See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311943053

There is Nothing so Practical as Four Good Theories

Chapter · January 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-137-35001-5_2

CITATIONS READS

11 628

3 authors, including:

Laurence Romani Henriett Primecz

Stockholm School of Economics Corvinus University of Budapest
36 PUBLICATIONS   370 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Next Generation Technologies and Processes for Global Software Development (www.nexgsd.org) View project

CALL FOR PAPERS "LEVERAGING COOPERATION FOR GENDER EQUALITY IN MANAGEMENT" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laurence Romani on 13 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Romani, L., Primecz, H and Bell, R. (forthcoming), There is nothing so practical as four

good theories, in M.T. Claes and B Gherke (Eds) Global Leadership Practices: A

Cross-Cultural Management Perspective, Palgrave McMillan.

Draft

Chapter 1 There is nothing so practical as four good theories1

Laurence Romani2, Henriett Primecz and Roger Bell

Markus in Shanghai

Markus can’t believe it. “Leave the room! You suggest leaving the room! No, no way. It

doesn’t make sense: it won’t be a workshop!” The other employees look at him and

wonder what is the reason for this sudden outburst, why Markus, division Manager in

Shanghai for about a year, is reacting so strongly to the comments made by Anna.

Markus (originally from Germany) and Anna (originally from Brazil) are both in charge

of the development of environmentally friendly technologies in the Asian operations of

the international corporation Sveab (pseudonym), an MNE globally cultivating its

Scandinavian organizational culture. Anna is posted in Singapore and has been facing

the same challenge Markus is talking about: the involvement of local employees in

creative discussion during workshops.

Workshops, rather than meetings, are a strong element in the organizational

processes of Sveab. Workshops are interactive sessions where all members actively

participate to share knowledge. They are seen as less formal, more creative and more

likely to engage employees. Internal training on the art of running workshops has

institutionalized them as an organizational culture trait. It is expected that division

1
managers organize their interaction and work processes with colleagues and even

corporate partners in the form of creative workshops, where much use is made of flip

charts, post-its, coloured pens and the like.

“What typically happens, with my co-workers from Shanghai”, says Markus, is that

they take a passive attitude and sit in silence whatever I do, whatever technique I use.

What’s worse, I have the feeling that they are trying to guess what kind of content I

expect from them. It’s their culture, you know; in China, society is strong on hierarchy:

that’s just the way it is. I cannot over-ride their culture; I cannot ask them to change.”

“You see, this is where I think you are wrong, replies Anna, it’s not about changing

them; it’s about finding a way for them to speak their mind. You think the Chinese

never speak their mind to their boss? I don’t believe that: it is just that you have not

found the way, not yet. And you know what: if you keep on thinking ‘it’s their culture’,

you won’t get far!”

This introductory case presents an interaction between Markus and Anna who can both

be called global managers. Increasingly, individuals grow up, study and work in

different cultural environments. The term ‘global cosmopolitan’ is sometimes used to

qualify individuals that travel frequently and live in several cultural environments.

Although global cosmopolitans tend to be seen as culturally agile, knowing about

different cultural codes and behaviours and capable of rapid adaptation, there is also

evidence that being ‘culturally independent’ can be associated with lack of

effectiveness, as the research by Gillespie et al (2010) indicates. Individuals who

associate with one or several cultural identities simultaneously (as global

cosmopolitans can) tend to demonstrate only a medium level of intercultural

effectiveness (Lee, 2010; for more details see chapter 4). In the case, it appears that

2
Markus is facing an efficiency challenge, linked, in his opinion, to cultural differences.

How can such a situation be solved? The view one has about culture and cultural

differences is a key element in the resolution of this case. Broadly speaking, there are

four major views on culture and cultural differences in management studies, and each

view will bring a different kind of solution to Markus. Our aim in this chapter is to

present these four major views on culture and argue that, used complementarily, they

provide a rich and insightful theoretical framework for the analysis and most efficient

resolution of culture-related management situations. Put differently, not one but four

views on culture are the most efficient tool that one can use to solve practical problems

related to culture in management. We will demonstrate this with the application of these

views to the introductory case of ‘Markus in Shanghai’.

Culture(s)

Culture permeates all areas of society and organizations and is an essential element

in understanding diverse project work in organizations. We consider culture to be the

results of socialization (primary and secondary); primary socialization is the acquisition

of social awareness and orientation through education, family and the world in which

we are immersed as children. Secondary socialization essentially reflects the choices

made from adolescence such as professional, organizational and other affiliations.

Coupling culture with both primary and secondary socialization means that individuals

have several cultures, such as ‘generation culture’, ‘professional culture’, ‘social class

culture’ or ‘gender culture’. We distinguish cultural influences from individual

personality.

We are concerned here with the way in which culture affects our perceptions, feelings

and practices when dealing with others in intercultural interactions. Although this is the

3
focus of this volume, it is important to remember that culture is a major influence on

business encounters but not the only one.

Cultures can be thought of as having multiple levels of manifestations and content.

Several metaphors are commonly used to talk about these levels and how they relate

to each other; examples of these are Hofstede’s onion, Schein’s levels of

organizational culture or Schneider, Barsoux and Stahl’s ocean. As also in the popular

image of the iceberg, these metaphors refer to a deep invisible or hidden level of

assumptions, expectations or core values, and surface manifestations such as dress

code, architecture or organizational processes. Management researchers argue that

there is a link between the levels, and that surface manifestations (or artefacts) are the

crystallizations of deep level components. These metaphors are useful to remind us

that observed behaviour or organizational processes are likely to have their origin in

underlying beliefs and values that need to be addressed if one wishes to introduce

changes.

Four major views on science and the study of culture

In organization studies, four major ways of conducting science and producing scientific

discourses are usually acknowledged and we present them below in figure 1.1, using a

model based on the work by Deetz3.

Figure 1.1: Four major positions for scientific views on culture

4
 Researchers aim
for societal change

Postmodern Critical
Emic, emergent, situated Etic, a priori, comparable
constructs and Interpretive Positivist constructs and models
understandings

Researchers aim for

neutral reports of how
‘things’ are

The most familiar way for many is the positivist approach aiming at identifying

patterned behaviour across cultures and establishing laws and predictive models. The

focus is on regularities i.e. cultural universals or dimensions which record differences

across cultures. Knowledge is considered primarily as informative of the way things

are. The major concern is to develop constructs and theories that are applicable across

many cultures (etic) so that comparisons and clusters can be made. In most positivist

research, values are key elements in the study of culture: they are viewed as core to

culture and as measureable with research instruments such as surveys.

The second major view is the interpretive one. Rather than aiming for predictive

models, this view endeavours to understand how people perceive their (cultural) reality

and act accordingly. It considers that individuals act consistently with what makes

sense to them, and therefore the focus of the research is this sense-making.

Knowledge is considered primarily as informative of how things are in a certain context

(local, emic), that of the environment being studied. In management, interpretive

researchers are generally not interested in comparing different cultures, but rather,

understanding how people’s collective sense making in a certain culture explains their

actions.

Both the positivist and interpretive views tend to see the researchers’ role as

that of reporters, trying their best to provide an unbiased account of reality.

5
 Emic and etic

As Morris et al (1999, 781) express it “there are two long-standing approaches to

understanding the role of culture: the inside perspective of ethnographers, who strive

to describe a particular culture in its own terms, and the outside perspective of

comparativist researchers, who attempt to describe differences across cultures in

terms of general, external standards.”

Generally speaking, etic cultural research investigates culture from the ‘outside’ and is

based on a number of predefined concepts or dimensions, while emic culture research

is a view from ‘inside’ and seeks to understand members’ meanings and thus

emergent rather than pre-selected concepts4. Etic approaches assume that there are

universal cultural categories which exist and can be compared in every culture, and

their investigation is based on these universal categories. Emic approaches search for

the uniqueness of each cultural environment and look for specificities not found in

other cultures; they are based on the meanings and interpretations of members of the

given culture.

Emic and etic approaches to the study of culture are complementary. Etic studies

enable us to compare a large number of countries’ scores on the same construct.

However, sometimes research results vary significantly between etic studies,

depending on the items measured or the definitions of the concepts that are used.

This is the case for Hungary on the construct of Power Distance5 between Hofstede’s

and the GLOBE studies (see below). Practitioners and researchers can clearly

observe both orientations: high and low Power Distance. In such a case, combining

etic and emic research becomes very important. It shows that the socialist past of the

6
nation influences both high and low views on Power Distance. Hungarians’ past

experience of a dictatorship leads many to value low Power Distance, that is, a

democratic workplace environment. At the same time, their familiarity with Marxist

theories induces many to see in the Western capitalist practices the cruel exploitation

of workers. This creates distrust and distance between managers and subordinates,

which can be associated with high Power Distance. Identified by emic studies, this

element of trust6 becomes then key for smooth organizational practices and explains

why it was possible to measure both high and low Power Distance in Hungary,

depending on the measurement’s emphasis.

The third major view is commonly referred to as post-modern, in the sense that it

departs from the “modern, positivist” view on science as an accumulation of knowledge

progressing towards improved understanding. This view reveals how our reality is

socially constructed with language, how reality is also about fluidity and discontinuity

(rather than regularities), how it is constantly in the making and how knowledge is not

simply informative but also linked to power. Studies tend to favour local and specific

understandings. How language is used and what it ‘does’ is a central concern of this

investigation, unveiling for example that the way we talk about cultural differences, the

meanings we associate with culture(s) is not a neutral depiction but reproduces power

inequalities.

The fourth major view is called “critical”, in the sense that it uncovers hidden

power structures and shows power struggles in the construction of reality. The aim is to

make explicit that the reality we know is the outcome of relationships between different

social or cultural groups, outcomes that tend to favour certain interests. As in the

postmodern view, knowledge is perceived as linked to those in a situation of power in

society, rather than being the outcome of a neutral and objective research process.

Researchers tend to see their role not as ‘reporters’ but rather as ‘activists’, as agents

for change. Among the research concerns of critical investigations are the identification

7
of groups in relation to each other, of those who are heard in society and those who are

not (or ‘silenced’), and how to provide a forum for discussion and help in the building of

a more open consensus. The critical view differs from postmodern in that it is

concerned with power dynamics and structures. Postmodern research is less

concerned with structures but rather with the creation of meanings in encounters.

These different views on culture have a tangible impact on how a situation

involving cultural differences is addressed. Depending on your approach, you will

interpret and deal with the problem differently. In the following sections we present

each of the four views in more detail and apply them to the case. This results in a new

analysis and alternative solutions for each view adopted; and consequently, in enriched

analyses of the situation and suggestions for action.

The positivist views

This perspective uses measures of etic aspects of social value systems and ranks

countries in comparative terms using frameworks composed of value dimensions such

as Individualism/Collectivism or Power Distance (see table 1.1). Apart from the seminal

work of Hofstede, Schwartz’s Value Survey, the GLOBE project - which investigates

how cultural dimensions are related to leadership preferences across countries - and

the vast body of research in the World Values Survey are among the best known.

Extensive presentation of these and other frameworks (Trompenaars, Hall or

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck) can be found elsewhere in the literature, for example in

Adler and Gundersen (2008), Lane et al (2009), Nardon and Steers (2009), Steers et al

(2010), Schneider et al. (forthcoming). If you are not familiar with cultural dimension

frameworks, you should consult the literature since they are the basis of cross-cultural

management which we build on in this volume.

In this positivist view, values are the core elements of investigation and the

understanding of cultures because they are perceived as significant influences on

8
behaviour. In addition, it is believed that all societies have to deal with fundamentally

the same big issues: relationship between human beings, communication, relationship

to the environment, etc. The various answers given to each of these universal issues

constitute variations on the cultural dimension. For example, one can either live in

harmony with the environment or try to master it. These are two positions on the

cultural dimension “relationship to the environment”. By promoting one kind of answer

or another to these fundamental questions, each society emphasizes a different range

of values on the dimension (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961).

Fang’s Yin Yang perspective on Culture

(see also chapter 9)

Based on the Chinese philosophy of Yin Yang, Fang (2012) conceptualizes culture as

possessing inherently paradoxical value orientations, thereby enabling it to embrace

opposite traits of any given cultural dimension. He posits that unlike the cultural

dimension frameworks that claim the dominance of certain cultural values across

many situations, paradoxical values coexist in any culture. Fang argues that these

values reinforce and complement each other to shape the holistic and dynamic nature

of culture. In the Yin Yang perspective, all national cultures share the same set of

values but they differ in how each culture expresses these values at a given time or

not. In the Yin Yang perspective, cultures are not stable around a given set of

preferred values, but rather dynamic around paradoxical values in tension. According

to him this can explain cultural change.

For example, many studies put forward the view that communication in China is

listening-centred, polite and insider oriented. Faure and Fang (2008) show the reverse

is also true for China. Speaking has been associated with seniority, leadership,

9
hierarchy and expertise and listening with wisdom and good behaviour. However, the

opposite is also found in the Chinese society that can place the family’s only child in a

central role, where students are encouraged to debate in school and where training on

assertiveness is popular. Both listening-centred and speaking-centred values are

present in the value portfolio of China and are expressed in different circumstances or

moments in history.

Table 1.1 presents the cultural value dimensions of the GLOBE framework (House et

al., 2004) and cautiously suggests possible illustrative behaviour. It is important to be

aware that predicting individual behaviour from cultural dimensions is a difficult

enterprise. Scores and rankings are based on aggregation of data at the national level

and individuals do not mechanistically enact their country’s culture scores on

researched cultural dimensions. In practice, we can find everyday situations that

appear to contradict the national score of a country, such as low-context face-

destroying directness in Chinese bosses dealing with subordinates. However, the

directness can be explained by high Power Distance, not harmony seeking between

equals and thus it may not be contradictory. These are what are referred to as “cultural

paradoxes” (see Bell, 2006; Gannon, 2007; Osland and Bird, 2000) in the sense of

counter-intuitive observations. Etic constructs are useful because they enable us to

make sense of major differences that one is likely to encounter between cultures and to

show general cultural tendencies; however, they require the correct attribution to the

most relevant dimension.

The positivist views on culture and especially the cultural dimension frameworks

have contributed to a decisive turn in the study of culture (Sackmann and Philips, 2004)

over the last three decades by introducing tangible dimensions, statistics and predictive

models in a domain that was perceived, at best, as ‘fuzzy’. Quantitative studies tend to

have a dominant position in positivist studies but a number of studies use qualitative

10
methods, for example the Kulturstandard method (which also can be used with

interpretive studies7), the Yin Yang view on culture and Cultural Metaphors. In contrast

to the large scale comparative studies, they tend to be more concerned with an ‘emic’

view as they try to present national cultures in what can be unique to them. In the

boxes in this section, we briefly present these alternative views and the knowledge they

bring of cultures and cultural differences talked about in the introductory case.

Gannon’s Cultural Metaphors

Gannon (1994) introduced “cultural metaphors” as investigation tools for cross-cultural

management, because he realized that the available etic tools helped only to a limited

extent when we are seeking to understand cultures and their specificities in depth (see

also Gannon and Rainandini, 2009). Gannon defines a cultural metaphor as a “unique

or very distinct institution, phenomenon, or activity of a nation’s culture that most or all

of its citizens consider to be very important and with which they identify closely”

(Gannon and Audia, 2000, 91). There is not a total parallel between the metaphor and

culture, but metaphors help to understand the different layers and the structure of the

given culture. With a metaphor, the different components of national culture are

integrated into a coherent image rather than being scores on separate cultural

dimensions. In our classification (fig. 1.1) Gannon’s work is positivist, because it is

linked to universal categories (like cultural dimensions) and does not build on

emergent concepts, but is at the same time more concerned with emic understandings

than many other positivist works.

For example, a metaphor for a Scandinavian country is the Swedish stuga8 (Gannon,

1994, 106-119). Gannon based the organization of his chapters on reference to A. P.

Fiske’s model of types of sociality (Fiske, 1992). A stuga is a fairly small cottage made

11
of wood, with modest facilities. Many Swedish families have a stuga that is shared

between siblings. This can serve as a place for family reunions, but most often, it is a

cottage used with one’s close family only. It is not uncommon that Swedes spend

several weeks in a row in their stuga, during their summer holidays. This is often a

remote place, close to nature, where the family enjoys solitude, quality time and

personal development. The metaphor of the Swedish stuga illustrates and brings

together several traits associated with the Swedish society. The first one is a

relationship to nature that tends to favour harmony over mastery. The second is the

valorisation of nuclear family (in-group) and individualism. This is associated with the

idea that individual development and well-being are important, probably more

important than working life (Humane Orientation). The third one is the expression of

low power distance (the stuga tends to have modest facilities with outdoor toilets and

often no running water).

The value dimensions approach to understanding cultures has been much attacked in

recent years (see e.g. Mc Sweeney, 2009) but also defended (see recent comments by

Minkov, 2011) and continues to be popular because it provides an easy and very

accessible explanation of why managerial behaviour varies. Knowing how to use

cultural dimensions astutely at the individual level of analysis, although they were

developed for country level analysis, is one of the main challenges of this approach

and we suggest ways to do this in the next section. Scores on cultural dimensions are

available for a large number of countries9 and widely diffused outside the academic

world. Since they enable comparisons across nations they are seen as helpful for

pointing to potential differences between countries for practical purposes such as

preparing a marketing or expatriation plan. In addition, these nation-based cultural

framework studies point to organizational culture variations across countries and are

thus also useful for predicting potential organizational culture differences in M&A

12
situations. Many commercial web pages and consultants use the findings of these

studies.

Alexander’s Kulturstandard

Initiated by Alexander Thomas, the method aims at identifying cultural cognitive

schemata mobilized for action, through the analysis of bicultural interactions. Culture is

seen as a system of orientation providing its members with cognitive (value-oriented)

and behavioural norms termed Kulturstandards (Thomas, 1996, 114). The method

centres on the analysis of critical incidents because they pinpoint a cognitive or

behavioural difference between partners, and their analysis enables us to identify the

Kulturstandards of the culturally foreign person whose behaviour was found to be

unpredictable or unexplainable. Critical incidents relate to a given bicultural interaction:

a type of incident that occurs between Japanese and Italians is unlikely to also occur

in Japanese / Chinese encounters, for example. To that extent, the method does not

develop etic constructs at first, but Kulturstandards linked to a given interaction. In

multiplying the studies, the method can then reach etic constructs, or central

Kulturstandards, that are found to be recurrent between a given country and many

others.

For example, central German Kulturstandards are ‘Objectivism/task orientation’,

‘Appreciation of rules, regulations and structures’, ‘Internalised control’, ‘Time

planning’ and ‘Low context communication’ (Schroll-Machl, 2003). The last of these

implies that people tend to interpret messages primarily according to what was

verbalized and thus clearly articulated. Things that have been hinted at, suggested or

alluded to are commonly not considered as being important nor as likely to carry the

main message of the exchange (Schroll-Machl, 2003, 171).

13
Application to the case

From the metaphor of the Swedish stuga, we learn that Markus’ company is likely to

represent values of individualism, low power distance and individual well-being. The

scores of Scandinavian countries and China on the major cultural dimensions (see

table 1) indicate differences, especially in term of Power Distance, Individualism (or low

score on In-group Collectivism), Future Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism,

Assertiveness and Humane Orientation. In view of the situation described by Markus,

the discrepancies on the dimensions of Power Distance and Individualism seem to be

the most relevant for explaining employees’ lack of participation in workshops. China’s

high score on Power Distance and low score on Individualism (compared to

Scandinavian countries) may indicate that employees are not used to an environment

fostering equal communication between supervisors and their subordinates, nor

individual positioning, which are both important for workshops to be successful.

It is helpful to think of the scores on dimensions as indicative of a preference for

a certain kind of logic. It is not that all Chinese are high on Power Distance in some

absolute sense whatever their religion, ethnic background, socialization, organizational

or other affiliation and in all situations; rather, it is that in comparison to practices and

ways of thinking encountered in Scandinavia, employees in China are more familiar

with high power distance in their organizational environment. In consequence, they

have developed strategies to deal with directive leadership and strategies to be

successful in such an environment. In this way, the analysis using positivist views on

culture informs us of cultural reasons that can be explanatory of individuals’ behaviour.

In search for solutions to the problem, one might wonder: what are the limitations of

workshops for people used to high Power Distance logic? How can workshops fit in

with such logic? How can they fit in with a high score on In-group Collectivism?

Bearing in mind Fang’s perspective on culture, it would be surprising that

Markus had encountered only one form of communication behaviour among his

employees; so a suggestion to Markus would be to search for affirmative, individualist

14
and low power distance behaviour of employees, whether at work or outside work and

see how he can build on this set of values for the success of organizational workshops.

In the light of the Kulturstandards presented above, one also wonders to what

extent Markus’s perception of a passive attitude from the employees he described is

not linked to his being used to low-context communication. If Chinese employees are

used to making suggestions or allusions when they express themselves, maybe

Markus has simply not heard his employees’ contributions because he is expecting

messages articulated more straightforwardly. He has not listened to what is being said

“between the lines”.

To sum up this analysis of the case, it appears clear that national cultural

differences are an explanatory variable of the situation encountered by Markus in

Shanghai. Dimensions such as Power Distance, Individualism and Low versus High-

context communication are part of the challenge of encouraging employees’

participation. However, as Fang’s model and others indicate (e.g. Osland and Bird,

2000), these cultural dimensions are context dependent and a recommendation to

Markus could be, in addition to understanding these differences, to search for the

expression of opposite values, the ones he wants to promote in workshops.

Pause for reflection

Use your knowledge of cultural dimension frameworks and do your own analysis of the

case. What insights can you offer Markus? What would be your recommendations?

The interpretive views

Interpretive views on culture posit that people use meaning systems to organise their

actions. In other words, people act and interact in a way that makes sense to them and

it is this actor’s point of view that interests the researcher. By understanding how

15
people make sense of their world, researchers gain an understanding of why they act

as they do. It is therefore an emic positioning, rather than the development of a priori

frameworks that are then tested in situations. Interpretive views are diverse and rich –

just like the three others. Researchers such as Berger and Luckmann (1966), Garfinkel

(1967), Geertz (1973) or Schutz (1962) are key inspirational figures in societal and

organisation culture studies developing this approach. Within each society, there are

tremendous variations between individuals, social groups or genders in possible ways

of making sense of situations. At the same time, intercultural interpretive research

claims that through socialization, in generation cohorts, in gender, in social groups and

so on, individuals tend to develop similar frames of interpretation or similar

interpretations of symbols. Some researchers dealing more specifically with culture and

intercultural interaction at work argue that it is possible to identify similar national

patterns of interpretation within countries; this is quite unique in interpretive research.

Work inspired by d’Iribarne refers to these patterns as ‘frames of meanings’ or meaning

systems (see e.g., Chevrier, 2009 or d’Iribarne, 1989; 2012). This is not to be confused

with etic value statements at national level.

Meaning systems for the study of national cultures

Simply put, a meaning system is a combination of ideas and values that are used to

make sense of a certain situation. When similar meaning systems are found across

professions, industries, and generations within the same country, we can talk about a

socio-cultural meaning system. This meaning system may be supported by the

national educational system, displayed in novels and theatrical plays, or act as an

organizing principle in professional training or in discussion in professional

organizations.

16
Chevrier (2011) and d’Iribarne (1989) show for example that across professional

groups in France, the meaning system attached to the idea of “la compétence”

presents strong similarities and interrelated meanings and values: being capable and

qualified, and embracing the notions of autonomy, responsibility and awareness of the

demands of the job and a certain degree of freedom in interpreting rules. There is

room for disagreement within a meaning system. Some may think for example, that

competence and autonomy should be linked, while others think they should not.

However, even in disagreement, people of a same socio-cultural environment tend to

refer to similar items when discussing “la compétence”.

Meaning systems are thus indicative of how people tend to think about given issues or

notions. They can be used by outsiders to grasp insights into the culture that groups

have in common or are developing. Although meaning systems do not touch on as

many aspects of organizational life as for example, cultural dimension constructs, they

may nevertheless have important implications in a given environment. Consider, for

example, the notion of individual freedom in the USA and how the meaning system

attached to this notion had implications on the debate on the health system under

Obama’s first presidency. In other cultural environments that value individual freedom

just as much, meaning systems may not associate it with health care policies or

resistance to such policies (d’Iribarne, 2003).

The study of meanings to understand culture is related to the idea of schemata in the

literature, that is, our way of interpreting a situation. Knowing which meaning system is

used enables us to understand how people analyze situations and helps us to work

together effectively.

A focus on meanings, rather than values, brings our attention to how the

meanings are created, that is, the process of sense-making. In contrast to positivist

studies, these views focus on interactions and thus on management of actual

17
interpersonal encounters at an individual level of analysis and are closer to our

experienced reality than the use of dimensional means for a nation. Knowledge of

meaning systems is seen by some commentators as a richer and more vital way to

understand interaction than the static comparative view (Holden, 2002). Limitations of

the use of meaning systems and emic knowledge in general touch principally on their

scope. The meaning systems inform us about one theme, one structure of meaning

association, in one local situation, and are therefore ill-suited for comparative purposes.

Swedish meaning system on leadership10

In Sweden a meaning system associated with “good leadership” articulates notions of

group work, individual coaching and individual empowerment. By listening to how

people in a Swedish work environment tend to describe a good boss, one notices that

these themes are recurrent and organized in a certain way. Good leaders are

associated with an ability to make employees feel part of a team, so that each

employee feels valued for what s/he brings to the team, but also for who s/he is.

Desired leadership is often described in terms of coaching, when the boss takes a

personal interest in the development of the employees, but also to some extent in their

personal life (e.g., family situation). A coach is perceived as someone who supports

employees’ development, and thus not someone who will give directive instructions on

how to operationalize things. Being directive is viewed as poor leadership and

authoritarian, whereas, empowering employees so that they can express their

individual interpretation of a task is seen as desirable.

Consensus (consulting employees and then reaching a consensus of opinion) is

believed to be the ideal form of decision making, ideal in the sense of the most socially

desirable. The meaning system linked to good leadership is a combination of three key

18
elements: the group, coaching and empowerment/non-directiveness.

Studies of intercultural interactions constitute the bulk of interpretive works on (usually

national) cultures. They show how employees from different national backgrounds use

different meaning systems to make sense of their work, how this can lead to

misunderstandings and how these can be resolved. A study by Chevrier (2011) shows,

for example, that while working with French collaborators, Vietnamese aid workers

were frustrated at the lack of direct supervision that could have been provided by

technical collaborators and their weak presence in the field. The analysis of the

meaning systems used by both partners regarding what they see as competence led to

revising the working interactions. When French counterparts thought they were

respecting local competences by granting autonomy and reducing their participation in

the field but found that in fact they were not, they learned to engage more actively, to

understand the importance of local social networks and so support their partners more

effectively.

Meanings systems present a form of stability, in the sense that they may serve

as a reference over time, but at the same time, their content and interpretation is

dynamic. For example, in the study of a large Tunisian corporation, Yousfi (2011)

shows how the frames of meanings associated with organisations are dynamic. First,

she reveals that the metaphor of a family is frequently used in Tunisian organizations.

This can lead to potential “dysfunctions” (absence of explicit rules, favouritism, etc.) as

well as strong supportive structures. Then, she considers the case of the exceptional

Tunisian organization Poulina (a multinational group), and underscores that in this

organisation too, the metaphor of the family is used. But it is used with a twist: the

presence and observance of written rules. In other words, the meaning system of the

family is used as a metaphorical reference in this organisation that has an “American

management model” (e.g., performance assessment). Managers and employees built

on a meaning system linking an organization with a family (a personal place, where

19
one grows and receives support, etc.) when dealing with the rules of performance

assessment. In short, the meaning system linking the concept of the family with that of

organisational life is stable, but its content is re-interpreted and adapted to the new

situation.

Application to the case

In the light of research done on meaning systems linked to leadership in Sweden, the

reasons behind Sveab’s willingness to introduce workshops as organizational

processes appear differently. It seems that in Sweden (and to some extent in the rest

of Scandinavia, see Lindell and Sigfrids, 2007) a workshop is a perfect setting for the

expression of good leadership and for people to express themselves (empowerment).

In a workshop, the setting is informal and fits with the view of a boss as a coach. In

addition, the workshop is a case of collective action; team work is perceived as an ideal

format to work with, offering more ideas, more creativity, more inclusiveness and so on.

To this extent, a workshop is a perfect illustration of leadership that values teamwork

and consensus.

Meanings associated with participative leadership in Germany

In a German environment, the participation of employees in organizational processes

in the shape of co-determination or consultative decision-making is common.

Participation is seen as a good means of achieving individual and organizational

goals, and employees’ autonomy in the application of decisions is valued (see

Brodbeck and Frese, 2007; Szabo et al., 2002). Leadership is to some extent

depersonalized and employees’ expertise is highly regarded. The meanings

associated with participative management in Germany are linked to the view that

consensus orientation is a strength because it respects employees’ personal

20
commitment in organizational matters, and takes into consideration their expertise and

knowledge about the complexity of business situations. Participative management is

linked to two inter-related ideas: motivation and effectiveness. Employees are believed

to be motivated when their views are valued, and this commitment and the use of their

expertise and knowledge lead to better organizational performances (effectiveness).

The role of the manager is to enable teams to work fairly independently, and the role

of subordinates is to make contributions (Szabo, 2007).

In light of the meaning systems associated with participative leadership in Germany,

one might expect Markus to be familiar with or adhere to the idea that employees’

participation is both expected and required for best organizational performance.

According to this meaning system, the non-participation of employees in a workshop

can be perceived as problematic and a loss to the organization, since neither their

expertise nor knowledge of the complexity of the situation is capitalized upon. In

addition, employees’ non-participation and silence may be interpreted as a lack of

commitment. Moreover, Markus may see his role of team leader as that of facilitator

and, consequently, might see his lack of success in moderating the workshop and thus

enabling the team to work independently, as a leadership failure.

21
 A ‘good leader’ in China

Many expatriates look on Chinese employees’ unwillingness to challenge authority as

a form of submission due to fear, passivity, or lack of initiative. This may, however, be

a misinterpretation, as some interpretive studies addressing relationships with

authority in China indicate. In the West - that is, environments adhering to Ancient

Greece’s cultural heritage - a political regime that has no opposition is perceived as

being despotic, in contrast to democratic ones, where divergent ideas are discussed in

public debates. In China however, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ power are construed differently.

Good power is inspired by the image of a leader devoted to the good of the people,

who is a model of virtue. With upright and exemplary conduct, the leader creates a

harmonious ruling environment. Subordinates suggest and express their desires and

leaders should take them into consideration. Thus, in opposition to the Western views

on what gives authority to a good regime, it is frequent that people in China associate

good power with rules, duties and no direct expression of opinion but indirect

suggestion (see d’Iribarne, 2012 and Fu et al., 2007).

Like many Western expatriates in China, Markus is facing the challenge of employees’

low participation. If local employees perceive that stating one’s opinion up-front is a

form of undesirable self-assertiveness, their active verbal participation in a workshop is

bound to be limited. Yet, employees in China do express their opinion and do

communicate with leaders when they indicate their opinion and when leaders consult

them. Thus it is not the culture of the employees itself that may be the challenge, but

rather, the format of the workshop that necessitates up-front expression of ideas and

opinions. In the format that Markus is trying to develop, it seems that he assumes the

role of a moderator who will facilitate participants’ contributions. In view of the lack of

spontaneous and direct contribution, maybe one possibility would be to modify the

format of the workshops towards a form of group-work where Markus, for instance, can

22
develop one-on-one relationships, or takes a backseat position. He could have the

workshop organised into smaller teams, in which he might himself be part of one team,

and then ask each team to report to the larger group.

To sum up, this interpretive analysis adds a new level of understanding of the

cultural differences at play in the situation encountered by Markus. When the positivist

analysis informed us that there is a discrepancy in terms of Power Distance, the

interpretive analysis explains that the ideas behind the workshop is a form of

leadership valuing team-work and the mobilisation of employees, and a consensus

decision-making style. These views are most probably considered culturally desirable

by the organisation and Markus alike; this is how they see good leadership and good

management and why they insist on their use. In other words, the organisation of the

workshop is not just a randomly effective technique that management came up with,

and that happened to work well in some places; in this organisation, it is most likely that

management strongly believes it is the best way to do things. This means that using

workshops will not be easy to change.

Pause for reflection

Use this interpretive analysis of the case and your own cultural knowledge of the

situation. What additional insights can you offer Markus? What would be your

recommendations now? How do they differ from the ones you made after reading the

positivist analysis?

The postmodern views

Since the 1990s, postmodern views have gained a prominent position in describing

contemporary organizations. Some researchers resisted the postmodern standpoint at

first because it departs strongly from positivist ideas of knowledge accumulation and

23
the development of predictive models. It also contrasts with interpretive views which

seek to identify cultural patterns. Some see a limitation of postmodern studies in their

dispute with traditional scientific knowledge, which appears through two recurrent

themes: close attention to the role of language and a disapproval of grand narratives.

Language is a key element in the construction of reality; we use language to

create constructs, ideas and even entities to which we refer as having independent

existence. For example, we work in organisations, we live in countries and we interact

across cultures; all of which can be argued to be primarily tangible through language.

Centrality of language

Postmodern thinkers show the strength and impact of the use of language, and even,

in some cases, argue that constructs exist only in language. For example, what is an

organization? Does any organization exist as a physical entity? Is the building of the

organization the organization itself? Do the employees ‘make’ the organisation? If we

think about these questions, we can answer ‘no’ to all of them; buildings are sold,

employees change and do other things than working. However, the organization exists

in language: in legal forms, in contracts, in organization charts, in books, in documents

such as procedures and job descriptions. It also exists through oral language:

meetings, discussions, agreements, statements or speeches.

A similar argument can be made for ‘culture’. What is culture? What is the Moroccan

culture? Is it defined by the territory, the borders of the land? If so, which historical

borders should be considered? Or do people holding Moroccan citizenship represent

its culture? What about those who have lived there for generations but do not have the

nationality? What about those who changed their nationality when emigrating? Again

we can argue that culture exists through language, such as for example, a

24
constitution, the national anthem, poetry, books, TV spots, speeches, small

conversations between people and so on.

Language is not simply a communication tool, but the world itself. Interpretive thinkers

tend to approach language with much respect and a form of passivity. In contrast,

postmodern researchers do not see language as a neutral mirror of reality, but

something which helps us to change local meanings, and thereby local realities.

In post-modern thinking, meta-narratives (or ‘grand narratives’) are stories and theories

claiming an all-encompassing explanation for the world or a state of affairs. Grand

narratives can include such phenomena as the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment

‘project’11 or the Western idea of progress (see Ogilvy, 1990). They can include

theories such as Marxism or Hofstede’s or GLOBE’s concept of culture. For

postmodern thinkers, a theory claiming universal dimensions is a meta-narrative. They

argue that it is a futile task or even intellectually imperialistic to build theories which

explain everything or try to “control” meanings (Parker, 1992), a form of totalitarian

endeavour. Their preference is for small stories, local understanding or petits récits

(Hassard and Kelemen, 2002), because, they argue, we understand the world on a

small scale. Any local story which has insights, that opens up new meanings or

explains local reality from the insiders’ point of view, surely provides valid knowledge

for researchers and practitioners alike. Postmodern thinkers emphasise the local and

question all kind of universal solutions: if something works in one place it does not

necessarily work everywhere.

Incredulity toward meta-narratives

Postmodern views reject what are called grand or meta-narratives, that is, theories

25
encompassing other theories. Hofstede’s cultural frameworks can be said to be an

example of grand narrative, a theory that explains many situations with few

explanatory variables. The cultural dimensions, allegedly universal constructs, are

themselves based on other theories. Postmodern researchers resist grand narrative

for the simplification they impose on reality, but also for the imposition of one view,

one story or one part of the story. In Hofstede’s work, it is clearly one voice, that of the

Western, “modern” world, that talks about “cultural others”, using dichotomies resting

on Western literature, approaches and values (See for example Ailon, 2008; Fang,

2003 or Lowe, 2001, 2002).

Postmodern scholars would argue that nations, groups or even individual identities are

not fixed; they are constantly “in the making”, that is, developing through interactions.

Culture is not perceived as something established along dimensions or meaning

systems, but rather, the manifestation of differences that may or may not emerge,

depending on the situation. Postmodern researchers see and study flux and

transformation as essential elements of culture, while positivist researchers such as

Hofstede argue that cultures are relatively stable. Depending whether a Dane meets a

Japanese or a Senegalese person, the ‘cultural differences’ that surface and are

expressed by each person are different (see e.g., Søderberg and Holden, 2002).

These also vary depending on whether one meets someone from a similar educational

or professional background or not. Thus, culture can be seen as a phenomenon

emerging in interactions, in context, something unstable and changing, in contrast to

the ideas of fixed meaning structures or cultural dimensions constructs. Out of a

specific cross-cultural encounter a new micro-culture is created specific to that

particular on-going relationship.

Using postmodern views and analyses when confronted with an intercultural situation

enables us to reach a different level of analysis and shed new light on the situation. A

26
postmodern focus on language looks at management matters as narrative. One

method inspired by postmodernism is deconstruction, based on Derrida’s seminal

work. Derrida (e.g., 1967) argues for multiple interpretations of a text, insisting that the

author alone does not have the monopoly of the meaning of a text, but that readers too

develop their own valid interpretations. To translate this to organizational life, managers

do not have the monopoly of what a code of conduct or a job description means or

should mean to employees, for example. On this argument it is meaningless to look for

an objectively neutral and “correct” description of the code.

A second major contribution of Derrida’s work is his emphasis on dichotomies.

Dichotomies are oppositions between two terms and are central to Western thinking

(e.g. men-women, rich-poor, subject-object, true-false) in order to organise and talk

about ideas or perception of a situation. These dichotomies do not need to be explicit in

a text to be present but have an impact on our interpretation of what we read. Consider

for example the sentence: “Blue-collar workers are lazy”. The sentence seems to be a

simple affirmation of a situation, but it is based on an implicit dichotomy, and the

sentence is more than it seems. Blue-collar workers are commonly opposed to white-

collar workers, and lazy is opposed to hard-working. The sentence is thus also

implicitly saying that white-collar workers are hard-working. With such a

“reconstruction” of a text, the implicit ideology becomes apparent (white-collar are

hardworking and thus are a desirable reference). Reconstruction can be carried out by

changing terms in a text for their opposite, that is, the other element of the dichotomy

and this enables us to highlight its implicit ideology (see Fougère and Moulettes, 2011;

Kelemen and Rumens, 2008). For example, Martin (1990) takes a short story and

makes six different changes of binary oppositions within a paragraph of the text. She

seeks to answer the questions: who benefits? Whose interest is missing? Who is

missing from the story? and so on. Any text can be deconstructed and then

reconstructed. A reconstructed text is not better in terms of truth, reality or rightness;

however it enables us to detect implicit elements, taken for granted assumptions or

27
supportive ideologies. To that extent, reconstruction is an active and rich method for

relating to a text and analysing it.

Application to the case

Deconstructing the text of the introductory case helps reveal hidden ideology and

assumptions. The text can be rewritten using alternative terms in dichotomies and

oppositions. The key persons and places are changed for their ‘opposite’ and suddenly,

the case feels very different although the problem is still the same: lack of participation

of employees. Markus becomes Gang, a Chinese manager, Sveab becomes Lion

Corporation, a Singaporean corporation and the action no longer takes place in

Shanghai, but in Hamburg, Germany.

Deconstruction and reconstruction:

Gang in Hamburg

Gang can’t believe it. “Leave the room! You suggest leaving the room! No, no way. It

doesn’t make sense: it won’t be a workshop!” The other employees look at him and

wonder what is the reason for this sudden outburst, why Gang, division Manager in

Hamburg, is reacting so strongly to the comments made by Anna. Gang (originally

from China) and Anna (originally from Brazil) are both in charge of the development of

environmentally friendly technologies in the European operations of the international

corporation Lion Corporation, an MNE globally cultivating its Singaporean

organizational culture. Anna is posted in Vienna and has been facing the same

challenge Gang is talking about: the involvement of local employees in creative

discussion during workshops.

28
“What typically happens, with my co-workers from Hamburg”, says Gang, is that they

take a passive attitude and sit in silence whatever I do, whatever technique I use.

What’s worse, I have the feeling that they are trying to guess what kind of content I

expect from them. It’s their culture, you know; in Germany, society is strong on

hierarchy, that’s just the way it is. I cannot over-ride their culture; I cannot ask them to

change.”

“You see, this is where I think you are wrong, replies Anna, it’s not about changing

them; it’s about finding a way for them to speak their mind. You think Germans never

speak their mind to their boss? I don’t believe that: it is just that you have not found the

way, not yet. And you know what: if you keep on thinking ‘it’s their culture’, you won’t

get far!”

By changing a few terms in the text (using their opposites) implicit assumptions

become clear. In the original version of the case, and in our positivist and interpretive

analyses of it, there is a strong implicit assumption that employee’s behaviour is linked

to their (national) culture. By placing the action in Hamburg, European readers and

certainly those used to the Germanic environment realise immediately that there are

other alternative explanations. For example, maybe employees do not understand fully

what is expected from them, seeing this ‘Singaporean practice’ as out of place, or

maybe simply they are resisting the chosen format for the workshop. From Foucault

(e.g. 1979), an influential postmodern thinker, we know that resistance happens where

power is exercised. If employees are indeed resisting workshops, what power are they

actually resisting? It is likely that they resist the organisational processes of workshops,

maybe because these processes are either imposed or institutionalised by the

headquarters. The reconstructed story progressively appears as potentially also a story

about headquarters-subsidiary relationships and maybe about tensions between them.

This case could well be about cultural differences coupled with power differences

29
between headquarters, management and local employees. It seems that although the

organisation is multinational, the headquarters exercise a certain degree of control

through organisational processes of workshops and the use of expatriates so this case

is also likely to be about employees’ resistance to this control.

Using the questions that Martin asks about the text of her short story (who

benefits? Whose interest is missing? Who is missing in the story?), we also gain a new

perspective on our case. Who benefits from the successful implementation of

workshops? Is it primarily the workshop participants or is it maybe the moderator of the

workshop, who can show headquarters that organisational processes are well

implemented? Whose interests are missing from the story? It is noticeable that the

story only takes the managerial point of view. As in many other cases, it is the

organisation’s or the managers’ point of view that is considered although the situation

concerns all employees. How come that the employees are not represented in Markus’

story? Does Markus know what the employees really think? Did he ever ask them?

Can we have a good case about a conflict knowing only one party‘s (in this case the

managerial) opinion? Could it be that Markus did not consult the employees on the

topic of running workshops but simply implemented them?

To sum up this analysis of the case, using deconstruction enables us to see that

the situation is not only cultural, as the positivist and interpretive analyses clearly show,

but may also be linked to power discrepancies. Power imbalance is present in the case

between the subsidiary and the headquarters, between local employees and expatriate

implementing processes, and between the position of the managers and that of the

employees who do not necessarily have a recognized role in such decisions. It is

important to note that the deconstruction of other problematic and somewhat similar

intercultural situations might not necessarily point to subsidiary-headquarters tensions.

This is why deconstruction is exciting: one cannot predict what power imbalance or

other friction will explain the situation. Postmodern thinkers are not searching for, nor

are willing to detect general problems and universal solutions.

30
 Pause for reflection

Try to deepen this new analysis of the case by using other dichotomies in your

deconstruction. What additional insights can you bring to Markus? What will be your

recommendations now? How do they differ from the ones you made after the positivist

and interpretive analyses?

The critical views

Critical and postcolonial perspectives have much internal diversity, just like the other

three views presented above. In our categorization, these studies have in common that

they approach societal situations as the outcome of power struggles, where the

winners impose their views in a form of domination for example, gender or economic

domination. They also pay attention to the influence of societal and structural elements

in the explanation of (work) interactions such as distribution of resources or access to

information12. In studies concerned with culture and cultural differences, this

perspective will pay attention, for example, to the hidden structures that support claims

of cultural differences, and to whose advantage these claims are made. They are thus

not concerned for example with the origin of different value systems as such, or causal

explanations of cultural variations in management practices, which some scholars see

as a limitation.

Critical studies are a key contribution to cross-cultural management because

they highlight, for example, power imbalance embedded in a discourse on culture. In

the study of mergers between several banks in the Nordic European region,

researchers show how the talks about cultural differences (between e.g. Danish,

Finnish and Swedish) contributed, for example, to excluding females from top

31
management positions (see Tienari et al., 2005; Vaara et al., 2003). They show how

the (male) managers in a dominant position describe their respective national identities

in a way that distances gender: a focus on females appears irrelevant or out of place,

thus, implicitly justifying the fact that women are absent from top management

positions. Revealing the social construction of a “male” reality at the top management

of this bank can help bring the issue of gender discrimination on to the agenda and can

contribute to changing the situation. There are also many cases which can be analysed

using critical analysis, such as the Socometal case (Mutabasi and Derr, 2003; Stahl et

al., 2011), where a play of interests develops between financial accountants and

collective intrinsic motivation of local workers, overlaying probable postcolonial

attitudes on the part of the French manager. These cases demonstrate, among other

things, that power can masquerade as cultural difference and thus that using positivist

and interpretive analyses that principally address cultural differences are not enough.

Among critical studies critical intercultural communication research (Nakayama

and Halualani, 2010) aims to understand the role of power and contextual constraints

on communication between different groups. In its agenda for change, it contrasts with

positivist cross-cultural communication studies, in that it insists more on the group and

the historical, institutional and political forces that play a role in this communication.

Inspired for example by the work of Stuart Hall (e.g. Morley and Chen, 1996), studies

see culture as the site of struggles where some meanings will prevail over others.

Consider for example, our previous description of meanings systems on leadership in

Sweden. How come that these views are seen as socially and culturally desirable? Is it

because they are enacted by many managers, or could it be that large, successful and

influential Swedish corporations have established such practices and then presented

them as a distinctive feature, in line with a dominant political ideology of equality and

respect of individuals? In addition, do all social groups (e.g. blue collar workers,

craftsmen, etc.) in Sweden see it as equally desirable? Or is this description mostly

appropriate for the Swedish middle class and those in positions of middle or top

32
management? How do they use these established views on good leadership in their

interactions with other groups? Do they tend to impose them? How do other groups

reject, adopt or transform these views? How do they contribute to cultural dynamism?

Critical intercultural studies build on these questions and help us understand that

culture is a place of contested meanings between different cultural groups in a

relationship of unequal power (e.g., Sorrells, 2010, 2013).

The postcolonial research stream is inspired by the seminal work of Said (1978)

that shows that Western European scholars have constructed knowledge about non-

Western populations by using classifications and simplifications (such as “culture”), but

mostly by developing a scientific expertise that serves military and political agendas.

For example, when the West claims that some countries are not fit for democracy

because it does not belong to their culture, or their cultural values, this is a

simplification. Firstly, these simplifications present culture as if it were homogeneous

and stable, thus denying internal social, racial or religious diversity; culture is seen as

something immutable, resisting modernity and change. Secondly, it does not mention

the present and past ideological, economic and military power inequalities between the

West and these countries. Such simplifications were used by colonial powers to justify

their imposition of political and military order in these territories. In the aftermath of

September 11th, these simplifications have gained renewed popularity with the ideas of

‘the clash of civilizations’ (Huntington, 1996). Yet, these simplifications do not stand up

to rigorous examination using historical evidence or demographic analyses nor do they

have conceptual consistency (Said, 2001). Using the terminology of postmodern

studies, we could call them deceptive grand-narratives: they reduce a complex reality

to narrow categories of culture (or a few ‘civilisations’), implicitly presenting Western

civilisation as universally desirable and thus implicitly also justifying its potential agenda

of cultural and political imperialism (Michaelson, 2010; Rittenhofer, 2011).

Postcolonial thinkers worked on the theme of ‘the Other’ and ‘othering’ (Fanon,

1967; Jackson and Moshin, 2010). When we talk about cultural differences, we

33
‘otherize’, that is, we create an ‘other’ in opposition to which we can build our own

(cultural) identity, most often in a way that empowers us and to the disadvantage of the

others concerned. Cultural dimension constructs can be said to do this. For example,

Trompenaars (1993)’ dimension “Neutral - Affective” hides under the cover of a neutral

and value-judgment free theoretical construct, the opposition between “rational” and

“emotional”. Likewise, his dimension ‘Universalism- Particularism’ hides the dichotomy

between a disciplined environment and one of nepotism where relationships prevail

over the law. Such bipolar dichotomies are shown by Said to be elements in the

construction of an evaluative discourse about cultural others, for example, in the

opposition between the “rational”, “civilized”, “disciplined”, “democratic” and “modern”

West and the “emotional”, “savage”, “natural”, “nepotic” or “traditional” East. Similar

oppositions are implicitly used in today’s cross-cultural management training (Jack and

Lorbiecki, 2003) for example in the preparation of managers’ expatriation, and have

tangible consequences on how managers will perceive and deal with cultural

differences.

Cultural differences, ‘othering’ and power inequalities

Ybema and Byun (2009) studied the cultural differences that Dutch and Japanese

employees say impact work behaviour in Japan and in the Netherlands. Listening to

how people talk about cultural differences they show that employees use self-other

talk, that is, they define themselves in opposition to a (cultural) other, in terms that

tend to be more favourable to themselves. For example, the Dutch like to portray

themselves as efficient workers, clear communicators or flexible decision-makers

compared to their Japanese colleagues. The latter are characterized as inefficient

decision-maker, overly hierarchical and lacking commitment.

34
The researchers then realised that each national group is not consistent in its

description of cultural differences. For example, Japanese managers state that Dutch

culture is egalitarian, compared to the Japanese one, but Japanese subordinates see

their Dutch superiors as hierarchical with top-down decision making styles. This

surprising finding led researchers to realise that when employees talk about cultural

differences, it is not an objective description of facts, but rather an interpretation. The

basis of this interpretation is the hierarchical position of the employees. Indeed in both

countries, people who have a superior of a different nationality argue that their boss’s

national culture is hierarchical. In broader terms, when managers talk about their

experience of cultural differences, it is a description from their position of power, and

not so much a description of objective cultural facts.

Application to the case

In the introductory case, culture and cultural differences are presented as the

explanation of the difficulties encountered by Markus. Chinese culture is mentioned,

and especially employees’ relationship to hierarchy. In his depiction of the ‘cultural’

behaviour of the employees, Markus uses terminologies that are not neutral, but rather

depict his collaborators in negative terms regarding the purpose of the workshop:

‘passive’, ‘sit in silence’. There are no positive terms associated with the Chinese

collaborators. This indicates that Markus is most probably using culture as a

simplification to explain a problem: the lack of active participation. In other words,

Markus constructs a cultural other. He does so by using common discourses about

Asians as silent and passive; at best he uses cultural dimension constructs (e.g, high

Power Distance). This means that Markus is not considering the so-called cultural

practices of his employees in neutral terms and this is likely to impact on his

management negatively.

35
 The critical analysis of the case helps us investigate further the power

differences between the actors present: the supervisor Markus and the Chinese

subordinates. It is in the light of his power position that Markus identifies and describes

the cultural differences of his employees. As in the case by Ybema and Byun, culture is

presented as hampering the hierarchical project and frustrating hierarchical ambitions.

In other words, Markus is implicitly justifying the fact that he is in a position of power,

because his views are in line with the corporate agenda; local employees, however, are

not. By stating that this is their culture, Markus sees culture as determining behaviour,

a simplification that imprisons employees in a position of inferiority and of misfit with the

corporate agenda, that is, he over-rides their specific interests with a blanket

generalization about culture. With such a view of his employees, is Markus likely to

manage them well? It is probable that his opinion of the employees result in their low

motivation.

The third element that critical analysis of the case brings out is Markus’s stance

regarding cultural differences: “I cannot over-ride their culture, I cannot ask them to

change”. Although it might appear at first a respectful position regarding cultural

differences, this comment translates the idea that culture are immutable, that people

are caught in their cultural frames and cannot or will not change. This is a limiting and

reductionist view on culture and on people, since both are dynamic and flexible and

transformations do occur in inter-cultural encounters. If respect for the others’ culture is

an important element of successful intercultural interaction, this should not be confused

with trapping a person into a difference and thereby closing opportunities for dialogue

and reciprocal learning. This is probably why Anna is saying that if Markus is to use

ideas such as “it’s their culture”, he won’t get far in his analysis or his management of

cultural differences.

Pause for reflection

36
Use this new perspective to further analyse the case. What additional insights can you

offer Markus? What would be your final recommendations, taking into consideration

insights from each perspective? Can you see how your recommendations improved

after each new analysis?

There is nothing so practical as four good theories

Although this chapter has not presented four theories but rather four scientific views on

research on culture in management, the intention has been to demonstrate how

multiple perspectives are mutually enriching and lead to a much more powerful

analysis and thus resolution of management situations.

Insights gained from the positivist analysis clearly point at established and well-

documented cultural differences perceptible in management across countries (e.g.

different views on Power Distance, Individualism, and communication conventions).

This analysis enables us to establish that the situation is about the prevalence of

different values and by implication, different management systems.

With the interpretive analysis, we understand the motivation and legitimacy of the

attempt to implement workshops in the Shanghai operations: it’s about the

management being convinced that these practices are better and their reasons why.

This provides added explanatory power to the case and justification for the established

(or attempt at establishing) practices: the interpretive analysis contributes to sense-

giving.

With the postmodern analysis, the case appears suddenly in a totally new light:

power imbalance is identified and it becomes clear that we are missing half of the

information about the case: we only have the managerial point of view. In addition, the

case appears also to be potentially a matter of headquarters-subsidiary relationship,

thus going beyond good management practices or leadership. With this analysis, we

reach a higher level of understanding of the situation: no longer just as a problem of

37
employee participation or leadership, but also potentially an issue of organisational

control in a headquarter-subsidiary relationship.

With the critical analysis, we further explore the power dichotomies between the

different actors in the case and in particular, it becomes clear that Markus’ position is

both judgmental and aimed at limiting his local employees to inferior (cultural)

positions. In addition to having a reductionist view on culture, he does not see that with

cultural encounters comes an opportunity for (co-)learning and improvement. He

believes that cultures are fixed and should be ‘respected’, when in fact he himself does

not seem to respect his employees’ differences in values and thereby misses the

opportunity to enter in relationship with them or with other members of the

organizations.

Relating to the Other

How can we successfully engage with and relate to a culturally different person?

Critical studies tell us that the cultural differences that research has documented are in

fact partially constructed and linked to power inequalities. What knowledge of the

cultural others can we then use to relate to them? Rhodes and Westwood (2007)

argue that this question is misleading, as it focuses on knowledge. The postmodern

and critical views insist on how knowledge is developed in order to serve certain

agendas such as the colonisation of countries or the imposition of management

techniques in foreign subsidiaries, and how it becomes a sort of fiction (e.g. grand

narrative). Rather than seeking knowledge about the other, they argue that one should

aim to keep on trying to know the other person, that is, to remain in a process of

investigation, relationship and discovery. Rather than saying that one “knows” others

and acting upon these partial categories, one can constantly question one’s own

categories. This helps improve action and analysis as it avoids locking others into a

false cultural difference.

38
Using several perspectives for the understanding of a case or any managerial situation

is a powerful and effective analytical tool. Yet there are at least two dangers that need

to be mentioned: the dominance of one analysis and the impact of critical insights on

other analyses. Inevitably we are tempted to favour one view on scientific knowledge

and consider it more relevant than others so we start with this analysis (e.g., the

positivist one). The danger is that we may use the other analyses either poorly or tend

to seek to confirm our first analysis. It is important to remember that each analysis

should bring a new level of understanding together with new questions and

perspectives on the case.

The second danger is to have critical analysis discredit other analyses. In view

of our critical analysis of the case, one might say that this case is not about the cultural

differences but rather about power structures and a culturally biased manager,

influenced by postcolonial views on culture. It is important to remember that each

analysis brings additional light to the case, not the absolute truth. This case in our

chapter is as likely to be about power discrepancies as cultural differences. With this in

mind, you are now well equipped to address culture-related managerial issues and

make a rich and multi-faceted analysis by incorporating the complementary

approaches we propose in this chapter. This chapter also provides a common thread

for thinking about the other sections in the book.

39
 Questions for self evaluation

-What is the difference between the etic and emic views on culture(s)? Why does it

matter?

-What kind of knowledge is emphasized in each of the four perspectives? Give one or

two examples for each perspective.

-In the case analysis, new questions are brought forward with each new perspective.

Can you identify them for each analysis?

-Name a possible limitation of each perspective.

Questions for reflection

-What are your views on science and knowledge? Which of the four perspectives do

you spontaneously associate with?

-Do you think that these views should all be taken simultaneously in the analysis of a

situation? Or should they rather be taken in turn? If so, is there a preferable order?

Why?

Further readings (see full references in bibliography)

For the positivist perspective:

40
The GLOBE project, that is, the work by House et al (2004) and other associated

researchers, has made its mark as the newest and most complete work on the

measurement of national differences with cultural dimension frameworks.

The studies by Hofstede (e.g., Hofstede, 2001) remain a reference for many and need

to be known.

Alternative positions (e.g., Fang, 2012; Gannon, 2004) are increasingly gaining

popularity.

For the interpretive perspective:

We recommend the volume by Primecz et al (2011) that first introduces the interpretive

perspective and its methodology and then applies it to 10 cases on intercultural

collaborations.

The volume by Gertsen et al. (2012) also provide interpretive analyses of cases in

intercultural collaboration, with a specific focus Danish-Asian relationships.

The work by d’Iribarne (2012) is currently an international reference for interpretive

research in intercultural management.

For the postmodern perspective:

The article by Fougère and Moulettes (2011) provides a clear illustration of the

analytical power of deconstruction.

The contribution by Gertsen and Søderberg (2011) illustrates the use of a narrative

analysis on the ‘text’ of the interview of an expatriate and his superior. Using this tool

enables us to identify when and how intercultural learning took place and key moments

41
in the interaction between the managers that led them to successful intercultural co-

operation.

For the critical perspective:

The work by Jack and Westwood (2009) presents a detailed critique of cross-cultural

management research using a postcolonial perspective.

The article by Ybema and Buyn (2009) is a clear illustration that talking about cultural

differences is linked to one’s power situation.

Sorrells (2013) adopts a focus on cross-cultural communication and reveals how some

dimensions (gender, sexual preferences, economic prosperity of one’s country) are

also elements that need to be considered in the analysis of intercultural interactions.

The handbook by Nakayama and Halualani (2010) is probably the first compilation of

critical intercultural communication studies and provides compelling illustrations of why

power and other structural dimensions need to be considered in our intercultural

analyses.

42
Table 1.1: Sample of arguably representative behaviour for the societal practices (as

is) of the cultural dimensions of the House et al., (2004) study.

Dimension Examples of arguably Examples of arguably

representative behaviour of representative behaviour

a high score of a low score

Power Distance is - Different groups have - All the groups enjoy

the degree to which different involvement, and equal involvement, and

people expect and democracy does not ensure democracy ensures parity

agree that power equal opportunities in opportunities and

should be stratified - Society differentiated into development for all

and concentrated at classes on several criteria - Society has large middle

higher levels of an -Information is localised class

organisation or - Information is shared

-Argentina, Turkey, Germany
government
-Denmark, Qatar, Israel

Uncertainty - Show less tolerance for - Show more tolerance for

Avoidance breaking rules breaking rules

members strive to - Orderly, keep meticulous - Rely on informal

reduce uncertainty by records interactions and informal

relying on established - Rely on formalised policies norms rather than

social norms, rituals, and procedures, establish and formalised policies,

bureaucratic practices follow rules, verify procedures and rules

communication in writing - Greece, Hungary, Russia

-Switzerland, Finland,

Singapore

Future Orientation - Individuals are more - Value instant gratification

43
relates to engagement intrinsically motivated and place higher priorities

in future-oriented - Organisations with longer on immediate rewards

behaviour term strategic orientation - See materialistic success

-Canada, Malaysia, India and spiritual fulfilment as

dualities, requiring trade-

offs

-Argentina, Russia,

Guatemala

Gender Compared to a country scoring Compared to a country

Egalitarianism average: scoring average: - Fewer

minimises gender-role - More women in position of women in position of

differences while authority authority

promoting gender - Afford women a greater role - Afford women no or a

equality in community decision making smaller role in community

- Less occupational sex decision making

segregation - More occupational sex

-Sweden, Canada, Norway segregation

-Japan, India, Kuwait

Humane Orientation - Mentoring and patronage - Supervisory support

encourages and supported - Practices reflect

rewards individuals for - Practices reflect standardized

being fair, altruistic, individualised considerations considerations

generous, caring and - Need for belonging and - Formal welfare

kind to others affiliation to motivate people institutions replace

- People are expected to paternalistic norms and

promote paternalistic norms patronage relationships

44
 and patronage relationships - Welfare state guarantees

-Thailand, Zambia, Malaysia social and economic

protection of individuals

-Germany, South-Africa,

Italy

Assertiveness is the - Stress equity, competition, - Stress equality, solidarity,

degree to which and performance and quality of life

individuals are - Expect demanding and - Have sympathy for the

assertive, challenging targets weak

confrontational, and - Value assertive, dominant - Value who you are more
aggressive in their and tough behaviour than what you do
relationships with
-Hong Kong, US, Australia - New Zealand, Sweden,
others
Switzerland

Performance - Emphasise results more than - Have high respect for

Orientation people quality of life

Encourages and - Believe that anyone can -View assertiveness as

rewards performance succeed if s/he tries hard socially unacceptable

improvement and enough - Regard being motivated

excellence - Believe that schooling and by money as inappropriate

education are critical for - Associate competition

success with defeat and

- Value what you do more than punishment

who you are -Hungary, Argentina, Qatar

-Singapore, Iran, Taiwan

In-Group - Members assume that they - Members assume that

45
Collectivism is the are highly interdependent with they are independent of

degree to which the organisation and believe it the organisation and

individuals express is important to make personal believe it is important to

pride, loyalty and sacrifices to fulfil their bring their unique skills

cohesiveness in their organisational obligations and abilities to the

organisations or - Employees tend to develop organisation

families long-term relationships with - Employees develop

employers from recruitment to short-term relationships,

retirement and change companies at

- Jobs are designed in groups their own discretion

to maximize social and -Compensation and

technical aspects of the job promotions based on

-Iran, Philippines, Zimbabwe equity model, in direct

relationship to the

employee’s contribution to

success

-Sweden, Netherlands, US

Institutional -Organizations take -Direct and solution-

Collectivism responsibility for employees’ oriented conflict resolution

Encourages and welfare tactics are preferred.

rewards collective -Obliging, compromising and -Jobs are designed

distribution of accommodating conflict individually to maximize

resources and resolution tactics are preferred autonomy

collective action -Sweden, South Korea, China -Greece, El Salvador,

Morocco

Based on House et al., 2004 and Romani (2010)

46
References

Adler P.S. (2002) ‘Critical in the Name of Whom and What?’ Organization, 9(3), 387-

395.

Adler N. and A. Gundersen (2008) International Dimensions of Organizational

Behavior, 5th edition, Mason, Ohio: Thomson-South-Western.

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.

Basabe N. and M. Ros (2005) ‘Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates:

Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance’. Revue Internationale de Psychologie

Sociale, 18(1), 189-225.

Berger P. and T. Luckmann (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in

the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Penguin Books.

Bell R. (2006) Paradoxes of Culture arising from Misinterpretation of Value Dimensions

in P. Coate (Ed), Handbook of Business Strategy, Emerald.

Brodbeck F and M. Frese (2007) ‘Societal culture and leadership in Germany’, In

Chokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. and R.J., H. (eds.) Culture and Leadership Across the

World: The GLOBE book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., publishers, 147-214.

Burrell G. and G. Morgan (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis,

London: Heinemann Educational Books.

47
Chevrier S. (2009) ‘Is national culture still relevant to management in a global

context? The case of Switzerland’, International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management, 9(2), 169–84.

Chevrier S. (2011) ‘Exploring the Cultural Context of Franco-Vietnamese Development

Projects: Using an interpretative approach to improve the Cooperation Process’, in

Primecz H., Romani L., Sackmann S. (eds), Cross Cultural Management in practice:

culture and negotiated meanings, Edward Elgar Publishing, 41-52.

Deetz S. (1996) ‘Describing Differences in Approaches 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.

d’Iribarne P. (1989) La logique de l’honneur, Paris, Le Seuil.

d’Iribarne P. (2003) ‘Trois figures de la liberté’, Annales, 58(5), 953-980.

d’Iribarne P. (2009) ‘National Cultures and Organizations in Search of a Theory: an

Interpretative Approach’. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management , 9(3),

309-321.

d’Iribarne P. (2012) Managing corporate values in diverse national cultures: The

challenge of differences. London: Routledge.

Fang T. (2012) ‘Yin Yang: a new perspective on culture’, Management and

Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.

48
Fang T. (2003) ‘A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension’, International

Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 3(3), 347-368.

Fanon F. (1967) Black skin, white masks, Grove, New York.

Faure G. O. and T. Fang (2008) ‘Changing Chinese values: Keeping up with

paradoxes’. International Business Review, 17(2), 194–207.

Fiske A. P. (1992) ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified

theory of social relations’. Psychology Review, 99(4), 689-723.

Foucault M. (1977) Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.

Fougère M. and A. Moulettes (2011) ‘Disclaimers, dichotomies and disappearances in

international textbooks: a postcolonial deconstruction’, Management Learning, 1-20.

Fu P., R. Wu, Y. Yang, and J. Ye (2007) ‘Chinese culture and leadership’, In Chokar, J.

S., Brodbeck, F. and R.J., H. (Eds.) Culture and Leadership Across the World: The

GLOBE book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., publishers, 877-908.

Gannon M. (2000) Cultural Metaphors: Readings, Research Translations, and

Commentary. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage.

Gannon M. (2007) Paradoxes of Culture and Globalization, Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage

Gannon M. J. and associates (1994) Understanding global cultures: metaphorical

journeys through 17 countries, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

49
Gannon M. J. and P. G. Audia (2000) ‘The cultural metaphor: A grounded method for

analyzing national cultures’. In P. C. Earley and H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in

international and cross-cultural management, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 91-106.

Gannon M. J. and K. P. Rainandini (2009) Understanding Global Cultures:

Metaphorical Journeys Through 29 Nations, Clusters of Nations, Continents, and

Diversity.

Garfinkel H. (1967) Enthnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Geertz C. (1973/1993) The Interpretation of Cultures, London: Fontana Press.

Gertsen Cardel M. and A.-M. Søderberg (2011) ‘Intercultural Collaboration Stories : On

Narrative Inquiry and Analysis as Tools for Research in International Business’. Journal

of International Business Studies, 42, 787-804.

Gertsen Cardel M., A.-M Søderberg and M. Zølner (2012) Global collaboration:

intercultural experiences and learning, Houdmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gillespie K., J. B. McBride, and L. Riddle (2010) ‘Globalization, biculturalism and

cosmopolitanism: The acculturation status of Mexicans in upper management’.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1), 37–53.

Habermas J. (1988) Nachmetaphysisches Denken : philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt

am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Habermas J. (1990) Die Moderne : ein unvollendetes Projekt, Leipzig : Reclam.

50
Hassard J. and M. Kelemen (2002) ‘Production and consumption in organizational

knowledge: the case of the 'paradigms debate’, Organization, 9(2), 331-355.

House R.J., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (eds) (2004)

Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede G. (1980) Cultures' Consequences: international differences in work-related

values, Beverly Hills, Sage.

Hofstede G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd Ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holden N. (2002) Cross-cultural Management: a Knowledge Management Perspective.

Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall

Holmberg I. And S. Åkerblom (2006) Modelling leadership—Implicit leadership theories

in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(4), 307-329.

Huntington S. P. (1996) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order.

London, Simon and Schuster.

Jack G. and A. Lorbiecki (2003) ‘Asserting Possibilities of resistance in the cross-

cultural teaching machine: Re-viewing videos of Others’, in A. Prasad (Ed.),

Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: a critical engagement. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 213-231.

51
Jack G. A. and R. Westwood (2009) International and Cross-Cultural Management. A

Postcolonial reading, London: Palgrave.

Jackson R. L. and J. Moshin (2010) ‘Identity and difference: race and the necessity of

the discriminating subject’, in T. K. Nakayama and R. T. Halualani, (Eds.) The

handbook of critical intercultural communication, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 348-363.

Kelemen M. and N. Rumens (2008) An introduction to critical management

research. London: Sage.

Kluckhohn F. and C. Strodtbeck (1961) Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT:

Greenwood

Lane H. Maznevski, M, DiStefano, J. and Dietz, J. (2009) International Management

Behavior. Leading with a global mindset.6th edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Lee Y.-T. (2010) ‘Home versus host- Identifying with either, both or neither? The

relationship between dual cultural identities and intercultural effectiveness’,

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 10(1), 55-76.

Lowe S. (2001) ‘In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king’, International

Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1(3), 313-332.

Lowe S. (2002) ‘The cultural shadows of cross-cultural research: images of culture’,

Culture and Organization, 8(1), 21-34.

Lindell M and C. Sigfrids, C. (2007) ‘Culture and Leadership in Finland’, In Chokar, J.

S., Brodbeck, F. and R.J., H. (Eds.) Culture and Leadership Across the World: The

52
GLOBE book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., publishers, 75-106.

Lyotard J.-F. (1984/1997) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lyotard J-F. (1979) La condition postmoderne, Paris : Les éditions de minuit.

Martin J. (1990) ‘Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender

Conflict in Organizations’, Organization Science, 1(4), 339-359.

McSweeney B. (2009) ‘Dynamic diversity: variety and variations within countries’,

Organization Studies, 30(9), 933-957.

Michaelson C (2010) ‘Revisiting the Global Business Ethics Question’, Business Ethics

quarterly, 20 (2), 237-251.

Minkov M. (2011) Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World. Bingley UK, Emerald

Morley D. K. H. Chen (eds.), (1996) Stuart Hall: critical dialogues in cultural studies,

London, Routledge.

Morris M.W., Leung, K., Ames, D., Lickel, B. (1999) Views from Inside and Outside:

Integrating Emic and Etic Insights About Culture and Justice Judgment. Academy of

Management Review, 24(4), 781-796.

Mutabazi E and C. B. Derr (2003) ‘The Management of Multicultural Teams: The

Experience of Afro-Occidental Teams’, Cahiers de Recherche, EM Lyon.

53
Nakayama T. K. And R. T. Halualani (Eds) (2010) The Handbook of Critical

Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage.

Nardon L. and R. M. Steers (2009) ‘The culture theory jungle: divergence and

convergence in models of national culture’, in R.S. Bhagat and R.M. Steers (eds),

Cambridge Handbook of Culture Organizations and Work, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 3-22.

Ogilvy J. (1990) ‘This postmodern business’, Marketing and Research Today, 18(1), 4-

22.

Osland J. and A. Bird (2000) ‘Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: cultural sensemaking

in context’, Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65-79.

Parker M. (1992) ‘Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory?’

Organization Studies, 13(1), 1-17.

Peterson M. F. and K. L. Pike (2002) ‘Emics and Etics for Organizational

Studies. A lesson in Contrast from Linguistics’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural

Management, 2(1), 5-19.

Primecz H. (2002) ‘'Cross-Cultural Comparison between Hungarians and Expatriates’,

in M Kelemen, M. Kostera (eds.) Critical Management Research in Eastern Europe

Managing the Transition, Palgrave, 203-216.

54
Primecz H., L. Romani and S. Sackmann (2009) ‘Multiple perspectives in Cross-

Cultural Management’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(3), 267-

274.

Primecz H., Romani L., Sackmann S. (Eds), (2011) Cross Cultural Management in

practice: culture and negotiated meanings, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rhodes C. and R. Westwood (2007) ‘Letting Knowledge Go: Ethics and the

Representation of the Other in the Practice of International and Cross-Cultural

Management’, in C. Carter, S.R. Clegg , M. Kornberger, S. Laske and M. Mesner

(Eds.) Business Ethics as Practice: Representation, Discourse and Performance,

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 68-83.

Rittenhofer I (2011) ‘Divorcing globalization from Orientalism. Resembling economies

and global value added’, in H. Primecz, L. Romani and S. Sackmann (eds), Cross

Cultural Management in practice: culture and negotiated meanings, Edward Elgar

Publishing, 125-138.

Romani L. (2010) Relating to the Other: Paradigm Interplay for Cross-Cultural

Management Research, 2nd Ed., Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Publishing.

Romani L., H. Primecz and K. Topçu (2011) ‘Paradigm interplay for theory

development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method’, Organization

Research Methods. 14(3), 432-455.

Rorty R. (1991) Habermas and Lyotard on post-modernity. Essays on Heidegger and

Others. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

55
Sackmann S. A. and M. E. Phillips (2004) ‘Contextual Influences on Culture Research:

Shifting Assumptions for New Workplace Realities’, International Journal of Cross-

Cultural Management, 4(3), 370-390.

Said E. (1978) Orientalism, London, UK: Penguin Books.

Said E. (2001) The Clash of ignorance. The Nation, October 22

(http://www.thenation.com/article/clash-ignorance).

Schein E. (1985/1992) Organisational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-

Bass.

Schneider S., G. Stahl and J.-L. Barsoux (2014). Managing across cultures. 3rd ed.

London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.

Schroll-Machl S. (2003) Doing business with Germans. Their perception, our

perception, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Schutz A. (1962) Collected Papers, Volume 1, The problem of social reality / ed. and

introduced by Maurice Natanson, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.

Smith P.B., S. Dugan and F. Trompenaars (1996) ‘National culture and managerial

values: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations’. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 27, 231-264.

Søderberg A.-M. and N. Holden (2002) Rethinking cross-cultural management in a

globalizing business world, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(1),

103-121.

56
Sorrells K. (2010) Re-imagining Intercultural communication in the context of

globalization, in Nakayama, T. K and Halualani, R. T., (Eds.) The handbook of critical

intercultural communication, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 171-189.

Sorrells K. (2013) Intercultural Communication: globalization and social justice,

Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage.

Stahl G. K, M. E. Mendenhall and G. R. Oddou (2011) Readings and Cases in

International Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour, 5th Ed:

Taylor and Francis

Steers R., C. Sanchez-Runde and L. Nardon (2010) Management across cultures:

challenges and strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Szabo E. (2007). Participative management and culture: A qualitative and integrative

study in five European countries. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Szabo E., Brodbeck, F., den Hartog, D., Reber, G., Weibler, J and Wunderer, R. (2002)

The Germanic Europe cluster: where employees have a voice. Journal of World

Business, 37, 55-68.

Thomas A. (1996) ‘Analyse der Handlungswirksamkeit von Kulturstandards’, in

Alexander Thomas, (Ed.), Psychologie interkulturellen Handelns, Göttingen, Hofgrefe

Verlag für Psychologie, 107-135.

Tienari J., A. M. Søderberg, C. Holgersson, and E. Vaara (2005) Narrating gender and

national identity: Nordic executives excusing for inequality in a cross border merger

57
context, Gender, Work and Organization, 12(3), 217–47.

Topçu K. (2005) Theory and practice of culture standard research in Austro-Hungarian

management interactions: an analysis from Hungarian point of view, Doctoral

dissertation, Corvinus University of Budapest.

Topçu K., L. Romani and H. Primecz (2007) ‘Kulturstandard research in two

paradigms: The possible applications 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, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Vaara E. (2002) ‘On the discursive construction of success/failure in narratives of

post-merger integration’, Organization Studies, 23(2), 211–48.

Vaara, E., A. Risberg,A. M. Søderberg and J. Tienari (2003) ‘Nation talk. The

construction of national stereotypes in a merging multinational’, in A.-M. Søderberg

and E. Vaara (eds), Merging Across Borders. People, Cultures and Politics,

Copenhagen, Denmark, Copenhagen University Press, 61–86.

Varga K. (2003) Értékek fénykörében: 40 év értékkutatás és jelen országos

értékvizsgálat, Adalék egy új nemzetstratégia megalapozásához. Budapest: Akadémiai

Kiadó.

Willmott H. (2003) Organization Theory as a Critical Science? in Tsoukas, H, Knudsen,

C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 88-112.

58
Ybema S.B. and H. Byun (2009) ‘Cultivating cultural differences in asymmetric

power relations’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(3),

339–58.

Yousfi H. (2011) ‘When American management system meets Tunisian culture: the

Poulina case’, in Primecz H., Romani L., Sackmann S. (Eds), Cross Cultural

Management in practice: culture and negotiated meanings, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Publishing, pp. 64-76.

1
Our paraphase of Lewin’s famous saying: ’There is nothing so practical as a good

theory’. Although we are not presenting ’theories’ here but rather views and

perspectives on culture, we aim to show how their combination is practical.

2
This chapter is part of the research project “The hidden side of cross-cultural

management” financed by the Swedish Research Council, Vetenskapsrådet (412-

2009-2020).
3
Although the Burrell and Morgan (1979) framework is more widely known in

organizational studies -see for example its application to cross-cultural management in

Primecz et al. (2009), we chose here to organise our chapter along the four views

presented by Deetz (1996), because his work addresses the limitations of the Burrell

and Morgan framework, and remains open for additional views. In addition, Deetz’

categorization of positivist, interpretive, postmodern and critical is clear and builds on

distinctions that, we believe, are easy to understand and to apply in practice.

4
The distinction between emics and etics originates from Kenneth L. Pike, developing

from his research on phonetics to phonemics, and he was interested in the linguistic

significance (or cultural in our terms) behind the differences in the sounds (“phone-”) of

59
different languages. When you investigate phonetics you compare a wide range of

languages; when you investigate phonemics you discover the internal system of

meanings within any given language; this works by analogy in the study of cultures.

(Peterson & Pike, 2002).

5
Hungary is low on Power Distance in Hofstede (2001) but high in GLOBE (House et

al, 2004). See Primecz (2002) or Varga (2003).

6
Primecz (2002) shows the presence and the lack of trust between the local workers

and expatriates
7
See for example Topcu (2005), where the researcher – based on narrative interviews

– apply the method to an interpretive study. The Kulturstandard method can be used

for positivist as well as interpretive studies and thus for bi-paradigm research as

showed by Topcu et al. (2007) and Romani et al (2011).

8
Gannon argues that it is possible to have two metaphors for the same culture (e.g. the

family altar and the Great Wall are two metaphors for China). It is also possible to have

the same metaphor for two different cultures, but the content of the metaphor would

then be different (see the Spanish and the Portuguese Bullfight).

9
On www.Harzing.com, 98 country’s scores are accessible.
10
This section is based on Holmberg & Åkersblom (2007) and Romani (2010)
11
See Lyotard (1979, 1984) and Rorty (1991)’s criticism of Habermas (1988, 1990)

approach to the Enlightenment.

12
Reality is, as always, more complex than ideal-type classifications. In our model

(figure 1.1) we placed critical approaches at the ‘etic’ end of the etic-emic dimension.

Many critical studies build on emic research and use discourses (language elements)

as tools of analysis. These kinds of critical theories have much in common with

postmodernism. For clarity and pedagogical purposes, we define the borderline

between postmodern and critical approaches by using an emphasis on language, local

60
 truths and fluidity for postmodernism and on domination, power structures and political

struggles for critical studies. Other researchers would define this border differently (see

for example the work by Burrell and Morgan, 1979, Willmott, 2003; Kelemen and

Rumens, 2009, Adler 2002).

61

View publication stats