Springer

The Meanings of "International Management"

Author(s): Jean J. Boddewyn, Brian Toyne and Zaida L. Martinez
Source: MIR: Management International Review, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2004 2nd Quarter), pp. 195-212
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835986
Accessed: 30-10-2015 01:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MIR: Management International Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 mir
mirvol. 44, 2004/2,pp. 195-212 A

MQnoQMiMnf
International
Review
© Gabler Verlag 2004

Jean J. Boddewyn/Brian Toyne/Zaida L. Martinez

The Meanings of
'InternationalManagement"
Abstract
■ The growingnumberof international-management studieshas stimulatedthesearchfora better
of thisexpressionand field.In recentarticles,we have agreedand disagreedon
understanding
whatit means.
■ A keypointof discussionhas been whether thetraditional of international
definition manage-
ment- namely,management crossingborders- shouldbe challenged;anotheris whether re-
lated expressions,such as global management, do improveour understanding of what
"international
management" means.
■ We developa definition
thatrangesbeyondtheone-waycrossingof bordersto includetwo-way
exchanges,domesticlearningand thedevelopment of a practiceof management in all institu-
tions.

Key Results
■ "Internationalmanagement" appliesnotonlyto theunidirectional crossingof nationalborders
but also to the two-directional learningexperienced by managersoutsidetheirhomeenviron-
ments.
■ "Global"and "transnational" add a mentalmindsetto themorematerialcontentof thecrossing
of bordersbyfactors of production (including knowledge)andfirms.
■ The studyof international management has benefitedfromthe "transnational" of
perspective
considering both"global"and "local" threats andopportunities.
■ "Management" is a sociallyconstructed activity -
thattakesplace in all sortsof organizations
private,public,forprofit or not,at home,abroadand supranationally.

Authors
JeanJ.Boddewyn, Professor
of International
Business,ZicklinSchoolof Business,BaruchCollege,
of New York,USA.
CityUniversity
BrianToyne,EmilC. E. JuricaProfessorofInternational
Business,SchoolofBusinessandAdminis-
St.Mary'sUniversity,
tration, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Zaida L. Martinez,Professorof International
Business,School of Businessand Administration,
St.Mary'sUniversity,
San Antonio,TX, USA.

receivedSeptember
Manuscript 2002,revisedJune2003

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 195

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martinez
Toyne/Zaida

An Ubiquitous But Vague Expression

Manyof us teachinternational management as a separatecourseor as partof

broadermanagement and international-business courses;and journalssuch as
Management International Review and the Journal ofInternational Management
use thisexpression in theirtitles.Whatparticular meaningsdoes it evokeforus
and ouraudiences?Thisis a tricky questionbecauseeventheAcademyof Man-
agement1 has notbothered to define "management;" whilethequalifier"interna-
tional"is nowfrequently replacedby such terms as "global"and "transnational."
Is internationalmanagement aboutthe international (global,transnational, etc.)
dimensions of management or aboutsomething else?
Askingthisquestionis in thetradition of scienceschallenging theirdomains,
the paradigmstheyuse, and the epistemological and ontologicalassumptions
theymake(e.g., Gould 1981,Guba 1990,Hunt1983,Lincoln/Guba1985,Poj-
man2003). In thiswholesometradition, we will continueand refinea previous
dialogue that explored the definition and domainof international management
(Boddewyn1999,Martinez/Toyne 2000).
We will arguethat:(1) "international management" appliesnotonlyto the
unidirectionalcrossingof nationalbordersbutalso to thetwo-directional learn-
ingexperienced by managers outside their home environments; (2) "global" and
"transnational"add a mentalmindsetto themorematerialcontentof thecross-
ingof bordersby factorsof production (including knowledge)and firms;(3) the
studyof international management has benefited fromthe "transnational" per-
spectiveof considering both"global"and "local" threats and opportunities, and
is a
(4) "management" socially constructed activity that takes place in all sorts
of organizations- private, public,forprofitor not,at home,abroadand supra-
nationally.
Moregenerally, thestudyofinternational management belongsto thecontin-
uous projectof understanding "howorganization is achievedand disorganization
is avoided"(Morgan2001,p. 10) in all organizing projectsaroundtheworld.As
it
such, applies to: (1) millions of business firms- small and large,in some
-
200 countries engaging in international trade and investment thatmustbe
managedin some sense; (2) international -
organizations publicand private,
-
and withmultiplemissions thatbringtogether individualsand organizations
(includinggovernments) and that range from the trulyglobal (such as United
Nationsand theInternational Chamberof Commerce)to thebilaterallevel(e.g..
theUnitedStatesJapanFoundation), and (3) otherorganizations whosemanage-
mentraisesinternational issuessuchas theuniversality (or lack thereof) of man-
agementas a practiceor science.

196 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meaningsof "International
Management"

Dialoguing About InternationalManagement

The presentauthorshave recentlywrittenarticleson international

management
(Boddewyn1999,Martinez/Toyne 2000) where theyhave bothagreedand dis-
agreed.The issuestheyraisedand theanswerstheygave will be recastherein
termsof key questionsand arguments discussedby one of them(JeanBodde-
wyn) and to
responded by the others(BrianToyneand Zaida Martinez).They
hope thattheirdialoguewill further
generate questionsand responsesby those
interested
in international
management.

Boddewyn: What Does "International"Mean?

Fayerweather's (1969) old definitionthat"international"meanscrossingborders

has not been fundamentally challenged.Those bordersare the lines foundin
maps to delimitsome 200 sovereignstates,mostof whichare recognizedby,
and affiliatedwith,the UnitedNations.The expression"nation-state" is often
appliedto what is containedwithinthese bordersbecause it includes
not onlya
country'spolitical institutions
(the"state" but
part) also itseconomic,social and
culturalelements(the"nation"part).2Some countries exhibit
(e.g., Switzerland)
muchinternalheterogeneity, but researchhas tendedto focusedon the differ-
ences amongnations-states whichmake the crossingof bordersa problematic
projectfor individuals and organizations- moreso, in mostcases,thanwithina
singlecountry.3 Two issuesmustbe addressedin connection withthisdefinition
of "international:"(1) whatcrossestheseborders, and (2) are thereequivalentor
betterexpressions to use whenreferringto thisphenomenon?

What Crosses Borders?

Studentsof international
businessemphasizetangibleand intangible goods and
services,includingthe factorsof production of raw materials,capital,labor,
technology (knowledge),entrepreneurshipand the like, so that"management"
and "managers"can be treatedas factorsthatcrossbordersthrough firms.Re-
searchersof international
organizations focuson what may be called "relations"
expressedthroughintergovernmental treatiesand agreements (oftentreatedas
the subjectof international
law), privatecodes of conduct(e.g., of theInterna-
tionalChamberof Commerce)and interchanges, includingthemigration of in-
stitutionssuch as the marketsystemand of ideologies such as that of a
"borderlessworld"(Ohmae1990).Moregenerally, scholarsconcen-
organization
trateon howorganizationsare "constructed,
maintained, reproduced and continu-

mlrvol. 44, 2004/2 197

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martinez
Toyne/Zaida

ouslyreconstructed" thetransfer
de Ven 1983,p. 266) through
(Astley/Van and
of
exchange management resources, and
philosophies practices borders.
across

Is "International"the Better Expression to Use?

Thereare severalrivalexpressions to referto thecrossingof borders."Foreign

trade"was thepredecessor of "international trade,"and "foreignexchange"re-
mainsin commonuse, as does "foreign relations."The mainobjectionto "for-
eign" is that it is a staticconcept thatusually refers to thingsthatare different,
remoteor strange- suchas "foreign" lands,languages,currencies, customsand
-
climates so thatthistermdoes notcapturethedynamiccharacter of crossing
borders.
Explainingthe advent,adoption,and meaningsof morerecentexpressions
such as "multinational, transnational and global"wouldrequirean essay of its
own.Theirpopularity reflectsbothfad and reality- namely,theneed to either
drawrenewedattention to an existingphenomenon by givingit a new nameor
to captureand label newphenomena. For example,a namewas neededto apply
to firmsthatengagein "foreigndirectinvestment" (an unevocativeterm)by
owningand otherwise controlling production facilities in severalcountries- a
relatively new phenomenon usuallytracedto the middleof the 19thcentury,
compared to international trade (or,at least,"long-distance trade")thathas been
going on for millennia. Such firms differed from previous ones whichhad only
minorand/orpassive("portfolio") investments in companieslocatedabroad,and
whichdid notsignificantly impacttheirhomeand hostlocationsand operations
on accountof theirsize and reach.Hence,the expressionmultinational enter-
prise(company, corporation,firm) was born, although various qualifications or
substitutes soon followed:multidomestic, transnational, world,global, metana-
tionalandthelike.
Our lexiconhas been complexified, and thereis no pointin arguingthat
"international" was good enoughto expressthe crossingof bordersby goods,
services,factorsof production, relationsand otherelements,exceptfor two
points.First, there are some questionableapplicationsof the new expressions
outside of their original context. Thus,Bartlett and Ghoshal(1989) used "inter-
national,global,multinational and transnational" to referto mentalities - thatis,
to how themanagersof thesefirmsthought aboutthescope and integration of
theirdomesticand foreignoperations.However,theirquadrupleclassification
was soonused to label firmsand strategies on muchless solidgrounds, as Mor-
out.
rison(1990)pointed Second,"global"maybe be a misnomer when it implies
thatfirmsreach(or intendto reach)thewholeworldof 200 nation-states and
haveadoptedPerlmutter's (1969) "geocentric attitude" of open-mindedness to all
best-practices, including thoserelated to management.4 Instead,"global" is prob-

198 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meaningsof "International
Management"

ablybestappliedto: (1) situations- forexample,thatpractically all countries

arenowsignificantly involvedin international tradeand investment,and (2) what
Yip (2003) called drivers,thatis, forcesor factors(e.g., easy,cheap and rapid
communications) thataffectorganizations all overtheworld.

Toyne and Martinez:

Does "International"Cover More Than "Crossing Borders?"

Whatwas Fayerweather whenhe statedthat"international"

(1969) highlighting
means"crossingborders?"Whatsignificance - pri-
is thereforan organization
vateor public,nationalor supranational, -
profitor nonprofit to crossborders;
and whatimplicationsdoes theconceptof "international"hold forthemanage-
mentof theseorganizations?

"International"Is More Than Crossing Borders

Blough (1964) and Vernon(1964) were amongthe firstto specifythatthe

crossingof borderswas only one of severalbases fordistinguishing between
internationaland domesticbusiness,and thatthisdistinction had implications
forbothmanagersand educators.5 Blough(1964, pp.2-7) notedthatColumbia
University introducedits first graduateinternational-business course in 1955,
withits rationalebeingthatthefieldof international businessdiffered fromthe
generalfieldof businessfortworeasons:(1) government-business relationsen-
counteredby firmsas a consequenceof crossingnationalboundariesare not
like thoseencountered at home,and (2) the culturalenvironment of the host
country is unfamiliarto the business firm and its managers.Vernon(1964,
pp.7-10) definedthe fieldof international businessin termsof dealingwith:
(1) "operatingwithinforeigneconomies";(2) "theproblemsof themovements
of goods and capitalacross boundaries," and (3) "the problemsof surveying
and integratingfromheadquarters the operationsof entitiesexistingin more
thanone country."
Bloughand Vernondealtwithfirm-level entities,buttheyalso raisedissues
thatmustbe addressedwhendiscussingthe meaningsof "international" as it
relatesto organizationsat all levels of society(e.g., networks, firms,industry
nationaland supranational
associations, organizations) and to theirmanagement.
Besides coveringthecrossingof borders,"international" highlightsthecompli-
catingimpactof environmental diversityon an organization thatoperatesoutside
of itshomeenvironment or evenexistsoutsideof all nation-states (e.g., interna-
tionalnon-governmental organizations [NGOs] as well as intergovernmental ones
suchas theIMF,WTO and UN).

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 199

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martínez
Toyne/Zaida

Therefore, withinthe scope of our discussion,"international" coversboth

thecrossingofnationalbordersand theinternaland externalenvironmental di-
that
versity organizations and their managersexperience when functioning out-
side theirhomestate.The second dimensionof this definition raises several
issuesthatare relevant fordiscussingwhatis "management" and whatis "inter-
nationalmanagement:" (1) definingthe conceptof environmental diversity;
(2) explaining its importancefor organizationsat any societal level, and
(3) drawingitsimplications forthemanagement of suchorganizations.
WhenBloughand Vernonvoicedtheiropinionsregarding thesignificance of
"international," theyspoke of such externalenvironmental "things" as national
sovereignty, tariffs,foreignexchange,doubletaxation,differing antitrust laws,
conflicting loyalties,differingcultures(languages,manners, customs,etc.) and
typesof social organization. They also mentioned such internalenvironmental
as
"things" monitoring operations in othercountries and integrating operations
acrossthem.Whattheystressedwerethedifferences encountered in unfamiliar
places as well as thecomplications thatthesedifferences introduce whenmana-
gingorganizations (albeitonlybusinessfirms)locatedthere.
Farmerand Richman(1980) addedthrough theirecologicalbusinessmodel
thattherelevantenvironments forbusinessfirmsvariedacrosscountriesalong
fourmajor dimensions- economic,socio-cultural, legal-politicaland educa-
-
tional and thatthesedimensions are also salientat thenational level forthese
firms.The international-business literature revealsthatsuch understanding of,
and responding to, environmental differences dominatethe thinking, decisions
and actionsof managersas well as of international-business scholars.Root
(1969, p. 18) venturedbeyondFarmer and Richman by assertingthat:"In
particular,thestudyof international businesscenterson thecross-national inter-
actionsthatcreatedynamiclinkagesamongtheelementscomprising theinter-
nationalenterprise (intra-enterpriseinteractions)and betweentheenterprise as a
whole and its multidimensional environmental systems(extra-enterprise inter-
actions)."
In otherwords,the concept"international," whenappliedto organizations,
implies an interaction between two or more cultures. As notedby Toyneand
Nigh(1997,p. 674), international-businessresearchers are veryfortunate because
theirinquiry"is at the frontiers of businessprocesschange,even of societal
transformation" since fundamental changeis morelikelyto occurin organiza-
tionsthatare interacting withdissimilar businessprocessesor environments than
in thosethatoperateonlyin theirhome-country businessenvironments.

More Than Nation-States Are Involved

(in its dual meaningof crossingof national

Since the concept"international"
bordersand encounteringenvironmental by businessfirms)was first
differences

200 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meaningsof "International
Management"

identifiedand definedby US business and economics scholars,an organizedin-

ternationalenvironmenthas emergedthat is increasinglyimportantto organiza-
tions and their management (Root 1969, Toyne/Nigh 1997). Furthermore,
supranationalorganizationsare playinga significantrole in modulatingthe inter-
nationalenvironment. For example, the WTO, IMF, World Bank and otherorga-
nizations created by nation-states manifest the growing consensus of
governments(albeit primarilybased on Westernvalues) to monitor,negotiate
and enforce treatiesand agreementsbearing on the eliminationof tariffsand
otherbarriersto trade,on capital and people flows as well as on human,labor
and propertyrights.
Moreover,there is a growingconsensus among expertsthat this emerging
internationalenvironmentas well as its institutionsand organizationsare re-
spondingto the powerfulforces of globalization (e.g., Barber 1995, Huntington
1996, Simmons/deJonge Oudraat 2001). In addition to successfullycrossing
national borders and navigatingthe uncertaintiesand differencesof national
environments, organizationsand their managers must cope with this evolving
organized internationalenvironment.This is particularlytrue for private and
public organizationsand theirmanagersthathave responsibilitiesinvolvingmany
countriessimultaneously(e.g., multinationalenterprisesand the UN).

The New Meanings of "Globalization"

Because the concept "international"conjoins the dual concepts of crossingbor-

ders and of enteringunfamiliarenvironments,it is necessary to explore the
meaningsattachedto the word "globalization" in the lightof recenttrendsand
controversies.There is no consensus regardingthe meaning and scope of this
expression,so thatits implicationsfororganizations,nation-statesand theirpeo-
ples are unclear.At a meetingof the WesternAcademy of Managementin April
2002, Thomas Gladwin6noted thatclose to one hundredbooks have been pub-
lished on the topic of globalization in the last decade alone, and that their
authors have differingopinions regardingwhat "globalization" refersto, and
what its impact will be on national economies, cultures,governance systems,
social issues and the like. The complex consequences of globalization can be
demonstratedby reviewingthe views of Huntington(1996) who believes that
thereare at least five models or paradigmsused by political scientists,regarding
its meaningsand implications:

1. One World:Euphoria and Harmony

Underpinningthis view oftenheld by international-business scholars (e.g., Oh-

mae 1990) is the assumptionthat,with the end of the Cold War in 1989, Wes-
ternvalues (e.g., universalism,transparencyand liberal democracy) as well as

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 201

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brìan L. Martínez
Toyne/Zaida

willprevailbecausetherestof theworldwill
economicand politicalinstitutions
acquiesceto their
superiority.

2. Two Worlds:Us and Them

Thisprobablymoreaccuratedescription ofrealityassumesthattheworldcan be
dividedinto such groupsas Orientand Occident,Northand South,East and
West,developedand developing, dependon the
richand poor.Its implications
and
groupings terminologies used: for the
example, split between "Orient"and
"Occident"places greateremphasison culturaland historical while
differences,
"Northand South"as well as "richandpoor" stresseseconomic differences.

3. 184 States,Moreor Less

statesare theprimary,
Accordingto thisperspective, indeed,theonlyimportant
becausetheymaintain
actorsin worldaffairs armies,conductdiplomacy, negoti-
ate treaties,
fightwars,controlinternational influence
organizations, and in con-
siderablemeasureshapeproduction and commerce. They also tendto cooperate
and alignthemselveswithotherstateswithsimilarcultures.As a result,those
who stresstheimportanceof politicsclaimto havea bettergraspof realitythan
thosewhostresseconomicsandculture.

4. SheerChaos
In thisview,globalizationentailsthe weakeningof statesand eventually the
breakdown of governmental authority,together of tribal,
withtheintensification
ethnicandreligiousconflicts and
Afghanistan
(e.g.,Yugoslavia, Russia).

5. Sevenor EightCivilizations
The deficiencies of the precedingfourmodelsoutweightheirbenefitsbecause
theystressparsimony at theexpenseof reality.Hence,Huntington proposedto
grouptheworld'speopleintosevenor eightcivilizations accordingto a set of
values,norms,institutions and modes of thinking: Sinic (Chinese),Japanese,
Hindu,Islamic,Orthodox(Russian),Western, Latin Americaand African.He
argued that the conflicts among these will dominateinternational
civilizations
andbusinessfortheforeseeable
relations future.
These fivedifferent views of whatglobalizationentailsare important for
severalreasons.First,themanagersof organizations thatoperatein and across
nationalborderscannotassumethatall fivefutures will co-existsince"thefirst
fourscenariosare incompatible witheach other"(Huntington 1996,p. 36). Until
and
thefuturerevealsmoreclearlythemeanings implications of globalization,
managerswill have to makesenseout of an indeterminate environment and to
act uponit. Second,no matter whichscenarioprevails,it is alreadyevidentthat

202 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meaningsof "International
Management"

globalizationis creatingan environmentthatis increasinglymore complex. For

example, Simmons and de JongeOudraat (2001, p. 3) identifiedsixteen"global
issues" which reveal that "globalization [is] alteringfamiliarassumptionsabout
who sets policy,how, and with what results."These issues include communica-
tions, corruption,developmentassistance, internationaltrade, health, environ-
ment,labor and humanrights.

"Intermestic"
Issues

While some of the effectsof globalization are known, a new lexicon is being
developed to describethem.Thus, Skidmoreand Smith(2001, p. 391) noted that
"the inter-Americanagenda in the 1990s came to concentrateon so-called inter-
mesticissues - thatis, internationalquestionswithsubstantialdomesticimplica-
tions." Thus, they pointed to migration(particularly,illegal immigration)and
illicit drugs which have political and economic implicationsfor the nations af-
fectedby such activitiesas well as for the national and internationalorganiza-
tions - public and private - that must struggle with these issues. More
importantly, theydemonstratedhow difficultit is to draw a line between domes-
tic issues and international
ones.
If we incorporatethe above views into the concept of "international," it is
evident that much more than the business operational and strategicconse-
quences of crossing national borders are involved. In particular,it has to in-
clude the managerialimplicationsarisingfromcultural,economic, political and
social interactionsas well as fromorganizationsthat are effectivelystructuring
and modulatinginternationaland national environments,because they are re-
sponsible not only forinternational economic activitiessuch as trade,capital and
labor flows but also for human and labor rights,healthpromotionand pollution
abatement.

Boddewyn: What Does "Management" Stand For?

The etymologicalroot of "management"lies in the Latin word manus forhand,

which later generatedvarious verbs and nouns - such as the French manier
which means "to handle, put somethingto work." For that matter,the English
word "manner"has the same manus/handroot to mean "a particularmethodof
being and doing." Together,these two meaningsconjure both a universaldimen-
sion - namely,that things,people, organizations,etc. have to be handled and
are being handled everywhere- and a local dimension- namely,thatthereare
particularmethods in handling them. Both meanings clearly apply to interna-
tionalmanagement.

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 203

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martínez
Toyne/Zaida

A DominantUS Perspectiveon Management

In the20thcentury,theAnglo-Saxonword"management" came to be associated

predominantly withUS views on thattopic;whilethe studyof "international
management" has centeredon the organizations associatedwithinternational
business- particularly,
multinational at leastwiththescien-
Starting
enterprises.
tific-management movement of the early 1900s, US conceptualizationshave
dominatedthe analysisof management, even thoughthisdomination has been
repeatedly are multiple,
challenged.Such conceptualizations buttheycan be ex-
pressedin thefollowingmanner:7

1. Management
Is Managers
Thereis a distinctgroupof people withinUS organizations thatare differen-
tiatedfromothermembersin termsof title,social background, education,ex-
perience,values, motivation,compensation, and
reputation the like. When
someone
identifying as a "manager,"we refer not onlyto what he/she "does"
butalso evokehis or herstatusin termsof who he/she"is." These actorsem-
body management, just as priestsembodyreligion;and managersare highly
regardedin US society,almostas a separateclass.

Is WhatManagersDo
2. Management
or "process"view whichidentifies
This is the "functional" whatdistinguishes
managersfromnon-managers - for example,thatthey"plan,organize,staff,
directand evaluate"as well as "make decisions,"while otherorganizational
memberslargelycarryout the managers'decisions.Such distinctskills are
butUS managersare supposedto have theseskills
neededby all organizations,
economies.
themin moderncapitalistic
in abundanceandto excel at exercising

Is AboutChiefsand Indians"
3. "Management
Most US businessorganizationsare hierarchies, wheresome
thatis, structures
members are "bosses"whileothershavelittleor no power.In theUnitedStates,
suchauthority restson privateownership
ultimately of thefactorsof production,
withmanagershavingdelegatedpoweras agentsof theprincipalownersof the
firm.

Is WhatManagersContribute"
4. "Management
Whether based on who theyare,whattheydo or whatauthority theyexercise,
managersadd valueto a businessorganization it intoan efficient
by integrating
prosperand growin competi-
wholethatallowsa firmto survive,
and effective
tivebusinessenvironments.

204 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meaningsof "International
Management"

The "American-ness" of management

of theseconceptualizations revealsthat
management is a and
historically socially constructed
institution.
Therefore,
whenanalyzingthemeaning(s)of "internationalmanagement" we shouldclarify
whetherwe implythatUS definitions carrysomeuniversaldenotation - if only
becauseof thespreadand progressiveadoptionof US management perspectives
aroundtheworldand theirapplicationto non-business
organizations.

A Focus on International-Business Firms

In US businessschools,"international
management" is predominantlyappliedto
thosefirmsengagedin privatecross-bordertradeand foreign
directinvestment -
mainly,importers, tradeintermediaries,
exporters, multinational
enterprisesand
strategic-alliance These
partners. business
firms must be managed,so that"inter-
nationalmanagement" can be conceivedas the applicationof the above four
meaningsof "management" to suchfirms:

1. Who AreInternational
Managers?
A distinct
groupof peopledriveand handletheinternationalization
of firms,and
are characterized
by particularbackgrounds,attitudes
and behaviors.This issue
has been particularly
emphasizedin theUnitedStateswheretheweightof the
domesticmarkethas longrequiredan extrapushto involvefirmsin exporting,
importing,foreignlicensing,investingand partnering.
In otherwords,interna-
tionalmanagement is the provinceof a particular
breedand class of business
managerswhohavebeen selected,trainedand socializedin particularways,and
whocan be studiedin a comparative mannervis-à-vistheirdomesticand foreign
counterparts.

2. WhatDo International
ManagersDo?
The managerial functions(planning,organizing,etc.) are rendered
morecomplex
on accountof theadditionof the"geographic" (or "area")dimension to themore
traditional"product"and "function"(such as manufacturing and marketing)
elements.International
managersmakedecisionsabout"goinginternational" and
about implementing this processacross areas, productsand functions. Fayer-
weather(1969, 1982) articulatedthisproblemin termsof fourkeydecisions:(1)
whatfirm-specific economicadvantageswill allow firmsto succeed in other
countries;(2) whichsocio-cultural adaptationswill be requiredin transferring
and deployingtheseresourcesoverseas;(3) how will politicalactors- particu-
larlygovernments, but also interestgroupsand public opinionat home and
abroad- be accommodated in reconciling
theprivateand publicinterests asso-
ciatedwithinternationaltradeand investment, and (4) how will foreignand do-
mesticactivitiesbe integrated in the face of the centrifugalpull of different

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 205

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martínez
Toyne/Zaida

markets,sovereigntiesand cultures- what Fayerweathercalled the problemof

"unificationin the face of fragmentation?"

3. How Are InternationalActivitiesStructured?

This problem is now articulatedin termsof designing systems(authorityand
responsibility flows,etc.) thatprovidesome
relationships,incentives,information
optimal if elusive combinationof "national responsivenessand global integra-
tion" (e.g.. Bartlett/Ghoshal 1989, Prahalad/Doz 1987).

4. What Do InternationalManagers Contribute?

The benefitsof good managementare traditionallyassociated with efficiency
and effectiveness, but the latterassume an expanded meaning in the contextof
the recentglobalizationthatimpactsmost economies, societies,polities and cul-
tures. "Good internationalmanagement"now incorporates:(1) respondingto a
much greatervarietyof constituencies- at once domestic,foreign,international
and supranational;(2) providingmodels for other organizationsthat must also
cope withglobalization,and (3) contributing to worldwidedevelopmentin all its
facets - not only economic but also personal,political,social, culturaland eco-
logical.
This is the agenda of international firms,managersand managementas seen
through US business-firm lenses. Some of it is shared around the world, and
knowledge of multinational has
enterprises significantly contributedto our under-
standingof how large business firms are managed around the world.Thus, Kogut
(2002, p. 267) recentlyclaimed that:"This emphasison theproductivecapabilities
and innovativesearch of the multinationalcorporationdistinguishedinternational
researchfromits counterpart in management,in whichthe focus at thattimewas
on industrycompetition[the traditionalfocus of strategyresearch]and organiza-
tional inertia."In otherwords,internationalmanagementis notjust a geographi-
cally applied area of managementbutan intrinsicand dynamicpart of it.

Toyne and Martinez:

Broadening The Concept of "InternationalManagement"

We agree with Jean Boddewyn's last remarkas well as with his statementthat
However,we
"managementis a historicallyand socially constructedinstitution."
wantto addresshis assertionsthat:(1) "crossingborders"exhaustswhatis meant
by a geographicallyapplied area of management;(2) "managers"are limitedto
business
an elite group of people who handle the activities of profit-seeking
firms,and (3) the concept of "management"is encompassed by a terminology
developed,forthe mostpart,in the United States.

206 mir vol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meanings of "InternationalManagement"

ManagementOccurs in AllSocieties

Concepts such as span-of-controland the organizationof workforcescan be

tracedback in recordedhistoryto at least the buildingof the Egyptianpyramids
as well as to JoshuaorganizingIsrael's 40-yeartrekacross the Sinai desert.That
is, managementpractice has been around for a very long time, occurs in all
societies and is potentiallytransferable
to all of them.

ManagementOccurs at AllLevels of Society

The study of managementhas generally,but not exclusively,focused on the

managementof private organizations- particularly,business firms.However,
limitingthe study of managementto business firmsplaces an unnecessaryre-
strictionon the acquisitionof knowledgeabout managementwhich can be found
whereverhumans gatherto achieve a common goal, startingwith familyhouse-
holds.

ManagementEnacts Its Reality

Managers identify,interpretand articulateproblemsand situationsaccording to

theirindividualexperiencesand cultures,so thatthe realitytheysee is the reality
theyhave defined(Weick 1979). As a result,thereis a strongdose of self-refer-
ence in theirperceptions;and theirperceptions,decisions and actions are cul-
ture-boundbecause theydepend on a body of knowledgethatis historicallyand
culturallysharedand accepted by theirsociety.For example, in egalitariansocie-
ties and in self-managedgroups,managementis not an elitistactivityand does
not involvehierarchies.

International
ManagementIs a SociallyConstructedActivity

Managers, when initiallyinvolved in internationalactivities,encounterunique

problemsand situationswhich require some "social construction".Besides, pro-
blems and situationsmay be interpreted differentlyby distincttypesof managers
- locals, expatriatesand third-countrynationals - because of theirbackgrounds
(Haire/Ghiselli/Porter 1969, Ratiu 1983, Toyne 1980). Hence, theirsolutionsto
problems and theirhandlingof situationswill differ.
As a consequence of the interactionof people with different national back-
grounds, new ways of thinking often result (Toyne/Nigh 1997). First, when
such people work together,they have the opportunityto influenceone another
and create new solutionsto problems and opportunities,so that a new way of
thinkingresults which differsfrom the approaches traditionallyused in each

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 207

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ.Boddewyn/Brian L. Martinez
Toyne/Zaida

separate nation-state.For example, the interactionof Japanese and US man-

agers resultedin a change in the deliverysystemof a US companythatoffered
to supplyits Japanesecustomerswithina range of time instead of at a specific
time (Adler 2002). This solutionrecognized the values of both cultures:"From
the American perspective,the system had to be definiteenough to engender
credibilitywith American customers.From the Japanese perspective,the pro-
mises to customershad to conformto realitysufficiently so thatno one would
lose face" (p. 124).
Second, the studyof the natureand sources of managerialinnovationsshould
not be restrictedto profit-seekingbusiness entitiesthatcross borders.The pro-
blems and situationsencounteredinternationally by the managersof such non-
profitorganizationsas the World Health Organizationdiffersubstantiallyfrom
those encounteredby profit-seeking organizations.Hence, the managerialinnova-
tions thatthese organizationsproduce may be quite different yet usefulforother
organizations,including profit-seekingenterprises. At least, the knowledge
gained enriches our of
understanding management in all of its multiplefacets
and expressions.

The Studyof ManagementIs a SociallyConstructedActivity

Philosophersof science acknowledgethatthe scientificprocess is socially con-

structedand involves human biases (Kuhn 1970, Kaplan 1989). The paradigms
used, the questions asked and the methodologiesdeployed vary considerablyon
account of culturewhich has a bearingon what is viewed as "correct"scientific
undertakingsand on what are "acceptable" questions to research.For example,
US international-management researcherstend to emphasize a deterministic,re-
ductionistic,cross-sectionaland quantitativeapproach; while researchersfrom
othercultureshave taken a different tack. Thus, Swedish researchershave made
major contributions to a fullerand richerunderstanding of managementby using
a longitudinaland qualitative case-studymethodologythat allows for a more
holisticapproachto the studyof businessfirms(e.g., Forsgren1989); and French
researchersuse a similarbut cross-sectionalapproach(e.g., Doz 1986).
Michael Hitt (1998), a recentPresidentof the Academy of Management,ac-
knowledged the tendencyof researchersto culturallybias their work, and he
called for the eliminationof the xenophobic approaches to managementeduca-
tion and research.Fortunately, international-management researchershave been
receptive to different managementparadigms (e.g., Hofstede 1992, 1993) and
research methodologies.This openness to other interpretations of reality and
methodologies should be extended to additional of
types international-manage-
mentphenomenasuch as non-profit organizationsthatreach across borders(e.g.,
the International Red Cross).

208 mir vol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meanings of "InternationalManagement"

Boddewyn, Toyne,and Martinez:Conclusions

The Academyof Management's twenty-four Divisionsand Interest Groupshave

supplied a mansion with many rooms forthose interestedin management's mul-
tiplespatial and temporal manifestations and variations; while the 1997 Domain
Statement of theAOM's International Management Divisionhas offered a broad
interpretation of what"international management" shouldencompass(Boddewyn
1999,Martinez/Toyne 2000). We havereachedbeyondtheseendeavorsto extend
and refinecurrent conceptualizations - bothas a personalstatement and as a
base forfurther discussionamongscholars.
For thispurpose,we have advancedfourmajorarguments. First,"interna-
tional"is a termreferring to thecrossingof nation-states' borders- particularly,
in termsof the internaland externalenvironmental diversity experiencedby
managersoutsidetheirhomeenvironments. Second,"international" includesthe
mentaltransformations generated and
by experiences exchanges. This "mindset"
perspective is bettercapturedby such an expressionas "global" wherebythe
whole worldis considered(if not reached)in lieu of piecemealattemptsat
"going international" (Kedia/Mukherji 1999, Blaxil/Mosquet1994, Maccoby
1995). Third, the of
experiences managersare simultaneously "global,""na-
tional"and even "intermestic." Thus,forBartlettand Ghoshal(1989, 1993), a
keycomponent of whatwe call international management calls fortheabilityto
simultaneously work with two or more sets of experiences- a perspective they
called"transnational" and whichOhmae's(1990) labeledas a "borderless world"
of exchangesand interactions thatare notnecessarily definedby crossingbor-
ders.
Finally,"management" and its studyare sociallyconstructed activitiesthat
takeplace in multipletypesof organizations all overtheworld- whether profit-
seeking,not-for-profit or public.Therefore, "international management" covers
notonlytheinternational (globaltransnational, etc.) dimensions of management
in termsof ever-expanding locations,mindsets and experiences, butalso theon-
goingdevelopment and applications of thisconceptin all typesof settings where
organization has to be achieved and disorganization as
avoided, Morgan(2001,
p. 10) putit
We hopethatourquestionsand answersas well as ourconclusionswillgen-
eratea dialogueamongthe practitioners and students of international manage-
mentin thisand otherjournalsas well as at conventions and overtheInternet.

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 209

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ. Boddewyn/BrianToyne/Zaida L. Martínez

Endnotes

1 The Academy of Management (AOM) groups more than 11,700 worldwide members (most of
themacademics) interestedin the managementof various typesof organizations.Its 24 Divisions
and InterestGroups include the InternationalManagement Division (IMD) with over 2,000
members,which issued a revised "Domain Statement"in 1996; while the AOM leadership has
emphasized its interestin making "the internationaldimension of managementan integralpart
of the Academy."
2 Notice how Adam Smithfocused on "The Wealth of Nations*9and Michael Porteron "The Com-
petitiveAdvantageof Nations".
3 There is fair agreementthat thereare more significantdifferencesbetween crossing the border
between the United States and Canada, compared to moving from New York to New Jersey
(e.g.. Boddewyn/Brewer1994, Grosse/Behrman1992, Sundaram/Black 1992). Still, one could
research the problems encounteredby a New York firmenteringthe Mississippi marketversus
the Ontario (Canada) one, and findout thatthe "mira-national"differenceswere experiencedas
greaterthanthe "mira-national"ones.
4 Govindarajan and Gupta (2001) are on safer grounds when they discuss the globalization of
marketpresence, supply chain, capital base and corporate mindset than when they apply the
word global to industries,firmsand processes (e.g., "targetingcustomersin all major markets
. . . throughoutthe world" [p. 7]).
5 Indiana Universityhosted a conferenceon InternationalBusiness on 5-6 December 1963. Its
purpose was to share and discuss "the experiences and plans of facultymembersinterestedin
the development(or refinement)of internationalbusiness programs"(Robock/Nehrt1964, p. vi).
6 Gladwin is the co-authorof a book withWalter (1980), thatdeals with the managementof con-
flictwithinan internationalcontext.
7 For a briefreview of the nascentcomparative-management literature,see Boddewyn (1967).
8 Terpstra(1978) definedcultureas consistingof language, religion,values and attitudes,educa-
tion, social organization,technologyand material culture,politics, and law. Harris and Moran
(1985) referredto cultureas consistingof beliefs and attitudes,values and norms,relationships,
rewards and recognitions,dress and appearance, food and feeding habits, mental process and
learning,sense of self and space, time and time consciousness,communicationand language.

References

Adler, N., InternationalDimensions of Organizational Behavior, Cincinnati,OH: South-Western

2002.
Astley,W. G/Van de Ven, A. H., CentralPerspectivesand Debates in OrganizationTheory,Admin-
istrativeScience Quarterly,28, 1983, pp. 245-273.
Barber,B. R., Jihad vs. McWorld,Random House 1995.
Bartlett,Ch. A./Ghoshal, S., Managing Across Borders: The TransnationalSolution, Boston, MA:
HarvardBusiness School Press 1989.
Bartlett,Ch. A./Ghoshal, S., Beyond the M-Form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm,Stra-
tegicManagementJournal,14, 1, 1993, pp. 23-46.
Bartlett,Ch. A./Ghoshal,S., TransnationalManagement,New York: Irwin-McGraw-Hill1989.
Blaxill, M. F./Mosquet, X., Avoiding the Globalization Discount, The Boston Consulting Group
Publications, 1994, retrievedon February16, 2002, fromhttp^/www.beg.com/publications.
Blough, R., Why a Field of InternationalBusiness Administration / Comments,in Metan H. Ko-
bock/Nehrt,L. C. (eds.), Education in InternationalBusiness, Bloomington,IN.: Foundationfor
Economic and Business Studies, Indiana University1964, pp. 2-7.

210 mir vol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Meanings of "InternationalManagement"

Boddewyn,J. J.,Management:The Trees, the Forest and the Landscape, ManagementInternational

Review,7, 2-3, 1967, pp. 131-137.
Boddewvn. J. J. The Domain of InternationalManagement,Journal of InternationalManagement,
5, 1, 1999, pp. 3-14.
Boddewyn,J. J./Brewer,Th. J.,International-Business Political Behavior: New Theoretical Dimen-
sions, Academy of ManagementReview, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 119-143.
Doz, Y, StrategicManagement in MultinationalCompanies, Oxford: PergamonPress, 1986.
Farmer,R. N./Richman,B., InternationalBusiness: An Operational Theory3rd. edition,Blooming-
ton, IN: Cedarwood Press 1980.
Fayerweather,J., International Business Management: A Conceptual Framework, New York:
McGraw-Hill 1969.
Fayerweather,J., InternationalBusiness Strategyand Administration,Cambodge. MA: Ballmger
1982.
Forseren.M.. Managing the InternationalizationProcess. London: Routledee 1989.
Gladwin, T. N. /Walter,I., MultinationalsUnder Fire: Lessons in the Managementof Conflict,New
York: Wiley 1980.
Gould, St. J., The Mismeasure of Man, New York: W. W. Norton 1981.
Govindarajan,V./Gupta,A. K., The Quest for Global Dominance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
2001.
Grosse, R./Behrman,J. N., Theory in InternationalBusiness, Transnational Corporations, 1, 1,
1992, pp. 93-126.
Guba, E. G., The Paradigm Dialog, Beverlv Hills, CA: Sage 1990.
Haire, M.,/Ghiselli E. E./Porter,L. W, Managerial Thinking:An InternationalStudy,New York:
Wiley 1966.
Harris.P. R. /Moran.R. T.. Mannoine Cultural Differences.Houston. TX: Gulf 1Q85
Hitt, M. A., PresidentialAddress: Twenty-First-Century Organizations: Business Firms, Business
Schools, and the Academy,Academy of ManagementReview,23, 2, 1998, pp. 218-224.
Hofstede, G., Motivation,Leadership, and Organization:Do American Theories Apply Abroad? in
Lane, H. W, DiStefano, J. J. (eds.), InternationalManagement Behavior 2nd edition, Boston,
MA: PWS-Kent Publishing 1992, pp. 98-122.
Hofstede,G., CulturalConstraintsin ManagementTheories,Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1,
1993, pp. 81-94.
Hunt,S. D., MarketingTheory: The Philosophyof MarketingScience, Homewood, IL: Irwin 1983.
Huntington,S. P., The Clash of Civilizationsand the Remakingof WorldOrder,New York: Touch-
stone Books 1996.
Kaplan, M. A., Science, Language and the Human Condition,New York: Paragon House 1989.
Kedia, B. I./Mukherji,A., Global Managers: Developing a Mindset for Global Competitiveness,
Journalof WorldBusiness,34, 3, 1999,pp. 230-244.
Kogut, B., InternationalManagement and Strategy,in: Pettigrew,A./Thomas, H./Whittington, R.
(eds.), Handbook of Strategyand Management,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2002, pp. 261-278.
Kuhn, T. S., The Structureof ScientificRevolution,Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press 1970.
Lincoln, Y S./Guba, E. G., NaturalisticInquiry,Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 1985.
Maccoby, M., Human Engineeringat ABB Leads to OperatingPrinciplesfor Global Management,
Research TechnologyManagement,38, 5, 1995, do. 58-60.
Martinez,Z. L./Toyne, B., What Is InternationalManagement,and What Is Its Domain?, Journal
of InternationalManagement,6, 1, 2000, pp. 11-28.
Morgan,G., The MultinationalFirm: OrganizingAcross Institutionaland National Divides, in Mor-
gan, G./Kristensen,P. H./Whitley,R. (eds.), The MultinationalFirm,New York: OxfordUniver-
sitv Press 2001. dd. 1-24.
* ' M. M.

Morrison,A. J.,Strategiesin Global Industries,New York: Quorum Books 1990.

Ohmae, K., 77m? Borderless World,New York: Harper-Collins1990.
Perlmutter, H. V., The TortuousEvolution of the MultinationalCorporation,Columbia Journal of
WorldBusiness, January-February, 1969, pp. 9-18.
Pojman, L. P., The Theory of Knowledge: Classical and ContemporaryReadings, Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning 2003.
Prahalad, C. KVDoz, Y I., The MultinationalMission, New York: Free Press 1987.

mirvol. 44, 2004/2 211

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeanJ. Boddewyn/BrianToyne/Zaida L. Martinez

Ratiu, I., ThinkingInternationally:A Comparison of How InternationalExecutive Learn, Interna-

tional Studies of Management & Organization,13, 1-2, 1983, pp. 139-150.
Robock, St. H./Nehrt,L. C. (eds.), Education in InternationalBusiness, Bloomington,in Founda-
tion forEconomic and Business Studies, Indiana University1964.
Root, F. R., A Conceptual Approach to InternationalBusiness, Journalof Business Administration,
1, 1, 1969, pp. 18-28.
Simmons,P. J./deJongeOudraat, Ch. (eds.), Managing Global Issues: Lessons Learned, Washing-
ton,DC: Carnegie EndowmentforInternationalPeace 2001.
Skidmore, T. E./Smith, P. H., Modern Latin America, 5™ edition, New York: Oxford University
Press 2001.
Sundaram,A. K. /Black, J. S., The Environmentand InternalOrganizationof MultinationalEnter-
prises,Academy of ManagementReview, 17, 4, 1992, pp. 729-757.
Terpstra,V., The Cultural Environmentof InternationalBusiness, Cincinnati,OH: South-Western
1978.
Toyne,B., Host CountryManagers of MultinationalFirms,New York: Arno Press 1980.
Toyne, B./Nigh, D. (eds.), InternationalBusiness: An EmergingVision,Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina Press 1997.
Vernon,R., Why a Field of InternationalBusiness Administration?Comments,in Robock, S. H./
Nehrt,L. C. (eds.), Education in InternationalBusiness, Bloomington,in Foundation for Eco-
nomic and Business Studies, Indiana University1964, pp. 7-10.
Weick, K. E., The Social Psychologyof Organizing,Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley1979.
Yip, G., Total Global Strategies,Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prenùce-Hall 2003.

212 mirvol. 44, 2004/2

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions