from other sources. Grounded
theory is most appropriate ‘where researers have an interesting
phenomenon without explanation and from whi they seek to discover (…)
how individuals interpret reality’ (Suddaby 2006: 636).
Open, structured interviews were conducted with 35 internationally
experienced auditors of one of the ‘Big 4’ firms.2 e interviewees were
selected as part of a pre-defined target audience reflecting extensive
international experience at the highest organisational levels and comprising
a culturally diverse representation. e size of the interview population was
not set in advance but aimed at theoretical saturation (e.g. Glaser 1992). e
main questions asked were set out in an interview instrument and guide,
comprising semi-structured, pre-defined questions, whi was reviewed and
piloted in advance.3 Illustrations of questions included are: ‘Drawing upon
your experience, what kinds of different behaviour do you encounter in
working with colleagues from different countries?’; and ‘To what extent is
your own behaviour different from that of your colleagues who have the
same cultural baground?’ e interviews were conducted one-on-one by
the author himself and in the English language (whi was not the native
language of 22 interviewees). e interviews were fully transcribed based on
tape recordings (83 per cent) or interview notes (17 per cent).
Analyses were conducted in an iterative process of open, axial and
selective coding for common themes that emerged from the interview
transcripts and notes. e resulting constructs were further conceptually
specified, interpreted and given meaning by in-depth re-review of the
transcripts as to how the auditors interviewed understand and interpret their
environment and behaviour (as suggested by Strauss & Corbin 1998).
Grounded theory by nature has a number of limitations. Personal bias is
the most important threat recognised in grounded theory, in two major
aspects of analysis: the data gathered by the researer (e.g. interviews and
observational notes) and the interaction between the researer and the
data. Preserving reliability and content validity and mitigating the effect of
personal bias were aieved through a number of safeguards. Most
importantly, as a confirmatory reliability e, a second, independent
researer re-performed 25 per cent of the open coding process and
confirmed the validity thereof. Nevertheless, grounded-theory based
resear is difficult to generalise from the results obtained.

Findings regarding cross-national cultural

differences in practice
e findings reflect an in-depth insight into actual cross-cultural practices
and into how cross-national (cultural) differences play out in daily
multinational practice. For reasons of clarity and structure (and consistent
with Suddaby 2006, for example), the findings are presented along the lines
set out in the second section of this apter. Consistent with the
confidentiality and anonymity assured to the participants and the audit firm,
no reference is made to the participating auditors or the countries involved.
Identifying, assessing and responding to risks

While a contemporary audit is generally considered to be risk based and top

down, cross-national differences arise in the extent to whi auditors
consider audit risks as their starting point. In some countries auditors would
generally focus only on the more significant risks, while auditors in other
countries identify risk in almost every assertion. An illustrative example is
the following statement taken from the interviews:
Auditors from [country X] don’t like to make mistakes – they would go for security rather than
for risk. is is unlike auditors from [country Y] who will go for the allenge. e impact is that
[auditors from country X] do a very thorough and detailed risk analysis and they prefer to place
reliance on ‘tests of details’ rather than on system level ‘controls work’. e focus is on perfection
rather than on efficiency and profitability. ey will ‘hammer’ something to death without
realizing it doesn’t really make a difference because of the associated risks.

As another auditor notes about auditors from the same country: ‘ey are
indeed very structured. ey come forward with detailed steps that they feel
still need to be performed, although others would say that no further work is
necessary.’ Another auditor, referring to a country that is considered
culturally quite the opposite, notes that risk awareness is lower:
Risk in [this] environment is perceived to be one of the most important things. (…) e practice
here is to be less risk prone or risk averse. Here, people do not fully consider risk when conducting
an audit. is leads to ineffective audits – and sometimes to taking on more risk.

Asking probing questions (i.e. sceptical judgments and decision-

making)

Central to the Anglo-American individualism and equality premise that is at

the heart of auditing standards, is professional scepticism. Auditors are
expected to ask tough questions of management. One auditor, recognising
that there are cross-border differences in how auditors apply professional
scepticism, notes:
 I think that in a collectivistic culture like this and, I suppose, to a degree in other countries in this
collectivistic region, it is culturally difficult to allenge people. It is thought impolite to ask people
of certain seniority anything at all, from questions to evidential maer.

Another auditor explains:

Because in [this] culture they pay respect to seniority and the senior people don’t like the junior
people to ask allenging questions. Especially when [the client] is an ‘old style’ manager, we
can’t allenge him mu and we have to use our own style to ask the same questions in a so
manner.

It is for su reasons that quite a number of auditors are cynical about the
la of professional scepticism in some regions in the world. One ‘Western’
auditor, having worked in one su country for many years, says:
In the whole region the ability to allenge the client and demonstrate professional scepticism is a
huge question mark. (…) We question whether you can ever perform a truly effective audit in this
region, because of the la of scepticism and the ‘bowing’ towards seniority and authority. (…) I
think it is deeply rooted in the culture of the region. You just don’t question the client.

Another auditor associates this la of allenging questioning with the level
of trust that people generally have in ea other. He points to a belief in
original virtue (‘the good in people’) rather than in original sin, and this
leads to a la of rigour, whereby auditors are not inclined to really get to
the boom of an issue. One auditor simply states: ‘ey place too mu trust
in a man, and it’s not in their DNA to question’, whereas another has a more
profound view of the significance of interpersonal trust to auditors’
behaviour:
Traditionally an auditor from [this country] does not doubt the client’s intentions. Basically he
thinks the client is ‘a good guy’ and he starts off the audit from that premise. is culture is
somewhat based on the Buddhist religion.

Consequently, auditors see that the ‘Western’ auditing approa of asking

probing questions would not work in particular regions.

Ethical judgments and decision-making

Auditors observe cross-national differences in the extent to whi they are
comfortable with and proficient in applying the ethical and professional
judgment and decision-making process that is so central to the audit. On the
one hand, it is not so mu that auditors see that the levels of the
individual’s moral development differ internationally. Rather, they point to
the contextual or environmental factors that affect an auditors’ ethical
decision-making, su as the institutional oversight and enforcement
process. A number of auditors indicate that differences in ethical behaviour
arise from differences in ‘the money worth taking versus the risk of geing
caught’ and in the aitudes towards rules and risks. As one auditor explains:
e problem is that in large parts of the world the risk of geing caught is too low. (…) Another
thing is that in developing countries the incentive to commit fraud can be mu greater, as a
smaller amount can mean more to the individual.

Others, however, reason that auditors will consciously consider the risks of
becoming involved in corrupt activity. ey observe that su considerations
are culturally driven, i.e. local value systems (culture) play a role in an
individual’s moral reasoning and in the weight aaed to the risk of geing
caught. As one auditor relates to this reasoning:
It affects the judgments that you make and how mu risk you are willing to take. It affects how
diligent you are, because, like anything else, fear is a great motivator. If you do not think you are
ever going to be caught, you may compromise.

Knowledge sharing and consultative behaviour

Auditors recognise cross-national differences in the extent to whi they are

generally willing to share knowledge within their audit teams or with other
auditors. ey note that what they refer to as power differences and
hierary have a negative impact on knowledge sharing, i.e. knowledge is
kept at the partner level and is not shared with the rest of the team. As one
auditor notes:
In [this country] we understand that to properly address risk we need to understand the client and
its industry. Until now, that knowledge was oen only with the engagement partner. (…) Not
 mu knowledge about the client is shared with the team.

Or as another auditor puts it in plain English while analysing the possible

causes: ‘I have information, therefore I have power. Why on earth would I
share that with anybody else when that does not help my status?’ In other
words, knowledge is associated with, or seen as, preserving power or status.
Consultation functions as a quality control meanism through whi
knowledge is shared. Auditors experience cross-national differences in the
extent to whi they are intrinsically inclined to consult with colleagues or
subject maer experts when needed. Auditors associate a culture of
hierary, loyalty and respect for authority with a la of consultative
behaviour. As one auditor comments:
It applies to the whole region. Consulting culture is not very strong. (…) e engagement partner
doesn’t want anyone else to question him, and the person to pose the question, for example the
quality review partner, will feel uncomfortable about posing it. As a result it doesn’t happen.

Auditors see that this la of consultation can also be motivated by the
extent to whi discussing an issue with a colleague would be perceived to
be a sign of weakness or of strength. In the laer scenario, auditors apply
the adage: ‘e biggest mistake you can make is the mistake you make on
your own.’ In the former scenario, one auditor, aer his permanent move to
a country he refers to as collectivistic and hierarical, observed: ‘It might
even be considered a sign of weakness or incompetence for you to ask me
whether your thinking is right. You may be inclined to avoid that on the
grounds that it is a sign of weakness.’

Reporting and discussing audit findings

e significance of communication and interaction between auditor and

client mainly comes to the fore in the discussion of audit findings and the
negotiation process surrounding audit adjustments. Many of the
international differences that auditors observe in this area circle around
power asymmetry. is is generally considered to lead to limited access to
the client and to a greater inclination to accede to the client’s preferred
position. An auditor from a country that he experiences as hierarical and
indirect in its communication style explains it as follows:
e auditor does not have access to the supervisory board, not even at the largest clients. And that
is a real problem, because the supervisory board actually makes the decisions. (…) In other words,
you just cannot have the discussion with the real decision makers.

Furthermore, auditors point to the phenomenon of ‘saving face’, the fear

people have of losing honour and respect. To prevent others from ‘losing
face’, auditors may not be assertive, whi leads to avoidance of
confrontation and to the use of indirect communication styles. An
interviewed auditor notes:
In [this country] everything is indirect. So saying ‘no’ is quite difficult. It is always ‘yes’, but it
may well be that they just could not say ‘no’, although it is not going to work anyway.

In referring to ‘Western’ countries, one auditor noted that people ‘tend to

want to get everything out on the table, talk about it and resolve it. In other
countries they tend to resolve differences either in private or behind the
scenes.’

Reflections on the explanatory power of cultural

taxonomies
ese findings show that auditors tend to see cross-national cultural
differences as one of the root causes of cross-border behavioural differences.
ey use their own ‘native categories’ to interpret and express cultural
differences observed. ey refer to culture in terms of aitude towards rules,
risk adversity and/or the need for structure. ey point to respect for and
deference to seniority, power control and hierary, differentiating that from
loyalty, collectivism and the notion of trust-based relationships. Finally, they
refer to culture in terms of the concept of ‘saving face’ and avoidance of
confrontation.
Although these interpretations should not be taken at face value, they
reflect cross-cultural reality as auditors observe it. Furthermore, they show
that the terms used by auditors are quite similar to the cultural dimensions
used in taxonomies su as that of House et al. (2004)4 and, hence, they
underline the practical usability of su taxonomies as a synthesising
framework for understanding, structuring and expressing the cultural
differences observed. Along the lines of the dimensions of House et al. (2004)
that can be expected to have the most relevance (power distance,
assertiveness, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and in-group
collectivism) this can be illustrated as follows:

Power distance: Subordinates in higher power distance countries,

where people expect and accept that power should be concentrated
at higher levels of society, would have less room for independent
thought and action and have learned that it can be dangerous to
question authority and express disagreement (House et al. 2004: 527–
529).
Assertiveness: Assertiveness is associated with preferences for strong
expression, articulation and communication of thoughts, feelings,
beliefs and rights (House et al. 2004: 164). Communication in high-
assertiveness countries tends to be more direct and unambiguous,
leading to people being more comfortable with voicing opinions and
allenging others.
Institutional collectivism: Deeply rooted in the collectivistic,
Confucian values is an emphasis on collective action and conformity
to one’s environment and an inclination to maintain harmony by
subjugation and respect for authority. is results in ‘saving face’
and in avoiding, compromising and accommodating conflict
resolution tactics (House et al. 2004: 452).
Uncertainty avoidance: People from uncertainty avoidance cultures
are less risk-taking and less tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. they have a
 lower risk appetite. However, avoiding uncertainty is not the same as
avoiding risk. Rather, it reduces the (perceived) ambiguity related to
taking su risks (e.g. House et al. 2004: 148).
In-group collectivism: Priority and trust is given to the in-group (as
opposed to the out-group) and personal sacrifices are made to meet
group obligations. On the one hand, this may lead to openness and
transparency towards trusted relationships. On the other hand, there
will be a lower level of trust towards the out-group, leading to
tighter control of information, secrets, and power within the in-
group (House et al. 2004: 182, 186, 458).

Although su taxonomies may thus be useful as a synthesising framework

in daily cross-cultural auditing practice, this does not mean that su
taxonomies have strong scientific explanatory power per se.

Conclusion
It has become clear that cross-national cultural differences are likely to affect
auditors’ professional behaviour across borders. ‘Western’ auditing
principles, e.g. asking probing questions, do not always work in ‘non-
Western’ regions that are considered to be more collectivistic, less assertive
and traditionally based on interpersonal trust. Hence, one cannot simply
assume that auditors will interpret and apply international standards
consistently across the globe. Cross-national cultural differences need to be
anowledged in the local execution of global strategies, e.g. in managing
international networks, local training programmes and quality assurance
procedures.
e cultural taxonomies of acclaimed constructs and dimensions that take
societal culture as their unit of analysis may well provide for a practical
synthesising framework for understanding, structuring and expressing the
‘native categories’ that auditors employ to address the potential impact of
cross-national cultural differences in day-to-day practice. But the question
remains as to how the inherent limitations in their explanatory power can
be addressed to increase the scientific usefulness and validity of su
taxonomies.

Notes
1 House et al. (2004) define national culture as ‘shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and
interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members
of collectives that are transmied across generations’ (House et al. 2004: 15).

2 To gain access to the interviewees, confidentiality and anonymity was assured to all participants
and to the international accounting organisation as a whole. e resulting anonymity in the
analysis does not compromise the validity of the findings.

3 e full interview instrument and descriptive data of the interview population are available upon
request to the author.

4 e 10-year resear project ‘GLOBE’ of House et al. (2004) is considered the most up-to-standard
study providing a cultural taxonomy for use within management science. It addresses a number of
important limitations to the next-best alternative (Hofstede’s study).

References
Arnold, D. F., Bernardi, R. A. and Neidermeyer, P. E. (1999) ‘e effect of
independence on decisions concerning additional audit work: A
European perspective’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 18
(Supplement), pp. 45–67.
Barret, M., Cooper, D. J. and Jamal, K. (2005) ‘Globalization and the
coordinating of work in multinational audits’, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30, pp. 1–24.
Bik, O. P. G. (2010) The Behavior of Assurance Professional: A cross-cultural
perspective, e Netherlands: Eburon.
Birnberg, J. G. and Shields, J.F. (1989) ‘ree decades of behavioral
accounting resear: A sear for order’,Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 1, pp. 23–74.
Buley, P. J. and Chapman, M. (1997) ‘e use of native categories in
management resear’, British Journal of Management, 8, pp. 283–299.
Chanani, S. and MacGregor, A. (1999) ‘A synthesis of cultural studies in
accounting’, Journal of Accounting Literature, 18, pp. 1–30.
Cieslewicz, J. K. (2013) ‘Relationships between national economic culture,
institutions, and accounting: Implications for IFRS’, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Article in press.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W. and Sharp, D. J. (1995) ‘An exploratory examination
of international differences in auditors’ ethical perceptions’, Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 1, pp. 37–64.
Dillard, J. F. and Ferris, K. R. (1989) ‘Individual behavior in professional
accounting firms: A review and synthesis’, Journal of Accounting
Literature, 8, pp. 208–234.
Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of grounded theory
analysis, California: Sociology Press.
Hayes, R., Dassen, R., Silder, A. and Wallage, P. (2005) Principles of
Auditing: An introduction to International Standards on Auditing, 2nd
edition, Pearson Education.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International differences in
work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1996) ‘Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars’
“model” of national culture differences’, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 2, pp. 189–198.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Holden, N. G. (2002) Cross-cultural Management: A knowledge management
perspective, Pearson Education.
House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfmann, P. and Gupta, V. (2004)
Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 nations,
ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jenkins, J. G., Deis, D. R., Bedard, J. C. and Curtis, M. B. (2008) ‘Accounting
firm culture and governance: A resear synthesis’, Behavioral Research
in Accounting, 1, pp. 45–74.
Jensen, M. C. and Meling, W. H. (1976) ‘eory of the firm: Managerial
behavior, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial
Economics, 4, pp. 305–360.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buan, N. R., Erez, M. and Gibson, C. B. (2005)
‘Culture and international business: Recent advances and their
implications for future resear’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 4, pp. 357–378.
Lin, K. Z. and Fraser, I. A. M (2008) ‘Auditors’ ability to resist client pressure
and culture: Perceptions in China and the United Kingdom’, Journal of
International Financial Management and Accounting, 2, pp. 161–183.
Moore, F. (2012) ‘e diorama: e impact of gender and ethnic ‘native
categories’ on cross-cultural management in a post-acquisition
automobile manufacturer’, Management International Review, 52, pp.
619–642.
Nelson, M. and Tan, H. (2005) ‘Judgment and decision making resear in
auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective’,
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, s–1, pp. 41–71.
Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., and Cullen, J. B. (2005) ‘Does national
culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors?: A focus
on the GLOBE national culture seme’, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 2, pp. 123–138.
Patel, C. and Psaros, J. (2000) ‘Perceptions of external auditors’
independence: Some cross-cultural evidence’, British Accounting Review,
3, pp. 311–338.
Smith, A. and Hume, E. C. (2005) ‘Linking culture and ethics: A comparison
of accountants’ ethical belief systems in the individualism/collectivism
and power distance context’, Journal of Business Ethics, 3, pp. 209–220.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory, ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not’,
Academy of Management Journal, 4, pp. 633–642.
Van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997) Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-
cultural Research, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wong-On-Wing, B. and Lui, G. (2013) ‘Beyond cultural values: An implicit
theory approa to cross-cultural resear in accounting ethics’,
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 1, pp. 15–36.
Yamamura, J. H., Frakes, A. H., Sanders, D. L. and Ahn, S. K. (1996) ‘A
comparison of Japanese and U.S. auditor decision-making behavior’, The
International Journal of Accounting, 3, pp. 347–363.
30
Cyber-threats and cybersecurity
allenges
A cross-cultural perspective

Nir Kshetri and Lailani Laynesa Alcantara

Introduction

As is the case of any economic activity, cultural factors are tightly linked to
cybercrimes, cyber-aas and cybersecurity. Just like any other activities,
some forms of cybercrime may be more acceptable in some cultures than in
others. For some categories of cyberoffenses, cultural factors appear to play
more important roles than other environmental factors. For instance,
cybercrimes are more justifiable in some cultures. oting a Russian haer-
turned-teaer, Blau (2004) describes how he and his friends haed
programs and distributed them for free during their ildhood: “It was like
our donation to society, it was a form of honor; [we were] like Robin Hood
bringing programs to people.” Likewise, it is argued that culture and ethical
aitudes may be a more crucial factor in driving soware piracy as well as a
number of other cybercrimes than the levels of economic development
(Donaldson, 1996; Kshetri, 2009b, 2013a, b, c, d; Kwong et al., 2003).
eoretical, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that cultural
factors exert a strong influence on the nature and paerns of cybercrime and
cybersecurity. At the most basic level, cultural factors influence how issues
around a crime (e.g., cybercrime) are constructed and how a cybercrime is
defined (Brownstein, 2000). Unsurprisingly, the definition of cybercrime
varies dramatically across cultures. Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) noted: “Pornography in
one country is a crime; in another it’s freedom of behavior” (Meyer, 2010).
As su, cybercrimes and cyberoffenses have varying degrees of social and
cultural acceptability across the world. ey range from passive acceptance
to outright celebration of “patriotic” haer-heroes (Kshetri 2013d; Fowler,
2013). Indeed, important cross-cultural variation exists regarding what
behavior is considered to be acceptable or unacceptable.
e orientation of a culture towards a cybercrime activity may differ
depending on who the cybercriminals, victims and potential beneficiaries
are. In the above example, distributing soware stolen from a foreign
company’s website in a society may be received favorably because
individuals in the society benefit from su activities. No less important in
this example is who the victim is. e society may view a cybercrime
differently when the victim is a foreign company rather than a domestic
company. e idea of cultural Others may help us understand this
phenomenon beer. Jandt and Tanno (2001, p. 122) note: “In contemporary
times as in colonial times, cultural Others have not been defined according
to who they are but rather who they are not.” In the same vein, Hoare (1991)
argues that “all humans may possess the seeds of pseudo-speciation, of
prejudice against dissimilar groups and values” (p. 52).
Due primarily to the newness of cybercrime, there has been surprisingly
lile theoretical and empirical work on the effects of cultural factors on
cybercrime and cybersecurity. In general cyberspace the issue is
underexplored in cross-cultural management (CCM). In an aempt to
contribute to filling this void, in this apter we seek to provide a beer
understanding of the link between cultural factors and
cybercrime/cybersecurity and shed light on implications for CCM. In this
apter we try to aieve three objectives: (1) to explain how different
aspects of culture are linked with definition and conceptualization of
cybercrime, propensity to commit cybercrimes and types of cybercrimes
likely to be commied; (2) to examine some elements of culture that are
linked with cybersecurity; and (3) to illustrate how cyberaas are more
justifiable and acceptable from the perpetrator’s point of view when the
victims are cultural Others.
A cybercrime is defined as a criminal activity in whi computers or
computer networks are the principal means of commiing an offense or
violating laws, rules or regulations (Kshetri, 2009a). We follow the ITU’s
definition of cybersecurity:
Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines,
risk management approaes, actions, training, best practices, assurance and tenologies that can
be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets. Organization and
user’s assets include connected computing devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications,
services, telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmied and/or stored information in
the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure the aainment and maintenance of the
security properties of the organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber
environment.
(ITU, U.D.)

Following Jandt and Tanno (2001), we use the term cultural Others to
refer to “groups of people perceived to be outside defined boundaries, at the
margins of acceptance” (p. 119).

Cultural factors affecting cybercrime

Prior literature has provided some indications on the link of culture with
cybercrimes and cyber-security (Kshetri, 2005, 2006, 2009a; 2010a, b, c, d;
2013a, b, c, d; 2014a, b). Culturally supported habits influence the behaviors
of relevant actors su as governments, firms, victims and haers. As
mentioned earlier, cultural factors influence how issues around a cybercrime
are constructed, and how a cybercrime is defined, conceptualized, theorized,
measured, responded to and policed (Brownstein, 2000). Saney (1986, p. 10)
noted that culture is related to crime
 in its influence in encouraging certain types of antisocial behavior, in how we treat convicted
felons, and in promoting the types of aitudes and perceptions in the public that either directly or
indirectly influence the spread or restriction of criminal behavior in society.

Put simply, a crime is an activity or a behavior prohibited by a society,

whi falls within the society’s criminal code (Cohen, 1992). As noted
earlier, while pornography is crime in some countries, it is not in others. e
Arab culture offers an interesting seing to illustrate this idea. Cultural,
socio-political and cognitive factors in the region have important effects on
these economies’ cybercrime fighting measures. In August 2010, Saudi
Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice
(also known as the Haia) announced that it would establish a unit to fight
cybercrimes. e Haia also noted that the cybercrime unit’s initial focus
would be on cases involving online blamail of women
(arabianbusiness.com, 2010).
Some cultural factors provide a conducive environment for cybercrime
activities. For instance, Husted (2000) found evidence that soware piracy is
more likely to occur in a culture that puts emphasis on sharing among group
members, suggesting that a possible solution for piracy in this culture is to
demonstrate piracy as a shameful act. Evidence also shows that most high-
profile and widely publicized cybercrimes in India are concentrated in the
offshore sector. It was reported in February 2010 that an employee in the IT
giant Wipro used his colleague’s password to steal some U.S.$4 million from
the company’s bank account (Mishra, 2010).

Culture’s effect on the nature of cybercrimes committed by

cybercriminals

Skorodumova (2004) provides a useful set of distinctions for aracterizing

haing cultures associated with different nationalities. e American
haers, for instance, are aracterized by personal motives su as self-
advertising compared to Russians or Europeans. European haers refrain
from aaing well-known sites and advertising themselves. e U.S.
specialists believe that European haers more oen aa websites in
protest or in defense of human rights. Likewise, Russian haers see
authority and laws as hostile.
As is the case of crime subculture observed in the conventional world (De
La Calle Robles, 2007), what seems to be happening is region-specific
specialization in cybercrime activities. Evidence indicates that cybercrimes
originated in Asia exploit vulnerabilities in common soware applications to
steal personal information. Eastern European criminals are linked with
organized crimes and identity the (Fitzgerald, 2008). Romanian criminals,
for instance, have distinctive advantage in online auction frauds. In auctions
for big-tiet items, Romanians arguably “own the game” (Wylie, 2007).
ey have allegedly developed an ecosystem to auction fraud bringing
together various players and tenologies. Likewise, the Ukrainian criminal
world is considered to be a “leader” in online credit card crime (Wylie, 2007).
Haers from the Middle East, on the other hand, have a higher tendency to
deface websites (Fitzgerald, 2008). Likewise, Skorodumova (2004) linked
national subculture with different aracteristics of intrinsically motivated
haing.
Some cyberspace activities that are considered as cyberoffenses in some
contexts are more likely to be justified in other cultural contexts. For
instance, a Business Week article (23 June 2008) reported that China’s public
relations firms su as Daqi.com, Chinese Web Union and CIC arge
U.S.$500–$25,000 monthly to monitor online posts. ey help minimize the
impact of negative information and create positive brand value for the
company. ere are reports that these PR firms hire students to write good
posts about certain brands and to criticize the competition. While critics are
concerned about the manipulation of consumer reviews and paid reviews,
astroturfers in China have not faced legal problems. Note that in an
astroturfing activity, the sponsoring organization of a message is masked,
whi is common in China outside of cybercrime as well. One way to
understand the China–U.S. difference is to consider their experiences with
modern capitalism. Many successful firms in mature market economies are
guided by customer orientation and demonstrate their commitment to
customer focus. Customers in these economies exhibit a low tolerance for
poor behavior if businesses and suppliers do not fulfill their implicit and
explicit commitments. Due to China’s short history of modern capitalism,
Chinese clients and customers are more likely to tolerate an absence of
business ethics and a low level of product and service quality and/or
reliability (Kshetri, 2010a, 2011).

Culture and cybersecurity

Our discussion thus far has focused on how various aspects of culture are
linked to cybercrime. However, there is also another side of the coin,
namely, cybersecurity. While the top security soware firms are U.S.-based,
businesses and consumers in some developing countries (e.g., Southeast
Asia) prefer to buy domestically manufactured soware for reasons of
nationalism (Information Today, 2008; Kshetri, 2010c). Prior resear has also
suggested that cultural factors are linked to national development of
cybersecurity skills. A senior fellow at Tokyo’s Center for International
Public Policy Studies notes that, in common with other professionals,
Japanese cybersecurity specialists seek lifetime employment. In highly
mobile job markets su as in the U.S., however, workers frequently move
among the public sector, private sector and academia, whi facilitates the
institutional transfer of IT skills (Kshetri, 2014a). e la of job mobility has
led to a severe shortage of cybersecurity skills in Japan. As reported in a
Reuter’s article on 17 Mar 2014, Japan’s IT minister, Iita Yamamoto,
admied that the country’s cybersecurity is lagging behind the U.S. and
emphasized promoting computer science programs among Japanese students
in order to reduce reliance on imported security soware and strengthen
cybersecurity.
Let’s take another example to illustrate the effect of culture on
cybersecurity. Indian firms engaged in outsourcing have taken measures to
prevent cybercrimes by current and former employees. Indian and foreign
firms are following the security practices of Western firms, some of whi
are incompatible with local culture. For instance, call center employees have
to undergo security es, whi are considered to be “undignified” (The
Economist, 2005). e U.S. computer firm Dell faced difficulties in retaining
its employees in its Indian call centers when the company aempted to
emulate its headquarters model in treating the local employees (Kaka, 2006).

Justifiability and acceptability of victimizing

cultural Others
Some examples of boundaries that separate perpetrators and potential
victims and are likely to make cyberaas more justifiable and acceptable
from the perpetrators’ perspective are presented in Table 30.1.

Table 30.1 Some examples of boundaries that separate perpetrators and potential victims and make
cyberaas more justifiable and acceptable

Source of
Explanation Some examples
otherness

Launing cyberaas
Chinese haers’ cyber wars
Different against individuals and
with Indonesians, Japanese
nationality organizations from other
and U.S. haers
nations
A Japanese student aaing
Different Using cyberaas as a tool to
Korean Internet servers to
ideology aa an ideology
protest the war in Iraq
Using cyberaas against
Different India-Pakistan and Israel-
those who allenge one’s
religion Palestine cyber wars
religious beliefs and values
Source of
Explanation Some examples
otherness

Economically
Launing financially
more Indonesian haers targeting
motivated cyberaas
privileged ri Westerners
against ri people
classes

Different nationality

Nationalism and patriotism are universally accepted as vital elements of

state strength (Alagappa, 1995, 26–27). Salmon (1995) argues that “patriotism
or aament to one’s country oen leads to actions and aitudes whi are
disinterested or self-sacrificing, help solve free-riding problems” (p. 296).
Prior resear has shown that patriotism and nationalism provide cognitive
legitimacy of some haers’ activities. We can find many instances of
haings linked to nationalism and patriotism. To take an example, in the
early 1990s, a group of Portuguese haers named TOXYN infiltrated a
number of Indonesian government websites to fight against the occupation
of East Timor (de Kloet, 2002). Indonesian haers responded by aaing
Portuguese servers that hosted the East Timor movement (Antariksa, 2001).
To take another example, in 1997, cyberaas occurred in Sri Lanka in
support of the Tamil Tiger separatists. e strike was intended to disrupt
government communications by overloading Sri Lankan embassies with
millions of emails (Havely, 2000). To take yet another example, in 1998, the
Indian army’s website on Kashmir was hijaed by supporters of Pakistan’s
claim to the disputed territory, who plastered the site with their own
political slogans (Havely, 2000). In response, in July 2001, the website of the
Pakistan-based militant outfit Lashkar-e-Tayiba was aaed by a haer
who called himself/ herself “True Indian” (Peer, 2001). It was in response to
aas of G-force, a Pakistani haer group, to the Indian Ministry of
External Affairs’ websites.
We further illustrate this idea with examples of Chinese haers’
engagement in cyber wars, especially with U.S. haers. Before proceeding
further, let us briefly review Chinese and U.S. versions of nationalism and
patriotism. Pei (2003) has identified several dimensions of nationalism.
Consider two of them: source and bases. In terms of source, he argues that
some examples of nationalism are a product of grass-root voluntarism (as
U.S. nationalism) while others are fostered by government elites and
promoted by the apparatus of the state (police, military, state-run media).
Chinese nationalism is viewed as state sponsored and an aempt to fill an
“ideological vacuum” le by the weakening socialism (Christensen, 1996;
Oksenberg, 1987). In terms of bases, Pei distinguishes nationalism related to
universalistic ideals (democracy, rule of law, free marketplace) and
institutions from that based on ethnicity, religion, language and geography.
China falls into the laer category. In China, the state arguably bolsters its
legitimacy through invoking a deep sense of “Chineseness” among citizens
(Ong, 1997; Barme, 1999; Hansen, 1999). China has adapted a body of
complex solarship to invoke a deep sense of “Chineseness.” Sautman (2001)
concludes: “Nowhere is this more pronounced than in China, where these
disciplines [araeology and paleoanthropology] provide the conceptual
warp and woof of China’s racial nationalism.”
Chinese haers have expressed their patriotic and nationalistic longings
in several cyber wars. In August 1999, Web defacements led to a cyber war
between Chinese and Taiwanese haers. Initially, Chinese haers defaced
several Taiwanese websites with pro-China messages and said that Taiwan
was and would always be a part of China (Denning, 2001). e Chinese have
also fought cyber wars with Indonesians and Japanese haers (de Kloet,
2002).
e U.S.–China cyber wars are particularly telling. In September 1999,
following the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, a
group of haers that identified itself as Level Seven Crew, defaced the
website of the U.S. embassy in China and replaced the home page with racist
and antigovernment slogans (Denning, 2001). Following the collision of a
U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter in 2001, a Chinese haing
group published its plans for a “Net War,” whi was planned to continue
until the anniversary of the bombing in Belgrade. In response, haing
groups from the U.S., Brazil and Europe aaed Chinese websites. Chinese
haers reportedly aaed about 1,100 U.S. websites while U.S. haers
broke into 1,600 Chinese websites (Kshetri, 2005). Similarly, aer the
collision of a Chinese fighter jet with a U.S. surveillance plane in April 2001,
a Chinese haing group aaed hundreds of U.S. websites including that
of the White House (Bridis, 2001).
A comparative study between mailings of Chinese and Americans
indicated that fierce feelings of nationalist fervor had fueled both camps
(Kluver, 2001, p. 7). On several American websites, Chinese le: “We are
ready to devote anything to our motherland, including our lives” (Smith,
2001). e Chinese haers involved in the aas argued that they were
patriotic and thus did not do anything wrong. Analyzing the U.S.–China
cyber wars, Kluver (2001, p. 8) concluded that “the tenological optimism
whi sees in the Internet the end of nationalism and paroialism is an
unrealistic understanding of how the Internet functions as a medium for
human interaction.”

Different ideology

In addition to nationalism and religion, haers’ interests are also framed by

ideologies su as fight against global capitalism and against nuclear
proliferation (de Kloet, 2002). For instance, some haers are likely to aa
networks of big multinationals to fight against capitalism. To take an
example of ideological haing, in June 1998, six haers from the U.S., the
UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand (identifying themselves as Milworm)
haed the website of India’s Bhabha Atomic Resear Center (BARC) and
le a message: “If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream”
(Denning, 2001). Similarly, in South Korea, 58 Internet servers were aaed
by a Japanese student in November 2003 to protest the war in Iraq (Duk-kun,
2003).

Different religion

Haings by Islamic activists are interesting examples of cyberaas that

fall in this category. Except for occasional India–Pakistan and Israel–
Palestine cyber wars, haing by Islamist activists was insignificant before
11 September 2001. mi2g Intelligence Unit reported increasing Islamist
haing, the targets being networks of the U.S., Britain, Australia and other
coalition partners as well as domestic networks of Russia, Turkey, Indonesia,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait.
e holistic nature of Islamic society could help explain why a high
proportion of cyber-aas originating from the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) region are motivated by religious factors. For instance,
following the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) interception of a flotilla carrying
humanitarian aid to Gaza in May 2010, tens of thousands of email addresses,
passwords and personal details of Israelis were allegedly stolen by Turkish
haers. It was reported that there was dispute among the Turkish haers in
the online forum about the appropriateness of using the information for
financial gain. Some haers felt that using the information to steal money
would undermine their political agenda. ere was also a discussion of what
the Koran says is permissible to do with the money of “infidels”
(haaretz.com, 2010).

Economically more privileged classes

Cultural aitudes towards the potential victim are also related to the
perpetrators’ propensity to engage in cybercrimes. It is, for instance,
reported that many Indonesian haers feel that cyber fraud is wrong but
acceptable, especially if the credit card owner is ri and not an Indonesian.
A carder reportedly said: “Yes, it’s wrong but it really only hurts other ri
countries that were dumb enough to let us. Why should an Indonesian get
arrested for damaging American business?” (Shubert, 2003). Another carder
said: “I only oose those people who are truly ri. I’m not comfortable
using the money of poor people. I also don’t want to use credit cards
belonging to Indonesians. ose are a carder’s ethics” (Antariksa, 2001, p.
16).

Discussion and implications

e previous discussion indicates that there are important cross-cultural

dimensions of cyber-crime and cybersecurity, whi are more complicated
than meets the eye. ere are important cross-cultural differences regarding
what actions or activities are viewed as cybercrimes and how su crimes
are policed, enforced and disciplined. Important cross-cultural variations
also exist in social orientation towards various ingredients of cybercrime,
propensity to engage in cyber-crimes, aitude towards potential victims and
nature of cyberoffenses commied. Finally, this apter has provided a new
perspective on the literature of the cultural Other by providing an overview
of boundaries separating perpetrators and potential victims, whi are likely
to make cyberaas more justifiable and acceptable from the perpetrators’
perspectives.
Prior researers noted that compared to formal rules, whi may ange
quily due to political and judicial measures, deliberate policies and actions
oen would have lile effect to ange informal institutions su as cultures
and norms (North, 1990). Basic international paerns of cybercrimes and
cyberaas are less likely to ange significantly in the near future. at is,
one can expect cyberaas driven by nationalism during international
conflicts and wars from China. Haers from the MENA region are likely to
engage mostly in politically and ideologically motivated cyberaas.
Cybercrimes from Eastern European economies, on the other hand, are
likely to involve economic gains.
 Likewise, cybercriminals’ cultural aitudes towards the potential victims
of various categories are less likely to ange in the near future.
at does not imply, however, that cultures related to cybercrime and
cybersecurity cannot be anged at all. Since cultural factors affect the
aitudes of individuals and organizations towards cybercrime and
cybersecurity capabilities across countries, policy makers can make efforts to
influence culture so that it is more intolerant of cybercrimes and conducive
to cybersecurity. Perhaps an initial step is building a cybercrime
consciousness, and a common understanding about the economic and social
costs of cybercrimes and cybersecurity among citizens in order to prompt
new habits of cybercrime avoidance and protection.
While this apter has focused on cultural factors, these factors are not, in
themselves, sufficient to explain cybercrime and cybersecurity. Further
studies are warranted to fully understand the paerns of cybercrime cases
and measures for cybersecurity across countries. ese studies would
undoubtedly contribute to creating a secure cyber environment for
businesses and consumers.
e insights developed in this paper have important implications for
CCM. e most oen cited figure for the annual worldwide loss to
cybercrime is U.S.$1 trillion and according to the 2011 Norton Cybercrime
Report released by Symantec, 69 percent of the world’s Internet users have
been victimized by cybercriminals at some point in their lives (Kshetri,
2013d). e impact of cultural factors on cybercrime and cybersecurity as
noted here suggests that the standard recipes, models and procedures for
firms to be culturally aware and sensitive are highly inadequate for
engagement with international crime of this complexity and on this scale. A
related point is that whereas companies have faced rapidly growing cyber
threats, a one-size-fits-all approa cannot address the global cybersecurity
allenges. e degrees and types of threats faced by a multinational
company are likely to differ drastically across countries. e discussion
suggests that different cultures differ in the degree to whi various forms of
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated haing activities are commied by
individuals. Likewise, cybersecurity-related training to employees, and other
interventions are more important in some cultures. For instance, an
emphasis on the importance of keeping one’s password confidential might
be necessary in cultures that view sharing among group members as an
important social aspect.
is apter also makes it clear that a firm that is aracterized by a high
degree of Otherness in a foreign country is more likely to face cyberaas.
For instance, a multinational company is more likely to be a cybercrime
victim in a country aracterized by resistance to capitalism. Likewise, a
Western company is more likely to be associated with economically more
privileged classes in a country where the majority of the population is poor,
and is thus likely to face cyberaas.

References
Alagappa, M. (1995). Political legitimacy in Southeast Asia. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Antariksa (2001, July). I am a thief, not a haer: Indonesia’s electronic
underground. Latitudes Magazine, 12–17. arabianbusiness.com. (2010).
Saudi Arabia’s Hai’a to set up cybercrime unit. Retrieved from
hp://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-s-hai-a-set-up-cyber-
crime-unit-342746.html (accessed 26 May 2011).
Barme, G. (1999). In the red: On contemporary Chinese culture. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Blau, J. (2004, 26 May). Russia – A happy haven for haers.
hp://www.computerweekly.com/Article130839.htm
Brownstein, H. H. (2000). e social production of crime statistics, Justice
Research and Policy, 2, 73–89.
Bridis, T. (2001, 27 June). E-espionage rekindles cold-war tensions – US tries
to identify haers; millions of documents are stolen. Wall Street
Journal, A.18.
Christensen, T. (1996). Chinese Realpolitik. Foreign Affairs, 75(5), 37–52.
Cohen, M. A. (1992). Environmental crime and punishment: Legal/economic
theory and empirical evidence on enforcement of federal environmental
statutes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1054–1108.
de Kloet, J. (2002). Digitisation and its Asian discontents: e internet,
politics and haing in China and Indonesia. First Monday, 7(9).
hp://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_9/kloet/index.html. Accessed 5
October 2006.
De La Calle Robles, L. (2007). Fighting for local control: Street violence in the
basque country. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 431–455.
Denning, D. E. (2001). Chapter eight: Activism, hativism, and
cyberterrorism: e internet as a tool for influencing foreign policy. In J.
Arquilla and D. Ronfeldt (Eds.), Networks and netwars: The future of
terror, crime, and militancy. Rand Corporation Monograph/Report MR-
1382. hp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/index.html
(accessed 22 October 2008).
Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard
Business Review, 74(5), 48–57.
Duk-kun, B. (2003, 19 November). Largest Internet haing ring uncovered.
The Korea Times.
Fitzgerald, P. (2008). Crash of civilizations. Foreign Policy,
September/October, 122.
Fowler, T. (2013). Book review: Cybercrime and cybersecurity in the global
south, telecommunications policy
hp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.11.004
haaretz.com (2010). Turkish hackers steal personal details of tens of
thousands of Israelis. hp://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-
defense/turkish-haers-steal-personal-details-of-tens-of-thousands-of-
israelis-1.302494 (accessed 29 May 2011).
Hansen, M. (1999). Lessons in being Chinese: Minority education and ethnic
identity in Southwest China. Seale: University of Washington Press.
Havely, J. (2000, 16 February). Online’s when states go to cyber-war. BBC
News.
Hoare, Carol H. (1991). Psyosocial identity development and cultural
others. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 45–53.
Husted, B. W. (2000). e impact of national culture on soware piracy.
Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3), 197–211.
Information Today (2008). Challenges in the East. 25(2), 22
ITU (U.D.). Definition of cybersecurity, International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) hp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/studygroups/com17/Pages/cybersecurity.aspx (accessed 29 May 2011).
Jandt, Fred E. & Tanno, Dolores V. Howard (2001). Decoding domination,
encoding self-determination: intercultural communication resear
processes. Journal of Communications, 12(3), 119–135.
Kaka, N. F. (2006). Running a customer service center in India: An interview
with the head of operations for Dell India, Minsey arterly, Web
exclusive, May, hp://www.minseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?
ar=1779andL2=13andL3=13andsrid=17andgp=0 (accessed 2 May 2007).
Kluver, R. (2001). New media and the end of nationalism: China and the US
in a war of words. Mots Pluriels.
www.arts.uwa.edu.au/MotsPluriels/MP1801ak.html (accessed 27 October
2009).
Kshetri, Nir (2005). Paern of global cyber war and crime: A conceptual
framework. Journal of International Management, 11(4), 541–562.
Kshetri, Nir (2006). e simple economics of cybercrimes. IEEE Security and
Privacy, January/February, 4 (1), 33–39.
Kshetri, Nir (2009a). Positive externality, increasing returns and the rise in
cybercrimes. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 141–144.
Kshetri, Nir (2009b). Institutionalization of intellectual property rights in
China. European Management Journal, 27(3), 155–164
Kshetri, Nir (2010a). e economics of cli fraud. IEEE Security & Privacy,
8(3), 45–53.
Kshetri, Nir (2010b). The global cyber-crime industry: Economic, institutional
and strategic perspectives. New York, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag.
Kshetri, Nir (2010c). Diffusion and effects of cybercrime in developing
economies. Third World Quarterly, 31(7), 1057–1079.
Kshetri, Nir (2010d). Cloud computing in developing economies. IEEE
Computer, 43(10), 47–55.
Kshetri, Nir (2011). Privacy and security aspects of social media: Institutional
and tenological environment. The Pacific Asia Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 3(4), 1–20.
Kshetri, Nir (2013a). Cyber-victimization and cybersecurity in China.
Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 35–37.
Kshetri, Nir (2013b). Privacy and security issues in cloud computing: e
role of institutions and institutional evolution. Telecommunications
Policy, 37(4–5), 372–386.
Kshetri, Nir (2013c). Cybercrime and cyber-security issues associated with
China: Some economic and institutional considerations. Electronic
Commerce Research, 13(1), 41–69.
Kshetri, Nir (2013d). Cybercrime and cybersecurity in the global south.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kshetri, Nir (2014a). Japan’s anging cybersecurity landscape, IEEE
Computer, 47(1), 83–86.
Kshetri, Nir (2014b). China’s data privacy regulations: A triy trade-off
between ICT’s productive utilization and cyber-control. IEEE Security &
Privacy, 12(4), 38–45.
Kwong, K. K., Yau, O. H. M., Lee, J. S. Y., Sin, L. Y. M., & Tse, A. C. B. (2003).
e effects of aitudinal and demographic factors on intention to buy
pirated CDs: e case of Chinese consumers. Journal of Business Ethics,
47(3), 223–235.
Meyer, D. (2010). ITU head: Cyberwar could be ‘worse than tsunami’, 3
September, ZDNet, www.zdnet.com/itu-head-cyberwar-could-be-worse-
than-tsunami-30400.
Mishra, B. R. (2010) ‘Wipro unlikely to take fraud accused to court’,
business-standard.com, 19 February, at hp://www.business-
standard.com/india/news/wipro-unlikely-to-take-fraud-accused-to-
court/386181/ (accessed 29 May 2011).
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oksenberg, M. (1987). China’s confident nationalism. Foreign Affairs, 65(3),
501–523.
Ong, A. (1997). Chinese modernities: Narratives of nation and of capitalism.
In A. Ong and D. Nonini (Eds.), Underground empires: The cultural
politics of modern Chinese transformation. New York: Routledge.
Peer, B. (2001, 10 July). Lashkar web site haed.
hp://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/10ha1.htm (accessed 27 October
2005).
Pei, M. (2003). e paradoxes of American nationalism. Foreign Policy, 136,
30–37.
Salmon, P. (1995). Nations competing against themselves: An interpretation
of European integration. In A. Breton, G. Galeoi, P. Salmon, and R.
Wintrobe (Eds.), Nationalism and rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Saney, P. (1986). Crime and culture in America. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press.
Sautman, B. (2001). Peking man and the politics of paleoanthropological
nationalism in China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 60(1), 95–124.
Shubert, A. (2003, 6 February). Taking a swipe at cyber card fraud. CNN.com.
hp://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02/06/indonesia.fr
aud (accessed 27 October 2006).
Skorodumova, O. (2004). Haers as information space phenomenon. Social
Sciences, 35(4), 105–113.
Smith, C. S. (2001, 13 May). e first world haer war. New York Times, 4.2.
The Economist (2005). Business: busy signals. Indian call centres, 376(8443),
66 (10 September).
Wylie, I. (2007, December 26). Internet; Romania home base for EBay
scammers; e auction website has dispated its own cyber-sleuth to
help police cra fraud rings. Los Angeles Times, C.1.
31
A nation of money and sheep

Már Wolfgang Mixa

Introduction
I began working at the Savings Bank of Hafnarörð ur in 1998, in a small
town carrying the same name as the bank on the outskirts of Reykjavík. It
was the main financial institution of the town and deeply embedded in the
town culture, but had recently established a securities division. My co-
workers and I at the securities division had no interest in adapting to the old
way of banking, whi was strong in this institution. is came to a
symbolic show-down with the CEO, who demanded that we put on (very
old-fashioned) name tags. e CEO repeatedly said that at meetings it was
essential that the customers knew our names; ‘How can the customer
address you without seeing your names?’ he asked. We prevailed, stating
that all of ‘our’ customers knew our names and this was thus not necessary.
e CEO caved in but what we did not realize at that juncture was that we
were shaped by the new way of thinking of banks and bankers, puing us in
a sense at an elite status. e CEO himself always bore a name tag as did all
the other bank employees. e CEO had in fact got a point, although not in
the way he explicitly said. Name tags had really nothing to do with
customers knowing people’s names; most of the savings bank employees had
worked there for ages and could hardly cope with greeting everyone when
shopping at the local supermarket. ere was, however, an implicit message
with the name tags; namely that a big family was working there, localizing
the operations of the business. is meant that everyone had a role in
serving the customer in the same personal manner. We (new bankers) also
had a point. People within the flourishing securities business of banking
worked in an independent fashion, seldom restricted to nine to five working
hours. e few times we set up the name tags to please our CEO, we made
sure we took them off before meeting our colleagues. We were, during those
moments, terrified that some colleague would unexpectedly show up and
see us. It would have been shameful.
As expressed in this story, Icelandic banks underwent a radical
transformation in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As I show in this paper, the
excitement of a ‘new’ way of doing banking was not limited to newly
privatized banks that soon acted like investment banks but also to banks that
were well established in a deeply localized context. I claim here that cultural
aspects helped to conceal what should have been an obvious fact; namely
that Icelanders were very inexperienced bankers that still managed to grow
in status to su a degree that their actions created among the biggest
financial losses in history, dwarfing well-publicized losses su as those by
Enron and WorldCom. ose enormous losses were mostly related to
Iceland’s main three banks going into receivership in autumn 2008. e
savings banks of Iceland were as a whole almost entirely wiped out during
the crash, despite their long history of serving rural customers, even while
clinging to old-fashioned customer service.
Historically, the Icelandic banking system had not anged mu and
focused on serving the local community, as in the example given previously.
e radical anges in the late 1990s involved Icelandic banks becoming
integrated into global financial markets, whi led to an unprecedented
economic boom and finally to an economic collapse in 2008. is led to a
deadly combination, creating a loop that was re-affirmed within banks,
where not only the bankers but many Icelanders perceived themselves as not
only being rational (neoliberal) individuals, maximizing their own financial
gains, but simultaneously not overly concerned with understanding the
meanisms of su high returns. us their economic behaviour
corresponds with Davies and McGoey’s (2012) critical address of ‘ignorance’
being useful to agents in the financial markets at certain times, because it
helps them to make decisions that can be beneficial financially in the short
term but disastrous if looking further ahead. During the boom period, the
Icelandic nation was mobilized in pulling the wool over its own eyes for the
most part, oblivious to the dangers involved in the type of banking that was
creating su ‘easy’ wealth, while embracing new beliefs that entailed views
that fit to a certain degree with the Icelandic culture.
Geert Hofstede’s model has been widely influential in stressing the
importance of taking into account cultural variables in explaining economic
behaviour. My argument suggests that while Hofstede’s model can be useful
to understand economic processes taking place in Iceland prior to the crash,
it is important to use it in nuanced and selected ways. e Hofstede model
can thus help to point towards certain processes and cultural aracteristics
that should then be investigated further and analyzed in a more contextual
manner. My argument thus advocates approaing his theory as a model to
guide analysis but not to constrain it. is paper shows that Icelanders fit
quite well with the other Nordic countries in accordance to Hofstede’s
model but closer investigation also reveals that they differ in important
respects, in particular in terms of individualism and thus with a mu lower
savings ratio. Exploring certain aspects of Icelandic culture provides clues as
to why Iceland became enamoured with the financial arena. is relates
mainly to the high individualist aspect of the Icelandic nation and financial
traits similar countries have shown in the past.
My case example focuses on the Icelandic banks, comparing the three big
banks’ outward aracteristics to the savings banks, whi is informative in
understanding what I have called the Manic Millennium mentality that
engulfed the Icelandic nation, and I show how Iceland’s banking system
evolved quily into an enormous entity. Following its downfall many
painted a picture of certain personal aracteristics, most of whi are
common within the popular discourse, being responsible for the Manic
Years. Taking a look at the aracteristics of savings banks and their
operations, however, shows that the maer is not so simple. As opposed to
being merely some symptoms of personal aracteristics within a closely
knit group, Iceland was possibly more subject to specific aracteristics of
culture combined with international developments that quily evolved. A
combination of su international developments that fit well with
precipitating factors of financial crises as described by Shiller (2005) and
individualism as measured by Hofstede’s methods provides clues as to how
certain cultural elements can easily be amplified.
e discussion starts by describing how the Icelandic banking industry
transformed within a few years from being a localized and highly regulated
industry into an international and liberated one, embracing neoliberal
values but yet inadequately regulated, culminating in the economic bubble.
Next I show the process of ‘bad’ bankers personifying the apparent success
of the banking industry in tandem with Icelandic society at large and the
international banking community. Following that I discuss how the illusion
of easy success also applied to old and ‘wise’ savings bankers, who seemed
on the surface to have lile in common with the ‘bad’ bankers. Finally I
explain that certain group elements la explanatory power of how the
Icelandic nation got caught up in the financial frenzy during the Manic
Millennium years. at discussion compares the Icelandic culture to other
cultures using Hofstede’s methods.

From rural banking to international financial

wizards
What made Iceland special in a way was its la of any past history of
commercial banking outside the realms of politics and absolutely none of
investment banking. It was for the longest time a highly localized system
with currency restrictions. Its scene was similar to other Nordic nations,
whi were mainly dictated by political connections and governmental
policies regarding whi industries should receive preferential treatment
(Jonung 2008).
 e banking environment began a liberalization process during the mid-
1980s, but very slowly. It was not until 1995 that Iceland broke down
currency restrictions following the country joining the European Economic
Area (EEA) the previous year, forcing Iceland to liberalize foreign direct
investment within parameters of the EEA agreement, and thus making
Iceland a somewhat globalized country for the first time in more than six
decades.
Iceland’s participation within the EEA was a major impetus in moving
the country towards being more international in nature. is related
particularly to the banking industry and the first step in su a direction
since the Great Depression occurred more than 60 years before. Laws and
regulations regarding finance were hastily updated in accordance with
European standards. at was only the beginning; Icelandic banks also
began financing their operations and following that their businesses within
European territories, opening branes all over the continent and buying
other financial entities. is development marked two watershed moments
in one stroke, since this opened the door to internationalization of financial
markets in Iceland and was a major impetus in a move towards financial
liberalization.
Icelandic banks not only expanded rapidly but did so within another area
in whi they previously had no experience; namely investment banking.
is coincided with international trends of many traditional banks and
investment banks joining forces.
e result of this expansion was Icelandic bankers becoming actors in the
international banking arena, with limited laws mainly built around
traditional banking in a country that had only recently liberalized foreign
direct investment. One could say that they were not only influenced by the
European arena through whi door they entered into the international
financial landscape, but also to a great degree by the anges towards
deregulated banking in the USA causing banks to become supercentres
providing all sorts of services. Icelandic bankers could do this with the
insurance of the deposit money guarantee provided by Iceland’s government
that had not responded to the ange in circumstances, having once
guaranteed what one could call dull banks without substantial risks
embedded in their operations.

Bad successful bankers

Icelandic banks were privatized lile by lile, as was common among
companies owned by the government during the late 1980s and 1990s in the
international arena. e mission of the three major banks was mainly to
expand their balance sheet and become big players (Sigurjonsson & Mixa
2011).
Soon Icelandic bankers were substantial players in investment banking in
various territories across Europe. Despite having banking roots that were
localized and regulated in a similar manner as Nordic banks but with less
international history, Icelandic bankers (at least the ones generally deemed
to be successful during the boom years) were at the time described
positively in the media as having greater financial expertise and working
quier than bankers in most other nations (Losdóir 2010). e Icelandic
public believed this despite the fact that modernized banking in Iceland was
in reality only a few years old. is was amplified by the media, whose
ownership was, perhaps not coincidentally, dominated by the main
investment partners of the banks (Áskelsdóir 2009). e media began
describing these successful bankers and investors as ‘Business Vikings’,
pillaging on foreign shores (Losdóir 2012).
Su growth was mostly powered by limited experience, as exemplified
by a public relations specialist at a finance company in 2009. She underlined
the solidness and experience of her company in a presentation by saying
that one employee had gone through the dot.com bust in 2001 in addition to
the most recent one. e trend of hiring young inexperienced bankers
became the norm, since older ones were perceived as having less of an
appetite for risk. One former savings bank CEO I interviewed stated that all
the competitors were hell-bent on hiring young and aggressive bankers; one
even claimed that none over 25 years old should be hired. Arnason (2012)
noted that one foreign compliance officer described the atmosphere at banks
as ‘cultish’ with pressure on uniformed thinking. at meant, as Arnason
stresses, hiring young (mostly) males with investment banking mentality;
one former bank director at Kaupthing said that it was hard to ange the
culture but not the bank’s employees. e 14-person unit at an interbank
desk of one bank dealing with loans totalling 20 per cent of Iceland’s annual
Gross Domestic Production (GDP) had the average bank work experience of
approximately one year.
Imitating other international bankers, Icelandic bankers quily learned
that geing deals done meant more than just doing the homework before
the deal was decided; an internal video at Kaupthing bank emphasized how
mu qui actions maered.1 I interviewed an international banker who
said that finance professionals all over the world began emphasizing short-
term rewards and disregarding long-term value. Icelandic bankers in
general, it seems, were thus maybe not as unique as some suggest, rather
perhaps simply a bit worse behaved. A Merrill Lyn report probably sums
up the general aitude towards Icelandic bankers in spring 2008 only six
months before the banking system collapsed.
When clients ask us why the Icelandic banks are considered to have a higher risk profile than their
other European peers, one does not have to sear hard for answers: rapid expansion,
inexperienced yet aggressive management, high dependence on external funding, high gearing to
equity markets, connected party opacity. In other words: too fast, too young, too mu, too short,
too connected, too volatile.

e sheep bankers
is development of Iceland’s banking system and Icelandic bankers’
behaviour has been documented substantially since the crash. e Icelandic
Parliament had for example a thorough investigative report wrien by a
Special Investigative Commission about the causes of the crash of the
Icelandic banking system by investigating the three main banks in detail,
released in April 2010.
Another report, also by the request of the Icelandic government, whi
was released in 2014, focuses on the fall of the Icelandic savings banks.
While the three main Icelandic banks were infamous for their rapid
growth, savings banks were for the most part le behind. e general
perception is that young and greedy bankers were responsible for the
downfall of the Icelandic banking system, swept along by new international
trends and, like cows being set free during spring, not handling freedom
necessarily well. Su a perception was never part of the savings banks,
whi on the surface stayed mu closer to the traditional rural banking
business. Unlike the main three banks, the savings banks never had the
glamorous perception of their business; they were relatively modest in their
foreign expansion and did not have the aura of Business Vikings among
their main CEOs or owners. One of their advertisement campaigns even
made fun of one of the Icelandic investment companies, emphasizing that
they themselves, the savings banks, serviced their customers, thus indicating
that the others did not.
A glaring example of the extremely risky investments of the savings
banks is the investment company Exista. It demonstrates that no one in
Iceland, neither the general public nor most bankers and investment
managers, fully realized the risks associated with fast, exponential growth
during the economic boom of 2003 to 2008.
Exista was formed by Kaupthing Bank in association with the savings
banks, whi wholly owned Kaupthing before its shares were spun off in
early 2000. Savings banks were the second largest shareholder, with 16 per
cent ownership via direct and indirect holdings in Exista, whi was a huge
investment company with total assets amounting to €8 billion by the end of
2007; about half of Iceland’s annual GDP using the currency rate of the time
and a market value of €2.5 billion (Exista 2007). e market value of Exista
was, however, twice the amount only six months earlier. Exista invested the
bulk of its capital in very few companies and with a great deal in its largest
shareholder’s own company, the food producer Bakkavör, and their main
associate, Kaupthing Bank.2 e largest holding year-end 2007 was, however,
the insurance company Sampo Group, whi was rumoured to be a take-
over target of Kaupthing. e combined book value of Kaupthing and Sampo
was €4.7 billion, nearly 60 per cent of Exista’s total assets. Bakkavör
accounted for approximately 7 per cent of Exista’s total assets; hence two-
thirds of Exista’s capital was siing in three companies, all listed on the
public sto exanges. Most of the remaining assets were either other listed
stos or loans.
Exista was, furthermore, a leveraged company, meaning that it invested
not only money that it owned personally but also borrowed money to
finance its investments. It borrowed money excessively and increased its
leverage in 2007. is meant that Exista made tremendous profits when
sto market prices were going up, but also meant that a slight dip in those
sto prices would incur heavy losses. Exista’s assets swelled in size during
the Manic Years, increasing in size by 80 per cent during 2007; its liabilities
grew faster, meaning that its inherent risk was increasing due to leverage.
By looking at the book value, the equity ratio3 by the end of 2007 was 29.5
per cent, down from 43.2 per cent the prior year. In reality, however, it was
around 20 per cent, meaning that if its assets value had dropped by the same
percentage the value of the firm would have gone down to zero.
e Exista sto was a huge base of equity for many savings banks in
Iceland and its rise in market value the major, if not sole at some savings
banks, source of profits during the peak of the Manic Millennium. e
Savings Bank of Keflavík is an excellent example. e savings bank had
three-quarters of its shareholders equity directly and indirectly in Exista.
From year-end 2002 to year-end 2006 it had more than doubled its balance
sheet. Many other savings banks had similar elements, relessly lending
money from extremely fragile balance sheets. In fact, well over half of the
total equity of the combined savings banks system in Iceland consisted of
stos directly and indirectly (via a holding company) of ownership of
Exista sto in 2006 (Special Investigation Commission 2014).
is muddles the general perception that Iceland’s financial crash was
caused by irresponsible young bankers that the nation adored as being
Business Vikings. Savings banks were just as reless in their operations and
one could even assert that their profit base, and thus equity base, was purely
built upon one investment company that had risks associated with the sto
market to su an extent that a relatively common drop in sto prices
would deplete its equity base and hence its worth. While the representatives
of savings banks did not make any claims of being international in stature
nor involved in mu risk taking, their business model and risk in operations
were more than even their directors and board members realized, with
apparently very few of them understanding the risks associated with their
main investments.
is, furthermore, raises the point as to whether certain aspects of
Iceland’s culture had some influence on the nation as a whole, including
young and old bankers. While the ‘bad’ bankers may have had a clue about
the risks they were participating in, the older and ‘wiser’ savings bankers
seemed to be ready to partake in the Manic Millennium while it served their
interests well. One could say that they were no lesser participants in pulling
the wool over the nation’s eyes, and many of them probably had their own
eyes covered. It certainly does not fit that it was merely some young bad
bankers that caused su economic collapse. e whole nation participated.
Some common factors were in place for financial bubbles to occur: they
include added liberalization of currency flows, a New Era thinking and
increased communication (in the case of Iceland the Internet and added
access to foreign television stations), making people feel as though they were
part of a larger world (Kindleberger & Aliber 2011, Reinhart & Rogoff 2009,
Shiller 2005). ere may, however, be other common threads explaining this
development that cross-cultural studies may point to.

Application of the Hofstede dimensional model

Looking at the Hofstede cross-cultural model from a general point of view
provides few clues as to the origin of the crisis. Iceland’s culture has oen
been compared to Nordic ones. Stefan Olafsson (2003) maintains that
Icelanders share many cultural, political and social aspects with Nordic
countries but show strong American aracteristics su as a sense of
individualism and independence and resentment towards central authority
(as put forth by American sociologist Riard F. Tomasson in his thesis).
Only a few studies about the culture of Iceland have been done by
researers using the Hofstede dimensional model (Eyjolfsdoir & Smith
1997, Jonsson 2004, and Adalsteinsson et al. [AGG] 2011), while Hofstede’s
own personal estimates have also been used as a reference in the maer
(Vaiman et al. 2010). Although the study in 2011 was the only one that could
be maintained meeting high academic standards, the results were still
similar between Icelandic studies and Hofstede’s estimates. e results were
also similar to Nordic nations, giving strength to the common perception of
the Icelandic culture being similar to Nordic ones.
A study by Sigurjonsson and Mixa (2011) shows, however, that Nordic
nations differed tremendously from Icelanders during the build-up of the
financial crisis. By looking thus at the general culture of Iceland and
comparing it to nations generally considered as culturally alike provides no
indication as to why Icelanders were mu worse caught in the banking
frenzy during the Manic Millennium.
Instead of focusing on some holistic picture it may be worthwhile to
concentrate on certain elements of Hofstede’s dimensions. One might for
example think that some sort of risk taking is inherent in Iceland’s culture as
in Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) dimension, even with a
propensity to break the law. e few su studies that have been done on the
Icelandic culture show, however, no glaring indications of Icelanders having
a low UAI dimension. According to the AGG study in 2011, Icelanders were
in one certain sense different from other nations and that was the sense of
strong individualism, rhyming with Olafsson’s take4 on individualism. Not
only did the Icelandic nation have a high sense of individualism; it actually
had the highest score worldwide, tied with the United States as seen in
Figure 31.1.
Figure 31.1 Highest individualism scores using the Hofstede cross-cultural method
Source: Adalsteinsson et al. 2011, e Hofstede Centre 2014.

Hofstede et al. (2010) point out that increasing individualism since the
1990s has been a major force of international deregulation, even maintaining
that some public monopolies have been replaced for ideological reasons
rather than pragmatic ones. is rhymes with Olafsson’s (2003) general
description of individualism as being the main aracteristic of Icelanders.
In a work in progress, Mixa and Vaiman propose that neoliberalistic
ideological forces sweeping most of the globe during the period from the
1980s onwards had dissimilar effects on nations depending on their
perceptions of individualism. Although the authors are not aware of studies
having shown a conclusive correlation between high individualistic scores
among nations and Neoliberalistic ideologies, it can be assumed that a
connection does exist, as Hofstede suggests.
I have earlier pointed out (Mixa 2009) that one of the typical precipitating
factors Shiller (2005) suggests as contributing to the development of a
financial bubble, one that Iceland and the United States had in common
during the recent financial bubble build-up (Shiller refers to the dot.com
bubble in his analysis), is the expansion of defined contribution pension
plans. Danielsson (2012) concludes that the increase of su plans in Iceland
may have contributed to Icelanders’ lesser needs in seing aside money for
the future, but in a contradictory way people seem to save even less on the
whole (or put another way, spend more than they set aside in savings) than
before the plans’ introduction. is may explain why dimensional indicators
diverge from financial ones in explaining the behaviour of savings and risk
appetite among nations. Duménil and Lévy (2011) contend that where Neo-
liberal influences are rampant, more leverage is prevalent with the savings
ratio falling ever more. is serves as lile explanation for the reless
behaviour of the young Icelandic bankers, but provides hints as to why old
and ‘wise’ bankers were willing to engage in su leverage as was inherent
in the operations of Exista and thus (almost) the whole savings banking
system.
By looking at savings ratios of nations with the highest individualistic
scores from Hofstede’s dimensional studies, it becomes apparent that su
nations have in common very low savings ratios that tend to have decreased
further concomitantly as Neoliberal influences have grown (there is no
known study of su influences, but they are assumed to have grown, e.g.
via increased inequality in income). is trend can be seen in Figure 31.2.
Figure 31.2 Savings ratio in highest scoring individualistic countries 1990–2012
Source: International Monetary Fund 2013

Iceland has obviously been least inclined to save for a rainy day. It is
interesting that nations su as the USA and UK that also live in a rather
stable political environment have a mu lower savings ratio than nations
number three, four and five in Hofstede’s individual/collective dimensional
index. is clearly shows a strong correlation between cultures having less
inclination to save where individualism is extremely highly prevalent within
society.

Summary
Financial indicators su as the savings ratio appear to provide clues about
cultural behaviour that also importantly measures how people actually
behave. Jones (2007) has pointed out that the strong emphasis on surveys is a
drawba of Hofstede’s methods but it can also be pointed out that surveys
do not distinguish between people’s perception of themselves and how they
actually behave contrary to financial indicators, whi (oen) show in a
more concrete manner how people behave in practice. While Icelanders
were in awe of their young bankers’ success, as is common during financial
euphoria, the actions of the savings banks suggests that no su admiration
was necessary; the bankers’ success was simply a cotail of ignorance while
the going was good, combined with great belief in these individuals
performing miracles that in hindsight were too good to be true.
e Icelandic nation can be described as living in total isolation, not
merely due to its location as is commonly thought but due to the nature of
its foreign business ties. e transformation during a short time span thus
anged Icelandic cultural identity mu more rapidly than is assumed in
Hofstede’s work (Hofstede et al. 2010). is ange, although unusually
sudden, is not an anomaly. History shows that the definition of culture has
oen been intertwined with economic developments; su as Adam Smith
noted when writing The Wealth of Nations, not merely describing economic
concepts but more in a sense the cultural developments he was witnessing
within a society quily transforming into a market economy on the brink of
the industrial revolution (Beugelsdijk & Maseland 2011).

Notes
1 hp://www.youtube.com/wat?v=31U54cgf_OQ

2 e interconnectedness is outside of the scope of this paper.

3 e equity ratio shows the proportion a company uses of its own money to finance its assets.

4 Olafsson referring to Tomasson’s thesis.

References
Adalsteinsson, G.D., Gudmundsdoir, S. and Gudlaugsson, T.O. (2011)
Islensk thjodmenning i ljosi menningarvidda Hofstede [Icelandic
Cultural Nationality within Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions], Stjórnmál
og stjórnsý sla, hp://skemman.is/handle/1946/10399
Arnason, V. (2012) Something rotten in the state of Iceland: Ethical
explanations of the Icelandic collapse. e Icelandic Meltdown: A
Workshop on the Causes, Implications, and Consequences of the
Collapse of the Icelandic Economy, Iowa City 11–14 August 2012.
Áskelsdóir, A.G. (2009) Áhrif eigenda á íslenska fjölmiðla. MA-thesis,
University of Iceland. hp://skemman.is/handle/1946/6145
Beugelsdijk, S. and Maseland, R. (2011) Culture in economics: History,
methodological reflections, and contemporary applications. Cambridge:
University Press.
Danielsson, A. (2012) Mandatory pension savings, private savings,
homeownership, and financial stability. Working paper Central Bank of
Iceland no. 58.
Davies, W. and McGoey, L. (2012) Rationalities of ignorance: On financial
crisis and the ambivalence of neo-liberal epistemology. Economy and
Society, 41(1), 64–83.
Duménil, G. and Lévy, D. (2011) The crisis of neoliberalism. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press
Exista Annual Report (2007).
hp://www.euroland.com/omx_aaments/2008-02/248363-0-is.pdf
(accessed 12 December 2014).
Eyjolfsdoir, H.M. and Smith, P.B. (1997) Icelandic business and
management culture. Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., 26(3), 66. 61–72.
Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede J.H. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind: Inter-cultural cooperation and its
importance for survival. United States. McGraw-Hill.
International Monetary Fund (2013) World Economic Outlook Database,
April 2013.
Jones, M.L. (2007) Hofstede – Culturally questionable? University of
Wollongong. hp://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1389&context=commpapers
Jonsson, H.P. (2004) Menning skipulagsheilda: Tengsl fyrirtækjamenningar
og Þ jóðmenningar. Við skipta og hagfræð ideild. Reykjavík: Háskóli
Íslands.
Jonung, L. (2008) Lessons from financial liberalisation in Scandinavia.
Comparative Economic Studies, 50, 564–598.
Kindleberger, C.P. and Aliber, R.Z. (2011) Manias, panics, and crashes: A
history of financial crises. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Losdóir, K. (2010) e loss of innocence: e Icelandic financial crisis and
colonial past. Anthropology Today, 26(6), 9–13.
Losdóir, K. (2012) Colonialism at the margins: Politics of difference in
Europe as seen through two Icelandic crises. Identities: Global Studies in
Culture and Power, 19(5), 597–615.
Mixa, M.W. (2009) Once in khaki suits – socioeconomical features of the
Icelandic collapse. Ingjaldur Hannibalsson (Ed.), Rannsóknir í
Félagsvísindum X [Research in Social Sciences X], pp. 435–447.
Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Ísland.
Olafsson, S. (2003) e identity of Icelanders: Scandinavian or American?
Scandinavian Review. hps://borg.hi.is/IcelandID.pdf.
Reinhart, C.M. and Rogoff, K.S. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries
of financial folly. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Shiller, R.J. (2005) Irrational exuberance. New York: Broadway Books.
Sigurjonsson, T.O. and Mixa, M.W. (2011) Learning from the ‘Worst
Behaved’: Iceland’s financial crisis and Nordic comparison. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 53(2), 209–224.
Special Investigation Commission (2014) The causes of the fall of the
Icelandic savings banks. Althingi, Reykjavik. Volume 2, Chapter 10.
e Hofstede Centre (2014) hp://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html
Vaiman, V., Sigurjonsson, T.O. and Davidsson, P.A. (2010) Weak business
culture as an antecedent of economic crisis: e case of Iceland. Journal
of Business Ethics, 98, 259–272.
32
e evolving world of the cross-
cultural manager as a corporate and
socio-political actor

Ödül Bozkurt

As multinational corporations (henceforth MNCs) have transformed rapidly

in the past several decades as key actors in the turbulent but determined
consolidation of a globally integrated economy, the expectations from,
opportunities for, and the very meaning of being a manager in these
corporations have likewise evolved. On the one hand, empirical anges in
the terrain of multinational corporate activity may have rendered obsolete
both the depictions of and the prescriptions for the “traditional” MNC
manager, whose unique task of having to manage for efficiency,
predictability and productivity with the additional allenge of doing so
across cultures may have at one time seemed rather exotic. e MNC
manager may have lived and worked in the same country and even the same
firm for mu of his/her career, but within this organization there was
always the possibility of having to manage others across borders, on site or
from afar. e MNC manager consequently came to be, almost by definition,
a “cross-cultural manager”. e strategic goal for the MNC fundamentally
remains the same, that of the generation of value and the capture of profits
from its global network, maximizing both by drawing on the competitive
advantages of the various locations. Yet there are important anges that
demand a rethink of the relationship between the aievement of this goal
and the role of the cross-cultural manager, both in terms of how cultural
differences now feed into this goal and in terms of who the contemporary
MNC manager is likely to be. On the other hand, as MNCs have become not
merely an idiosyncratic and captivating organizational form generating
interest for their competitive edge, but also an increasingly formidable force
in the way we live and work, there have also been anges in the way
solars think about those who run and manage them. As globalization,
migration, mobility and diversity become integral features of contemporary
labour markets, the privilege or predicament of being a cross-cultural
manager has anged in terms of the way we conceptualize the role and the
person taking it on. One could argue this is a subtle, less visible form of
ange relevant only to the idiosyncratic confines of academic debate. It is,
however, important in marking the larger societal significance of cross-
cultural management at the intersection of the fascination with management
and the perplexity that continues to be engendered by cultural difference
under high, global modernity. is apter reviews some of the essential
ways in whi the empirical reality of managing cross-culturally and the
theoretical approaes to understanding su activity, have evolved over
time.

e anging world of MNCs and of the cross-

cultural manager as corporate actor
e very notion of a cross-cultural manager is inextricably tied with the
history and transformation of the MNC, the contemporary “leviathan”
(Chandler & Mazlish 2005) that has seen rising fame, if not always
popularity, especially since the mid-twentieth century. e industrial plant
and the new role of the professional manager from the middle of the
nineteenth century onwards in early capitalist economies encapsulated a
fundamental transformation in the nature of economic organization and its
administration under modernity (Chandler 1984). In the “global age”
(Albrow 1997) about a century later, the need for the MNC to handle the
dual pressures of global standardization and local responsiveness (Bartle &
Ghoshal 1998) has added considerably to the already complex job
description of the corporate manager. e MNC has to negotiate multiple
contexts that are differentiated from one another not only economically and
institutionally, but also culturally, and all the requirements of management
must be accomplished across the “transnational social space” (Morgan 2001,
Pries 2001) of the MNC to reap the benefits of its unique aracter. Mu
effort has therefore gone into aracterizing the “global manager”, who is
variably required to be a combination of a strategist, an aritect, a
coordinator, a sensor, a builder, a contributor, a scanner, a cross-pollinator, a
ampion, a leader, a talent scout and a developer (Bartle & Ghoshal 1992).
Culture and cultural difference as key dimensions of the difference that must
be astutely managed in order to aieve MNCs’ organizational goals have
far from diminished in significance despite the seemingly homogenizing,
integrating impulses of economic globalization.
Initially, the role and the aretypal MNC manager had been far less
playful. In a context where national units had more integrity as containers
of social relations (Taylor 1994), including economic ones, the demarcations
of cultural and other societal differences appeared more clear-cut. Even
though the task of managing across cultural divides was agreed to be
difficult, the dynamics of these differences seemed simpler to comprehend.
e role of the cross-cultural manager involved understanding the nature
and extent of the cultural difference between the headquarters of the firm
and any given subsidiary location, so that, depending on firm strategy and
what it needed out of operating in a given country site, the necessary
adjustments could be made. Mu of the phenomenal popularity of the
Hofstedean paradigm of understanding culture as national, as measurable,
stable and manageable (Hofstede 1980, 1983, 1991, Kirkman et al. 2006) can
be aributed to the way it allowed for cultures to be measured along specific
dimensions and compared. Despite the serious underlying theoretical and
methodological problems with this conceptualization of culture (McSweeney
2002), the promise of measurement and comparison had powerful appeal for
practitioners in their desire to figure out, hands-on, how to treat, reward,
organize, train, promote, incentivize and in generally manage their workers
around the globe. Cross-cultural management could involve managing to the
local culture, if the strategic role of the location demanded local adaptation,
as well as managing the local culture for ange, if the corporate strategy
required it to be beer aligned with the MNCs’ global standards. e cross-
cultural manager therefore had to be equally adept at going native and going
against local culture and in fact ampioning ange. While highly
allenging, at least the options were rather more straightforward.
e aretypal role went with an aretypal cast. Oen implicitly, the
cross-cultural manager was conjured as an experienced, seasoned gentleman
from a comfortably affluent home country, who had senior managerial
capabilities developed through years of service in the employing
organization, if laing mating linguistic skills to transition into a foreign
and typically far less developed new market location. Cross-cultural
management by and large involved an “expatriate” sojourn for some years
within the dyad of the headquarters and subsidiary, a rather complete but
temporary transplantation of the manager, oen with a trailing spouse and
family. Long-standing endorsements of a “geocentric” approa to staffing
(Perlmuer 1969) notwithstanding, this was in practice a job for a home
country national, embodying the organizational culture of the corporate
headquarters, itself embedded in the home country’s national culture and
institutional heritage (Ferner 1997). e cross-cultural manager as a
corporate actor was tasked with implementing control, transferring
knowledge, ensuring integration, with cultural differences as a possible
obstacle and allenge that may get in the way.
While the geocentric approa to staffing and the fully “transnational”
model of the MNC (Bartle & Ghoshal 1992) continue to remain more
aspirational than enacted, there have nevertheless been important empirical
anges in the past two decades whi suggest that the cross-cultural
manager as a corporate actor has transformed both as a role and as a
aracter. Some of these anges can be described as follows.
First, and most significantly, the strategic role of the cross-cultural
manager as a corporate actor has anged because the MNC as an
organization has anged in numerous ways. Alongside the growing
prowess of the largest MNCs, there has been greater diversification in terms
of the size of firms that own assets and operate operations across national
borders (Jones et al. 2009). Very oen, SMEs generate value through skills-
intensive, nie products, whi render the value-added through their
human resources all the more important. MNCs are increasingly involved in
services as well as manufacturing (Enderwi 2013), likewise a development
that further heightens the significance of the human resource element to
value creation. Organizationally, more MNCs are now “born globals”
(Knight & Cavusgil 2004), management of cultural difference being not a
subsequent layer to add to activities once core competencies are fully
developed and matured on the home turf, but essential from the start. e
home country cultures also have rapidly diversified, with the advent of
MNCs based in emerging economies (Guillén & García-Canal 2009). Finally,
corporate structures have become more matrix-based and MNCs have
moved towards a “heterary” basis of organization (Hedlund 1986), whi,
along with the extensive use of networked subcontracting and outsourcing
arrangements, have rendered the formerly dyadic and largely contained
relationship of the headquarters–subsidiary far less applicable to the terrain
of cross-cultural management. Amid su flux in the nature and activity of
the MNC, the new cross-cultural management has had to become more
nuanced, sophisticated and nimble.
Second, the possibilities for the work of the cross-cultural manager have
anged because the nature and significance of national cultural differences
to management and employment practices have anged over the recent
decades (Mueller 1994). e contemporary context of globalization that is
enacted through a wider range of annels than merely that of business
means that the introduction of seemingly “unsuitable” cultural elements into
what may categorically appear unlikely destinations for successful transfer
of culturally embedded management practices may find support from extra-
organizational processes. For example, the “liability of foreignness”
(Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul 1975, Zaheer 1995) may have absolved MNC
managers, whether from the home or host country, from aempting to
introduce certain highly “foreign” elements from replacing local practices in
the pre-hyperglobalization era. Yet not only have “economic and regulatory
environments anged dramatically” in the intervening decades (Johanson
& Vahlne 2009), but the cultural environment has, too. As a result, we find
out that for the young retail workers employed at the new stores of a UK
retailer seing up operations in China as studied by Gamble (2003), or the
highly skilled financial professionals employed by mostly American MNCs
in Romania as studied by Caprar (2011), the “foreign” culture becomes very
mu a draw to working for these employers. Under su circumstances, the
cross-cultural manager as corporate actor may be extremely well-placed to
promote cultural ange, and in fact may create disappointment in case of
failing to do so.
ird, the role of the cross-cultural manager as a corporate actor has
anged because the practitioner understanding of the strategic significance
of culture and of cultural differences has anged. e view of cultural
difference as primarily a allenge, if not an outright obstacle to the
aievement of corporate goals, has fundamentally shied as cultural
difference has gained its place among a range of locational differences that
may provide an advantage to the firm. At times this is an advantage to be
exploited on location, but increasingly, also seen as a potential source of
innovative ideas that may be captured for further diffusion through the
global practices of the MNC. Differences between national cultures can now
be seen as potentially valuable sources in the articulation of a global
organizational culture, permeated by a “global mindset” (Begley & Boyd
2003, Gupta & Govindarajan 2002), involving a “cognitive shi” (Murtha et
al. 1998) in the MNC. is requires greater dexterity understanding the
multiplie idiosyncratic local cultures across whi the MNC operates, and,
more proactively, also a disposition and ability to negotiate between them
and draw on them in context, time and occasion-specific ways. e cross-
cultural manager in this new, more multi-layered role therefore has to
command intellectual, social and psyological capital (Javidan et al. 2007)
that allows them to perform primarily in a role as an “integrator” of the
intersecting influences of global business, regional/country pressures and
worldwide functions (Kedia & Mukherji 1999). Well beyond the role of a
“translator” in the “local adaptation”/polycentric firm (Perlmuer 1969)
scenario, or that of an “agent of diffusion and HQ—shaped ange” scenario
in the “global integration”/ethnocentric firm (ibid.) scenario, this new view
of cultural difference is the most significant way in whi the geocentric
ambitions of the contemporary MNC are endorsed in practitioner circles.
e prescription, and indeed also increasingly practice, can best be captured
under the rubric of “hybridization” (Gamble 2010). Hybridization involves
“complex paerns of creating new management practices through
simultaneous processes of highly selective adoption, transfer, and local
adaptation”(Chung et al. 2014) and culture emerges as a far more complex,
multifarious and interactive domain in the hybridizing MNC. Cross-cultural
management has come to demand far greater bridging and amalgamation
work by managers.
Finally, as the strategic role of the cross-cultural manager has evolved, so
has the cast. is has happened in two critical ways. One involves the
demographic composition of those who take on the role of cross-cultural
manager in the most identifiable way, by going on actual international
assignments. Aligned with the anges in practitioner understandings of the
value of difference and diversity, as well as the larger anges underlying
the transformation of labour markets in advanced and developing economies
that host MNCs, the ranks of MNC managers have become relatively more
diversified. Although su diversification is still a maer of degree in
historical comparison, rather than a fundamental egalitarianization of MNC
management (Cook & Glass, 2013, Sein et al. 1996) there is nevertheless a
growing number of women, third-country nationals and more junior staff
who take on international assignments and thus the hands-on role of cross-
cultural manager. e second major ange in the actual executors of cross-
cultural management, relatedly, is a concurrent diversification of the
arrangements whereby these managers come into contact with, manage and
are managed by others in the MNC. is entails the diversification of the
human resource management practices employed by the MNC in managing
its global workforce and the proliferation of a variety of forms of
international assignments in addition to traditional expatriation (Collings et
al. 2007). Short-term assignments, localized transfers and business travel
reflect and contribute to the multiplication of interfaces where MNC
workers now manage and are managed (Bozkurt & Mohr 2011), and they
have different dynamics, constraints and strategic outcomes for the firm.

e anging conceptualization of the cross-

cultural manager, as a socio-political actor
If the strategic approa has overwhelmingly informed the treatment of the
cross-cultural manager in the business and management literature, and the
social sciences have bizarrely remained rather silent on the topic except for
some important exceptions, we now see a slow but significant growth of
interest in the laer. But as social scientists (in fact all scientists) know too
well, novelty in social phenomenon can derive not merely from anges in
the empirical reality of its presence or forms, but also the way we come to
perceive and make sense of it. is is another, fundamental way in whi
there has been a ange in respect to the cross-cultural manager. An
emergent, more relational and sociological approa moves away from the
strategic/prescriptive depiction of the cross-cultural manager as a corporate
actor by recognizing that this actor’s role, and indeed the goals of the MNC
as a presumably unified entity, are highly problematic in that they do not
really reflect the lived experience of being a manager. Some of the empirical
anges recognized in the primarily strategic resear reviewed previously,
su as the diversification of the sites, modes, tools and demographics of
cross-cultural management, remain highly relevant to this more sociological
understanding. Cross-cultural managers, or at least those employees of
MNCs structurally put in a position to carry out this “task”, are now also
conceptualized as embedded in a variety of roles, identities and conflicts,
including as individuals in pursuit of personal goals, as partaking in
processes that extend beyond the narrow confines of the organizational
structure of the firm. Most importantly, this different approa to
understanding the “actorhood” of the cross-cultural manager considers the
individuals involved as not merely enacting assigned organizational roles
but as having their own variable interpretations of what those roles ought to
be and how they ought to be carried out. e approaes, as ideal-types, are
not mutually exclusive; nor is one correct at the expense of a flawed
alternative. In fact and in practice, they are intertwined and co-present in
the empirical reality of cross-cultural management and the person of the
cross-cultural manager.
e presumed anthropomorphic unity of will of the MNC is itself
problematic and empirically indefensible, but even if it were possible to
identify a unified mission, strategy and organizational vision of the firm, it
is a further inferential leap still that these would be one and the same as
those of the MNC’s managers. Framing the cross-cultural manager primarily
as an executor, successful or unsuccessful, of the corporate will precludes
alternative, potentially simultaneous forms of agency by individual MNC
employees. As the MNC is not one and the same thing to all analysts
(Collinson & Morgan 2009), the MNC manager, and especially the cross-
cultural manager, notionally includes a range of meanings and remains open
to a range of interpretations. Conceptualizing the MNC as a “society”
(Morgan & Kristensen 2009), as “contested terrain” or even an “instrument of
exploitation” (Mir & Sharpe 2009) poses a vastly different set of questions
about management and managers inside the MNC. In this approa, all
organizational members, and not only those with the formal title of
“managers” can be seen as engaged in constant management of their
relationships with others as socio-political actors. e MNC in fact emerges
as a theoretically significant context for the investigation of management,
and particularly self-management, at the intersection of multiple cultural
norms and cues. e “cross-cultural manager” in this sense can best be
explored drawing on the insights of a very different set of debates on culture
and management (Hat & Sultz 1997, Svenningsson & Alvesson 2003).
Su an approa sits strictly at odds with the mainstream culturalist
accounts in international business and international human resource
management and critiques them for crudely reducing the organizational
members of MNCs to embodiments of externally existing national cultures
(Ailon 2008, McSweeney 2002, Rubery & Grimshaw 2002). Recent
solarship has allenged this orthodoxy by drawing on the sociological
tradition that recognizes national identity as a processual and fluid concept
(Hall 1992), for example by exploring the identity construction and
negotiation processes inside multinational project groups (Barinaga 2007)
and underscoring how “national identities play a key role in international
seings” (Vaara et al. 2003: 425). Accordingly, treating national identities as
cultural systems manifested through “stubbornly distinctive behavioural
paerns” and as “the passive embodiment of a predetermined cultural
template” (Ailon-Souday & Kunda 2003: 1074) is highly problematic. Instead,
the focus shis from categorical cultural differences to “the construction of
national cultural conceptions and identities” (Vaara et al. 2003: 425). ere is
recognition of the interpretive space le for organizational members in
defining, enacting, resisting and negotiating national identities, and societal
and organizational cultures are linked to action through an appreciation of
individual subjectivities and agency. A growing body of work in this vein
highlights the processes of subjective negotiation of the meaning of
nationality and transnationality within the MNC as an idiosyncratic type of
workplace (Ailon-Souday & Kunda 2003, Ailon & Kunda 2009, Caprar 2011,
Moore 2004), where the national identities of organizational members
precipitate interpretive struggles.
“Cross-cultural management” is thereby reconceptualized as deeply
embedded in socio-political struggles by and between the internal actors of
MNCs in context, and demands greater aention not only to subjectivities
but also to micro-level interactions and the discursive claims that
accompany them. Moore investigates the informal ways in whi MNC
managers negotiate the global–local tension inside the firm, while Ailon-
Souday and Kunda (2003) look at how employees of a merged, dual-national
MNC invoke boundaries around national identities through a range of
discursive and practical strategies. Yagi and Kleinberg (2011) highlight, in
the case of another dual-national MNC, how managers from one of the
“home” countries negotiate boundaries defined “by culture, nation, by
organization structures, or some combination thereof” (649). Blazejewski
(2012) redresses the cross-cultural psyology basis of mu of the literature
on bicultural organizational members of MNEs and demands greater
aention to the “situational rather than dispositional dimensions” of identity
in general, and biculturalism in MNCs in particular (113). Other recent work
adopts a similarly informative and novel micro-interactional view of
managing oneself and relationships with multiple “others” with an explicit
focus on how power dynamics inform and underline seemingly “cultural”
differences and conflicts (Koveshnikov 2011, Ybema & Byun 2011). Su a
micro-political approa (Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2006) aributes a
distinctly socio-political nature to the actorhood of the cross-cultural
manager, starkly different yet not necessarily dismissive of the corporate
actorhood discussed earlier.

Conclusion
Against a badrop of empirical ange and conceptual shis, the MNC and,
as a corollary, the cross-cultural manager, continue to demand and deserve
our sustained aention. As a corporate actor, the MNC manager is certainly
still required to manage through and across cultural differences, to expertly
navigate a culturally differentiated organizational terrain and
simultaneously promote a transnational, organizational one, depending on
corporate goals and strategies. is ameleon aracter in service of the
firm is variably expected to understand, interpret, adapt to, resist, override,
manipulate, ange, build, represent, spread, ampion, immerse in and rise
above culture in its particularistic and universalistic forms, and be equipped
not only to perform all these tasks but also, crucially, to make the correct
judgment about whi is most appropriate, when, and where. e growing
complexity of the global economy in general, and of MNC organization and
activity in particular have not diminished the strategic significance of
culture or of the cross-cultural manager, but exacerbated the intricacy of
demands on this corporate actor. At the same time, as the MNC further
grows its muscle as one of the defining institutions of contemporary
capitalism, it also claims a privileged place for investigation as a platform
where cultural differences and indeed similarities are negotiated, enacted,
reformed and engendered by individuals. Recognizing the socio-political
actorhood of the cross-cultural manager therefore promises to contribute to
our understanding not merely of the contemporary world of business, but
indeed of the zeitgeist.

References
Ailon, G. (2008) ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: culture’s consequences in a
value test of its own design’, Academy of Management Review, 33 (4):
885–904.
Ailon, G. and Kunda, G. (2009) ‘“e one-company approa”:
transnationalism in an Israeli–Palestinian subsidiary of a multinational
corporation’, Organization Studies, 30 (7): 693–712.
Ailon-Souday, G. and Kunda, G. (2003) ‘e local selves of global workers:
the social construction of national identity in the face of organizational
globalization’, Organization Studies, 24 (7): 1073–1096.
Albrow, M. (1997) The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Barinaga, E. (2007) ‘“Cultural diversity” at work: “national culture” as a
discourse organizing an international project group’, Human Relations,
60 (2): 315–340.
Bartle, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. (1992) ‘What is a global manager?’, Harvard
Business Review, 70 (5): 124–132.
Bartle, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Managing Across Borders: The
Transnational Solution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Sool Press.
Begley, T. M. and Boyd, D. P. (2003) ‘e need for a corporate global mind-
set’, MIT Sloan Management Review, available at
hp://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2003-winter/4423/the-need-for-
a-corporate-global-mindset
Blazejewski, S. (2012) ‘Betwixt or beyond the lines of conflict? Biculturalism
as situated identity in multinational corporations’, Critical Perspectives
on International Business, 8 (2): 111–135.
Bozkurt, Ö and Mohr, A. T. (2011) ‘Forms of cross-border mobility and social
capital in multinational enterprises’, Human Resource Management
Journal, 21 (2):138– 155.
Caprar, D. V. (2011) ‘Foreign locals: a cautionary tale on the culture of MNC
local employees’, Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 608–
628.
Chandler, A. D. Jr. (1984) ‘e emergence of managerial capitalism’, The
Business History Review, 58 (4): 473–503.
Chandler, A. D. Jr. and Mazlish, B. (eds.) (2005) Leviathans: Multinational
Corporations and the New Global History, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chung, C., Sparrow, P. and Bozkurt, Ö. (2014) ‘South Korean MNEs’
international HRM approa: hybridization of global standards and local
practices’, Journal of World Business, 49 (4): 549–559.
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H. and Morley, M. (2007) ‘Changing paerns of
global staffing in the multinational enterprise: allenges to the
conventional expatriate assignment and emerging alternatives’, Journal
of World Business, 42: 198–213.
Collinson, S. and Morgan, G. (2009) Images of the Multinational Firm,
Chiester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2013) ‘Above the glass ceiling: when are women and
racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO?’, Strategic Management
 Journal, 35 (7): 1080–1089.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (2006) ‘Micro-politics and conflicts in
multinational corporations: current debates, re-framing, and
contributions of this special issue’, Journal of International Management,
12 (3): 251–265.
Enderwi, P. (ed.) (2013) Multinational Service Firms, London and New
York: Routledge.
Ferner, A. (1997) ‘Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational
companies’, Human Resource Management Journal, 7 (1): 19–37.
Gamble, J. (2003) ‘Transferring human resource practices from the United
Kingdom to China: the limits and potential for convergence’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (3): 369–387.
Gamble, J. (2010) ‘Transferring organizational practices and the dynamics of
hybridization: Japanese retail multinationals in China’, Journal of
Management Studies, 47 (4): 705–732.
Guillén, M. F. and García-Canal, E. (2009) ‘e American model of the
multinational firm and the “new” multinationals from emerging
economies’, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (2): 23–35.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (2002) ‘Cultivating a global mindset’, The
Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1): 116–126.
Hall, S. (1992) ‘e question of cultural identity’, in Hall, S., Held, D. and
McGrew, T. (eds.) Modernity and Its Futures, Cambridge: Polity Press
and e Open University. pp. 273–316.
Hat, M. J. and Sultz, M. (1997) ‘Relations between organizational
culture, identity and image’, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6):
356–365.
Hedlund, G. (1986) “e hypermodern MNC—a heterary?”, Human
Resource Management, 25 (1): 9–35.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983) ‘e cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories’, Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2): 75–89.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
London: MacGrawHill.
Javidan, M., Steers, R. M. and Hi, M. A. (eds.) (2007) The Global Mindset,
Elsevier Jai.
Johanson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975) ‘e internationalization of the
firm: four Swedish cases’, Journal of Management Studies, 12 (3): 305–
322.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (2009) ‘e Uppsala internationalization
process model revisited: from liability of foreignness to liability of
outsidership’, Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1411–
1431.
Jones, M. V., Dimitratos, P., Fleter, M. and Young, S. (eds.) (2009)
Internationalization, Entrepreneurship and the Smaller Firm: Evidence
from Around the World, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kedia, B. L. and Mukherji, A. (1999) ‘Global managers: developing a mindset
for global competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, 34 (3): 230–251.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B. and Gibson, C. B. (2006) ‘A quarter century of
culture’s consequences: a review of empirical resear incorporating
Hofstede’s cultural values framework’, Journal of International Business
Studies 37 (3): 285–320.
Knight, G. A. and Cavusgil, S. T. (2004) ‘Innovation, organizational
capabilities, and the born-global firm’, Journal of International Business
Studies 35 (2): 124–141.
Koveshnikov, A. (2011) ‘National identities in times of organizational
globalization: a case study of Russian managers in two Finnish–Russian
organizations’, in Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (eds.) Politics and
Power in the Multinational Corporation: The Role of Institutions,
Interests and Identities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.
346–379.
McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis’, Human
Relations, 55 (1): 89–118.
Mir, R. and Sharpe, D. R. (2009) ‘e multinational firm as an instrument of
exploitation’, in Collinson, S. and Morgan, G. (eds.) Images of the
Multinational Firm, Chiester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp.
247–265.
Moore, F. (2004) ‘Symbols of organization: informal ways of negotiating the
global and the local in MNCs’, Global Networks, 4 (2): 181–198.
Morgan, G. (2001) ‘Transnational communities and business systems’, Global
Networks 1 (2): 113–130.
Morgan, G. and Kristensen, P. H. (2009) ‘Multinational firms as societies’, in
Collinson, S. and Morgan, G. (eds) Images of the Multinational Firm,
Chiester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 167–191.
Mueller, F. (1994) ‘Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization’,
Organization Studies, 15 (3): 407–428.
Murtha, T. P., Lenway, S. A. and Bagozzi, R. P. (1998) ‘Global mind-sets and
cognitive shi in a complex multinational corporation’, Strategic
Management Journal, 19 (2): 97–114.
Perlmuer, H.V. (1969) ‘e tortuous evolution of the multinational
corporation’, Columbia Journal of World Business, 4 (1): 9–18.
Pries, L. (2001) ‘e approa of transnational social spaces: responding to
new configurations of the social and spatial’, in Pries, L. (ed.) New
Transnational Social Spaces: International Migration and Transnational
Companies in the Early Twenty-First Century, London and New York:
Routledge. pp. 3–33.
Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D. (2002) The Organisation of Employment: An
International Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sein, V. E., Müller, R., Lituy, T. and Liu, J. (1996) ‘ink manager—think
male: a global phenomenon?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 (1):
33–41.
Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) ‘Managing managerial identities:
organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle’, Human
Relations, 56 (10): 1163–1193.
Taylor, P. J. (1994) ‘e state as container: territoriality in the modern world
system’, Progress in Human Geography, 18 (3): 51–162.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Säni, R.(2003) ‘e international mat: metaphors
as vehicles of social identity building in cross-border mergers’, Human
Relations, 56 (4): 419–451.
Yagi, N. and Kleinberg, J. (2011) ‘Boundary work: an interpretive
ethnographic perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural
identity’, Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 629–653.
Ybema, S. and Byun, H. (2011) ‘Unequal power relations, identity discourse,
and cultural distinction drawing in MNCs’, in Dörrenbäer, C. and
Geppert, M. (eds.) Politics and Power in the Multinational Corporation:
The Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 315–345.
Zaheer, S. (1995) ‘Overcoming the liability of foreignness’, Academy of
Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363.
33
Under construction but open for
business
Women entrepreneurs negotiating shiing
socio-economic realities in the Arab Gulf

Leila DeVriese

Introduction

Recent solarship coming out of the field of cross-cultural management

directs lile aention to the Arab world in general, and to women
employees and women-owned businesses in particular. As women enter the
labour force in growing numbers, and women-owned businesses continue to
expand their presence in the global and local economies of the Arab Gulf, it
is important that the field of cross-cultural management examine the long-
term implications of this phenomenon in terms of recruitment and
motivation of women employees, and human resources management overall.
With more multinational firms seeking to expand their presence in the
Arab world, global project managers are having to navigate these cultural
dimensions when recruiting local employees, assigning responsibilities to
team members from different countries, and conducting business with local
clientele. In the Gulf, this local clientele is increasingly comprised of
women-owned businesses and women entrepreneurs. As women-owned
businesses and women entrepreneurs enter the global and local economies
in growing numbers, it is becoming even more important for multinational
firms and managers to understand the role that entrepreneurship plays in
economic and social development, and effectively how these new cultural
paerns are shaping the Gulf’s corporate environment.
By understanding the cultural context shaping the labour market, global
managers will be beer positioned to recruit and retain women employees.
As will be discussed later in the apter, women are drawn to
entrepreneurship and women-owned startups less due to monetary
motivations and more because of perks, su as flexible hours, ild care and
gender-segregated workspaces. erefore, multinational firms and global
managers will need to offer these same benefits in order to aract diverse
talent, particularly women. As su, part of this apter will explore the
motivations and values that shape the local labour force, the state’s
encouragement of entrepreneurship and the forces (and values) motivating
women’s employment oices.
ere is growing solarly interest in entrepreneurship due to its potential
as a generator of economic stimulus and development (Wingham 2004, p.
38). e correlation between entrepreneurship and economic growth is one
that governments and policy makers are clamouring to capitalize on. States
invested in globalizing their economies are keenly aware of the centrality of
government policies in not only creating an environment conducive to
entrepreneurial ventures, but also translating this entrepreneurial activity
into social and human development.
While some solars argue that Arab women’s entrepreneurship is
hindered because of cultural barriers, I argue that the convergence of macro-
economic and structural opportunities, with limitations in the public sector
and constraints in the private, helped make a case for entrepreneurship as
the most viable career and employment opportunity for women in the Gulf.
For global managers, and the field of cross-cultural management in general,
understanding this context becomes vital in order to recruit, retain and
manage employees from diverse bagrounds, particularly Arab women.
United Arab Emirates as case study: socio-
economic forces shaping women’s
entrepreneurship
e next section uses the UAE as a case study to unpa the macro-
economic environment and subsequent state policies that have contributed
to the growth of women’s entrepreneurship.
Since the 1980s, we have seen a marked growth in women-owned coage
industries worldwide. is is partially influenced by the global trend—
prompted by the Grameen Bank—toward microfinancing of small and
medium enterprises (SME). In the first millennial decade, women’s
entrepreneurial activity surpassed the micro and necessity-based dimension,
and underwent remarkable opportunity-based growth (Marlow et al. 2009;
Verheul et al. 2006). In the UAE, for example, between 2006 and 2011, the
percentage of women who are established business owners grew from 0.1
per cent to 1.4 per cent (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011a). Despite
this steady increase, women’s overall labour participation in the Arab world
continues to lag behind (at 24.7 per cent, World Bank 2012) other regions of
the world, including East Asia or Central Asia, Latin America and Europe,
with women-owned businesses comprising only 13 per cent of total
businesses in the region (World Bank 2003–2006).
Given the limited opportunities available to women seeking entry into the
labour market in the Gulf countries, entrepreneurship has been identified as
a lucrative option (Nelson 2004, p. 23). It is no surprise that the UAE
government—whi has been ranked by the IMF among the wealthiest in the
world with a GDP of US$48,597 per capita (International Monetary Fund
2012)—is seeking to capitalize on the development possibilities presented
through rising entrepreneurial activity by women. As su, the Emirati
government has invested in various initiatives designed to encourage
women’s entrepreneurship, ranging from the establishment of
businesswomen’s councils in ea of the seven emirates to the introduction
of public capital funds dedicated specifically for women’s startups (Goby &
Erogul 2011).
Reports by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and various solarly
studies indicate that these state-sponsored incentives have indeed borne
fruit (Erogul & McCrohan 2008; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011b;
Goby & Erogul 2011; Itani et al. 2011; Madiie & Gallant 2012). e UAE
has not only seen an increase in the number of women-owned businesses,
but according to government reports currently ranks as the country with the
highest number of women entrepreneurs in the Arab world (UAEInteract
2009). Raja Al Gurg, president of the Dubai Businesswomen Council
(DBWC), estimates over 10,000 women owned businesses, with a total
output of approximately US$3.4 billion, raising women’s contribution to the
national output from 5.2 per cent to 14.7 per cent between 2002 and 2006
(Glass 2007). Despite these overhyped figures from the government and local
business councils, women’s employment in the UAE is estimated to be at a
meagre 20 per cent (Madiie 2010, p. 200; World Bank 2012).
e UAE and Qatar have been touted as the fastest growing and
wealthiest economies in the Middle East, with a GDP growth rate of 4.4 per
cent for Qatar and 4 per cent for the UAE (according to 2013 estimates by
Qatar National Bank, Bank of America and Merrill Lyn). ese growth
rates are oen accompanied by a parallel growth in the labour market,
whi is facilitated by an open border labour policy that allows the private
sector to recruit expatriate workers at internationally competitive paages
(IMF 2005, p. 4). While this free flow of skilled (and oen eap) labour from
neighbouring developing countries has contributed to economic growth, it
has also led to high rates of unemployment among UAE nationals and
subsequently a host of social problems. e labour market dilemma is
complicated by the demographic balance that aracterizes the UAE’s
population, whereby the national population according to the 2005 census
hovers around 20 per cent of the total population, making Emiratis a small
minority in their own country, with the remaining 80 per cent comprised of
expatriates working in the UAE.
 Meanwhile, in accordance with the intentional goal to refashion itself as a
‘knowledge society’, the UAE government provides equal opportunities for
universal education (elementary through tertiary) and skills training to its
entire national population, irrespective of gender. Women in particular are
progressively taking advantage of publicly funded education, and constitute
66 per cent of students in higher education (World Bank, Gender Equality
Monitor). Nonetheless, an increasingly educated and skilled female
workforce functions as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it offers the
potential to ip away at the imbalance of nationals to expats in the labour
market. At the same time, however, in a society where women face cultural
barriers to employment overall, particularly in the private sector (as will be
discussed in the next section), and in whi women find themselves having
to compete for jobs with eap labour from less affluent Arab and Asian
countries, the growing numbers of women entering the workforce translates
into rising unemployment rates for nationals. Women comprise 43 per cent
of the total labour force in the UAE (World Economic Forum Global Gender
Gap Report 2010; United Nations Development Program 2010; UAE yearbook
2010), and yet the female youth unemployment rate is 22 per cent, according
to UN data from 2008, compared to 8 per cent for males. A recent Arab
Cultural Development Report (2013–14), compiled by the Arab ought
Foundation (ATF),1 provides a more alarming projection, estimating that
approximately 70 per cent of national women between the ages of 19 and 24,
including those with university degrees, are unemployed.2

Entrepreneurship as a vehicle for social and

human development
Entrepreneurship therefore emerges as a cat-all with the promise of
addressing demographic and economic imbalances, and serving as a vehicle
for social development. As a result, the governments of the Gulf not only
recognize the importance of women’s full participation in the social and
economic life to the survival of their countries, but they are also keenly
aware that the introduction of new business ventures offer alternative and
viable sources of employment for nationals, women in particular. For
example, since 2004, the National Employment Agency in the UAE (Tanmia
2005) has been reporting that more women than men have been creating
their own employment opportunities.
Solarship since the 1980s has provided evidence pointing to a direct
correlation between government’s support of entrepreneurship and a rise in
women’s startups (Etzioni 1987; Naser et al. 2009). e legitimization
provided by the state and society is manifested through tax incentives,
public funds, startup capital and subsidized loans for new businesses as well
as skills development and financial training for new businesswomen (Etzioni
1987). Naser et al. (2009) confirms that su factors provided Emirati women
with motivation to engage in new entrepreneurial ventures. erefore, by
investing in women’s higher education (particularly business sools and
MBA programmes), and creating financial and legal incentives to encourage
entrepreneurship and the creation of women-owned small businesses, the
Gulf states were also signalling the social acceptability of entrepreneurship,
an aitude that would reverberate throughout society over time, and
effectively dismantle cultural barriers that might have hindered women’s
startups in the past.
Part and parcel of social development is the twin aim of women’s
empowerment, whi is intimately connected to overall human and
economic development. Consequently, in addition to financial and legal
incentives, the Gulf states have also been promoting the establishment of
women-centred federations, business councils, ambers of commerce and
other forms of networks that provide support to businesswomen. Over the
past decade, the Gulf region as a whole has witnessed this rise in
professional women’s associations. Despite their affiliation with, or
sponsorship by, the state, these associations of businesswomen and budding
entrepreneurs have been particularly effective in providing training,
microfinance for small business development and networking opportunities.
Because advocacy work by women’s organizations in the Gulf is restricted
by state interference, women’s associations have focused on less sensitive
issues that are sanctioned by the government and part of the state’s
economic development model; namely, participation and empowerment in
the economic realm through entrepreneurship. Most noteworthy is the
regional Arab Women’s Society sponsored by the Gulf Cooperation Council
and local ones su as Bahrain Businesswoman’s Society (BBS) dedicated to
providing job training and skill building as well as assistance in job
placement. Others, su as the UAE’s Women’s Federation—founded by
Sheikha Fatima, the wife of the founding father of the UAE Sheikh Zayed—
are focused solely on leadership building. A case in point is the UAE’s state-
sponsored women’s federation, the General Women’s Union, whi partners
with various UN agencies to develop women’s empowerment programmes.
Emirati women working on these initiatives therefore not only have the
ance to network with IGOs, INGOs and diplomatic missions that might
translate into potential funding, business partnerships, or clientele, but they
also travel for conferences and training workshops, all of whi open doors
for regional and international business expansion.

Negotiating socio-cultural norms: Arab women’s

entrepreneurship in context
A number of solarly works (Bayat 2002; Moghadam 2005; Metcalfe 2006,
2008; Hutings et al. 2010) and international development reports (UNDP
2003; World Bank 2004) have gone beyond a discussion of the political and
economic factors influencing women’s rate of participation in the labour
force to examine the socio-cultural norms that shape Arab women’s
employment and degree of engagement in public life in general.
Gendered occupational and career paths oen begin early in a woman’s
life, serving to guide girls down particular educational trajectories based on
stereotypical traits associated with ea sex. For example, women are seen to
be more maternal, caring, patient, etc. and are therefore beer suited for
work in ild care, primary education, nursing and by extension social
welfare (due to the caretaking aspect). ese stereotypes are not unique to
the Arab world, and tend to be universally shared. In a seminal study of
male nurses and female military officers in the US, Williams (1989, p. 6)
found gender redefinition taking place in work roles, tasks and identities. For
example, male nurses asserted their masculine identities by emphasizing
traits of the occupational role traditionally associated with masculinities
while minimizing aspects of the role traditionally associated with
femininities. Female officers were doing the opposite with their occupations,
downplaying certain angles that might be associated with femininities. e
repercussions of su stereotyping are also universal, and serve to hinder
women’s training and deployment in certain sectors of the economy, and
restrict women’s promotion and advancement in others. Inevitably, these
stereotypes have a snowball effect that leads to well-documented bias in
recruitment, the absence of female role models and perpetuation of gendered
occupational structures and career opportunities, reinforcing the glass
ceiling for professional women.
Women’s roles in Arab society are oen tempered by a wide range of
cultural values—su as modesty and primacy of the family in general and
motherhood in particular—that are encoded in restrictive family laws. ese
norms are oen extended as guiding principles shaping labour laws and
instituting customary practices su as gendered organizational structures
and professions, or sex-segregated workspaces in certain parts of the region,
most notably the Arab Gulf.
As su, entrepreneurship emerges as a viable alternative to, or source of,
employment, since women business owners can determine whether or not to
maintain a gender-segregated or women-only workspace. If they so oose,
women could esew direct contact with men entirely, and still effectively
run a business by taking advantage of women-only bank branes and
government offices, women queues or even using agents as representatives
or intermediaries.
Circumventing workplace discrimination and the
glass ceiling
In spite of some remarkable progress in women’s leadership roles in the
economic and political sphere across the Arab world, women’s advancement
in the corporate sector is slow due to cultural and institutional barriers
premised on deeply rooted gender roles (Harry 2007; Erogul & McCrohan
2008). e prevalence of discriminatory organizational practices and
aitudes pertaining to women’s managerial potential and their exclusion
from organizational networks oen means that male colleagues are selected
for training, development and international travel opportunities, and
groomed for promotion and management positions.
Harry’s (2007) discussion of biases against women inherent in the UAE
labour market, sheds light on the role of aitudinal prejudices in
maintaining a vertical segregation. Female candidates for job opportunities
or promotions run the risk of being perceived as openly defying traditional
gender roles, and are thus passed over in favour of their male counterparts
(Tlaiss & Kauser 2011). As a result, Arab women are either bloed from or
severely under-represented in leadership roles in politics, and managerial
positions in public administration and the private sector.
One of the greatest impediments to women’s advancement is premised on
the culturally normative assumption that women’s dedication to and focus
on their jobs will progressively dwindle due to impending motherhood and
mounting family responsibilities. e repercussions of su stereotyping are
also universal, and serve to hinder women’s training and deployment in
certain sectors of the economy, and restrict women’s promotion and
advancement in others. Inevitably, these stereotypes have a snowball effect
that leads to well-documented bias in recruitment, the absence of female
role models and perpetuation of gendered occupational structures and career
opportunities, lending support to the glass ceiling for professional women.
Consequently, women’s employment in the private sector is particularly
low as private employers esew the presumed costs incurred by maternity
leave or supposed loss of productivity due to motherhood. Additionally, the
absence of labour codes enshrining women’s rights to extended maternity
leave or ild-care provisions and institutional frameworks (su as flexible
work hours) allowing women to balance family and career have reinforced
the glass ceiling.
is glass ceiling in the private sector, coupled with cultural norms on
gender segregation in the workplace in some parts of the Arab world, has
led more women to clamour for jobs in the public sector, whi offers a
more favourable work environment and beer benefits for women. One of
the especially appealing traits of the public sector is flexibility in work hours
allowing women to oose between morning or aernoon shis (as opposed
to rigid nine to five sedules). is flexibility, while mostly absent in the
private sector, is also prevalent in the less rigid work environments of
women-owned businesses. Women-owned businesses, self-employment or
even working in the public sector are therefore more conducive to Arab
women who are aempting to balance work and family. Moreover, because
multinational corporations (MNCs) and the private sector in general do not
offer gender-segregated workspaces, the public sector emerges as a viable
alternative for women seeking to observe gender-segregation norms by
working in female branes of public administration. However, given that
job opportunities and career growth in the public sector have plateaued,
women are increasingly turning to women-owned businesses and self-
employment through entrepreneurial ventures.
In traditional Islamic interpretations of gender roles, motherhood is
paramount, superseding all other roles (Gallant & Pounder 2008). Against
this badrop, entrepreneurship emerges as an aractive option for women
in the Gulf seeking to balance family and work expectations (Jennings &
McDougall 2007; Itani et al. 2011; Loscocco & Bird 2012). Not only does it
provide flexible work sedules, but it also allows women to telecommute or
work from home, and still be aendant to their family responsibilities
(Deant & Al Lamky 2005; Erogul & McCrohan 2008; Brush et al. 2009;
Ahmad 2011; Danish & Smith 2012).
 Local media and government agencies have been especially effusive in
their aracterization of this burgeoning trend of women’s entrepreneurship,
and its implications for both women’s empowerment and the national
economy. Reports from government-sponsored women’s associations (su
as the Dubai Women Establishment) as well as local newspapers—su as
The National (Everington 2013; Guter 2013) and Arabian Business (Glass
2007)—point to the quantitative increase in women-owned businesses as a
positive indicator of economic and social development. For women living in
societies that impose strict gender-segregation codes in the workplace, su
as Saudi Arabia, or those living in more remote locations of the Gulf, su as
the emirates of Ras Al Khaimah or Ajman, social media has facilitated the
burgeoning of home-based businesses. e combination of entrepreneurship
opportunities and business-oriented social media has proven to be
revolutionary in its impact (no pun intended) contributing to opportunities
for financial independence, professional development and overall
empowerment for women, who would have normally been loed out of this
arena.
A recent report on CNBC touts the rise of women entrepreneurs in the
Gulf as ‘Arab Spring 2.0’, describing the use of social media su as
Instagram as e-commerce platforms. Other social media, most notably
Facebook, have been used to identify crowdfunding opportunities for
women-owned startups, ranging from small and micro enterprises or coage
industries producing cultural artefacts to venture capital-baed e-commerce
businesses. Less rigid organizational structures, flexible work hours and
home-based workspaces are all aspects that have aracted more women to
entrepreneur-ship and self-employment, particularly for the new e-
commerce companies.
In the Arab world in general, particularly the more affluent societies of
the Gulf, men are seen as the financial providers for their families, while
women are primarily caretakers and mothers. is seemingly patriaral
cultural value has inadvertently given rise to a paradox that has helped
create an environment conducive to women’s entrepreneurship, one in
whi women are freed from financial responsibilities toward their families
and are therefore beer positioned to gamble on entrepreneurial
opportunities where the outcome is not guaranteed. While this gendered
division of social responsibilities has been reinforced by the general wealth
of Emiratis and the relatively high salaries that local men earn, it has also
contributed to the growth of opportunity-based entrepreneurial activity
among women, who enjoy the financial security to take risks on new
startups.

Conclusion
As women-owned businesses continue to increase in the Gulf, one may also
wonder whether this may be perceived as a feminization of
entrepreneurship, and whether in the long term this may lead to a (social)
devaluation and subsequently a loss of (financial) investment in the sector.
In professions that have been feminized on a global scale—su as nursing,
primary sool education and assembly line manufacturing, to name a few—
we see an accompanying loss of value (in terms of wages and status). With
the growing numbers of women starting up their own businesses, there is a
risk that entrepreneurship could suffer a similar fate whereby fewer men
will be drawn to SME opportunities, and subsequently sources of SME
funding and support will become less available. While this may be a
legitimate concern in the event that women’s entrepreneurship outpaces
men’s, at the moment in the Gulf, as indicated by a recent report by The
National, women continue to dominate the public sector at 66 per cent,
while ‘men in the UAE are 2.8 times more likely than women to open a
business’ (Sahoo 2013). Su coverage helps temper some of the more
celebratory spin presented by government reports—as well as local (and
international) media—and serves as an important reminder that women’s
startups are still a nascent sector of the economy with a long road ahead.
For the field of cross-cultural management and global managers alike,
there are some significant lessons to glean from this growing phenomenon
in the Arab world. By understanding the socio-economic and cultural
factors that have contributed to this rising tide of entrepreneurship among
Arab women, international managers can be beer equipped to address
discriminatory organizational practices and aitudes pertaining to women’s
managerial potential and their exclusion from organizational networks,
training and grooming for management positions. Shedding light on some of
the motivational factors that draw women to self-employment— including
flexible sedules allowing them to balance family and work, gender-
segregated workplaces and ild-care facilities, to name a few—and some of
the institutional limitations that perpetuate glass ceilings for women with
managerial aspirations is crucial for international managers seeking to
diversify their staff and capitalize on the ever increasing numbers of highly
educated, motivated and professional Arab women, who have been mostly
hindered from real growth in the private sector. A gender-sensitive approa
to human resources that takes into account flexible work sedules, ild-
care facilities and other incentives will ultimately not only help recruit,
retain and train women to take on managerial positions and break through
the glass ceiling, but also allow multinational corporations in the Arab Gulf
to harness the talents, unique perspectives and experiences of the local
workforce, one that is increasingly dominated by professional and college-
educated women. In effect, by keeping up with this ebb and flow in
entrepreneurship, the shiing paerns of the labour market and the cultural
context shaping the corporate environment in the Gulf, solarship on cross-
cultural management can contribute to a deeper understanding of
recruitment and motivation of women employees, and international
management overall.

Notes
1 e Arab ought Foundation has been releasing Arab Cultural Development Reports, for the last
six years on an annual basis. It deals with the central and essential themes pertained to the various
 development aspects in Arab countries. hp://arabthought.org/

2 hp://www.thenational.ae/uae/arabian-gulf-nationals-feel-unqualified-for-private-sector-jobs-
new-report-shows#ixzz2oW1tuSX6

References
Ahmad SZ 2011, ‘Evidence of the aracteristics of women entrepreneurs in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An empirical investigation’, International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.123–143.
Bayat A 2002, ‘Activism and social development in the Middle East’,
International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–28.
Brush CG, De Bruin A & Welter F 2009, ‘A gender-aware framework for
women’s entrepreneurship’, Inter national Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8–24.
Danish AY & Smith HL 2012, ‘Female entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia:
Opportunities and allenges’, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 216–235.
Deant K & Al Lamky A 2005, ‘Toward an understanding of Arab women
entrepreneurs in Bahrain and Oman’, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 123–140.
Erogul MS and McCrohan D 2008, ‘Preliminary investigation of Emirati
women entrepreneurs in the UAE’, African Journal of Business
Management, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 177–185.
Etzioni A 1987, ‘Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation’, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 8, pp. 175–189.
Everington J 2013, ‘Spirit of entrepreneurship percolates across region’, The
National, 23 November. Available from
hp://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/economics/spirit-
of-entrepreneur-ship-percolates-across-region#full#ixzz2ozdirn1V. [23
December 2013].
Gallant M & Pounder J 2008, ‘e employment of female nationals in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE): An analysis of opportunities and barriers’,
Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26–33.
Glass A 2007, ‘Working women contribute US$3.4 bn to the UAE’s
Economy’, Arabian Business 14 December. Available from
www.arabianbusiness.com/506390-working-women-contribute-
us34bnto-the-uaes-economy. [14 September 2013].
Goby VP & Erogul MS 2011, ‘Female entrepreneurship in the United Arab
Emirates: Legislative encouragements and cultural constraints’, Women’s
Studies International Forum, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 329–334.
Guter L 2013, ‘SMEs in 2013: New initiatives support UAE’s goal of
becoming innovation hub’, The National, December 29. Available from
hp://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/the-life/smes-in-
2013-new-initiatives-support-uaes-goal-of-becoming-innovation-
hub#ixzz2ozcm8SZK. [30 December 2013].
Harry W 2007, ‘Employment creation and localization: e crucial human
resource issues for the GCC’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 18, no.1, pp. 32–146.
Hutings K, Metcalfe BD & Cooper BK 2010, ‘Exploring Arab Middle
Eastern women’s perceptions of barriers to, and facilitators of,
international management opportunities’, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–83.
International Monetary Fund 2005, United Arab Emirates: Selected issues
and statistical appendix, IMF country report No. 05/2005. Available from
hp://www.imf.org/external/country/ARE/index.htm?type=9998. [3
August 2013].
International Monetary Fund 2012, Data and statistics. Available from
www.imf.org/external/data.htm. [3 August 2013].
Itani H, Sidani YM & Baalbaki I 2011, ‘United Arab Emirates female
entrepreneurs: Motivations and frustrations’, Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 409–424.
Jennings J & McDougall MS 2007, ‘Work–family interface experiences and
coping strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship resear and
practice’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 747–760.
Loscocco K & Bird SR 2012, ‘Gendered paths: Why women lag behind in
small business success’, Work and Occupation, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 182–219.
Madiie, N 2010, ‘UAE women’ (Chapter 16), in International Research
Handbook on Successful Women Entrepreneurs, eds Fielden et al.,
Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham, pp. 189–203.
Madiie NO & Gallant M 2012, ‘Broken silence: A commentary on
women’s entrepreneurship in the United Arab Emirates’, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 81–92.
Marlow S, Henry C & Carter S 2009, ‘Introduction: Female entrepreneurship,
special edition’, International Small Business Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
3–10.
Metcalfe BD 2006, ‘Exploring cultural dimensions of gender and
management in the Middle East’, Thunderbird International Business
Review, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 93–107.
Metcalfe BD 2008, ‘Women, management and globalization in the Middle
East’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 83, pp. 85–100.
Moghadam V 2005, ‘Women’s economic participation in the Middle East’,
Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 110–146.
Naser K, Mohammed WR & Nuseibeh R 2009, ‘Factors that affect women
entrepreneurs: Evidence from an emerging economy’, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 225–247.
Nelson C. 2004, ‘UAE national women at work in the private sector:
Conditions and constraints’, Centre for Labour Market Research and
Information, Tanmia, Dubai.
Sahoo S 2013, ‘Men more likely to start a business in UAE than women’, The
National, 17 December 2013. Available from hp:
hp://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/economics/men-
more-likely-to-start-a-business-in-uae-than-women. [19 December
2013].
Tanmia 2005, United Arab Emirates Human Resources Report, Centre for
Labour Market Resear and information, Dubai. Available from:
www.uaeinteract.com/uaeint_misc/pdf_2007/English_2007/eyb7.pdf. [9
September 2013].
Tlaiss H & Kauser S 2011, ‘e impact of gender and family on career
advancement: Evidence from Lebanese women’, Gender in Management,
vol. 26, no.1, pp. 8–36.
UAEInteract 2009, Social Development: UAE Yearbook. Available from
www.uaeinteract.com/women. [9 September 2013].
UAEInteract 2010, Women: UAE Yearbook 2010. Available from
hp://www.uaeyearbook.com/Yearbooks/2010/ENG/data/UAE-
Yearbook-2010-English.pdf. [9 September 2013].
United Nations Development Programme 2003, The Arab human
development report: Building a knowledge society, UNDP, New York.
United Nations Development Programme 2010, Arab human development
report 2009: Challenges to human security in the Arab countries (Annex
1: human development indicators in the Arab countries), UNDP Regional
Bureau for Arab States, United Nations Development Programme, New
York, pp. 246–256. Available from hp://www.arab-
hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2009e.pdf. [9 September 2013].
Verheul I, Vanstel A & urik R 2006, ‘Explaining female and male
entrepreneurship at the country level’, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 151–183.
Williams C 1989, Gender differences at work: Women and men in non-
traditional occupations, University of California Press, Berkley.
Wingham DW 2004, ‘Entrepreneurship through the ages’, in
Entrepreneurship: The way ahead, ed Wels HP, Routledge, New York,
pp. 27–42.
World Bank 2003–2006, The environment for women’s entrepreneurship in
the Middle East and North Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank 2004, Gender and development in the Middle East and North
Africa: Women in the public sphere, World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank 2012, Gender equality and development, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Economic Forum 2010, Global gender gap report. Available from:
www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2010. [14
September 2013].
34
Transformational leadership
Contextually dependent on individual and
cultural values

Gregory Bott

Introduction

Discussion and analysis of leadership spans across many disciplines

(including organizational studies, psyology, sociology, and political
science) and is a very dynamic topic. e topic of leadership, at least from a
behavioral perspective, has been on the agenda of researers for more than
100 years (van Knippenberg, 2011). For the past 25 to 30 years,
transformational leadership has been the single most studied and debated
leadership theory among academics (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Rubin et al.,
2005; Yukl, 2012; Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). However, a number of authors
(e.g., Bryman et al., 1996; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1999; De Hoogh et
al., 2005; Peus et al., 2013) have argued that the study of transformational
leadership has le a gap in the literature, whereby contextual factors need to
be further explored. One contextual factor currently being debated in the
literature is whether or not transformational leadership theory can be
generalized across cultures. Culture and transformational leadership,
however, still remain an understudied area (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013).
 Transformational leadership originally became popular in Western culture
with initial constructs developed using American data. Since it has been
argued that cultural groups vary in their perceptions of what aributes are
the most important for effective leaders to occupy (Den Hartog et al., 1999),
a natural path is to analyze the perceptions and effects of transformational
leaders across cultures that hold different value dimensions. With increasing
globalization, multinational corporations are increasingly conducting
business across cultural borders. is can be seen in the form of not only
marketing products across borders, but also increasingly producing products
in a foreign market. is trend increases the demand for global leaders who
may have to make adjustments to their leadership style in order to be
effective in foreign environments (Boehnke et al., 2003; Ergeneli et al., 2007).
erefore, an in-depth understanding of how leadership styles are perceived
in respective cultures is an increasingly important debate among the
academic community. Resear on cross-cultural leadership has the
tendency to take on one of two forms (Dison et al., 2003). e first type of
study is of people from one culture who find themselves leading individuals
from another culture. e second type of cross-cultural leadership studies
compares the leadership resear findings from one culture to those from a
different culture. Although both phenomena are important, the laer is of
interest in this apter.
In this apter I start with an overview of the literature on
transformational leadership theory. e intention is to provide the reader
with a general overview of transformational leadership, including the
literature that seeks to enlighten us on how transformational leaders can
positively influence those around them, ultimately leading their followers to
higher levels of aievement. I then move toward highlighting the trending
literature, whi aempts to answer an ongoing debate about whether or
not transformational leadership can be generalized across cultures with
different values. is debate starts with a discussion of empirical studies that
analyze the impact of transformational leadership across Hofstede’s (1980)
value dimensions, and value dimensions developed by the Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Resear (GLOBE) project.
Recognizing limitations of defining cross-cultural borders (e.g., cultural
constructs) in any facet of cross-cultural management resear, I then move
to a discussion of how individual values impact the effect of
transformational leaders.

Transformational leadership
Burns (1978) was among the first solars to conceptualize transformational
leadership. Transformational leadership was then further operationalized in
seminal work by Bass (1985, 1998) and colleagues (Yammarino & Bass, 1991).
Burns (1978) used the term transforming leadership to define a leader who
‘looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and
engages the full person of the followers’ (p. 4). ‘Su leadership occurs when
one or more persons engage with others in su a way that leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality’
(Burns, 1978: p. 20). Bass (1985) and colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006) define a
transformational leader as someone who raises the awareness of colleagues
and followers, shis them to higher level needs, influences them to
transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, and to work
harder than they originally had expected they would, ultimately behaving in
ways to aieve superior results.
Earlier work on leadership had primarily focused on a more tactical
approa to leadership, whi many refer to as transactional leadership. In
referring to how political transactional leaders motivated followers, Burns
(1978) noted transactional leaders ‘approa followers with an eye to
exange one thing for another; jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign
contributions. Su transactions comprise the bulk of the relationships
among leaders and followers, especially in groups, legislators and parties’ (p.
4). is approa may suffice for short-term results, but is likely to be
ineffective for longer-term relationships (Hautala, 2005; Baker, 2007). A
fundamental aspect of transactional leadership is an exange of something
of value. e key components to transactional leadership include contingent
reinforcement (or contingent reward), and management-by-exception.
Bass (1998) and colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006) identify four key
components of transformational leadership to include (i) idealized influence,
(ii) inspirational motivation, (iii) intellectual stimulation, and (iv)
individualized consideration. Idealized influence, also frequently termed
arismatic leadership, suggests that leaders behave in a way that results in
them being admired, respected, and trusted by followers. Charismatic
leaders are confident, enthusiastic, and energetic, ultimately transmiing
positive emotions to their followers (Ilies et al., 2006). Su leaders can be
counted on to do the right thing (seen to have high ethical and moral
standards) (Bass & Riggio, 2006). As a result of su perceived traits, people
around them (followers) seek to emulate them. Most individual studies find
that idealized influence is generally found to have the greatest impact on
predicting effectiveness out of the four components of transformational
leadership. For this reason, the component of idealized influence has also
received the most aention in the literature.
Prior to Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of the components of
transformational leadership, a number of authors aempted to theorize the
arismatic aracteristic as a predictor of follower performance. Weber et
al. (1946) were among the earlier authors to associate arisma with
organizational leadership (Ilies et al., 2006). In their seminal work, Weber et
al. (1946) define arismatic leaders to be ‘holders of specific gis of the
body and spirit; and these gis have been believed to be supernatural, not
accessible to everybody’ (p. 245). In a study analyzing organizational
contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of arismatic
leadership, Shamir and Howell (1999) use the following definition of the
effectiveness of arisma: ‘the degree of its influence on followers’ self-
concepts, values, and motivation’ (p. 259). A number of authors look at
arismatic leadership and transformational leadership as synonymous
theories (Ilies et al., 2006; Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). A few studies
explicitly mention this while others fail to distinguish between the two
concepts. is is perhaps due to the fact that arisma is the most prominent
indicator within transformational leadership in explaining effective
leadership; another reason being that both arismatic leadership and
transformational leadership converge in their empirical findings (Keller,
2006).
e component of inspirational motivation seeks to explain leadership
aracteristics whereby leaders provide meaning and allenge to those
around them and behave in a way that motivates and inspires followers.
ey encourage the creation of a shared vision and then clearly
communicate expectations toward meeting that vision. In addition, leaders
who practice inspirational motivation demonstrate themselves as commied
to the shared vision. e concept of intellectual stimulation refers to
transformational leaders who ‘stimulate their followers’ efforts to be
innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems,
and approaing old situations in new ways’ (Bass & Riggio, 2006: p. 7). A
leader possessing su qualities encourages creativity, and refrains from
publicly criticizing an individual follower. Finally, individualized
consideration refers to the aracteristic of transformational leaders who
pay aention to an individual follower’s needs and recognize the need for
individualized coaing and mentoring. In paying aention to the individual
follower, a leader advises individual followers and discovers what motivates
ea individual (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006).
e hierary of correlations in individual studies tends to be idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Lowe & Kroe, 1996; Bass, 1998). Since its
conception, many resear studies have aempted to validate the
components of transformational leadership, and thus transformational
leadership itself. For example, a number of studies have demonstrated a
positive relationship between transformational leadership and performance,
whether it is individual, group, or organizational performance. ere have
also been five meta-analytical studies performed between 1996 and 2011
(Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe & Kroe, 1996; DeGroot et al., 2000; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Leong & Fiser, 2011). A meta-analysis is a set of teniques
combining the results of two or more studies (Leong & Fiser, 2001). Ea
of the meta-analyses is more or less consistent in their general support of
transformational leadership theory and its predictive and positive
relationship to a vast number of select and diverse desired outcomes.
A number of authors are quite vocal in terms of criticizing the validity of
the model as well as highlighting potentially negative implications of over-
reliance of not only leadership models, but specifically of transformational
leadership. For example, Yukl (1999) suggests conceptual weaknesses to
include ‘ambiguous constructs, insufficient descriptions of explanatory
processes, a narrow focus on dyadic processes, omission of some relevant
behaviors, insufficient specification of limiting conditions (situational
variables), and a bias toward heroic concepts of leadership’ (p. 286). van
Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) recently criticized the study of arismatic-
transformational leadership using a number of overaring critiques; for
example, the authors note that the field of researers has not been able to
agree on a clear conceptual definition of transformational leadership. In
order for a theory su as transformational leadership to be a meaningful
concept, ‘it should be conceptualized in a way that clarifies why [some
dimensions] are in, whereas others are out’ (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013:
p. 11). See van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) for a recent comprehensive
critical review of transformational leadership.
Despite su criticism, transformational leadership has been tested and
supported in numerous industries including military unit performance (Bass
et al., 2003), resear and development firms (Keller et al., 2006), high
tenology organizations (Peterson et al., 2009), banking branes (Barling et
al., 1996), and many other organizations (Conger et al., 2000; Wofford et al.,
2001). e methods used for data collection, including the Multifactor
Leadership estionnaire (MLQ), have been robustly tested (Avolio et al.,
1999; Antonakis et al., 2003; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008; Edwards et al.,
2012). e MLQ has been the most frequently used instrument by academics
and practitioners in assessing the components of transformational leadership
(Yukl, 1999; Antonakis et al., 2003; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008). e fit of
the MLQ in terms of its ability to predict the positive link between
transformational leadership and performance is well known (see meta-
analysis completed by Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe & Kroe, 1996; DeGroot et
al., 2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Leong & Fiser, 2011).
More recent studies tend to accept that transformational leadership is
effective, as resear has moved toward developing a rier understanding
of the contexts and environments (e.g., mediators) in whi leadership
theories are effective. Earlier studies of transformational leadership also call
for more aention toward identifying limiting conditions of
transformational leadership (e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Aer a
review of the literature, Wofford et al. (2001) similarly conclude that most
studies ‘converge on the conclusion that the effectiveness of leadership is
situationally determined’ (p. 196). A number of authors (e.g., Bryman et al.,
1996; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1999; De Hoogh et al., 2005; Peus et al.,
2013) have thus argued that transformational leadership has le a gap in the
literature for looking at environmental or contextual aracteristics. e
effectiveness of transformational leaders in cross-cultural contexts is one of
the major themes that have emerged as an important topic of study. One of
the primary focuses in the field of cross-cultural leadership resear is
whether or not the leading leadership theory (transformational leadership) is
universal across cultures or whether it is culturally contingent (Dison et
al., 2003).

Transformational leadership in a cross-cultural

context
eoretical and empirical resear on international management, cross-
cultural management, and leadership studies has traditionally drawn heavily
on Western ideologies (Ardivili, 2001; Holden, 2002; Dison et al., 2003;
Wendt et al., 2009; Pauleen et al., 2010). e origin of transformational
leadership is certainly no exception to this, having been developed with data
from Western societies, primarily with an American bias (Dison et al.,
2003; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Wendt et al., 2009). Given the fact that
many cultures do not share these same values (Ardivili, 2001), this calls
into question the applicability of Western constructs on cultures holding
fundamentally different value dimensions. is curiosity has lead to an
emerging body of cross-cultural researers analyzing whether or not
transformational leadership, a Western-centric paradigm, can be generalized
across cultures with different value dimensions.
ere have long been competing contentions as to whether or not
leadership traits are universal or contingent across cultures. Triandis (1994)
finds that while there are some universal aributes of management styles,
‘ea distinct culture may also have a distinct management style that is both
moderated and directly influenced by culture’ (Javidan & Carl, 2004: p. 667,
referring to Triandis, 1994). Following the work of Triandis (1994), Javidan
and Carl (2004) claim that the ‘most recent sool of thought is that
individuals’ view of leadership and their criteria for assessing leadership
effectiveness are largely driven by their cultural baground’ (2004, p. 666).
Culture is thus seen as a critical variable contributing to the effectiveness of
transformational leadership (Javidan & Carl, 2004). erefore, one of the
primary focuses in the field of cross-cultural leadership resear is whether
or not the leading leadership theory (transformational leadership) is
universal across cultures or whether it is culturally contingent (Dison et
al., 2003). is also suggests the need to be cognizant of multiple levels of
analysis. For example, individual values (partially driven by cultural
influences) and national cultures have ea been studied as possibly
moderating the effectiveness of transformational leadership. e next two
sections provide an overview of the literature on transformational leadership
from the perspective of ea of these levels of analysis.

Cultural values
As with most cross-cultural studies, resear on transformational leadership
in a cultural context draws heavily on Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural
dimensions. Hofstede (1980) defines culture as ‘the collective programming
of the mind whi distinguishes the members of one human group from
another’ (p. 25). Hofstede (1980, 2001) further suggests cultural differences
are primarily differences in shared values (Dison et al., 2003). It has been
argued that cultural groups vary in their perceptions of what aributes are
the most important for effective leaders to occupy, whereby leadership can
be recognized based on the fit between an observed person’s aracteristics
and the observer’s perception of what aributes a leader should possess
(Den Hartog et al., 1999). erefore, distinct leadership prototypes would be
expected to occur in differing cultural profiles (Bass, 1990; Hofstede, 1993;
Den Hartog et al., 1999) whereby the extent to whi the leader mates this
prototype impacts the extent of a leader’s influence (Guthey & Jason,
2011). Naturally then, cross-cultural resear has focused on follower
perceptions of leaders in differing cultural seings.
ere were four cultural value dimensions in Hofstede’s (1980) original
study, with a fih dimension later added (Ergeneli et al., 2007). ese value
dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–
collectivism, masculinity–femininity, and long-term versus short-term
orientation. e cultural dimension of individualism–collectivism has
received the most aention in cross-cultural leadership studies (Walumbwa
& Lawler, 2003; Walumbwa, et al., 2007; Wendt et al., 2009). Ea of
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions have been used in the cross-
cultural transformational leadership literature; however, they are beyond the
scope of this introduction to the field. Individualistic societies are defined by
Hofstede (1980) as societies that emphasize individuals taking care of
themselves and their immediate family. In contrast, in collectivistic societies,
individuals feel strong loyalty to the group whereby the group is central to
the well-being of the individual (Leong & Fiser, 2011).
McSweeney (2002) contends that Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions are
excessive and unbalanced, primarily due to fallacious methodological
assumptions. Criticisms include the fact that Hofstede (1980) claims that
ea nation has a distinctive and describable culture. Su a claim is based
on the assumption that ‘every national population somehow shares a unique
culture’ (McSweeney, 2002: p. 92), whi is relatively stable and
homogeneous (Holden, 2002). McSweeney (2002) suggests this overlooks
individual heterogeneity as well as shis in political and economical (or
other) landscapes. Su a presupposition creates problems when raised to a
global level (Pauleen et al., 2010), giving rise to an over-aribution of
cultural issues to the exclusion of other potential explanatory factors
(Holden, 2002). Hofstede (2002) anowledges this claim, but suggests that
nations are usually the only type of units available for comparison, further
noting cultural constructs are important in explaining variation beyond
economic, political, and institutional factors. In reference to Hofstede’s
(1980) cultural model, Holden (2002), a frequent and vocal critic of the
Hofstedian perspective, admits
would-be allengers face, among other things, the daunting prospect of conducting a
multinational study, built on solid theoretical foundations, with the explicit aim of creating a
model of more or less universal validity whi renders Hofstede’s famous model invalid and
obsolete.
(p.1)

A Hofstedian perspective is further reinforced by the GLOBE project,

detailed later in this apter.
Bass (1985) and colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006) define a transformational
leader as someone who raises the awareness of colleagues and followers,
shis them to higher level needs, influences them to transcend their own
self-interests for the good of the group, and to work harder than they
originally had expected they would, ultimately behaving in ways to aieve
superior results. Transformational leadership components of idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration, should
ea have a positive impact on follower commitment (Bass, 1998). For
example, inspirational motivation provides meaning to the organization’s
mission, and individualized consideration should enhance commitment
when subordinates feel their personal needs are being met through coaing
and mentoring. is is consistent with the values in collectivistic societies
whereby values are strongly embraced and followers can more readily
identify with the leaders based on mutual goals (Jung et al., 1995;
Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003), and leaders are expected to help and care for
their follower’s private lives (Hofstede, 1997; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003).
Given the fact that collectivists tend to have stronger emotional
dependence and emphasis on belonging, it can be hypothesized that
individuals from collectivist societies will be more accepting of a
transformational leader (Hofstede, 1980; Ergeneli et al., 2007). A study of
bank and finance employees from China, India, and Kenya finds collectivism
to positively moderate the strength of transformational leadership and
work-related outcomes su as follower aitude, organizational
commitment, and satisfaction with co-workers (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003).
Similarly, this same study finds collectivism to negatively interact with
transformational leadership and perceptions of withdrawal behaviors. ese
findings are consistent with the fact that the idealized influence and
inspirational motivation components of transformational leadership elicit
followers to transform the needs and values from the self to collective
interests, causing followers to be more commied to the overall mission.
In a study looking at the cultural values of managers and employees in
Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, Ardivili (2001) analyzes the
extent to whi managers in ea country practice transformational
leadership. e author finds significant differences in the leadership styles
between the managers of the four countries, whi suggests cultural value
dimensions are able to predict leadership styles. For example, managers in
the country scoring the highest on individualism (Russia) scored the lowest
on all four components of transformational leadership. However, the fact
that cultural value dimensions only predicted a small variation of leadership
styles could suggest that either other factors have a stronger effect than
cultural dimensions, or the constructs used do not cover the whole universe
of cultural value dimensions (following criticisms of Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions) relevant to leadership (Ardivili, 2001).
Until recently, most of the studies claiming to analyze transformational
leadership in a cross-cultural context have used data from two or three
countries (Dison et al., 2003), whi makes it difficult to form
generalizations across a broader cultural context. Lately, however, studies
have aempted to include a larger number of countries. e GLOBE project
is probably the most influential project on cross-cultural leadership. e
GLOBE project had the overaring goal of developing ‘an empirically based
theory to describe, understand, and predict the impact of specific cultural
variables on leadership and organizational processes and the effectiveness of
these processes’ (Chhokar et al., 2007: p. 8). e project consisted of 170
researers and studied over 60 nations.
e GLOBE project identified nine cultural dimensions: Assertiveness,
Future Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, Humane Orientation,
Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Performance Orientation,
Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance (Leung, 2007). Six of the nine
dimensions relate closely to the previously noted cultural value dimensions
of Hofstede (1980), while three dimensions (Future Orientation, Performance
Orientation, and Humane Orientation) are rooted in other literature (Leung,
2007). e fact that two decades later the GLOBE project reinforces
Hofstede’s dimensions further enforces the validity of both constructs of
culture in a number of facets. See Hofstede (2010) for a commentary of the
debate about the relationship of Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions and the
dimensions resulting from the GLOBE project.
Using data from the GLOBE project, Den Hartog et al. (1999) identify
numerous transformational aributes that are universally endorsed as
contributing to outstanding leadership across a large sample of countries.
For example, their study finds aributes of arismatic leadership, including
encouraging, positive, motivational, confidence builder, dynamic, and
foresight, to be universally endorsed. House et al. (2004) similarly found
visionary, intelligent, trustworthy, and decisive to be universally endorsed as
positive aributes for a leader to possess. ese two studies also found a
number of aributes that vary across cultures. For example, the perception
of risk taking, whi is typically viewed as an aribute of transformational
leadership, was not viewed positively across all cultures.
e empirical findings suggest that many aributes of transformational
leaders are perceived to be effective across cultural boundaries, while a
number of aributes are culturally dependent. It has also been suggested
that findings of universality across cultures can be explained by the fact that
transformational leaders satisfy a universal need for aievement, an aspect
of whi has not been fully explored (Javidan & Carl, 2004). Another
possible explanation for the effectiveness of transformational leaders across
cultural boundaries may be due to its moral and ethical foundations.
Although ethical leadership is not unique to transformational leadership,
transformational leaders are said to be morally upliing by definition
(Burns, 1978; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Individual values
Some authors have noted that followers’ reactions to leadership are based on
social construction theory (Meindl et al., 1985; Syns et al., 2007), as
followers socially construct leadership. Syns et al., (2007) claim ‘followers’
reactions to leadership are more strongly shaped by their own construction
than by the traits and behaviors of a leader’ (p.30). Following from this
contention, it has been argued that ratings of leaders should therefore
provide more information about the followers’ thought systems than
information about a leader’s impact (Meindl et al., 1985; Syns et al., 2007).
Similarly, it can be argued that an individual perceives one to be a leader
when one’s behavior mates their preconceived mental representations of
leadership (Den Hartog et al., 1999; De Hoogh et al., 2005).
In sear for a theory to describe follower motivational effects of a
transformational leader, Shamir et al. (1993) hypothesized that in order for a
transformational leader to have a distinct effect on a follower, they ‘must
appeal to existing elements of the followers’ self-concepts – namely, their
values and identities’ (p. 588). Charismatic leaders do not have the ability or
need to instill a completely new set of values or identities into their
followers (Shamir et al., 1993). Instead, they must connect with their
followers’ self-concepts, ultimately raising the salience of su self-concepts
(Burns, 1978; Shamir et al., 1993; Brown & Treviño, 2009; Hoffman et al.,
2011). is suggests that there is a two-way linkage whereby leaders must
respond to the self-concepts held by the follower as mu as the follower
responds to the behaviors of the leader.
An individual’s values tend to be stable over time and organizational
socialization is unlikely to impact an individual’s value structure by any
magnitude (Brown & Treviño, 2009). However, leader and follower values
may naturally be aligned to a certain degree through self-selection (Brown
& Treviño, 2009), whi suggests that both leaders and followers seek careers
and organizations that are in line with their personal values. Similarly,
followers may actively seek out individuals whom they oose to follow
based on the extent to whi the values and identities that the leader holds
are in line with their own (Shamir et al., 1993). is contention is in line
with self-selection theory, whereby both the
leaders and followers may oose the context in whi they work (in part) because it appeals to
their values and identity, and followers may be more likely to perceive a leader as arismatic
when they share the leaders’ motives, values and beliefs.
(De Hoogh et al., 2005: p. 23)

Value congruence in the leadership literature has been defined as ‘the fit or

similarity in terms of personal values between a leader and his/her
followers’ (Jung et al., 2009: p. 589), or ‘the extent to whi an individual’s
values are consistent with those revealed in his/her organization’ (Hoffman
et al., 2011: p. 781). A number of empirical studies (e.g., Jung & Avolio, 2000;
Jung et al., 2009) have found value congruence to mediate the role between
transformational leadership and the quality of follower performance (Jung
& Avolio, 2000) and organizational performance (Jung et al., 2009). Other
studies have looked at value congruence as a mediator for the effect of
transformational leadership on work group effectiveness (Brown & Treviño,
2006; Hoffman et al., 2011). In a study of managers enrolled in an executive
MBA program in an American university, Hoffman et al. (2011) find the
effect of transformational leadership on group level effectiveness to be
mediated by group level person-organization value congruence.
 is section has demonstrated that individuals are able to beer identify
with and more willing to follow leaders whom they believe share the same
values as them. Effects of transformational leadership are therefore
contextually dependent on individuals’ values. Since it has been argued that
cultural groups vary in their perceptions of what aributes are the most
important for effective leaders to occupy (Den Hartog et al., 1999), it can be
argued that the different aributes (e.g., leader values) readily perceived as
leadership is culturally dependent.

Discussion
is apter has introduced the reader to transformational leadership, a
concept developed and originally tested in a Western culture. Among the
most pressing resear in many facets of management is the need to assess
the applicability of Western concepts and constructs to other countries
(Ardivili, 2001; Holden, 2002; Dison et al., 2003; Wendt et al., 2009;
Pauleen et al., 2010), and other cultures. Transformational leadership is
certainly no exception to this. Although the most prominent leadership
theory of the past three decades has considerable support, it is important for
academics and practitioners to be cognizant of the contextual parameters in
whi it is (or perhaps is not) effective.
roughout this apter I have demonstrated that resear has been
conducted on transformational leadership at multiple levels of analysis,
including taking into consideration cultural and individual values. A
number of the empirical studies presented throughout this apter suggest
certain transformational leadership aributes can be universally effective
across cultures and individuals, whereas other aributes are culturally
contextual, primarily in terms of their effectiveness on followers’ perception
of an effective leader. is has been explained by different values across
cultures, whereby individuals are more likely to follow leaders whom they
perceive as sharing a similar set of values as they do. is is an important
assertion since a leader’s influence is just as importantly determined by how
followers perceive the leader as it is by the behaviors they display (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987; Nohe et al., 2013).
Prior studies have found training in transformational and arismatic
leadership can improve follower ratings of leadership behavior and
perceptions of leadership behavior among followers (Bass et al., 2003;
Antonakis et al., 2011). e contention of transformational leadership being
contextually dependent therefore has practical implications on leadership
training as it suggests the necessity of adapting leadership training programs
with an awareness of cultural contexts. For example, Western MBA
programs commonly have a high ratio of international participants planning
to return to employment in their native culture. Current programs teaing
leadership have previously been criticized for being generic and ‘off the
shelf’ (Tourish, 2013), and therefore not relevant to distinct cultural contexts.
If leadership programs (e.g., MBAs) are to be relevant, they must consider
cultural aspects.

References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. & Sivasubramaniam, N. 2003, ‘Context and
leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership
theory using the Multifactor Leadership estionnaire’, The Leadership
Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 261–295.
Antonakis, J., Fenley, M. & Lieti, S. 2011, ‘Can arisma be taught? Tests of
two interventions’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 374–396.
Ardivili, A. 2001, ‘Leadership styles and work-related values of managers
and employees of manufacturing enterprises in post-communist
countries’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
363–383.
Avolio, B.J. & Yammarino, F.J. 2013, Transformational and charismatic
leadership: The road ahead, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. & Jung, D.I. 1999, ‘Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership estionnaire’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 441–462.
Baker, S.D. 2007, ‘Followership: e theoretical foundation of a
contemporary construct’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 50–60.
Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, E.K. 1996, ‘Effects of transformational
leadership training on aitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 827–832.
Bass, B.M. 1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations, Free
Press, New York.
Bass, B.M. 1990, Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research
and managerial applications (3rd ed.), Free Press, New York.
Bass, B.M. 1998, Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and
educational, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. 2006, Transformational leadership, Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. 2003, ‘Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 207–218.
Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., DiStefano, J.J. & DiStefano, A.C. 2003,
‘Transformational leadership: An examination of cross-national
differences and similarities’, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5–15.
Brown, M.E. & Treviño, L.K. 2009, ‘Leader–follower values congruence: Are
socialized arismatic leaders beer able to aieve it?’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 478–490.
Bryman, A., Stephens, M. & Campo, C. 1996, ‘e importance of context:
alitative resear and the study of leadership’, Leadership Quarterly,
vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 353–370.
Burns, J.M. 1978, Leadership, Harper & Row, New York.
Chhokar, J.S., Brodbe, F.C. & House, R.J. 2007, Culture and leadership
across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies,
Routledge, New York.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. 1987, ‘Toward a behavioral theory of
arismatic leadership in organizational seings’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–647.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. & Menon, S.T. 2000, ‘Charismatic leadership and
follower effects’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, no. 7, pp.
747.
De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L., ierry, H., Van den
Berg, P.T., Van der Weide, J.G. & Wilderom, C.P.M. 2005, ‘Leader
motives, arismatic leadership, and subordinates’ work aitude in the
profit and voluntary sector’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
17–38.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S. & Cross, T.C. 2000, ‘A meta-analysis to review
organizational outcomes related to arismatic leadership’, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 356–371.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-intanilla, S.A. &
Dorfman, P.W. 1999, ‘Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable
implicit leadership theories: Are aributes of
arismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’, The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 219–256.
Dison, M.W., Den Hartog, D.N. & Mitelson, J.K. 2003, ‘Resear on
leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new
questions’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 729–768.
Edwards, G., Syns, B., Gill, R. & Higgs, M. 2012, ‘e MLQ factor structure
in a UK context’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol.
33, no. 4, pp. 369–382.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R. & Temirbekova, Z. 2007, ‘Transformational
leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions’, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 703–724.
Fuller, J.B., Paerson, C.E.P., Hester, K. & Donna, Y.S. 1996, ‘A quantitative
review of resear on arismatic leadership’, Psychological Reports, vol.
78, no. 1, pp. 271–287.
Guthey, E. & Jason, B. 2011, ‘Cross-cultural leadership revisited’, in
Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Jason, B., Uhl-Bien, M., The SAGE
handbook of leadership, Sage Publications, London.
Hautala, T. 2005, ‘e effects of subordinates’ personality on appraisals of
transformational leadership’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 84–92.
Hoffman, B.J., Bynum, B.H., Piccolo, R.F. & Suon, A.W. 2011, ‘Person–
organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence
work group effectiveness’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 54, no.
4, pp. 779–796.
Hofstede, G. 1980, Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values, Sage Publications, USA.
Hofstede, G. 1993, ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, The
Academy of Management Executive, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 81–94.
Hofstede, G. 1997, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind:
Intercultural cooperation and its impact for survival, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Hofstede, G. 2001, Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations, Sage Publications, USA.
Hofstede, G. 2002, ‘Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan
McSweeney’, Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1355–1361.
Hofstede, G. 2010, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, ird
Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Holden, N. 2002, Cross-cultural
management: A knowledge management perspective, Pearson Education,
Edinburgh Gate.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. 2004,
Culture, leadership, and organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Ilies, R., Judge, T. & Wagner, D. 2006, ‘Making sense of motivational
leadership: e trail from transformational leaders to motivated
 followers’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 13, no. 1,
pp. 1–22.
Javidan, M. & Carl, D.E. 2004, ‘East meets West: A cross-cultural comparison
of arismatic leadership among Canadian and Iranian executives’,
Journal of Management Studies, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 665–691.
Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. 2004, ‘Transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 755–768.
Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. 2000, ‘Opening the bla box: An experimental
investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 949–964.
Jung, D.I., Bass, B.M. & Sosik, J.J. 1995, ‘Bridging leadership and culture: A
theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic
cultures’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 3–18.
Jung, D., Yammarino, F.J. & Lee, J.K. 2009, ‘Moderating role of subordinates’
aitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-
cultural and multi-level perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20,
no. 4, pp. 586–603.
Keller, R.T. 1992, ‘Transformational leadership and the performance of
resear and development project groups’, Journal of Management, vol.
18, no. 3, pp. 489.
Keller, R.T. 2006, ‘Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and
substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of resear and
development project team performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 202–210.
Leong, L.Y.C. & Fiser, R. 2011, ‘Is transformational leadership universal? A
meta-analytical investigation of multifactor leadership questionnaire
means across cultures’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 164–174.
Leung, K. 2007, ‘Foreward’, in Chhokar, J.S., Brodbe, F.C. & House, R.J.,
Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth
studies of 25 societies, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
Lowe, K.B. & Kroe, G.K. 1996, ‘Effectiveness correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 385–425.
McSweeney, B. 2002, ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis’, Human
Relations, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89–118.
Meindl, J.R., Ehrli, S.B. & Dukeri, J.M. 1985, ‘e romance of leadership’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 78–102.
Muenjohn, N. & Armstrong, A. 2008, ‘Evaluating the structural validity of
the Multifactor Leadership estionnaire (MLQ), capturing the
leadership factors of transformational–transactional leadership’,
Contemporary Management Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3–14.
Nohe, C., Miaelis, B., Menges, J.I., Zhang, Z. & Sonntag, K. 2013,
‘Charisma and organizational ange: A multilevel study of perceived
arisma, commitment to ange, and team performance’, The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 378–389.
Pauleen, D.J., Rooney, D. & Holden, N.J. 2010, ‘Practical wisdom and the
development of cross-cultural knowledge management: A global
leadership perspective’, European Journal of International Management,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 382–395.
Peterson, S.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Byron, K. & Myrowitz, J. 2009, ‘CEO positive
psyological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance
in high-tenology start-up and established firms’, Journal of
Management, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 348–368.
Peus, C., Braun, S. & Frey, D. 2013, ‘Situation-based measurement of the full
range of leadership model— Development and validation of a situational
judgment test’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 777–795.
Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. 2006, ‘Refining individualized consideration:
Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership’,
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 79, no. 1, pp.
37–61.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. & Bommer, W.H. 2005, ‘Leading from within: e
effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational
 leadership behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 48, no. 5, pp.
845–858.
Syns, B., Meindl, J.R. & Croon, M.A. 2007, ‘e romance of leadership
scale: Cross-cultural testing and refinement’, Leadership, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
29–46.
Shamir, B. & Howell, J.M. 1999, ‘Organizational and contextual influences on
the emergence and effectiveness of arismatic leadership’, The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 257–283.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. 1993, ‘e motivational effects of
arismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory’, Organization
Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 577–594.
Tourish, D. 2013, The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical
perspective, Routledge, New York.
Triandis, H.C. 1994, ‘Cross-cultural industrial and organizational
psyology’, in Triandis, H.C., Dunne, M.D. & Hough, L.M., Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology, Consulting Psyologist
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
van Knippenberg, D. 2011, ‘Embodying who we are: Leader group
prototypicality and leadership effectiveness’, The Leadership Quarterly,
vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1078–1091.
van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S.B. 2013, ‘A critical assessment of arismatic
—transformational leadership resear: Ba to the drawing board?’, The
Academy of Management Annals, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–60.
Walumbwa, F.O. & Lawler, J.J. 2003, ‘Building effective organizations:
Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related
aitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 14, no. 7, pp.
1083–1101.
Walumbwa, F.O., Lawler, J.J. & Avolio, B.J. 2007, ‘Leadership, individual
differences, and work-related aitudes: A cross-culture investigation’,
Applied Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 212–230.
Weber, M., Gerth, H.H. & Wright, C.W. 1946, From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Wendt, H., Euwema, M.C. & Van Emmerik, I. 2009, ‘Leadership and team
cohesiveness across cultures’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 358–370.
Wofford, J.C., Whiington, J.L. & Goodwin, V.L. 2001, ‘Follower motive
paerns as situational moderators for transformational leadership
effectiveness’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 196–211.
Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. 1991, ‘Person and situation views of
leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approa’, The Leadership
Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 121–139.
Yukl, G. 1999, ‘An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational
and arismatic leadership theories’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 285–305.
Yukl, G. 2012, ‘Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what
questions need more aention’, Academy of Management Perspectives,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 66–85.
35
Indian boundary spanners in cross-
cultural and inter-organizational
teamwork
An account from a global soware
development project

Anne-Marie Søderberg

Introduction

Global teamwork is now the daily working conditions for an increasing

number of managers in multinational companies who are collaborating
across the boundaries of a headquarters and its foreign subsidiaries or
sourcing to off-shore captive units. Global teamwork is also needed in an
off-shore outsourcing context when managers employed by a third party off-
shore vendor are communicating with a client with a headquarters in one
region of the world and with the vendor’s development teams located in
other continents and time zones. ese managers are expected to be able to
deal constructively with multiple cultures (regional, national, organizational
and professional) in their inter-organizational and cross-cultural
interactions. In this apter I address the questions: how are these managers
prepared for their complex boundary-spanning work and how do they
perceive and cope with the cultural allenges met?
e majority of contributions within international business and cross-
cultural management have taken their point of departure from studies of
Western multinational companies. Also studies of off-shore outsourcing tend
to look at the allenges in virtual communication, trust building and
knowledge sharing across boundaries and time zones from a Western client
perspective (e.g. Boden et al., 2009; Jensen, 2012). In this apter I adopt a
less ‘West-centric’ stance by drawing on empirical material collected in an
Indian MNC that provides advanced IT services and strategic business
solutions to its clients’ all around the world. e case is osen as an
example of recent developments in the international business landscape
where Western clients’ outsourcing of short-term projects with low-cost
tasks to third-world countries is increasingly being replaced by long-term
strategic partnerships that require mu closer collaboration across time
zones, languages and cultures between key representatives of the client and
the vendor.
More than 2,500 people employed by the Indian MNC are working at
various locations with maintenance and development projects for one of its
major European clients from the financial services industry. Around 80 to 85
per cent of the vendor employees who are involved in projects with this
specific client are working in so-called ‘off-shore’ teams, primarily at various
sites in India, but also at other low-cost locations su as China, the
Philippines and Brazil. However, the Indian vendor also has people stationed
in London, Frankfurt, Singapore and Sydney to allow face-to-face
interaction with the client on a daily basis. e projects thus involve a
culturally diverse workforce. In this apter I focus on the boundary
spanning tasks and roles of the Indian senior managers in one of the
vendor’s so-called ‘on-site’ teams in London, who are responsible for global
project coordination and management of client relationships.
Cultural differences are oen claimed to be a barrier to global virtual
teamwork. By listening to Indian managers who are deeply involved in daily
collaboration with both client representatives and vendor employees, I get
access to ways in whi they experience and cope with cross-cultural
allenges related to nations, organizations, business units and professions
(Hinds et al., 2011). e interviews also give insights concerning ways in
whi these managers act as boundary spanners-in-practice (Levina & Vaast,
2005), coordinating tasks and bridging cultural divides in order to create a
shared understanding between the client and the vendor around the global
soware development projects.
e apter is structured as follows. First, the theoretical framework for
the case study is outlined with a focus on cultural issues in global teamwork
and boundary spanning in international business and IT soware
development. Second, a brief introduction to the Indian case company is
offered. en the resear design of the case study and the osen
methodology is briefly described, followed by a presentation of main
findings around the osen resear issues; how are the on-site managers
prepared for cross-cultural teamwork? What cultural allenges do they
experience in their close collaboration with a European client and Indian
off-shore development teams? What cross-cultural skills and competencies
are needed in order to build trust, develop sustainable relations and translate
the client’s requirements and concerns? e final section summarizes the
findings, points to limitations of the exploratory study and outlines the
scope of further empirical studies within the field.

eoretical framework
In global client–vendor partnerships cultural differences at a national and an
organizational level are a given, but it maers how they are treated both
from a solarly and a practitioner’s perspective. Existing resear on
multicultural virtual teams has primarily focused on the allenges,
limitations and difficulties related to cultural diversity (Boden et al., 2009;
Klitmøller and Lauring, 2013; Krishna et al., 2004; Stahl et al., 2010); few
studies have looked at how cultural diversity in global teamwork may also
enri collaboration and generate more innovative solutions (Stahl et al.,
2011; Søderberg et al., 2013).
It is important to clarify what solars refer to when they claim that
cultural differences affect global team members’ communication and
collaboration and pose allenges to those who are responsible for
coordinating and managing off-shore outsourcing projects. e cross-
cultural value dimension frameworks (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; House et al.,
2004), where focus is on comparison of national cultural value differences at
a very general level, dominate the resear of global teamwork and virtual
collaboration, not least within information systems resear (e.g. Leidner &
Kayworth, 2006; Mahnke et al., 2008). Here the ‘cultural distance’ between
headquarters and a subsidiary, a client and a vendor or between teams that
are collaborating from different geographical locations is oen measured
according to (claimed) universal value dimensions in order to predict the
managerial implications of the cultural distance. During the last decade this
essentialist understanding of culture as a relatively static entity has been
heavily disputed by cross-cultural management solars (e.g. Drogendijk &
Zander, 2010; Nakata, 2009; Primecz et al., 2011; Søderberg & Holden, 2002).
But as concluded by Kirkman et al. (2006) in their comprehensive review of
the influence of Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences, this approa is still
playing a major role both in international business resear and when
multinational companies, like the Indian vendor in this case study, offer
culture training to their employees.
With an understanding of cultures as discourses (Barinaga, 2007) and thus
as social constructions and outcomes of negotiations among those who
collaborate across organizational, professional, regional and national borders
(Gertsen et al., 2012; Mahavedan, 2011; Marrewijk, 2010), I look closer at
how vendor representatives involved in global development projects
perceive the client representatives through a cultural lens, and how they try
to solve emerging cross-cultural issues at hand and thereby play active roles
in bridging across divides in order to develop a common platform.
What I refer to are boundary spanners who engage in so-called
‘uncertainty absorption’, a huge task that must be dealt with, not least in
long-term projects where many unforeseen difficulties emerge along the
way: ‘To successfully fulfill the role, a boundary spanner must have a deep
understanding of the business environment in whi an organization
operates, as well as the socio-cultural, economic, and political influences on
that environment’ (Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011, p. 630). An ability of avoiding
pitfalls from severe cultural misunderstandings as well as an ability to
develop cultural sensitivity, bridge across perceived cultural differences and
build a common platform is indispensable. Cultural sensitivity can be seen
as ‘an ability to monitor the new environment and engage in sensemaking’
(Shapiro et al., 2008). In this process people use both situated knowledge and
emic knowledge: the knowledge and interpretations that exist within a
specific cultural community.
Successful, long-term cross-cultural business relationships are to a great
extent based on at least partly shared frames of meaning. But su frames do
not just exist a priori; a common understanding must be developed, in
particular through face-to-face meetings. Culturally sensitive boundary
spanners are thus expected to play an important role in face-to-face
negotiation processes, but they also contribute to building relational trust in
virtual teams (Krebs et al., 2006; Oza et al., 2006).
According to Yagi and Kleinberg (2011), boundary spanning refers to ‘a
process shaped through the interplay of the contextual issues that make a
boundary problematic; an individual’s multiple repertoires of cultural
knowledge; and the individual boundary spanner’s “negotiation” through
interaction with others, of his/her cultural identities’ (op.cit., p. 630). Global
organizations may thus benefit from employing people in key coordinating
functions who can draw on multiple repertoires of cultural knowledge when
interacting and rapidly sense, interpret and respond to situations
complicated by perceived cultural differences related to nations,
organizations, business units and professions.
Levina and Vaast (2008) found that the boundary spanning practices of
middle managers with an inclination to engage and an ability to identify
with the interest of various stakeholders were critical for effective
collaboration and relationship management in off-shoring outsourcing
projects. Mahnke et al. (2008) conducted a study of tenology sourcing in
order to investigate how ‘off-shore’ intermediaries coordinated tasks and
dealt with conflicts related to differences in communication style, work
practices and values. In this apter I draw special aention to vendor
managers ‘on-site’ and their efforts to coordinate processes and create a
shared understanding around system development between client and
vendor representatives.

e case
I draw on a case study of collaborative work in a global IT soware
development project, where one of Europe’s – and the world’s – leading
financial services institutions, anonymized as EuroBank, has outsourced its
IT soware development tasks to one of the biggest Indian IT services firms,
anonymized as InIT, that is anowledged worldwide as a powerful and
knowledgeable provider of sophisticated IT services and solutions. e case
was osen because, according to a Senior Vice President of InIT, it
represents the most advanced level of offshoring and outsourcing that
implies strategic business development and experiential learning both for
the client and the vendor. e case study thus illustrates a new trend within
mature outsourcing relationships aracterized by advanced forms of global
teamwork between a client and a vendor who aim at mutually profitable
solutions that will consolidate their respective global market positions
significantly.
Eurobank has been one of InIT’s major clients for the last 15 years, and a
trustful relationship based on successful development projects has gradually
developed at senior management level. InIT is now considered one of
Eurobank’s strategic partners since an outcome of the development activities
are organizational learning processes where both the client and the vendor
learn about new ways to do business and about new tenologies that can
help solve their problems. InIT, for example, assists Eurobank in replacing
disparate core platforms at more than 30 sites around the world with one
transaction-safe and cost-efficient global banking platform developed on the
basis of one of InIT’s existing products for retail and corporate banking.

Design and methodology

e osen resear approa is qualitative and interpretive: the empirical
material collected in the case study consists of semi-structured interviews
with a wide range of people in InIT who are involved in the
abovementioned large and complex long-term strategic project with
Eurobank. For further information about interview topics and reflections on
the interview situations, see Søderberg et al. (2013). e first interviews were
conducted in December 2011–January 2012 in Bangalore and ea lasted for
around one hour. e head of InIT’s banking and financial services was
interviewed about his collaboration experiences and strategic concerns, and
then followed interviews with both senior managers and junior employees.
A second round of interviews was conducted in December 2012 with senior
managers in one of InIT’s on-site teams collaborating closely with
Eurobank’s investment bank unit in London. A third round of interviews
with InIT managers and employees was conducted in Bangalore in January
2013. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. In the
following section I focus on the interviews conducted with InIT senior
managers from the team in London. e interviewees are only identified in
terms of their roles and positions within the company.

Empirical findings

Preparation for cross-cultural teamwork

HR staff in InIT’s learning centre offers a two-months introduction to
cultural diversity and virtual team collaboration to all junior employees
before they start working in the MNC. A global account manager also draws
aention to the fact that the specific work culture in InIT trains people for
cross-cultural collaboration:
Many people have grown up in InIT by working for large clients. And large clients tend to be
global. So it is taken for granted that you will work in a global context, so also the first few years
as a trainee are very useful. e swan is not entering the sea directly, there is a lot of lakes, then a
river and finally the ocean. So it is a gradual entry and transition.

Another senior manager emphasizes that what he terms InIT’s ‘global work
culture’ is also created through the development of systematized processes
and well-defined roles and responsibilities that can easily span time zones
and geographical distances. Hence, operating globally does not necessarily
require mu knowledge about the particular national values, preferences
and strongly held beliefs of all those involved in global soware
development projects; instead the vendor must invest effort in developing
structures that facilitate complex cross-border work practices and in
recruiting key people who are able to organize and coordinate them.
Every subproject in InIT has a rotation plan between off-shore and on-site
teams in order to ensure that people who are more senior get to work in
another socio-cultural context for a while; thereby, knowledge-sharing
across sites and organizational boundaries is improved. However, in these
on-site teams that typically constitute more culturally diverse workplaces,
and where InIT employees are more frequently exposed to client
representatives, it is not any longer enough just to draw on the company’s
introductory courses about differences in cultural values and
communication styles. An on-site client manager gives examples of
situations where cultural awareness and reflexivity in relation to personal
socio-cultural norms are strongly needed, and where it is considered
particularly important that the Indians in on-site teams adapt to the local
behavioural paerns and do not in any way show discomfort when
approaed by employees in ways that are unfamiliar to them:
 Indian men walking hand in hand are in many Western cultures considered gay, not just friends or
good colleagues, so we are advised to adapt to a more Western behavioural paern not to be
victim to prejudices. Likewise we must learn that when, for example, Fren and Italian employees
eek kisses when they meet, it is only a gesture to indicate friendship, not a sexual relation. And
when an American male employee pats an Indian colleague on the shoulder, or some Italian
female colleagues give a big hug when they meet with us, it is important that we answer these
friendly gestures correspondingly.

ese examples indicate that cultural assimilation is a preferred mode of

behaviour.

Perceived cultural challenges

How do the Indian on-site managers understand and cope with the multiple
cultures at stake in their collaboration with client representatives? An Indian
senior manager explains that he and his colleagues experience major
cultural allenges when collaborating with European clients, who have
their first experiences with outsourcing to India. ey try to arrange culture
courses for the client organization to provide more cultural self-awareness
and reflexivity in the outsourcing IT department, but also to inform the
client’s employees about potential differences in communication style
between, for example, North Europeans and Indians, as well as typical
allenges in collaborating virtually. Client representatives, who collaborate
closely with off-shore teams, are also given opportunities to experience ea
other’s daily working environment. An engagement manager explains:
I ask everybody involved to visit off shore because many times Europeans don’t understand the
allenges associated with working in India. For example: say a European team set up a call in the
morning, at 9 o’clo with an Indian delivery head or team manager. Once they go to India they
realise that it’s not so easy as it sounds to be in the office at 9 sharp due to the aotic traffic
situation. Moreover, by the time the employees rea office, they are already tired. So people take
at least an hour to sele down and to really gear up to work (…) Once you start understanding
ea other beer, I think it becomes a lot more easy to establish a good and trustful relation.

However, perceived cultural differences at a national level do not seem to

create major allenges in InIT’s projects with Eurobank since this client is
considered very mature in terms of outsourcing and collaborating with
teams in India. Eurobank created its own soware entity in India in 1996–97,
collaboration with InIT has taken place for the last 15 years, and many
Eurobank representatives visit the off-shore teams frequently. e on-site
managers in InIT also draw aention to the fact that Eurobank in itself is a
culturally diverse workplace, and that many client representatives come
from Asian countries su as Singapore, whi also closes a potential
cultural gap in the Indian workforce in the off-shore and on-site teams.
Furthermore, Indian top and middle managers in InIT experience that
everybody in the global projects focuses strongly on a shared professional
identity, either as engineers or as managers of financial services. Some of the
on-site vendor employees working in Eurobank’s premises with
development projects even identify so strongly with the prestigious client
that they define themselves as members of a Eurobank team, thus blurring
the organizational boundaries between client and vendor.
Moreover, the collaboration context of the soware development projects
is heavily tenologically based and thus, according to the interviewees, less
culturally embedded than an outsider might expect. A programme director
in the on-site team tells me:
We have not experienced cross-cultural difficulties. Suppose we have interacted with people from
Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, India, lots of countries, but except from differences in the local
banking practices, I really do not think any of our personal or cultural bagrounds interfere or
influence our work. Maybe the reason might be it is a global bank, and all the employees of the
bank (that we are in contact with) are used to that.

Whereas national differences in cultural values are thus downplayed by the

on-site vendor managers, differences in approaes to planning seem to
become salient when Eurobank and InIT representatives meet and discuss
subprojects in more detail, for example in workshops of a duration of up to
one and a half months. e Indian on-site managers perceive it as a North
European linear way of step-wise project planning that meets an Asian,
more holistic approa. Gradually, however, a ‘third way’ is accomplished
through negotiations, and from su experiences of developing a common
ground and learning from ea other in a culturally diverse group a mutual
respect for the partners’ different perspectives and practices, and for the
complementing competencies, may grow.

Bridging and boundary-spanning in global teamwork

When asked about the quality of the communication and collaboration

processes between InIT and Eurobank, the Indian on-site managers
aracterize them as fairly smooth and uncomplicated. ey explain it by
the fact that most of the global team collaboration is mediated and
facilitated, at both the client’s and vendor’s sides, by people who have been
living and working in many places around the world and therefore are
experienced in shiing perspectives and finding common ground. e
number of years of international business experience is, of course, not
necessarily a good measure for cultural sensitivity (Shapiro et al., 2008) and
agility, since collaboration with people with another cultural baground
does not necessarily develop any intercultural learning and intercultural
competencies. However, those senior managers who work on-site for a
longer period of time are, according to interviews with staff in InIT’s HR
department, selected due to their high degree of empathy and mental
flexibility, and their pronounced skills in negotiating and building trust.
ey are furthermore trained in order to become very professional in
managing relationships with clients and other key stakeholders, because it is
their task to find ways to cope with uncertainty in these innovative long-
term projects where the final goals are not yet visible. In tough situations
where a client representative may be angry due to a quality problem or a
deadline missed, they must be able to deal with negative feelings until a
comfortable level for both partners is reaed. In negotiations where the
client may allenge InIT as a strategic partner with financially more
beneficial bids from its major competitors, the on-site managers must be
able to draw on the relational trust already developed between the client
and the vendor and fight for InIT’s future position as partner to Eurobank in
new subprojects. Relationship management as an institutionalized practice
thus helps alleviate differences in interests between the vendor and the
client.
Some of the Indian managers in the on-site team in the UK have become
British nationals aer many years abroad; they are thus deeply embedded in
British society and can draw on their so-called emic knowledge as well as on
their deep understanding of the multicultural business context of
metropolitan London. Other managers in the on-site teams have a bicultural
and bilingual baground that make them fit more easily into various socio-
cultural and linguistic communities (Hong, 2010).
e on-site managers also draw on high level foreign language
proficiencies when needed in order to build relational trust and negotiate
critical issues with their clients. Some of InIT’s Indian client managers in
Frankfurt and London have been taught German, but also German managers
have been recruited by InIT to create a beer relation to those of Eurobank’s
IT managers who prefer to speak about complex tenical and domain-
specific issues in their mother tongue. e head of strategic initiatives in the
on-site vendor team tells that his first priority is to ensure the most precise
communication of the client’s requirements to the off-shore development
teams:
most of the business discussions are in English. But I think if you talk in German, it becomes a lot
more comfortable for the client. I have set up a team, whi has the right mix of people who can
talk German as well as English. I think the core team (in Eurobank) generally is very comfortable
in English, but when you want to talk things through in detail, sometimes they struggle a lot to
explain it in English. In those cases, you put a German in front of them, and then they are very
comfortable interacting and they communicate what exactly they want from us.

Besides proficiency in relevant foreign languages, domain-specific

knowledge is also needed in order to be able to ‘translate’ the client’s project
requirements to soware developers working in the off-shore teams. On-site
managers mention that sometimes they must ask for more information and
more transparency if there is tacit, domain-specific knowledge embedded in
the client organization’s local practices that needs to be made explicit in
order to be conveyed to the remote team members who do not have this
knowledge and require this information in order to develop a new system.
 In addition, some of the on-site managers must also know and understand
the national and/or regional legislation and regulations within the field of
interest (e.g. banking) in order to understand the context of the local
practices. e client relationship managers on-site are therefore also
supported by local people with an educational baground in banking and
experiences with financial service industry practices. ey have been
recruited by InIT to ensure a high level of the context-specific and domain-
specific knowledge needed for the design of the development projects.

Concluding remarks
e interviews have given insight into how the Indian vendor gradually
prepares its employees for cross-cultural teamwork and selects a group of
managers and employees who have the skills and competences needed to
engage in more complex boundary spanning work. e interviewees in the
on-site management team do not experience serious cultural or linguistic
allenges in collaborating with the Western client, who is aracterized as
‘mature’ in the sense that the company is very experienced with outsourcing
and off-shoring and furthermore trusts its vendor. e ‘engineering culture’
(Mahavadan, 2011) provides, to a great extent, a common ground for those
involved in global soware development.
e apter contributes to our empirical understanding of new forms of
intercultural business collaboration by providing illustrations from global
soware development projects involving multinational companies as both
client and vendor. Moreover, the apter draws special aention to the
important collaborative work done in the Indian vendor’s on-site teams by
people who are able to span boundaries in the complex organizational set-up
of global IT development projects: between client and vendor, between on-
site and off-shore vendor teams and between members in geographically
dispersed off-shore teams.
 e apter also draws aention to the fact that communication and
collaboration across cultures and time zones is not only a maer of
recruiting and retaining skilful people and providing the necessary
information tenological resources. A lot of work is also involved in
informing, coordinating and managing knowledge, as well as establishing
and maintaining strong relationships between representatives of the client
and the vendor. is work requires specific skills and competencies of the
boundary spanners, and the case study provides insights into the important
role of foreign language proficiency, negotiation skills, empathy,
intercultural sensitivity and cultural agility when on-site vendor managers
coordinate complex global soware development projects that span cultural
divides and organizational boundaries.
Collaborating and coordinating across intra- and inter-organizational
boundaries as well as cultural and geographical boundaries also require that
certain work practices are developed. is case study gives examples of the
relationship management and the IT aritecture work conducted by on-site
vendor representatives in relation to the client, but also of the joint
workshops lasting weeks or months where client and vendor representatives
negotiate about subprojects in order to find common ground for future
development projects.
e abovementioned topics are still under-researed both within
international business and in the off-shoring outsourcing literature, and this
apter thus contributes to filling a resear gap by looking more into
intercultural and communication skills that facilitate cross-border
collaboration in a strategic client–vendor partnership. It also contributes
with insights to the literature on global virtual teamwork and cross-cultural
management. In the literature on teamwork and inter-firm relations in an
outsourcing context, communication across borders and cultural differences
are oen addressed as very critical issues in global collaboration between
clients and providers. However, the vendor representatives on-site do not
find that cultural differences at the national level represent major obstacles
in the project studied. Without ignoring the existence of different work
practices and value orientations in the client organization and the vendor
organization, this case study suggests that the fairly smooth collaboration
across national and organizational divides is facilitated by these managers
with pronounced cross-cultural competencies and boundary spanning
capabilities. ey themselves emphasize that they have been trained in
negotiations and have undergone culture training in order to develop more
cultural self-awareness as well as competencies to bridge various cultural
divides. Unfortunately it has not been possible within this case study to
either participate in any training activities nor in any negotiations with the
client.
ere are also other limitations to the findings of this explorative case
study. First, I was only allowed to conduct interviews with the on-site team
managers, but neither to participate in their face-to-face meetings with the
client nor to aend video-conferences or other kinds of virtual
communication between on-site and off-shore teams. Second, interviews can
only identify the issues that people are willing to talk about and the
discourses on ‘culture’ they draw on when they are asked to tell about their
work practices.
Future studies of the boundary spanning work in global soware
development projects should include other types of boundary spanners, su
as the vendor managers in off-shore teams with frequent client contacts as
well as the liaison officers from the client organization. Ethnographic studies
that could further explore the work practices of these various groups of
boundary spanners would not only fill a resear gap, but might also
improve international business collaboration in global soware development
projects.

Anowledgements
e case study is conducted within the context of the interdisciplinary and
inter-organizational resear project Next Generation Technologies and
Processes for Global Software Development, that is financially supported by
the Danish Council for Strategic Resear. For further information, see
www.nexgsd.org. e author alone is responsible for the analysis, reflections
and perspectives presented in this apter.

References
Barinaga, E. (2007) ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘National culture’ as a
discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations 60
(2) pp. 315–340.
Boden, A., Ne, B. & Wulf, V. (2009) Trust and social capital: Revisiting an
offshoring failure story of a small German soware company. In
Wagner, I., Balka, E. & Simone, C. (eds.) European conference computer
supported cooperative work. Vienna, Austria: Kluwer, pp. 123–142.
Drogendijk, R. & Zander, L. (2010) Walking the cultural distance: In sear
of direction beyond friction. In Devinney, T., Pedersen, T. & Tihanyi, L.
(eds.). The past, present and future of international business and
management: Advances of international management. Vol 23, pp. 189–
212, Bingley (UK): Emerald.
Gertsen, M.C., Søderberg, A.-M. & Zølner, M. (2012) Global collaboration:
Intercultural experiences and learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hinds, P., Liu, L. & Lyon, J. (2011) Puing the global in global work: An
intercultural lens on the practice of cross-national collaboration. The
Academy of Management Annals 5 pp. 135–188.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. London: Sage. Hong, H.-J. (2010) Bicultural
competence and its impact on team effectiveness. International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management 10(1) pp. 93–120.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. (eds.) (2004)
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
ousand Oaks, London, & New Delhi: Sage.
Jensen, P.D.Ø. (2012) A passage to India: A dual case study of activities,
processes and resources in offshore outsourcing of advanced services.
Journal of World Business 47 (2) pp. 311–326.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. & Gibson, C.B. (2006) A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of the empirical resear
incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of
International Business Studies 37 pp. 285–320.
Klitmøller, A. & Lauring, J. (2013) When global virtual teams share
knowledge: Media riness, cultural difference and language
commonality. Journal of World Business 48 pp. 398–406.
Krebs, S.A., Hobman, E.V. & Bordia, P. (2006) Virtual teams and group
member dissimilarity: Consequences for the development of trust. Small
Group Research 37 (6) pp. 721–741.
Krishna, S., Sahay, S. & Walsham, G. (2004) Managing cross-cultural issues
in global soware outsourcing . Communications of the ACM 47 (4) pp.
62–66.
Leidner, D.E. & Kayworth, T.R. (2006) Review: A review of culture in
information systems resear: toward a theory of information
tenology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly 30 (2) pp. 357–399.
Levina, N. & Vaast, E. (2005) e emergence of boundary spanning
competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of
information systems. MIS Quarterly 29 (2) pp. 335–363.
Levina, N. & Vaast, E. (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences
and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly 32
(2) pp. 307–332.
Mahadevan, J. (2011) Engineering culture(s) across sites: implications for
cross-cultural management of emic meanings. In Primecz, H., Romani, L.
& Samann, S. (eds.) Cross-cultural management in practice: Culture
and negotiated meanings. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 89–100.
Mahnke, V., Wareham, J. & Bjørn Andersen, N. 2008. Offshore middlemen.
Transnational intermediation in tenology sourcing. Journal of
Information Technology 20 (1) pp. 18–30.
Marrewijk, A. (2010) Situational construction of Dut–Indian cultural
differences in global IT projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management
26 pp. 368–380.
Nakata, C. (ed.) (2009) Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global
marketing and management. London: Pal-grave Macmillan.
Oza, N.V., Hall, T., Rainer, A. & Grey, S. (2006) Trust in soware outsourcing
relationships: An empirical investigation of Indian soware companies.
Information and Software Technology 48 pp. 345–354.
Primecz, H., Romani, L. & Samann, S. (eds.) (2011) Cross-cultural
management in practice: Culture and negotiated meanings. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Shapiro, J.M., Ozanne, J.L. & Saatcioglu, B. (2008) An interpretive
examination of the development of cultural sensitivity in international
business. Journal of International Business Studies 39 pp. 71–87.
Søderberg, A.-M. & Holden, N. (2002) Rethinking cross-cultural management
in a globalising business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 2 (1) pp. 103–121.
Søderberg, A.-M., Krishna, S. & Bjørn, P. (2013) Global soware
development: Commitment, trust and cultural sensitivity in strategic
partnerships. Journal of International Management 19 (4) pp. 347–361.
Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A. & Jonsen, K. (2010) Unraveling the
effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of resear on
multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies 41
pp. 690–709.
Stahl, G., Mäkelä, K., Zander, L. & Maznevski, M. (2011) A look at the bright
side of multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 26 pp. 439–447.
Yagi, N. & Kleinberg, J. (2011) Boundary work: An interpretive ethnographic
perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal
of International Business Studies 42 (5) pp. 629–653.
36
‘Looking forward by looking ba’
A transdisciplinary self/other perspective on
intercultural expatriate resear

David Guttormsen

Introduction

Hofstede’s landmark study of IBM (1980), whi originally identified four

cultural dimensions of ‘national culture’, remains the dominating framework
for cultural resear in the general field of ‘culture and business’ (Caprar
2011; Chapman 1997). e Hofstedeian resear tradition continues to
monopolise cultural resear as the mainstream proper within the business-
sool academe. is position can be argued to be symptomatic for
disciplinary isolationism. Triandis (1993) promulgates that ‘the present book
[Hofstede 1991] makes no aempt to link with recent social science
literature’ (p. 133). For example, Hofstede’s study with its firm foothold in
the functionalist paradigm (Chapman 1997; Williamson 2002) was published
after major intellectual advancements had transpired in the more mature
classical social sciences; su as in the 1960s when shiing its
epistemological focus from positivism (function) to interpretivism
(meaning), and where Social Anthropology largely abandoned aempts at
quantifying cultural resear during the 1960s and 1970s (Chapman 1997).
 is apter argues that the tacit assumptions of mainstream CCM
resear, closely aligned with the Hofstedeian paradigm, impedes
knowledge-production in terms of making sense of intercultural interaction,
and the investigation of ‘culture’ at the individual level. Consequently,
Self/Other concepts (identity-formation) are proposed, whi have
developed in the wider social theoretical landscape for nearly a century, as a
fruitful investigatory theoretical scope for further advancing CCM resear.
is transdisciplinary line of inquiry can assist in gaining deeper
understanding of interaction between individuals through examining how
expatriates draw conceptual boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’ (Lamont &
Molnar 2002). is social theoretical strand is diminutively engaged with in
the CCM discipline – however, building bridges with the other social science
disciplines has been encouraged by leading International Business (IB)
solars (Volberda 2006).
In essence, this endeavour builds upon Hofstede’s important contribution
to CCM by extending the ontological focus towards sensemaking and
scrutinising intercultural interaction as this is what expatriates and
international managers are actually allenged with when encountering
various cultural Others in a specific conceptual space and physical place
(Hall 1966; Low & Lawrence-Zuniga 2003). Hofstede (1994) himself
propagates that the ‘business of international business is culture’. Su a
realisation serves as a stark reminder for how educators may unconsciously
instil in students a restrained approa for intercultural sensemaking – if
solely relying on Hofstede’s broad-stroke dimensions.
e necessity to expand the ontological focus of CCM resear beyond
the Hofstedeian tradition and towards deeper engagement with qualitative
and mixed-method resear designs is augmenting in significance due to the
rapid unfolding of the new business landscape on the global stage of
commerce: the shi of the economic centre of gravity to Asian growth
markets – including the new, fastest growing emerging markets in Southeast
Asia, Africa and South America. e new business landscape thus leads to
increased trade, business negotiations and communication with an
increasing number of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and new customer
groups from countries exhibiting increasingly unfamiliar cultural and
institutional untrodden terrains for ‘western’ MNEs. Su intercultural
allenges are also increasingly being experienced between MNEs originated
from regional economic powers and newer trading partners within
non-‘western’ regions. Self/Other concepts can assist expatriates and
international managers in avoiding hampered work-performance and failed
international adjustments in demanding cultural seings. Su positive
outcomes can be aieved by decreasing risks for intercultural
misunderstandings and by avoiding selecting company policies that are not
appropriately tailored for the local culture(s) and customer preferences –
through beer understanding the behaviour, reasoning and perceptions of
cultural Others.
is apter will highlight Self/Other theories borrowing from the social
constructionist heritage, followed by interfacing two key findings from the
ethnographic field resear of Norwegian expatriates conducted in Hong
Kong and South Korea with mainstream CCM resear as a means of
aieving deeper understanding of intercultural interaction as a concept.
ereaer, contributions, managerial implications, fruitful resear avenues,
in addition to suggesting implications for the direction of the CCM resear
agenda itself, will be proposed.

Advancing CCM resear with and beyond

Hofstede
e Hofstedeian resear tradition has emerged as the dominant approa
for more than three decades, whi effectively institutionalised cultural
resear within the business-sool academe (Søderberg & Holden 2002).
Integral to this paradigm, the most widely applied cultural theory in IB
studies – the ‘Cultural Distance’ (CD) construct – can be included, where
Kogut and Singh (1988) introduced an equation based on aggregated
measurements from Hofstede’s cultural dimension indexes. e ‘CD’
construct promotes a static view of culture indicating that the distance
between cultures can be numerically gauged and that it explains firm
behaviour in foreign investment expansion, entry mode oice and
performance of foreign invested affiliates (Shenkar 2001).
e Hofstedeian paradigm has been commendably and rigorously
criticised elsewhere – and thus this will not be reiterated in this apter
(Buley & Chapman 1996, 1997; Caprar 2011; Chapman 1997; Chapman et
al. 2008; Fang 2003; Ja 2007; Jacob 2005; McSweeney 2002; Peterson 2007;
Primecz et al. 2011; Smith 2006; Søderberg & Holden 2002; Søndergaard
1994). ere have also been successful endeavours with broadening the
investigatory scope of the CCM discipline through transdisciplinary inquiry
(for example, Chapman et al. 2004; Lauring 2008; Lauring & Guormsen
2010, Lauring & Selmer 2009; Moore 2006, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Peltokorpi
2010).
Hofstede himself supports this development, encompassing more
qualitative, contextualised, in-depth studies. Additionally, he warns against
applying his data at the individual level. is has ensued as an unfortunate,
empirically questionable but widespread practice within and outside the
CCM discipline (Carraher 2003). us, the criticism presented in this apter
relates to the laer practices rather than Hofstede’s work itself, and is not
aempting to dispel Hofstede’s work; for example, Bjerke (1999)
demonstrates how elements of a ‘national culture’ influence intercultural
interaction at the individual level. e main concern, therefore, is what the
CCM discipline tends not to do. It is at this juncture of tension (levels of
analysis, and divergent theoretical scopes) where the inquiry of this apter
will continue.

Critiquing the resear philosophical foundation

of Hofstede’s CCM
e ‘ontological tools’ of the Hofstedeian paradigm arguably include three
pairings of social phenomena, whi collectively signify the ‘grammatical
lexis’ concerning the praxis of the mainstream CCM resear field. e
‘ontological tools’ reflect the consequences of operating on this particular
resear philosophical premise in terms of what knowledge is being
produced (epistemology) and how particular world-views confine
researers to specific investigatory scopes (ontology). Collectively, these
pairings signal why the ontological practice is focusing less on interaction,
and thus also provides the rationale for moving towards more meaning-
based systems (Primecz et al. 2011) where Self/Other concept can provide a
fruitful, qualitative resear avenue for su interrogation, building on
Hofstede’s work.
For the first pairing, the notion of ‘difference’ moulds cultural resear
into observable differences between assumable fixed cultures as entities
(Lowe 2002). e ‘CD’ construct (Kogut & Singh 1988) manifests su
difference (whi then preface, dubiously, that perceptions of interaction
exist as objective entities/social realities detaed from human minds
[Croy 2003]), as a measurable ‘distance’. As a consequence, su line of
inquiry denies agency to intersubjectivity and interaction amongst
expatriates as individuals (Figure 36.1).
Conceptual space has been taken as a precultural given in western culture
due to the belief that Self is placed within the body (Seper-Hughes & Lo
1987), and where people fail to grasp that human beings’ perception of
‘space’ is dynamic – something that is oen failed to be assessed because of
the belief that for ‘every effect there is a signal and identifiable cause and
that it begins and ends with the skin’ (Hall 1966: 109).
Figure 36.1 ‘Difference’ and ‘distance’

In terms of the second pairing, ‘values’ is effectively equated to ‘culture’,

as the former is what is being measured across Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions – alongside (leadership) behaviour. is signals the positivist
embedded quantitative (mainstream) approa drawing upon Social
Psyology and Behaviourism (Chapman 1997). However, this denies agency
to the diffusing nature of practice (i.e. ‘what we do’), whi underpins the
ideational system embodied in Social Anthropology. Su an approa to
investigating ‘culture’ emphasises systems of shared ideas as part of public
and social processes – expressed by, and underlying, the conduct of human
lives. Learning processes are the basis for ‘culture’ as a system of shared
meanings that transcend the realisation within one individual’s mind – thus,
not ‘only’ being an outcome of cognitive processes within one person’s
construct of ‘social reality’ (Keesing & Strathern 1998). is facilitates
talking about, for example, an ‘American culture’ without claiming it to
constitute a ‘national culture’.
e deconstruction of the human being is part of the positivistic modus
operandi where values, behaviour and various processes are assumed to
have the ability to exist apart from ea other. Su assumptions are evident,
but oen not allenged or discussed in quantitative CCM resear.
Inversely, human beings should be understood as a ‘summative upshot’ of
diffusing values, behaviour, biological, psyological processes and social
existence (Geertz 1973). However, regreably, mainstream cultural resear
remains hypo-deductive, reductionist, essentialist, a contextual, ahistorical
and non-meaning-based (Linstead 1997; Primecz et al. 2011).
e third pairing relates to Hofstede’s data being collected at the national
level, but most studies that include his dimensions are used at the individual
level (McSweeney 2002). In terms of quantitative analysis, the ‘ecological
fallacy’ relates to the assumed fixed nature of ‘culture’; that a culture
equates to the territorial border of a country (herein, that people located in
the same area share the same aitudes; and that a human being can be
aracterised as corresponding to the average of a group) (Landis &
Wasilevski 1999). is approa leads to measuring comparable averages
although empirically unsound (Staber 2006). is approa denies agency to
cultural intra-country variances (Meyer 2007), individuals’ social
categorisation (Jenkins 1997) and social construction of ‘reality’ (Berger &
Lumann 1966).

Aieving further depth in CCM resear with

Self/Other concepts as the theoretical framework
Various approaes to Self/Others constellations have been developed in
divergent theoretical ‘sool of thoughts’ across various social science
disciplines and the humanities for close to a century (Barth 1971; Du Gay et
al. 2000; Goffman 1959; Hall 1966; Jenkins 2000; Low & Lawrence-Zuniga
2003; Mead 1934; Neumann 1996; Said 1989; Sökefeld 1999).
Conceptual boundaries serve as the foundation of how social identities
are formed (Lamont & Molnar 2002). In the case of the Norwegian
expatriates in Hong Kong and South Korea, the identity formation of
‘Norwegian-ness’ as Self transpires through social categorisation of ‘in-
group’ and ‘out-group’ based on belongingness and perceived sameness with
oneself and with Others (Eriksen 1993); as uniqueness from others (Brubaker
& Cooper 2000; Jenkins 1997); and shaped by culture and contextuality
(Berger & Lumann 1966).
 e crux of the Self/Other debate is that Self (or Selves) – aka
‘Norwegian-ness’ – cannot be disentangled from an Other (Barth 1969).
us, ‘identity’ cannot be grasped by scrutinising Self (psyological
outlook) alone – but through an Other (anthropological social interaction
pathway). Consequently, the ‘unpaing’ of the Self/Other constellation
provides a helpful heuristic device to make sense of how ‘identity’ is formed
(Neumann 1996). In order to understand how one party perceives itself, it is
de rigueur to understand Otherness (Butler 1993). Otherness plays an
indispensable role in constituting an identity due to retaining the potential
of amassing knowledge about those who are constructing this particular
Other. is is a result of Otherness and can only being realised within our
own culture (Said 1989). ‘Norwegian-ness’ ought to be investigated as a
contested phenomenon through the social construction of an Other, and
cannot be portrayed as identity(ies) reducible to an observable and
quantifiable, fixed and static physical entity (as with Hofstede’s ‘difference’),
whi can be measured or investigated taxonomically detaed from
meaning.
Borrowing from a post-structuralist outlook on the mutually constituted
and non-diotomised Self/Other constellation, Self and Other are
indistinguishable and perform dialectically (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992).
However, the intentionality in business-sool academia continues to avoid
dealing with this aspect, and aributes Otherness with fixed and static
properties. is practice is an unfortunate consequence of not contesting
aforesaid tacit assumptions of mainstream cultural resear, whi is
detrimental to the dynamic and ever-transforming nature of the Self/ Other
concepts. is limitation also leads to failing to contribute more
comprehensively to a key aspect of international assignments, whi
expatriates themselves crave more knowledge about, i.e. intercultural
encounters.
From Hofstede’s CCM resear towards
‘boundary-markers’ and Otherness
In order to illustrate the relevance of deeper engagement with the Self/Other
concepts – and transdisciplinary resear more broadly within the CCM
discipline – two main findings from the aforesaid ethnographic field
resear conducted in Hong Kong and South Korea (in particular 20
interviews with Norwegian expatriates) will be identified. e data were
collected as part of a larger study on Scandinavian expatriates’ perceptions
of intercultural encounters and international adjustments (66 interviews in
total). e apter also draws upon 44 interviews, concerning Self/Other
theorising, conducted as part of the author’s doctoral resear on China
policy-resear experts in U.S. think tanks.
One discovery in the expatriates’ own admissions, related to how lile
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions contributed to their understanding and
problem-solving of actual intercultural interaction, and that the
operationalisation of meaning-based social theories more effectively
performed as a vehicle for enhancing their intercultural understanding.
Adhering to the premise that own culture can only be grasped through an
Other (aka Hong Kong, and South Korean cultures) (Butler 1993), and that
Otherness (alias boundary-markers) can only be realised within a person’s
own culture (Said 1989), this sub-section elucidates the most evident
boundary-markers that the Norwegian expatriates identified in the two
locations. Four main lessons are pinpointed as follows.
In the Hong Kong context, the prevailing boundary-marker constructed
by the Norwegian expatriates related to the widely recognised issue of
saving or not losing ‘face’ (mianzi) among their Hong Kong Chinese
counterparts. Mianzi (an individual’s dignity) is reciprocal and it follows
that the local Hong Kong Chinese person’s disappointments are assumed to
be inflicted upon the others in the group. e Norwegian respondents
reported that su cultural facets permeated all aspects of managing and
conducting business (see Buley et al. 2006) – for example, when not
reporting about a faulty factory maine for two weeks (hence losing
money) in order to avoid embarrassment. For the same reason, other
expatriate managers experienced great difficulty in eliciting criticism (as part
of an open communication style) from their individual local colleagues – in
addition to motivate the laer to explore creative, ‘outside-the-box’
solutions during problem-solving. e preference for maintaining harmony,
avoiding conflicts and not showcasing own imperfections would prevail.
In the South Korean seing, narrated by the Norwegian expatriates,
‘hierary’ could be delineated as the most evident boundary-marker of
Otherness (Rowley & Warner 2014) – for example the importance of
procuring a car engine that had to correspond with the assigned position in
the formal organisational structure, or local top-managers’ concept of
holiday being to spend a couple of days reading a book in the office.
Norwegian managers were also surprised when realising the paramount
importance relating to recruitment policies within their firms, and the
weakened collaborative spirit between local employees, as a result of whi
university they had graduated from (i.e. hierarical position of the
university to a high extent defining who were eligible to be recruited or who
local employees would accept to work with in project-teams). e Confucius
heritage is perceived to be strong in both countries/regions (Song et al. 2005).
us, as the first lesson, meaning-aribution to what constitutes
Confucianism and whi aspects being played out – as perceived by the
Norwegian expatriates – vary as a result of the context-specific Self/Other
interplay, as well as being plausibly influenced by ‘context of contextuality’;
encountered cultural issues between individuals are also influenced by
conceptual space and physical location (this illustrates the fallacy of
‘distance’ where AB equals BA mathematically [Shenkar 2001]).
Contemplating how the expatriates would construct the Other, within whi
they would perceive own culture (Said 1989), theories concerning what
constitutes ‘Norwegianness’ can be developed based on their context-
specific Otherness.
As a second lesson, the identification of ‘face’ and ‘hierary’ can be
argued to become salient as a result of dominant aracteristics of
‘Norwegian-ness’. e key social phenomena of what has been defined as
Scandinavian management style (strong emphasis on employee-oriented
management style and equality), in addition to strong egalitarianism, whi
permeates the Norwegian society (Sramm-Nielsen et al. 2004), stand in
diametric opposition to emphasising ‘face’ and ‘hierary’. Hence, the
boundary-marker of the Other, whi becomes more salient, is plausibly a
result of the Norwegian ‘cultural lens’, making it pertinent to talk about
‘interactional friction’ rather than ‘distance’.
In terms of the third lesson, the Self(ves) is dynamic and can perform in
multiplicity, and the constellation is intersubjectively constituting, and
constituted, by the nature of the Other – shaped by culture and
contextuality (Berger & Lumann 1966). us, assigning fixed properties to
a culture is flawed as different aspects of that culture will play out in
different ways depending on the particular interacting Other. Hofstede’s
broad stroke approa (cultural dimensions) risks leaving out important
nuances; the CD between Norway and Hong Kong, and Norway and South
Korea, is very similar. However, empirical data have shown that different
aspects of ‘Norwegian-ness’ play out with various degrees of salience
depending on the nature of the encountered Other. ere can be multiple
boundary-markers where some might be latent in specific contexts and of
less definitional strengths (Barth 1969). For example, egalitarianism as
‘Norwegian-ness’ will be less salient when Norwegians interact with
neighbouring Danes (due to similar cultures). Some of the boundary-
markers might be shared between multiple Selves and Others. How, then, is
it possible to measure a distance between two points whi are not
separated?
For the fourth lesson, I propose a social anthropological take on the
boundary-production of the Other and Othering (process). e depicted
resear findings shown here, it can be argued, realign beyond the
‘differences’ and endogenous cultural traits of ‘us’ and ‘them’ as objectified
categories that groups ascribe to. Following the Barthian ‘sool’ of
Otherness, operating with static signs for observable and measurable
behaviour – the ‘cultural stuff’ (Barth 1971) – should subside in order for
understanding boundaries to unfold as ‘continuous inclusion and exclusion
through socialisation and categorisation of differences’ (Lauring &
Guormsen 2010) (Figure 36.2).

Figure 36.2 Conceptual boundary-markers (BM = boundary-marker)

Contributions
is inquiry has demonstrated the relevance of deploying ‘theory as
method’, and that a division between the empirical and conceptual realms
are unhelpful; concepts are built and modified by juxtapositioning empirical
data and theory in accordance with the social constructionist embedded,
‘cyclic’ resear process integral to ethnographic resear (Hammersley &
Atkinson 2007). Conceptually, this apter underscores the importance of
contesting tacit assumptions of mainstream CCM resear, and that
interrogation into understanding actual intercultural interaction should
move beyond ‘difference’ and towards grasping the Self/Other interplay. In
terms of producing knowledge, this apter contributes to expanding the
epistemological and ontological scope in CCM resear. As far as practical
impact is concerned, to rely solely on Hofstede can only provide part of the
picture when it comes to comprehending intercultural interaction, and is
indeed contradictory for meaningful sensemaking, whi is what educators
ought to tea business-sool students, and is also required by employers.

Managerial implications
As widely expressed by the interviewed expatriates, international business
practitioners can benefit from improved understanding of intercultural
interaction beyond Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in terms of enhanced
managerial work-performance. When understanding the whys and hows, as
well as the influence of identity-formation on how interaction with other
cultures is perceived, managers and organisations can capitalise on su
accumulated and transferrable knowledge as a strategic resource serving as
the foundation of developing a competitive advantage over competitors with
less intercultural capabilities during future international business dealings in
unfamiliar country markets. ose managing multicultural environments
can benefit from further enhancing cultural self-awareness and intercultural
capabilities as a catalyst for improved work performance in key areas su
as team-work, communication, ange management interventions and
negotiation processes, with employees, external stakeholders, suppliers,
customer target groups and international media, as well as motivations
underlying strategic decisions made by competitors in new business
markets.
is can be aieved by understanding the influence of culture, and why
and how individuals have a tendency to act, reason, argue and strategise in
particular ways. is form of ‘intercultural capital’ becomes an
indispensable strategic capability for the reflexive, transnational manager –
but should also become part of an organisation’s culture and thus be a key
component when preparing expatriates for working in new international
and multicultural seings. As managers and staff interact and influence, and
are intersubjectively influenced by the organisation and those working
within them, it also becomes imperative to grasp intercultural encounters
beyond merely comparing them (dimensions) and rather to comprehend
identity-formation as Otherness (boundary-markers).
Furthermore, it has been established that Self is dynamic and mutually
constituted through the particular Other. Drawing upon the resear on
Scandinavian managers, it can be recommended to incorporate a stronger
focus on self-reflexive questioning in executive training programmes for
international managers as a way of enhancing sensemaking concerning the
role of culture during international business dealings when encountering
various cultural Others; what constitutes his or her own culture (whi is
pivotal knowledge for improving the understanding concerning how
individuals from other cultures perceive your own management actions and
thinking); and to scrutinise tacit assumptions underlying decisions for how
to lead people and complex organ-isations. e focus on understanding Self
should be brought to the forefront when expatriate managers are devising
corporate strategies and policies for how to prepare expatriates for
successful adjustment during international assignments (and repatriation).
is rings true also for business consultancies and business-sools, as it has
been argued they both fail to incorporate the complexities of culture
(Søderberg & Holden 2002). e increasingly frequent encounters with new
and unfamiliar cultures as part of the emerging new business landscape will
further allenge international managers to understand how own behaviour
and thinking might have an effect on others (and the amplified risks for
misperception and misunderstanding in business dealings), in addition to the
increased demands for more nuanced and culturally targeted approaes
when engaging with new customer groups.
Concluding remarks: the road ahead
is apter has proposed Self/Other concepts as a fruitful qualitative
resear avenue mu needed for investigating intercultural interaction at
the individual level. is endeavour is particularly important because the
new business landscape will lead to more unconventional intercultural
encounters between firms and their employees with local staff, stakeholders
and customers displaying cultural bagrounds that ‘western’ MNEs may
have limited or non-existing prior experience with. Due to this
anowledgment, solars are recommended to pursue more trans-
disciplinary resear designs drawing upon Social Anthropological and
Sociological theoretical frameworks (as opposed to interdisciplinary resear
where theories are ‘merely’ borrowed from other subject-fields); increasing
deployment of Self/Other perspectives in CCM resear; and
reconceptualising ‘culture’ pertinent to the individual level.
e arguments of this apter also have implications for the CCM
resear agenda itself; expansion of the geographical focus for empirical
resear and co-authorship ventures as well as composition of funding bids
teams and editorial boards; and particularly significant, to increasingly
exercise self-reflexivity when academics pursue explanatory-sources, and
resear problems and questions – especially in unfamiliar cultural contexts
where researers may be unaware of or normally do not engage with.
Researers should also examine the culture, identity and praxis of the CCM
discipline and its knowledge-production and the possible impact of
researers’ own cultural bagrounds on resear designs and fieldwork; in
addition to questioning the notion of ‘the frontier of the resear field’: if
only looking within the CCM discipline, academics might end up re-
producing more and innovating less than appreciated.

Anowledgments
I would like to thank the David C. Lam Institute for East-West Studies
(Hong Kong Baptist University) for funding towards field resear, as well as
Dr Fiona Moore and Professor Nigel Holden for feedba on earlier dras of
this apter.

References
Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of
Culture Difference, London: Allen and Unwin.
Barth, F. (1971) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of
Cultural Difference, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Berger, P.L. and Lumann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City: Anor.
Bjerke, B. (1999) Business Leadership and Culture, Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive
Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000) ‘Beyond “identity”’, Theory and Society,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–47.
Buley, P.J. and Chapman, M.K. (1996) ‘Economics and social anthropology
– reconciling differences’, Human Relations, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1123–1150.
Buley, P.J. and Chapman, M.K. (1997) ‘e use of native categories in
management resear’, British Journal of Management, vol. 8, no. 4, pp.
283–299.
Buley, P.J., Clegg, J., and Tan, H. (2006) ‘Cultural awareness in knowledge
transfer to China: e role of Guanxi and Mianzi’, Journal of World
Business, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 275–288.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter, London: Routledge.
Caprar, D.V. (2011) ‘Foreign locals: A cautionary tale on the culture of MNC
local employees’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 42, no. 5,
pp. 608–628.
Carraher, S.M. (2003) ‘e father of cross-cultural resear: An interview
with Geert Hofstede’, Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 98–107.
Chapman, M. (1997) ‘Social anthropology, business studies, and cultural
issues’, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 26, no.
4, pp. 3–29.
Chapman, M., Clegg, J., and Gajewska-De Maos, H. (2004) ‘Poles and
Germans: An international business relationship’, Human Relations, vol.
57, no. 8, pp. 983–1015.
Chapman, M., Gajewska-De Maos, H., Clegg, J., and Buley, P.J. (2008)
‘Close neighbours and distant friends – perceptions of cultural distance’,
International Business Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 217–234.
Croy, M. (2003) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and
Perspective in the Research Process, London: Sage Publications.
Du Gay, P., Evans, J., and Redman, P. (2000) Identity: A Reader, London:
Sage Publication Ltd.
Eriksen, T.H. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism, London: Pluto.
Fang, T. (2003) ‘A critique of Hofstede’s fih national culture dimension’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 3, no. 3, 347–
368.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York:
Anor Books.
Hall, E.T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and
Private, Garden City. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007)
Ethnography, London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values, London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994) ‘e business of international business is culture’,
International Business Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14.
Ja, G. (2007) ‘International management and ethnography: What and
why?’, Ethnography, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 361–372.
Jacob, N. (2005) ‘Cross-cultural investigations: Emerging concepts’, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 514–528.
Jenkins, R. (1997) ‘Categorization and Power’, in R. Jenkins (ed.), Rethinking
Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, London: Sage.
Jenkins, R. (2000) ‘Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology’,
Current Sociology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 7–25.
Keesing R.M. and Strathern A.J. (1998) Cultural Anthropology: A
Contemporary Perspective, 3rd edn, Belmont: omson.
Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘e effect of national culture on the oice of
entry mode’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp.
411–432.
Lamont, M. and Molnar, V. (2002) ‘e study of boundaries in the social
sciences’, Annual Review Sociology, vol. 28, pp. 167–195.
Landis, D. and Wasilevski, J.H. (1999) ‘Reflections on 22 years of the
International Journal of Intercultural Relations and 23 years in other
areas of intercultural practice’, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 535–574.
Lauring, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking social identity theory in international
encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 8, no. 3, pp.
343–361.
Lauring, J. and Guormsen, D.S.A. (2010) ‘Challenges of Ethnicity in
Organizational Interaction: e Role of Language Use in Expatriate
Management’, in J.K. Crennan (ed.) Race and Ethnicity: Cultural Roles,
Spiritual Practices, and Social Challenges, New York: Nova Science
Publishers Inc.
Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2009) ‘Expatriate compound living: An
ethnographic field study’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1451–1467.
Linstead, S. (1997) ‘e social anthropology of management’, British Journal
of Management, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 85–98.
Low, S.M. and Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (eds) (2003) The Anthropology of Space
and Place: Locating Culture, Oxford: Blawell Publishing.
Lowe, S. (2002) ‘e cultural shadows of cross-cultural resear: Images of
culture’, Culture and Organization, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–34.
McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis’, Human
Relations, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89–118.
Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago: University Press.
Meyer, K.E. (2007) ‘Asian contexts and the sear for general theory is
management resear: A rejoinder’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
vol. 24, pp. 527–534.
Moore, F. (2006) ‘Strategy, power and negotiation: Social control and
expatriate managers in a German multinational corporation’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
399–413.
Moore, F. (2011) ‘Holistic ethnography: Studying the impact of multiple
national identities on post-acquisition organizations’, Journal of
International Business Studies, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 654–671.
Moore, F. (2012a) ‘e diorama: e impact of gender and ethnic “native
categories” on cross-cultural management in a post-acquisition
automobile manufacturer’, Management International Review, vol. 52,
no. 5, pp. 619–642.
Moore, F. (2012b) ‘Identity, knowledge and strategy in the UK subsidiary of
an Anglo-German automobile manufacturer’, International Business
Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 281–292.
Neumann, I.B. (1996) ‘Self and Other in international relations’, European
Journal of International Relations, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139–174.
Peltokorpi, V. (2010) ‘Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries:
e influence of expatriates’ language and cultural competencies’,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 26, pp. 176–188.
Peterson, M.F. (2007) ‘e heritage of cross cultural management resear
implications for the Hofstede air in cultural diversity’, International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 359–377.
Primecz, H., Romani, L., and Samann, S. (eds) (2011) Cross-cultural
Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rowley, C. and Warner, M. (eds) (2014) Management in South Korea,
London: Routledge.
Said, E. (1989) Orientalism, London: Penguin Books.
Seper-Hughes, N. and Lo, M. (1987) ‘e mindful body: A prolegomenon
to future work in medical anthropology’, Medical Anthropology
Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–41.
Sramm-Nielsen, J., Lawrence, P., and Sivesind, K.H. (2004) Management in
Scandinavia: Culture, context, and change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shenkar, O. (2001) ‘Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous
conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences’, Journal of
International Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 519–537.
Smith, P.B. (2006) ‘When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the
GLOBE and Hofstede projects’, Journal of International Business
Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 915–921.
Søderberg, A-M. and Holden, N. (2002) ‘Rethinking cross-cultural
management in a globalising business world’, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 103–121.
Sökefeld, M. (1999) ‘Debating self, identity, and culture in anthropology’,
Current Anthropology, vol. 40, no 4, pp. 417–447.
Søndergaard, M. (1994) ‘Resear note: Hofstede’s Consequences: A study of
reviews, citations and replications’, Organization Studies, vol. 15, no. 3,
pp. 447–456.
Song, Y-J., Hale, C.L., and Rao, N. (2005) ‘e South Korean ief negotiator:
Balancing traditional values and contemporary business practices’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
313–328.
Staber, U. (2006) ‘Social capital processes in cross cultural management’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
189–203.
Triandis, H.C. (1993) ‘Review of cultures and organizations: Soware of the
mind’, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 132–134.
Volberda, H.W. (2006) ‘Bridging IB theories, constructs and method across
cultures and social science’, Journal of International Business Studies,
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 280–284.
Williamson, D. (2002) ‘Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of
national culture’, Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1373–1395.
Section 5
Rethinking a multidisciplinary paradigm

Editor: Janne Tienari

37
Introduction: rethinking a
multidisciplinary paradigm in cross-
cultural management resear?

Janne Tienari

In my capacity as section editor I am proud to introduce eight original

contributions that all allenge the hegemonic positivist paradigm in cross-
cultural management resear. Although the apters vary in their
contextual foci and theoretical approaes, they share the conviction that
the contemporary interconnected global economy calls for more nuanced
and indigenous understandings of cross-cultural encounters. e authors
also share a belief in the value of critiquing the field of knowledge
production that is of Western (or more precisely, Anglo-American) origin,
featuring Western (Anglo-American) mindsets and practices as benmarks
for progress and prosperity (Ja et al., 2008). Speaking for more pluralist
understandings of cross-cultural encounters, the contributions offer
alternatives to dominant conceptions of “cultures” and their management.

e great divide
e critique of the hegemonic paradigm established here departs from where
it tends to arrive. Geert Hofstede features in many of the texts in this
section, not as a straw man to burn but as a sparring partner. In extant
resear, Hofstede is all too oen the fall guy for all that is suspect in
addressing national “cultures.” His work, first popularized in Culture’s
Consequences (1980), has been highly influential in carving out and defining
the field of resear. Hofstede has been a key figure in establishing the
positivist hegemony in cross-cultural management, and his work has
contributed to what appears to be a great divide in the field.
For many, Hofstede’s work has served as an inspiration. In the early
1980s, the Dut solar and consultant led the way in operationalizing
“culture” for international business and organization studies resear as well
as management practice. Hofstede allenged (what was ba then) the
mainstream by demonstrating the value of cultural relativism and
comparative frameworks. His work was seminal in introducing national
“culture” as a legitimate subject of inquiry. For others, the Hofstedean line of
resear came to represent essentialism in that it allegedly cements
generalizations about “cultures” and the differences between them, and fails
to account for variety in and across local socio-cultural and institutional
contexts. Hofstede and his followers have also been criticized for taking a
too static view on “culture” to meaningfully address its evolving and
dynamic nature in the contemporary world, whi is aracterized by
interconnectedness and mobility. Different views notwithstanding,
Hofstedean resear has acquired a hegemonic position in cross-cultural
management resear. It has become an obligatory passage point; it is
virtually impossible to talk about “cultures” across national boundaries
without referring to Hofstede. Because of the wide following and the
extensive criticism it has aracted over the past 30 years, Hofstedean
resear has perhaps become a paradigm of sorts.
At the same time, the divide in the field of cross-cultural management
resear has developed into tren warfare. e exange of words between
Galit Ailon and Geert Hofstede exemplifies how difficult it is to establish a
common ground for meaningful debate between the critics and the
dominant positivist camp. Ailon (2008) offered a “re-reading” of Culture’s
Consequences with the strategy of analyzing the book in terms of its own
value dimensions: “mirroring the book against itself,” as Ailon put it. e
outcome was a critique of the book’s normative viewpoint, its particular
political subtext, and discursive interests in its resear process. Ailon hoped
to communicate critical concerns “across paradigmatic boundaries,” but
Hofstede (2009) was bewildered – and clearly hurt – by the analysis. In his
commentary, he recited several “misinterpretations” in Ailon’s text. He also
took the criticism very personally. “So, why me?” Hofstede asked, and went
on to question Ailon’s own normative assumptions. In her reply, Ailon
(2009) lamented the great man’s reaction. She emphasized that she aimed to
take the commitment to “cultural relativism” in Hofstede’s book to its logical
conclusion. is, Ailon regreed, appeared to Hofstede as a morally arged
aa against him and his work.
What does this exange of words (I refuse to call it a discussion or
dialogue) tell us about the possibilities for multidisciplinarity in cross-
cultural management resear? Well, it is never easy to speak in a
constructive manner across ontological and epistemological divides.
Aligning different worldviews is a quixotic task. Hofstede evidently found it
impossible to engage in a new discussion about the foundations of his work
because in his view he had already explained his resear process many
times over. He could not see the constructionist idea of taking a text from
30-odd years ago and scrutinizing its assumptions. Ailon, in contrast,
thought that it would be self-evident that a “re-reading” of a canonical book
was not only possible, but desirable, even if it had been done in different
ways before. She set out to “re-read” Culture’s Consequences on the basis of
her own epistemological position and situated her findings accordingly. In
the end, Hofstede and Ailon both stayed in their own trenes.
As su, the exange of words between Galit Ailon and Geert Hofstede
invites us to revisit the many fundamental questions related to levels and
units of analysis in cross-cultural management resear. Are we talking
about the same thing when we talk about “cultures” and their management?
Probably not, but we all need to be careful when we move from the national
to organizational to group to individual and ba again in our aempts to
make sense of the particular ways in whi people are used to interacting
with ea other. “Cultures” can play tris on us. How can we then at least
respect differences in our approaes, if not reconcile them? I am happy to
say that the eight apters in this section of the Companion aim to engage in
a meaningful discussion of alternatives and complementary work to the
Hofstedean tradition rather than to offer an a priori generic critique of the
hegemonic paradigm and its implications. In their idiosyncratic ways, all
apters speak for open-mindedness and pluralism in theoretical framings
and empirical inquiry. In the following, I offer my interpretation of the key
points in the apters.

e contributions to this section

In the first apter, Slawomir Magala engages both with the work of Geert
Hofstede (and his disciples) and with the criticism directed at it. Magala
discusses the variety of approaes that have contributed to establishing the
institutional and methodological borders of the discipline that many of us
have come to know as cross-cultural management. Focusing on “cross-
cultural competence,” Magala offers an elegant review of the historical
developments leading to the status quo. He also sets the scene for addressing
the increasing complexity, diversity, and hybridization of “culture” in the
contemporary world. Magala calls for less reductionism and encourages
researers to develop more emic sensitivity for local knowledge. He speaks
for a more guarded methodological accounting for the possibility of an
ecological fallacy that lies behind assuming individual or organizational
cultural differences to be simple reflections of cross-cultural differences on a
national level.
is point is elaborated by Banu Özkazanç-Pan, who offers new directions
for cross-cultural management resear and education with insights from
postcolonial feminist theory. Addressing the increasing complexity of doing
business with culturally “different” people around the world, Özkazanç-Pan
demonstrates why the static understanding of culture that permeates mu
of the literature is problematic. Her feminist commitments allow her to
address relations of power and difference that distribute opportunities and
resources unevenly for women and men. Combined with the critique of the
portrayal of the non-West in Western academic texts and popular media that
is aracteristic of post-colonial resear, Özkazanç-Pan disrupts the
underlying assumptions in hegemonic understandings of cross-cultural
management. She offers hybridity and reflexivity as concepts and practices
that can be used to further the field beyond Western and Eurocentric views
of the world.
Mai Nojonen continues with emic sensitivity in focusing on the specific
context that is China. His treatise on the history of generational dynamics –
in particular, the role and influence of youth – in Chinese society puts into
sharp relief simplistic Western cultural explanations of the non-West.
Management researers seem to be obsessed by a desire to explain China
with orthodox Confucian values. Nojonen, in contrast, argues that the
prevalent literature is based on an extremely narrow reading of China’s ri
and continuously evolving intellectual history as well as its complex
contemporary socio-cultural and institutional space. His focus on
generational dynamics shows the value of treating “cultural” phenomena as
evolving and diverse, rather than as static and monolithic.
Mariana I. Paludi and Jean Helms Mills, in turn, draw our aention to
initiatives carried out by global organizations in the name of progress and
development. ey address the practice of implementing a standardized
international management training program in a specific local socio-cultural
context, focusing empirically on a World Bank gender equality initiative in
Argentina. Drawing on Paludi’s personal experience as a local trainer in the
program, the authors use a decolonial lens and critical sensemaking to
specify how and why global programs (that are in effect developed for an
Anglo-American audience) create anxiety and ambiguity when they are put
into practice in a local context where very different traditions and
conventions may prevail. Compliance and “resistance” become blurred,
tensions and multiple meanings arise, and the initiative is called into
question. e example of Argentina thus brings to the fore some important
(cross-)cultural dynamics at the intersections of the global and local.
Shiing the focus to encounters between people from two “cultures,”
Mial Frenkel, Irina Lyan, and Gili S. Drori analyze how cross-cultural
management knowledge shapes everyday interactions in international joint
ventures. Using the example of R&D ventures involving Israelis and
Koreans, the authors show how people’s conceptualizations of their “own”
culture and that of the “other” are shaped by the popular and theoretical
discourse of cross-cultural management. In this way, the authors offer
insights as to why it is so difficult not to adhere to the dominant discourse
when one las hands-on prior experience of interacting with the cultural
“other.” Frenkel, Lyan, and Drori’s contribution thus testifies to the
generative capacity of cross-cultural management discourse as well as the
cunning power of its essentialist tendencies. Cultural conceptions can
become self-fulfilling prophecies when they are put into use in cross-cultural
encounters.
While the example of Israel and Korea involves people with lile first-
hand knowledge of ea other, Alexei Koveshnikov zooms in on encounters
between representatives of two nations that not only share a joint history
but have developed a ri vocabulary of cultural stereotypes to make sense
of ea other. Koveshnikov’s focus is on Finland and Russia and, specifically,
on cross-cultural encounters in Finland-based multinational corporations
operating in Russia. A power and politics perspective on cultural stereotypes
enables him to detail how “culture” can be used in micro-political struggles
in relation to resources, interests, and identities. Koveshnikov shows how
conceptions of cultural traits and aracteristics are employed not only to
make sense of differences but also to aieve specific goals in the
multinational corporation. In other words, he reminds us that the “cultural”
is infused by power relations and difficult to separate from the political.
Johanna Saarinen and Rebecca Piekkari also refer to Finland, albeit in a
different cross-cultural seing and with another thematic focus. ey
consider the impact of virtuality on cross-cultural encounters within a
multinational corporation, and analyze Finnish managers’ accounts of
managing Chinese employees in virtual teams. ese authors show how
“cultural” assumptions and interpretive frames take on (new) meanings in
the fast pace of contemporary global business where interactions between
different peoples are increasingly carried out virtually rather than face-to-
face. Virtuality offers a fertile ground for misunderstandings, exaggerations,
and essen-tialist cultural explanations. e perceived allenges of managing
“different” people in many ways accentuate on-line, but they also offer
opportunities for managers to rethink their cultural conceptions.
Finally, Henrie Primecz, Laurence Romani, and Katalin Topcu introduce
what they call a multi-paradigm analysis of cross-cultural encounters, whi
is aimed at enriing our understandings with the logic of complementarity.
e authors approa the subject maer through four paradigmatic
perspectives: positivist, interpretive, postmodern, and critical. eir
empirical focus is on experiences of Turkish immigrants in Hungary, in
particular, on accounts by Turks of the low level of service orientation in
Hungarian society. Primecz, Romani, and Topcu analyze the same empirical
materials in four different ways. eir paradigmatic distinction is useful as it
brings to the fore the inherent limitations of not only the dominant positivist
perspective, but also the alternatives to it. e authors also offer an
intriguing take on “cultures” from the point of view of the West and non-
West. For some, established notions may become blurred as Hungary, an EU
member state at the heart of Europe, represents a la of progress while
Turkey, a Euro-Asian society, is described as more advanced in terms of
customer orientation. For others, this is nothing new. It merely shows that
the lenses routinely used in cross-cultural management resear are warped.
In brief, rethinking what could be a more multidisciplinary paradigm of
cross-cultural management resear, the apters in this section situate the
studied phenomena – what we oose to call cross-cultural encounters – in
particular social and temporal contexts, and build their arguments
accordingly. At the same time, our journey across the world from China to
Argentina, Israel and Korea to Finland and Russia to Hungary and Turkey
has intentionally avoided the usual examples. No empirical illustrations
from the United States, United Kingdom, or other Anglophone “cultures” are
offered in this section, and the US and UK are not used as yardstis for
analyzing the examples that are focused on. is is a conscious oice. In a
modest way, the contributions in this section allow us to shake the
prevailing norm in cross-cultural management literature, and open the field
for new kinds of debate. While the US and UK typically represent the norm
against whi other cultural contexts are pied, they are now marginalized
and silenced. Other local contexts are foregrounded on their own terms
rather than as examples of how they “deviate” from the norm.

Conclusion
e message in this section is loud and clear; cross-cultural management
resear must become more inclusive. Its boundaries need to be streted to
accommodate a wider range of epistemologies, theoretical perspectives, and
methodologies. Also, rather than spend time on traing down generalizable
factors and meanisms, researers should build on the specificities of local
contexts across the world and show how these specificities intertwine with
global processes in myriad ways (Calás et al., 2010; Miailova & Tienari,
2014). Researers ought to be mindful of their role in producing knowledge
about “cultures” and their management, and be prepared to reflect (not just
in seminar rooms but also in print!) on their own assumptions and
interpretations vis-à-vis the subject of inquiry (Ahonen et al., 2011). is is
also where the idea of multidisciplinarity becomes salient. Searing for
alternatives, crossing boundaries, and forging connections between fields of
knowledge production are paramount for advancing discussions in cross-
cultural management resear because these acts and actions force us to be
reflexive about our commitments and oices.
Many questions remain unanswered and new ones arise. To what extent
is a “multidisciplinary paradigm” ever possible in cross-cultural
management resear, given the global mainery of academic work that
supports the hegemony of positivist resear at the expense of its
alternatives? e following eight apters provide evidence that it is possible
and worth the sear.

References
Ahonen, P., Tienari, J. and Vaara, E. (2011) ere is no alternative – or is
there? A critical case study approa for international business resear,
in R. Piekkari and C. Wel (Eds.), Rethinking the Case Study in
International Business Research: 85–106. Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Ailon, G. (2008) Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s Consequences in a
value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33(4):
885–904.
Ailon, G. (2009) A reply to Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management
Review, 34(3): 571–573.
Calás, M.B., Smirci, L., Tienari, J. and Ellehave, C.F. (2010) Observing
globalized capitalism: Gender and ethnicity as entrypoint. Gender, Work
and Organization, 17(3): 243–247.
Hofstede, G. (2009) Who is the fairest of them all? Galit Ailon’s mirror.
Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 570–573.
Ja, G.A., Calás, M.B., Nkomo, S. and Peltonen, T. (2008) Critique and
international management: An uneasy relationship? Academy of
Management Review, 33(4): 870–884.
Miailova, S. and Tienari, J. (2014) What’s happening to International
Business? University structural anges and identification with a
discipline. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(1–2): 51–64.
38
Interdisciplinary resear of cultural
diversity

Slawomir Magala

The value dimensions will no longer appear as a universal typology that captures cross-cultural
differences but as a very distinct construction that reifies a scheme of global hierarchy. (…)
Dramatizing tensions within the Euro-American elite, it might be said, conveniently obscures the
more acute power issues at play between them and their (common) others.

(Ailon, 2008, 887,892)

Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture were constructed at a national level. They were
underpinned by variables that correlated across nations, not across individuals or organizations. In
fact, his dimensions are meaningless as descriptions of individuals or as predictors of individual
differences because variables that define them do not correlate meaningfully across individuals.

(Minkov & Hofstede, 2011, 12)

Introduction
What do we study, when we study cultures and base our conceptual
framework on reconstructed and assumed core values? Most researers
would agree that we study cultural competence, understood, according to
the dictionary definition, as a specific range of skills, knowledge and
abilities. Critical researers claim that by studying multiculturalism,
researers de facto legitimize the social construction of unequal realities
and real inequalities, for instance the long shadow of the Cold War and the
postcolonial hidden injuries of subalterns and their masters (cf. Zander &
Romani, 2004, Fang, 2005–6, 2011, Barinaga, 2010). Geert Hofstede tried to
conceptualize these inequalities (reduced to the formal asymmetry of
organizational influence in professional bureaucracies), calling them
acceptable power distances (and assuming that the West was more
democratic and thus organized with less power distance). Second, most
researers would agree that when studying cross-cultural competence, we
trace the structuring of personalities, and the shaping of organizations
(whi means negotiating actionable knowledge). We design toolkits for
managers, coaes and ‘Siren Servers’1 to exercise a degree of control about
the outcomes of global flows of interactions, paerned cooperation, conflicts
and communications (cf. Brannen & Salk, 2000). Are the academic
communities (trustees of socially legitimate truths) and their broader
constituencies (citizens, elites, aggregate agencies, public authorities, social
movements, activists) well served by a relatively new specialist domain of
resear and competence – namely cross-cultural studies as an autonomous
domain pioneered and legitimized by Geert Hofstede? Is he still popular
among sociologists, political scientists, economists, social psyologists,
cultural anthropologists and other resear denominations (cf. Whitley et al.,
2010)? Perhaps cross-cultural researers should study really existing cross-
cultural competence as actionable thoughts of practitioners (à la SIETAR)?

Brief history: Cold War to Minkov

Resear is never neutral. Cross-cultural researers gather in academic sub-
communities (SCOS, IACCM, CMS in the UK and sc’MOI in the USA) and
in pragmatic communities of practice (SIETAR).2 Cross-cultural studies – by
analogy with the critical management studies – grew out of a dissatisfaction
with the dominance of a US-centred approa to business resear. Hofstede
points to the inspiration by Philippe d’Iribarne (contrasting the logic of
honour as typical for the Fren, and the logic of contract, dominant in the
US). Both d’Iribarne and Hofstede (who went on to manage his legacy in a
public domain very mu transformed by the emergence of the Internet and
social media) were writing and communicating against the baground of
educational reforms aer a global student rebellion in 1968. Why have
Hofstede’s predictions of culturally motivated and constrained behaviour
(based on assumed nationally standardized cultural soware reconstructed
with the scaffolding of his idealized dimensions) been surprisingly successful
compared to the predictions of other authors? Why have his paper
questionnaires, whi had to be filled with pencil, helped to usher in the
computer-aided corporate communications of IBM and other
multinationals?
Well, Hofstede’s approa was, to a large extent, compatible with tacit
expectations shaped by the Cold War and anti-communist propaganda: evil
empire behind the Iron Curtain, democracy and affluence in the Western
world; large power distance – communist party dictatorship, small power
distance – liberal and benign political superstructure of a free market; high
individualism – free men and women, high collectivism – disenfranised
masses serving communist masters; liberal, feminine national cultures –
communities west of Elbe (predominantly Protestant), rigid, masculine
national cultures – aggregates east of Elbe (predominantly Catholic or
Eastern Orthodox). With the conservative response to the 1968 student
rebellion (reaffirming the crucial role of a family, sool and full-time job in
formaing individuals), cross-cultural studies were ready for ideological
support of the globalizing multinational corporations. Multinational
corporations were eager to convince their local partners that globalization
required modernization, whi included adapting to the more egalitarian,
democratic and economically desirable cultures of the Western nations. e
genius mind of Hofstede allowed him to exploit this ideological opportunity
and his writing talent facilitated a very convincing synthesis, whi
promised to get behind the façade of cultural stereotyping. With the decline
of the Cold War’s ideological controversies aer the breakdown of the Soviet
Union, Hofstede’s influence and most of the idealized assumptions about
cultural soware had been undermined (by McSwiggart, Ailon, Brewer &
Venaik), Miael Minkov’s significant contribution notwithstanding. (cf.
Minkov, 2011). Hofstede claims that Minkov’s book:
represents a substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge on cultural differences.
Misho (Minkov’s first name – S.M.) tales a number of important global issues in a new way. He
discusses societal differences in speed of economic growth, thri, and saving, aitudes toward
work, leisure, freedom of spee and deviation from norms, happiness, educational aievement,
religiousness and national pride, suicide rates, lethal violence, HIV and adolescent fertility,
corruption, road death tolls, and various aspects of the rule of law (to name only a few important
indicators analyzed in his book) and finds that they form convincing cultural structures that shed
light on the national cultures of all major regions of the world and help us understand their
peculiarities.
(Hofstede, in Minkov, 2011, xii)

But Minkov, who relies on the World Values Survey (cf. Inglehart & Welzel,
2005), ends his book on a more cautious note:
It is true that there is no su thing as a good or bad culture in a general sense, just as time is a
meaningless concept in the absence of moving or anging objects whose positions or
transformations can be used to measure it. But once some criterion and a historical period are
osen as a coordinate system, it is possible to evaluate the desirability of specific cultural
features. Some are currently beer than others in terms of fostering economic growth. But they
are worse in a different coordinate system; the carriers of those cultures are less happy and less
satisfied with their lives. If educational aievement is taken as a criterion, some cultures are more
likely nowadays to promote success in modern education than others. But the same cultures have
higher suicide rates. Ultimately, how good or bad a particular culture is is a matter of individual
perception and judgment.

(Minkov, 2011, 239, italics mine – S.M.)

Minkov’s study is extremely interesting, and it will certainly play a role in

future cross-cultural debates (along with the books by Emmanuel Todd, who
does not hesitate to oppose the anti-Muslim ideological campaign of the
neoliberal US think tanks). But his work does not seem to be reclaiming the
dominant position for the Hofstedian doctrine. In fact, it does not claim a
place for any dominant theoretical doctrine at all. Informed individual
perception and cross-culturally competent judgment can be trained and
coaed, but not necessarily indoctrinated by adherents of a political
ideology or an academic paradigm. Cross-cultural studies are definitely ‘in’,
but the terms ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ appear mu more frequently than
‘national culture’. Even those who observe approvingly the popularity of
‘Hofstedianism’ among the ‘interculturalists’ they had surveyed (89 out of
170 respondents mentioned Hofstede’s work as a source of theoretical
inspiration), there was a critical note:
Despite of (or perhaps precisely because of) the widespread influence of Hofstede and
Trompenaars, developers and participants increasingly criticize the usefulness and quality of the
knowledge they offer. What may be regarded as monolithic concepts of culture as something
related iefly to national or ethnic group membership does not ime with professionals’
increasing experience of a professional environment in constant flux and with their confrontation
with other salient bearers of culture, su as gender, age, religion and not least the organization.
(Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009, 211)

One of his critics complains that Hofstede devotes only one page to
intercultural communication and cooperation and even less to the problems
of language and dominant discourse in the second edition of Culture’s
Consequences (Franklin, 2007, 264–265).
us, humanist Minkov is closer to Wierzbia (a linguist studying
comparative semantics of natural languages) and de Swaan (a sociologist
studying disappearing languages in Words of the World) than to his
academic master, whose first formal diploma was in engineering. A qui
glance at the contemporary studies of culture quily reveals an absence of
Hofstede in most cultural studies and his dominant but increasingly
critically assessed presence in studies of work organizations (cf. Fren,
2007). Does it signal a decline of the reductionist paradigm in studies of
cross-cultural competence? Not necessarily: while practitioners cannot be
blind to the reality e of day-to-day communications and global
encounters, academics respond more slowly, primarily due to the
methodological clashes between paradigmatic gate-keepers. us arguments
about overlooking an ecological fallacy carry more weight with them than
accusations of ‘erroneous practitioner stereotyping’ (Brewer & Venaik, 2014).
Diversity and reductionism
In a recent ongoing joint online book on a state-of-the-art management
project, undertaken by a number of academics from all over the world, the
cross-cultural section appears under the label of diversity management (the
overall initiator of the project is Charles Wankel, but a team evolved,
including, for instance, senior editors, Eddy Ng, Stella Nkomo and me). is
should come as no surprise. Let us consider, for instance, Emmanuel Todd,
who is a Fren historian, demographer, sociologist, political scientist and
cultural anthropologist, and who had made three theoretical contributions to
our understanding of a link between culture and behaviour. First, he had
published The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere
(1990, first Fren edition 1976), in whi he had predicted the breakdown of
the Soviet Union on the basis of an analysis of demographic data (su as
infant mortality rate, average life length, etc.). is prediction has turned out
to be correct, but as a political scientist Todd might have based his
prognoses on more tacit assumptions than he had listed in his study. e
Soviet Union fell not because of the national rebellion against the autocratic
regime in Moscow, but because of the class uprising of state employees
enslaved by the communist system. e uprising started in Poland in August
1980. ‘Solidarnosc’ was the first free trade union to emerge under a
communist dictatorship. Its emergence demonstrated the possibility of an
alternative political design and of a viable social organization even under
extremely totalitarian repression. Todd had assimilated this historical
knowledge of class struggle and its political manifestations, but failed to
account for it in his theoretical reflection. Second, he had concluded a
comparative historical, sociological and demographic study (The
Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems, 1985) with a
theory on a link between an early family upbringing and political
preferences demonstrated in voting paerns. Todd had tried to analyze the
link between voting preferences in certain regions of the world and the
degree of authoritarianism in family socialization. is led him to the
discovery of a link between authoritarian upbringing and voting preferences
of the Fren and between authoritarianism and mass repressions aer the
anti-communist military coup in Indonesia. He refrained from designing a
theory of authoritarian socialization and subsequent political preferences.
‘Cultural soware’ did not ‘cause’ any specific voting behaviour.
e third contribution of Emmanuel Todd to the development of
comparative, cross-cultural studies was aimed at the falsification of the
Huntington thesis. Huntington claimed that religious ideologies will clash as
hostile military blos. For Todd, all contemporary societies converge as far
as values and lifestyles go. ey become more alike, not less so. He has a
point. Tahrir Square protesters in Cairo used their mobile phones as mu as
the Occupy Wall Street protesters in lower Manhaan’s Zuccoi Park.
Cross-cultural competence breeds hybrids in individual cultural ‘sowares’.
Together with a fellow demographer, Youssef Courbage, Todd published A
Convergence of Civilizations: the Transformation of Muslim Societies
Around the World (2007). Huntington still remains a tacit media ideologue,
but we begin to view Muslim communities as complex and anging. Todd
comes closest to Hofstede in a theoretical ambition to link values and
actionable knowledge, culture and behaviour, without linking cultural values
and empirical behaviour with causal bonds.
Considering differences between Hofstede and Todd, we can conclude
that the laer warns us against dominant ‘etic’ approaes. Diversity should
not be explained as reducible to simple causal links. Cross-cultural
competence does not rely on a universal model equally applicable to all local
cultures. In studying culture’s consequences we should always keep in mind
that ‘one size does not fit all’, even if practitioners tacitly assume that it
does.

Academic recognition of dangerous liaisons

between diversities and inequalities
e question is looming large in 2014, although it has been very clearly
articulated as early as 2007, when the IACCM conference, devoted to ‘Cross-
cultural Life of Social Values’, had been hosted by the Roerdam Sool of
Management (and the undersigned), and when Terence Jason, Brendan
McSweeney, Peter Dorfman, Mats Alvesson, Hugh Willmo and Louk de la
Rive Box voiced their critique of Hofstede’s fundamental doctrine of
nationally tinted cultural soware as an explaining factor (in the presence,
nota bene, of Hofstede himself). AoM’s special topic issue of the ‘Review’
devoted to the forum on international management (and subtitled ‘critique
and new directions’) has been edited by Gavin Ja, Marta Calas, Stella
Nkomo and Tuomo Peltonen. When the special topic forum (STF) on
international management appeared in October 2008, it included very
critical voices and the editors clearly stated that they were searing for
non-mainstream, non-neo-positivist and qualitative theoretical
representations in order to generate alternative conceptualizations of the
resear domain ‘international management’. ey explicitly wanted to
account for:
Unavoidable power relations that sustain the material realities of international management … In
this way, the STF sets out to offer a critical and multidisciplinary conceptual foundation for future
analysis and empirical resear. We aim to articulate explicit concerns with issues of power and
ideology in the academic theorization of international management and organization (…) the
voiced/unvoiced circumstances that appear in these theoretical representations and the possible
implications for the uses and abuses of the knowledge thus constituted.
(Jack et al., 2008, 872)

In 2008, most researers busy with multicultural issues already sensed that
inequalities were too large and too damaging to be ignored, but their polite,
academic tone was somewhat overshadowed by the worldwide financial
collapse resulting from the financial speculations of large US banking
corporations. Today, aer six years of trying to emerge from the financial
crisis, we can already conclude that the inequalities in question were not
addressed, but are, nevertheless, anging both values and behaviours. ere
are some researers who study persistent inequalities (cf. Barinaga, 2010,
Rajan, 2010, Galbraith, 2012, Stiglitz, 2012) and their ideological influences
on culture and behaviours, but they are exceptions rather than a rule. To put
it in a nutshell: aer the collapse of a building, whi had been housing five
sweatshop-like textile factories in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we are no longer
allowed to hide behind the façade of cross-cultural differences of, say, power
distance or ambiguity tolerance, in order to close our eyes to the ‘killing’
inequalities (whi can also kill in reality). e collapse in Dhaka in 2013
killed 1,129 predominantly female employees (making clothes for, among
others, British Primark and Spanish Mango).
We can hardly afford to limit ourselves to a tactful and discreet
mentioning of Spivak and Bhabha and the subaltern concept in postcolonial
theory (Mial Frenkel mentioned them in the abovementioned issue of
AoM). Shouldn’t we be more firm in demanding ‘meaning-laden
representations of the world’ researed among ‘the weak Others’ rather
than expats and higher managers available for online surveys? e question
of Banu Özkazanç-Pan from the same STF issue of AoM acquired new
urgency aer the protests at the Taxim Square have entered their third week
and hundreds of thousands of Turks have been involved. She tries to design
a resear programme, whi could take the ‘West’ out of the golden cage of
a self-proclaimed and self-maintained privileged position of the producer of
managerial knowledge and disseminator of managerial expertise (‘disrupt
the hegemony of the Western epistemology in IM resear’ as she puts it).
Banu Özkazanç-Pan works at the University of Massauses in Boston,
USA and she is acutely aware of the fact that while her sensitivities are from
the periphery of the world capitalist system, namely Turkey, her current
resear position in the academic peing order moves her up towards the
core (aer all, Harvard, one of the brightest stars in the academic galaxy, is
also located in Massauses). She pleads for the management researers in
the ‘West’ co-producing managerial knowledge and expertise with rather
than about the ‘Rest’ (of the world): ‘How might recognizing third world
women as knowledgeable about international businesses reconfigure IM
theory and resear?’ (Özkazanç-Pan, 2008, 970).
Let me rephrase her question and fit it into our context. Can we answer
the question about our own status in the academic community of
researers in business sools mu more clearly and convincingly now, in
2014, as opposed to 1994 or 2004?

Cultures evolve and so does cross-cultural

competence: the multimedia connection
When Culture’s Consequences first appeared in print (1980), the world of
social communications had still been reading about the passing of the
Gutenberg galaxy with disbelief. Publishers were not yet lamenting
dramatic drops in printed book sales, and Disney Corporation paid US
politicians to gradually extend copyrights for Miey Mouse until the day of
the Last Judgment. Radio and television were described as the most modern
tam-tams of the global village by Marshall McLuhan and neither Google,
nor Facebook, nor Amazon.com were available to every owner of a smart
phone, iPad or laptop (not to mention the absence of mobile computing,
GSM-networked telecommunications, infrastructure of databases and
servers plus individualized ICT access devices, eBays and Wikileaks).
ARPAD had not just yet produced the Internet. Wikipedia, not to mention
Wikileaks, and online dating were yet to come. PRISM was ahead, and so
was its unmasking. ere was, briefly speaking, no one who could twist a
new interpretation of the phrase ‘the medium is the message’ into the mould
of decentralized crowd-sourcing. ere was nobody who could have noticed
that culture is not a bla box of soware injected into individual minds by
parents, teaers and managers, but a negotiable re-mix of contextualized
repertories of possible action. ere was no one who could have predicted
the political consequences of an anti-communist crowd-sourcing. ese
included the newly imagined and designed trade union (the Polish
‘Solidarity’ of August 1980), the breaking of the Berlin Wall (November
1989) and of the Soviet Union (December, 1991) or of the participatory
budgeting that would bootstrap democracy (Brazil around 2000), or even the
micro-credits (Grameen Bank) and similar instances of crowd-sourcing,
crowd-organizing and crowd-financing.
e situation – one is tempted almost to say ‘the spiritual context of the
times’ – has certainly anged. Serious studies of the global contexts in
whi culturally articulated differences are played out begin to be entitled
‘Seeing culture everywhere’ (cf. Breidenba & Nyíri, 2009, Greenbla,
2010), ‘Global assemblages’ (Ong & Collier, 2005), or ‘Internationalizing
cultural studies’ (Abbas et al., 2005), not to mention the growing literature
on the influence of global flows (for instance migrations, cf. Isanski &
Luczys, 2011, Bauman, 2011, Castells, 2012, Faist et al., 2013) upon societies
and cultures or interactions and communications (cf. Mylonas, 2012). As far
as I can see, the theoretical development of our domain of knowledge does
not follow the Hofstedian tras. eoretically speaking, abstract
generalizations tend towards an evolutionary metaphor (information space
of Boisot, 1995, Boisot et al., 2011, Child & Ihrig, 2013, and the theory of
sociocultural selection, Rierson & Boyd, 2005, and Runciman, 2009), and
pragmatically speaking, we seem to be going towards the empirical and
pragmatic approaes, aempting at the most a grounded theory approa
or abandoning a major theoretical generalization altogether (Minkov, cf. also
Burawoy et al., 2000, or Goldfarb, 2012).
ese tendencies clearly indicate that cross-cultural resear dried away
from the managerialist projects of business sools and corporate think
tanks towards ‘the normal science’ – i.e. the social sciences and the
humanities (Escobar, 2008, Camic et al., 2011, Alvesson, 2013).
Hyperconnectivity anged our communications prompting self-
reflection; most of us test our cultural identities in encounters with
increasingly diverse (and different from us) individuals and groups. All these
discoveries that bi-cultural individuals grow up to be more creative than
mono-culturalists, or that we are all exposed to many cultures at once point
towards the real growth in terms of informed and concerned citizenry. Its
members will most probably regard cross-cultural competence as a natural
toolkit for understanding diversity, including others in organizational
designs and venturing even more complex and daring forms of networked
collaboration.

Notes
1 e term ‘siren servers’ has been introduced by Jaron Lanier, to warn us, Internet surfers, against
the siren songs of seduction by the owners and managers of giant databases and server
corporations, like Googles or Facebooks, cf. Lanier, 2013.

2 SCOS = Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, IACCM = International Association

for Cross Cultural Management, CMS = Critical Management Studies, sc’MOI = Standing
Conference on Management and Organization Inquiry, SIETAR = Society for International
Education, Training and Resear.

Bibliography
Abbas, Abar, Nguyet Erni, John et al., eds., 2005, Internationalizing
Cultural Studies. An Anthology, Malden, MA & Oxford, Blawell.
Ailon, Galit, 2008, ‘Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Culture’s Consequences in a
Value Test of Its Own Design’, The Academy of Management Review,
33(4), October, pp. 870–904.
Alvesson, Mats, 2002, Understanding Organizational Culture,
London/ousand Oaks/New Dehli, Sage.
Alvesson, Mats, 2013, e Triumph of Emptiness: Consumption, Higher
Education, and Work Organization, Oxford & New York, Oxford
University Press.
Appadurai, Arjun, 1996, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalization (Public Worlds), Minneapolis & London, e University of
Minnesota Press.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2010, e Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions
Happen, New York & London, Norton.
Barinaga, Ester, 2010, Powerful Diotomies: Inclusion and Exclusion in the
Information Society, Stoholm, EFI (e Economic Resear Institute,
Stoholm Sool of Economics).
Bauman, Zygmunt, 2011, Collateral Damage: Social Inequalities in a Global
Age, Cambridge, UK & Malden, MA, Polity Press.
Boisot, Max, 1995, Information Space: A Framework for Learning in
Organizations, Institutions and Culture, London & New York, Routledge.
Boisot, Max, Nordberg, Markus, Yami, Said, Nicquevert, Bertrand, eds., 2011,
Collisions and Collaboration: e Organization of Learning in the
ATLAS Experiment at the LHC, Oxford & New York, Oxford University
Press.
Brannen, M. Y., Salk, J., 2000, ‘Partnering Across Borders’, Human Relations,
53(4), pp. 451–487. Breidenba, Joana, Nyíri, Pál, 2009, Seeing Culture
Everywhere: From Genocide to Consumer Habits, Seale & London,
University of Washington Press.
Brewer, Paul, Venaik, Sunil, 2014, ‘e Ecological Fallacy in National Culture
Resear’, Organization Studies, 35(7), pp. 1063–1086.
Burawoy, Miael, Blum, Joseph, George, Sheba, Gille, Zsuzsa, Gowan,
Teresa, Haney, Lynne, Klawiter, Maren, Lopez, Steven, O Riain, Sean,
ayer, Millie, 2000, Global Ethnography. Forces, Connections, and
Imaginations in a Postmodern World, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London,
University of California Press.
Camic, Charles, Gross, Neil, Lamont, Miele, eds., 2011, Social Knowledge
in the Making, Chicago & London, e University of Chicago Press.
Castells, Manuel, 2012, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in
the Internet Age, Cambridge & Malden, MA, 2012.
Child, John, Ihrig, Martin, eds., 2013, Knowledge, Organization and
Management: Building on the Work of Max Boisot, Oxford & New York,
Oxford University Press.
D’Iribarne, Philippe, 1973, La politique du Bonheur, Paris, Seuil.
D’Iribarne, Philippe, 1989, La logique de l’honneur, Paris, Seuil.
Escobar, Arturo, 2008, Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life,
Redes, Durham & London, Duke University Press.
Faist, omas, Fauser, Margit, Reisenauer, Eveline, 2013, Transnational
Migration, Cambridge & Malden, MA, Polity.
Fang, Tony, 2005–6, ‘From “Onion” to “Ocean”: Paradox and Change in
National Cultures’, International Studies of Management and
Organization, 35(4), Winter, pp. 71–90.
Fang, Tony, 2011, ‘Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture’, Management
and Organization Review (e International Association for Chinese
Management Resear), 8(1), pp. 25–50.
Franklin, Peter, 2007, ‘Differences and Difficulties in Intercultural
Management Interaction’, in: Kohoff, H., Spencer-Oatey, H., eds.,
Handbook of Intercultural Communication, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter,
pp. 263–284.
Fren, Ray, 2007, Cross-Cultural Management in Work Organizations,
London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Galbraith, James K., 2012, Inequality and Stability: A Study of the World
Economy Just Before the Great Crisis, Oxford & New York, Oxford
University Press.
Goldfarb, Jeffrey C., 2012, Reinventing Political Culture: e Power of
Culture versus the Culture of Power, Cambridge & Malden, MA, Polity.
Gorz, Andre, 2010, e Immaterial. Knowledge, Value and Capital, London,
New York & Calcua, Seagull Books.
Greenbla, Stephen, with Zupanoc, Ines, Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhard, Heike,
Paul, Nyíri, Pál, Pannewi, Frederike, 2010, Cultural Mobility: A
Manifesto, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.
Hofstede, Geert, 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values (Cross Cultural Resear and Methodology),
Newbury Park & London, Sage.
Hofstede, Geert, 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, London &
ousand Oaks, Sage.
House, Robert J., Dorfman, Peter W., Javidan, Mansour, Gupta, Vivin, eds.,
2004, Culture, Leadership and Organizations: e GLOBE Study of 62
Societies, London/ousand Oaks/New Delhi, Sage.
Inglehart, Ronald, Welzel, Christian, 2005, Modernization, Cultural Change,
and Democracy, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.
Ja, Gavin A., Calas, Martha B., Nkomo, Stella M., Peltonen, Tuomo, 2008,
‘Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Critique and International
Management: An Uneasy Relationship’, Academy of Management
Review, 33(4), October, pp. 870–884.
Jason, Terence, 2002, International HRM: A Cross-cultural Approa,
London/ousand Oaks/New Delhi, Sage.
Lanier, Jaron, 2013, Who Owns the Future? New York & London, Simon and
Suster. Magala, Slawomir, 2005, Cross Cultural Competence, London &
New York, Routledge.
Magala, Slawomir, 2012, ‘Organizing Change: Testing Cultural Limits of
Sustainability’, Management Decision, 50(5), pp. 900–908.
Maud, Barry, 2011, Managing Cross-Cultural Communication: Principles
and Practice, Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Minkov, Miael, 2011, Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World, Bingley,
UK, Emerald Publishing Group.
Minkov, Miael, Hofstede, Geert, 2011, ‘e Evolution of Hofstede’s
Doctrine’, Cross-Cultural Management: an International Journal, 13, pp.
10–20.
Mooij, Marieke de, 2010, Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for
Global Marketing and Advertising, ousand Oaks & London, Sage.
Mylonas, Harris, 2012, e Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-
Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Ng, Eddy (editor), Booysen, Lize (associate editor), Ferrante, Claudia
(associate editor), Haq, Rana (associate editor), Lillevik, Waheeda
(associate editor), Magala, Slawomir (associate editor), Nkomo, Stella
(associate editor), et al., 2010, ‘Chapter 15. Diversity in Multicultural
Organizations’, in: Wankel, Charles & Global Team, Management
 rough Collaboration: Teaming in a Networked World, online and
London/New York, Routledge, pp. 321–340.
Ong, Aihwa, Collier, Stephen J., eds., 2005, Global Assemblages: Tenology,
Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, Malden, MA & Oxford,
Blawell.
Ozkazanc-Pan, Banu, 2008, ‘International Management Resear Meets “the
Rest of the World”’, The Academy of Management Review, 33(4), pp.
964–974.
Rajan, Raghuram G., 2010, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still reaten
the World Economy, Princeton & Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Rierson, Peter, Boyd, Robert, 2005, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture
Transformed Human Evolution, Chicago & London, e University of
Chicago Press.
Runciman, W.G., 2009, e eory of Social and Cultural Selection,
Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, 2008, Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond
Northern Epistemologies, London & New York, Verso Books.
Sneider, Susan C., Barsoux, Jean-Louis, 2002, Managing Across Cultures,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, Franklin, Peter, 2009, Intercultural Interaction: A
Multidisciplinary Approa to Intercultural Communication,
Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 1999, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason:
Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Cambridge, MA & London,
Harvard University Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2012, e Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided
Society Endangers Our Future, New York & London, Norton.
Swaan, de, Bram, 2004, Words of the World: e Global Language System,
Oxford & Malden, MA, Polity Press.
Tayeb, Monir, 1996, e Management of a Multicultural Workforce,
Chiester, New York, Toronto, Brisbane & Singapore, Wiley.
Todd, Emmanuel, 1985, e Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and
Social Systems (Family, Sexuality and Social Relations in Past Times),
 Malden, MA & Oxford, Blawell.
Todd, Emmanuel, 1990, La Chute finale. Essay sur la decomposition de la
sphere sovietique, Paris, Laffont (English translation, 1997, e Final Fall:
Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere, New York, Karz
Publishers).
Todd, Emmanuel, Courbage, Youssef, 2007, A Convergence of Civilizations:
e Transformation of Muslim Societies Around the World, New York,
Columbia University Press.
Trompenaars, Fons, Hampden-Turner, Charles, 1997, Riding the Waves of
Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, New York,
McGrawHill.
Whitley, Riard, Glaser, Joen, Engwall, Lars, eds., 2010, Reconfiguring
Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the
Sciences and eir Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford &
New York, Oxford University Press.
Wierzbia, Anna, 1992, Semantics, Culture & Cognition: Universal Human
Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations, Oxford & New York,
Oxford University Press.
Zander, L., Romani, L., 2004, ‘When Nationality Maers: A Study of
Departmental, Hierarical, Professional, Gender and Age-based
Employee Groupings’ Leadership Preferences Across 15 Countries’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(3), pp. 291–315.
39
Postcolonial feminist contributions to
cross-cultural management

Banu Özkazanç-Pan

Ideas emanating from the intersections of postcolonial and feminist

perspectives provide new avenues for cross-cultural management theory and
pedagogy, and contribute a set of competencies and intellectual orientations
necessary for understanding the complexity of doing business under
globalization. ese perspectives are valuable for providing analytic tools to
understand organizational phenomena, ideas, and practices across borders.
With notable exceptions, there is a dearth of resear that relies on insights
from postcolonial and feminist contributions to the social sciences in the
international and cross-cultural management area (Ja et al., 2008;
Özkazanç-Pan, 2008, 2012). Expanding on this point, I discuss intellectual
contributions of postcolonial and feminist thought to international
management and follow up with a discussion on their impact for cross-
cultural management education.
In general, postcolonial approaes critique representations of non-
Western people and cultures as bawards, laing agency, and in need of
intervention. As their analytic focus, many postcolonial solars critique
representations of the non-West in Western academic texts and popular
media outlets as well as examine institutional arrangements and national
policies directed towards developing nations. Academic solars deploying
these frameworks within the management field (see Prasad, 2003) have
offered critiques of assumptions underlying organizational practices (Ja et
al., 2011; Nkomo, 2011) and international management concepts (Ja &
Westwood, 2009).
Similarly, feminist perspectives highlight relations of power and
difference across gender, race, class, ethnicity, and so forth as relevant for
understanding how opportunities and resources become (un)available for
women and men. In organization studies, feminist solars focus on gender
and gender relations as integral to understanding organizations and among
their various critiques, call aention to how gender inequalities take place
through various organizational ideologies, norms, and practices (Calás &
Smirci, 2006).
While there are many different philosophical foundations to feminism,
su as liberal, radical, socialist, psyological, and transnational, I rely on
postcolonial strands to focus specifically on issues of identity/representation,
culture, and power (Spivak, 1990) within the context of cross-cultural
management. ese intersections adopt a critical and reflexive view and call
aention to Western notions of self and power relations in cross-cultural
management theory and education. In line with this claim, prominent
solars already recognize that Western worldviews and ideas guide mu
of cross-cultural management theorizing (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991;
Hofstede, 1983; Tsui et al., 2007). Yet the solutions offered from within the
field oen focus on finding appropriate theories that fit the context or people
under study, the use of indigenous team members to produce “authentic”
accounts of culture, or the use of sophisticated methodologies to produce
“robust” resear (d’Iribarne, 2002; Doktor et al., 1991a, 1991b; Earley &
Singh, 2000; Lim & Firkola, 2000).
While these solutions may seem appropriate, they do not offer
consideration of how cross-cultural management theories support particular
assumptions about the social world and are based in specific historic and
cultural locations in the West (Fougère and Moulees, 2009). is la of
reflexivity limits the approaes educators can utilize to address the
complexity of globalization processes with respect to business and
management. For example, there is no discussion of how the very theories
for studying people and culture already assume a particular notion of self
and identity arriving out of Western psyology and cognition (e.g.,
Humanism ideas on rationality and universal human nature).
To this end, I suggest that an engagement with postcolonial feminist
frameworks and reflexivity requires individuals to adopt a critical lens in the
way they understand culture and cultural differences in order to provoke a
discussion on assumptions and worldviews. is approa fosters complex
cultural competencies and perspectives relevant for cross-cultural
management solars. To expand on these ideas, first I outline how recent
intersections of postcolonial and feminist concerns in anthropology reorient
notions of identity when applied to the cross-cultural management context.
Next, I examine how these critical perspectives reorient the etic/emic debate
in the cross-cultural management literature and allow for novel
considerations to emerge, su as hybridity, as guiding concepts for the
study of people and cultures. Finally, I apply these insights to cross-cultural
management education to demonstrate their value for pedagogy and
developing students who are able to think critically about business and
management activities in a global context.

Culture, representation, and reflexivity

As an academic field of inquiry, socio-cultural anthropology has been at the
forefront with regard to providing theoretical tools to study culture. With its
general aims to be the study of humanity, anthropology as a means of
inquiry about people and cultures began with colonial encounters between
the West and non-European people. Over time, these encounters led to
European efforts to account for ways of life, human relations, and concepts
and practices that were different than their own. Ultimately, this led to
notions of cross-cultural comparisons and cultural relativism as
anthropologists aimed to identify and distinguish between cultures in terms
of people’s practices, values, tenologies, belief systems, ideas, and so forth.
Up to the mid-1970s, the approa that dominated the study of culture
was based on positivist science or the assumption that researers could
study other people and cultures through observation and produce truthful
accounts that reflected reality through qualitative thi-descriptions (e.g.,
Geertz, 1973). With the postmodern/poststructuralist turn, positivist
approaes were critiqued on their assumptions of bias-free, detaed
observers, concept of truth, and separation between researer and
researed or the etic/emic debate (e.g., Clifford, 1992; Clifford & Mar cus,
1986; Holmes & Marcus, 2005; Marcus, 2002). Within this context, reflexivity
offered a way to address many taken-for-granted anthropological theories
and methods to question what constitutes truth and reality.
Yet, as postcolonial solars point out, su critiques still remained of the
West by the West rather than addressing how the very concepts and
institutions of cultural anthropology were formed in the study of the non-
West during times of imperial conquest (Said, 1988). ese points coupled
with feminist critique of the masculine assumptions guiding mu of culture
theory (Behar & Gordon, 1995) provide ri ground to re-conceptualize the
study of people and culture. As su, postcolonial feminist lenses
conceptualize people through relations of difference across gender, race,
class, ethnicity, nationality, and sexuality (Aggarwal, 2000), call aention to
power relations in the field between researers and subjects (Khan, 2005),
and highlight concerns over ethics, agency, and social justice (Alcade, 2007;
Mohanty, 2003) within the context of West/Rest encounters.

From etic/emic to hybridity: identities in motion

While critical and reflexive trends in social science have found some
resonance within the broader organization studies field (Alvesson & Deetz,
2006), mu of the cross-cultural management literature still borrows
heavily from the unreflexive approaes once commonplace in
anthropology. Notions of etic and emic have found resonance in cross-
cultural management as educators use these anthropology concepts to
discuss cultural insiders and outsiders. Su concepts are considered useful
in demonstrating how individuals from one culture may experience and
understand another culture in terms of differences across business norms,
values, and practices (Gelfand et al., 2007).

Current assumptions about people and culture

To clarify, the etic/emic approa assumes that people and cultures are static
over time su that one can identify a person as being from a particular
culture and, based on that identification, assume to know their ways of
conducting business. For example, using a variant of Hofstede’s (1980) or
Trompenaars’s (1996) scales, nations can be identified as individualistic or
collectivist with individual motivations, values, and business practices
following these national categories of cultural identification. Based on this,
culture is assumed to be a set of categorical values and norms assigned to
people based on their nationality (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). In fact,
clarifying the dimensions of culture and then measuring them is one of the
most prevalent preoccupations in the cross-cultural management field. Yet
aempts to produce “robust” culture measurement scales generally focus on
“appropriate methods” rather than consider the meta-theoretical
assumptions underlying the notion of culture.
For example, the study of individuals and groups in cross-cultural
management literature assumes a rational, cognitive self based on Western
psyology. ere is no examination of the very foundation of self that is
then used cross-culturally to make claims regarding “how to do business”
with particular people and nations. Simultaneously, culture is understood as
a set of cohesive values oen equated with a nation and allowing for
differentiating between individuals. ese approaes assume individuals
and nations are static and leave lile room to understand complex and
anging identities.
Using myself as an example, I am a Turkish-born dual citizen of the U.S.
and Turkey – how would the previous approa include people like me in
their broad generalization of culture and values? Am I an individualist
American or do I carry the cultural values and norms of a collectivist
Turkish self? Furthermore, our sense of self seldom mates identities
assigned to us by others. Notions of identity and culture that are based on
nationality are also quite limiting in that they assume the “self” of
modernity is a universal way people understand themselves everywhere in
the world. In other words, there is no examination of how a person becomes
Turkish and/or American including examining what these identities mean
but, rather, an assumption that people simply are Turkish and/or American.
Adopting a reflexive stance, su categorizations have become
problematic as a means to understand people and cultures as conditions of
globalization expound mobility and can lead to novel notions of self and
relationships. People can experience more than one culture and identify with
them or adopt elements of particular cultures depending on context
(Brannen & omas, 2010). e result is an individual who is liminal and
identifies as existing in a state of hybridity (Bhabha, 1994) rather than
necessarily identifying with one or even two cultures. Moreover, when
individuals travel across borders, who they are and how they are seen
become context dependent su that ways of identifying oneself in one
context may be irrelevant or anged in another (Frenkel, 2008; Özkazanç-
Pan & Clark Muntean, forthcoming 2015). Adopting a postcolonial feminist
perspective, the social relations of difference that produce particular kinds of
selves and identity are not the same everywhere in the world (Leonard,
2010).
For example, as a Turkish-American woman in the United States, I am
oen questioned about how women are treated in Turkey and asked about
Islam. In Turkey, I am a secular woman (no headscarf) who does not speak
Turkish quite like the other Turks. us, the assumption in the United States
is to see me as representing all Turkish Muslim women su that I become a
“cultural authority” on women, Islam, and Turkey, an insider. In contrast, I
occupy a different identity in Turkey as my American accent when speaking
Turkish and la of headscarf position me as a secular Turkish woman living
overseas – not quite an insider or an outsider but a hybrid. Yet, this hybrid is
not simply the sum of two cultures but, rather, the production of a hybrid
identity that is context dependent and shiing through the intersections of
gender, race, class, ethnicity, religion, etc. (see McClinto, 1995).
We occupy different positions in relation to others and thus, culture and
nationality are mu more complicated relations than stable markers of our
identities. My example demonstrates that the assumptions we have with
regard to who people are and how we expect them to behave do not always
hold true. In other words, the concepts we use to identify and study people
offer neat categorizations rather than allow us to see the complexity and
messiness of the social world.

Rethinking people and culture

To this end, a reflexive stance guided by postcolonial feminist perspectives

on how we identify people and understand cultures requires consideration
of how relations of difference across gender, race, class, ethnicity, religion,
nationality, and sexuality produce identities. Given the complex identities
emerging from the mobility of people and ideas, encounters among different
cultures, and the ongoing exange of information via social media, it is no
longer sufficient or possible to adopt a “how to do business” in a particular
nation or with a particular group of people. In this sense, context and
meaning become quite relevant as ideas, practices, and people travel globally
but are enacted and adopted locally (Calás et al., 2010).
Cross-cultural management researers need to foster a conversation on
how identities are produced and the implications of these complex identities
for understanding why and how particular management practices are
created, adopted, and interpreted by different people and cultures. One of
the new core cross-cultural management competencies then is an
understanding of how identities are produced under globalization and the
implications of these identities for business relations, norms, and practices.
is approa allows students to understand how people within the same
nation or region may engage in and interpret local business ideas and
practices differently based on their own identities and experiences. In other
words, what constitutes “local” in terms of business practices may ange
based on the historic context of differences between and among cultures and
people. Su a nuanced position with respect to “cultural differences” is
necessary based on the socio-cultural anges and interdependencies
globalization processes entail. In this sense, globalization can be
conceptualized as the interdependence and connection of people and places
through political, social, cultural, financial, and tenological flows
(Appadurai, 1990; Inda & Rosaldo, 2008) that impact business relationships
and organizations in complex ways. To study differences in this way
requires cross-cultural management educators adopt a reflexive stance in the
classroom while practitioners adopt a reflexive stance in their consulting and
management roles, an idea I expand upon next.

Cross-cultural management education

Within the context of globalization, cross-cultural management has become
an important part of the business sool curriculum through the stance of
the AACSB (e Association to Advance Collegiate Sools of Business), the
most prominent U.S.-based governing body for sool accreditation. To this
end, cross-cultural management expertise and a global mindset have become
important skills for people interested in careers that span multiple nations
and regions. As su, educating these individuals as well as others interested
in international business careers has become vital to the success of
organizations that function in and across different nations including
multinational corporations (e.g., Coca-Cola, Toyota), supranational
institutions (e.g., United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World
Bank), and non-government organizations (e.g., Red Cross, Habitat for
Humanity, International Labour Organization). One of the most pressing
issues in cross-cultural management education is how to approa the
education of individuals who will embark upon careers and assignments in
nations or regions that are quite different from their own. On this very
point, the AACSB states the following:
Education and management practice indicate that exposure to a variety of viewpoints produces
higher quality results. Learning experiences should foster sensitivity and flexibility toward
cultural differences. For the benefit of all, active support of a number of perspectives is desirable.
Every graduate should be prepared to pursue a business or management career in a global context.
at is, students should be exposed to cultural practices different than their own.
(2012: 13)

Given the complexity of global affairs and business relationships, how can
educators tea aspiring international managers the skills they need in order
to succeed? What kind of cross-cultural tool-kit does su an individual
require under the fluidity and flux of globalization? And what kinds of
competencies and awareness are necessary for a career in international
management?

Understanding our ways of understanding

One of the most important contributions of postcolonial feminist

perspectives is consideration of how the ideas and practices that are taken
for granted in one context may not necessarily hold true in another. In
cross-cultural management, this is a key competency relevant for doing
business in a global context and with cultural others that may or may not
share the same assumptions regarding the social and business world.
Discussing meta-theoretical assumptions in a classroom and educational
seing can be difficult but one application is through the practice of
“understanding our ways of understanding.” is intervention involves
voicing and de-naturalizing ideas foundational for cross-cultural
management education. While postcolonial frameworks have become
relevant to cross-cultural management pedagogy (Joy & Poonamallee, 2013),
there is lile discussion of power relations and complex selves/identities in
theorizing “cultural differences.” Postcolonial feminist concerns speak to
these very issues and I demonstrate these contributions through engagement
with my own experiences teaing cross-cultural management at a graduate
level in a U.S. business sool.
Most resear and teaing materials on cross-cultural management are
published from a U.S.-based perspective including case studies, journal
articles, and textbooks despite the international nature of classrooms. To
work against the hegemony of a U.S.-based view on business, I have ea
student discuss what “international” means from his/her perspective.
Generally, this exercise involves a narrative of how students understand
themselves in relation to other people in the world across relations of
gender, race, class, ethnicity, religion, education, and so forth. Next, I have
ea student discuss what “good business” practices look like based on their
perspective and location. Finally, I present a case where students working in
teams are asked to present various solutions and rethink the problem
statement. ese three steps allow students to understand the complexity of
carrying out business in a global context through a decision-making process
that is contextualized and cognizant of the relations of difference and power
for individuals.

Voicing and differentiating assumptions: a reflexive approach

While the previously mentioned exercise in cross-cultural management

pedagogy is important, I use the example of Turkey to demonstrate
concretely differences between a non-critical approa and postcolonial
feminist perspectives in their assumptions about people and their behaviours
in organizations cross-culturally. Rather than provide a “beer” way,
postcolonial feminist reflexivity is an active engagement with the aim of
social ange whereby assumptions about cultural Others in U.S.-based
resear and teaing materials are revealed and critiqued. e next
example is based on my own experiences teaing a case study on Turkey in
a cross-cultural management class at a U.S. business sool.
In terms of a case study, a non-critical approa would most likely use
Hofstede’s (1980) values dimensions to suggest cultural differences between
Turkey and the U.S. – Turkey scores high on collectivism and
power/distance while the U.S. scores high on individualism and low on
power/distance. Applied in organizational seings, this would mean that
Turks would be more likely to show concern for the consequences of their
actions and decisions for others while Americans would likely be motivated
by individual needs. In terms of power/distance, Turks would prefer more
autocratic and hierarical management styles while Americans would show
preference for less hierary and flaer decision-making structures. In terms
of society, these dimensions might suggest that there is more tolerance for
inequality in Turkey including less equality for women compared to the U.S.
where women and men are equal. Consequently, this “knowledge” provides
an authoritative claim about Turkey.
In contrast, a postcolonial feminist approa to the same case study on the
U.S. and Turkey would address how historic and ongoing relations between
the two nations are important for understanding the way organizations and
people might relate to ea other in recent times. is approa would
examine political, socio-cultural, economic, and military relations between
the two nations over time to allow students to understand that
organizational and individual decisions do not take place in a cultural
vacuum. In addition, I would have the students read in parallel to the case
study two additional readings.
e first would include excerpts from Merve Kavai Islam’s Headscarf
Politics in Turkey: A Post-colonial Reading (2010) as a way to demonstrate
the complexity of identity, gender relations, and politics in contemporary
Turkey. is would highlight the activism of women who wear the
headscarf in public and political debates rather than present them as
unequal and passive Muslim women who “obey” their husbands. Second, I
would offer students excerpts from a U.S.-based sociology reading that
highlights gender, race, and class inequalities in U.S. society and the
implications of these for employment relations (Stainba & Tomaskovic-
Devey, 2012). Su a reading would deconstruct the belief that the U.S. is an
equal society and somehow more “progressive” and “open” than other
societies. Moreover, it would complicate conceptualizations of identity in the
U.S. as not everyone has the same access to opportunities and resources in
organizations and society based on their intersectional differences (e.g.,
gender, race, class, ethnicity, religions, sexual orientation, etc.).

Conclusions
e contributions of postcolonial feminist frameworks include analysis of
relations of difference as relevant to how people conceptualize themselves,
relate to others and form identities as well as the practice of reflexivity.
ese approaes provide students the ability to foster competencies on
“identities,” “understanding our ways of understanding,” and “reflexivity” as
necessary for doing business in a global context and across a variety of
borders. e concepts and competencies available from postcolonial feminist
frameworks are presented in Table 39.1.
rough their focus on identity/representation, relations of difference,
culture and power, postcolonial feminist perspectives provide analytical
tools that complicate cross-cultural management theorizing and pedagogy.
First, they highlight the contradictions of globalization as neat and stable
categorizations of people along racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc.
dimensions are questioned. Second, they outline how relations of difference
between and among people are relevant for their experiences of
organizations. Finally, postcolonial feminist reflexivity is an act of praxis
that recognizes how knowledge claims in cross-cultural management
resear and pedagogy have different material consequences for individuals
and organizations globally. ese three related points provide new directions
for solars researing and teaing cross-cultural management.
Table 39.1 New concepts and postcolonial perspectives

Concepts Questions/concerns Competencies

How do identities form

through the intersections of
gender, race, ethnicity, etc.,
under globalization?
Gender, race, class, What are the implications of Understanding
ethnicity, religion, these new notions of identities under
nationality, and sexuality self/identities for cross- globalization and
to understand people and cultural management ideas their relevance to
differences; hybrid and and practices? business
shiing notions of self How do these complex practices
identities inform the way
"local" business ideas and
practices are produced and
experienced?
How can learning
communities be fostered in
Understanding
cross-cultural educational
ways of
seings?
understanding:
Reflexive stance on How can voicing and
self, people,
knowledge and authority allenging assumptions
cultures, business
about the social world allow
ideas, and
for an understanding of the
practices
complexity of cross-cultural
management practice?

References
AACSB International (e Association to Advance Collegiate Sools of
Business). (2012) Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for
business accreditation. hp://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-
busn-jan2012.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2012.
Aggarwal, R. (2000) Traversing lines of control: Feminist anthropology
today. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 571(14): 1–11.
Alcade, M. C. (2007) Going home: A feminist anthropologist’s reflections on
power and positionality in the field. Meridians: Feminism, Race,
Transnationalism, 7: 143–162.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. A. (2006) Critical theory and postmodern
approaes to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B.
Lawrence, and W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization
Studies, 2nd edition, 111–148. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Appadurai, A. (1990) Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural
economy. Public Culture, 2: 1–24. Reprint in revised form 1996,
Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, 27–47.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Behar, R. and Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995) Women Writing Culture. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Boyacigiller, N. A. and Adler, N. J. (1991) e paroial dinosaur:
Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management
Review, 16: 262–290.
Brannen, M. Y. and omas, D. C. (2010) Bicultural individuals in
organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 10: 5–16.
Calás, M. B. and Smirci, L. (2006) From the ‘woman’s point of view’ ten
years later: Towards a feminist organizational studies. In S. Clegg, C.
Hardy, T. Lawrence, and W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Organization Studies, 284–346. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Calás, M. B., Smirci, L., Tienari, J. and Ellehave, C. F. (2010) Editorial:
Observing globalized capitalism: gender and ethnicity as entry point.
 Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3): 243–247.
Clifford, J. (1992) Traveling cultures. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P.
Treiler (Eds.), Cultural Studies, 96–116. New York: Routledge.
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
d’Iribarne, P. (2002) Motivating workers in emerging countries: Universal
tools and local adaptations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3):
243–256.
Doktor, R., Tung, R. L. and Von Glinow, M. A. (1991a) Incorporating
international dimensions in management theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 16(2): 259–261.
Doktor, R., Tung, R. L. and Von Glinow, M. A. (1991b) Future directions for
management theory development. Academy of Management Review,
16(2): 362–365.
Earley, P. C. and Singh, H. (Eds.). (2000) Innovations in International and
Cross-Cultural Management. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fougère, M. and Moulees, A. (2009) On ‘cultural’ knowledge in
international management textbooks: A postcolonial reading. In S. B.
Banerjee, V. C. M. Chio, and R. Mir, (Eds.), Organizations, Markets and
Imperial Formations: Towards an Anthropology of Globalization, 17–42.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Frenkel, M. (2008) e multinational corporation as a third space: Rethinking
international management discourse on knowledge transfer through
Homi Bhabha. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 924–942.
Geertz, C. (1973) i description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3–30. New York: Basic
Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., and Aycan, Z. (2007) Cross-cultural organizational
behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983) e cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2): 75–89.
Holmes, D. R. and Marcus, G. E. (2005) Refunctioning ethnography: e
allenge of an anthropology of the contemporary. In N. K. Denzin and
Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd
edition, 1099–1113. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inda, J. X. and Rosaldo, R. (Eds.). (2008) The Anthropology of Globalization:
A Reader, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blawell Publishing.
Islam, M. K. (2010) Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Postcolonial Reading.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ja, G. and Westwood, R. (2009) International and Cross-Cultural
Management Studies: A Postcolonial Reading. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ja, G., Calás, M. B., Nkomo, S. M. and Peltonen, T. (2008) Critique and
international management: An uneasy relationship? Academy of
Management Review, 33: 870–884.
Ja, G., Westwood, R., Srinivas, N. and Sardar, N. (2011) Deepening,
broadening and re-asserting a post-colonial interrogative space in
organization studies. Organization, 18: 275–302.
Joy, S. and Poonamallee, L. (2013) Cross-cultural teaing in globalized
management classrooms: Time to move from functionalist to
postcolonial approaes? Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 12(3): 396–413.
Khan, S. (2005) Reconfiguring the native informant: Positionality in the
global age. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30: 2017–
2035.
Leonard, P. (2010) Organizing whiteness: Gender, nationality and
subjectivity in postcolonial Hong Kong. Gender, Work and Organization,
17(3): 340–358.
Lim, L. and Firkola, P. (2000) Methodological issues in cross-cultural
management resear: Problems, solutions, and proposals. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 17(1): 133–154.
Marcus, G. E. (2002) Beyond Malinowski and aer Writing Culture: On the
future of cultural anthropology and the predicament of ethnography.
Australian Journal of Anthropology, 13: 191–199.
McClinto, A. (1995) Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the
Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge. Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G.
(2012) Is national culture a meaningful concept? Cultural values
delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions. Cross-
Cultural Research, 46(2): 133–159.
Mohanty, C. (2003) ‘Under Western eyes’ revisited: Feminist solidarity
through anticapitalist struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 28: 499–535.
Nkomo, S. (2011) A postcolonial and anti-colonial reading of ‘African’
leadership and management in organization studies: Tensions,
contradictions and possibilities. Organization, 18: 365–386.
Özkazanç-Pan, B. (2008) International management meets ‘the rest of the
world’. Academy of Management Review, 33: 964–974.
Özkazanç-Pan, B. (2012) Postcolonial feminist resear: Challenges and
complexities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 31(5/6): 573–591.
Özkazanç-Pan, B. and Clark Muntean, S. (Forthcoming 2015). International
high-tenology entrepreneurs: Hybrid identities and entrepreneurial
activities. Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship
Development. Special issue on entrepreneurship and socio-cultural
contexts.
Prasad, A. (Ed.). (2003) Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Said, E. W. (1988) Representing the colonized: Anthropology’s interlocutors.
Critical Inquiry, 15: 205–225.
Spivak, G. C. in Harasym, S. (Ed.). (1990) The Post-Colonial Critic:
Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. New
York: Routledge.
Stainba, K. and Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012) Documenting Desegregation:
Racial and Gender Segregation in Private Sector Employment since the
Civil Rights Act.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Trompenaars, F. (1996) Resolving international conflict: Culture and business
strategy. Business Strategy Review, 7(3): 51–68.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S. and Ou, A. Y. (2007) Cross-national, cross-
organizational behavior resear: Advances, gaps, and
recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478.
40
What cross-cultural management
doesn’t tell us
History of generational dynamics in Chinese
society

Matti Nojonen

e conventional cross-cultural management

approa to studying China

CCM literature is in general wrien by Anglo-American solars and for a

Western audience. In their approa to distant cultures su as China, these
solars tend to reproduce the nineteenth-century Western belief in the
existence of a collectivist Confucian society and to ignore, on the whole, the
immediate and evolving socio-political conditions that are altering the local
value system. By analysing the immediate socio-political anges that have
tangibly conditioned the actual values and social behaviour of Chinese
youth over the last five to six generations one is able to take a critical stance
on Western CCM studies that tend to observe and explain their findings
through the stereotypical spectacles of Confucian collectivism (Hofstede &
Hofstede 2005). is stereotypical approa is replicated in the curriculums
of numerous Western business sools and in best-selling literature that
explains how ‘Chinese organizations are strongly permeated by Confucian
values’ (Ambler et al. 2008: 203).
In fact, Western management researers on China seem to be obsessed
by a desire to explain the values and behavioural paerns of individuals and
organisations with orthodox Confucian values (Park & Luo 2001; Redding
2002). is approa puts China and its people in a strange light. e values
and observed behaviour – whether at the individual, organisational, regional
or national level – are not only described in strikingly homogeneous terms
that have not anged over the last two millennium, but are also explained
in an exceptionally uniform manner with the Confucian belief system.
e prevalent approa of CCM literature is based on an extremely
narrow reading of China’s ri and continuously evolving intellectual
history. It is illustrative that in Imperial China the Chinese themselves did
not have a concept of ‘Confucianism’ that captured the diversity of
competing Confucian sools of thought. Jesuit missionaries invented the
concept of Confucianism in the seventeenth century during their missionary
work in China (Jensen 1998).
It is obvious that the prevailing CCM approa not only ignores the
complexity of Confucian philosophy and the evolution of the Chinese value
base, but also neglects the revolution of values that has shaped the
fundamental political, philosophical and social beliefs of the last five to six
generations of Chinese youth.

Confucianism and young people

Confucianism promotes the notion of ‘harmony’ (hexie, 和 谐 ) and sets a

high standard of filial piety and respect for seniority and social position.
According to Confucius, ‘a youth should be filial at home and respectful of
elders outside the home. He should be earnest and correct. He should
express adoration for all, and cultivate friendship with decent people’.1
Confucianism also encourages respect for young people. Confucius
admonishes his readers to ‘respect the youth. When he is at the age of forty
or fiy, and people have not heard of him, then, alas, he is not worthy of
being respected’.2
Confucian philosophy also includes the idea of political ange – even
through rebellion. One of the three founding fathers of Confucian
philosophy, a philosopher named Xunzi (313–238 BC), states that ‘the prince
is like a boat and people under him like the water. e water can carry the
boat, but the water can topple the boat’.3 Hence, young people in traditional
Chinese intellectual history were assigned a dual role of sorts. While the
strict Confucian moral code of filial piety and respect for seniority relegated
them to a fixed position, Confucian philosophy afforded them the right to
revolt against tyrannical and corrupt leaders.
ere has, in fact, been an escalating revolt by young people against the
Confucian establishment itself since the turn of the twentieth century.

Youth as the vanguard of the revolutionary

twentieth century
e first Opium War (1839–42) and the subsequent period of escalating
imperialist aggression against China not only caused collective national
humiliation, but also radicalised Chinese youth. By the early twentieth
century it was painfully apparent that the ineffectual Imperial reforms with
‘Western methods, but a Chinese core’ (xiyong zhongti, 西 用 中 体 ) were
insufficient to restore China’s strength. Young people understood that only
through the eradication of the traditional Confucian establishment could
China be strengthened. Consequently, as young people became increasingly
radicalised, they began to study, adopt and propagate Western philosophies,
values, thinking and political ideologies (Li 1994).
Young intellectuals su as Chen Duxiu (1879–1942) became politically
active and played a prominent role in overthrowing the Qing-dynasty in
1912 and establishing the first democracy in Asia – the Republic of China.
When the Republic was soon thrust into an era of warlordism, revolutionary
intellectuals started a cultural and intellectual uprising called the New
Cultural Movement, whi altered the destiny of China.
In support of this cultural uprising young intellectuals quily adopted
new media – magazines and journals. In these publications, su as the New
Youth that agitated an entire generation of youth, young radicals demanded
abolition of Confucian learning and demanded ‘complete West-ernisation’
(quanpan xihua, 全盘 西化 ). e activists ose democracy, teaing and
education based on Western scientific methods as their ultimate goals.
Liberalism, structuralism, nationalism, patriotism, various theories of
democracy, social Darwinism and eventually Marxism found fertile ground
in young radical minds. Even a number of liberal, egalitarian and radical
ideals, su as gender equality, free love, sexually liberated feminist ideas
and the anaristic ideas of Kropotkin, also found a home within radical
youth circles (Pusey 1983). ese young intellectuals identified their
emancipatory movement with the European Enlightenment, whi began in
the late seventeenth century and emphasised reason and individualism
rather than tradition (Li 1994).
en anges in the political environment altered everything. Founded in
1919, the May Fourth Movement shied energy away from the liberal ideals
of the enlightenment toward collective political mobilisation. e movement
began on 4 May 1919 as a student protest against the Chinese government’s
impotent response to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, whi
transferred extraterritorial rights to Qingdao from Germany to Japan.
is proved to be the crucial turning point in the minds of Chinese youth.
ey set aside more liberal or egalitarian values and ideals and replaced
them with the collective goals of ‘saving [the country] from destruction’
(jiuwang, 救 亡 ). Consequently, as young people adopted the radical
collectivist values of Nationalism and Communism, they also ceased striving
toward their idealised European enlightenment.
A 24-year-old assistant at the Peking University Library named Mao
Zedong (1893–1976) was one of the radicals who became interested in
Communist ideology. e Chinese Communist Party was established in 1921
and soon the ‘first generation’ of Chinese leaders – Mao Zedong, future
premier Zhou Enlai (1898–1976) and even young Deng Xiaoping (1904–97) –
among other Communist Party members became central players in
organising the underground Communist movement and working toward
revolution in China.
It is notable that most of the central Party activists and leaders at this
early stage were in their twenties and thirties. e early Communist
movement was a revolutionary movement carried out by Chinese youth.
e journalist Edgar Snow, who in 1936 visited Communist hideouts in the
caves of Yan’an, depicted the followers as ‘red-eeked “lile Red devils” –
eerful, gay, energetic, and loyal – the living spirit of an astonishing
crusade of youth’ (Porter 1997: 71).

Youth and Mao’s permanent revolution

On 1 October 1949 Mao Zedong, the ild of well-off peasants and a man of
no formal education, stood on the Tiananmen gate and proclaimed the birth
of New China. e aievements of the Communist revolution – expulsion
of foreign aggressors and nationalists and termination of the century-long
national humiliation – were quily personified in Mao himself. Beyond any
doubt, he became the hero of Chinese youth and the object of great
admiration by the liberated Chinese people.
Once Mao had conquered the entire country he decided to restore China
to its former glory through permanent revolution, whi took the form of
escalating mass campaigns. ese campaigns intensified and became
increasingly violent, subsequently leading to his personal cult. Aer the
drastic failure of the Great Leap Forward (1958–61), whi killed more than
30 million people, Mao retreated from power and began to read classical
Chinese literature, write poems and plan his next move – the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–76) – that unleashed the vigorous
power of Chinese youth once and for all (Soenhals 1996).
 e Cultural Revolution was launed in May 1966. e official political
spearhead of this compound revolution was aimed at the bourgeois,
revisionist and feudalist practices that, according to Mao, had infiltrated
government and society. In Mao’s thinking, the new China could only be
built aer deconstruction of the old. Mao believed that potential
revolutionary zeal resided in young people and only they could aa the
establishment. Mao believed in permanent revolution, whi might be
referred to as a violent form of Sumpeterian creative destruction where
any form of institutionalisation was a potential nest of reactionary forces
and had to be destroyed. e principle of ‘no construction without
destruction’ (bupo buli, 不 破 不 立 ) was always present in Mao’s policies
(Soenhals 1996).
During the Cultural Revolution youth were smien by the personal cult
of Mao. ey responded spontaneously to Mao’s revolutionary appeal by
forming Red Guard groups throughout the country. On 18 August 1966,
millions of Red Guards from all over the country gathered in Beijing for an
audience with the Chairman. Tens of millions of Red Guards made a
pilgrimage to Shaoshan, Mao’s native village, whi became China’s version
of Bethlehem or Mecca.
At an early stage the university campuses became the hotbeds of
increasingly radical Red Guard activity. e red youth terror began on
campuses and spread like a prairie fire to all organ-isations and across the
whole of China. Universities and high sools closed their doors. e
uerances of Mao ‘to rebel is justified’ (zaofan youli, 造 反 有 理 ) and
‘bombard the headquarters’ (paoda silingbu, 炮 打 司 令 部 ) legitimised
turning the world upside down. As the Red Guards of the prestigious
Tsinghua university wrote in their Red Guard Manifesto, ‘we [will] turn the
old world upside down, smash it to pieces, pulverize it, create aos and
make a tremendous mess, the bigger mess the beer!’4
Student youth succeeded in realising the words of their leader Mao
Zedong: ‘ere is great aos under heaven – the situation is excellent’
(Tianxia da luan, xingshi da hao, 天下大乱, 形势 大好 ). Consequently,
the country fell into real aos during the following years. Between 1967
and 1969 the Red Guards could freely oose their targets for harsh criticism
and violence. In practice, anything could – in a surrealist manner –
determine the fate of individuals in the hands of the Red Guards (Soenhals
1996).
e Cultural Revolution also meant endless struggle meetings, study
sessions and writing of self-criticism that interrupted the ordinary daily
routines of individuals and families. Even language, words and single
Chinese aracters became the targets of violent political aas. ere was
no space le for the self to exist, not even in one’s own mind. e borders
between the self and the collective did not merely vanish. Mao’s ideology
also suppressed the self, ‘forcing individuals to forget the individual self’
(wang wo, 忘我 ). All aspects of personal life had to be constantly open to
public analysis, resulting in a situation where anything could become the
subject of frantic and surreal condemnation (Soenhals 1996).
Eventually the young Red Guards turned against ea other and even
guns and other weapons were used in seling ideological disputes. e
aos lasted until the military stepped in, the Red Guard units were
abolished and the urban youth were sent to the countryside. e fever of the
Cultural Revolution had subsided by the death of Mao Zedong in 1976; most
of the urban youth returned home and the universities and high sools
reopened their doors. e Cultural Revolution le behind a traumatised
country where basically an entire generation of youth, the future leaders of
China, and all families had been hit by the destructive force of Mao’s final
revolution.

e anging role of youth during the early

reform era
Aer Deng Xiaoping rose to power in 1978, he quily put an end to the
violent Maoist mass-campaigns and the practice of permanent revolution.
Most importantly, he initiated economic reforms. Decades of over-
politicisation had alienated ordinary people from politics and they were
ready to devote their energies to economic activities.
Although the Party ended the mass-campaigns, the historical responsible
role of youth in reforming China waned away slowly. In 1978, aer the
Cultural Revolution had ended, the government relaxed political control and
students and young city-dwellers, like all previous generations before them,
began to demand democracy. e subsequent suppression of this Beijing
Spring of 1978 marked the beginning of a new era in the relationship
between the Party and youth; that relationship took its final form in the
Tiananmen movement of 1989.
Although economic reforms in the 1980s improved the living standard of
the Chinese people, they also caused escalating cycles of inflation and social
problems. Students followed the traditional example of early twentieth-
century revolutionary Communist heroes and demanded an end to nepotism
and corruption and eoed the reform slogans of the Soviet Union – glasnost
and perestroika. Soon ordinary city-dwellers joined student demonstrations
in cities, as they did on Tiananmen Square in Beijing. In June 1989, the Party
not only crushed the movement, but also stripped young people of the right
to act as the vanguard of reform of China. e clampdown on the
Tiananmen movement also meant that the Party forcefully curbed the
historical responsibility and role of youth in introducing new values,
practices and structures to Chinese society.
Aer Tiananmen, the Party intensified the propagation of egalitarian
Communist values, particularly on university campuses. is message,
however, was soon allenged when in 1992 Party leader Deng Xiaoping, in
order to spur his economic reforms, exhorted the Chinese people to get ri.

e post-1980s and 1990s generations

Deng Xiaoping’s catphrase ‘to get ri is glorious’ (zhifu guangrong, 致富

光 荣 ) accelerated deconstruction of the planned economy, boosted overall
commercialisation and consumerism, and opened China up to the outside
world. In the 1990s, however, the one-ild policy instigated in 1979
inevitably began to have an impact on the values and practices of urban
families. ese macro-level, i.e. socio-economic reforms, and micro-level, i.e.
family structure anges, have profoundly and irrevocably shaped the values
and roles of youth in China.
Although the one-ild policy restricts urban families to one ild, there
are certain exceptions. Urban families can have a second ild if their first
ild is disabled. Also, rural Han-Chinese families can have two ildren if
the first ild is a girl or a disabled boy. As a result of this policy, it is
estimated that in 2010 there were 136 million Chinese under the age of 30
without siblings. According to the 2010 census, young people of working
age, including rural and urban youth between the ages of 20 and 34,
accounted for 20.78 per cent of the total population (267.9 million). Due to
the one-ild policy family structures in cities follow the ‘4-2-1 pyramid’
where the ild is the apex of the pyramid, followed by the parents and
grandparents.5
e 4-2-1 pyramid structure has resulted in the widely known ‘Lile
Emperor Syndrome’ in urban China where only ildren receive excessive
amounts of aention from their parents and grandparents. e economic
reforms have dramatically increased the overall well-being and purasing
power of urban families. ese novel circumstances allure parents and
grandparents to seek the experiences and material possessions for their only
ild that they themselves were denied during the tumultuous and deprived
era prior to economic reform. Su excessive aention can severely disrupt
the balanced social, physical and psyological development of the ild
(Cameron et al. 2013).
At the same time, as parents have spoiled, overprotected and overfed their
ildren, the reforms have unleashed competitive forces in society that
impact all aspects of life. In a country that still las social security and
pension systems, sool success improves the opportunities of the youngest
generation to find good jobs and thereby eventually secure the welfare of the
older generations. In other words, as ildren grow up, the 4-2-1 pyramid is
turned upside down, eventually shiing the burden of two older generations
to the single ildren. It is in the education market that ildren get their
first taste of the fiercely competitive environment of China. It is common
that ildren take entrance exams even for kindergartens, primary and high
sools.
e competitive pressure mounts and peaks in the gaokao (高考) exam or
national university entrance exam, whi is called the ‘most pressure-paed
examination in the world’. In June 2013, more than 9.2 million young people
took a one- to three-day exam that would determine not only the lives of the
students and of their immediate future families, but also safeguard the living
standard of ageing parents and grandparents in the future. e competition
is fierce. Illustrative of this pressure was the widespread critical Chinese
discussion in 2012 of the gaokao system that was sparked by a photo posted
on the Internet of students who had hooked up to intravenous drips of
amino acid while preparing for the gaokao.6 e examination system also
shapes high-sool teaing methods. Due to the importance of the gaokao
exam, high sool students are taught to learn enormous numbers of facts
by heart; creative solutions learning is neglected. It was reported in 2012 that
the probability of a student from Anhui Province being admied to the
prestigious University of Peking was one in 7,826 (or 0.01 per cent), while
the odds for a student from Beijing were one in 190 (or a 0.5 per cent
ance). By comparison, Harvard University had a 5.9 per cent acceptance
rate in 2012.7
As young people of the first one-ild generation are now approaing
their thirties, organisations and society have experience of their values and
behaviour paerns. Discussion of the social ramifications of the one-ild
policy has been extensive. Observations of the social problems and
personality disorders affecting young people in China have led to increasing
demands for its abolition. ere is serious concern regarding the social skills
of generations Y and Z, born during the 1980s and the 1990s respectively.
Observations and experience suggest that these generations tend to be more
self-centred and less cooperative. Consequently, the Party decided in
November 2013 to reform the one-ild policy practices. e details of the
proposed reform have not yet been announced.8
A clear indication of the self-centred behaviour and values of the youth is
the recent ‘Elderly Peoples’ Rights Protection Law’ of 2013, whi stipulates
that young people must visit their parents regularly. e law states that
adults should care about their parents and never snub or neglect elderly
people. e law was widely ridiculed in the Chinese social media. ‘Netizens’
have openly stated that the need to enact su a law clearly illustrates how
the fundamental moral values of Chinese society have been completely
destroyed. ere are already cases where the courts have ordered young
adults to visit their parents or face possible fines or detention.9
A number of studies support the widely shared collective experience that
the importance of freedom to pursue one’s own happiness, self-realisation,
purely hedonistic ‘me-myself-and-I’ aitudes, and idolisation of materialism
are the dominating trends among current Chinese youth (Di 2013; Zhang
2011; Zou 2011). In the minds of youth, success in life is measured in wealth
and material possessions. e Party is concerned about these widely shared
individualistic values and has repeatedly launed ‘top-down’ propaganda
programs in support of egalitarian Communist values and has even
selectively revitalised traditional communitarian Confucian values in China
(Zeng 2007). It would appear, however, that the Party has lost the bale of
values.
Illustrative of this defeat is the popular film ‘Tiny Times’, the story of four
college girls in Shanghai that became a blobuster in summer 2013 in
China. e film unashamedly idealises fashion-based materialism and
became an all-time hit among urban youth. Lines su as ‘love without
materialism is just a pile of sand’ outraged official film critics in the main
Party-controlled newspapers – all of them blasted the ‘materialism’,
‘hedonism’ and ‘pathological greed’ of the film.
Based on comparative studies between the pre- and post-one-ild era,
the policy has produced significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more
risk-averse, less competitive, and more pessimistic and less conscientious
individuals. Studies claim that an upbringing that provides ildren with
excessive aention and puts too mu social pressure on them to succeed
results in su personality traits. e self-centration, uncooperativeness and
low self-esteem exhibited by current youth also have direct consequences
for organisational-level work (Cameron et al. 2013).
From an organisational perspective young people have been faulted for a
tendency to criticise authority and question decisions or working paerns in
organisations and an unwillingness to take responsibility for work tasks.
Arrogant aitudes also create communicative obstacles between co-workers.
Young people are also criticised for laing the stamina to face the
adversities of work, for seeking easy solutions and for wanting to work
shorter hours (Di 2013).
ere has already been discussion of the differences emerging between
the one-ild generations of the 1980s and 1990s in a number of
management journals and also more widely among the public. However,
academic comparative resear on the generational differences in China is
still scarce. e generation of the 1990s is generally depicted as driven more
by freedom and enjoyment and as having more critical aitudes toward
authority than the generation born in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the study on
values related to occupational ideals reveals that the two generations have
identical job selection criteria. For both generations salary is the most
important criterion for job selection. e opportunity to develop and express
specialist knowledge at work is ranked the second most important criterion
in considering career moves. A relaxed work place is the third most
important condition for young people. Surprisingly, social status,
opportunities to work abroad and power were the least important job
selection criteria. (Di 2013; Zou 2011).
However, we can identify tangible differences between generations Y and
Z when we compare their preferences regarding employers. In 2004 the three
most ideal employers for generation Y were colleges or universities, large or
medium-sized state-owned enterprises, and Party or governmental
organisations. In 2009 generation Z strongly preferred state-owned
enterprises, the Party-controlled state bureaucracy or the foreign sector. It is
noteworthy that the state-controlled sector dominated the preferences of
both generations. is can be explained by job-security and the
predominance of the state sector in the Chinese economy (Zou 2011).
Finally, generation Z expressed considerable interest in working in the
Party apparatus or the Party-dominated governmental sector. ere was a
significant increase in the desire of from 25 to 50 per cent of the student
respondents to find work within the core structure of the Chinese state. is
development parallels the currently rising interest among young people in
Party membership. ree out of four university students stated that they
would like to be admied to Party membership; one out of two student
respondents of generation Y expressed this desire. However, less than one
out of ten student respondents expressed belief in Communist ideology. e
opportunity to ‘realise oneself’ in society was the most important reason for
joining the Party (Zou 2011).

Conclusion
In this apter I have focused on illustrating the radicalisation of values of
Chinese youth; how the youth first demolished the Confucian values,
wholeheartedly adopted Communist ideals and later alienated themselves
from the Communist role models during the past century. It is significant
that the several highly politicised generations of young people that took part
in the various movements of this process shared one common goal: to
destroy the Confucian establishment and create a strong China.
In this sense, the current generations of young people are an exception.
ey are highly apolitical and are described as selfish, unable to cooperate
with others and enamoured with materialism. e Party has brought about
dramatic structural anges in Chinese society that have affected the values
of today’s youth; these are the economic reforms, whi have unleashed
unprecedented competitive forces in China, and the one-ild policy
launed in 1979, whi has altered the lives of urban families.
 e Party also made two political decisions that have transformed the
values of young people and their role in society today. By clamping down on
the Tiananmen movement in 1989 the Party deprived youth of the moral
right to pass judgement on the fundamental values of Chinese society and
therefore play the role of historical vanguard. Moreover, since the aermath
of Tiananmen, the Party has successfully propagated Deng’s mantra ‘to get
ri is glorious’. Hence, it is not surprising that young people are
uninterested in communitarian issues, tend to be self-centred and hedonistic
and idolise materialistic values.
However, there is a profound contradiction between the official Party-
dominated value structure and the actual values of young people. On the
one hand, the Party is deeply concerned by the emergence of the commercial
values that it has in fact promoted and by the response to them. Beijing is
conducting a massive propaganda war against the values it has unleashed in
society while it also needs to expedite its own economic reforms forward
and encourage people to consume. On the other hand, young Chinese, who
are self-centred and materialistic, have expressed a strong desire to join the
Communist Party, whi still clings to communitarian values.
e concurrent cross-cultural management literature analyses China in
strikingly homogeneous terms. e values, perceptions, observed behaviour,
paerns of organising work and systems – whether at the individual,
organisational, regional or national level – are not only described in
homogeneous terms, but are also explained in a uniform manner with the
Confucian belief system or institutional seing of China, whi is described
as having unbroken linear heritages over the last two millennia. In this
apter I have dismantled this stereotypical depiction of China by
illustrating how various youth generations carried out repeated revolutions.
China can be described as hosting a wide variety of sets of institutional
values, policies and material conditions from various eras and realities that
co-exist and contradict ea other. One can easily recognise in China several
contradicting yet overlapping realities and value structures su as powerful
command economy arrangements, old Communist control meanisms,
novel neo-liberalist values at the marketplace, modern urban consumption
culture, new emerging local and various international business practices,
side by side with emerging neo-feudalist management paerns in the
countryside and widely spread free democratic elections electing village
level administrators. As all of these elements are in the same melting pot, it
is possible on a daily basis to discover contrasting and new realities in
China, making national level generalisations extremely allenging or even
questionable.

Notes
1 Confucian Analects, apter Xuer, Publishing on the Internet. Available
hp://ctext.org/analects/xue-er (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

2 Confucian Analects, apter Zi Han, Publishing on the Internet. Available

hp://ctext.org/analects/zi-han (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

3 Xunzi, apter Wang Zhi, Publishing on the Internet. Available hp://ctext.org/xunzi/wang-zhi

(accessed 25 Mar 2014).

4 Giings, J. ‘Bringing Up the Red Guards’, The New York Review of Books, Publishing on the

Internet. Available hp://www.nybooks.com/articles/arives/1971/dec/16/bringing-up-the-red-

guards/ (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

5 hp://tieba.baidu.com/p/1182475037 (accessed 25 Mar 2014); Wang, G. (2013) ‘Dusheng zinu

siwangzongliang ji biandong qushi’, Available
hp://www.csstoday.net/xuekepindao/zhengming/82115.html (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

6 hp://news.ifeng.com/society/2/detail_2012_05/06/14340557_0.shtml (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

7 Wong, E. (2012) ‘Test at Can Determine the Course of Life in China Gets Closer Examination’,
New York Times. Available hp://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/world/asia/burden-of-inas-
college-entrance-test-sets-off-wide-debate.html?
_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1382043141-VizKTzkWPSMnKxiuZ9pP4A (accessed 25
Mar 2014).
 8 hp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/time-running-out-ina-one-ild-policy-
exemptions (accessed 25 Mar 2014).

9 Kaiman, J. (2014) ‘Time running out for China’s one-ild policy aer three decades’, The

Guardian. Available hp://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shehui/xl-07032013101907.html

(accessed 25 Mar 2014); hp://inadigitaltimes.net/2013/07/ina-beefs-up-elderly-rights-law/
(accessed 25 Mar 2014).

Bibliography
Ambler, T., Witzel, M. and Chi, X. (2008) Doing Business in China, London:
Routledge.
Cameron, L., Erkal, N., Gandadharan, L. and Meng, X. (2013) ‘Lile
Emperors: Behavioral Impacts of China’s One-Child Policy’, Science, 339:
953–957.
Di, L. (2013) ‘80, 90hou yuangong de tezhi ji guanli’, Qiye wenming, 8: 53–56.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind, London: McGrawHill.
Jensen, L. (1998) Manufacturing Confucianism: Chinese Tradition and
Universal Civilization, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Li, Z. (1994) Li Zehou shi nian ji, 3 juan xia, Anhui wenyi ubanshe.
Park, S. and Luo, Y. (2001) ‘Guanxi and Organizational Dynamics:
Organizational Networking in Chinese Firms’, Strategic Management
Journal, 22/5: 455–477.
Porter, E. (1997) The People’s Doctor: George Hatem and China’s Revolution,
New York: University of Hawaii Press.
Pusey, J. (1983) China and Charles Darwin, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Redding, G. (2002) ‘e Capitalist Business System of China and Its
Rationale’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19/2-3: 221–249.
Soenhals, M. (1996) China’s Cultural Revolution, 1966–69: Not a Dinner
Party, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Zeng, Y. (2007) ‘Dangdai Zhongguo qingnian jiazhiguan fazhan tedian ji
shengeng yinsuo yanjiu’, Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping lilun yanjiu, 6:
36–45.
Zhang, B. (2011) ‘Y shidai daxuesheng de tedian he guanli gongzuo de xin
silu’, Huanan gongli daxue xuebao, 13/2:109–111.
Zou, Q. (2011) ‘80hou daxuesheng yu 90hou daxuesheng jiazhiguan bi fenxi’,
Guanxi jiaoyu xueyuan xuebao, 3/113: 71–75.
41
Making sense of gender equality
Applying a global programme in Argentina

Mariana I. Paludi and Jean Helms Mills

Introduction

e motivation for this resear relates to the experiences of one of the

authors, Mariana, who participated in the 2009 initiative between Argentina
and the World Bank called the Argentine Gender Equity Model or Modelo de
Equidad de Genero para Argentina (MEGA), whi was implemented to
promote gender equality in the private sector. As a trainer, Mariana had to
tea Human Resources and Work—Life Balance practices in twelve
multinationals and medium business organizations. An absence of literature
addressing gender in organizations, in an Argentine context, meant that the
training material for MEGA consisted of mainstream US Human Resources
Management literature, with a North American focus on examples, reactions
and potential solutions (e.g. Recruiting and Retaining Women [Harrington,
2000] or Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership: Same Workplace,
Different Realities? [Catalyst, 2004]), whi ignored local context and
history, including pre-existing gender initiatives already in place, and
cultural differences.
At first, this didn’t seem problematic to Mariana, but when participants
contested the examples given regarding issues su as Work—Life Balance
programmes and gender equality policies from US multinationals (e.g.
Johnson and Johnson’s Balancing Work and Family programme, or Avon’s
Managing Diversity programme), it raised questions for Mariana. What did
the failure to include local examples mean in terms of employee
understandings and acceptance of the training? Specifically, Mariana felt
that the training examples were ignoring the particularities of Argentine
society historically (Barrancos, 2008), culturally (Stobbe, 2005) and
economically (Novi et al., 2008) and were ‘othering’ Argentine employees.
Ultimately Mariana’s experiences raised questions concerning the use of
standardized North American biased solutions to address the complexity of
the social phenomenon of gender issues between North and Latin America
and a reliance by researers on explaining these common occurrences
through traditional mainstream cross-cultural literature. Using a decolonial
lens, we suggest that CSM offers an alternative way to make sense of the
factors that shape different meanings, whi, in this case, contribute to local
understandings of gender equality in an Argentine context. We use
decolonialism (Mignolo, 2000, 2007, 2011) to situate Argentina in a Latin
American context. We then use CSM as a heuristic to show how different
meanings were constructed around HR policies in organizations using the
MEGA programme, how these ‘misunderstandings’ affected the
implementation of MEGA and what the implications of this were in terms of
the power of those in the training and the context in whi it was carried
out.
Five interviews were conducted in an Argentine company that
participated in MEGA in the year 2012 by Mariana. Additionally, we
analysed ethnographic field notes (Van Maanen, 1988) taken by Mariana
while doing participant observation and documents based on activities (e.g.
seminars, talks) in whi MEGA members had been participating.
Mainstream cross-cultural management tends to focus either on surfacing
cultural and value differences (Bird & Fang, 2009; Hofstede et al., 2010) or
managing cross-cultural conflict (Mayer & Louw, 2012). We contend that a
combination of decolonialism, whi offers a way to make sense of the Latin
American context, and CSM, whi provides a framework to understand
how different understandings and meanings are formed, takes into account
context and meaning (Dupuis, 2013) and offers a deeper level of analysis that
considers the socio-psyological processes that contribute to these various
meanings. is approa focuses more on understanding and less on
management.

Decolonization, context and Latin America

In order to understand how MEGA was introduced and made sense of, we
first need to contextualize what is meant by ‘Latin America’. To do this, we
turn to Mignolo (2000, 2007, 2011), whose contribution to the postcolonial
literature offers an alternative approa to Said (1978) and is specific to Latin
America and focused more on local history, knowledge and identity. us,
decolonialization provides a framework to make sense of MEGA in the
Argentine context and to show the influences of local histories and identities
in the shaping of different understandings.
According to Mignolo, differences between the two Americas (‘North
America’ and ‘Latin’ America) can be traced ba to their origins. Latin
America, according to Mignolo (2000), is a term imposed on a number of
countries in South America and Mexico in the North1 by Northern colonial
powers (specifically Great Britain and the United States) in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. By 1950, the economic and political crisis that
affected ‘Latin’ America reinforced the sense of inferiority that was felt by
most ‘Latin’ Americans and ended any expectation of becoming a rising
region. Mignolo (2009) critiques the assumed contrast between the first
world (the ‘North’) as the creators of knowledge and the so-called third
world, or the ‘South’ (including Latin America) as having culture, but not
creating knowledge.
Mignolo (1993, 2000, 2005) focuses on Spanish imperialism across Latin
America and looks at the intersections of local histories and global designs.
His notion of ‘border thinking’ (Mignolo, 2009) that sees ‘the other’ as
inferior is particularly important in helping us make sense of what happened
in Argentina during the MEGA project. Specifically, the emphasis on local
histories, combined with placing a higher value on knowledge from the first
world, highlights the problems associated with implementing a gender
programme in Argentina, designed from a Northern perspective.

Critical sensemaking: an alternative approa to

cross-cultural management
Sensemaking (Wei, 1995) uncovers the social-psyological processes that
lead to different outcomes and occurs when an ambiguous or uncertain
situation creates a sho that forces us to give that situation meaning.
According to Wei (1995), sensemaking involves seven interdependent
properties, whi include: i. grounded in identity construction (the multiple
identities that make up who we are influence how we understand a
particular situation or event); ii. retrospection (our past experiences help us
make sense of the present); iii. enactive of environments (we are influenced
by the environment we have created and operate within); iv. social (our
understanding is based on and negotiated by our interactions with others); v.
ongoing (we never stop the sensemaking process); vi. driven by plausibility
rather than accuracy (we look for what seems plausible, even if it is not
accurate); vii. focused on extracted cues (we seek cues that support our
notion of plausibility and discard anything that doesn’t support this). Wei
(1995) initially argued that all properties are interdependent and while some
might be more relevant than others, depending on the situation, they are all
necessary in the sensemaking process. More recently, Mills and Helms Mills
(2004) have suggested that plausibility is central to the sensemaking process
and without plausibility, we will lose interest and move on to a new event or
situation, whi can be understood as plausible (see also Carroll et al., 2008).
CSM (Helms Mills et al., 2010), on the other hand, extends Wei’s
sensemaking framework by shiing focus to how organizational power and
dominant assumptions privilege some identities over others and create them
as meaningful for individuals. rough the addition of organizational rules
(Mills, 1988), whi offer an understanding of the influence of structure on
the process of sensemaking; discourse (Foucault, 1979), whi provides an
understanding of how sensemaking is informed and grounded in power and
knowledge and formative contexts (Unger, 1987), whi draw aention,
explain the broader context where events occur and how sense-making is
operationalized, CSM takes into account how some voices are privileged and
some are overlooked, whi is ignored in Wei’s model.
We argue that CSM is particularly relevant because it offers a way to
explain the social– psyological processes involved in giving meaning to a
global initiative, demonstrates postcolonial power dynamics and
demonstrates how a discourse can obscure local discourses on gender and
equality. Unlike more mainstream cross-cultural management approaes,
CSM gives us the tools to show how meaning was constructed both by the
creators of MEGA and by local employees of organizations that participated
in MEGA.

MEGA
MEGA, a World Bank initiative, within a greater project called the Gender
Equity Model, was designed to introduce international standards on gender
equality in Argentina. It was a one-year programme, consisting of six stages:
i. establishment of a Gender Equity Commiee, ii. self-diagnosis, iii.
establishment of an action plan, iv. training, v. audit and vi. certification
(Pérez Esquivel & Hernández, 2013). It was first introduced to Mexico in
2001, Egypt in 2007 and Argentina in 2009.
By 2010, the World Bank anowledged the widespread use of these types
of initiatives and the cultural differences that affected them:
International experience indicates that in order to aieve gender equality, it is necessary to
address cultural barriers, whi are sometimes hidden in business practices, affecting female
 development in labor activities.
(World Bank, 2010: 9)

at is, the World Bank would create knowledge for the less privileged
countries:
e World Bank brings its international experience and knowledge to the process and helps
building in country capacity. By providing tenical assistance and training to the implementing
agency and bringing in international experts, the Bank helps to build local capacity to make the
certification process sustainable. is support has been particularly valuable in helping gender
specialists adopt a business perspective and in teaing business specialists about gender equity.
(World Bank, 2010: 39)

In 2012, Mariana conducted open-ended interviews at one of the eleven

participating companies. e data was originally collected in Spanish and
later translated into English. We also analysed ethnographic notes from the
training sessions conducted in 2009 and a talk she aended in 2013. On the
basis of the analysis of these original empirical data, we will argue that
MEGA failed to critically address the Westernization of global management
(Har et al., 2011) and used an Anglo-American understanding of equality
and gender, whi was disconnected from the culture of Argentina and
failed to take into account, local history, knowledge and identity.
In sensemaking terms, MEGA served as a sho, forcing participants to
rethink their perceptions of gender roles and equality. While the interange
between trainers and members of the organization allowed a space for
sensemaking, confusion, doubts and ambiguity confronted the participants
and this led to different meanings of MEGA and expectations about what it
was trying to aieve.
For example, it didn’t take into account the identity construction or past
experience of local employees. As one local manager said:
we wanted to be involved in MEGA because we already have a pro-equity culture … we wanted
to certify something that was already natural to our organization because of the history of the
company.
(Marketing Manager)
Another interviewee made the point that what MEGA was offering wasn’t
entirely new but this wasn’t anowledged:
we always have a lot of women, several in top positions, also the Regional Manager is a woman,
that’s why I don’t notice a before/aer MEGA. Maybe the fact that it is a family oriented
organization and that the Director is a woman is what makes a difference.
(Employee)

Failure to take into account local context, identity, Argentina’s strong

history of feminism (Barrancos, 2007) and a large body of resear done on
women in the labour market and the household (Esquivel, 2009; Novi et
al., 2008; Wainerman & Guitiérrez, 2007) suggests that MEGA was enacting
gender equality based on a powerful North American identity construct that
sees ‘third’ world countries, in this case Latin America, as the receivers of
knowledge, not the creators. Despite work–life balance initiatives being in
place for some time, the training being provided at the local level
demonstrates a la of awareness on the part of those designing the global
initiatives, as to how they applied to local realities. MEGA made certain
assumptions and ascribed certain meaning about Latin American women
and men, whi may or may not have been accurate but seemed plausible to
the World Bank in terms of how they designed and implemented MEGA.

Making sense of employee reactions to MEGA

As we have suggested, MEGA offers an empirical study of the root causes of
the problems that can be encountered in applying a universalist approa to
equality and imposing North American values on Latin American
organizations. In this section, we will show how CSM can be used, as an
alternative to mainstream cross-cultural management approaes, to explain
why local realities were ignored, how individuals involved in MEGA made
sense of the programme and why local HR policies clashed with global
initiatives in the sensemaking process.
 We will use sensemaking to show how power struggles underscored how
these global initiatives were understood and enacted by employees and
managers and what this means in terms of future implementation and
problems that may be encountered when doing so. We believe that this
approa offers a layer of analysis that provides insights into a deeper
understanding of the social–psyological processes that lead to the
formation of different cross-cultural values. Rather than managing cross-
cultural management, the insights we get from this combined approa of
decolonization and CSM helps work with local realities and context and
creates an awareness of power imbalances.

Making MEGA plausible

We concur that plausibility is a pivotal property in the sensemaking process

(Carroll et al., 2008; Mills & Helms Mills, 2004). In this case, we argue that it
was a key factor in how MEGA was diametrically understood and how
plausibility, or the la of plausibility, determined the enactment of or
resistance to MEGA.
In selecting MEGA, we would argue that the organizations in Latin
American countries that adopted it did so because it was part of the ongoing
and social nature of sensemaking to address current management issues and
enact the discourse of ange that has forced many CEOs to feel that if they
aren’t constantly engaged in some sort of ange process, they aren’t on the
cuing edge. In addition, a US-based training initiative was coherent with
their understandings of equality and training and reflected how they wanted
to portray themselves as multinationals (identity construction). What the
decision makers in these Latin American companies knew about equality
training (retrospection) suggested that programmes, su as MEGA, were a
normal part of HR initiatives in (North) America and, as su, were
plausible because they offered legitimacy through the certification of
practising and training gender-neutral policies in both large multinationals
and small and medium sized organizations. MEGA seemed plausible because
it signified ways to formalize procedures in the organization. Unfortunately,
the cues that were drawn upon to create this plausibility failed to take into
account the local contexts, history and identity that Mignolo (2000) says
must be considered. is means that the history of Argentina in the context
of Latin American colonization has certain aracteristics su as a
predominance of the Catholic faith and a history of creolization between
aboriginal and Spanish people, whi entails a particular design of any
instrument to encourage social ange. So, despite having an equality
programme that worked well in a North American context, we shall see in
the next section how very different understandings of these HR policies led
to different enactments of them and, in some cases, resistance.

MEGA in the local context of Argentina

Whereas MEGA was deemed plausible by the leader of the programme who
has the power to determine the gender policy, based on observations and our
interviews, we found that many of the participants did not share the same
view and were uncomfortable with some of the HR practices that seemingly
contradicted local values. We argue that this was because it was not a
training programme that was consistent with their understandings of
equality and it failed to take into account the history and national identity
of Argentine companies. In these cases, the ‘misunderstandings’ not only
contradicted some of MEGA’s training programme, but also led to employee
confusion about the purpose of MEGA. In some cases, this included what
could be considered forms of resistance.
When making sense of the new policies, a number of people we
interviewed were confused about why they were being given gender
equality training. ey felt that equality was already part of their culture
and something very familiar to them, not a new concept (retrospective
sensemaking). ey interpreted MEGA as more of a formalization of
existing/past experiences and practices, rather than a learning process,
around gender issues. e manager of one su organization explained the
rationalization of this formalization process:
we were sure that we had been doing everything [regarding gender equity] for 30 years but there
was nothing wrien, not even the procedures, and actually the policies [they found out] were
obsolete.
(Corporate Social Responsibility Manager)

e Manager of the Marketing Department also agreed that MEGA

formalized what they have already been doing; however, he added:
Our department was already aware that our marketing material should mirror our male and
female population. Nevertheless, we started thinking about it more and for those broures where
we have only one image […] we added two and we have equity in the ba of our minds.

Related to gender equality another employee said:

I think this organization is more equal in many senses. It considers executive women’s opinion.
Also people’s emotions regarding work and not so mu the numbers. We have the [good]
impression of being led by a woman who is always thinking of what to say, when, and how.

Another manager viewed equality as a linguistic distinction:

It called our aention the use of gerente/gerenta (in Spanish ‘manager’ can be feminine or
masculine) since we realized that language maers and allows as to make that distinction. Also
since MEGA, we began paying aention to age and sex when composing ads for recruitment.
(Manager of Human Capital)

e imposition of rules and their enactment contradicted local culture and

suggested that different meanings encouraged resistance, as an adherence to
rules is not part of Argentina’s culture.
A popular saying in Argentina is ‘hea la ley, hea la trampa’ or ‘rules
are meant to be broken’. is served as a powerful sensemaking device in
Argentine workplaces and led to what could be interpreted as overt
resistance. e following case offers an example of first, the failure to report
and second, to minimalize a sexual harassment incident and, subsequently,
try to make it seem plausible:
the company doesn’t allow us to account for it as a sexual harassment case although it does
appear in the report like that [that is delivered to headquarters every three months]. But within
 the company [Argentine bran] we just called it irregularities […] to protect those who are being
laid off from the company.
(Employee)

At a lesser level, MEGA’s training programme was causing confusion and

employees were unsure of how to react to them. e recommendation not to
ask personal questions in job interviews, in order to avoid making biased
decisions that might disadvantage certain employees, while the norm in
North American organizations, puzzled employees in Argentina. To not ask
personal questions related to their family life was interpreted as a
contradiction of the family friendly organization that represented part of
national identity. Instead, it was understood as being insensitive or uncaring.
Likewise, displaying emotions and referencing themselves as passionate
and warm people, in comparison to Anglo-Saxon cultures, is another part of
the Argentine identity (see also Paludi & Helms Mills, 2013). is explains
the subtle gender dynamics in the workplace, and some of the implications
for the gender equality policies of MEGA, whi could result in different
understandings outside of the Latin American context. In responding to one
of the questions about interpersonal relationships at work, a manager said:
culturally from what I know, the Latino or Argentine way of working is very friendly and it calls
aention to people coming from other cultures … I’ve worked a lot with Japanese in another
company and they were surprised by the way we work, because you know, Japanese people go to
work, open their computers and there is no dialogue between co-workers. But in contrast, in
Argentina it is normal to have conversations … a sense of sociability, the comments people make
… this creates a good working environment. is is reflected in the employees’ work environment
survey globally, where you can see that Latin cultures have beer rates [regarding satisfaction]
than other non-Latin countries … if it is beer or worse [Latino or Argentine culture], I don’t
know, for us it is normal. Maybe we should compare ourselves to others, however we don’t have
sexual harassment issues.
(Human Capital Manager)

e closeness and family-oriented nature of organizations was also

important in enacting MEGA. Physical contact within a Latin American
context was understood very differently from a North American context. It
is worth noting that physical contact in the North American societies is one
of the most evident elements used in cases of sexual harassment in the
workplace. On the contrary, body language and human tou as a way of
communication and self-expression is especially important in Latin cultures:
You can talk naturally with management … here [it] is more simple, open and family oriented.
Everyone can go to your office, even though you might not need to go oen, but if you need
anything … well they might kiss you hello. It’s mu more family oriented [meaning] closer, not
so stiff or cold.
(Employee)

Sensemaking is also social and ongoing and it is interesting to note that

constant interactions during the different stages of MEGA continually
reshaped global policy at a local level, despite the more formal procedures
that should have been followed. For example, members in the organization,
including project leaders and auditing companies, were constantly
questioning and negotiating the meaning of gender equality, both formally
and informally. e project leader of MEGA (Argentine nationality) at one
of the organizations offered this comment:
In the process of the pre-audit we were asked about our procedures. MEGA brought to our
company a gender policy that allowed people to talk about gender and labour and one they can
count on, with the possibility to be role model for other companies.

In a similar vein, the head of the Human Capital Department also

commented on the implications of receiving the MEGA certificate:
What tells you if it works or not is day to day experience. People in our organization value the
sensitivity towards women (and men) issues, family concerns and health. We also carry on focus
groups with members of different areas to listen to problems and suggestions regarding work
environment.

is disruption of the flow of events in ea of the participating companies

forced individuals in them to stop, and pay aention to potential issues that
could affect their activities. As su, MEGA was an ongoing process of
reconstruction, through daily interactions that include gossiping and joking,
whi unintentionally caused employees to re-evaluate their understanding
of the programme:
training went well because people felt they could talk about gender and even related it to our
business. e juicy parts were heard in the hallways more than during the training, or through the
 circulation of jokes among employees. I think that training sessions were a good idea because they
made people question ideas that they normally do not have and gave them the time to think about
gender issues on a daily basis.
(Corporate Social Responsibility Manager)

Conclusions
Critical solars have argued for more studies of Latin America, using
different approaes su as postmodernism, poststructuralism and
postcolonialism (Calás & Smirci, 1999; Prasad & Prasad, 2003; Prasad,
2005). In this apter, we have used the case of MEGA to illustrate how
using a postcolonialist lens, combined with critical sensemaking, offers a
way to understand how the creation of knowledge intersects with power
and factors that influence meaning. In turn, this offers a different cross-
cultural management perspective that shows how different meanings get
constructed around the same event, how knowledge is created, how more
powerful voices, in this case those who decided to introduce MEGA, get
heard and the consequences of this.
We believe that this approa gives us different insights into cross-
cultural management because it doesn’t just focus on how to manage; rather,
it looks at factors that contribute to sensemaking and it explains why
universalist approaes might not be meaningful. By understanding how
values come to be and why they are important, organizations, su as the
World Bank, can be aware of potential misunderstandings that might occur
when they fail to take local contexts into account.
e case of MEGA and how it was implemented has implications for
future cross-cultural management, teaing us that those implementing
global designs should be cautious of their assumptions. Ea country has a
geo-historical context that shapes its culture and identity in a different way.
For Argentine organizations MEGA was a self-learning process in whi
they formalized current gender practices into a wrien policy. MEGA
enlightened the Argentine identity and also the managerial culture adding
knowledge to a body of resear in organizations situated in the context of
Latin America (Ibarra-Colado, 2006). More than ever the transformation in
the global economy reminds us of the importance of understanding
management and organizations (Prasad, 2003) and their relationship with
policies and globalization (Calás et al., 2010). e allenge ahead is to
develop future gender policies that take into account the processes of
globalization but sti to the local reality of ea country considering their
history and culture; and by anowledging this difference we will be
creating decolonial projects in its best expression.

Note
1 We refer to South America as the geographically bounded territories south of Mexico. Latin
America, on the other hand, refers to a set of disparate countries – both in terms of geographical
location, history, culture and politics – that, nonetheless, have been categorized as a more-or-less
single entity based on their shared heritage as former colonies of Spain and Portugal.

References
Barrancos, D. (2007). Mujeres en la sociedad argentina. Una historia de cinco
siglos, Buenos Aires, Editorial Sudamericana.
Barrancos, D. (2008). Mujeres, entre la casa y la plaza, Buenos Aires,
Editorial Sudamericana.
Bird, A. & Fang, T. (2009). Cross cultural management in the age of
globalization. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(2),
139–143.
Calás, M. B. & Smirci, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and
tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 649–671.
Calás, M. B., Smirci, L., Tienari, J. & Ellehave, C. F. (2010). Editorial:
Observing globalized capitalism: gender and ethnicity as an entry point.
Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 243–247.
Carroll, W. R., Mills, A. J. & Helms Mills, J. (2008). Managing identity and
resistance: Making critical sense of call centre management. Gestion
2000 (Belgian Journal of Management), 25, 57–82.
Catalyst (2004). Women and men in U.S. corporate leadership: Same
workplace, different realities?, New York, Catalyst.
Dupuis, J.-P. (2013). New approaes in cross-cultural management resear:
e importance of context and meaning in the perception of
management styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 14(1), 67–84.
Esquivel, V. (2009). Uso del tiempo en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Los
Polvorines, Prov. de Buenos Aires, Argentina, Universidad Nacional de
General Sarmiento.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, New
York, Vintage Books.
Harrington, P. E. (2000). Recruiting and retaining women: A self-assessment
guide for law enforcement, Los Angeles, CA, National Center for Women
& Policing, a Division of the Feminist Majority Foundation.
Har, C. M., Mills, A. J., Helms Mills, J. & Durepos, G. (2011). Markets,
organizations, institutions and national identity: Pan American Airways,
postcoloniality and Latin America. Critical Perspectives on International
Business, 8, 14–36.
Helms Mills, J., urlow, A. & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of
sensemaking: e critical sensemaking approa. Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management, 5, 182–195.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its
importance for survival, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Ibarra-Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in
Latin America: inking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13,
463–488.
Mayer, C.-H. & Louw, L. (2012). Managing cross-cultural conflict in
organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12,
3–8.
Mignolo, W. D. (1993). Colonial and postcolonial discourse. Latin American
Research Review, 28, 120.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern
knowledges, and border thinking, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The idea of Latin America, Oxford, Wiley-Blawell.
Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Delinking the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of
coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21, 449–
514.
Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and
decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture and Society, 26, 7–8.
Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures,
decolonial options, Durham, Duke University Press.
Mills, A. J. (1988). Organization, gender and culture. Organization Studies, 9,
351–369.
Mills, A. J. & Helms Mills, J. (2004). When plausibility fails: Towards a
critical sensemaking approa to resistance. In: omas, R., Mills, A. J. &
Helms Mills, J. (eds.) Identity politics at work resisting gender, gendering
resistance. London: Routledge.
Novi, M., Rojo, S. & Castillo, V. (2008). El trabajo femenino en la post
convertibilidad. Argentina 2003–2007, Santiago de Chile, Naciones
Unidas.
Paludi, M. I. & Helms Mills, J. (2013). Making sense of the Latin American
‘other’: Executive women in Argentina. Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(8), 732–755.
Pérez Esquivel, A. & Hernández, N. (2013). Género y Empresa La gestión del
Proyecto MEGA en Portsaid y Desiderata [PowerPoint slides]. Seminario
Abierto Permanente: Género y Sociedad, August 2013 Universidad de
San Andrés, Argentina.
Prasad, A. (2003). e gaze of the other: Postcolonial theory and
organizational analysis. In: Prasad, A. (ed.) Postcolonial theory and
 organizational analysis: A critical engagement. New York, Palgrave
Macmillan. Prasad, A. & Prasad, P. (2003). e postcolonial imagination.
In: Prasad, A. (ed.) Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A
critical engagement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist
traditions, Armonk, M.E. Sharpe.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism, New York, Vintage Books.
Stobbe, L. (2005). Doing maismo: Legitimating spee acts as a selection
discourse. Gender, Work & Organization, 12, 105–123.
Unger, R. M. (1987). Plasticity into power, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Wainerman, C. & Guitiérrez, M. A. (2007). Conyugalidad y paternidad: ¿una
revolución estancada? Género, familias y trabajo: rupturas y
continuidades: desafíos para la investigación política. Buenos Aires,
Consejo latinoamericano de ciencias sociales – CLACSO.
Wei, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations, ousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications.
World Bank (2010). Argentina gender equity in the private sector promoting
gender equity in the private sector towards an international Gender
Equity Certification Model (“GEM”): e case of Argentina, “MEGA
2009”, Washington.
42
Reproducing self and the other
e role of cross-cultural management
discourse and training in shaping Israeli–
Korean collaborations

Michal Frenkel, Irina Lyan and Gili S. Drori

Introduction

With the rapid growth in cross-national operations of joint ventures

worldwide, and especially in developing countries and emerging markets,
the interest in “cultural differences” and the ways that they may affect
organizational effectiveness in cross-border collaborations has been
amplified as well. It is within this context that the mushrooming literature
on cross-cultural management (CCM) has emerged and flourished,
aempting to systematically catalog the cultural differences across national
borders (Hofstede 1980; House et al. 2001; Swartz 2004), the type of
management model best-fiing ea culture, and the extent to whi
cultural distance between two collaborating parties, or between a foreign
headquarters and the target society in whi it seeks to invest, affects the
potential success of su an investment (e.g., Kogut & Singh 1988; Morosini
et al.1998; Tihanyi et al. 2005).
 Building on the findings of this academic literature, an extensive industry
has emerged aempting to translate su new understandings of cultural
differences into popular literature and media and to build related training
programs. Cross-cultural training (CCT) is designed to prepare managers
and soon-to-be-relocated employees for forthcoming cultural encounters
and to educate managers and expatriates about the best way to conduct their
business in foreign countries and make the most out of their overseas
investment (Bla & Mendenhall 1990; Deshpande & Viswesvaran 1992;
Benne et al. 2000).
In recent years, the CCM literature has been widely criticized for its
overemphasis on national, rather than regional or other local cultures, for its
ethnocentric viewpoint, its over simplistic distinction between the “West”
(developed/industrialized) and the “rest” (developing/ industrializing), and
for its methodological biases (Holden 2002, 2004; Vaara et al. 2003; Frenkel
2008; Ailon 2008; Prasad 2009; Ja and Westwood 2009). With few
exceptions, this critique has analyzed academic literature, making it difficult
to assess the extent to whi theoretical conceptualization affects
organizational behavior. is apter expands on these earlier critiques by
pointing to the role of CCM knowledge itself – especially as it is being
translated into popular writing and CCT – in shaping intercultural everyday
encounters in multinational firms and international joint ventures. Inspired
by a study of the intercultural experience of Korean and Israeli R&D joint
ventures, the apter demonstrates how workers’ conceptualization of their
own cultures and that of the Other, as well as their expectations of
themselves and of the Other, are shaped by: a) their underlying assumption
that both Israelis and Koreans are representatives of their own national-
cultural environments and, therefore, are likely to enact their cultural
habitus; and b) their point of reference when seeking to learn more about
the way Israel and Korea are framed through the CCT industry. CCM
discourse, as it is popularized through CCT practices, we argue, shapes not
only our knowledge of CCM, but also the way that individuals experience
the world and their own position within it.
 In what follows, we first briefly present CCM literature and the CCT
industry and describe how CCM academic findings are conveyed in CCT
practices and displayed in public discourse. We then illustrate these paerns
in the specific case of Korea1 and Israel by examining and describing the
ways in whi the CCT industry and popular literature in both countries
depict the other’s culture. Drawing upon some 22 interviews held in 2009–14
with Korean and Israeli workers in R&D joint ventures, where they describe
their own and the others’ cultures, we show how these perceptions of
cultural differences affect their intercultural encounters. We conclude with
comments on the risks associated with the cultural training as it is
commonly practiced and suggest directions that this industry should follow
to overcome these hazards.

Reifying “national cultures”: from CCM to CCT

Drawing upon a review of over 1,000 publications on cross-cultural
organization behavior, Gelfand et al. (2007) define the field of CCM as
dealing with “cross-cultural similarities and differences in processes and
behavior at work and the dynamics of cross-cultural interfaces in multi-
cultural domestic and international contexts” (p. 480). According to this
review, CCM literature looks at how culture is related to micro-
organizational phenomena, su as individuals’ motives, cognitions, and
emotions, meso-organizational phenomena, su as team-work and
leadership, and macro-organizational aspects, su as organizational culture
and structure. While they present several definitions of “culture,” Gelfand et
al.’s review reveals a broad agreement between mainstream solars in the
field about what culture is and how it should be measured: “Although
definitions of culture vary,” they argue, “many emphasize that culture is
shared, is adaptive or has been adaptive at some point in the past, and is
transmied across time and generations” (Gelfand et al. 2007: 480). e
premise of CCM is that because of their strong influence on individuals,
organizations, and states, cultural differences should be taken into
consideration in ea and every managerial decision when more than a
single country is involved.
is growing concern with cultural differences and their effects on the
efficiency and productivity of intercultural operations incubated the growing
industrial sector of CCT and consultancy. Specializing in “an organized
educational experience with the objective of helping expatriates learn about,
and therefore adjust to, their home in a foreign land” (Zakaria 2000: 496),
CCT consultants present themselves as offering “both the content and skills
that facilitate effective cross-cultural interaction” (Bla & Mendenhall 1990:
120). According to Ja and Lorbiei (1999), this industry
consists of a highly influential network of corporations, private consultancies, government
organizations, authors, business sools and academic publications whi, when taken together,
exercise considerable power in making suggestions on how to do business with ‘others’, who are
deemed to be different from oneself.
(p. 1)

While recently emerging as an independent field of studies, focusing on

specific CCT practices and their contribution to firms’ efficiency and
profitability (e.g., Bla & Mendenhall 1990; Benne et al. 2000), a
preliminary review of CCT literature suggests that it draws heavily upon
CCM discourse and terminology. In fact, in a Google Solar sear that we
conducted in November 2013, among the 13,500 bibliographic items that
refer to “cross-cultural training,” about one-third also refers to one of the
two most widely cited CCM theories: Hofstede’s classification of cultures
based on their tendencies toward individualism, power distance, masculinity
or femininity, and uncertainty avoidance, and Swartz’s theory of the
universal content and structure of values. In addition, many other CCT
studies and commentaries rely upon GLOBE project’s cultural dimensions
for its closer focus on leadership (Javidan et al. 2006; Nam et al. 2014). In
that sense, CCT should be understood as a practical (although oen
oversimplifying) translation of CCM insights and vocabulary, making the
highly theorized and researed field of CCM accessible to and influential in
broader constituencies.
is strong influence of the CCM literature over CCT practices and tools
also calls for applying the critique of CCM theory to CCT. Mu like the
criticism levied against CCM (Holden 2002, 2004; Vaara et al. 2003; Frenkel
2008; Ja & Westwood 2009), CCT can also be criticized as being essentialist
(seeing culture as inherently coherent), static (stable over time and across
generations), and predominantly national (thus underestimating internal
variations). is critical move also sheds light on the potential risks that may
be associated with internalizing these cultural classifications by managers
and workers engaged in intercultural activities. For example, CCM’s
underlying assumption of “over socialization” – that all individuals are
social dopes, uncritically internalizing and enacting their national culture –
is imprinted into CCT “training for all” strategies, even if it is argued that
some groups (transnational elite, but also migrant workers) may be more
versatile in cultural exange, have more of an open mind for cross-cultural
differences, and thus, are beer equipped for intercultural encounters than
others.
e presentation of culture as essentialist, static, and nation-bound in
many CCM studies is sometimes enhanced by the methodological error
known as the “level of analysis confusion” (Saffer & Riordan 2003; Leung
et al. 2005; Kirkman et al. 2006; Tsui et al. 2007). In su cases, statistically
significant cultural tendencies are aributed to all members of the group,
defining ea person as a “typical” member, regardless of intra-cultural (or
otherwise) individual variation. e scarcity of studies looking at actual
intercultural encounters further exacerbates this methodological confusion
and therefore further weakens CCM and CCT knowledge. While mu of
the CCM literature offers predictions about intercultural teamwork, in most
cases these predictions are grounded in studies conducted at the individual
level (mostly using questionnaires, structured interviews, or vignees),
rather than examining interactions in everyday life (for exceptions, see
Moore 2005; Ailon 2007). On the other hand, studies relying upon
participants’ reports of their difficulties in communicating with foreign team
members oen aribute these difficulties to cultural gaps and differences
(Sirmon & Lane 2004), highlighting su cultural features as the
conceptualization of conflict management or approa to authority, rather
than (as is appropriate for the method of estimation) pointing to differences
in individuals’ points of view or personalities.
e aribution of communication and collaboration “difficulties” to
cultural rather than personal aracteristics may have both micro- and
macro-level outcomes (see Erez & Drori 2009). At the micro level, assuming
that all members of a certain culture would act similarly may lead to
misunderstandings and even ethnic discrimination. At the macro level,
however, consequences may be even more problematic. Cultural differences
are said to come with a price tag (Kogut & Singh 1988), reducing efficiency
and profitability: corporations may withhold partnering with those societies
whose cultural aributes are perceived as too different from that of the
home society and, as a result, countries with “disagreeable” cultural
aracteristics would find it difficult to compete for foreign investment.
Since most managers in the industrialized world are still from a Euro-
American origin, and since most MNCs engaged in investing across borders
are still based in the developed world, this equation may justify
discrimination against non-Western potential employees and prevent
economic development in certain countries (Frenkel 2008; Prasad 2009).
In other words, discourse in general, and authoritative scientific
discourses turned popular discourses su as CCM and CCT in particular,
are powerful tools in shaping the ways in whi people view ea other and
the world and in framing reality for them. “To frame,” argues Entman (1993),
“is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient
in a communicating text in su a way as to promote particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment
recommendation” (p. 52). In the case of cross-cultural encounters it is akin to
cultural sensemaking (Osland & Bird 2000). In classifying cultures into fixed
categories, selecting certain features of a culture to be more salient than
others, measuring the similarities and differences between cultures (using
terms su as cultural gap or distance), and predicting less efficient and more
expensive interactions between people and organizational units from two
very different cultures, the CCM academic discourse as well as its popular
translation offer a frame through whi people understand themselves and
others within the context of an international encounter. e methodological
confusion cited previously, whi leads to an assumption that a feature that
aracterizes a society at the macro level is encapsulated in ea member of
that society, may reinforce a stereotypical view that both parties within an
intercultural encounter may hold of ea other.
In this apter, we argue that cross-cultural exanges are shaped by
“tiers” of expertise in cross-cultural issues: solars of CCM, CCT
consultants, as well as the participants of su encounters, who, drawing on
their CCT knowledge, are reproducing the stereotypical view of the Other.
To illustrate the impact of CCT in imprinting intercultural encounters with
the logics of CCM, we turn to an empirical study conducted by the second
author of this apter (Lyan 2009). e study juxtaposes the academic and
popular CCM literature (as it is presented in books, websites, and documents
published by experts in, and brokers of cross-culture exange) with the
ways that popular media and Korean and Israeli participants of R&D joint
ventures refer to the others and describe themselves.

CCT in action: inter-cultural encounter between

Israel and Korea
[e Koreans] are very pedantic, very straight; we [Israelis] are […] very creative. I think we are
mu more creative than they are, in general [we are the] most creative in the whole world.
(Yossi, Israeli manager participating in an Israeli–Korean joint R&D project)

Yossi’s assessment of the differences between Koreans and Israelis was

eoed in many of the interviews with Israeli R&D professionals that were
conducted for this study. e diplomatic and economic relations between
Israel and Korea are relatively new, and given the geographic distance
between the two counties and the absence of a mutual history between
them, very few Israelis have had the ance to develop a stereotypical view
of Koreans and vice versa. How, then, did so many of our Israeli
interviewees come to describe their Korean colleagues in su similar ways,
using a rather limited and very specific vocabulary? In this brief empirical
section, we demonstrate how CCM and CCT discourse are eoed in
interviews with Israeli and Korean managers of small–medium enterprises,
whose collaborative R&D projects were supported by the Korea-Israel R&D
Fund (KORIL-RDF) from 2002 to 2013. We point to the similarities
betweenthe CCM and CCT profiling of these two societies and the ways in
whi the participants of this intercultural project have come to describe
ea other.
Both Korea and Israel are among the miracles of the global knowledge
economy. While the countries differ greatly in size and thus in economic
scope, with Korea numbering 50 million people as compared with Israel’s 7.2
million and with Korea boasting of a 2011 GNP of over $1.5 trillion as
compared with Israel’s $218 billion, both economies are classified as
“emerging markets” and both societies are classified as “developed” (Levi-
Faur 1998; Maman 2002). e global knowledge economy has brought both
countries to an interesting point of interaction: while the Korean
conglomerates – whi by 2012 accounted for over 80 percent of the Korean
economy – are seeking to spring their te creation and capacity, Israel’s
successful R&D industry has built the country’s reputation as a “Start-up
Nation” and as a hub of tenology creation (De Fontenay & Carmel 2004;
Senor & Singer 2009). As a result, Korea and Israel have come to be defined
as complementary, rather than competing, economies: Israel’s leadership in
knowledge creation, especially in elite tenologies, is complemented by
Korea’s superior production and marketing. Based on su an
understanding, numerous governmental programs were set to encourage
su partnerships between the two.
We argue that these economic partnerships are ripe with intercultural
exanges that are uniquely positioned. Whereas most CCM solarship
focuses on exanges between the global North and South, thus evoking the
discourse of power differentials between the global core and periphery, Israel
and Korea do not shadow the categories of developed and developing and
the relations between them do not trace an obvious power hierary. Rather,
Israeli–Korean R&D joint ventures are anored in the perceptions of
equivalent partners that are both supported by their governments. At the
same time, these perceptions – of Koreans by Israelis and of Israelis by
Koreans – are as if the consultants construct their perception of the “Other.”
More specifically, the stereotypes that came to be associated with Koreans
are of “hierarical doers” and “Easterners,” while Israelis were
stereotypically portrayed as “innovative thinkers” and “Westerners.”
Consultancies that specialize in Israeli–Korean business relations offer a
ri set of “dos and don’ts” in su intercultural encounters. ese pieces of
advice are quite categorical in their description of the two cultures as
distinct entities. For example, Yonaco, an Israeli-based consultancy, lists “the
10 commandments of negotiating with Koreans:”2 Commandment 2 instructs
on how to “build personal relations,” Commandment 4 unequivocally states
that “a woman is not suitable for negotiations in Korea,” and Commandment
8 describes that in Korea, a signed contract does not carry that same sanctity
as it would in the West and thus, negotiations never actually conclude. In its
various publications and workshops, these experts reproduce the common
view of the Korean culture as presented in many CCM studies (Dacin et al.
1997; Rowley & Paik 2009; Bae et al. 2011). In a similar vein, KOISRA, a
Korea-based consultancy firm, offers Israeli entrepreneurs mentoring for
Korean start-ups claiming to be “using the special knowhow of the Start-up
Nation.” While in the name of helping Israeli firms beer communicate with
Korean firms, the first consultancy seems to reproduce the somewhat
compromising stereotypes regarding Korean culture, the second consultancy
reproduces a similarly stereotypical, yet quite positive, view of the Israeli
culture implying the la of innovation in Korean firms. Su instruction
reduces Israeli and Korean cultures to specified sets of acceptable behaviors
and, by extension, to a limited and distinct set of cultural codes. ese
aempts at profiling both cultures, whi aim at helping both parties to
beer understand ea other, end up eoing Shenkar’s (2001) claims that
being “culturally different” is equated with being a stranger or a “typical
other,” that being considered a stranger carries dangers of aloofness,
frustration, and missed business opportunities, and that these give rise to the
need to be adequately trained before a cross-cultural encounter.
ese cultural stereotypes of hierary and innovation are eoed in
popular media as well. For example, an article in an Israeli national
newspaper from 2012, on collaboration between Israeli start-ups and Korean
conglomerates, was titled “e Israeli brain invents patents for South
Korea.”3 Whereas in the interview with the Korean CEO of Samsung Israel
in the same newspaper from 2011, the laer argued that “from cultural side,
people from the East obey more to authority, but Israelis fear less from
authority. ey have “hutspâ” [impertinence and audacity, in Hebrew].”4
All in all, both the CCM literature and the more popular CCT literature
tend to use Hofstede’s terminology on Israel and Korea as one of
individualism vs. collectivism and hierarical vs. horizontal power relations
in order to describe the differences between the two cultures, adding to them
the binary opposition between innovative, individualistic and close to the
West (Israel) and production-oriented, collectivistic and close to the East
(Korea).
ese binary cultural distinctions are also reflected in the way that Israeli
and Korean managers and workers have referred to ea other in the
interviews. us, for instance, an Israeli engineer has said:
When a CEO walks in, everyone falls over. Very hierarical compared with us. [In Israel]
everything is less hierarical; everyone’s a friend […]. I saw what’s hierary when I visited
[Korean conglomerate]. Oh yes, if only someone dared sit the wrong way, the manager would
walk in and everyone would stand at aention and sweat it.

Korean managers too expressed this stereotype of Israelis as innovative

thinkers, even if not always speaking of it in positive terms. In interviews
with a Korean CEO of a conglomerate’s affiliate office and with a Korean
engineer from another conglomerate’s subsidiary in Israel, both criticized
the “Israeli innovation” and the pride Israelis take in their innovativeness,
claiming that it represents a la of actual production capabilities. As the
Korean CEO explained, “Israelis are very innovative, but when I look out
from my office window [in Tel-Aviv] – I don’t see any factories that can
bring their creative ideas into life.”
e importance of the framing provided by CCM and CCT literatures in
shaping the everyday intercultural encounters is further enhanced when we
analyze Israeli managers’ references to the East–West divide. As we have
argued, neither Israel nor Korea have ever been part of the colonial “West,”
but rather, they are both considered newcomers to the developed world. Yet,
in the framing of their Korean colleagues’ cultural aracteristics, Israeli
managers do not rely upon stereotypes associated with Korea alone, but
rather turn to a more crude distinction between “East” and “West” as a
reference point to the “us” and “them.” e framing through whi they
aempt to understand Korean culture does not come from Western
economies but rather from other Asian nations. us, for instance, an Israeli
manager places Israelis as closer to Anglo-Saxon business partners than to
Asian ones (including the Koreans):
With Singaporeans, the experience is totally Western – as if I am speaking English with England
or the US; with China, there are many gaps in communication. ey are like Koreans but without
the honor bit.

In this statement, the Israeli manager constructs a cultural hierary of

countries with whi he feels comfortable interacting and those who are
more culturally distant, making the business transaction more complicated.
is hierary is associated with the country’s cultural proximity to the
Anglo-American culture. Israelis, in his view, are a natural part of this
culture while Asian nations vary in their affinity with this standard seing
culture.
A different Israeli manager compared the Koreans to another Asian
society, the Japanese, through the categorization of culture via the
individualistic–collectivistic diotomy. While in Israeli’s description of
Korean culture, it is usually described as collectivist when compared to the
Japanese culture, surprisingly, this culture is mu closer to the Israeli
individualistic image: “In Korea everything is more individualistic
[compared to Japan], they are mu more authoritative.”
In summary, Israelis and Koreans draw on the language used in CCM
literature and CCT tools to describe ea other as hierarical doers and
innovative thinkers respectively to express their impression of the
intercultural encounter. eir experience of working with ea other, as well
as decision-making processes and partner selection, are colored by the CCM
themes, namely cultural differences and the Hofstede-based typology of
cultural dimensions. With that intensification of trade and business relations
between Israel and Korea over the past two decades, any su Israeli–
Korean cultural encounter is loed into these doctrines of culture.
While previous studies have already demonstrated the importance of
national stereotypes in shaping intercultural encounters (see Vaara et al.
2003; Moore 2005; Ailon 2007), these studies have commonly dealt with the
encounter between two or more cultures that have a long history of constant
encounters, making the knowledge of the other, or rather, the development
of a stereotypical conceptualization of the other, part of the common public
discourse. When workers from different Nordic countries, for instance, use
national stereotypes to construct their understanding of the Other, they have
a long existing public discourse upon whi they draw (Vaara et al. 2003).
Similarly, the enduring close relations between Israelis and US Americans,
and the close familiarity of Israelis with Hollywood and other cultural
products, provide a readymade frame, through whi the encounter is
interpreted (Ailon 2007). In the case of Korea and Israel, su long-term
relations do not exist. e economic relations between the two countries
began to flourish only in the 1990s with the weakening of the Arab boyco
on any company who traded with Israel. e geographical distance and the
general marginality of both countries in terms of the broader geopolitical
map have yielded lile mutual interaction and knowledge. As a result, and
contrary to the expectation in CCM literature that stereotypes are formed
during prolonged interaction with “the Other,” the relations between
Koreans and Israelis are nourished by expectations that have not been
formed by lengthy interactions. is makes both Koreans and Israelis ever
more susceptible to the stereotypes constructed and conveyed by CCT. In
addition, because their relation is recent, the encounter between Koreans
and Israelis is predicated on pre-encounter profiling of Israelis as
“Westerners” and of the Koreans as “Asians,” even if su profiling casts
them into the hierarically ordered categories of the “West” and “the rest,”
and with that as center and periphery. It is against this baground that both
the Israelis and Koreans had to turn to CCM and CCT discourse when
aempting to enter and justify su collaborative relations.

Conclusion
In this apter, we offer an illustration of the imprint that CCM literature
and its translation into CCT consultancy leave on intercultural encounters.
We argue that the set of quantified dimensions of culture that was
delineated and replicated by CCM since the 1980s has molded CCT into
highlighting cultural differences. is discourse of cultural differences, as
well as the CCM terminology, is at the root of CCT strategies and is
therefore reflected in the manner that intercultural encounters are unfolded
and experienced. With the example of Israeli and Korean’s intercultural
encounters that occur in joint-venture projects, we trace the transference of
CCM to the R&D lab or the boardroom. Indeed, as detailed earlier, the
descriptions of the Other are rather uniform and consistent and, most
importantly, are saturated with CCM and CCT notions. CCM and CCT
prime cross-cultural encounters, grooming participants with stereotypes and
stereotools. While recent studies of intercultural relations have already
pointed to the importance of stereotypes in shaping these relations,
stereotypes were assumed to emerge either from long-term historical
intercultural relations or from the workplace encounter itself. Moreover,
given the strong emphasis CCM and CCT put on national cultures and
therefore nationally bounded stereotypes, earlier studies whi already
pointed to the role of stereotypes in general and of CCM/CCT produced
stereotypes in particular have highlighted the role of management discourse
in the production and reproduction of national identities, national
hieraries and images. Our case study demonstrates that the binary
distinction between the “West and the Rest,” whi, despite the major
anges in the global economy still riddles CCM/CCT discourse, adds
another layer to the stereotypical cognitive map through whi participants
in cross-cultural encounters view ea other and collaborate.
Beyond the reference to specific scaled dimensions of culture, the imprint
of CCT, and thus, also of CCM, is evident in the dominance of the notion of
cultural differences; the definition of one’s culture is made in juxtaposition
to the culture of the Other. e idea of cultural difference justifies the role of
the consultants; their expertise in cross-cultural training is required if indeed
there are cultural differences that require su bridging. erefore, beyond
the immediate gain of scope or profit, CCT also reifies the ethos of the field
of CCM. Cultural sensitivity, we argue, requires the opposite of cultural
profiling. Instead of educating workers and managers about other cultures as
if these cultures are homogeneous and static, CCT should focus on listening,
communicating, and keeping an open, rather than fixed, mind about their
partners within the intercultural exange.

Notes
1 e reference is to e Republic of Korea, or South Korea.

2 hp://the-koreans.com/?page_id=78, accessed 19 December 2013.

3 hp://www.calcalist.co.il/internet/articles/0,7340,L-3582425,00.html, accessed 19 December 2013.

4 hp://www.calcalist.co.il/internet/articles/0,7340,L-3515080,00.html, accessed 19 December 2013.

References
Ailon, G. (2007) Global Ambitions and Local Identities: An Israeli–American
High-tech Merger, New York: Berghan Books.
Ailon, G. (2008) ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s Consequences in a
value test of its own design’, Academy of Management Review, 33: 885–
904.
Bae, J., Chen, S. and Rowley, C. (2011) ‘From a paternalistic model towards
what? HRM trends in Korea and Taiwan’, Personnel Review, 40: 700–722.
Benne, R., Aston, A. and Colquhoun, T. (2000) ‘Cross-cultural training: A
critical step in ensuring the success of international assignments’,
Human Resource Management, 39: 239–250.
Bla, J.S. and Mendenhall, M. (1990) ‘Cross-cultural training effectiveness’,
Academy of Management Review, 15: 113–136.
Dacin, M.T., Hi, M.A. and Levitas, E. (1997) ‘Selecting partners for
successful international alliances: Examination of U.S. and Korean firms’,
Journal of World Business, 32: 3–16.
De Fontenay, C. and Carmel, E. (2004) ‘Israel’s Silicon Wadi: e forces
behind cluster formation’, in T.F. Breshahan and A. Gambardella (eds.)
Building High-Tech Clusters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 40–77.
Deshpande, S.P. and Viswesvaran, C. (1992) ‘Is cross-cultural training of
expatriate managers effective: A meta-analysis’, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 16: 295–310.
Entman, R.M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’,
Journal of Communication, 43: 51–58.
Erez, M. and Drori, G.S. (2009) ‘Global culture and organizational processes’,
in R.S. Bhagat and R.M. Steers (eds.) Handbook of Culture,
Organizations, and Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frenkel, M. (2008) ‘e multinational corporation a third space: Rethinking
international management discourse on knowledge transfer through
Homi Bhabha’, Academy of Management Review, 33: 924–942.
Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M. and Aycan, Z. (2007) ‘Cross-cultural organizational
behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Holden, N. (2002) Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management
Perspective, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Holden, N. (2004) ‘Why marketers need a new concept of culture for the
global knowledge economy’, International Marketing Review, 21: 563–
572.
House, R.J., Javidan, M. and Dorfman, P. (2001) ‘Project GLOBE: An
introduction’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50: 489–505.
Ja, G. and Lorbiei, A. (1999) ‘e cross-cultural training industry: Well-
intentioned service provider or tenology of Anglo-American neo-
imperialism’, paper presented at Critical Management Studies
Conference, Globalization Stream, UK, July 1999.
Ja, G. and Westwood, R. (2009) International and Cross-Cultural
Management Studies: A Postcolonial Reading, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan Basingstoke.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., deLuque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006) ‘In the eye
of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from project
GLOBE’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67–90.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006) ‘A quarter century of
Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical resear incorporating
Hofstede’s cultural values framework’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 37: 285–320.
Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘e effect of national culture on the oice of
entry mode’, Journal of International Business Studies, 19: 411–432.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buan, N.R., Erez, M. and Gibson, C.B. (2005)
‘Culture and international business: Recent advances and their
implications for future resear’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 36: 357–378.
Levi-Faur, D. (1998) ‘e developmental state: Israel, South Korea, and
Taiwan compared’, Studies in Comparative International Development,
33: 65–93.
Lyan, I. (2009) ‘Cultural distance in international R&D projects with
governmental support: e case study of Korea–Israel R&D Fund’,
unpublished thesis, e Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Maman, D. (2002) ‘e emergence of business groups: Israel and South Korea
compared’, Organization Studies, 23: 737–758.
Moore, F. (2005) Transnational Business Cultures: Life and Work in a
Multinational Corporation, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘National cultural distance and
cross-border acquisition performance’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 29: 137–158.
Nam, K., Cho, Y. and Lee, M. (2014) ‘West meets East? Identifying the gap in
current cross-cultural training resear’, Human Resource Development
Review, 13: 36–57.
Osland, J.S. and Bird, A. (2000) ‘Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural
sensemaking in context’, The Academy of Management Executive, 14:
65–77.
Prasad, A. (2009) ‘Contesting hegemony through genealogy: Foucault and
cross cultural management resear’, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 9: 359–369.
Rowley, C. and Paik, Y. (eds.) (2009) The Changing Face of Korean
Management, London: Routledge.
Saffer, B.S. and Riordan, C.M. (2003) ‘A review of cross-cultural
methodologies for organizational resear: A best-practices approa’,
Organizational Research Methods, 6: 169–215.
Swartz, S.H. (2004) ‘Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around
the world’, in H. Vinken, J. Soeters and P. Ester (eds), Comparing
Cultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, Leiden:
Brill, pp. 43–73.
Senor, D. and Singer, S. (2009) Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s
Economic Miracle, New York: Twelve/e Council on Foreign Relations.
Shenkar, O. (2001) ‘Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous
conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences’, Journal of
International Business Studies, 32: 519–535.
Sirmon, D.G. and Lane, P.J. (2004) ‘A model of cultural differences and
international alliance performance’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 35: 306–319.
Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D.A. and Russell, C.J. (2005) ‘e effect of cultural
distance on entry mode oice, international diversification, and MNE
performance: A meta-analysis’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 36: 270–283.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007) ‘Cross-national, cross-cultural
organizational behavior resear: Advances, gaps, and
recommendations’, Journal of Management, 33: 426–478.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Säni, R. (2003) ‘e international mat:
Metaphors as vehicles of social identity-building in cross-border
mergers’, Human Relations, 56: 419–451.
Zakaria, N. (2000) ‘e effects of cross-cultural training on the acculturation
process of the global work-force’, International Journal of Manpower, 21:
492–510.
43
Finns, Russians, and the smokescreen
of ‘culture’
A micro-political perspective on managerial
struggles in multinationals

Alexei Koveshnikov

It’s time to stop blaming “cultural problems” when a merger fails to work and look beyond the
smokescreen for the real reason for failure – namely that management has failed to make the deal
work properly.

(Brian Amble, Don’t play the blame game, 21 December 2006)

Introduction

e world of international business is inhabited by people. And it is people

with their diverse cultural bagrounds who, under specific circumstances,
make decisions, act, hesitate, struggle, regret, win, and lose in international
business organizations. Nonetheless, until recently the role of human agency
and context in cross-cultural management (CCM) has received scant
aention in international management literature (e.g., Dörrenbäer &
Geppert 2011, 2013; Piekkari & Wel 2010). At the same time, this literature
has been flooded with studies assigning key priority in determining the
behavior of actors in the seing of cross-cultural organizations to structural
factors su as cultural distances and cultural differences. In this literature
notions of “culture” and “cultural differences” are more oen than not
presented as macro-phenomena that are “taken-for-granted,” static, inflexible,
and “frozen” in time, quantifiable and measurable, and stripped of any
political or power connotations (for criticism see McSweeney 2002; Ailon-
Souday & Kunda 2003; Ailon 2008).
Notwithstanding the informative and explanatory value of this stream of
literature, it is possible that by prioritizing structural explanations and
downplaying the role of human agency, we miss out on the fundamental
processes that determine the outcomes of cross-cultural interactions in
international business organizations. Perhaps by going behind this
“smokescreen,” we can observe a somewhat different CCM, one consisting of
social and economic interaction between organizational actors through whi
sense is made, specific interests are pursued, particular aspects of
organizational reality are emphasized, identity work is done, politics is played
out, and power is exercised through consensus, conflict, and/or resistance (see
Morgan 2001; Kristensen & Zeitlin 2005; Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2011).
In this apter I aempt to do precisely that. By focusing on the
multinational corporation, the central object of study in international
management, I argue that it would be both beneficial and necessary to
include human agency and the role of context into CCM solarship. Doing
so would help to dispel the aforementioned “smokescreen” of structural
explanations and uncover the power and political aspects of the cross-cultural
interactions within multinational corporations that oen pass unnoticed in
conventional approaes to CCM. To illustrate how this can be done, I discuss
how CCM interaction in multinationals can be viewed and examined in
terms of the micro-political struggles among the actors around resources,
interests, and identities.
Existing and emerging approaes to cross-cultural
management
In contrast to the dominant static, apolitical, and power-neutral theorizations
of cultural interactions, I argue in this apter for the need to employ more
dynamic, agency-focused, and power-driven approaes to cross-cultural
interactions and relations (within the multinational and more generally); this
would focus more aention on the context and the actors involved in those
interactions and relations.
Seeking more dynamic, agency-focused, and power-nuanced approaes to
cross-cultural interactions and relations (with the focus on multinational
corporations), a growing body of comparative institutionalist literature
sprang into existence. It placed greater emphasis on examining how
managerial activities within multinationals are influenced by national,
cultural, and institutional home and host contexts (e.g. Ferner & intanilla
1998; Ferner 2000; Geppert et al. 2003; Almond & Ferner 2006; Blazejewski
2006). is literature depicted “cultures” and “cultural differences” within
multinationals not as static endogenous properties of the actors, but rather as
social constructions, whi are (re)negotiated by those actors through their
collective cross-cultural interactions. Moreover, these interactions and
cultural (re)negotiations were shown to be power-laden and driven by the
political interests of the actors involved, thereby (re)constructing specific
power relations amongst these actors and amongst their respective parts of
the multinational.
Building on this literature, a micro-political perspective on multinationals
has recently been taken up (e.g. Morgan 2001; Kristensen & Zeitlin 2005;
Morgan & Kristensen 2006; Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013;
Geppert & Dörrenbäer 2014). It suggests treating micro-political conflicts
and confrontations, whi are defined as aempts of actors to exert a
formative influence on social structures and human relations (see
Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2009), as an unavoidable social reality and a natural
meanism of social, including cross-cultural, interactions in the
multinational. Further, the multinational itself is conceptualized as a trans-
national social space (Morgan 2001) or a contested terrain (Edwards &
Belanger 2009) where a multitude of distinct rationalities and/or
organizational actors and their respective subjectivities coexist and joey for
dominance. e multinational is viewed as a political arena where powerful
actors located across (numerous) geographic, cultural, and linguistic divides
“must make sense, manipulate, negotiate, and partially construct their
institutional environments” (Kostova et al. 2008: 1001), oen through cross-
cultural interactions and negotiations that inevitably involve particular
constructions of “culture” and “cultural differences.”
erefore, by adopting a more boom-up and actor-focused approa, this
perspective highlights the micro-political nature of cross-cultural interactions
in multinationals and emphasizes the social agency of the actors in these
interactions. It argues for the centrality of the identities and interests of the
actors (Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2011). e identities are assumed to be
flexible and multiple and the list of interests is long and includes, but is not
limited to, the career aspirations and prospects of the organizational actors
(Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2009), their desire to acquire higher status (Clark &
Geppert 2006), and their inclination to gain authority and legitimize control
(van Marrewijk 2010).
is apter pursues an examination of cross-cultural interactions within
the multinational on the basis of these theoretical ideas. In what follows I will
discuss – in keeping with the classification of Dörrenbäer and Geppert
(2006) – three different views on cross-cultural interactions in multinationals.
ey are depicted namely in terms of the micro-political struggles around the
resources, interests, and identities that can elucidate the agency of the actors
and the power aspects pertinent to these interactions. I will illustrate these
using the seing of Finland-based multinationals operating in Russia, whi
is introduced in more detail in the following section.
e resear context: Finland-based multinationals
operating in Russia
e context of Finnish–Russian business interactions is very illuminating for
examination of the role played by power and politics in cross-cultural
managerial activities in multinationals. Due to a long joint history and
geographic proximity, people in both countries have had many opportunities
to be subjected to various public and media opinions and ideas about one
another. e currently growing volume of business interactions across the
Finnish–Russian border increasingly requires managers to reflect and make
sense of their activities and interactions with “the other.”
Historically, Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden for some 800
years and adopted its judicial and governmental systems and its political
structure from Sweden. en, for more than 100 years, Finland was a Great
Duy of the Russian Empire. During that time there were several aempts to
“Russify” (i.e., to force adoption of the Russian language) the new territory.
Finland declared its independence in 1917.
In 1939–40, the two countries fought the Winter War and both sustained
heavy losses. In the end, although a substantial part of eastern Finland was
annexed by the Soviet Union, Finland remained independent. In 1948, Finland
commied itself to a Treaty of Cooperation, Friendship and Mutual
Assistance with the Soviet Union, whi became the basis for political and
economic relations between the two countries until 1991. Finland
nevertheless consistently sought to limit the influence of the Soviet Union
solely to economic issues and resisted any aempts to impose ideological
demands.
e breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 caused the deepest recession in
the history of Finland, whi lasted until the mid-1990s. It did, however, serve
as the main incentive for investing in new tenologies and for the
subsequent ascendance of the electronics and telecommunications industry
into one of the main sectors of foreign trade. Finnish FDIs in Russia grew
constantly between 1994 and 2008. Aer a downturn due to the financial
crisis, these investments have continued to pi up since 2010.
e common history of the two countries is reflected in a number of pre-
conceived ideas that both nations have about ea other. ere are ninames
that both Russians and Finns have adopted. e Finns use “ryssä,” whi is
oen applied somewhat pejoratively to all Russian-speaking people in
Finland, including the ildren of mixed Finnish–Russian marriages. Formed
later from the noun “ryssä,” the verb “ryssiä” literally means “to screw
something up.” It acquired its pejorative connotation during efforts by the
Russian Empire to “Russify” Finland at the beginning of the twentieth
century. Similarly, the Russians apply the name “tsukhna” to Finns.
Historically, this term was used to denote Finns living in areas close to St.
Petersburg and Lake Ladoga, but it has more recently acquired pejorative
connotations of being “undeveloped” and “uncivilized” (Protasova 2003).

Cross-cultural interactions in multinational

companies as micro-political struggles
In this section I will apply the classification by Dörrenbäer and Geppert
(2006), who have suggested that micro-political conflicts and confrontations
can be seen as struggles around resources, interests, and identities, to suggest
three views on cross-cultural management that can be used to elucidate
political and power aspects pertinent to cross-cultural interactions and
negotiations amongst actors in a multinational. e key features of these
views and of the one that can be seen as a more traditional view on CCM in
the multinational, in terms of how they conceptualize a multinational, culture
and cultural differences and what role they assign to actors, context and
power/politics, are summarized in Table 43.1 on the next page. e following
sections offer more elaborate descriptions of the suggested views with some
empirical illustrations.
Cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around resources

First, drawing on Dörrenbäer and Geppert’s (2006) framework, cross-

cultural interactions in multinationals can be looked at through the lens of
actors’ struggle for access, possession, and control over the scarce resources
of a multinational. Securing su access and control is closely linked with the
motivation of actors to increase their organizational power and
control/autonomy. Viewed from this perspective, cross-cultural interactions
are seen as situational instances in and through whi actors negotiate their
respective access to and control over scarce and critical organizational
resources.
It is obvious that resources of a multinational are finite and limited. is
scarcity inevitably requires actors to compete for available resources. e
case of relatively small multinationals (su as those based in Finland) that
buy out existing companies and manufacturing facilities in Russia is
particularly illustrative. Su acquisitions are likely to require large
investments to improve organizational infrastructures, tenologies, and
competences. No wonder that having made su substantial investments, the
investing side (usually headquarters) is interested in controlling how they are
implemented by the receiving side (usually the subsidiary). e relationship
is further intensified once a host market becomes an important source of
profit and growth for the entire multinational.
e ways in whi the budgeting process is handled and contested in
multinationals offer a directly related and oen quite revealing example of
how a micro-political struggle around scarce resources affects cross-cultural
interactions (see also Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2009). Although formally
presented as a negotiation process based on purely rational arguments that
are aired by the actors involved to ensure the best possible division and
assignment of resources for the entire organization, it frequently entails a
power-laden struggle for the access to and distribution of critical resources.
Consider the budgeting process in a Finnish multinational operating in
Russia. It comprised budget negotiations between a management team from
the Russian subsidiary and a management team from headquarters in
Finland. At the time, the Russian subsidiary was the fastest growing and most
profitable unit in the entire company. When the Russian unit started to
prepare a budget for approval by headquarters, the Finnish side refused to
accept and approve the calculations presented. e Russian side justified a
somewhat higher level of expenditure with the requirements of Russian
accounting standards and legislation. Yet, despite the opinion of the Russian
managers that they had done “a great job in the budgeting process,”
describing and clarifying every expenditure item in detail, the budget had to
be recalculated several times and in the end

Table 43.1 e four views on cross-cultural management in the multinational

Cross-cultural Cross-cultural Cross-cultural

Traditional management management as a management
view as a struggle struggle for as a struggle
for resources interests over identities

A political
A political arena where
arena where the division of
A political arena
the division of power is
A network of where the division
power is primed by
units of power is primed
primed by the actors’
View of the managed in a by the ability of
ability of identity work
multinational top-down actors to pursue
actors to and
manner by and fulfill their
secure access (re)negotiation
headquarters interests and
to and control over "who
objectives
over critical they are" in
resources relation to the
other
 Cross-cultural Cross-cultural Cross-cultural
Traditional management management as a management
view as a struggle struggle for as a struggle
for resources interests over identities

Culture and Culture and

cultural cultural
Culture and Culture and
aributes are aributes are
cultural cultural aributes
social social
aributes are are social
constructions constructions
View of static, constructions that
that are that are
culture and measurable are (re)produced
(re)produced (re)produced
cultural macro-level by actors to be
by actors to be by actors to be
differences variables, used as discursive
used as used as
determinants resources in
discursive discursive
of the actors’ micro-political
resources in resources in
behavior struggles
micro-political micro-political
struggles struggles
Actors have
the agency to
Actors are
legitimate or
embodiments Actors have the Actors have
de-legitimate
of the agency to the agency to
particular
The role of (cultural) legitimate or de- (re)construct
views on their
actors context they legitimate their their national
rights to
inhabit and particular interests identity vis-a-
access and
where they and worldviews vis "the other"
possess
operate
particular
resources
 Cross-cultural Cross-cultural Cross-cultural
Traditional management management as a management
view as a struggle struggle for as a struggle
for resources interests over identities

Context serves
Context is a as a
Context
pre- depository of
serves as a Context serves as
determined, discursive
depository of a depository of
given, and resources
discursive discursive
known (cultural
The role of justifications justifications that
variable, the stereotypes)
context that actors actors utilize in
effects of that actors
utilize in their legitimating their
whi are to utilize to
micro-political interests and
be managed (re)construct
struggles for worldviews
and their national
resources
controlled identity vis-a-
vis "the other"
Power and
e balance of e balance of
politics e balance of
power or power is
emanate power is
status quo is politically
from politically
politically (re)negotiated by
ineffective (re)negotiated
The role of (re)negotiated/ actors through
management, by actors
power and struggled over their aempts at
are structural through their
politics among actors modifying/altering
inefficiencies national
through their the meanings of
and need to identity
micro-political organizational
be managed construction
struggles for reality in their
and processes
resources favor
overcome

there was still no “officially approved budget for the factory.” One of the
Russian respondents made the following comment:
 I do not really understand this because on the one hand there were detailed calculations and costs
projections and so on presented and no-one [at headquarters] really looked at them and at the same
time no-one [at headquarters] was really prepared to say that it [the budget] is approved and [we
can] go ahead … [is] does not prevent us [the Russian subsidiary] from … functioning properly
but this [situation] when you have to present it [the budget] like N times and it is still not approved
… what is the point?

Nonetheless, throughout the entire process the Finnish side persistently

asked, “why would this [legislation and accounting standards] be different
[in Russia] than everywhere else in the world.”
In response, one Russian manager ironically expressed his view on the
issue, underscoring that the essence of this budget-related “rope pulling” was
rooted in the mistrust felt by Finnish managers towards their Russian
colleagues and their inclination to preserve control over financial resources in
the organization:
I think that [these problems are] driven by the fact that they [Finns] are afraid that if they approve
the budget then maybe we [Russians] will suddenly spend millions of euros … I do not know for
what but … I do not really understand this.

Another example comes from another Finland-based company where a

Russian manager working at the Russian subsidiary pointed out that despite
the fact that Russia represents the most strategically important market for the
company in terms of growth potential and profitability, the Finnish
headquarters consistently tried to exclude Russian managers from
information exange, important discussions concerning organizational
anges and developmental programs, and company-wide IT projects. It
indicates that even if working for the good of one and the same company,
managers in different companies’ units consistently engaged in micro-
political activities to ensure that they knew more and possessed more
important information than others.
We consider ourselves to be … quite [an] important part of [the company] … [but] it seems that
they [the Finnish headquarters and managers] think that we [the Russian subsidiary and managers]
do not need it [to be included in the information exange space] or maybe they think that we are
not at the right level to be included in this project and I think that it is not right.
ese short examples shed some light on one micro-political element of
cross-cultural interactions and negotiations in multinationals: how these
cross-cultural interactions are oen underpinned by the efforts of
organizational actors to secure their access to and control over important and
finite organizational resources, be they of a financial or more intangible
nature, su as access to important information exanges and discussions.
rough the struggle for resources that cross-cultural interactions propagate,
the actors involved are able to (re)negotiate the intra-organizational balance
of power among themselves.

Cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around interests

e second view in Dörrenbäer and Geppert’s (2006) classification suggests

that cross-cultural interactions in multinationals can be examined through
the lens of the struggle for power by the actors, whi is driven by their
professional and personal interests. Here power is not seen as being obtained
by securing access to or control over organizational resources but rather by
ensuring that the ultimate course of events benefits one’s interests to the
highest possible extent.
Cross-cultural interactions around organizational goals and objectives that
are oentimes framed through the lens of organizational effectiveness and
efficiency (i.e., whi goals and objectives would make the organization most
effective and efficient) tend at the same time to veil and avoid discussions
concerning whose goals and objectives are presented as those of the
organization. e same can be applied to instances of organizational
restructurings, shutdowns, layoffs, corporate appointments, etc. in
multinationals. e underlying question, whi is oen le at the periphery
of these activities, is whose interests are being served and who benefits most
from these anges (see Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2006). at is where power
and politics can be found in cross-cultural interactions among actors in
multinationals.
 Consider an example of one Finnish multinational operating in Russia that
has been on the brink of separating its Russian business into a stand-alone
division. ere were well-grounded arguments to support this decision:
quier decision-making, cost effectiveness, and more effective utilization of
the locally available competences and knowledge. Whereas both the Finnish
headquarters and the Russian subsidiary agreed on the need to implement
this crucial step, there was less agreement concerning who was going to lead
the newly formed division. Inclined to exercise close control over one of the
company’s most important and substantial investments, Finnish managers
insisted (and in fact later imposed their opinion) that it has to be someone
from the headquarters. One top Finnish manager put it as follows:
ere will be a Finnish guy on top. It is not explicitly so that top guy has to be from Finland but the
top guy needs to be from the outside [of Russia] … [e Russian] team has learnt to have a lot of
confidence in their Finnish counterparts and in their sort of mother company … [T]o employ a
Russian to be on top of that team is a serious risk.

On the other hand, managers in the Russian management team were of the
opinion that “business in Russia has to be done either with the hands of
Russian managers or with the hands of those managers … who know Russia
very well … because … you have to live here [in Russia] and you have to feel
it every minute.” It should be mentioned that the company was then
developing plans for a substantial expansion in the Russian market: both (a)
developing strategies for widening and extending its sales annels to cover a
larger area of the Russian market and (b) seeking opportunities to expand its
operations via acquisitions or greenfield investments in major Russian cities
other than Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the company had been already
operating. Hence the position in question could have provided its holder with
the status and respect of someone who would expand and accelerate the
company’s business in Russia. e position was clearly very aractive
considering the company’s optimistic prospects in Russia.
In this situation Russian managers were keen to remind their Finnish
colleagues in the cross-cultural negotiations that they were “the team of 10–
15 people … in their respective functions” at the Russian unit who had so far
been very successful in turning the Russian unit into “the main profit maker”
for the entire company. e overall message from the Russian managers to
headquarters was that it was unnecessary at the moment to hire a new
person as general director of the new division. Instead, the currently available
people, who had already proven their ability to manage business operations
in Russia and moreover had “some strong ambitions,” could be relied on to
carry out this important task.
In the end, the position was given to a Finnish executive from
headquarters. Irrespective of its outcome, this short case illustrates how,
when examined closely and with a good understanding of the organizational
context and the motives and interests (both of whi are needed) of the actors
involved, cross-cultural negotiations in multinationals oen not only reflect
structurally determined cultural or psyic distances between a headquarters
and a subsidiary or between home (Finland) and host (Russia) countries, but
also serve as a sort of “smokescreen” for more politically and power-laden
negotiations concerning the interests, motives, and career aspirations of the
actors involved. Here, the level of power that organizational actors are able to
gain in their respective organizations hinges on their ability to convince
others through cross-cultural interactions that their personal interests and the
interests of their organization are identical.

Cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around

identities
Finally, based on Dörrenbäer and Geppert (2006), cross-cultural interactions
in multinationals can also be viewed as a process of defining and
(re)constructing by the actors of the sense of their identity, i.e., of “who we
are” in relation to “the other.” Cultural identity has been shown to supply a
range of ideas, pre-conceptions, and prejudices concerning “self” and “other”
that organizational actors in cross-cultural organizations su as
multinationals use to define, frame, and influence important organizational
issues and practices (Ailon-Souday & Kunda 2003; Koveshnikov 2011). Seeing
cross-cultural interactions in multinationals as micro-political struggles
around actors’ identities implies that through these interactions the actors
strive to define their “self” identity in a more beneficial manner vis-à-vis “the
other.” is can take several forms, su as defining oneself as more “modern,”
“developed,” “hard working,” or “knowledgeable.” Importantly, these struggles
(re)create a certain balance of power among the actors involved, inevitably
making the positions of some more beneficial and dominant than those of
others. e potential power and political effects of these interactions in
multinationals include constructions of superior–inferior, ethnocentric–
polycentric, global–local, and developed–undeveloped relationships between
the actors.
In the Finland-based multinational in Russia introduced in the previous
section, cultural stereotyping was an important part of the actors’ cross-
cultural interactions around a wide range of both strategic and operational
issues. When reflecting on their business relations with their Finnish
colleagues, Russian managers frequently alluded in various ways to the fact
that in their view “Nordic culture” was one of the main reasons why Finnish
companies were unable to realize their full potential in the Russian market. It
was reflected in statements su as “Finns are very Finnish” in their business
behaviors and aitudes, implying a la of the courage and boldness needed
to seize the business opportunities offered by “the big world outside.” Finns
were portrayed as not especially competent in managing the uncertainty and
dynamism of the Russian business context. ey were depicted as being too
slow and “very difficult to encourage … to do big things … [and] take risks.”
Importantly, these aracterizations of Finnish managers were juxtaposed
with certain opinions held by the Russian managers. Consider the following
juxtaposition from a Russian respondent describing the “Finnish way” and
the “Russian way” to do business:
I compare Finns to a bee. If you put a bee in a jar or a bole and, you know, it is considered to be
intelligent (laughs), but it will fly only in one and the same direction and then, aer dozens of
aempts, it will just fall down and die. So this is the way that people in Finland are oen operating.
But if you take a fly and put it in a bole, it will just move around randomly here and there but it
will finally find the way out, so the problem is solved. And … this is the way Russians work.
Finnish managers also used certain culturally bound views about their
Russian counterparts to make sense of their cross-cultural interactions with
Russians. Overall, Finnish managers did not consider their Russian colleagues
well-versed in Western business practices su as strategic planning and
operational decision-making, whi presumably require a thorough analytical
mindset. Instead, Russian managers were seen as representatives of a culture
that is primarily driven by emotions and feelings rather than by the
analytical thinking necessary for managing business across borders. Hence
the Finnish managers felt that their Russian counterparts oen acted on the
spur of the moment without thinking too mu and were too oen carried
away from reality.
ese ideas were further complemented by another stereotype: “Russians
are not reliable, … they are dishonest, [and]… you can’t really trust them.”
Russian managers were not seen as trustworthy and the untrustworthiness
was then oen referred to by Finnish managers when discussing their cross-
cultural work-related interactions: “I don’t see that as important to hold to the
statistics in the reports that Russians send to Finland, because I don’t really
trust them.” Additionally, Finnish managers held certain beliefs concerning
the compulsion felt by Russian managers and employees to defer more
generally to strong authority and hierary. is was portrayed as an
example of the “big expectation that there is a certain person who has the
responsibility and makes the decision,” whi is rooted in Russian culture.
All in all, the essence of cross-cultural interactions viewed as a micro-
political struggle around identity and its power implications are effectively
summarized by a Russian manager who reflected upon interactions between
headquarters and the subsidiary from the laer’s point of view: “Sometimes
there is … a feeling that you are perceived [by the other party] as an idiot,
some kind of a bear with a balalaika, who neither knows nor understands
anything.” e power and political rationale of su cross-cultural
interactions is clear – the actors’ inclination to construct one’s identity as
being more beneficial and positive than that of the other.
Concluding remarks
In this apter I have aempted to provide some arguments for why CCM
literature should pay aention to the power and politics pertinent to cross-
cultural interactions. At the moment, these aspects seem to be ignored by this
very literature. Nevertheless, cross-cultural interactions are in essence
contested and politicized activities because they annel and determine the
distribution of scarce and critical resources, provide opportunities for the
involved actors to pursue and realize their interests and objectives, and serve
as a social space where the actors engage in identity work, (re)negotiating
“who they are” in relation to the other – oen in a self-serving manner.
To comprehend this side of cross-cultural interactions in cross-cultural
organizations su as multinationals, whi has so far not been understood
very well but is nonetheless crucial in practice, international management
solars need to conceptualize the multinational (a paragon of cross-cultural
organization) as a “transnational social space” where the identities and
interests of diverse organizational actors as well as their subjectivities and
agencies come to the fore and become the focal point of analysis (cf.
Dörrenbäer & Geppert 2006, 2011, 2013).
By so doing and thus going beyond the dominant structural cultural
explanations, international management solars could shed additional light
on why various issues related to CCM oen prove so difficult for
multinationals in practice: transfers of knowledge and practices across
borders are oen allenging, cross-border mergers and acquisitions are
statistically more likely to fail than to succeed, and cross-cultural teams are
haunted by conflicts and tensions. Oentimes all these problems are
aributed, at least by those who are in arge, to presumably irreconcilable
cultural differences. In fact, international management solars have so far
been keen on piing up this rhetoric and testing its validity in numerous
studies on cross-cultural compatibility and cultural differences. At the same
time, other possible explanations, whi also seem very natural, if we keep in
mind that those very multinationals consist of human beings, have been kept
at the periphery.
 In this apter, I have argued that traditional perspectives on CCM in
multinationals need to be complemented with other perspectives that focus
more on the political and power aspects of the multinational’s internal
functioning. In my view, the micro-political perspective on the multinational
can be a good candidate because it allows researers to go behind “the
smokescreen” of cultural explanations and highlights the role of the career
aspirations and professional ambitions of organizational actors, their craving
for power and decision-making authority, and their inclination to identify
themselves vis-à-vis the other in a more beneficial light.
e perspective offers a classification of what cross-cultural interactions in
the multinational are likely to entail. e three suggested views on cross-
cultural interactions as struggles around resources, interests, and identities
can be used as empirical seings and conceptual lenses to unravel political
and power aspects, including the role of context and agency, in cross-cultural
interactions among organizational actors in multinationals.

References
Ailon, G. (2008) ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a
value test of its own design’. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 885–
904.
Ailon-Souday, G. and Kunda, G. (2003) ‘e local selves of global workers:
e social construction of national identity in the face of organizational
globalization’. Organization Studies, 24(7): 1073–1096.
Almond, P. and Ferner, A. (2006) American multinationals in Europe, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Amble, B. (2006) ‘Don’t play the blame game’, Management Issues, 21
December. Available: hp://www.management-
issues.com/news/3856/dont-play-the-blame-game/ (accessed 1 July 2014).
Blazejewski, S. (2006) ‘Transferring value-infused organizational practices in
multinational companies’, in M. Geppert and M. Mayer (eds.) Global,
 national and local practices in multinational companies: 63–104.
Houndmills: Macmillan.
Clark, E. and Geppert, M. (2006) ‘Socio-political processes in international
management in post-socialist contexts: Knowledge, learning and
transnational institution building’. Journal of International Management,
12: 340–357.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (2006) ‘Micro-politics and conflict in
multinational corporations: Current debates, re-framing, and
contributions of this special issue’. Journal of International Management,
12: 251–265.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (2009) ‘Micro-political games in the
multinational corporation: e case of mandate ange’. Management
Revue, 20(4): 373–391.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (eds.). (2011) Politics and power in the
multinational corporation: The role of institutions, interests and identities,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörrenbäer, C. and Geppert, M. (2013) ‘e dark side of the moon: Power
and politics in the multinational corporation’. The European Financial
Review, April–May: 25–28.
Edwards, P. K. and Belanger, J. (2009) ‘e MNC as a contested terrain’, in S.
Collinson and G. Morgan (eds.), Images of the multinational firm: 193–
216.
Oxford: Wiley.
Ferner, A. (2000) ‘e underpinnings of “bureaucratic” control systems: HRM
in European multinationals’. Journal of Management Studies, 37(4): 521–
539.
Ferner, A. and intanilla, J. (1998) ‘Multinationals, national business
systems and HRM: e enduring influence of national identity or a
process of “Anglo-Saxonization”’. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 9(4): 710–731.
Geppert, M. and Dörrenbäer, C. (2014) ‘Politics and power within
multinational corporations: Mainstream studies, emerging critical
 approaes and suggestions for future resear’. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 16(2): 226–244.
Geppert, M., Maen, D. and Williams, K. (2003) ‘Change management in
MNCs: How global convergence intertwines with national diversities’.
Human Relations, 56(7): 807–838.
Kostova, T., Roth, K. and Dacin, T. M. (2008) ‘Institutional theory in the study
of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions’. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4): 994–1006.
Koveshnikov, A. (2011) ‘National identity in times of organizational
globalization: A case study of two Finnish–Russian organizations’, in C.
Dorrenbaer and M. Geppert (eds.) Politics and power in the
multinational corporation: The role of interests, identities, and
institutions: 346–379. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristensen, P. H. and Zeitlin, J. (2005) Local players in global games: The
strategic constitution of a multinational corporation, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis’, Human
Relations, 55: 89–118.
Morgan, G. (2001) ‘Transnational communities and business systems’. Global
Networks, 1: 113–130.
Morgan, G. and Kristensen, P. H. (2006) ‘e contested space of
multinationals: Varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism’.
Human Relations, 59(1): 1467–1490.
Piekkari, R. and Wel, C. (2010) ‘e human dimension in multinational
management: A way forward’. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
26(4): 467–476.
Protasova, E. J. (2003) ‘Finni i russkie v zerkale russkojazinoj pressi
Finljandii’ (in Russian). Sociological Investigations, 5: 113–121.
van Marrewijk, A. H. (2010) ‘Situational construction of Dut–Indian
cultural differences in global IT pro jects’. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(4): 368–381.
44
Management is ba!
Cross-cultural encounters in virtual teams

Johanna Saarinen and Rebecca Piekkari

Introduction

In many organizations, geographically and organizationally distributed

work has become a common mode of operation. In response to the
allenges of globalization, cost savings, and increasing customer demands,
the amount of virtual work is growing rapidly; it has been projected that
within a few years more than 1.3 billion people will work virtually (Graon
& Johns 2013; Kelley & Kelloway 2012). Global virtual work is posing new
allenges for cross-cultural management because managers are increasingly
required to lead culturally different people whom they rarely see. At the
same time, current leadership trends strongly emphasize “so,” people-
oriented leadership aracterized by support for employees, coaing, and
emotional intelligence (Avolio et al. 2009; Zander et al. 2012). We show,
however, that the current reality of global virtual team leadership oen boils
down to “hard-core” management by numbers and coercive control, despite
efforts by managers to the contrary. ere is simply neither room nor time to
take up personal, informal, or unplanned issues. Instead, leadership tasks are
determined by virtual circumstances and formal processes, leaving lile
opportunity to build close relationships with geographically scaered team
members.
is apter focuses on how “virtuality” alters the leadership of global
teams, a topic that has received limited aention in previous resear
(Jonsen et al. 2013; Kelley & Kelloway 2012; Zander et al. 2012). Global
virtual teams are generally said to be culturally diverse and geographically
dispersed, and to communicate electronically. However, as Klitmøller and
Lauring (2013, 399) point out, “more empirical studies are needed to
understand virtual communication in an intercultural context.” We
undertook an ethnographic case study of managers who led global virtual
teams in a Finland-based multinational corporation operating in the high-
te sector. We also analyzed the allenges experienced daily by Finnish
managers in virtual leadership of Chinese team members, who represent the
most important and fastest growing market for the company. Due to the
considerable cultural differences between Finns and Chinese, as perceived by
the Finnish managers, interaction between them is particularly appropriate
for examination of global virtual leadership. Since top managers at
headquarters in Finland perceived there to be a la of local management
talent in the Chinese subsidiary and a simultaneous need for close
collaboration, Finnish managers did a considerable amount of their work
virtually. As a result, virtual management became commonplace in the case
company.
is apter integrates resear on cross-cultural leadership with recent
work on global virtual teams and shows how the virtual environment
impedes the efforts of managers to be accessible, caring, and people-oriented
leaders. Despite increasing solarly interest in what has been termed as
new-genre leadership (Avolio et al. 2009), company reward systems that
incentivize managers to adopt new leadership practices, and employees who
expect to have “servant leaders” (Barbuto & Wheeler 2006), virtual reality
has caused regression towards “old-style management” in our case company.
is balash has been further accentuated by the large cultural differences
and long physical distance between the Finns and the Chinese, the
conundrum of virtual presence, and the limits of communication tenology.
Recent trends in leadership resear
Current leadership resear is largely based on the assumption that leaders
are able to lead, thanks to close, sustained, and personalized relationships
with their employees. However, new virtual realities allenge this
assumption. In fact, several solars argue that “virtuality” is a
fundamentally different context for leadership than traditional physical
contexts (Kelley & Kelloway 2012; Wakefield et al. 2008). is is reflected in
the myriad of synonyms for virtual leadership su as e-leadership, whi
refers to leaders who conduct many leadership processes largely through
electronic annels (DasGupta 2011; Zaccaro & Bader 2003); d-leadership,
whi refers to the distance that separates individuals from their team
members (e.g. Zigurs 2003), and remote leadership (e.g. Kelley & Kelloway
2012). It has been argued that virtual leadership requires very different
mindsets, behaviors, and strategies than what is needed in co-located
seings (Kerber & Buono 2004; Wakefield et al. 2008).
Solars have for some time aempted to determine what constitutes
successful leadership. Avolio et al. (2009) undertook a review of leadership
resear and examined the ways in whi the field has evolved. ey refer
to early leadership resear by Bass and Avolio (1990), who distinguish
between transactional and transformational leadership. While transactional
leadership is defined as a series of exanges between the leader and the
employee or follower, transformational leadership suggests that the leader’s
behavior transforms and inspires followers to perform beyond expectations,
transcending self-interest for the good of the organization (Bass & Avolio
1990).
Recent leadership resear eoes this early work on transformational
leadership by emphasizing the ability of managers to encourage, support,
coa, listen to, empower (Avolio et al. 2009), and be accessible to their
employees (Neusel 2005). e so-called “servant leadership” style (Barbuto
& Wheeler 2006) is an example of modern people-oriented leadership.
Servant leaders have followers whom they help to grow in stature and
capacity, and whom they turn into more useful and satisfied individuals.
Similarly, “appreciative leadership” emphasizes the efforts of leaders to
develop their people, and also engage and mobilize their creative and
positive potential (Whitney et al. 2010). In turn, “authentic leadership”
underscores transparent and ethical leader behavior that encourages
openness in information sharing and decision-making while accepting the
inputs of followers (Luthans & Avolio 2003). It is also assumed that su
leadership styles generate positive outcomes in terms of higher levels of
employee motivation, stimulation, and satisfaction (Judge et al. 2004; Zander
et al. 2012). ese new leadership trends are further reinforced by the high
expectations that new generation employees have of their leaders. ese
young people want to be coaed, receive feedba on a regular basis, have
allenging job tasks, but also enjoy flexible working hours (Yu & Miller
2005). Avolio et al. (2009) use the term “new-genre leadership” to describe
the shi towards arismatic, inspirational, and visionary leadership that
has been the focus of aention in the field over the past 20 years (e.g. Avolio
2005).

Leadership in global virtual teams

Global virtual teams aracterized by national, cultural, and linguistic
heterogeneity have become commonplace (Zander et al. 2012). ey can be
defined as groups of people who (1) work together using communications
tenology, (2) are distributed across space, (3) are responsible for a joint
outcome, (4) work on strategic or tenically advanced tasks, and (5) are
multifunctional and/or multicultural (Jonsen et al. 2012, 364). Team
members are likely to represent a variety of specialist functions and have
multiple reporting lines to their managers in a matrix structure. Hence
teamwork requires collaboration, co-operation, co-ordination, and
commitment from team members who are generally physically remote from
ea other (Symons & Stenzel 2007). e leaders of these global virtual
teams manage employees who are dispersed over multiple locations and
countries and who collaborate in the main virtually, through communication
tenology.
Tenology plays a key part in the work and effectiveness of global virtual
teams because it enables communication and helps overcome spatial and
temporal distance. Virtual teams use different types of communication
annels and media in their work. Lean media refer to emails, telephone
calls, and virtual encounters su as “live meetings” and represent rather
limited annels that are appropriate for sharing simple and explicit
information (Klitmøller & Lauring 2013). In turn, ri media are annels
that also allow verbal and non-verbal communication, e.g. videoconferences
(Maznevski & Chudoba 2000). However, researers frequently understate
the disadvantages associated with communication tenology, be they lean
or ri. In a global environment, abilities to make use of tenology,
connectivity, and the sophistication of devices may vary. Moreover,
computer-mediated communication is generally perceived as less warm; for
example, email messages contain more negativity than face-to-face
communication (Berry 2006; Kelley & Kelloway 2012). Taken together, it is
possible that tenology itself adds to perceptions that virtual teams are very
task-oriented and exange limited socio-emotional information
(Chidambaram 1996).
us, it seems that the reality of virtual work limits opportunities of
global team leaders to communicate and take a personal interest in the
members of their virtual teams. How then do these leaders support, care for,
and inspire their people virtually when they are separated by distance and
cultural differences? Or do they – for la of beer alternatives – sele for
“second best” solutions and compromise in order to cope with their
employer’s requirements and employees’ needs? is tension between
expectations of “good leadership” and virtual reality was a theme that
surfaced in our study of Finnish managers engaged in virtual leadership of
Chinese team members.
Findings
We conducted a case study of a Finnish multinational corporation operating
in the high-te sector. China represented an important region for the case
company. e allenge posed by the need to recruit competent Chinese
individuals to managerial positions in one of the most difficult labor markets
in the world accelerated the need to work virtually. In 2014, many managers
were still based in Finland but worked at a distance from their global virtual
teams. ese teams typically consisted of more than 10 members, with one
to five members from China and the rest from, for example, the United
States, India, Italy, France, or Germany. Hence most of the members were
non-native speakers of English, the common corporate language.
e first author conducted a total of 25 personal interviews with team
leaders and managers who were ea responsible for one global virtual
team. e interviewees occupied roles su as supply manager, vice
president for tenology, vice president for logistics, head of project
management, and head of field and tenical training. We use pseudonyms
to protect their anonymity. e first author was also employed in a global
role in the case company for four years. She conducted participant
observation and took field notes on her daily work and that of her
colleagues when they interacted with their employees through various
communication annels su as conference calls, email, videoconferencing,
ats, Lync, Skype, live meetings, and face-to-face encounters.
Our interviewees described their daily work as demanding and fast-
paced. Working across different time zones added to the length of their
working days. e time difference between China and Finland is six hours,
whi means that the first calls are seduled at six or seven a.m. Finnish
time. David, an executive vice president of new product business with long
tenure in the company, described his daily work as follows:
My days are long. In the morning I call my Chinese employees, in the evening my American
employees. e clo speed has anged, everything is moving faster than before and reaction
times are shorter than before. ings get old sooner than before and are replaced by new things …
e difference between work and private life has also disappeared.
David refers to the “clo speed,” whi sets the annual sequence of business
planning, budgeting, and strategy work. Managers determine the goals for
their teams and individual team members on the basis of shared strategy
and plans, and monitor their implementation through regular meetings on a
weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. e whole team, including the
Chinese employees, participates in these conference calls and live meetings.
Our field notes and the interview data suggest that participation by the
Chinese team members decreased when the team size in virtual meetings
was large. e Chinese became more cautious and “did not take a firm stand
on issues” as Ann, the HR director, pointed out. In su situations managers
typically followed up on actions and performance in one-to-one calls to
solicit additional information. Furthermore, several unexpected, ad hoc
events su as customer requests, conflicts, or personal issues, also required
the aention of managers. ey tended to travel to China a few times per
year to meet their employees in person.
e annual performance review of the managers themselves was
associated with how well they reaed the targets set for leadership
development. Global leadership standards were defined by the competence
model used in the case company. e key leadership competences included
decision-making, executing, winning through people, collaborating, strategic
and business acumen, and customer focus. ey were used in continuous
assessment, review, and development of the managers’ competences and
skills. In addition, strategic development programs, whi anged every
three years, introduced new leadership requirements. Moreover, a coaing
culture was launed and broadly promoted internally, whi had a positive
impact on leadership competences. e managers interviewed made an
effort to coa and support their employees and listen to them. At the same
time the expectations of the employees were also rising as they repeatedly
called for more guidance, support, and caring from their managers. Ann, the
HR director, who had recently returned from a two-year assignment in
China, described the expectations of the Chinese employees as follows:
Definitely, they need clarity, with instructions and all … but at the same time they expect caring,
especially the younger employees. ey have typically come from far away to work in a city, their
 parents are far away and they look for support. I felt I had to be a mother for them. ey build
strong relationships with you as a manager and if you leave the company, they usually do, too.

It is also possible that Ann’s position as HR director and her own female
gender brought to the fore the feminine side of new leadership styles.

Time pressure and virtual work overload

e managers interviewed described vividly and at length their daily

practices with the Chinese employees with whom they worked mainly
virtually. Because of the physical distance and time differences, managers
could not rea their employees on a need-basis (or vice versa). Instead,
communication was limited to virtual meetings, whi had to be pre-
planned and tended to be formal in nature. e calendars of the managers
were soon fully booked with virtual sessions, whi oen took place
simultaneously. Many interviewees spoke about “virtual work overload,”
even “virtual pollution,” and stressed the need to shorten the meetings to
make them more effective. is resulted in strictly planned meetings with
regular working structures and ground rules for the team.
e virtual meetings between the Finnish managers and their Chinese
team members seemed to be dominated more by a task-orientation rather
than a people-orientation. Our findings show that communication became
more formal and was limited to pre-seduled meetings. e main contents
of an average virtual meeting focused on information sharing, follow-up,
metrics, control, and reviews. Also, there were fewer items on meeting
agendas. Ea team member commented in turn on the agenda items. As a
result, the agenda was discussed meanically; there was no time for
personal issues or ad hoc queries. Ann, the HR director, commented: “If you
only have one hour at your disposal, there is simply no time for any small
talk at all!”
Managers generally had limited time to support and motivate their
Chinese team members or to listen to their concerns. e Chinese employees
were very shy, polite, and respectful toward their managers. ey were
reluctant to raise problems in virtual meetings and tried to avoid speaking
about controversial maers. ey were more reserved than the Finns,
seldom questioned or allenged official stands on agenda items, and
listened passively during virtual meetings. Hence the managers had to resort
to regular one-to-one calls with the Chinese team members. Nevertheless,
personal maers were usually handled in face-to-face meetings if at all. Tim,
a team leader describes his leadership approa:
It’s important for the Chinese not to lose face … that nobody is in an unpleasant situation.
[Raising negative issues] is easier via [Lync communication soware]. Last week, when I was in
China, we found some problems and agreed on how to tale them. is week they have had time
to prepare for the next meeting via Lync. So we can sort of “warn them” virtually beforehand.

Tim explained how he had learned to take the Chinese employees into
account more effectively while continuously developing his ability to lead
them as team members. e company also offered training programs on
Chinese culture for managers and team leaders like Tim.
On the other hand, our interviewees were also of the opinion that the
quality of the work conducted in global virtual teams had improved owing
to shorter and more effective meetings. e managers also described the
benefits that these anges created for their Chinese employees: they felt
that when the meeting was well-prepared and structured, it was easier for
the Chinese to overcome the language barrier, follow the meetings, and
participate actively. Another advantage of virtual communication with the
Chinese was noted by Mike, a supply manager, who had employees in
several countries:
Facelessness makes the Chinese bolder. Facts are also accepted beer, perhaps because I am forced
to communicate proactively.

Several interviewees mentioned that interaction with the Chinese was

evolving as younger Chinese managers and employees, who were more used
to “western behavior,” joined the work-force. Larry, an area manager,
confirmed this. He pointed out that virtual communication with the Chinese
managers was already more effective as they were more competent and used
to communicating virtually across cultures than their local subordinates.
Perhaps over time the good example of local Chinese managers would also
have a positive effect on the Chinese employees in terms of meeting
behaviors.

Limits of communication technology

As mentioned previously, managers used the telephone, email, at, Skype,

live meetings, or Lync and many other soware applications to
communicate with their employees. ey reported frequent disruptions in
communication. Several interviewees expressed frustration with the
tenology when communicating with Chinese employees. James, a team
leader in material management, explained the tenical problems and
allenges:
Tenology oen fails, phone lines are bad, live meetings don’t work … then we are late and
everyone wastes time.

Ann, the HR director, worked a lot from home in Shanghai, and complained
that colleagues at headquarters oen failed to notice the tenical problems:
Tenology fails all the time, connections frequently fail when you are working from home. ere
is also a lot of baground noise. We keep hearing the clinking of coffee cups at headquarters and
cannot properly understand what’s being said.

Managers reported how the tenology limited their communication with

employees whose faces, body language, and gestures they could not see.
Adam, vice president for the supply organization, referred to the la of
nuance, emotion, and tone of voice in communication mediated by
tenology. Riard, a product manager, described a typical source of
confusion with his Chinese employees:
e allenge is to get your message through [when] the answer is always “yes, yes, yes” … en
you realize that they have not understood at all … I start from the beginning, with different words,
speaking clearly, and ask them to repeat what I have said.”
Language-related allenges with the Chinese employees were frequently
reported by the interviewees. Poor connections made it even more difficult
to hear and understand what was said in a foreign language. Furthermore,
computer-mediated communication impoverished the language used as
stories were not told, emotions could not be expressed, and the tone of
communication was very professional. Language was a major issue for the
case company, particularly in China. e case company had adopted English
as its common language in the 1970s and thus everybody was expected to
speak good English. However, the level of English in the Chinese subsidiary
was still inadequate, although the company had made a significant
investment in English language training for the Chinese managers and
employees. On the other hand, the English skills of the young generation
were improving because of anges in the local educational system. Peter, a
manager for the supply organization, articulated the language issue as
follows:
Language can be a problem and we need to give odds to the Chinese. I have to speak more simply
and clearly. e Chinese may also have a strong accent. If we cannot understand ea other, then
we try to find another solution. I usually send an email [because] wrien text is easier to
understand.

Harry, the vice president for maintenance, had worked a lot with the
Chinese and commented as follows:
Language plays a very big role [in communication]. Every time I meet a person who speaks bad
English, I wonder whether they are incompetent or only have a language problem. I need to
constantly remind myself that content is the key. Similarly, good English can also lead you to
draw the wrong conclusion: “first you think what a smart guy but aerwards you find out the
reverse”.

Harry’s comment reveals the close connection that is oen made between
foreign language competence and professional competence.

The conundrum of virtual presence

Presence is one of the refrains in current leadership discourse: in order to
support employees, managers should be present. Our interviewees
frequently pondered on virtual presence in a situation that did not allow
them to be physically co-located with their Chinese team members. ey
argued that presence was particularly important for building trust. In Asian
cultures, meeting a person physically is a pre-requisite for creating trust.
omas, director of the R&D department, stressed the following:
With the Chinese people, virtual leadership works well, but only if you have established the
relationship non-virtually. It is essential that you have met face-to-face, that’s how you create
trust [and] then you can operate. But there is no way it can work if you have never met face-to-
face.

In a similar vein, the vice president for a manufacturing department put it as

follows:
I think physicality is more important for the Chinese than for other cultures. For them, a physical
visit means that you respect them. You cannot have a discussion with a Chinese person before you
know them properly. It means exanging gis. If you need to become close [with the Chinese],
you need to do a favor and receive one in return. First you have to agree on the formalities, go
through things. We talk without reaing any conclusion, we eat and drink … en I suggest that
we make a development plan [and ask] whether I can show how to do it. [It’s] just a simple favor,
but necessary.

William, the senior vice president for a business function, continued:

Meeting and visiting my people physically means that I respect them. On the phone the employees
might think I’m arrogant. Also, sensitive issues are difficult to talk though on the phone.

Ann, the HR director, agreed:

e Chinese appreciate a personal visit. e problem is that Finnish managers are oen too busy
when they come for a visit. It is important for the Chinese that their managers have time for them,
have long dinners with them. at’s when you start to understand the allenges. ey appreciate
being asked how they’re doing. Finns seldom inquire about the families [of their Chinese
counterparts]. e Chinese appreciate that you have other interests beyond work. You can see
from their facial expressions whether they are pleased.

While the Finnish managers perceived that virtual communication and

virtual work practices were improving, there were limits to what could be
aieved virtually, as Tim described:
e only thing that I cannot do with the Chinese virtually via Lync is quality es … Next week
I will wear my overalls again and ask the factory manager to show me “by hand” how he es
quality.

Bill, an area manager, was more pessimistic about the potential of working
virtually:
It’s ok to work with the Chinese virtually, but only when it’s about follow-up and controlling.

Another theme associated with presence is how to recognize, gain, and

ensure commitment virtually. e managers spoke about the need to “look
into their people’s eyes” to discover whether they are commied. Tim, a
regional manager working at headquarters in Finland, explained this as
follows:
I want to be physically present when we have issues su as a ange in direction. I want to have
commitment from the Chinese, to create a bond with them by looking into ea other’s eyes.
Lyncs and other meetings are more about follow-up. From time to time I need to physically make
sure that things are done as agreed.

When trying to ensure commitment from the Chinese team members, Tim
was faced with the allenges posed by a matrix structure. Dual reporting
lines, whi are at the heart of the matrix, do not suit Chinese culture. e
Chinese are used to vertical lines of command; virtual work with its
horizontal and diagonal interrelationships does not necessarily provide the
clarity and security they prefer. For the Chinese, it was comforting to know
their job role and receive orders and guidance from their direct line
manager. Jake, the director for a product line, described this as follows:
We have tried really hard to introduce the matrix structure in China but the Chinese culture is not
receptive to it. For them, the relationships between managers are unclear, what role the operative
line has … ey are not used to taking orders from anyone except their own manager. [ey are]
uncertain but don’t show it clearly and ask strange questions [when] seeking confirmation. We
need more management intervention.

Hence our interviewees experienced that the la of physical presence

rendered their cross-cultural management work more difficult, in some cases
even impossible. Although the managers tried to increase a sense of presence
through good listening skills, virtual support, and regular contacts, face-to-
face meetings were necessary to improve their relationships with the
Chinese team members. If the interaction was exclusively virtual, the
leadership remained faceless; the tones of voice and emotional expressions
that build and sustain relationships were missing.

Conclusions
In this apter, we have examined how cross-cultural management and
leadership play out in global virtual teams. Our findings suggest that a
virtual working environment coupled with cultural differences impoverished
interaction between the Finnish managers and their Chinese team members
and turned leadership into “hard-core” management. e managers suffered
from time pressure and virtual work overload, whi forced them to be
economical and efficient in their communication. Consequently, virtual
meetings became shorter with brief agendas; hardly any room was le for
ad hoc topics or personal issues. Our interviewees felt that they were forced
to narrow down the scope of topics discussed in virtual interaction; nuances
and weak signals were therefore le out. e limits and problems associated
with communication tenology further accentuated the perceptions of
physical and psyological distance between the managers and their team
members.
Current leadership literature advocates people-oriented styles (Purvanova
& Bono 2009; Zander et al. 2012), whi are said to be particularly important
in China (e.g. McElhaon & Jason 2012). Comprehensive reviews of the
literature provide further evidence of a move away from traditional, task-
oriented leadership to new leadership models that emphasize individualized
aention, engaging emotions, and inspirational messages (Avolio et al. 2009).
However, our case study of cross-cultural encounters in global virtual teams
suggests the reverse; that despite company reward and incentive systems,
employee expectations and genuine aempts by the managers themselves,
the virtual environment reduces cross-cultural leadership practices to “hard-
core” management. Previous resear confirms that virtual work favors task-
oriented and “to the point” communication at the expense of socio-relational
communication (ompson & Coovert 2002). However, by juxtaposing
leadership resear with recent work on global virtual teams we were able
to uncover the tensions that aracterize cross-cultural management today.
e cross-cultural encounters between the Finnish managers and their
Chinese team members took place in English and were hampered by
differences in language fluency and accents. As cultural differences were
interwoven with communication and tenological problems, Finnish
managers oen perceived virtual work as cumbersome and time-consuming.
In line with the study by Klitmøller and Lauring (2013), our findings suggest
that in situations, whi from a western perspective involve large cultural
differences, the use of lean media su as email is beneficial because it
reduces cultural cues, removes accents, and downplays local uses of English.
It also provides team members with increased time for expression and
reflection. However, as our findings also demonstrate, business
communication with the Chinese is in a state of flux. Kankaanranta and Lu
(2013), who studied the evolution of English as the business lingua franca in
Finnish–Chinese interaction, argue that young Chinese professionals
communicate in what from a western perspective seems like an increasingly
direct way. Many of them are internationally minded individuals with
university degrees who are comfortable using English at the work-place
(Kankaanranta & Lu 2013). ese future managers are transnational elites
whose cultural traits may be less demarcated when they operate in English.
e present study is limited to the perspective of managers on leading
global virtual teams. Future resear should also incorporate employee
viewpoints to gain a more complete understanding of the leadership
allenges in su teams. Moreover, we focused on the specific leadership
allenges experienced by Finnish managers in their bilateral relationships
with their Chinese team members, because our informants referred to them
as the most “pressing” ones in the context of virtual cross-cultural
management. However, to be fair, the managers also mentioned the
enriing side of cross-cultural encounters in virtual teams. In future
resear, the broader cross-cultural dynamics of global virtual teams could
also be included.
To conclude, our study shows that virtuality does indeed ange the
nature of cross-cultural management and leadership in fundamental ways
and calls for new leadership competences. It requires that managers are able
to empower and trust their team members, who are physically and
culturally distant. Virtuality also necessitates that managers are willing to
accept increasingly democratic paerns of communication in whi ea
team member has equal space in whi to contribute. Given the conundrum
of virtual presence, micro-management is simply not possible anymore. e
field of cross-cultural management will need to take heed of these allenges
as global virtual teams become the norm rather than the exception in
managerial work.

References
Avolio, B.J. (2005) Leadership development in balance: Made/born, Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009) Leadership: Current
theories, resear, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology,
60: 421–449.
Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006) Scale development and construct
clarification of servant leadership. Group Organization Management, 31:
300–326.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990) Developing transformational leadership:
1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5): 21–27.
Berry, G.G. (2006) Can computer-mediated asynronous communication
improve team processes and decision making? Learning from the
management literature. Journal of Business Communication, 43: 344–366.
Chidambaram, L. (1996) Relational development in computer-supported
groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2): 143–163.
DasGupta, P. (2011) Literature review: e-Leadership. Emerging Leadership
Journeys, 4: 1–36.
Graon, L. and Johns, T. (2013) e third wave of virtual work. Harvard
Business Review, Jan–Feb 2013(91): 66–73.
Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. and Davison, S.C. (2012) Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. In Handbook of research in international
human resource management, ed. G.K. Stahl, I. Bjorkman, and S. Morris,
363–392. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jonsen, K., Butler, C., Mäkelä, K., Piekkari, R., Drogendjik, R., Lauring, J.,
Lervik, J.-E., Pahlberg, C., Vodosek, M. and Zander, L. (2013) Processes of
international collaboration in management resear: A reflexive,
autoethnographic approa. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(4): 394–
413.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Ilies, R. (2004) e forgoen ones? e validity
of consideration and initiating structure in leadership resear. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 36.
Kankaanranta, A. and Lu, W. (2013) e evolution of English as the business
lingua franca: Signs of convergence in Chinese and Finnish professional
communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
27(3): 288–307.
Kelley, E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2012) Context maers: Testing a model of
remote leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
19(4): 437–449.
Kerber, K.W. and Buono, A.F. (2004) Leadership allenges in global virtual
teams: Lessons from the field. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,
69(4): 4–7.
Klitmøller, A. and Lauring, J. (2013) When global virtual teams share
knowledge: e role of media riness, cultural difference and language
commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3): 398–406.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003) Authentic leadership: A positive
development approa. In Positive organizational scholarship:
 Foundations of a new discipline, ed. K.S. Cameron, J.E. Duon, and R.E.
inn, 241–258. San Francisco, CA: Berre-Koehler.
McElhaon, E. and Jason, B. (2012) Paradox in harmony: Formulating a
Chinese model of leadership. Leadership, 8(4): 441–461.
Maznevski, M.L. and Chudoba, K.M. (2000) Bridging space over time: Global
virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5):
473–492.
Neusel, R.P. (2005) The servant leader: Unleashing the power of your
people. London: Kogan Page.
Purvanova, R.K. and Bono, J.E. (2009) Transformational leadership in
context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3):
343–357.
Symons, J. and Stenzel, C. (2007) Virtually borderless: An examination of
culture in virtual teaming. Journal of General Management, 32(3): 1–17.
ompson, L.F. and Coovert, M.D. (2002) Stepping up to the allenge: A
critical examination of face-to-face and computer-mediated team
decision making. Group Dynamics, 6: 52–64.
Wakefield, R.L., Leidner, D. and Garrison, G. (2008) A model of conflict,
leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems
Research, 19(4): 434–455.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A. and Rader, K. (2010) Appreciative leadership.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yu, H.-C. and Miller, P. (2005) Leadership style: e X Generation and Baby
Boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(1): 35–50.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Bader, P. (2003) E-leadership and the allenges of leading
e-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational
Dynamics, 31(4): 377–387.
Zander, L., Moaitis, A.I. and Butler, C.J. (2012) Leading global teams.
Journal of World Business, 47: 592–603.
Zigurs, I. (2003) Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity?
Organizational Dynamics, 31(4): 339–351.
45
A multi-paradigm analysis of cross-
cultural encounters

Henriett Primecz, Laurence Romani and Katalin

Topcu

Introduction
Cross-cultural management literature (wrien by, among others, Hofstede,
1980; Trompenaars, 1993) is dominated by the Western perspective on non-
Western cultures (Adler, 1983); and there has been lile resear done
dealing with cross-cultural encounters without Western parties being
involved (Azevedo, 2011). Some solars add that Western nations typically
represent one pole of ea cultural dimension and, more oen than not, the
one currently most desirable (e.g. low Power Distance, Individualism,
Aievement orientation, etc.).
In this apter we intend to show that this diotomy between the West
and non-West is more blurred. We take the example of encounters between
the nationals of two countries that have a complex relationship with the
West and the East – Hungary and Turkey – and we make use of interviews
conducted in Hungary with Turkish immigrants. In addition, we wish to put
forward a more complex form of analysis (with its own limitations, see
Romani et al., 2011) of intercultural encounters, with multi-paradigm
perspectives; that is – using parallel tenique (Hassard, 1991) – side by side
understandings reaed by different resear traditions.
e analysis applies four paradigms: positivist, interpretive, postmodern
and critical. In cross-cultural management, resear paradigms can be
viewed as different understandings of what culture is, in what scientific
ways one should study it, and what the roles of researers in this
endeavour are. First, we give an overview of the distinctions between the
four paradigms. Second, we conduct a short analysis of ea one of them on
the basis of a recurrent theme from the interviews – the alleged la of
service orientation in Hungary, according to Turkish migrants. With a
juxtaposition of the four analyses, our understanding of the related
encounters becomes multifaceted.

Four paradigms for an analysis of intercultural

encounters
Although the heated debate on paradigms has not been resolved, we believe
that joint consideration of multiple scientific perspectives in the study of
specific phenomena is enriing and we propose – as we did previously in
Primecz et al. (2009), Romani et al., (2011, 2014) and Topcu et al. (2007) – to
put forward a multi-paradigm approa. Different taxonomies of the major
resear paradigms exist (see e.g. Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Deetz, 1996;
Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003) and we adopt the terminologies of the laer:
‘positivist’, ‘interpretive’, ‘critical’ and ‘post-modern’. We will briefly outline
their main aracteristics.
e positivist paradigm is by far the most influential stream within Cross-
Cultural Management (CCM) – see Primecz et al. (2009). Based on the
general premises of the positivist paradigm (Donaldson, 2003), this approa
builds on law-like connections between social phenomena, searing for
regularities. Knowledge is developed mainly via the use of large-scale
questionnaires, applying statistical methods, and using natural sciences as
‘role models’. e most well-known positivist contributions in CCM are the
works by Hofstede (1980, 2001), and the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004).
ey tend to favour a helicopter view, comparing cultures and seeking out
general rules, su as, for example, correlations between certain behaviours
and the dimensions of national culture. In the positivist CCM studies,
resear results are oen organized into predictive models.
e interpretive paradigm does not aim at identifying predictive models –
it seeks an understanding of how people perceive their (cultural) reality. It
sees individuals behaving consistently with what makes sense to them, and
therefore focuses on sense-making processes. Knowledge is filtered through
lived experience, and it shapes the sense-making process (Hat & Yanow,
2003). In CCM, interpretive researers are generally not interested in
cultural comparisons – rather, they seek an understanding of how people’s
collective sense-making explains their behaviours (d’Iribarne, 1989, 2009).
Culture is considered as shared frames of meaning (Chevrier, 2009): people
from the same cultures tend to have common reference points because of
their similar education, historical baground, events and national heroes.
e third paradigm is the postmodern one, and it goes beyond the
‘modern, positivist’ view of science as an accumulation of knowledge. e
postmodern paradigm focuses on social construction of reality via language,
and considers reality not in its regularities but in its fluidity, fragmentations
and ange. Resear – similarly to interpretive ones – does not seek to
generalize, but pursue local meanings. In this view, (scientific) knowledge is
not simply informative but also associated to power; text analyses reveal
power tensions behind seemingly neutral cultural differences (see Prasad,
2009).
e fourth major perspective is the critical one, in the sense that it seeks
to make explicit power structures and shows power struggles in how reality
is constructed. Critical resear makes it explicit that reality is the outcome
of power relationships between different social or cultural groups, a reality
that tends to favour specific interests. Here, too, knowledge is associated
with those in a position of power in society rather than being the outcome
of a neutral and objective resear process. Researers tend to see their role
as ‘activists’, as agents for ange – not as ‘reporters’ of how things are. We
place CCM post-colonial studies in this category of critical studies (see Ja
& Westwood, 2009).
ese different paradigms impact how a situation involving cultural
differences is addressed. Depending on their main approa, researers will
interpret and deal with the problem differently. In the following sections we
use interview materials from a study of Turkish–Hungarian encounters, and
initiate four analyses, ea building on a different resear paradigm. Our
work is inspired by Hassard (1991), in whi he investigates his resear
object from the perspective of four different paradigms in parallel, that is,
placing side by side the outcomes of ea of his analyses. ere exist
alternative ways to conduct multi-paradigm studies, ea one presenting its
own advantages and allenges (see Lewis & Kelemen, 2002; Romani et al.,
2011).

A selective presentation of Hungary and Turkey

Hungary is situated in Central-Eastern Europe, and has a population of
almost 10 million inhabitants – and it has been on the edge of the Western
and Eastern worlds throughout its history. Hungarians are originally Asian
nomadic people; they seled down in the Carpathian Basin and were led
into Christianity by the tenth century. During the Middle Ages, the
Hungarian Kingdom played a stable and semi-peripheral role in Europe until
the occupation of a major part of today’s Hungary by the Turks of the
Ooman Empire (1541), and it remained under Turkish control for 150 years,
until 1699. Subsequently, a tumultuous relationship with the Habsburg
Empire ended in the creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867–1918).
Hungary’s borders today are the outcome of defeats in World War I and II.
In 1945, Hungary became part of the Red Army control area and the Soviet
Union exerted pressure to install a socialist system, whi came about in
1948; it kept control of Hungary, with the use of the Soviet Red Army, for
four decades. Hungary adopted a democratic and capitalist regime in 1990,
and it has been a European Union member state since 2004.
Turkey is a transcontinental country with 71.5 million inhabitants, and is
located at the border of Asia and Europe. e area of today’s Turkey was
Hellenized aer Alexander the Great’s conquest and later became a part of
the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople (today’s Istanbul) as capital
city (fourth century). During most of its ten-century-long existence, the
Byzantine Empire was among Europe’s most influential powers. e Seljuk
Turks began migrating into the area in the eleventh century, seing off a
process of Turkification. From the late thirteenth century, the Ooman
territories (beylik) united Anatolia and created the Ooman Empire, whi
subsequently gained influence around the Mediterranean Sea, in Southeast
Europe and in today’s Middle East; it was the cross-roads between Western
and Eastern worlds for six centuries. e Empire’s golden age was under the
reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566). Aer its defeat in World
War I, the Turkish War of Independence, initiated by Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, resulted in the forming of the secular Republic of Turkey (1923).
During World War II, the Turkish Republic remained neutral. Since 1952,
Turkey has belonged to NATO; and it applied for European Union
membership in 1987 (still pending).

Empirical data used in the multi-paradigm analysis

Between June and December 2012, a pre-study including qualitative
interviews with Turkish migrants was conducted by the leading author with
educated and employed Turks who had been living and working in Hungary
for at least one year. e original focus of the interviews was to explore
paerns of inclusion and exclusion of Turks in Hungary (see Topcu &
Primecz, 2012, 2013). An analysis of the interviews revealed several
recurring topics, one of whi we focus on in this apter: the representation
of Hungary as a society with a low level of service orientation. e
following interview excerpts show Turkish interviewees’ perceptions of
Hungarian service orientation.
Ece, a middle-level manager, describes her first set of surprises upon
moving to Budapest and dealing with multiple service providers:
[e] Service industry shoed [me]. So slow, always trying to find excuses for not doing it under
the guarantee and when finally the flat was ready we started to buy the furniture. And this was
my second sho (laughs) because everyone said that we had to wait eight weeks, ten weeks to
have the furniture delivered home.
(She laughs)

Emre, working as Turkish lecturer at a major university in Budapest, recalls

the allenges he faced with his Hungarian bank:
[Banks] function just like the state bureaucracy must have functioned in the 70s. You can get
things arranged if the big Lord working there wants it to be so. I don’t understand how this can
occur! If I want a Forint [Hungarian currency] bank account and a Euro account to be connected
to ea other, it’ll take one minute [in Turkey], but I had to struggle with this here for four days.

He then adds another illustration of the situation, this one in relation to the
service provided by his phone operator:
I was a client of [name of phone operator]. Whenever I had a problem the company always raised
hell! When the line was out of order, I was to blame! ey were not willing to help at all.

Pursuing the topic of service orientation, he recalls:

Once, for example, I went [to a small grocery store] to buy tomatoes, at around five pm. e man
told me he couldn’t give me tomatoes because it was five pm. In Turkey, if you enter a shop and
you want to buy something, you can buy it at any time. Even at half past nine – if the owner or a
shop assistant is there, they will sell you the product. (…) [whi they don’t do here]. It is
incomprehensible!

In another interview, Demir, working as freelance soware programmer,

recalls his negative impressions of dealing with different immigration
authorities and registration services – and he mentions the role of his
Hungarian wife, Piroska.
[In Hungary, they] work like a communist country, still. In terms of centralidates [centralized]
decisions. Very controlled […] government. Papers and papers, we have to submit for a lot of
things. (…) But if it was not Piroska, if I was alone, try to live here with the bureaucracy, or if I
 had [only] a Turkish family, it would have been mu more difficult for me. In many ways,
somehow, Piroska found ways to speed up the paper works always. (…). She was always talking to
the officials.

Ömer, working as the main manager of a high-class restaurant in downtown

Budapest explains what he sees as a la of customer friendliness in services:
For example, if you’re queuing at the pharmacy – and it is not a state firm, it’s a private
enterprise, so I expect to be greeted, and I won’t say a word until I am greeted … It is a must, (…) I
am not answering until they (…) greet me. And it’s not because I am foreigner – I can see it is the
same with Hungarians!

Another interviewee, Oguzhan, IT consultant, expresses his surprise in

relation to people’s aitudes to work:
When I arrived, it was strange: Hungarian employees want to have a coffee first. It is different in
Turkey. If you have jobs, you are happy. When I was [in Turkey], it was difficult to find a job, and
I worked in a factory (…). We worked from 8 in the morning until night. We had to be there at
quarter to 8, (…); and we were able to go home at 6 p.m. if there were no problems, thus nothing to
do – yet if there was something, we had to stay until 8 or 9 …

Positivist analysis
A positivist analysis is to examine the ‘fit’ between theories and data, via
hypothesis generation, whi are then tested. In the explorative study used
in this example, hypotheses were not generated – and this is a limitation.
We propose here to present existing theories linking culture and service
quality, to then compare them with data.
In her seminal work, Zeithaml (1988) introduced the ‘perceived product
quality’ term to differentiate it from the ‘actual quality’ of goods. Consumer
perception is a focal point in researing consumer judgement processes
(Donthu & Yoo, 1998). Perceived service performance is most influenced by
a weighting of service quality criteria, su as reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, tangibles and empathy (Liu et al. 2001). Comparative works
dealing with service perception have almost exclusively used the framework
provided by Hofstede (1980, 2001).
 Power difference between customers and service providers is an
important contingency variable. In cultures scoring high on the Power
Distance Index (PDI), there are notable differences between the behaviours
of powerful customers and those of weak customers. Generally, service
employees are required to provide customers with a high level of service;
but weak customers are more likely to tolerate failure from more powerful
service providers (Maila, 1999).
In cultures with high degrees of uncertainty avoidance, there are
differences in the perceived importance of various service quality criteria in
relation to frequent or infrequent service situations. In frequent service
situations, uncertainty associated with a possible service failure is reduced
by the guarantee of a qui solution to the problem; in infrequent situations,
by a close relationship (Reimann et al., 2008).
Individualistic consumers tend to require others to be efficient and are
more demanding than people from collectivistic cultures, who seem to
prioritize a harmony of relationships more (Donthu & Yoo, 1998).
In cultures with a high degree of masculinity a male service provider is
expected to be more professional than a female one, who, in contrast, is
expected to be more empathic (Donthu & Yoo, 1998).
Taking into account the resear findings and the scores relating to
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as associated with Turkey and Hungary (see
Table 45.1), Turks are likely to expect differentiation between powerful and
weak customers; in addition, they will have a higher tendency to expect
responsiveness in service-related situations. Turkey and Hungary represent
approximately the same level of service quality expectation, and Turks may
be influenced by the service provider’s gender.

Table 45.1 Cultural dimension scores for Hungary and Turkey

Power distance Individualism Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity

Turkey 66 37 85 45
Hungary 19 11 83 17
Source: Hofstede and Hofstede (2008): pp. 78–79, pp. 118–119, pp. 165–166, pp. 216–217

In sum, the positivist analysis provides a cultural explanation of the

differences experienced by Turkish migrants in Hungary, based on
Hosede’s cultural dimensions. In view of the score discrepancy on
individualism between Hungary and Turkey, it is foreseeable that Turkish
migrants will tend to have higher expectations regarding service
responsiveness. A positivist study would have formulated su a hypothesis,
and endeavoured to verify it with interview data.

Interpretive analysis
While the positivist analysis puts emphasis on the analysis of facts and facts
recollection by interviewees to mat it with existing theories, interpretive
analyses will pay closer aention to interviewees’ so-called sense-making. In
the interviews, some explanations (sense-making) were given to or
associated with descriptions of bad service. For example, Ömer compares
state-owned with privately owned businesses and clearly expresses his
expectations for high service orientation in privately owned businesses.
Emre’s reminiscences about his negative experiences of the Hungarian
immigration authorities were explicitly seen as an effect of the country’s
former communism (‘This is like in a communist country!’). References to
the former prevalence of state-owned enterprises and communism can serve
as common explanations for any kind of experienced negative events in
Hungary. Reasonings like ‘it is because Hungary is a former socialist
country’ are applied equally oen by both Hungarians and foreigners.
Before 1989, Hungary’s socialist political and economic systems implied,
among other things, a planned economy. Decisions regarding production
and investment were seduled in national plans (e.g. five-years) that had
been formulated by the central authorities. Firms produced in accordance
with national plans and the la of private ownership resulted in disregard
for the idea of business interests. Characteristic of this system was the
absence of private enterprises, full employment and an economy of shortage.
It is not the task of an interpretive analysis to decide whether the
economic past of the country is an acceptable explanation for the la of
service orientation. Interpretive analysis is concerned with how interviewees
make sense of the la of service. Our Turkish interviewees appeared to
associate a la of good service with state-owned firms and state
bureaucracy; in addition, the previously cited comment by Emre about the
grocery shop owner not willing to sell tomatoes aer five p.m. (‘It is
incomprehensible!’) or Ece’s experience of furniture delivery provided by a
private enterprise underline the link they seemed to make between service
orientation and entrepreneurship. Likewise, Ömer also associates service
with privately owned companies (in this case a pharmacy). In other words,
the interpretive analysis indicates that the Turkish interviewees have a
mental model or shared frames of meanings (Chevrier, 2009), where there is
a link between entrepreneurship, private business and a service orientation –
and this explains their surprise when dealing with service providers
(companies, individual shop assistants, pharmacists) who do not appear to
have service orientation.
In sum, the interpretive analysis of data provides an explanation as to
why Turkish interviewees were surprised by the la of service orientation
in Hungary because they tend to associate private enterprise with service.
e interpretive analysis adds to the positivist one the dimension of
ownership of the enterprise someone is dealing with, and expecting (or not)
service.

Postmodern analysis
e postmodern analysis suggested here focuses on language and its usage.
If we pursue the analysis of interviewees’ references to Hungary’s
communist past, we soon wonder. Hungarians have had about 20 years’
experience working in the private sector, within a competitive, capitalist
economy with a strong focus on consumption. Second, the Turkish
interviewees had had no direct exposure to a communist regime or the
Hungarian administration during communist times.
For a postmodern analysis, it is crucial to pay closer aention to how
references to Hungary’s communist past or its economic transition period
are worded in interviews. e Turkish interviewees explicitly said that the
socialist past might be an explanation for the existing la of service
orientation in Hungary (‘I don’t know, but maybe it is because of the
socialist history’). e use of ‘communist’ or ‘socialist past’ seems to serve as
a cat-all form of explanation for experienced shortcomings in Hungary.
Hungarians and non-Hungarians alike (e.g. Turks) equally make reference
to Hungary’s socialist past as a cat-all form of explanation for
shortcomings. ere are several discourses circulating in Hungary about the
socialist past, though the dominant one associates communist and socialist
regimes with dysfunctions, the unfriendliness of state employees, a la of
service orientation, inefficiency and corruption. We know from postmodern
studies that discourses are not neutral but that they produce or reproduce –
‘make’ or create – a reality that serves specific interests.
Building on the idea of Derrida’s (1967) deconstructionism we are able to
unveil the ideological perspectives hidden in the cat-all explanation that
makes reference to a communist past (see Martin, 1990; Fougère &
Moulees, 2012 for examples of deconstructions and reconstructions). ey
start the deconstruction by identifying diotomies in the text (e.g. old–
young, men–women, think–feel, etc.) and they then ange one end of a
diotomy to form its opposite. is way, the newly reconstructed text
highlights the ideological baground.
Consider, for example, Emre’s original quote:
[In Hungary, they] work like a communist country, still. In terms of centralidates [centralized]
decisions. Very controlled […] government. Papers and papers, we have to submit for a lot of
things.

with the following anges:

 In Hungary, they work like a capitalist country, still. In terms of decentralized decisions. Very
uncontrolling […] government. ere are no papers, we never have to submit forms.

By anging some elements of the quote to their opposites, the ideological

dimension encompassed in the text is made clearer: the way Hungary works
is baward; control and bureaucracy are linked to the past and are not to be
associated with a (modern) capitalist state. Implicitly, the interviewee may
be in favour of a neo-liberal regime, and thus interprets any deviation from
this state as being ‘still communist’. Postmodern studies emphasize several
interpretations of texts and, in line with Derrida (1967), we cannot claim
that this osen interpretation is either the right one or the only one.
In sum, the postmodern analysis here pays special aention to language
in use and how it constructs or reproduces, for example, a certain discourse.
It becomes evident that the interviewees were adhering to a discourse
placing capitalism and private enterprise in direct connection with progress,
modernity and efficiency. However, the interviewees’ experience of poor
service is taking place in today’s Hungary, a capitalist and modern state; and
rather than modifying their views on the grand narrative of capitalism or
finding alternative explanations within the context of capitalism, we argue
that interviewees had developed tentative explanations for their experiences
using legacies of a socialist past.

Critical analysis
A critical analysis of the interview excerpts sear for the power imbalances
that are part of the situations described.
First, as migrants, the interviewees have had to adapt and accommodate
themselves to Hungarian society, su as learning how, for example, the
banking system works. Second, they have had to learn the local language.
Examples given by the interviewees tou, for instance, upon their need to
learn how to deal with immigration authorities where their interlocutors do
not speak English, and where application forms are in Hungarian.
Independently of the reason for this la of multi-lingualism within
immigration authorities, this creates a situation where Turkish immigrants
are reduced to the status of ‘illiterate’, whi of course is a disadvantageous
and quite allenging situation. ird, the Turkish origin of immigrants is
another factor that might put them in an inferior structural position.
Hungary was occupied by the Turks for over 150 years, and this and the
heroic liberation from su oppression serves as an identity builder for the
Hungarian population. Today, there are nursery songs and poems about the
evil-doings and the foreignness of Turks as well as idioms about their
meanness (e.g. Bad neighbourhood, Turkish curse – Rossz szomszédság,
török átok). One of the most important compulsory readings for Hungarian
pupils is The Stars of Eger (Egri csillagok), one of many romantic novels
about the heroic liberation from Turkish occupation. Hungarian national
identity uses the word ‘Turk’ as ‘Other’ (sometimes too as ‘Evil’). Being an
immigrant of Turkish origin does not have the same status in Hungary as
coming from Austria, for example – when Austrians are considered as
brothers-in-law (sógorok) by Hungarians, indicating the close relationship
between the two nations.
In sum, the critical analysis centres on the topics of structural power
imbalances and how Turkish immigrants are located at the intersection of
three inferior positions: one of migrants unfamiliar with the system, one of
quasi illiterates and one of villains. In light of this, it becomes clear that
Turkish migrants potentially have a low status, so are unlikely to receive the
best services.

Conclusion
e four different analyses of the same interview material (or resear data)
in this apter is an illustration of what we believe is the added value of
multi-paradigm resear for cross-cultural management. In this succinct
illustration of four analyses, we first learn that there are cultural differences
regarding service expectations and also that the cultural profile of Turkish
persons is likely to lead them to expect a high level of service responsiveness
(higher than might be expected in Hungary). With the interpretive analysis,
we are able to beer understand the way Turkish interviewees associated
service orientation with private enterprise and entrepreneurship and,
consequently, have different service expectations regarding state agencies.
e postmodern analysis shows us that blaming a communist past for a la
of service does not appear as a solid explanation – it seems that it is, instead,
an ideological cat-all argument. Finally, the critical analysis stresses that
our interviewees were in a triply disadvantageous situation, being migrants,
non-Hungarian speaking and Turkish; they are precisely the ‘Other’, against
whi the national identity of Hungarians builds itself. is might also
explain in part the la of good service they experienced. In sum, the
juxtaposition of analyses performed in different resear paradigms enables
a more complex understanding of the role that culture plays (or does not) in
intercultural encounters.

References
Adler, N. J. (1983) ‘Cross-Cultural Management Resear: e Ostri and
the Trend’, Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 226–232.
Azevedo, G. (2011) ‘Intercultural Integration in Sino-Brazilian Joint
Ventures’, in: Primecz, H., Romani, L., Samann, S. (eds): Cross-Cultural
Management in Practice. Culture and Negotiated Meanings, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 112–124.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis, Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life,
Billing and Sons Ltd, Worcester.
Chevrier, S. (2009) ‘Is National Culture Still Relevant in a Global Context?
e Case of Switzerland’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, 9(2), 169–184.
Deetz, S. (1996) ‘Describing Differences in Approaes to Organization
Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their Legacy’, Organization
Science, 7(2), 191–207.
Derrida, J. (1967) De la Grammatologie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Donaldson, L. (2003) ‘Organization eory as a Positive Science’, in:
Tsoukas, H., Knudsen, Ch. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Organization
Theory, Oxford University Press, pp. 39–62.
Donthu, N. and Boonghee Yoo (1998) ‘Cultural Influences on Service ality
Expectations’, Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 178–186.
Fougère, M. and Moulees, A. (2012) ‘Disclaimers, Diotomies and
Disappearances in International Textbooks: A Postcolonial
Deconstruction’, Management Learning, 43(1), 5–24.
Hassard, J. (1991) ‘Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analyis: A Case
Study’, Organization Studies, 12(2), 275–299.
Hat, M.J. and Yanow, D. (2003) ‘Organization eory as an Interpretive
Science’, in: Tsoukas, H., Knudsen, Ch. (eds): The Oxford Handbook of
Organization Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 6–87.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001)
Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Inc., ousand
Oaks.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. J. (2008) Kultúrák és szervezetek. Az elme
szoftvere [Cultures and Organisations: Software of the mind], VHE K.,
Pécs.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. (eds)
(2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies, Sage, ousand Oaks.
Iribarne, d’. P. (1989) La logique de l’honneur, Le Seuil, Paris.
Iribarne, d’. P. (2009) ‘National Cultures and Organizations in Sear of a
eory: An Interpretative Approa’. International Journal of Cross-
cultural Management, 9(3), 309–321.
Ja, G. A. and Westwood, R. (2009) International and Cross-Cultural
Management. A Postcolonial Reading, Palgrave, London.
Lewis, M. W. and Kelemen, M. L. (2002) ‘Multi-Paradigm Inquiry: Exploring
Organizational Pluralism and Paradox’, Human Relations, 55, 251–275.
Liu, B. S., Furrer, O. and Sudharshan, D. (2001) ‘e Relationship between
Culture and Behavioral Intentions towards Services’, Journal of Service
Research, 4(2), 118–129.
Martin, J. (1990) ‘Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: e Suppression of
Gender Conflict in Organizations’, Organization Science, 1(4), 339–359.
Maila, A. S. (1999) ‘e Role of Culture in the Service Evaluation Process’,
Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 250–261.
Prasad, A. (2009) ‘Contesting Hegemony through Genealogy: Foucault and
Cross Cultural Management Resear’, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 9(3), 359–369.
Primecz, H., Romani, L. and Samann, S. A. (2009) ‘Editorial. Cross-
Cultural Management Resear: Contributions from Various Paradigms’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, December, 267–
274.
Reimann, M., Lünemann, U. F. and Chase, R. B. (2008) ‘Uncertainty
Avoidance as a Moderator of the Relationship between Perceived Service
ality and Customer Satisfaction’, Journal of Service Research, 11, 63–
73.
Romani, L., Primecz, H. and Topcu, K. (2011) ‘Paradigm Interplay for eory
Development: A Methodological Example with the Kulturstandard
Method’, Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 432–455.
Romani, L., Primecz, H. and Bell, R. (2014) ‘ere Is Nothing so Practical as
Four Good eories’, in: Gherke, B., Claes, M.-T. (eds): Global Leadership
Practices. A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Palgrave MacMillan,
Basingstoke. Topcu, K. and Primecz, H. (2012) ‘Paerns of Inclusion and
Exclusion – Experiences of Muslim Immigrants in Hungary and in the
United Kingdom’, unpublished paper presented at OPUS Conference,
London, November 16–17.
Topcu, K. and Primecz, H. (2013) ‘Paerns of Inclusion and Exclusion –
Experiences of Turkish Immigrants in Budapest and in London’,
unpublished paper presented at CMS, Manester, 2013, July 10–12.
Topcu, K., Romani, L. and Primecz, H. (2007) ‘Kulturstandard Resear in
Two Paradigms: e Possible Application of the Method in the
Functionalist and Interpretive Paradigms’, Journal of Cross Cultural
Competence and Management, 5, 161–202.
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business, Niolas Brealey Publishing, London.
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, Ch. (2003) The Oxford Handbook of Organization
Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price, ality, and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence’, Journal of Marketing, 52
(July), 2–22.
Author index

Abegglen, J.C. 50
Aoui, M. 190
Adler, N.J. 64, 65, 198, 266
Ahern, K.R. 24
Ahmadjian, Christina L. 5, 49–57
Ailon, Galit 40–1, 45, 199–200, 309, 358, 362
Al Gurg, Raja 314
Alcadipani, R. 210
Alcantara, Lailani Laynesa 262, 263, 285–93
Alvesson, Mats 366
Andrews, B.R. 219
Ardivili, A. 327
Arnason, V. 297
Arnold, D.F. 277
Arthur, M.B. 329
Athos, A.G. 50
Avolio, B.J. 421
Aycan, Z. 11, 13

Ballon, R.L. 50
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 109, 224
Barner-Rasmussen, Wilhelm 82, 142–50
Barre, M. 238–9
Bass, B.M. 323–4, 327, 421
Behrens, Alfredo 185–6, 208–17
Benne, M.J. 38
Bernardi, R.A. 277
Berry, J.W. 219
Bezrukova, K. 144–5
Bhabha, Homi 201–2, 367
Bielenia-Grajewska, Magdalena 83, 170–9
Bik, Olof P.G. 262, 263, 275–84
Bird, A. 208
Birkinshaw, J. 202
Bjerke, B. 346
Bjerregard, Toke 82, 95–102, 200
Blommaert, J. 136, 137, 139–40, 241
Bo, X. 250
Boltrukevi, Vyaeslav 186, 227–36
Bond, M.H. 38, 190
Borón, A. 209
Bo, Gregory 263, 322–33
Bourdieu, P. 31–2, 117
Box, Louk de la Rive 366
Boyacigiller, N. 64, 65
Bozkurt, Ödül 263, 304–12
Brannen, Mary Yoko xxxv–xliii, xlix, 24, 80–1, 142, 143, 202, 262
Brook, Timothy 131–2
Buley, P.J. 19, 20, 275–6
Burns, J.M. 323, 421
Bybee, J. 135
Byram, M. 239

Calás, M.B. 200, 366

Caligiuri, P. 194
Carl, D.E. 326
Case, P. 249
Chagnon, G. 237, 238
Chang, Y. 22
Chapman, M. 19, 20, 21, 24, 275–6
Charles, M. 103, 105
Chen Duxiu 381
Chen, J. 221
Chen, T. 22
Chen, X. 221–2
Chen, Y. 22
Chiang, Y. 22
Chidlow, A. 134
Chou, T. 22
Clark, R. 50
Clifford, James 39–40
Cohen, Linda 82–3, 151–60
Cole, R.E. 50
Cornelissen, J.P. 145
Courbage, Youssef 365
Cox, T. Jr. 38, 114
Crisp, B. 144
Cronin, M. 131, 132
Croon, M.A. 328
Crosbie, V. 242
Cruer, Peter 50
Cruz, E. 208

d’Iribarne, Philippe 363

Danielsson, A. 300
Davies, W. 295
De Dreu, C.K.W. 145
De Hoogh, A.H.B. 329
Deal, T.E. 50
DeFrank, R.S. 51
Den Hartog, D.N. 328
Deresky, H. 220
Derrida, J. 437
DeVriese, Leila 262–3, 313–21
Doh, J.P. 220
Dore, R. 50
Dorfman, Peter 366
Dörrenbäer, C. 411, 412, 414, 415
Doz, Y. 154
Drori, Gili S. 359, 399–408
Du Plessis, Y. 191
Duménil, G. 300
Durkheim, E. 19
Dye, K. 204

Earley, Christopher P. 267

Ellio, C. 250
Entman, R.M. 402
Euwema, M.C. 194

Fang, M. 199
Fang, T. 224
Ferri, G. 242
Firow, P.E. 24
Fly, R.J. 113
Foreman-Pe, James 80
Foucault, Miel 185, 203–5, 242
Fougère, M. 202
Franklin, Peter 364
Fren, R. 59
Frenkel, Mial 201–2, 359, 399–408

Gabriel, Y. 250
Gales, L.M. 200
Garcia, O. 135
Gelfand, M.J. 400
Geppert, M. 411, 412, 414, 415
Gerhart, B. 199
Gerth, H.H. 324
Gibbs, Jennifer L. 267
Gibson, C.B. 267, 335
Giddens, A. 31, 32, 43
Glaser, E. 242
Goby, Valerie Priscilla 82, 103–11
Gonzalez, M. 123
Goodwin, V.L. 325
Griffiths, D.S. 250
Gryaznova, Anna 186, 227–36
Gudykunst, W.B. 153, 238
Guilherme, M. 242
Guorman, David 263, 344–54

Hall, Edward 39, 103

Hall, P. 64
Hamel, G. 53
Hammer, M.R. 38
Hampden-Turner, C. 190
Hanges, H.J. 192
Hannerz, U. 240, 241
Harb, C. 190
Harbison, Frederi xxxvi
Harissi, M. 135–6
Harris, P.R. 220
Harris, S. 20
Harry, W. 317
Harzing, Anne-Wil 81–2, 85–94, 90, 103, 105, 158, 192
Hassard, J. 432
Hatvany, N. 50
He, Jia 185, 189–97
Heller, M. 135
Helm Mills, Jean 359, 389–98
Henze, D.C. 219
Hildebrandt, H.W. 219
Hillal, A.V.G. 208
Hoare, Carol H. 286
Hoelen, L. 116
Hoffman, B.J. 329
Hofstede, Geert xxxvi, 4, 5, 6, 11–12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 37–9, 43, 44, 45, 59, 60, 62, 64, 75, 86, 103, 189, 190,
192, 198, 199, 209–10, 210, 219, 238, 266, 277, 305, 335–6, 344–6, 348, 349, 350, 357–8, 362, 363–4, 365,
366, 367, 373, 376, 401, 404, 432, 435, 435; criticisms of 39–41, 80, 86, 199–200, 221, 326–7, 345, 346,

346–7, 366; and the Icelandic banking crisis 295, 299–301, 300, 301; and transformational leadership
323, 326–8
Holden, Nigel xlv–xlix, 5, 58–67, 133, 152, 266, 327
Holliday, A. 238, 241
Holmes, Prue 187, 237–47
Homan, A.C. 145
Hong, H.-J. 154
Hong, K. 24
Hopper, P. 135
House, J. 116, 282
House, R.J. 328, 329, 335
Howell, J.M. 324
Hsu, C. 22
Husted, B.W.
Hyde, M. 238
Hymes, D. 122, 137

Islam, Merve Kavai 376

Ituma, A. 250
Ja, Gavin xlviii, 183–8, 200, 242, 366, 400
Jason, M.S. 219
Jason, T. 11, 13, 366
Jandt, Fred E. 286
Janssens, Maddy 82, 131–41, 146
Järvenpää, S.L. 144
Javidan, M. 326
Jaw, B. 22
Jehn, K. 144–5
Jensen, Karina R. 263, 265–74
Jones, M.L. 301
Jorgensen, K.M. 203–4
Joy, S. 202

Kahn, Hermann 50
Kaiser-Nolden, E. 114
Kankaaranta, A. 105, 121, 156, 428
Kansanen, A. 119
Kassis-Henderson, Jane 82–3, 151–60
Kennedy, A.A. 50
Kim, J.W. 144
Kirkby, R.J.R. 22
Kirkman, B.L. 335
Kleinberg, J. 309, 336
Klitmøller, Anders 82, 95–102, 200, 420, 428
Kluhohn, C. 195
Kluver, R. 290
Knight, J. 248–9
Kogut, B. 345
Kolb, D. 242, 243
Konno, N. 106
Koot, W.C.J. 42–3
Köster, K. 103, 105
Kostova, T. 63
Koveshnikov, Alexei 360, 409–19
Kragelund, Loe 6, 73, 73–6
Kshetri, Nir 262, 263, 285–93
Kullman, J. 238
Kunda, G. 309

Lambert, J. 133
Lander, E. 209
Lau, D.C. 144, 145, 148
Lauring, Jakob 82, 95–102, 200, 420, 428
Leini, G. 209
Lecomte, Philippe 82–3, 151–60
Ledwith, S. 156
Lee, F. 80–1
Leung, K. 20
Levi-Strauss, C. 21
Levina, N. 336
Lévy, D. 300
Lian, H. 192
Lin, F. 22
Lin, H. 22
Lincoln, J.R. 50
Lirell, R. 208
Liu, B.J. 22
Lorbiei, A. 400
Lou, Y. 80, 90
Louhiala-Salminen, L. 105, 121
Lowe, K.B. 335
Lu, W 428
Lüe, G. 15
Lui, G. 277
Luthans, F. 220
Lyan, Irina 359, 399–408
Lyotard, J.-F. 203

Magala, Slawomir 358, 362–70

Magner, U. 103, 105
Mahnke, V. 336
Makoni, S. 134, 136
Mannheim, B. 135
Maran-Piekkari, R. 103, 105, 117
Marcus, G. 97
Martin, J. 23
Maslow, A. 204
Mauss, M. 19
Mayrhofer, Wolfgang 5, 6, 28–36, 76
McCarthy, Daniel J. 186, 227–36
McGoey, L. 295
McLuhan, Marshall xlvi, 367
McSweeney, Brendan 199, 326, 366
Meindl, J.R. 328
Mellahi, K. 22
Mendez-Garcia, M.C. 242
Meyer, J.W. 63
Meylaerts, R. 139
Miailova, S. xlv–xlix, 60, 133, 195, 202
Mignolo, Ernesto 209
Mignolo, W.D. 210, 211, 390, 393
Mikitani, Hiroshi 157
Miller, C.C. 113
Mills, A.J. 204
Minkov, Miael 362, 363–5
Minx, E. 114
Mixa, Már Wolfgang 294–303
Moiatis, A. 105
Moore, Fiona xlviii, 5, 6, 19–27, 203, 261–4, 309
Moran, R.T. 220
Morosini, P. 24
Mosakowski, Elaine 267
Moulees, A. 199, 202, 204
Mufwene, S. 137
Mughan, Terry xlviii, 24, 79–84, 242
Müller-Jens, D. 50–1, 116
Murnighan, J.K. 144, 145, 148
Murray, H.A. 195
Murray, S.O. 24

Naser, K. 315
Needham, R. 19–20
Neeley, Tsedal 157
Neidermeyer, P.E. 277
Niblo, D.M. 219
Nierson, Catherine 82, 103–11, 152–3
Nkomo, S.M. 200, 366
Noels, K.A. 241
Nojonen, Mai 359, 380–8
Nonaka, I. 53, 106
Nyíri, Pál 5, 6, 37–48

O’Neill, Jim 63
Olafsson, Stefan 299, 300
Orr, Julian 97
Osland, J. 208
Oui, W. 50, 51
Özkazanç-Pan, Banu 359, 367, 371–9

Page, S.E. 113

Paludi, Mariana I. 359, 389–98
Pascale, R.T. 50
Patri, H. 50
Pei, M. 289
Peltokorpi, Vesa 83, 161–9
Peltonen, T. 200, 366
Pennycook, A. 134, 136, 241
Pernkopf-Konhäusner, Katharina 5, 6, 28–36, 76
Peters, T.J. 50–1, 116
Peigrew, A.M. 50
Phillips, Margaret 4–5, 6, 8–18, 22, 76
Phipps, A. 123, 242, 245
Piekkari, Rebecca 88, 360, 420–30
Pike, Kenneth 184, 218
Plakoyiannaki, E. 134
Planken, B. 114
Polzer, J.T. 144
Poonamallee, L. 202
Porksen, Niels 6, 68–73, 69, 76
Porto, M. 239
Prahalad, C.K. 53
Prasad, Ajnesh 185, 198–207
Primecz, Henrie 360, 431–9
Pucik, V. 50
Pudelko, Markus 81–2, 85–94, 90, 158
Puffer, Sheila M. 186, 227–36

Ramsden, J. 24
Reeves, N. 162
Risager, K. 241
Robinson, Sarah 187, 248–57, 250
Rohlen, T.P. 50, 51
Romani, Laurence 360, 431–9
Rosovky, H. 50
Rowan, B. 63

Saarinen, Johanna 360, 420–30

Saman, Aarhus U. 68–76
Samann, Sonja xlviii, 3–7, 4–5, 6, 8–18, 22, 68–76
Said, E.W. 390
Salmon, P. 289
Saney, P. 286
Sauliere, J. 166
Sautman, B. 289
Saede, Ulrike 5, 49–57
Sein, E.H. 50, 51
Seu, E.K. 31
Sneider, S.C. 113
Swartz, S.H. 190, 192, 401
Syns, B. 328
Selvester, K. 249
Senge, P.M. 53
Seymour, D. 156
Shamir, B. 324, 329
Shenkar, O. 80, 85, 90, 403
Shi-xu 240
Shi, X. 24
Shih, H. 22
Shiller, R.J. 300
Shipper, F. 194
Sigurjonsson, T.O. 299
Simon, Sherry 132, 139
Simpson, R. 250
Singh, H. 345
Sitkin, S.B. 324–5
Skorodumova, O. 285
Smith, Adam 302
Smith, P.B. 190, 191, 192
Snow, Edgar 382
Søderberg, Anne-Marie 262, 263, 334–43
Søndergaard, Mikael 68–76
Soskice, D. 64
Spencer-Oatey, Helen 364
Spitzberg, B. 237, 238
Spivak, G.C. 203, 367
Sri Lanka 289
Stalk, G. Jr. 50
Steyaert, Chris 82, 131–41, 146
Sturges, J. 250
Suryani, A.O. 191

Tanno, Dolores V. Howard 286

Taylor, Frederi 50, 51
Tenzer, Helene 81–2, 85–94
omas, D.A. 113, 142, 143
Tienari, Janne xlix, 357–61
Tietze, Susanne xlv–xlix, 88
Ting-Toomey, S. 238
Todd, Emmanuel 364, 365–6
Topcu, Katalin 360, 431–9
Touré, Hamadoun 285
Triandis, H.C. 325–6, 344
Trompenaars, F. 13, 190, 373
Tsai, C. 22
Tsui, A. 60, 64–5
Tung, M.L. 202
Turnbull, Colin 261

Vaast, E. 336
Vaiman, V. 5, 58–67, 300
Van de Vijver, Fons J.R. 185, 189–97
Van Emmerik, H. 195, 914
Van Kleef, G.A. 145
Van Knippenberg, D. 145, 324–5
Van Maanen, J.E. 202
Vogel, Ezra 50
Vohlonen, L. 119
Vollstedt, M. 31–2, 117

Wang, C.Y. 22
Wang, P. 164
Wang, Z. 222–3
Wang, Zhaohui 186, 218–26
Waterman, R.H. 50–1, 116
Weatherbee, T. 204
Weber, M. 324
Wei, K.E. 390–1
Weight, P. 250
Wel, C. 134
Wel, D. 117
Wel, L. 117
Wen, C. 22
Wendt, H, 194
Westney, D.E. 202
Westwood, R. 202
Whitley, R. 64
Whiington, J.L. 325
Wilkins, A.L. 51
Wilkinson, A. 22
Willmo, Hugh 366
Wofford, J.C. 325
Wong-On-Wing, B. 277
Woods, A. 250
Wright, C. 162, 324
Wu, Y. 22

Yagi, N. 309, 336

Yanaprasart, Patareerat 82, 112–30
Yang, C. 22
Yashima, T. 241
Ybema, Sierk 5, 6, 37–48
Yeganeh, H. 200, 201
Yonaco 403
Yoshino, M.Y. 50
You, Z. 221
Yu, F. 223
Yukl, G. 324

Zander, A. 105
Zeithaml, V.A. 435
Zhang, R. 241
Zhang, Z, 223
Zhou, W. 24
Zhu, Yunxia 109, 186, 218–26
Subject index

Note: page numbers in italic type refer to Figures; those in bold type refer to
Tables.

3Ps model of company linguistic identity 174, 174–7

7S framework (McKinsey) 50

AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Sools of Business) 375

academic resear collaboration, international 29, 32–3
Academy of Management Journal 211
accounting see auditing, and cross-national cultural differences
administration bias 192 see also bias
African Ubuntu 214, 215
agency, individual 40, 409, 410
Al Habtoor Group 106
ALAAT/ALAST (all languages at all time/at the same time) policies 81, 120–2
animal metaphors 177
anthropology 12, 19–20, 372; and language studies 95, 96, 99
appreciative leadership 421
Arab countries 190; women entrepreneurs in 262–3, 313–19
Arab culture 286–7
Arab Women’s Society 316
Arabic language 90; Dubai workplace case study 103–4, 106–9
Argentina 211, 213, 214; gender equality training program 359, 389–90, 391–7
Asia: haing 287; Tesco plc case study xxxviii–xl
assertiveness 282, 328
Association to Advance Collegiate Sools of Business (AACSB) 375
auditing, and cross-national cultural differences 262, 275–83
Austro-Hungarian Empire 433
authentic leadership 421
automotive industry, Japanese management practices in 52, 55

Babel 131
ba-translation 133, 134
Bahrain Businesswoman’s Society (BBS) 316
Bangladesh, textile factory fire 366
banking, Iceland 262, 294–9
BBS (Bahrain Businesswoman’s Society) 316
BELF see English, as the lingua franca of business
Berlin Wall 10, 11, 59, 62, 367
bias 191–2; strategies to minimize 193, 193–5, 194
bicultural bridges xxxviii–xl, 87
biculturalism 309
biculturals xxxviii–xl, 80, 82; bicultural-bilinguals 142, 143, 144, 145–8 see also binationals
Big 4 accountancy firms see auditing, and cross-national cultural differences
Bildung 187, 248, 251–5
bilinguals 138, 149; bicultural-bilinguals 142, 143, 144, 145–8
binationals 15 see also biculturals
blogging 32
BMW MINI 203
border thinking 390
born globals 306
boundaries, and language 96, 98, 100
boundary-markers 348–9, 350
boundary-spanning 143, 144–5, 146, 147, 148;
Indian IT MNC case study 334–5, 339–42
brain resear 28, 31
branding 171, 173, 177
Brazil 165, 211, 213, 213, 214, 215 see also BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) 14, 63, 65, 184
bridging 339–41 see also boundary-spanning
British Household Panel Survey 32
business sools: foreign language learning 82–3;
Latin America 210–12

Canada, language-oriented HRM practices 165, 166

capital (Bourdieu) 31–2
categorization, and language 96–7, 98, 100
CCCM (critical cross-cultural management), in Latin America 186, 209, 209, 210, 212, 215
CCM (cross-cultural management) 4–6, 305–6, 309, 399; advances in theory and methodology 31–3;
and CCT (cross-cultural training) 399–402; and China 380–1; and cybercrime 291–2; education (see
CCM (cross-cultural management) education); evolution and development of 8, 9, 10–16, 86–7;
existing and emerging approaes to 410–11; at individual level xxxvii–xxxviii; interpretive
approa to 41–3; in Latin America 208–15; at nation-state level xxxv–xxxvi; new resear topics
in 29–30; non-cultural explanations 58–66; at organizational level xxxvi–xxxvii; polytextual
approa to culture 60–1, 65–6; and postcolonial feminist theory 359, 371–7, 377; relevance and
impact of 33–4; resear (see CCM (cross-cultural management) resear); Self/Other concepts in
344, 345, 347–52; and translation 132–4
CCM (cross-cultural management) education 183–5, 186–7; China 218–24; and intercultural
encounters 237–45; and postcolonial feminist theory 375–7 see also management education
CCM (cross-cultural management) resear 183–6, 198–9; bias and equivalence in 189, 191–5, 193, 194;
and critical theory 201–3; and Foucault’s genealogy 203–5; Hofstede’s legacy in 198, 199–200;
multilevel approa to 189, 195; positivism in 100–201, 198–9
CCT (cross-cultural training) 399–402, 405
CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) 194, 194
aoliu 222
arismatic leadership 323, 324, 329, 330
Chile 213, 214
China 62, 63; business relationship with Taiwan 22; CCM (cross-cultural management) education 186,
218–24; cybersecurity 263, 289–90; Finnish MNC working in 420–1, 422–9; haing 287, 289–90;
language-oriented HRM practices 163, 164, 165, 166; young people 359, 380–7 see also BRICs
(Brazil, Russia, India, China)
Chinese language 90
Chinese Values Survey 38
CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa) 14
CLASCO (Latin American Social Science Council) 208–9
class, social, and cybersecurity 290–1
CM (Comparative Management) 8, 9, 10–11, 15
CME (Coordinated Market Economy) 64
CME (Critical Management Education) 249
CMS (critical management studies) 33, 221; in Latin America 186, 208–9, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215
Cold War 10, 11, 59, 62, 363, 367
collectivism 327; in-group 282, 328; institutional 282, 328
collectivism/individualism (Hofstedes’ dimensions) 38, 44, 192, 219, 220, 326, 376, 404, 405, 435
Colombia see CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa)
colonialism 135, 210
Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Haia) 287
commitment 51
communication tenology, limitations of 425–6
company identity, and metaphors 173, 174 company linguistic identity 170–2; 3Ps model of 174, 174–7
company linguistic identity capital 172
comparative capitalism literature 64
Comparative Management (CM) 8, 9, 10–11, 15
competencies transfer in MNCs 142–3
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 194, 194
conflict: within cultures 39–40; and language proficiency differences 98
Confucian Dynamism 38
Confucianism 223, 349, 359, 380–1
construct bias 192, 193, 194 see also bias
construct equivalence 193
consultation, and auditing 281
consumer behaviour 175
consumer perception 435
consumer reviews, falsification of 287
consumerism 10
context 220–4
context-sensitive theory development 184
Coordinated Market Economy (CME) 64
corporate identity 171
corporate linguistic identity 171, 174, 176
Corporate University of Russian Railways (CURR) 231–2
corruption 280
country impacts 5; on CCM 61, 62–3
crime, and culture 286–7
critical cross-cultural management (CCCM), in Latin America 186, 209, 209, 210, 212, 215
critical management studies (CMS) 33, 221; in Latin America 186, 208–9, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215
critical paradigm 432; and cross-cultural encounters 437–8
critical sensemaking (CSM) 389, 390–1, 393
critical theory, and CCM (cross-cultural management) resear 201–3
cross-cultural collaboration, and innovation 265–73
cross-cultural competence 359
cross-cultural management see CCM (cross-cultural management)
cross-cultural managers, anging role of 304–10
cross-cultural psyology xxxvi
cross-cultural training (CCT) 399–402, 405
cross-culture work 46
cross-national cultural differences, and auditing 262, 275–83
crowd-sourcing 367
CSM (critical sensemaking) 389, 390–1, 393
cultural capital 31–2
cultural competence 38
cultural dimensions see dimensions (Hofstede)
cultural distance 24, 335, 345, 346, 349
cultural identities 41–3
cultural metacognition xxxviii
Cultural Revolution, China 382–3
cultural sensitivity 336
culture 6, 142; and crime 286–7; as a management tool 50–1; nation-state as synonym for 5, 11–14, 15;
polytextual approa to 60–1; relationship with language 90; and representation 240
culture work 5, 37, 45, 46
culture-free paradigm 81, 85, 89
culture-inclusive paradigm 81, 85, 89
culture-specific paradigm 86
Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede) see Hofstede, Geert
Curaçao 42–3
CURR (Corporate University of Russian Railways) 231–2
cybercrime 263, 285–7, 289–91
cybersecurity 263, 285, 286, 288, 289–91
cyberspace 61–2

d-leadership 421
data collection and analysis 29, 32
data sets, large 29, 32
DBWC (Dubai Businesswomen Council) 314
dead and disappeared 213, 214
decolonialism 389, 390
deconstructionism 437
Dell 288
demographic ange, as a CCM resear topic 30
Deng Xiaoping 382, 383, 384
DIF (differential item functioning analysis) 194, 195
difference: advantages of 113 see also diversity
differential item functioning analysis (DIF) 194, 195
differentiated culture-specific paradigm 86–8, 87, 89, 89, 91
differentiated language-specific paradigm 81, 88–9, 89
digitalized texts 32
dimensions (Hofstede) 5, 6, 11–12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 37–41, 43, 44, 62, 86, 190, 199, 218, 220, 238, 266, 277
see also Hofstede, Geert
dirty wars 213, 214
distance concept 89
diversity 365, 366–7; positive impact of 112–14 see also difference
diversity management (DM) 113–14, 123–4, 146, 238, 365; ‘ALAAT/ALAST’ (all languages at all
time/at the same time) policies 81, 120–2; ‘OLAT’ (one language at a time) policies 117–20; ‘OLON’
(one language only) policies 115–17; language as a factor in 114–15; multilinguaculturing 122–3
DM see diversity management (DM)
double hermeneutic 43
Dubai 82; workplace languages case study 103–9
Dubai Businesswomen Council (DBWC) 314
Duménil, G. 300

e-leadership 421
East Timor 289
Eastern Europe, haing 287
economic capital 31–2
EEA (European Economic Area) 296
EFA (exploratory factor analysis) 194
EFMD (European Foundation for Management Development) 229, 230
Egypt see CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa)
Eli Lilly see Porksen, Niels
EMBA (Executive MBA), Moscow State University 229, 230
emerging economies 14
emic approa 14, 43, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 218–20, 373; Chinese CCM education 222–3, 224;
combining with etic approa 190–1; to study of language 103
Emiratization policy, Dubai 104–6
emotion, and language 119
English language 100, 426; Dubai workplace case study 103–4, 105, 106–9; as the lingua franca of
business 19–120, 29, 30, 64, 70, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83, 88, 105, 108, 112, 115–17, 118, 121, 122, 146, 151,
152, 154, 157, 162, 165
Enlightenment, European 381
entrepreneurship: and social/human development 315–16; women entrepreneurs in Arab Gulf 262–3,
313–19
equivalence 192–3
ERASMUS program, IEREST (Intercultural Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teaers) 243,
244
essentialism 357
ethics, and auditing 280
ethnography 15, 203; in language studies 97–9
etic approa 5, 15, 43, 103, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 218, 219–20, 366, 373; Chinese CCM education 220–
2; combining with emic approa 190–1
Europe, haing 287
European Economic Area (EEA) 296
European Economic Community 62
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) 229, 230
European Union, multilingual policy 112
European Values Survey 32
European Work Conditions Surveys 32
Exista 298
expatriates, Self/Other concepts 344, 345, 348–9, 350
experiential learning 242, 243
exploitation approa 219
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 194
extended case study method 99–101

factor analysis 194, 194

Falklands (Malvinas) War 214–15, 239
family collectivism 192
faultlines 144, 145, 146, 148
feminism: postcolonial feminist theory 359, 371–7, 377
feminization 319
field (Bourdieu) 31
Finland: language-oriented HRM practices 163, 164, 166, 167; management of Chinese employees 360;
MNCs in China 420–1, 422–9; MNCs in Russia 360, 411, 412, 414, 415–17
followers’ reactions to leadership 328, 329, 330
framing 145–6, 148, 402
France: business education 155; language-oriented HRM practices 165, 166
Fren language 117–18, 120, 121
Fugger von der Lilie 3
future orientation 328

GEMS (General Electric Medical Systems) 165, 166

gender equality 328; MEGA (Modelo de Equidad de Genero para Argentina /Argentine Gender Equity
Model) 359, 389–90, 391–7
gender relations 371
gender stereotypes 316–17
gender studies 33
gender-segregated workplaces 318
genealogy (Foucault) 185, 203–5
General Electric Medical Systems (GEMS) 165, 166
General Motors 52, 54
General Women’s Union (UAE) 316
generation Y 385, 386
generation Z 385, 386
geopolitics 262
German language 117–18, 120–1, 340
German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) 32
Germany, language-oriented HRM practices 162, 163
Ghana 137
global cosmopolitans xxxvii–xxxviii
global financial crisis 2008 29, 33–4
global mindsets 13, 307, 375
global village xlvi, 61
globalisation xlvi, 5, 12, 61–2; and CCM resear 29; and translation 131–2
GLOBE project 189, 190, 191, 192, 266, 323, 328, 401, 432
Grameen Bank 314, 367
grand social theories 28, 31–2
grounded theory 277–8 Guasha Treatment (movie) 222–3
Gulf Cooperation Council 316
Gung Ho (movie) 222

habitus (Bourdieu) 31
haing 287
Haia (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) 287
Hair 223
Harvard University 385; Harvard Business Sool 211, 231
hierary of needs (Maslow) 204
Hindi language 90, 104
Hong Kong, Norwegian expatriates case study 345, 347–9
HRM (human resource management) 49, 51–2, 54; and language 83; language-oriented HRM practices
161–8
humane orientation 328
humility 105
Hungary 432–3; Turkish immigrants in 360, 431, 433–8
Huntington thesis 365
hybrid languages 136, 137
hybrid studies 208
hybridity 359, 374
hybridization 307

IB (International Business) 3, 9, 10; development of 85–6; and language 103; and translation 132–4
IBM xxxvi, 11, 21, 38, 60, 199, 210 see also Hofstede, Geert
ICCM (International Cross-Cultural Management) 8, 9, 12–14, 15
Iceland, national culture and banking case study 262, 294–9
identity 240–1; construction/formation of 309, 374; cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around
413, 416–17
ideology, and cybersecurity 290
IEREST (Intercultural Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teaers) 243, 244
IM (International Management) 8, 9, 11–12, 13, 15
imposed etic approa 219 see also etic approa
in-group collectivism 282, 328
INCAE 211
independence movements 13
India: boundary-spanning case study 334–5, 339–42; cybersecurity 288, 290; haers 289 see also BRICs
(Brazil, Russia, India, China)
indigenous theory development 184, 222
individual values 328–9
individualism 299–300, 300, 327; collectivism/ individualism (Hofstedes’ dimensions) 38, 44, 192, 219,
220, 328, 376, 404, 405, 435
individualized consideration, and leadership 324
Indonesia: and cybersecurity 289, 290–1; leadership studies 191 see also CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia,
Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa)
induction programmes 254–5
indulgence/restraint (Hofstedes’ dimensions) 38
inequalities 366–7
information sources, digitalized texts 32
innovation, and cross-cultural collaboration 265–73
inspirational motivation, and leadership 324
institutional approaes 5
institutional collectivism 192, 282, 328
institutions, as non-cultural factors 61, 63–4
instrument bias 192 see also bias
intellectual stimulation, and leadership 324
intercultural capital 351
intercultural communication xxxvi; and CCM (cross-cultural management) education 237–45
intercultural competence 38, 237, 238–9, 243
Intercultural Development Inventory 38
intercultural dialogue 241–2
Intercultural Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teaers (IEREST) 243, 244
interdisciplinary resear 362–8
interests, cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around 413, 414–16
intergenerational dynamics, in China 359, 380–7
International Business see IB (International Business)
International Cross-Cultural Management (ICCM) 8, 9, 12–14, 15
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 13
International Management (IM) 8, 9, 11–12, 13, 15
international relations (IR) xxxv
International Standards on Accounting 276–7
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 285
Internet: development of 12 see also social media
interpretive methodologies 202–3
interpretive paradigm 432; and cross-cultural encounters 436, 438
invisible assets 53
IR (international relations) xxxv
Iraq 74
Islamic haing 290
isomorphism theory 63
Israel, joint R&D venture with South Korea 359, 399, 400, 402–5
Italian language 117–18, 120
item bias 192, 193, 194 see also bias
ITU (International Telecommunications Union) 285

Japan 65, 117; cybersecurity 288; Japanese management 5, 12, 49–55, 62, 261; Japanese—Dut work
relations case study 43–5; language-oriented HRM practices 162, 163, 164–5, 166, 167
Japanese language 90
Jinan University 21
just-in-time inventory management 52, 55

Kaizen Institute 231

Kaupthing Bank 297, 298
keiretsu 52–3
King, Martin Luther 139
knowledge creation, and language 106
knowledge economy 403
knowledge management, Russia 228, 229
knowledge transfer: and critical theory 202; and language training 164; in MNCs 142–3; Russia 228,
233, 234
knowledge-creating firm 53
knowledge-sharing: and auditing 280–1; and innovation 265, 266–7, 268, 269–70, 272–3 see also cross-
cultural collaboration
KOISA 403
Kone Elevators 88, 163, 164

L’Oreal 154
labour unions, and language-sensitive HRM practices 165
language xlvii, 79–83, 142, 425–6; and emotion 119; further resear suggestions 89–90; as multilingual
language use 135–6; national level of analysis 96–7, 8295; and power 81, 117; relationship with
culture 90; sub-national level of analysis 82, 95, 99–100; supra-national level of analysis 82, 95, 96–
7, 100; Tesco plc case study xxxviii–xl; as translingual practices 134–7
language differences 87–8
language distance 89
language diversity 90; and management education 151, 154–8
language proficiency 98, 340
language training 162, 163, 166, 167; and management education 151, 154–8
language-general approa 83
language-oriented HRM practices 161–3, 167–8; barriers to 164–7; benefits of 164
language-sensitive promotion practices 163, 166, 167, 168
language-sensitive recruitment practices 162–3, 164–5, 166
Latin America 390; CCM in 208–12, 215; CCM resear in 185–6; national anthems case study 212–15,
213

Latin American Social Science Council (CLASCO) 208–9

leadership 322; aracteristics of global leaders 13; in global virtual teams 420–1, 422–9; recent trends
in leadership resear 421–2; and value congruence 329 see also arismatic leadership;
transformational leadership
lean manufacturing 52, 55, 261
learning organizations 53
Liberal Market Economy (LME) 64
linguacultures 241
linguistics 90 see also sociolinguistics
LME (Liberal Market Economy) 64
long/short-term orientation (Hofstedes’ dimensions) 38
Luxemburg, language-oriented HRM practices 162

Malvinas (Falklands) War 214–15, 239

management 59
Management and Organizational Review 222
management education: internationalization of 248–9; and language diversity 151, 154–8; MBA
students’ experiences 248, 249–55; Russia 227–35 see also CCM (cross-cultural management)
education
management practices: global transfer of 53–4; new developments in 262–3
management theory 64–5, 184; new developments in 263
Manester sool of social anthropology 99
manufacturing, business education for 231
Mao Zedung 382, 383
maquiladora 99
masculinity/femininity (Hofstedes’ dimensions) 38, 44, 435
materialism 10
May Fourth Movement, China 382
MBA programs: Moscow State University 229–30; students’ experiences 248, 249–55
McKinsey’s 7S framework 50
measurement 58–9
MEGA (Modelo de Equidad de Genero para Argentina /Argentine Gender Equity Model) 359, 389–90,
391–7
mergers, success factors 24
metaphors 170; in CCM 172–3; and company identity 173, 174; and personnel 174, 174–5; and products
174, 176–7; and purasers 174, 175
metatheory 184, 200
method bias 192, 193 see also bias
methodology, advances in CCM methodology 31–3
metric equivalence 193
metrolingualism 136, 241
Mexico 213, 214; language study 99–100
micro-political struggles, of cross-cultural interaction in MNCs 410, 412, 413, 414–17, 418
microfinancing 314, 367
Middle East, haing 287
MINTS (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, South Africa) 14
MIT, Leaders for Manufacturing program 231
Mixed Market Economy (MME) 64
mixed methods resear 191
MLQ (Multifactor Leadership estionnaire) 325
MME (Mixed Market Economy) 64
MNCs (multinational corporations): anging environment of 304–10; Finnish MNC working in China
420–1, 422–9; Finnish MNC working in Russia 411, 412, 414, 415–17; Japanese-Dut work
relations case study 43–5; language-oriented HRM practices 161–8; organisational structure of 21;
role of bicultural-bilinguals in 142, 143, 144, 145–8
Modelo de Equidad de Genero para Argentina/Argentine Gender Equity Model (MEGA) 359, 389–90,
391–7
Moscow State University, management education programs 229–33
motivation; inspirational motivation, and leadership 324
multi-sited ethnography 97–9, 100–1
multicultural workplace communication 103–9
multiculturalism 15, 146, 362
multiculturals xxxvii–xxxviii, 80–1 see also multinationals (people)
multidisciplinarity 358, 360
Multifactor Leadership estionnaire (MLQ) 325
multilinguaculturing 82, 122–3
multilingual language use 135–6
multilingual turn 83, 151–3; implications for companies 153–4; and management education 154–8
multilingualism 112, 116, 136, 241
multilinguals 138, 147–8
multinational corporations see MNCs (multinational corporations)
multinationals (people) 15 see also multiculturals
Muslim communities 365–6

nation-states: declining importance of 29; as synonyms for culture 5, 11–14, 15

national anthems 186, 212–15, 213
national cultures 400–2; and knowledge-sharing 269–70; as native categories 20–1
national identity 309
nationalism 289–90
native American culture 21
native categories 5, 19–20; and auditing 275–6, 281–2; Taiwanese identity case study 21–5
neoliberalism 300
Netherlands; Japanese—Dut work relations case study 43–5
network firm 52–3, 55
network metaphors 173
neuroscience 90
New United Motors Manufacturing Incorporated (NUMMI) 52, 54
new-genre leadership 421–2
non-cultural explanations 5, 58–66
Northeastern University, Boston 230
Norwegian expatriates; Self/Other concepts 344, 345, 347–9, 350
NUMMI (New United Motors Manufacturing Incorporated) 52, 54

OLAT (one language at a time) policies 117–20, 121

OLON (one language only) policies 115–17
one-ild policy, China 384–5, 386
Opium War, China 381
organisational structure, of MNCs (multinational corporations) 21
organization theory 33
organizational capabilities 53, 54
organizational culture 51
organizational identity 171
organizational linguistic identity 171, 174, 176
Other, the 42, 45, 61, 65, 140, 285–6; cultural acceptability of victimization of 288, 288–91; Self/Other
concepts 344, 345, 347–52
Ooman Empire 433
outsourcing services; Indian IT MNC case study 334–5, 339–42

Pakistan; haers 289

Paraguay 214
patriotism 289–90
perceived product quality 435
performance orientation 328
personnel, and metaphors 174, 174–5
physical contact, cultural differences in 395
plagiarism 211
Poland 74
politeness practices 105
polytextual approa to culture 60–1, 65–6
Portugal: conquest of Latin/South America 214–15; haers 289
Portuguese language 90
positivism 344, 372; in CCM (cross-cultural management) resear 100–201, 198–9
positivist paradigm xli, xlix, 432; of cross-cultural encounters 435, 435–6, 438
postcolonial studies 42, 136, 185
postcolonial theory 367; and CCM (cross-cultural management) resear 201–2; postcolonial feminist
theory 359, 371–7, 377
postmodern paradigm 432; and cross-cultural encounters 436–7, 438
power distance 38, 44, 282, 328, 376, 435
power, and language 81, 117
presence, virtual 426–8
Presidential Program of Professional Management
Preparation, Russia 228
product innovation, and cross-cultural collaboration 265–73
product life-cycles 177
products, and metaphors 174, 176–7
promotions, language-sensitive 163, 166, 167, 168
public sector, Arab countries 317–18
purasers, and metaphors 174, 175

Qatar 315
qualitative resear 15, 191; in language studies 88–9, 97–101
quality management (TQM) 52, 55
quantitative resear 185–6, 191
quanxi 22
ebec, Canada; language-oriented HRM practices 165, 166
Rakuten Group 157
realism 200
recruitment, language-sensitive 162–3, 164–5, 166
reductionist culture-specific paradigm 86–7, 87, 89, 89, 91
reflexivity 359, 372–3, 377
regulatory environments, and language-sensitive HRM practices 165
remote leadership 421
repertoire 136–7
representation 372–3, 377
resear: academic resear collaboration 29, 32–3; new topics in CCM resear 29–30
resource-based capabilities 53
resources, cross-cultural interactions as a struggle around 412, 413, 414
risk 278–9
Romane language 117–18, 120
Romania; haing 287
Rosatom 232–3
Russia: Finnish MNCs operating in 411, 412, 414, 415–17; haing 287; management education 227–35
see also BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China); Soviet Union
Russian language 90; CCM education 186
Russian Railways 231–2

sample bias 192 see also bias

Sampo Group 298
Samsung Israel 404
Saudi Arabia; cybercrime 287
Savings Bank of Keflavik 298
savings ratios 300–1, 301
scalar equivalence 193
Scandinavian languages 90
scepticism, professional 279
Sool of Business Management, Fundação Getúlio Vargas 211
SDE (Social Democratic Economy) 64
self—other talk 45
Self, the 373; Self/Other concepts 344, 345, 347–52
sensemaking 390–1, 393, 436 see also CSM (critical sensemaking)
separatist movements 13
servant leadership 421
sexual harassment 395
Shell 42–3
Sheng 136
SiCuLA (situated cultural learning model) 224
Siemens 163
SIETAR 34
situated cultural learning model (SiCuLA) 224
Skorodumova, O. 285
social capital 31–2, 143
social construction theory 328
social constructionism 237, 243–4, 345
social context 40, 60
Social Democratic Economy (SDE) 64
social media 29–30, 32; and women’s entrepreneurship 318
social theories; grand social theories 28, 31–2
socialization 51
sociolinguistics 134–5, 137, 144
SOEP (German Socio-Economic Panel) 32
soware development services; Indian IT MNC case study 334–5, 339–42
soware piracy 285, 287
South Africa 136 see also CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa)
South Korea: and cybersecurity 290; joint R&D venture with Israel 359, 399, 400, 402–5; language-
oriented HRM practices 164; Norwegian expatriates case study 345, 347–9
Soviet Union 365, 367, 411, 433 see also Cold War; Russia
Spain, conquest of Latin/South America 214–15
Spanish language 99–100
special economic zones 99
Sri Lanka 289
stakeholders 171
stereotypes 31, 41, 316–17; Israel/ South Korea joint R&D venture 359, 399, 400, 402–5
strategic ethnography xxxviii–xxxix
structuralist anthropology 19
structuration theory 31, 32
student rebellion, 1968 363
subaltern concept 367
subjugated knowledge 203
Sweden, language-oriented HRM practices 163, 166, 167
Switzerland: language-oriented HRM practices 166; multilingualism 82, 112, 117–23
symbolic capital 32

Taiwan: haers 289; Taiwanese identity case study 21–5

Taiwanese management 5
Tesco plc case study xxxviii–xl
eory X 50
eory Y 50
eory Z 50
time zones 423
Toubon Law, France 165, 166
Toyota 52, 54
Toyota Production System (TPS) 52
TQM (quality management) 52, 55
transaction cost economics 52
transactional leadership 323, 421
transformational leadership 263, 322–5, 329–30, 421; in a cross-cultural context 325–6; and cultural
values 326–8; and individual values 328–9
transitional economies 60
translanguaging 135
translation 81, 82, 131–2; in CCM 132–4; and hybrid voice 138–40
translingual practices: and cross-cultural communication 138; language as 134–7
transnationalism 14
tribes 172
Turkey 367, 376, 433; haing 290; migrants in Hungary 431, 433–8 see also CIVETS (Colombia,
Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa)

UAE see United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Ubuntu 214, 215
Ukraine; haing 287
uncertainty absorption 336
uncertainty avoidance 38, 282, 299, 328, 435
United Arab Emirates (UAE): women entrepreneurs in 262–3, 314–16, 317, 319 see also Dubai
universities; critique of output of 29, 33–4
University of Miigan 211
University of Peking 385
urbilingualism 136
Urdu 104
Uruguay 210, 210, 213, 214
USA 360, 376; cybersecurity 289–90; haing 287; as a non-cultural factor 5, 61, 62, 64–5; post-war
economy 10

value congruence 329

values 58–9; World Values Survey 29, 32, 364
Velux SA see Kragelund, Loe
Vermeer, Johannes 131–2
villages 172
virtual teams 420–1
virtualization, as a CCM resear topic 29–30
voice 136–7
voting behaviour 365

Wipro 287
women, Arab Gulf entrepreneurship study 262–3, 313–19
Women’s Federation (UAE) 316
workforces: gender-segregated 318; multi-cultural 14–15
workplace communication, multicultural 103–9
World Bank; MEGA (Modelo de Equidad de Genero para Argentina /Argentine Gender Equity Model)
359, 389–90, 391–7
world culture 30
world society, as a CCM resear topic 29, 30
World Values Survey 29, 32, 364

Yonaco 403
young people, in China 359, 380–7

Zhou Enlai 382