ACFrOgBHmsNFXuy8MHKNa4YHZcrTeVmXGwmY2SOZudmCbaUWm vfCyRNc viOAza9fYBOpqTMmceeltsVn3EwTNMBqfwELi-Ro04yzWcOD5gJFiD9LYKlOT-lEFAgNU

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COORDINATION AND CONFLICT
IN A MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATION:
A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNICATION AMONG
KOREANS, AMERICANS AND KOREAN-AMERICANS
A Dissertation Presented
by
HYONSOOK CHONG
Submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 1997
Department of Communication
UMI Number: 9737513
Copyright 1997 by
Chong, Hyonsook
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9737513

Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
© Copyright by Hyonsook Chong 1997
All Rights Reserved
COORDINATION AND CONFLICT
A Dissertation Presented
by
HYONSOOK CHONG
Approved as to style and content by:
Vernon E. Cronen, Chair
Sally/Freeman, Member
Marta\ Calas ,vMember
Jarice/JIanson, Department Head

Departyrfent of Communication
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It has been a long journey for me to reach this stage of

completion. I give my warm thanks to those who have helped
me come this far.
First of all, my deepest appreciation goes to my adviser
and mentor, Vern Cronen who guided me "throughout" my
academic life in Amherst since our first encounter in the
hall of Machmer back in 1990. I will always appreciate and
admire his profound intellectuality and inspiring insight.
I also thank, from the bottom of my heart, Sally Freeman
for her valuable guidance for this dissertation as well as
throughout my intellectual life in Amherst.
Heartfelt thanks to Marta Calas, a wonderful, bright and
inspiring person. Her responses to the first draft of my
dissertation were invaluable and helped me, a great deal,
reshape and refine it.
I also thank all my friends and colleagues for their
warm-hearted friendship and support. I will always remember
them wherever I may be.
Special and sincere thanks to those who shared their
experiences with me for my work. This project would not
have been possible without their invaluable participation.
Lastly, but not least, I am greatly indebted to my
parents and two brothers who have always given me their
unconditional love and support. I dedicate this
dissertation to my beloved parents.
iv
ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT

MAY 1997
HYONSOOK CHONG, B. A., SUNGSHIN WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY
M.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Directed by: Professor Vernon E. Cronen
This dissertation presents a rich, detailed account of

lived experiences of Koreans, Americans, and Korean-
Americans in a multicultural Korean business organization.
Guided by the coordinated management of meaning theory as
the theoretical and methodological framework, this study
looks at the organization as a co-created, co-evolving
interactive system. Thus, it closely examines communication
among the participants as everyday practices in which to
explore "goings-on" in the organization.
The main focus of this study is on the extent to which
cultural differences afford or constrain coordination among
people, and create problems such as tensions and conflict in
the organization. Six episodes were reconstructed based on
various stories "told" and "lived" by the participants, and
presented as major "goings-on" in the organization.
The main findings centered around the issues of cultural
adaptation, differentiation/division/discrimination,
harmony, biculturalism, and language. These issues were
manifested in various instances of situated interaction.
They constrained coordination and coherence, and thus
contributed to the creation, sustenance and transformation
of tensions and conflict within the organization. The
comparative analysis of different episodes, especially
revealed the intricate ways in which various patterns of
interactive relationships not only emerge and sustain, but
also transform over time.
The dissertation has two major theoretical implications
for intercultural studies. First, it supports and extends
literature on general cultural patterns by illustrating
detailed ways in which this general knowledge is manifested
in situated moments of intercultural interaction. It shows
us, in detail, the process in which a particular
intercultural situation is constructed in a unique and
complex way. The second implication is that this study is
capable of accounting for the process of transformation. In
other words, this study provides the elaborate ways in which
cultural patterns not only emerge and sustain but also
transform in practice. This ever changing, rather than
fixed, role of cultural differences is unconvered by the
comparative analysis of different episodes that occured in
different time. The study also introduces the problems of
bi-cultural persons in multicultural organizations.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................... iv
ABSTRACT ........................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ..................................... xiv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................... 5
Traditional Approach: A Critique.................. 6
Theoretical Assumptions ....................... 6
Epistemology and Ontology .................... 7
Organizations as Physical Entities ........... 8
Communication as Physical Entities ........... 10
Research Goals and Orientations ................ 14
The Social Constructionist Approach .............. 21
Theoretical Assumptions ....................... 21
Epistemology and Ontology ................... 22
Communication as the Primary Social Process .... 23
Organizations as Social Construction ......... 24
Research Goals and Orientations ................ 27
The CMM Approach: A Practical Theory............. 29
Main Features of the CMM theory................ 32
Hierarchy of Contexts ....................... 32
Higher and Lower Order story ............... 34
Cultural Patterns ......................... 35
Autobiography ............................. 36
Relationship .............................. 38
Episodes ................................. 39
Speech Act ............................... 40
vii
Charmed Loop and Strange Loop ................ 41
Logical Forces, Deontic Operators ............ 42
Reflexive Needs and Reflexive Effects ........ 44
Person Positions: Locus of Identity (L.o.I)... 45
The Application of CMM to Intercultural
Studies .................................... 46
A Critique of CMM from the Eastern
Perspective ............................... 46
Emphasis on Verbal Communication........... 47
Hierarchical Model ........................ 49
Deontic Operators ......................... 53
Conclusion ................................. 53
A CMM Approach to Intercultural Communication
Research ................................... 54
Research on Communication in Multi-cultural
Organizations ................................ 60
Comparative Research .......................... 60
Effectiveness Criteria ........................ 64
New Research Orientation ...................... 66
Research Questions .............................. 69
III. METHODOLOGY .................................... 72
Main Features of Circular Questioning ............ 72
Circularity .................................. 75
Circularity Among Respondents ................ 76
Neutrality ................................... 77
Hypothesizing ................................ 78
The Application of Circular Questioning
to Intercultural Studies ...................... 79
Neutrality ................................... 79
Gossiping Device .............................. 82
Hypothetical Questions ........................ 83
Communication Style of Circular Questioning ..... 84
Intrusive Nature of Circular Questioning ....... 84
to This Study ................................ 85
Neutrality ................................... 87
viii
Interviewer as Inferer ........................ 88
Gossiping Device .............................. 89
Conclusion ................................... 90
Selection of the Site and Subjects ............... 91
IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................... 96
The Research Site and Subjects................... 96
Park ......................................... 97
Pete ......................................... 99
Yune ......................................... 100
June ......................................... 101
Nancy ........................................ 102
Kate ......................................... 103
Main Themes .....................................104
Cultural Adaptation in the Culturally
Diverse Workplace ........................... 105
Differentiation/Division/Discrimination .........109
Harmony .......................................Ill
Biculturalism ................................. 115
Language ......................................120
Relevance of the Themes For the CaseAnalysis ......12 9
V. A CASE STUDY OF A MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATION...... 130
Episode 1: Hiring "Yune" .........................132
CMM Analysis .................................. 134
Harmony .....................................135
Park's Grammar ............................ 135
Pete's Grammar ............................ 144
Turning Point ............................... 146
Professor's Grammar ........................147
Park's Grammar ............................ 148
Differentiation/Division/Discrimination ....... 148
Park's Grammar ............................ 149
Pete's Grammar ............................ 150
Summary and Discussion .........................155
The Issue of Language ........................157
The Extent of Coordination................... 159
ix
Episode 2: Asking for a Pay Raise................ 165
CMM Analysis .................................. 167
Pete's Grammar .............................. 168
Park's Grammar .............................. 171
Episode 3: Conflict between Park and Yune ........ 177
CMM Analysis ................................ 180
Episode 3.1: Customer Complaints................ 183
CMM Analysis ................................ 185
Park's Expectation .........................185
Yune's Expectation .........................190
Episode 3.2: Yune's Resignation................ 195
CMM Analysis ................................ 197
Nancy's View .............................. 197
June's View ............................... 198
Pete's View ............................... 198
Park's View ............................... 199
Yune's View ............................... 200
Escalating Conflict ......................... 201
Punctuation ................................. 202
Biculturalism ............................... 202
Cultural Disintegrator .......................203
The Extent of Coordination .................. 204
Episode 4.1: A Social Gathering .................. 209
CMM Analysis .................................. 211
Park's Grammar of Meaning .................... 211
American Subordinates'Grammar of Meaning ......216
Cultural Difference ......................... 221
Episode 4.2: A Welcoming Party for Yune ...........227
CMM Analysis .................................. 229
June's Grammar .............................. 229
Park's Grammar .............................. 232
Episode 5: A New Answering System ................ 236
CMM Analysis ................................. 23 9
June's Grammar .............................. 240
Park's Grammar .............................. 244
Summary and Discussion.........................246
Increased June's Discontent and
a New Coalition ........................... 247
The Extent of Coherence and Coordination....... 248
Creative Resolution..........................248
VI. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...................... 251
Goings-on in the Organization .................... 252
Cultural Adaptation as a Process
of Transformation ........................... 253
Differentiation/Division/Discrimination .........256
Tansformation by the Outsiders ............... 257
The Extent of Coordination, Tensions
and Conflict .............................. 257
Harmony ...................................... 258
June's Transformation ........................259
Biculturalism................................. 260
The Third Cultural Pattern ................... 261
Cultural Disintegrator as an
Unexpected Consequence ..................... 261
The Pattern of Conflict between Park and Yune...262
Language ..................................... 263
Power Imbalance ............................. 264
Reflexivity between Language and Context ...... 265
Implications for Intercultural Studies ........... 266
Implications of Theory.........................266
Implications of Methodology .................... 269
Implications for Future Research ............... 275
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 277
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Ease.
1.1 Person X's Hierarchy of Stories ................ 33
2 .1 Harmony ........................................ 162
2.2 Turing Point ................................... 163
2.3 Differentiation/Division/Discrimination .......... 164
3.1 Asking for a Pay Raise .......................... 176
4.1 A Typical Pattern of Conflictbetween ............. 206
Park and Yune
4.2 A Charmed Loop ................................. 207
4.3 Customer Complaints .............................208
5.1 A Social Gathering ............................. 226
5.2 A Welcoming Party for June ...................... 235
6.1 A New Answering System .......................... 250
xii
LIST OF ABBREBIATIONS
CP :Cultural Patterns
ORG :Organizational Patterns
RELA: Relationship
AUTO: Autobiography
EPI :Episode
SA :Speech Act
Oblig: obligatory
legit: legitimate
Prohi: prohibited
A : Action
M : Meaning
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
|_c Charmed Loop

|_s Strange Loop
f Exclusive Disjunction
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Recently, intercultural communication in organizations,

especially business organizations, has been drawing much
attention and interest from social researchers as well as
business people as the new era of the globalized world is
approaching. The new phenomenon of globalization has been
accelerated by the rapid and enormous advances in
communication technologies such as computerization,
telecommunications, and other forms of information
technology along with transportation.
Especially, in the business sector, global
communications along with global travel have given birth to
the globalized world market and this new world market seems
to draw business firms from all over the world. According
to a recent Business Week article, chief executive officers
(CEOs) are being driven by a simple truth: "to survive is to
be global" (Holstein et al. 1989:18; Maddox, 1993:2).
Foreign operations are no longer the sole domain of either
local national firms or the large multinational firms with a
long history of worldwide operations. Entering this new
market in ever greater numbers are other firms from both
developed and the developing countries of the world
including the United States (Negandhi 1987:7-17, Maddox,
1993 :2) .
The direct consequence of the globalization of the
business world is the increased number of multi-cultural
firms that comprise culturally diverse work force. These
multi-cultural firms are encountering new problems in
conducting their operations on a global scale. For many
companies, cultural differences among culturally diverse
workers are posing special problems that they had not
anticipated. And, unfortunately, they have not been able to
deal with these differences successfully (Maddox, 1993).
Hoecklin (1995) also addresses the same issue on the impact
of cultural diversity on international business. She points
out the increased potential for management frustration,
costly misunderstandings and even business failures when
dealing with people whose values, beliefs, customs and first
language are different from your own. As such, the need for
understanding communication in culturally diverse
organizations is increasing.
However, there seems to be a lack of systematic studies
on communication in this particular context, which can help
and guide diverse workers to work together and coordinate
better in multi-cultural firms. Although the body of
literature on multinational organizations is growing, little
of this research has focused on communication or especially
intercultural organizational communication (Shuter, 1989;
Wiseman & Shuter, 1994). Hence, there has been a
significant lack of practical studies which can be applied
in actual situations.
Most existing studies on communication in bi- or multi
cultural organizations are limited to cross-cultural
comparisons and effectiveness lists (Driskill, 1995) .
Basically, these studies are not contextualized, that is,
they do not focus on situated moments of intercultural
interactions. They merely tend to stand over, to generalize
on the bases of abstractions (Carbaugh, 1991). Typically,
cross-cultural comparisons are made on the basis of some
unchanging set of dimensions or exhaustive set of variables
that will render all cultures commensurable and therefore
will be universally applied to any situation of
intercultural communication (Cronen, Chen, Pearce, 1988) .
This leads to a lack of attention to lived experience of
individuals as actors and their practice of everyday life or
"goings on" (Cronen, 1995), which, in turn, leads to a lack
of practical applicability.
Hence, in this study, I will shed some light, at the
pragmatic level, on these little explored issues and suggest
some possible ways to manage culturally diverse workplace
and, further, develope some insight into consultation on
intercultural organizational communication.
In this study, I explore some significant issues,
problems or difficulties (i.e. cultural differences in
management styles and leadership, difficulties in managing
culturally diverse workers and problems of coordination,
tensions and conflict among them, etc) that involve cultural
differences that may be found in a multicultural Korean
business organization, specifically in one of its U.S. sales
operations in New England. In so doing, this study is
grounded in a social constructionist approach, and,
particularly, the coordinated management of meaning theory
(the CMM, hereafter) is used to collect and analyze data
which mainly comprise situated instances (episodes) of
intercultural communication. I have chosen this particular
approach because it has been proven useful, according to my
experience (Chong, 1994) for uncovering: the particularities
of intercultural interactions; the richness and profoundness
of the experience of intercultural participants;
complexities, contradictions and some disorder that are
inherent in everyday intercultural experience as conjoint
actions as they are in all other aspects of human life.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The classical literature on organizational

communication is primarily grounded in logical positivism or
objectivism. This traditional line of inquiry is originated
from the scientific tradition of physical science. Its
adequacy for the social study has been a controversial
issue, and, as a result, numerous alternat ive views have
been developed and proposed.
The social constructionist viewpoint is one of the
forerunners in this new intellectual movement and its
central ideas have led to new social paradigms, theories,
and research orientations. Especially, the social
constructionist approach offers new, useful insight into the
study of intercultural organizational communication which is
the specific topic of this research.
Hence, this chapter will present a comparative review
of related literature on the two different approaches to
organizational communication. First, I will present a
selective but critical review of the traditional approach
which will include its theoretical assumptions, research
orientations and its relevance for intercultural
organizational communication. And then, I will offer
alternative views from the social constructionist
perspective leading to a discussion of CMM on intercultural
organizational communication. In so doing, some new insight
into the study of (intercultural) organizational
communication will be gained and new research goals and
orientations may be generated.
Traditional Approach: A Critique
The following critical review of the traditional

approach to the study of organizations will consist of two
parts. In the first part, I will critically examine major
theoretical assumptions that underlie this approach in terms
of its epistemology and ontology, its conceptualization of
organizations and communication. In the second part, I will
go over and assess the research goals and orientations that
are shaped by its theoretical position through a review of a
selected body of literature on traditional organizational
studies.
Theoretical Aflaumpfclona
Logical positivism or objectivism literally inherited

the scientific mode of inquiry from physical science. Its
theoretical assumptions, therefore, reflect those about the
physical world, and have been a driving force in objective,
ahistorical, acultural, and individualistic knowledge in the
Western scholarship.
Epistemology and Ontology
The basic epistemological assumption of the traditional
paradigm is that knowledge can be discovered through careful
observation because knowledge is viewed as concrete,
materialistic entities - types of social facts. In this
view, even social reality consists of hard, tangible facts
and it exists "out there" external to the individual and
takes a form prior to any human activity. Hence, knowledge
mirrors or maps reality and can be discovered by the
objective or scientific method. Their obsession with
empirical facts and the scientific method derives from the
basic assumption that there is some overarching framework,
some neutral descriptive language, and some permanent
standards of rationality to which we can appeal in order to
understand and explain human behavior and life. This
assumption also leads to their pursuit of universal laws or
explanatory theories that apply to a wide range of
circumstances. Thus, objectivism or scientism leads into
universalism.
Given the view of reality with a form and structure
apart from differences between individual observers, human
beings are basically passive, disinterested, objective
spectators that are separated from the social world and the
interactive process. They are reactive: they respond to
external stimuli in mechanically controlled ways (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979; Putnam, 1983). The external world determines,
or at least shapes, individual options for appropriate
behaviors. In this view, all human beings, regardless of
time and place are known to share a set of universal traits
behind their surface differences. Hence, researchers in
this tradition believe that it is possible to discover
universal laws that can be used to explain human behavior.
Consequently, they have been primarily interested in
empirical substantiation of fundamental laws of human
conduct (Gergen, 1982, p.134) such as the individual
interpretive process or the operation of social force on
individuals (Cronen, Pearce & Harris, 1991).
Organizations as Physical Entities

Given the aforementioned epistemological and
ontological assumptions, organizations are also viewed as
social facts or concrete entities that exist prior to
individual activities. The structure remains static and
shapes the goals and activities of its members. In this
tradition, organizations are treated as "machines" or
"containers" with concrete structures and boundaries, and
its members as parts of those machines that simply function
or serve to achieve predetermined goals and objectives of
the organization (Morgan, 1986). It is assumed that
individual and organizational objectives are always the
same. In other words, the interests of the individual
employee are always served by the achievement of company
objectives.
This conceptualization of organizations entails
reification. Reification is the act of transforming
abstract, symbolic forms into concrete, empirical facts
(Swenson, 1982; Putnam, 1983). Logical positivists reify
social processes by ignoring the creation of structures, by
recasting individual actions into such fixed properties as
levels, departments, and boundaries, and by treating
organizations as containers or entities (Zey-Ferrell &
Aiken, 1981; Putnam, 1983).
The scientific approach advocates work efficiency as
the primary concern of organizational theory, and thus has
been criticized for serving primarily as a problem-solving
tool for management. In this approach, human aspects of
organizations are largely ignored by treating individuals as
instruments of purposeful-rational action aimed at
technological effectiveness and organizational efficiency.
Little attention is given to individuals as personal and
social beings, and their interpersonal or social
relationships.
Nonetheless, there has been an attempt, in this
approach, to focus on human elements of organizations by
concentrating on employee attitudes, communication,
interactions, and participation. However, although viewed
that it promoted improved status for the individual
employee, it was still criticized for serving as simply an
elegant problem-solving tool for management (Koehler et al,
1976) because the ultimate goal of research was still to
increase organizational efficiency and productivity.
Communication as Physical Entities

In the traditional view of reality, communication too
has a material substance and moves from place to place or
person to person. Within the organization, communication
with a tangible substance flows upward, downward, and
laterally as if it were within a container. In other words,
it has physical forms with set spatial and temporal
locations that exist independent of the sender and the
receiver (Fisher, 1978; Putnam, 1983) . By treating
communication as messages with physical substances, the
essence of communication is located in transmission and
channel effects (Putnam, 1982) . Hence, the traditional
approach is primarily concerned with effective message
transmission from one person or department to another, and
ways of identifying the source that inhibits transmission.
The traditional view of communication assumes that the
message transmitted would be rational (that is, logically
related to meaningful data); the meaning received would be
the same as the meaning transmitted; and the meaning
transmitted would evoke an appropriate response. Meaning,
in other words, is predetermined prior to the communication
process: meaning is located in the message rather than
constructed in the process of communication. When the
intended meaning is not transferred, a breakdown in
10
communication is said to occur. Hence, this approach is
much concerned with sending and receiving "correct"
messages, in other words, avoiding communication breakdowns.
Schneider et all (1975) also rely on this predominant
simplistic view of communication. They call for the
organizational communication process in which one needs to
get people to receive a message, to interpret it
"correctly", and then to pass it along "accurately" or to
act on it properly.
In this view, only intended communication is taken into
consideration, and good communication is viewed as exchanges
of messages accurately and effectively based on mutual
understanding. With their human qualities forced into a
background goal, people are expected and learned to apply a
seemingly mutually agreed set of communication skills and
techniques that are essential for the organization to
operate smoothly and efficiently (Morgan, 1984) . The
dynamic or constitutive role of communication is glossed
over, and communication becomes simply a variable that
affects organizational outcomes and productivity.
In the traditional view, communication is treated as a
controlled and passive tool of management to achieve
organizational objectives and tasks. In other words, this
particular view of communication caters to a need for
managerial control. In this view, communication is the
underpinning of all elements of the management process and
the successful management depends on the smooth flow of
11
communication without breakdown from the management to
workers since communication breakdowns lead to
inefficiencies and reduce bureaucratic effectiveness.
Communication becomes an intentional act by the management
to influence behaviors of those to whom the message is being
sent.
The traditional notion of communication is quite simple
and universal in that it is assumed that people, regardless
of their social or cultural origin, may have the same
understanding of what a good or bad, effective or
ineffective communication is. It is also assumed that
people share the same meaning and significance of a
particular communicative message. This simple and unitary
notion of communication then seems to warrant intended
consequences of communication with the possibility of
preventing unintended ones. However, not all human
communication in the organization is planned or intended.
Moreover, what seems to be unintended communication may not
be intrinsically wrong, bad, ineffective or insignificant.
Rather, it may be part of or connected to the larger
communication process in which its significance may emerge.
It may also reflect some other aspects of organizational
culture and life than a failure in managerial control, and
hence deems much attention.
Cultural variations in (organizational) communication
are not at all considered in this view either. It has been
pointed out by a number of people that the very notion and
12
patterns of communication very across cultures. Traditional
studies, however, are grounded in the predominant western
instrumental view of communication.
The main concern of the western view of communication
is with determining effective communication strategies that
will motivate and guide others or rationally determining
individual motives, attitudes, values and beliefs that one
needs to know in order to achieve his/her goals. In this
view, the most desired and valued communicator is the one
with effective and eloquent verbal skills and who can
present his/her ideas and opinions in the step-by-step
process and in an assertive manner. Most classical
organizational communication theories and studies are based
on this instrumental view of communication and western
values. They do not consider at all other views of
communication, and hence seem inadequate for the study of
inter/cross-cultural communication within multicultural
organizations where different conceptions of communication
and practice may meet and clash. For instance, in the East,
specifically in Korean culture, communication is to be
understood in a more broad sense than the instrumental view
of communication as in the western tradition. Communication
is not limited to the use of conventional means such as
language because reality is viewed as indivisible and this
oneness and unity of reality can not be fully captured or
described through language. This view of language with
inherent limitations for describing the world seems in sharp
13
contrast to or even conflict with the western view as an
inherently invaluable means. Koreans not only mistrust
verbal language but also value silence as important,
elevated form of communication. Hence, implicit
communication and the ability to discern hidden meaning or
infer the meaning behind words are highly valued in Korea.
However, this quality of communicators is not emphasized in
the West and in the western literature.
Given this, the traditional approach seems culturally
biased and necessitates sensitivity to and awareness of
cultural difference in communication.
Research Goals and Orientations
Early studies on organizational communication are

mainly based on objective observation, measurement and data
gathering, and aimed at organizational problem solving from
the vantage point of management. In other words, these
studies serve the managerial need to maintain organizational
efficiency and productivity. These goals of the management
necessitate the simple process of communication: getting
people to receive a message, to interpret it correctly, and
then to pass it along accurately or to act on it properly
(Schneider, et al, 1975).
The primary unit of analysis is the organizational
entity or individuals that comprise the organization as the
entity; its social, psychological, and economic
14
characteristics become static properties rather than social
processes (Zey-Ferrell & Aiken, 1981; Putnam, 1983). These
static properties are operationalized to variables and then,
their causal relationships are tested scientifically. As a
result, final reports deal with statistics and policies or
effectiveness lists (Driskill, 1996), not with people or
social processes. Basically, the research goal is to
discover governing principles that determine organizational
structure, and human motivation and behavior that influence
the function of the organization.
Resulting from the traditional scientific approach to
organizational communication is a great number of literature
which describes explanatory theories, a common set of
standards, principles, techniques and skills of
organizational communication. They are believed to be
universally applicable and to solve most problems in
organizational communication. They are also presented as a
formula for action leading to controllable outcomes (Brown,
1992) . In fact, the formation and testing of theories and
principles are shaped by the perspective of a particular
elite group, and hence may reflect particular not universal
values and beliefs of the group. As a result, various
values, beliefs and patterns of action that the diversity
organizational members may reveal can be negatively
evaluated.
Among others, Charles Parkhurst (1966) epitomizes the
traditional approach to organizational communication. He
15
seems to believe that successful management of communication
in business organizations can be achieved by learning a set
of universal communication skills. Parkhurst states that
essential to all effective communication are clearness,
correctness, compactness, completeness, concreteness, and
creativeness (originality). Further, he delineates a
universal or ideal definition of each aspect of
communication. He also introduces various universal ways to
construct and use messages effectively and successfully
based on the aforementioned essential aspects of
communication in business organizations. His idea of
communication is simply a tool ("the intercourse of words,
letters and messages") for the transmission of thought,
belief, information and opinion. This seems to reflect his
idea of people as passive receivers or conveyors of
predetermined communication which is a prevalent view in
most traditional literature. Hildebrandt(1981) also
recognizes the enormous attention paid to functional areas
such as technical knowledge and linguistic skills in
business communication. Although Hilderbrandt is aware of
the unintended aspect of communication, he observed that the
main focus of the education and training in organizations
has is intended communication: how one arrives the
persuasion of others.
The variable-analytic or scientific method of the
traditional approach entails an implicit managerial bias.
Its concerns for administrative and technical efficiency
16
have led to managerial-based definitions of organizational
concepts which are evidenced in a great body of literature
on organizations. Fine (1995) specifically points out the
origin of the prevalent form of the managerial bias.
According to her:
This statement echoes the aforementioned concerns for

the cultural bias in traditional organizational theory
and research, and hence the inadequacy of the universal
application of the existing organizational theories and
research results.
Most research on "organizational universal" (Wiseman &

Shuter, 1994) include studies such as classical management
theories, decision making theories, human relations school,
and social systems scholars. And, these studies usually
examine organizational operations from the perspective of
managers (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Putnam, 1983) . With a
desire to improve organizational effectiveness, researchers
have become preoccupied with managerial problems and with
executive views of organizational life (Frost, 1980; Putnam,
1983) . Further, the organizational universals literature
posits organizational principles and behaviors that are
endemic to organizations regardless of cultures (Wiseman &
Shuter, 1994) . In other words, "organizational universal"
are presumed to be effective worldwide.
For example, studies on decision making process cater
to a need for increased managerial control by providing
general guides for understanding the individual decision
making process. Theses studies are based on the traditional
17
view of communication as message transmission, and share the
basic premise that organizations (managers) communicate
decisional premises with explicit or implicit values, goals
and facts to their members to help them make decisions. As
in the case of most social studies, as an attempt to
explain, predict and control the individual psychological
process of decision making, these studies have devoted to
considerable energy to the study of attitude and to the
construction of cognitive models (Tompkins & Cheney, 1983)
that are believed to be universally applicable.
A specific example is drawn by Tompkins & Cheney (1983)
from Simon's (1976) study on the link between organizational
decision and identification. Simon sees the concept of
identification as a key to understanding the ongoing process
of decision making in an organization. He believes
identification to be a key phenomenon in an organization
because the process of identifying leads the organization
member to select a particular alternative, to choose one
course of action over others. Thus, he contends, "a person
identifies himself with a group when, in making a decision,
he evaluates the several alternatives of choice in terms of
the consequences for the specific group". Viewed in this
sense, Tompkins and Cheney claim, identification becomes a
necessary cognitive coping mechanism for the individual
making decisions in a complex organizational setting.
In Simon's operational definition of organizational
identification, the decision maker's choice is limited to
18
the alternative (s) associated with his or her personal
targets of identification. Hence, from a managerial
perspective, member identification is seen beneficial since
it guarantees that decisions will be consistent with
organizational objectives.
However, it is pointed out that what is lacking in this
study is the focus on the actual process of decision making
on a day-to-day basis where people share and discuss stories
about decision making and in turn construct new stories.
The preoccupation with organizational principles and
behavior, instead of lived experiences of people, has
generated highly abstract and overgeneralized literature.
Other examples of "organizational universals" include
studies on leadership traits and principles, directionality
of message flow, studies of communication climate, superior-
subordinate communication. According to Wiseman and Shuter
(1994), a review of research on leadership reveals that
there are many different leadership traits or principles
that are thought to be generalizable across the globe. For
example, Howe (1971) offers a leadership principle that the
leadership style works best when it facilitates a
subordinate's progress toward a goal, whereas Vroom and
Yetton (1973) contends that leadership style must be
consistent with the types of decisions being made. Hersey
and Blanchard (1982) presents a different theory that
leadership style must be adapted to the subordinate's
maturity. On the other hand, Fielder (1967) offers a
19
contingency theory of leadership based on several group
factors as well as task complexity. The research on
organizational universals also suggests that certain
leadership traits are effective worldwide (Sarros, 1992;
Wittenberg-Cox, 1991; Wiseman & Shuter, 1994) .
This line of research is based on the basic premise
that organizational (communication) behaviors or the network
of communication flow is determined by the structure of the
organization and the psychosocial behavior of the
individuals who operate it. Hence, efforts are made to
discover governing principles of these issues. As a result,
the contingent and socially constructed nature of
communication is largely ignored, which in fact creates,
sustains and changes the organization itself. What seems
missing in the traditional approach is the focus on actual
communication process which will reveal both cultural and
individual variability in the way organizational life is
constituted, maintained and changed. Organizational life is
not determined by a set of principles and traits. Rather,
it is made of various sequences of daily events and
activities that may vary across culture, organization, or
situation. Given the uniqueness and richness of, and
connections between these sequential events and activities,
the traditional approach with its preoccupation with
"organizational universals" seems inadequate and limiting
for the study of organizational communication, especially,
communication in multicultural organizations.
20
The Social Constructionist Approach
The traditional approach to organizational

communication has been subject to criticism and the new
directions for organizational communication studies have
been proposed. Such directions include: the humanistic and
situational approach as opposed to scientific and universal
approach (Hamzah-Sendut, et al, 1989; Kim, 1992) ; the
action-oriented perspective (theory in use) as opposed to
theory (Argyris & Schon, (1977); the interpretive approach
with its emphasis on meaning as opposed to message (Putnam,
1983); a systemic, as opposed to individualistic, approach;
the cultural approach in organizations are viewed as culture
rather than entity. All of these various paradigms and
theories stand against traditional positivist orientations
to theory and research, and share some of alternative views
of reality. However, each paradigm or theory has different
focus and emphasis in its theoretical and research
orientations. The term that encompasses such diverse
theories and paradigms is social constructionism.
Theoretical Aflflumptiona
The social constructionist paradigm transcends the

traditional subject-object dichotomy and develops in itself
a new framework of analysis that is based on an alternative
nonempiricist theory of the functioning and potentials of
21
science (Pawanteth, 1996). Therefore, it posits radically
different views of reality, organizations and communication
than the traditional approach.
Epistemology and Ontology

In contrast to the traditional view's subject/object
dualism of positivism, the social constructionist viewpoint
believes that knowledge arises not out of discovery but from
the interaction between knower and known. The social world,
unlike the physical world, is made rather than existing
objectively. It is made real in activities, not just made
up in perceptions or narratives (Pearce, 1991) . In other
words, events and objects emerge from interactive
communication process rather than are predetermined by
individual actions or intentions. As such, social worlds do
not exist prior to human interaction, that is,
communication. They are socially constructed through human
interaction. Therefore, the social reality changes
constantly and is contingent upon ongoing or emerging
interaction among people. Hence, its main focus is on
interaction and process rather than structure or end-
products .
In this view, people take an active role in creating
knowledge. Although a world of things exist outside the
person, the individual can conceptualize these things in a
variety of useful ways. People, in fact, are actors: they
create, maintain, and alter "forms of life" (Wittgenstein,
22
1953; Cronen, 1995; Pearce, 1991) or social realities.
Human beings are interested participants in human affairs
not passive, disinterested and objective spectators.
Human subjects are not autonomous and free. They are
constantly shaped and reshaped by their interaction with the
social, historical, cultural and linguistic systems of their
time. Hence, the individualistic notion of people is not
emphasized in this approach.
Social constructionists advocate diversity or pluralism
by recognizing and respecting multiple social realities and
situating human experience and knowledge culturally and
historically. The rules for "what counts as what" or "what
makes sense" are not objective. They vary depending upon
the social, cultural, historical context in which those who
use them are situated. This relativistic orientation
warrants sensitivity to and respect for different social
practices than one's own.
Communication as the Primary Social Process

Given the social constructionist view of reality,
communication is not a thing. It consists of activities.
It does not represent or mirror the social world.
Communication, as the primary social process, makes the
social world: it (re)constitutes, maintains, changes various
forms of life such as culture, relationships, organizations,
identities, personhood, etc. Thus, social constructionists
focus on what is done (emerging or ongoing interaction) by
23
communicators rather than what is referred to or conveyed
(Pearce, 1991).
Language and meaning are matters of use and doing in
conjoint action rather than codes or a vehicle for ideas
(Cronen & Lang, 1994) . Hence, meaning is not determined
prior to communication. Rather, it emerges from the ongoing
process of communication. The meaning and significance of a
word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph is situated in a
particular context (Cronen, 1995) . For instance, one's
cultural background or relational dynamic in the ongoing
situation may shape one's action and meaning. This focus on
situated activities or episodes with identifiable beginning
and ending is grounded in the systemic view of communication
as a whole or an interactive system rather than individual
messages viewed by the reductionist approach of positivism.
In the social constructionist view, people participate
actively in the process of creating, through communication,
social realities such as organizational reality. In other
words, they co-construct social reality within the
organization through con-joint action. Thus, in this view,
the daily conversations among the members are the ultimate
context within which knowledge about the organization is to
be understood (Shotter & Gergen, 1993).
Organizations as Social Construction

As such, organizations, as a social reality, are also
socially constructed through the communication process
24
(Barnett, 1988; Pacanowsky & 0 1Donnell-Trujillo, 1982; Deal
& Kennedy, 198) , and they continually evolve as conversation
among their members continues.
Given the relativistic orientation of social
constructionism, its notion of organization is not
universal. It is viewed to arise from a particular cultural
and historical context. Hence, social constructionists
would agree that the definitions and descriptions of
organizations in classical literature are culturally or
historically biased since they are written from a particular
cultural/historical perspective. They rather believe that
the form of organizational life varies across place and
time. Even in the same place and time, no two organizations
share the same form of life. The reason for this is that,
as pointed out previously, organizations are not physical
entities that exist apart from people and their social
practice, and to which each individual needs to adapt
him/herself. Rather, they are interactive systems part of
which all the organizational members are.
Organizations are co-constructed by people through
communication: organizations are created, sustained, and
even transformed by conversations among people within the
organization. Communication is central to this "situated-
developmental-relational" view of organizations by social
constructionists as opposed to the traditional "passive-
individualistic" view (Shotter & Gergen, 1993).
25
This systemic view of organizations as co-created and
co-evolving interactive systems can avoid the managerial
bias that was inherent in the traditional approach. The
individuals within the organization may be no longer
observed, controlled, programmed and manipulated by
management or researchers who are preoccupied with
managerial problems and with executive views of
organizational life. The systemic approach opposes the
treatment of people as just means to ends or passive
reactors that can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Rather, the individuals are viewed as actors or participants
who create the very social reality in the organization.
Given the socially constructed nature of organizations,
every organization can be viewed as culture having its own
cultural identity (Kreps, 1986; Johnson, 1993). As the
members within the organization share organizational
activities and sense-making processes, they form an
organizational culture which include attitudes and values,
languages, social rituals, norms and myths, etc.
However, organizations as cultures are not static: they
change over time as new activities are introduced and new
ways of sense-making are created by the members. There may
be even multiple cultures within the organization. Culture,
from the social constructionist viewpoint, is a shared
reality(s) within the organization rather than a variable
which is viewed by the traditional approach to influence
organizational performance similar to the way that other
26
variable such as climate, conflict or leadership does
(Kreps, 1986).
Research Goal« a n d Orientations
In this approach, the unit of observation is system or

persons in conversations rather than the organizational
entity or individual. Social constructionists are
interested in not so much the actions of single individuals
but the nature of the dialogical, discursive activity
amongst them, within which values emerge and are shaped into
usable forms, while old ones are abandoned. Hence, their
research goal is to account for reality in the contingent,
indeterminate, and historical flow of continuous
communicative activity between human beings, rather than to
discover abstract governing laws or principles of the world
(Shotter & Gergen, 1993).
The primary research goal of social constructionists is
to explore social practices of human life with its focus on
activities rather than immutable, unchanging objects
(Pearce, 1992). There has been a fairly good number of
research, to some extent, with the social constructionist
orientations. O'Brien (1978) used the early CMM theory to
study the interrelationship between sex and promotability in
a business organization. She found that there were
different consequences for rules violations in social
episodes between males and females. Harris & Cronen (1979)
27
combined the early CMM approach and a quantitative research
method. They detected situations in which organizational
members were not aware of their differing views of
organizational rules. Laird (1982) brought to light
situations in which males and females held differing
understandings of productive communication behavior
(Driskill 1995) . These studies, to some extent, suggest the
social constructionist orientation by focusing on the
interactive system not the individual cognitive process.
Recently, the revised CMM theory and a systemic
approach have been developed and proposed , and they share
some basic ideas about organizations of the social
constructionist approach: the socially constructed (co
created and co-evolving) nature of organizations; the
emphasis on actions as they are connected to beliefs; the
focus on the interactive process between the individuals as
opposed to the cognitive process of the individuals.
Especially, the CMM theory entails well-developed
theoretical concepts and methodological features that are
useful and adequate for the study of organizational studies,
specifically of communication in organizations. In the
following, I will present the CMM theory. First, I will
discuss its theoretical orientation. Secondly, I will
present its main features that will be used in this study as
a tool for the analysis of data collected.
28
The CMM Approach; A Practical Theory
The CMM theory is a particular theory and research

method that falls under the large umbrella of social
constructionism, and it seems to have a great potential for
the study of organizational communication, especially
communication in culturally diverse organizations.
CMM has its theoretical ground in the American
philosophical pragmatism, the later work of Wittgenstein and
the systemic perspective of Gregory Bateson. It is a
"practical" social theory whose main focus is on "joint
action" and "forming coordination" and proposed to be a
general, heuristic frame for the analysis of practices. It
is specifically meant and designed to study particulars of
everyday life.
Grounded in the social constructionist viewpoint of
reality, CMM features the reflexive relationship between
communication as action and various forms of life as
context. It is primarily interested in exploring the
process by which our communicative acts constitute and are
(re)constituted by various forms of life. CMM is of
particular use and value for the study of unique individual
cases and particular episodes.
CMM contends that daily life exhibits evolving
patterns, creative resolutions and some disorder. Unlike
the physical world, CMM believes, the social world is
inherently contingent, multiple, complex, and sometimes
29
contradictory. Hence, it is not much of use to try to find
the causes of problems. Rather, CMM attempts to explore
patterns of interaction that might have created and
sustained problems. CMM takes an open-ended approach to
interactive problems and always look for emergent
possibilities and opportunities for enhancing and
transforming the problematic patterns of interaction by
attending to detailed descriptions of "goings-on". For
these reasons, CMM employs a particular interviewing
technique called circular questioning in order to obtain as
much, rich, detailed as possible information about what is
going on in a particular, situated interaction.
For CMM, meaning is use. It is located in the process
of social interaction and reflexively linked to various
forms of life as multiple contexts. In the CMM's view, to
know meaning is to know how to use it and how to respond to
it in a particular context. Thus, mutual understanding or
shared meaning is not essential in the CMM-based analysis
because it deemphasizes the contingent or emergent aspect of
meaning. CMM is more concerned with whether and how people
achieve coordination rather than coherenc. Coordination
refers to enmeshing or connecting different meanings with
different grammars in order to produce sensible actions in
practice, or enmeshing one's actions with those of the other
to the point of feeling that the sequence of actions is
logical or appropriate (Littlejohn, 1992) . Hence, CMM
researchers are concerned with whether the stories people
30
tell and live are sensibly fit together (Cronen & Lang,
1994) rather than whether these stories correspond to one
another.
In this regard, the notion of "rules" or "grammar"
(Wittgenstein, 1953; Cronen & Lang, 1994) is important in
the CMM-based analysis. Rules or grammar refers to
"persons' knowledge of how to create and connect utterances
in episodes of conjoint action." "Grammatical abilities"
refer to persons' ability to "use" rules or grammar to make
sense of ongoing acts and sensibly "acts into" the actions
of the other. When one's grammars of meaning and action
sensibly fit with the grammars of the other in conversation,
coordination can be achieved.
CMM has been utilized in various communication studies.
They include organizational studies as reviewed earlier and
intercultural studies which will be reviewed later in this
section. CMM may also be a useful tool for the study of
intercultural organizational communication. The central
ideas of the CMM that are relevant to the study of
communication in bi- or multi-cultural organizations are:
people of different cultural backgrounds share particular
cultural assumptions and expectations about various things,
and these assumptions and expectations shape, at least in
part, their situated instances of conversation with others;
multiple dimensions of actions and meanings comprise an
intercultural interaction, which suggests that culture does
not solely determine intercultural interaction; problems and
31
difficulties between individuals within the organization are
not "caused" by individual actions but "co-created" by all
the participants in the conversation and continuously evolve
as the conversation continues.
Main Features of the CMM theory
CMM, as Cronen (1994) states, as a practical theory,

provides a general method for the study of social praxis and
action, internally consistent and defensible in light of
data. It generates useful interpretation, explanation and
critique of situated human action, and therefore it is of
particular use to understand unique individual cases and
particular episodes. As such, its primary focus is on the
real experience of everyday life as lived by the
participant. Its primary data consists of episodes of
conversations in various contexts, and the units of
observation are persons in conversation (Cronen, Pearce &
Xi, 1989; Pawanteth, 1996). The main focus of the CMM-based
analysis is "grammatical features" of the situated
interaction. The data collected through circular
questioning will be organized and analyzed by the CMM
general framework with following features.
Hierarchy of Contexts
CMM's hierarchical model with multiple levels of
context is its main feature. CMM contends that each person
32
comes to know a number of stories about who they are and
would like to be, what their relationship with others about,
and how particular kinds of episode would go, etc. The
multiple levels of context are used to explore the way
different stories are fit together in everyday life and they
include cultural patterns (CP), organizational stories
(ORG) , relationships (RELA) , autobiographies (AUTO) ,
episodes (EP), and speech acts (SA).
According to Cronen (1994) , there are hierarchical
relationships among stories which means that a story may
serve as context for the development and extension of
others. A hierarchical arrangement is shown by the symbol.
In the following (Figure 1), person X's hierarchy of stories
has been arbitrarily modeled to show an episode (EP) in the
context of a relationship with person "o" (Ro) within the
context of the person's autobiography (AUTO), and so on
(AUTO)
(Roj
(EP) |
Figure 1.1 Person X's Hierarchy of Stories
However, the number of stories and the hierarchical

order are not fixed. In other words, there is no natural
hierarchical order to stories and the hierarchical
arrangement may change in the course of experience. In the
33
following, I will explain higher and lower order stories
that form hierarchical relationships.
Higher and Lower Order Story As discussed above, the

connections among stories or the hierarchical arrangement of
stories are made in situated activities or episodes and
therefore there are many possible relationships among
stories. CMM theory provides a way for describing the
likely hierarchical arrangement by identifying the order of
the stories.
First, the story that makes sense without other stories
is the higher order story, and thus it is least affected by
the change in other lower level stories although it could be
affected by the reflexive consequences from the lower level
story. Second, by the same token, the story that is
sensible only in relation to other stories is the lower
order story. In other words, the lower order story
necessitates other related contexts to provide the details
for further elaboration of the story. Cronen (1994)
presumes that the change in the higher order story will have
stronger effect on the lower order story than the changes
from the lower levels.
CMM theory suggests two orienting questions that
provide a way to identify hierarchical arrangements or the
higher and lower order story. First, it asks, "Does this
story make sense without all other stories?" The second
question is, "Which of these stories would be least affected
34
by the change in other stories?" These orienting questions
can be elaborated through the use of circular questioning by
extending the story told by the informant in time and place.
In the following, I will explain each level of context.
Cultural Patterns Cultural patterns are various

stories a group of people share about various aspects of
life such as what is good, appropriate, valued, desired,
permitted, prohibited, etc. For example, stories of
relationships may be different in different cultures.
Koreans may share a cultural story about relationship that
values harmony as central to maintaining proper
relationships among people whereas Americans would share a
cultural story about relationships that emphasizes the value
of individualism.
Cultural patterns prohibit or afford a group of people
to act and do things in certain (culturally appropriate)
ways in various situations. Cultural stories are often
taken for granted and thus invisible. They often emerge and
become visible in intercultlural situations where people of
different cultures are interacting. When people do not
share the same cultural stories, it may often lead to
misunderstandings or conflicts.
Although they are often the superordinate context,
cultural patterns do not determine human action. They only
partly construct it. Although emergent cultural patterns
may guide the development of new situated acts, the higher-
35
level structure of cultural patterns admits a variety of
possible transformations to situated practice. CMM,
therefore, also, explores and identifies individual or
idiosyncratic differences within, and their relationship to
culture (Cronen, 1994) in situated episodes by looking at
stories of autobiography. Hence, in CMM, there is no one
context that is more significant than the other.
Autobiography The autobiography is made up of a number

of stories of a person: about who he is and would like to
be. These stories of himself are the consequent of various
social interaction. They are (re) enacted or
(re)constituted in the person's lived experiences with
others. Hence, the autobiography comprises of all the
actions and abilities which that person carries out in
conversations. For example, one's autobiography of being a
leader would be composed of stories about how to do things
in various situations as leader.
Some of the stories that make up a person's
autobiography may be unique to that person and some are
common to the members of that person's culture. In other
words, there are "widely accessible" stories about
personhood in each culture. For example, Koreans share a
story about the self that is unseparable from one's social
relationships. Korean are more concerned with their
relationship to the family and society rather than their
individual needs. This is reflected in their strong sense
36
of loyalty, obligation and commitment to the family,
company, and society. On the other hand, North Americans
would tell and live rather individualistic stories about the
self that is detached from social relationships. It is
shown in the North American tendency to emphasize individual
autonomy and freedom over obligations and commitments.
Basically, CMM does not impose any fixed arrangement of
hierarchy among different stories, especially between
cultural patterns and autobiography since it contends that
human actions are both social and idiosyncratic. This
allows a person's idiosyncracy or autobiography to supersede
her cultural norms or moral principles of what one should be
as a person, friend, mother, teacher,etc. This seems to
indicate that CMM theory is based on the Western notion of
individualized self which celebrates and promotes individual
autonomy and freedom, and uniqueness. However, in some
cultures, such as Korean culture, there exists a natural or
culturally appropriate hierarchical arrangement which puts
cultural values and norms far above individual uniqueness or
idiosyncracy. In other words, there are overriding moral
principles which exist beyond the realm of individuals
regardless of their choice and preference. Individual
uniqueness that violates cultural norms is regarded as an
anti-social or rebellious act.
As such, CMM's flexible hierarchical model may go
against the Korean cultural norm. For example, a Korean's
autobiography of "I am an exceptionally ambitious person"
37
which is used by that person to legitimize his acts may be
taken seriously by CMM even though his acts violate a Korean
cultural norm. CMM would not necessarily see his
autobiography as inappropriate as most Koreans would.
Hence, in intercultural situations which involve Korean
informants, CMM may do injustice to non-Western cultures
which do not embody individualism. Further discussion on
this issue is to follow in the next section on my critique
of CMM theory from the Eastern perspective.
Relationship One's stories about relationship reveal

what his relationships with others are about, and these
stories guide or regulate one's actions in the given
situation and also reflexively affected by the ongoing
actions. For instance, if one's relationship to the other
is "undefined, " she may not know how to act toward the other
person. However, as they talk about each other and do
things together, they may co-develop a "close"
relationship.
As in the case of autobiography, there may be different
stories about relationship in different cultures. For
instance, in Korea, the patterns of relationship are
personal, complementary and reciprocall obligatory.
Therefore, Koreans are likely to tell and live stories about
loyalty, commitment and obligation to others, or about
proper relationships (i.e. between father and son, husband
and wife, between friends, between subordinate and superior,
38
etc). However, in North America where relational patterns
are rather individualistic, detached and impersonal, people
are likely to tell and live impersonal stories like one's
internal beliefs which deemphasize commitments and
obligations.
In both Korean and North American cultures, the stories
about relationships and autobiography are interdependent.
The Korean emphasis on close and proper relationships is
sensible with the Korean cultural story about the self that
is unseparable from the social nexus. On the contrary, the
impersonal stories about relationships shared by North
Americans make sense in the story of individualism.
Episodes According to Pearce (1994) , episodes are the

smallest unit of analysis. It is a distinctive whole with
an identifiable beginning and ending and (re)cocreated by
the interactants. For example, we may cocreate an episode
called "greeting" which may begin with an od bye."
One knows stories about how particular episodes should
go and these stories may be local or specific to particular
families and friendships or cultures. For example, the same
episode of "greeting" may be performed differently in
different cultures. In greeting, Koreans inquire after each
other's well-being (i.e. How's your family? I heard you are
having problems with so and so, etc.) whereas North
Americans may simply exchange a few greeting words (i.e. hi,
how are you doing? What's up? etc.) .
39
Speech Act The Speech Act is the smallest unit of
observation whereas the smallest unit of analysis is the
episode (Pearce, 1994). The speech act are all the words,
utterances, phrases or sentences that people tell in the
conversation. The Speech Act itself does not have an
inherent meaning prior to the conversation. Its meaning
depends on the context in which it takes place. In other
words, the meaning of the utterance is defined when it is
"used" in the context. The same utterance could have a
number of different meanings in different contexts. For
example, a statement, "You are so pretty!" could mean a
number of things. In the episode of "jokig around with
friends" it may be intended to be a joke. It also could
mean a sincere compliment in the episode of "dating with a
prettiy girl."
Basically, the speech act is something verbally stated
and it does not include non-verbals. For example, silence
is an important form of communication in some cultures (i.e.
Korean, Japanese, Native Indian, etc.). However, from the
CMM's perspective, it may not be taken seriously, or it may
be taken as a lack of response or no response at all
becauses it is not a speech act, something that is verbal.
Therefore, in intercultural situations which involve members
of these cultures, the CMM-based researcher may be
culturally biased by being insensitive to or not recognizing
their culturally distinctive speech act. This potential
cultural bias of CMM due to its emphasis on verbal
40
communication will be further discussed in the next section
on a critique of CMM from the Eastern perspective.
The Speech Act has three components: the antecedent
(A), the action (Actn) and the intended consequence (C) .
The antecedent act describes the sequence of events that
have occurred and also that produced one's own actions
(Actn) . The intended consequence is what the person expects
to happen as a result of his/her own actions. Usually, the
person does not have much control over the intended
consequence of his/her own actions because the outcome of
the intended consequences are contingent upon the actions of
the other person in the conversation. In CMM, the person's
speech acts are constructed by deontic operator (DO) and
person position (L.o.I) which will be discussed afterwards.
Charmed Loop and Strange Loop

The relationships among stories are not always
hierarchical. The hierarchical arrangement may be looped so
that two or more levels in a hierarchy of meaning may be
equally context for or within the context of the other.
There are two general kinds of loops: charmed loops and
strange loops. A charmed loop is symbolized |_c. It refers
to that in which the two levels of meaning may serve as
context for each other without changing the meaning. For
instance, the speech act of "I love you" is enacted in the
context of a "romantic" relationship. At the same time, the
enactment of that speech act (re)defines or (re)constitutes
41
the relational context as "romantic." In other words, in
the context of speech act, the relationship is or becomes
"romantic." Each context serves as the context for the
other.
The charmed loop relationship may be one in which
aspects of structure or patterns of interaction are
creatively evolving, but they may be relatively static.
Charmed loops may lock in a relationship that is difficult
to change.
A strange loops is symbolized |_s. It is formed when
different levels of stories are mutually exclusive. The two
conflicting stories may create a paradox in the actions of
the person, and the person may be caught between the two
mutually exclusive actions of what they want to do and what
they should not do (Cronen & Pearce, 1992; Cronen, 1994;
Pearce, 1991). For example, a female manager is expected to
talk in ways expected of a woman and at the same time to
speak in ways expected of a leader (aggressive and
confident), she may find herself uncertain of how to present
herself. She may be caught between the two mutually
exclusive actions of being feminine and being aggressive and
confident.
Logical Forces, Deontic Operators

Other important features include logical forces. There
are two logical forces: prefigurative force and practical
force. Prefigurative force refers to the extent to which
42
other levels of context or the antecedent action of others
constrain particular responses. For example, in the
statement, "I did it because I had to respect my father," we
can see a prefiguratie force that is coming from the
relationship context. "My action" was constrained by the
relationship to my father.
The prefigurative force not only constrains our action
but also affords us to act in certain ways. In other words,
it legitimizes our action. The constraints and affordances
of prefigurative force are described by another important
CMM feature called "deontic operators" or DO.
CMM believes that human action is intrinsically moral,
and human beings moral beings, and thus deontic operators
are used to identify the moral force acting on any action
within the conjointly produced logics of conversation.
There are two sets of DO. The first set is composed of
obligatory, legitimate, prohibited and undetermined. This
set refers to actions people perceive to be within their
range of conscious choice recognizing that patterns of
consciousness are socially constructed aspects of
experience, not the product of individual cognitive process.
In the previous example of prefigurative force, "I did it
because I had to respect my father, the deontic operator was
"obligatory." In other words, the relationship with my
father obliged me to act the way I did. Taken together, we
can describe that there was a prefigurative force coming
43
from the relational context with a deontic operator of
"obligatory."
The second set refers to operators that are not
conscious choices. It includes caused, probable, blocked,
random. The second still refers to the moral dimension
because to claim that one's action is caused is to disclaim
one's moral responsibility at the expense of loosing one's
claim as a moral agent. For example, when you broke a
midnight curfew at home and confronted by your mother, if
you say, "I really wanted to come home earlier but my
friends made me stay late," the deontic operator is
"caused." You are blaiming your friends for your action
and, thus, you are claiming that you are not responsible for
your action and giving up your moral obligation.
In smm, according to CMM theory, some contexts exert a
prefigurative force on our action in such a way that will
make our actions obligatorty, legitimate, prohibited,
undetermined, caused, probable, blocked, or random.
Practical force, on the other hand, refers to the
extent to which an action is influenced by a desired
consequence. For example, If I say that "I worked so hard
to pass that exam. My success depended on it," my action
(working so hard) is influenced by my success. In other
words, my wish to be successful exerted a practical force on
my act.
44
Reflexive Needs and Reflexive Effects
Reflexive needs and effects involve the reflexive
relationship between context and action. The reflexive
effect of action may extend, threaten or challenge context.
The reflexive need functions to continue current practices
and preserve some context. For example, if I try to conform
to the Korean cultural pattern of being a good daughter by
respecting and obeying my parents at the expense of my
personal needs, we can say, in CMM terms, that my action is
responding to a reflexive need from the cultural context, to
sustain or preserve the existing Korean cultural pattern of
being a good daughter. However, despite of the Korean
cultural pattern, if I disobey my parents and act as I wish,
my act has a reflexive effect on the cultural context: it is
threatened.
Person Positions: Locus of Identity (L.o.I.)

CMM emphasizes the significance of person positions
people take and change in conversation. It is viewed that
the shift in person position will entail the change in
obligations and may open up possibilities for elaborating a
story or creating a very different story with a very-
different grammar. For example, first and second person
positions have obligations to each other in the immediate
situation whereas third person obligations are to principles
and reports which are not immediate in the same way as first
and second person obligations.
45
The Application of CMM to Intercultural Studies
CMM is of great use for the study of intercultural

communication and especially for my study of intercultural
relationship. Its heuristic value is well-supportive: its
heuristic method enables us to explore goings-on of a
particular situated interaction and to describe the patterns
of communication enacted in the situation without much
distorting the experience of the participants.
A Critique of CMM from the Eastern Perspective

However, apart from the pragmatic purpose and value of
CMM, CMM is indeed a Western communication theory. Even
most postmodern theories (in the sense that they are against
modernist or Enlightenment theories) are limited to the
distinctive Western assumptions about language, self, and
moral order, and hence, when applied to non-Western
cultures, especially Far Eastern, they may be insensitive to
or conceal the experience of non-Western participants which
is deeply grounded in their own assumptions about language,
self and moral order which are significantly different from
those of the West.
CMM, with its close intellectual affinity to social
constructionist viewpoint, is open and sensitive to cultural
difference and cultural diversity. Nonetheless, CMM seems
to embody some of the Western assumptions about language,
self and moral order. Hence, CMM method, especially its
46
hierarchical model and research (data collecting) process
may generate some possible cultural concerns for those who
have the distinctive Eastern, Korean in particular, cultural
perspective on language, self and moral order. In other
words, the application of CMM to Korean culture may entail
some ethical concerns from the vantage point of Korean
culture.
E m p h a s is on Verbal Commun-i nation First of all, CMM1s

strong emphasis and reliance on verbal communication
reflects the Western view of language as an invaluable means
of communication as opposed to the Korean view of having
inherent limitations for communication. These different
views lead to different forms of communication: a speaker-
oriented communication in the West and a listener-oriented
communication in Korea. What is encouraged in Korea is to
use intuition or insight rather than words, and often not to
take words at face value (Yum, 1988).
Hence, when analyzing Korean and Korean-American
communication, the researcher, unless he/she is sensitive to
and aware of the different notion of language and its impact
on communication practice of the Korean informant(s), may
impose his/her own cultural value onto them: the researcher
may consider the Korean informants as reticent which has a
negative connotation in the West, or as uncooperative or
even inarticulate. At the pragmatic level, the researcher,
if he/she has a lack of intuition or insight to infer the
47
meaning behind words, may have difficulty or even unable to
understand or interpret information given by Koreans.
In my case study (1994), given my Korean nationality
and cultural background, I was able to communicate and
coordinate well with my Korean informant. However, in
retrospect, in comparison to my American informant, I
regarded the Korean as less articulate and logical although
I had a good understanding of what she said. Trained in an
American University and using a Western research
(interviewing) method, I was culturally biased toward the
Korean and her communication pattern. In my interview with
other Koreans, I also have the same reaction to their
communication ability. I also remember a Western researcher
who described most of her Korean informants as inarticulate.
It might have been their poor command of English but it also
might be that her own cultural view and use of language
based her negative stereotyping of those Koreans. A CMM-
based researcher may be culturally insensitive to or biased
against Koreans when he/she is not equipped with proper
knowledge about their culture and communication.
On the other hand, I often hear Koreans complaining
that it is so hard for them to talk to most Americans
because they have to put everything into words to get their
point across or just to have a usual conversation. They
often describe Americans as verbal-oriented. My informed
guess is that their difficulty derives from the
48
aforementioned different forms of communication which is
closely related to their different views of language.
Given this, it might not be uncommon for Koreans to
find it difficult or even unnecessary for them to give the
CMM researcher detailed descriptions about various matters.
The researcher's inquisitive and verbose questions may be
viewed by them as superficial, overwhelming or even
imposing. Hence, the coordination between the researcher
and the Korean informants may not be easy unless the
researcher is familiar with Korean communication patterns in
order to understand them and has shared background or
experience with the Koreans so that the Koreans can relate
to the researcher and become comfortable enough to open up
themselves.
Hierarchical Model Secondly, CMM's hierarchical model

seems to have some implications for the Western assumptions
about self and moral order, and thus its use may be
insensitive to the experience of the Korean participants.
The whole notion of CMM hierarchy may run against the
cultural norm of the East including Korea. At the pragmatic
level, it seems inadequate to contest the CMM's assumption
that humans are both social and idiosyncratic since human
action can never be uniform. However, in Korea, its
cultural norm does not really afford one to be idiosyncratic
even though there is present idiosyncracy in the various
facets of Korean society. In fact, it is a moral imperative
49
for one to live according to overriding moral principles
which exist beyond the realm of individuals regardless of
their choice and preference. In other words, there is a
natural hierarchy in the social system. Hence, CMM, which
seems grounded in the oppositional views of self and moral
order may be viewed inappropriate or even challenging from
the Korean cultural perspective.
CMM, grounded in the systemic view, does locate an
individual and his/her action in the social context or in a
web of social relationships. Nonetheless, CMM is a Western
model which takes seriously the Western notion of self which
can be differentiated from the nexus of social
relationships, and recognizes and validates that the
individual self-concept may be higher than cultural norms.
The idea that there is no inherent hierarchical order to
self-concept and cultural patterns may seem like a lack of
social order or harmony from the vantage point of Korean
people. As a result, the application of the CMM's heuristic
model in and of itself may become the imposition of the
Western value which validates individual choice and
preference, and hence is open to difference and change.
This very idea of openness to change and difference seems to
run counter to what is valued in Korea: commonly-held and
respected Confucian ethical rules of proper human
relationships and conduct that exist beyond individual
selves.
50
For instance, I may say, "I don't want to follow the
social convention of getting married by the certain age
because I am an individual and thus I have a choice." In
CMM, this becomes my self-concept. However, in Korean
social context, I will be judged as anti-social or
rebellious, and my claim to individuality or self-concept
will not be valid because individuality or individual self-
concept does not exist, or even if it does due to the
Western influence, it does not carry the same significance
and the same positive implication as in the West, especially
in America.
In America, self is entitled to various alternative
choices and one's concept of self may vary according to the
given situation. For instance, in the American context, it
is acceptable for one to respond when he/she misconducts, "I
really did not mean it," or "I am sorry, I was not myself."
This kind of response is taken seriously and does not
usually invite more explorations or deep probing by the
other into one's intention or purpose. Nor does it usually
have obvious and great impact on one's selfhood or image.
However, this is not the case in Korea where one is
strictly judged by his action according to social norms and
conventions. One's self-assertive, rationally justifiable
statement does not usually carry the same significance as in
America where words tend to be taken at face value and, as a
result, one can create, or turn to positive self-concept
relatively easily in the given situation. In other words,
51
as Balagangadhara(1988) notes, in the West, human beings are
allowed to have a room for an individual to create, change,
or even manipulate an identity for the self rather than
building a self on the basis of its action which is not
limited to verbal action. He says, in most non-Western
cultures, traditionally, one does not possess a self (or
self-consciousness) which can be distinguished from its
roles and actions, and instead, one is constantly defined or
judged by his/her acts and their consequences in the social
world. In other words, the process of self-formation, if
any, is located in the social world. In a way, in the East,
self-formation is an infinite process in which one is not
afforded to have a clear sense of self but consists of only
a "meaningless bundle of actions with a lack of self-
consciousness" .
To some extent, although for the pragmatic purpose,
CMM's model is based on the Western notion of self, and so
it does afford one to be entitled to various alternative
choices in terms of his/her individual self-concept since it
takes seriously any verbalized self-concept as long as it
fits into or its significance emerges in a pattern of
interaction. Given this, in intercultural cases,
researcher's practical necessity of using the CMM's
heuristic method may be satisfied at the expense of his/her
neutrality as a researcher. CMM's emphasis on particular
ongoing interaction may deemphasize or go against overriding
52
cultural patterns of other non-Western cultures such as
Korea.
Deontic Operators Another CMM feature, deontic

operators, seem to draw the same line of criticism as in the
case of its hierarchical feature. Basically, CMM's notion
of moral order seems grounded in the rules-based approach as
opposed to the laws-governed approach. However, the Korean
cultural notion of overriding moral order with strong
normative force seems close to the latter position.
CMM's deontic operators which seem to identify only
"discursive force" (the extent to which moral orders have
the normative force can vary in different contexts) have
relatively weak normative force. Hence, they can not really
capture or describe the Korean moral order with strong
"normative force" in which one's action is strictly
evaluated as right/wrong, proper/improper or moral/immoral,
and hence one is always subject to rigid ethical rules and
not entitled to other rationally or logically justifiable
choices. In consequence, CMM may not be able to validate or
encompass the distinctive moral position and practice of the
Korean participants.
Conclusion
Although CMM's main goal is to find a "culturally
independent way of understanding the communication process"
and indeed CMM can be applied adequately to
53
cross/intercultural studies for pragmatic purposes, in some
sense, CMM still seems grounded in a particular cultural
perspective and may create some negative impact on the
cultural practice of others. However, although CMM's
practical orientation may be insensitive, to some extent, to
the cultural norms and integrity of the Korean people, it
may serve as a critical tool through which majority views
can be critically assessed and minority views can be
recognized, validated and legitimized in the culture that
does not afford one to be different, idiosyncratic or
unique.
A CMM Approach to Intercultural Comrmin-ination Research
As pointed out above, CMM has been utilized to examine

intercultural interactions in various occasions with its
main focus on the lived experiences of people.
CMM as a heuristic method does not see culture as a
determining factor in human behavior but a form of life
which partly constructs human action in situated
interaction. In CMM's view, culture is always in the
process of being made, remade and transformed. Hence, for
the study of intercultural communication, Korean-American in
specific, it is of particular use and value to explore
moments of interaction in which stories of one culture may
create (un)coordination or (dis)order with those of the
other.
54
In CMM, culture is not separated from other aspects
(forms) of life. Its equal emphasis on both social and
idiosyncratic aspects of daily life and focus on detailed
descriptions of each individual case provided me something
invaluable no other approaches can: it enabled me to explore
the interactive process by which a particular intercultural
relationship is created, coordinated and developed in daily
practices. CMM's approach to culture and communication is
significantly different from other dominant approaches such
as ethnographic and logical positivist methods.
Intercultural studies using the logical positivist
approach to culture and communication (i.e. Gudykunst, 1986,
1988, 1989, 1993; Gudykunst, Chua & Gray, 1987; Gudykunst &
Hammer, 1987; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Gudykunst & Nishida,
1984; Gudykunst, Yang & Nishida, 1985) tend to focus on
causal linkages tht would provide the base for explanation,
prediction, and control (Pawanteh, 1996; Hall, 1992) . In
this approach, the relationship of communication and culture
is one of dependent and independent variables where culture
determines the outcome of communication between two cultural
groups (Pennington, 1985). Therefore, the main focus of
this approach is on whatever transpired when persons from
two or more cultures come into contact: what took place,
what behaviors are affected and how the differences were
handled (Dodd, 1977; Kim, 1983; Prosser, 1978). The major
concern is not on cultural variability but more so on the
degree of cultural similarities that account for the sharing
55
of meanings between groups. These cultural similarities can
be established using the dimensions of cultural variability
(Gudykunst, 1986).
Among others, Gudykunst is a proponent of the logical
positivist method. His cross/intercultural work is
primarily concerned with causal relationships among
variables/concepts. In this approach, culture becomes a set
of variables that can be measured and generalized using the
scientific (qualitative) method based on the cognitive
structure of cultural members and an acontextual typified
set of responses. Most cultural patterns of communication
he discovers and describes are based on overgeneralizations,
abstractions or overly simplistic categorizations, and
largely ignore "goings on" of communication and the lived
experience of participants. Hence, they can be distorting
or misleading and hardly be applied practically in actual
situations and greatly inadequate in general and especially
for my study of actual particular situated intercultural
communication.
The ethnographic approach seems more adequate and
practical than the traditional logical positivist approach
since its main focus is on ongoing, situated communicative
activities in actual situations. However, despite its
similar practical orientation to culture and communication
as CMM's, it has a different purpose for and different focus
of inquiry than CMM: its main focus is on the discovery and
description of cultural patterns of communication from the
56
native's vantage point by examining actual speech in its
cultural context. Ethnographers investigate the speech
activity of a particular community and its communicative
habits as a whole. Hence, this approach provides a
heuristic device for the rich descriptions of strikingly
different forms of communication in various cultures.
In their intercultural research, ethnographers such as
Carbaugh (1993) explore moments when cultural patterns of
communication contact one another with special attention
given to interactional sources of asynchrony. Their main
task is to discover how interactional speech is shaped at
least in part by cultural systems; how cultural systems are
individually applied within a particular speech situation in
intercultural encounters.
Ethnographic studies offer some general insights and
bases to understand what goes on during the intercultural
communication situation itself, and to reveal some deep
sources of perplexity of each toward the other. However,
its exclusive focus on general cultural patterns may not be
sufficient for the analysis of particular individual cases
in which cultural patterns are intertwined with other
various aspects of daily life. This approach would not have
been sufficient or adequate for my study of an extended
intercultural relationship. It may complement, however,
CMM's intercultural studies. Its in-depth study of general
cultural patterns of communication may be used to inform CMM
analyses at the cultural level since CMM is relatively weak
57
in identifying cultural patterns because of its need to
attend to the details of the ongoing situation and to
consider all aspects of life.
An early study using CMM theory is done by Harris,
Cronen and McNamee's (1979), which dealt with competency in
intercultural interactions. In their study, they found and
concluded that intercultural communication competency is the
ability to perform in certain ways that are responsive to
the needs of the specific situation rather than a set of
skills to be learned. In other words, competency is to know
how to go on in the particular situation.
Other CMM-based studies are done by Alexander, et al
(1986), Wolfson and Norden (1984), Pearce, Stanback and Kang
(1984) , and Cronen, Chen & Pearce (1988) . All of these
studies concern cross-cultural comparisons of concepts (i.e.
reticence) or conversational patterns. These studies are
radically different from traditional studies. Traditional
studies assume that cultures are commensurable and can be
compared with a universal set of variables or dimensions.
On the other hand, CMM researchers understand the
incommensurable nature of cultural differences, and hence
they move beyond surface differences and attend to
conceptual differences between cultures.
Recent studies by Chong (1994) and Pawanteh (1996) deal
with intercultural interactions. Chong explored the ways in
which a particular intercultural relationship is formed,
developed and changed. Its main focus is on the extent of
58
coordination in the relationship between a North American
and a Korean through the analysis of their interactive
patterns. Pawanteh explored and analyzed the situated and
interactive experience of Malay sojourners in the U.S.
These studies can serve as practical guides since they
primarily focus on the real, particular experiences of
people.
As such, CMM has proven to be a useful tool in
intercultural studies in various contexts. Given that
communication in culturally diverse organizations is, too, a
form of intercultural communication within organizations,
CMM seems useful for the study of intercultural
organizational communication, and thus has been selected, in
this study, as a theoretical and methodological framework.
Driskill (1995) contends that a new approach is needed
to respond to the need for research that goes beyond
comparative and effectiveness criteria studies and will
focus on the lived experiences of the participants in
culturally diverse organizations. He believes that CMM
responds to this need.
The strong need for a new approach(es) to the study of
communication in bi- or multi-cultural organizations becomes
clear and rightly justified when reviewing existing
literature on this area of study. In the following, I will
review a body of relevant literature, and point out
weaknesses and limitations of the approach that was taken.
59
My critique of the approach will serve as a rational for the
use of the CMM approach in this study.
Research on Communication in Multi-cultural Organizations
As people become more and more aware of the cultural

diversity in organizations, there have been some, thought
not many, studies on communication within bi-/multi-cultural
organizations. The very sensitivity to and awareness of
cultural difference can be viewed as an attempt to move away
from the traditional approach and its universal
understanding of organization and communication.
Nonetheless, the current (predominant) research orientation
in this area entails some limitations.
Although there has been a compelling cross-cultural
literature on organizations, most research is of an "etic"
nature and focuses largely on orgnizational behavior rather
than on communication (Wiseman & Shuter, 1994) . Further,
researchers interested in the dynamics of cultures in
organizations have directed their inquiries primarily to the
comparative analysis of organizational practices (Adler,
Duktor, & Redding, 1989; Wiio, 1989; Wiseman & Shuter, 1994)
and developing lists of effectiveness criteria (Driskill,
1995) .
60
Comparative Research
Cross-cultural comparative research, Adler (1983b)

argues, searches for similarities and differences in
management behavior by conducting comparative organizational
investigations in several societies. This type of research,
Adler goes on to say, attempts to determine whether
management behavior and theory are similar or different
across cultures. Commonly, a set of "pancultural"
dimensions or exhaustive set of variables that will render
all cultures commensurable are used in the comparison of
different cultures. For example, Smith and Tayeb (1988)
used Hofstede's (1980) individualist-collectivism dimension
to demonstrate how persons from collectivistic cultures such
as Japan, Taiwan, India and Iran, tend to gravitate to a
single effective leadership style, as opposed to persons
from individualistic cultures, who find a variety of
leadership styles effective.
Wiseman and Shuter (1994) also found that considerable
cross-cultural research on organizations has its focus on
organizational behavior patterns and styles that vary
culturally. For instance, Lincoln, Olson, and Hanada (1978)
compared management behaviors across cultures and found that
Japanese workers favored superiors who made heavy demands
on, and took personal interest in subordinates. They also
found that Japanese workers sought out relationships
characterized by dependency with superiors and peers whereas
61
French workers avoided dependency.
Cross-cultural comparative studies can be useful, to
some extend, to make sense of and render meaningful the
distinctive but often alien cultural practices of people of
different cultures. However, when applied to actual
intercultural situations in everyday life, cross-cultural
comparative data are not as much of value as supposed and
needed. The limitation of cross-cultural research has been
addressed by many theorists and researchers. Among others,
Berry (1980) questioned the validity of cross-cultural
research. He noted that common criticisms of cross-cultural
research are (a) it produces trivial, tautological, or
highly abstract generalizations, (b) many generalizations
are based on one-shot multiple comparisons between many
cultures and thus do not provide an in-depth understanding
of any one culture regarding the variable (s) in question,
and (c) cross-cultural research sometimes compares
"incomparables" from different societies, leading to
distortions of reality for the cultures and variable (s)
involved. He calls for care in variable selection and close
attention paid to equivalence to minimize these threats to
the significance and validity of cross-cultural research
(Addy, 1994) .
The issue of "incommensurability" ("incomparables" in
Berry's term) of cultural differences was also addressed by
communication scholars, Cronen, Chen, and Pearce (1988) in
order to challenge the validity of traditional cross-
62
cultural research. They argues that the primary limitation
of predominant cross-cultural research is based on the
assumption that there is a common logical framework or a
common language in which the two cultures can be compared
without distortion. However, they claim, the forms of lived
experience may differ, often radically, across cultures and
hence there is no single algorithm for comparison.
Conceptions such as personhood, relationship, sincerity,
autonomy, etc. may have radically different meanings or
implications for different cultural groups, in other words,
"incommensurable", therefore, a point-by-point comparison is
not possible without distorting one cultural system or
another. In many cases, information drawn from cross-
cultural studies becomes useless or invalid in light of
lived experiences of people. Hence, incommensurable
cultures must be compared in multiple way because no single
yardstick will do.
Unlike Berry, they move away from the variable analytic
method and instead they presented their theory, CMM, as an
alternative. As discussed previously, CMM believed that
culture is created, maintained, and transformed in the
process of communication. In consequence, their focus of
analysis is on persons communicating. And the focus on
communication or actual interaction can generate useful
information which can guide people in actual intercultural
situations. Comparative studies that merely stand over, to
63
generalize on the bases of abstractions (Carbaugh, 1991)
entail a lack of practicality.
From the CMM perspective, another limitation of extant
comparative studies is their lack of attention to the very
nature of human interaction that is constantly evolving and,
this is even seen in interaction between people from
different cultures. Intercultural interactants make
adjustments when interacting (Driskill, 1985) as they
develop extensive relationships with one another from
initial contacts. Meanwhile, various aspects of daily life
at various levels such as culture, organization,
idiosyncratic, etc. become interwoven and as a result, new
patterns of interaction or relational dynamics may emerge
which might be very different than what is "predicted" by
cross-cultural comparative researchers. The new patterns
may reveal either well-coordinated or poorly coordinated
interaction regardless of the achievement of mutual
understanding which is presupposed by the cross-cultural
comparative researchers to be inhibited by fundamental
cultural differences. In fact, "stories told" about
cultural differences may turn out to be different from
"stories as lived" by the communicators. Given the
contingent nature of human, especially intercultural
interaction, it may be futile to conduct and present the
intercultural studies that treat interaction as static and
predetermined by culture.
64
Effectiveness Criteria
Another common feature of existing studies on cultural

differences in organizations is the main focus on developing
lists of effectiveness criteria as opposed to providing a
general framework which will help us understand the
management of cultural differences (Chen, 1989; Cui, 1989;
Driskill, 1995; Hammer, 1984; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman,
1978; Kealey, 1989; Koester & Olebe, 1988; Wiseman, Hammer,
& Nishida, 1989) . For example, Thornton (1990) found that
universally effective leadership traits include flexibility,
sense of humor, patience, resourcefulness, and positive
regard for others. Darling (1986) also noted that
successful leadership in multinational organizations depends
on managers having a flexible superior-subordinate
communication style.
Studies concerned with effectiveness criteria have
provided practical identification of skills that should
facilitate effective intercultural interactions, yet their
validity and reliability have been seriously questioned
(Applegate &.Sypher, 1983; Cronen & Shuter, 1983; Driskill,
1995; Spitzberg, 1989). This flaw is also derived from a
lack of focus on actual situated interaction. Like
"organizational universals," the effectiveness criteria
lists are often based on some unchanging set of dimensions
or exhaustive set of variables that will render all cultures
commensurable, and therefore they are (assumed to be)
65
universally applicable to any situation of intercultural
communication (Cronen, Chen, & Pearce, 1988). Considering
the foregoing contingent (both culturally and situationally)
nature of each interactive situation, the studies that do
not focus on particular situated interaction do not seem
much of use and significance.
New Research Orientation
There has been some research, although very few, which

examines intercultural interaction in bi- or multi-cultural
organizations. Kim and Paul (1994), and Driskill (1995)
have responded to the need for research that moves beyond
cross-cultural comparisons and effectiveness lists.
Kim and Paulk investigated intercultural interaction
between American and Japanese co-workers in a Japanese
subsidiary located in the United States. In their study,
they identified three sources of difficulties which include
language and communication behavior, work style/orientation,
and management style/orientation. Their findings are drawn
from both participants' (Japanese and American workers)
observations and lived experiences, and, therefore, they are
useful and relevent to the participants. They provide
valuable insight into the way in which the intercultural
interaction between Japanese and American co-workers is
actually shaped by their cultures.
66
Driskill's (1995) research on a bi-cultural
organization employing first-generation immigrants from
India and Euro-Americans also examines intercultural moments
in which culture is a major source of differnces. It has a
similar orientation as Kim and Paul's study: it moves beyond
cross-cultural comparisons and effectiveness lists, and
instead focuses on participant views of cultural
differences. It's in-depth exploration of participant views
of cultural differences are based on elicited participant
perceptions of competent communication in workplace
interactions. He employs an interviewing technique called
"a friendly conversation" which does not impose the
research's terms and, instead, facilitates participant-based
views.
What seems significant about this study is its use of
CMM as a framework for understanding intercultural
communication in an organization. Especially, it utilizes
the notion of rules as opposed to norms, and examines
different rules of interaction between the Asian-Indians and
Euro-Americans. He also makes use of the concept of
prefigurative force, and attends to situations in which
culture is viewed as the primary prefigurative force in
intercultural interactions. In other words, as in the case
of Kim and Paulk's study, the scope of his research is
limited to the cultural level. He examines only those
situations in which cultural differences are salient or
different cultural rules are enacted.
67
The strength of the studies by Kim and Paulk, and
Driskill lies in their research goal which is "to avoid
leading the participant to identify culture as salient, and
to gain accurate descriptions of participants' constructions
and interpretations of communication within the
organization."
However, their exclusive focus on cultural differences
as a source of interactional difficulties between Japanese
and American employees, and Euro-Americans and Indian-Asians
highlight, if not assume, the salience of culture in
intercultural interactions. Further, it may create a
context in which stereotypes that one group has toward
another are emphasized or even perpetuated. In so doing, it
might be glossing over or simplifying the complexity of
organizational life which often becomes complicated by other
forms of life besides cultural patterns. More over,
cultural patterns are not fixed but always in the process of
evolving and transforming. Daily life exhibits evolving
patterns, creative resolutions, and some disorder (Cronen,
1994). So may life be in multicultural organizations as
daily practices. It may present some dilemmas and
contradictions to the intercultural participants which deem
attention and need to be analyzed. Further research based
on these concerns may reveal more than just stereotypical
cultural differences and difficulties.
The limitations that were found in the foregoing
studies were able to be overcome in this study of a multi-
68
cultural Korean business organization. With the employment
of full features of CMM and taking into consideration
various "forms of life" or "multiple contexts" other than
cultural difference, complexities and even contradictions of
daily life in a multi-cultural organization were captured,
and the enriched and in-depth analysis of situated
interaction were possible. Also, the application of
circular questioning enabled me to collect useful and
valuable data about an interactive system which shed light
on some "grammatical features" of situated intercultural
organizational communication. The features and benefits of
circular interviewing technique will be discussed, in
detail, in the methodology part.
Research Questions
Guided by the social constructionist viewpoints,

specifically the CMM's view on culture, organization and
communication, the following research questions are
formulated.
CMM theory treats context as stories which include
cultural stories, stories about self-concept, stories about
relationships, and stories about a particular organization.
These stories about various "forms of life" may open a door
to the understanding of the intricate nature of our social
life and experience. The purpose of this study is to find
out and make sense of what goes on in a particular
69
multicultural organization, and provide some insight into
the lived experience of the members of this diverse
organization. Hence, the following research question is
created based on CMM theory's notion of context.
1.1 What are the significant (both Korean and

American) various stories participants live
and tell about various aspects of
organizational life such as management
styles, social/working relationships between
superiors and subordinates, and among
co-workers, their tasks, roles and positions
within the organization, etc.
As discussed in the earlier part, CMM theory's main

research goal is to investigate the extent of coordination
(as opposed to coherence) that people may achieve in the
process of social interaction. Coordination refers to the
extent to which one's grammars of meaning and action
sensibly fit or enmesh with the grammars of the other. CMM
believes that persons' grammars may be revealed in the
relationships among the stories they tell and live.
Therefore, the extent of coordination among people are
revealed in the relationships among stories told and lived
by them. The following research questions are guided by
this research concern of CMM theory.
70
1.2 What are the relationships among these
stories? How may these stories be weaved
together? What are some grammatical
features that emerge in the weaving process.
Are they sensibly fit together? Do they
reveal any tensions, conflict, or a lack of
coordinat ion?
1.3 What do these relationships tell us about this

particular organization in terms of its
culture, interactive patterns, relational
dynamics and management, etc.?
In CtflM theory, cultural patterns not only emerge and

sustain but also transform in practice. More over, although
emergent cultural patterns may guide the development of new
situated acts, the higher-level structure of cultural
patterns admits a variety of possible transformations to
situated practice. All of these suggest that, even in the
intercultural situation, the extent to which people's
actions are prefigured by their cultural patterns may vary
from person to person and also from situation to situation.
Given this, the role and significance of cultural
differences may constantly change over time and across
situtions. Therefore, there may be a number of different
ways in which cultural differences influence the extent of
coordination among people. Guided by CMM theory's take on
71
cultural patterns and differences, the following questions
are formulated.
2.1 How or to what extent do cultural differences

influence the extent of coordination among its
members? Do they lead to conflict?
2.2 What are some implications of and suggestions for

the management of cultural differences in this
organization for researchers and consultants?
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study aims to explore the role and significance of

cultural differences in a multi-cultural business
organization by examining various situated instances of
communication in its everyday activities and events. Hence,
the primary corpus of data is various episodic stories lived
and told by the members about various aspects of the
organizational life.
The methodological as well as theoretical framework of
this study is the coordinated management of meaning theory
or CMM. The theoretical relevance of CMM to this study and
its main features were discussed in the previous chapter.
In this part, first, I will discuss the main features of the
circular interviewing techniques which are typically
employed by CMM as a method of collecting data. Then, I
will discuss its utility in intercultural settings in
general and, specifically for this study. The latter
discussion will include some special considerations that
need to be made when this method is used in intercultural
studies.
Main Features of Circular Questioning
Circular questioning is an interviewing technique that

was originally developed by the Milan team and has been used
to interview groups of persons which comprise a relevant
system such as families, couples, organizations, etc. It is
a useful tool for gathering information on an interactive
system and it also provides the system with an opportunity
to view itself systemically, especially its
interrelationships among its members.
Typically, there is present an interviewer and a team
behind one-way glass. The team consults with the
interviewer and assesses the interactive pattern developing
during the interview session.
Circular Interviewing is originally designed for
clinical purposes but it also has been used for non-clinical
purposes, for scholarly research. CMM, the systems approach
to communication, has been extensively employing this method
for the analysis of situated interaction in daily life.
There are several general features of circular
questioning that make it distinctively different from other
forms of open-ended interviewing. In the following, I will
first present the characteristics of each feature of
circular questioning. Secondly, I will address some problems
that are associated with circular questioning when applied
to intercultural settings. Lastly, I will discuss how
circular questioning was adapted to my case study of an
intercultural organization.
Circularity
The technique is circular (as opposed to linear) in the

basic sense that there is circularity between interviewer
and respondents. The interviewer conducts his/her
investigation on the basis of feedback from the respondents
in response to the information he/she solicits about their
relationship or interactive patterns. In other words, each
comment made by the interviewer is clearly connected to the
last comment made by respondents. This entails the active
involvement of the interviewer with the respondents. An
important way to maintain circularity between interviewer
and interviewees is to use the key terms or stories that
interviewees use or tell in the questions asked. In the
questions, the interviewer tries to elicit the interviewees
to extend their key term or story in time and place. This
not only maintains the connection between interviewer and
interviewees but also helps the interviewer to explore the
"grammar" of the terms or the ways in which they are used in
interaction. In other words, the interviewer tries to get
interviewees to talk about the situated moments in which
their key term or story takes a particular meaning. For
instance, the interviewer asks the interviewee, "Do you
experience or notice any kind of cultural differences in the
company?" The interviewee answers, "The management style is
different." In this case, examples of a circular question
to ask next would be, "When was the first time you felt that
75
the management style was different?" "What happened?"
"When did you feel the difference the most?" "When did you
feel the least?" etc.
Circularity Among Respondents

Circularity among respondents is also important: the
interviewer is interested in observing how each member is
related to others in the system and reacts to their
responses. This systemic nature of circularity is based on
the assumption that behaviors and beliefs do not occur in
isolation and individuals can be best understood within
their relational contexts. Hence, the interviewer asks
questions that may reveal what was actually going on at the
moment of interaction rather than having individuals spill
their individual minds. For instance, the interviewer is
interested to see how the relationship between persons in
the system has evolved or been evolving in the course of
interaction or how one's ideas and beliefs have emerged in
the course of doing in the world. This is done by asking
for reports of concrete events rather than asking "why?".
An example of such questions would be, "What happened at the
time of his loss of job when this occurred?" "What was
going on in other aspects of your life?" "Then what
happened?" "What else was occurring?"
Circularity is also emphasized during the interview
session: the interviewer tries to relate or connect the
person addressed to others in the system. This is done by a
76
method called "gossiping in the presence of others". For
example, the interviewer asks the father about mother's
response to their son's poor grades. Connections among
informants also can be understood and made by using
questions that explore comparisons among them. An example
would be: "If you don't accomplish your job who would be
affected most? Who the next most? Who the least? (turning
to the other) Do you agree?"
Neutrality
The notion of neutrality is also important in circular

questioning. Throughout the interview session, the
interviewer needs to maintain the neutral position. With
the successful shifting of alliance with from one member to
another, the interviewer can convince the members of the
system of the neutral position of the interviewer.
Neutrality with "positive connotation" may help the
interviewer avoid rejection from interviewees. The idea
that the interviewer is on everyone's side rather than
nobody's side may make the interviewees relax and open up
during the interview session.
The researcher may also maintain neutrality through
"active engagement" (Lang, Workshop, 1996) by actively
joining and keeping in each participant's grammar throughout
the interview session.
77
Hypothesizing
Along with neutrality, hypothesizing is a fundamental

feature in circular questioning as well. An initial working
hypothesis is formulated before the interview begins and
serves as a starting point for the investigations of the
persons in the system. The interviewer does not attempt to
frame, from the beginning, their problems or concerns.
Rather, he/she tries to obtain information from each member
in an explorative and hypothetical manner in order to elicit
as rich and detailed information as possible about their
interactive patterns. The inquiry begins in the present
("What is the concern of your family now?"), explores the
past ("When did you first notice this problem?") , and then
investigates everyone's expectations regarding how the
situation would go in the future or in a hypothetical event
("If the situation were to remain as it is now, what would
you do?"). This provides the interviewer and the
interviewees a systemic frame of the problem or concern in
which all the members of the system are involved. Based on
the initial information obtained from each member, the
interviewer hypothesizes next circular questions.
Throughout the interview session, the interviewer uses
this hypothesizing process in order to look for
possibilities and opportunities for elaborating and making
connections among various stories told by informants. In so
doing, it is expected that creative ideas and new directions
78
will emerge which could enhance the problematic patterns of
interaction in the system.

to Intercultural Studies
Although useful to a great extent, given that it was

created and developed in the West, some features of circular
questioning may entail some problems when applied, without
care, in an Asian country such as Korea or in intercultural
settings. Hence, there are several special considerations
that need to be made when using this method in Korea or in
the intercultural situation which involves a Korean(s).
Neutrality
The notion of neutrality, since it varies across

cultures, seems to present some problems. In Korea where
everyone is always positioned in the social context, or in
the hierarchical social system, the whole notion of
neutrality or objectivity, in a social sense, seems not
exist nor carry the same implications. Neutrality roughly
means 'impersonal', 'amoral1 or placed out of the social
context. Hence, the neutrality of the interviewer may
prevent most Koreans from actively participating in the
interviewing process because they might not know how to
approach or deal with someone who seems displaced from or
79
does not belong to their social system. Also, the
interviewer who presents him/herself as neutral may not be
able to fit easily into the system and thus unable to
maintain circularity between the interviewer and Korean
interviewees possibly because of a lack of responses from
them or a lack of coordination between the interviewer and
them.
Neutrality, in the sense of the equal treatment of all
the members in the system, seems also problematic and even
may be threatening to the hierarchical order of the Korean
system. In Korea, it is a norm that people are expected
show deference to seniors and authorities. Deference may
take the form of using various honorifics when addressing
them or giving or allowing them to have more access to talk
in conversation. This cultural norm of using different
forms of communication or allowing unequal access to talk
according to age and social status will make it difficult,
if not impossible, for the interviewer to maintain
neutrality during the interview session. On the contrary,
the interviewer's attempt to be neutral by using a neutral
language and allowing equal access to talk regardless of the
respondents1 age and social status may run counter to their
cultural norm. For example, elders or authority figures may
be uncomfortable with or even offended by the neutral nature
of the interview.
The problematic implications of neutrality for Korean
culture are exemplified in Hye-sook Kim's study of Korean
80
families' interactive patterns. In her study, she found
that hyo 'respect toward parents' posed some difficulties on
the implementation of circular questioning with Korean
families. It was found that the eldest family members
dominated the conversation whereas younger members merely
accepted what their elders had to say even by glossing over
the difference. In her interview with the two Korean
families, grandfathers dominated conversations the most with
grandmothers next. Mothers and children did not actively
participate in conversations, and in fact children were
verbally discouraged from speaking by adult members.
The problems of neutrality is also present in the
intercultural situation. In my study (Chong, 1994)of
intercultural relationship between a Korean woman and a
North American man, it was found that the interviewer's
ethnicity seemed to create some discomfort for the American
party. He was a little worried about forming a coalition
between the Korean interviewer and his Korean wife since he
was familiar with Korean culture and Korean people's
tendency to form solidarity. He had to be convinced of the
interviewer's neutrality so that he was not much concerned
of the revelation of his open views on his wife and their
relationship. Nonetheless, it is very likely that the
interviewer's ethnicity constrained somehow his responses to
interview questions.
However, the interviewer's being Korean provided an
opportunity to elicit rich data from the Korean party who
81
was comfortable enough to reveal and wanted to share her
private life with the interviewer who was from the same
culture. Probably, she would not have been as open as she
was if the interviewer had been an American to whom she
might not know how to relate or uncomfortable with. Whether
positively or negatively, it seems difficult to maintain the
neutrality of the interviewer in the intercultural setting
when he/she is from the same culture as one of the
informants, not the other. His/her ethnicity may affect the
neutrality of the interviewer although unintentionally.
Gossiping Device
Another problematic feature of circular questioning,

when applied in Korean culture, is the method of gossiping
in the presence of others. In Korea where there is a
natural hierarchy in the system and the communication of
certain members (younger and lower in the social hierarchy) ,
to encourage them to gossip in the presence of others who
are older and higher in the hierarchy seems unsuitable and
inappropriate. The interviewer may be viewed as
insensitive, challenging or threatening to the Korean
cultural norm. In the West such as America, where there
exist equality and a freedom of speech and hence everyone
can talk freely to each other, this particular feature seems
to fit and work better.
Hye-sook Kim claims that the gossiping device may not
82
be as successful in Korean families. In her interview with
the Korean families, hyo prevented younger members from
speaking and encouraged older members to dominate the
conversation. Hence, she would get only information that
reflects the way the eldest members want the family to run
since younger members such as daughter-in-laws were silent
or responded carefully, according their elders'
expectations. She contends that sub-group circular
questioning or individual circular questioning should be
employed so that members in the low rank of social hierarchy
can respond spontaneously unconscious of others.
In my intercultural study, the gossiping device was not
effective at all because interviews were conducted
separately. The couple were reluctant to be interviewed
together expressing some anxiety over possible conflicts or
disagreements that may surface during the interview session.
However, this problem seems due to the limited use of
circular method for non-clinical purposes.
Hypothetical Questions
Particular forms of communication used in circular

questioning may be problematic in Asian countries. For
example, in circular questioning, the hypothetical form of
questions are used to investigate the problem in detail such
as "If the situation were to remain as it is now, what would
happen in the future?" According to a Chinese informant,
83
this form of talk is typically used in fairy-tales, Hence,
it is considered as children's talk and thus inappropriate
in conversation among adults. This seems to be the case in
Korea where adults often pose questions to children in a
hypothetical manner (but not the other way around) often
when they give lessons to children (i.e. "If you crossed the
street without raising your arms, what would happen?").
This may make Korean or Chinese informants view the whole
interview procedure as childish and hence they may not
participate in the interview seriously or sincerely.
Communication Style of Circular Questioning
The communication style which circular questioning

expects from interviewees may not be suitable for Asian
interviewees. Asians, especially Japaneses and Koreans
usually use a communication style which are more based on
intuitive understanding than verbal articulateness. As a
result, they are not used to giving full and precise
descriptions of what is asked (Kim & Paulk, 1994) . Circular
questioning requires interviewees to tell everything in
detail and, hence, Asian interviewees may not be able to
respond to interview questions in detail.
Intrusive Nature of Circular Questioning
In general as well as in the intercultural situation,

circular method can be intrusive and may entail some
practical problems when used for non-clinical purposes. It
was originally used to interview people who have problems
and come to a therapist for treatment. Hence, its use may
be limited for non-clinical purposes of scholarly research
as a method to elicit information from interviewees rather
than as a means of treatment.
In my previous study (1994) , it was found that in-depth
interviews which aim to elicit private, detailed, subtle
information on people's personal lives can be intrusive, may
inhibit them from responding to some interview questions and
hence may generate some misleading information. Hye-sook
Kim also points out that circular questioning may reveal
what is not verbalized among the members in the system and
thus there exists the risk of deterioration in the
relationship although it may enhance their relationship.
The Application of Circular Questioning to This Study
In this study, the degree of the effectiveness of

circular questioning was found to vary depending upon the
interviewee. Among the main subjects, it was most effective
for the American interviewee, Pete. He was very willing to
talk about his lived experiences in the organization and
85
responded to the interview questions enthusiastically
throughout the interviewing process. Often times, he was
able to recall and describe, in detail, specific examples or
instances of the situated interactions with others in the
Chelm office. The interview with Pete was quite
straightforward because he seemed to feel free to speak out
his "told stories " and "lived stories."
On the other hand, the interview with Park was not
quite as satisfactory. Unlike Pete, often times, he was
unable to recall specific examples or instances of the
particular pattern of interaction with his subordinates.
His answers were brief and general. In addition, he was
very cautious and hesitant to talk about some of his
experiences with others. He seemed very careful in his
responses to interview questions. He also seemed to read
constantly the researcher's mind as he did the mind of his
subordinates. This seemed because the Korean tendency to
make inferences from the words largely constituted his
communication style. He often knew the researcher's
intention (probing) in rephrasing or paraphrasing the same
interview question. Sometimes, he responded to the repeated
question in a different form benevolently (unwillingly but
to the satisfaction of the researcher). Other times, he
just said that he could not remember. His inability to
recall the past events often made it difficult to maintain
circularity between the interviewer and the interviewee.
The interviewer became disconnected from the interviewee
86
because she could not get the conversation going by making a
comment in connection to the interviewee's last comment.
This put the interviewer in the difficult situation where
she had to push, directly or indirectly, the interviewee to
respond to the question and keep in the grammar or flow of
the conversation. This might have made the interviewee
uncomfortable or even could have resulted in the termination
of the interview. However, the friendly and supportive
relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee did
not let it happen, and the interviewer was able to complete
the interview and obtained some moderate data from Park.
Neutrality
All the interviews were conducted on an individual

basis and thus the issue of neutrality did not pose any
significant problems. However, during interviews with each
subject, the researcher positioned herself to fit their
social system. For instance, the Korean language is used
for interviews with Korean informants, and the kind of
language I used with each Korean clearly indicated the
hierarchical order of the Korean system. With the manager,
Park, for instance, I always showed deference by using
honorifics when addressing him since he was a senior and an
authority figure. He, however, also acted towards me with
the same respect and deference. As a result, the interviews
with him were conducted on equal terms in a comfortable
87
manner. With June, I was shown deference by him since I was
his senior in terms of age. Throughout the interview, he
responded to my questions in a respectful, serious and
faithful manner which was, perhaps, part of his obligation
to a senior.
As for the American informants, the English language
was used during the interview session. I was able to fit
naturally into their horizontal social system with the use
of the relatively neutral English language.
Regardless of the nationality of the subject, I aligned
myself with each so that they felt comfortable and relaxed
while revealing their experiences within the organization.
Interviewer as Inferer
In general, Korean informants' (Park and June)

responses were brief and less specific, detailed,
articulate, and clear than Pete's responses. Although the
base for the assessment is the Western standard that
emphasizes the articulateness and clearness of
communication, the data obtained from the Korean responses
do not sufficiently fit the kind of data that circular
questioning is expected to generate. When employing
circular questioning to the Korean informants, the
researcher or interviewer was required to have the capacity
to infer the meaning behind their responses, and then
construct the appropriate comment or question and get the
88
interview going. The inferring capacity is also required in
the process of organizing and analyzing the data obtained
from the Korean informants. Otherwise, there will not be
sufficient data to work with. The process of connecting,
and reconstructing and reorganizing the information, which
is implicit, indirect, or general, also required the
inferring ability in the stage of analysis.
gftgg.i-P.iag..Pey-i-de
The gossiping device was not useful in this study since

the group interview was out of question due to the condition
of the research site. The office was always busy, and there
just was not a large block of time where everybody can sit
together and talk for a while. The problem of language also
could pose a difficulty for the group interview. Due to the
Koreans' limited English, the interviewer has to make extra
efforts to facilitate the interview switching back and forth
between the Korean and American languages and their
respective patterns of communication. This shift could make
it difficult for the interviewer to maintain neutrality and
circularity.
The absence of gossiping device was able to be
compensated, in part, by the employment of participant
observation. Through the participant observation, the
researcher was able to observe some gossiping acts that took
place naturally in the course of informal interactions among
89
the informants. The person's gossip about others and
others' reaction to their gossip revealed some relational
dynamics that either reaffirmed or contradicted the stories
about relationships that the informants told during the
interview.
Conclusion
Over all, circular questioning was proven useful for

this study. However, it was found that, when employing to
the Korean informants, the interviewer/researcher needs to
have the inferring ability in order to pick up the subtle
meanings and implications behind their words and to keep in
their grammars, and proceed the interview that may be easily
viewed as unmovable or extremely difficult to proceed it by
those without this ability. Based on the findings, it is
recommended that the intercultural interviewer/researcher
should be bi-cultural as well as bi-lingual. The inclusion
of an American consultant or researcher/interviewer would
benefit this research because he/she may pick up some key
points or information given by the American informants that
might have missed by the native Korean interviewer.
However, in this study, interviewing the American
informants did not pose any significant problems because, it
seems, the interviewing method was a Western method which
embodied the Western view and patterns of communication.
Hence, in this study, the inclusion of American interviewer
90
seemed not as essential as the inclusion of the Korean
interviewer who is familiar with the Korean patterns of
communication heavily based on the acts of inference rather
than relying mostly on what is said in spoken words.
What seemed to be more problematic and difficult than
the employment of circular questioning was the accessibility
of the research site and the subjects. Conducting the
interviews that were not requested by the organization can
be interruptive and even intimidating to the members of the
organization. Their concerns with job security, position,
and their relationships with others within the organization
can greatly inhibit them from talking freely about their
experiences in the organization, and from speaking out their
views on their colleagues, superiors and the organization.
They seemed primarily worried that the information which
they gave out during the interview may be used against them
later on.
Hence, building and sustaining a trusting relationship
with the informants was found most important and pressing
when conducting research in the business organization. The
relationship building can be relatively easy or difficult,
and this largely depends upon the informant. In this study,
it was relatively easy with Park, Pete, Yune, and June.
However, it was not with Nancy and Kate who, as a result,
did not participate at all in the interview or participated
only for a brief time (10 minutes) .
91
Selection of the Site, and Subjects
The criterion of research site and subjects was a

small-size organization where a small body of interaction
may be observed. Hence, as the fieldwork site for the
research, a small-scale sales office which is located in the
Chelm area was chosen. The office is one of a international
sales operation of a large Korean company. It was selected
among a number of Korean or Korean-running companies in the
Chelm area. The list of these companies was obtained from
the Korean consulate in this area. A letter was written to
each company calling for a fieldwork opportunity. Most
companies did not respond to the letter. Only two companies
out of seven responded but only one company allowed me to do
on-site research.
The manager of this company contacted the researcher
first by phone and then a meeting was arranged for further
discussion about the research possibility. The manager was
very enthusiastic and willing to be of help. The first
meeting with the manager was held a few weeks after the
initial phone conversation. In the meeting, despite of his
initial interest and willingness to cooperate, the manager
expressed a little apprehension over the impact that the
fieldwork may bring to the office environment. After my
verbal commitment to terminate fieldwork anytime when it
seems to have negative influence in the workplace in any
way, he granted me permission to visit the office on a
92
weekly basis as requested by me. A daily visit may be ideal
but due to the distance to the company, a weekly visit was
scheduled on every monday when the office staff meeting is
held in the morning. Monday was selected as a regular
visiting day because, according to the manager, the staff
meeting is the only time when all the employees in the
office get together and discuss issues. Normally, according
to him, because of the nature of their business (fast-paced
sales operation) , all the employees rarely have chance to
get together face-to-face and interact. Since it was the
main purpose of my study to see how they interact and relate
to one another, monday visits were decided on. The
fieldwork was conducted for the four-month period from
February to May 1996.
The first encounter with all the employees occured in a
staff meeting in a monday morning a few weeks after my
meeting with the manager. I was introduced to the office
staff by the manager. He introduced me as a researcher and
helper. It was a prior arrangement I made with him to
provide some labor when the office is busy in return for the
research opportunity. This arrangement was made because he
told me that he needed to justify my visits to his
subordinates. The arrangement was not only ethical but also
practical one because the office was indeed so busy that
they were on the verge of hiring one more employee.
After the introduction, I briefly talked about myself,
the purpose of my presence in the office, and ray research.
93
I clearly stated that I do not work for their parent company
and have no intention to report any result of my research to
their higher level management or headquarters. This turned
out to be a reasonable idea because some of the employees
indeed thought or suspected that I was a "spy". It took
some time and efforts to convince them that I do not work
for anybody in the company. Eventually, they seemed assured
of no connection between the researcher and the company. I
also said everything possible to ensure that my research
will not have impact on them and their relation to the
company.
In my talk, I also stated that my purpose is not to
look for problems but to simply observe and understand how
they work together as intercultural organizational members.
I also told them that I will be asking some questions when
they have free time on and off site to clarify things that
interest or puzzle me. Their responses were quite positive
and they did not seem to oppose my presence in the office.
However, towards the end of the meeting, a female worker
asked me a following question in a joking manner, "can we
push you around?" I was a little offended but joked back
with a smile. Other people also smiled. She turned out to
have emotional problems with whom others find difficult to
deal. Overall, it was a welcoming atmosphere that I felt
after the staff meeting.
The subjects were observed and interviewed on and off
the site using circular questioning described earlier. Each
94
subject was interviewed more than once, but extensive
interview was given only once to each. Not every person in
the office was interviewed. Two female workers did not wish
to participate in interview. One told me that she felt
"intimidated by the participation" and liked to be "left
alone." The other agreed to have an interview but it lasted
only ten minutes. She said that she was "too busy and
stressed out to talk more than 10 minutes because of her
heavy workload and emotional problems.11 Even her brief
answers were not much informative because they were so
general and she declined to respond to some questions. She
seemed very sensitive to and also skeptical about the whole
interviewing process. Hence, the two were excluded as
subjects in my study although they will be mentioned and
made reference to throughout the study. This resulted in
unbalance in the gender composition of the subjects. The
subjects consist of only males because there were only two
female workers in the office who were not interested in
participating in this study. The rest were very much
interested in my work and they were willing and hoping to
learn and gain something from their participation.
The date collected from the interviews will be
organized and analyzed using the CMM theory which was
described previously
95
CHAPTER IV
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In this chapter, a background information for a case

study of a multicultural business organization will be
presented. First, I will present an elaborate description
of the selection process of the fieldwork site and subjects
which will be followed by the detailed introduction of the
site and subjects. The introduction of each subject will
include brief discussions about their personal backgrounds,
their positions within the organization, the nature and
duties of their work, the extent of their intercultural
experience within and outside the organization, and the
patterns of interpersonal relationships they have in the
office. Thirdly, I will address five main themes that
emerged from the process of organizing the data for this
study. These issues will be referenced and inform the case
study of various episodes in the next chapter.
The Research Site and Subjects
As mentioned before, the fieldwork site is a small-

scale sales office located in a large city in the Eastern
region. I used a pseudo name for the city called "Chelm."
The office is under the regional office in a place I called
"East." Its parent company is a large Korean shipping
company with world-wide operations. The company has sales
operations throughout the world. It has a number of sales
offices in the U.S. alone. It runs cargo ships delivering
cargoes either in container or in bulk from country to
country. In order to maintain the highest cost efficiency,
sales offices are always pressured by the company to "fill"
containers and ships that depart from their locations. Each
office is also accountable for the status of the cargoes
which are being shipped in and out of its location. Those
who are in charge of documentation work under pressure of
having to respond to customers who want to know the status
of their cargoes whenever needed.
In the Chelm office, there are 5 workers which include
an Area sales manager (Park), a sales representative (Pete),
sales coordinators (Yune and June) , and two documentation
clerks (Nancy and Kate) . The names used for each person as
well as the locations of the company offices are pseudo
names to protect their privacy and keep confidentiality. In
the following, I will present a detailed background
description of each subject for this study as well as those
who are excluded in the study. The descriptions are based
on my participant observation and interviews.
Park
Park, the manager, is a Korean home staff who was sent
from the headquarters in Korea to the Chelm area office. He
is a Korean male in his early forties. He was born, brought
up, and educated in Korea throughout his life. He has been
97
with the company for over ten years and held the position of
the head of a section in domestic operations before his
first overseas assignment to the U.S. He was promoted to
the level of an assistant director when he was given his
first assignment in a foreign operation and took the
position of area manager. Park's primary job assignment is
to head the sales office which did not have a formal
managerial position prior to him. Initially, he was
assigned to the East regional office and then transferred to
the Chelm area sales office where the company saw a need for
an area manager. It has been around two years since he came
to the Chelm office.
Given his background, he had no intercultural
experience prior to his current job. Nor did the company
give him formal intercultural training according to him. He
held a B.A. in English and a M.B.A. His intercultural
experience seems limited to his exposure to English and
American literature and media, and informal advice given by
his colleagues with previous working experience in the U.S.
operations. Because of his lack of intercultural
experience, as he conceded, he seems to have a difficulty
heading the culturally diverse workplace and this seems to
be a main reason for his strong interest in this study. On
several occasions, he expressed, directly or indirectly, his
wish to consult with the researcher regarding his first
management experience in the diverse workplace. However,
with the researcher's neutrality in mind, I tried not to
98
interfere with or directly influence him, especially, his
relationship with the subordinates.
Pete
Pete is an American male in his early thirties. He is
a sales representative. He is the only sales person in the
office and has been with the company for about six years.
When he first came to the office, there were only two people
with no sales staff. He worked under the direct supervision
of the regional manager in East. Before he was hired by the
company, the sales and marketing activity in the Chelm area
had been insignificant and handled by the East regional
office. He was hired to excel business in this area when
the company saw an emerging potential in this market.
According to him, he came to "a wide opportunity" but with
little guidance and support from the company. He felt that
the company "didn't know what was up there (Chelm), so
anything that was brought in to the company and from what
their understanding of the marketing place was limited."
Before Park came, Pete was "acting BSG which is in
essence the Park's position." He was "overseeing the
working of the office and how it is supposed to be done."
He even had his own room which now Park has taken over. Now
he shares a large room with the rest of the staff. In a
way, he has been demoted.
99
Yune
Yune is a Korean born American male in his early

twenties. He was hired, right after college, by Park as a
sales and administration coordinator. His position became
available after Park came to the office. He has been with
the company for about one year. Originally, he was hired to
work directly with Park and Pete. He is in charge of
booking orders, answering the phone and assisting Park and
Pete with various things. After Dennis, an operation
coordinator before Kate, resigned and Kate came to work for
the company, Yune took over part of Kate's documentation
job. At the time of my fieldwork, he was waiting to be
transferred to the East regional office and was training his
replacement, June. He was supposed to leave in a couple of
months. According to Park, Yune's transfer was decided as
an alterative to his resignation. Park had been very
unsatisfied with Yune's job performance and liked to force
him to resign the company. But the company advised him not
to fire him and instead to transfer him to the company's
East operation which will have alot of job openings when it
merges with the company's U.S. headquarters in West. The
headquarters are supposed to move to West in a couple of
months for merger, and Yune is looking forward to getting
transferred there. Yune's transfer decision has been made
as a result of the legal advice given to the company. The
company is extremely cautious in firing local workers
because of a few bad experiences with law suits filed by
100
former local employees. The company wants to avoid getting
involved in any kind of legal problem in its foreign
operation. Hence, the decision reflects the company's
serious concern with a possible lawsuit Yune may bring
against the company.
Yune is 1.5 generation Korean. He was born in Korea
and immigrated to the U.S. with his family when he was five
years old. He has been under a lot of Korean cultural
influences from his parents, relatives and friends. He
still has close ties to Korea and made several visits there.
He is bilingual as well as bicultural. He speaks both
English and Korean languages fluently and seems familiar
with both Korean and American cultural values and practices.
He feels, however, he does not truly belong to either
culture. He seems frustrated and even angry because he
feels that neither culture embraces him completely. He is
always treated as neither fully Korean nor fully American.
He is caught between the two conflicting cultures and this
seems to have a significant impact on his outlook on life in
general and specifically, his interpersonal relationships
with people in the office especially with a Korean home
staff, Park.
June
June was recently hired to replace Yune. He is a

Korean male in his late twenties. He is from Korea and has
been in the U.S. for about six years to get a college
101
degree. He has just graduated from a college in the
northern part of the country. Right after the graduation,
he was employed by Park, without the consultation with
anyone in the office, to fill in Yune's position. Unlike
Park, June has been extensively exposed to the American
culture and has a lot of lived experience with the culture.
Though he does not seem as bicultural as Yune, his stories
are clearly colored by his bicultural experience. He seems
quite interculturally sensitive and competent enough to
engage in everyday activities at work without much trouble
and form a fairly good working relationship with others in
the office. However, once in a while, he experiences
communication problems with his coworkers or customers. He
speaks English quite well but not as well as Yune. It seems
that he feels more comfortable with Korean culture and
people and wishes to go back to Korea after a few years and
continue to work for the same company.
After Yune's unexpected and premature resignation, June
is taking extra time and efforts to perform the job he has
not been skilled at yet. He is managing his job with the
occasional help of other workers in the office. Often, he
is frustrated by his job, especially his job of dealing with
customer complaints or demanding customers.
Nancy
Nancy is an American woman in her forties and has been

with the company for over 6 years. She works closely with
102
Pete. She is in charge of documentation of westbound
exports. She prepares and processes necessary documents for
the accounts that Pete brings to the company. Her job is,
according to Pete, "doing the every result of what I sold."
Despite of their intimate work relationship, based on my
observations, it seems clear that Nancy does not get along
well with Pete. She often complains about Pete's "bossy
attitude" toward her and urges other workers "not to
tolerate when she sees him act like a boss." Pete also
complained that "Nancy gives a shit all the time about my
job, what I'm doing."
As I pointed out previously, she is one of the two
people who were not interested in my study and refused to
participate in an interview. She said that she "felt
intimidated and did not like to talk about herself or
others." She is "a very private person with little interest
in anything other than her simple life of coming to work,
paying her bills and just enjoying her daily routines."
Kate
Kate is another documentation processor. She is also

an American female in her thirties. She came to the company
about six months ago to replace a long time employee, Dennis
who had resigned the company and got a job with another
company. She is in charge of processing documents for
eastbound imports. She prepares and processes documents
such as bills of lading and checks etc. She is accountable
103
for the status of a particular cargo for a particular
account and, hence, her job involves frequent communication
with people who are inquiring about the status of their
cargoes. Some customers she deals with are very impatient
and demanding and this has been putting her under a high
level of stress.
Kate tends to have an emotional outburst once in a
while whenever she feels overwhelmed or stressed out by
demanding customers or the amount of her work. This was
pointed out by others as well as herself. For example,
during the interview, she said that "I often become
emotional and cry." Park is considering hiring someone to
assist her after having watched her several times become out
of control and burst into tears.
Main Themes
In this section, I will address some general issues and

problems of managing a multicultural workplace which emerged
from the process of sorting out and organizing the data for
this study. After going through various stories people
tell, act and live, the following has been identified as the
main foci of the data analysis. 1) cultural adaptation,
2) differentiation/division/discrimination, 3) harmony
4) biculturalism, 5) language. These main themes will
inform and guide the analysis of particular episodes which
will be introduced in the following chapter.
104
Cultural Adaptation in the Culturally Diverse Workplace
When people from different cultures come together and

interact, they usually try to adapt themselves to the unique
situation that they have conjointly created. In so doing,
consciously or unconsciously, people in the intercultural
situation become sensitive to and try to manage cultural
differences. Especially, in an intercultural organizational
setting, where people come together for mutual benefit and
have to work cooperatively toward common, clear-cut goals
under an established authority and leadership, the need for
the management of cultural differences becomes even
stronger. The need will be particularly stronger for an
expatriate manager of a foreign subsidiary or operation who
is new to the host culture and has to work in a place where
the host culture predominates. As the study by Lee &
Larwood (1983) shows, expatriate managers of multinational
organizations usually become assimilated into the host
culture rather.
Often, different "forms of life" or ways of carrying on
daily life between culturally different people hinder them
from achieving coordination in communication and
establishing good working relationships with one another.
As people have to deal, on a daily basis, with their
culturally different superiors, subordinates and colleagues,
it becomes necessary for them to develop intercultural
competence by learning various cultural stories about
105
others. The participants in this case study, the
intercultural participants knew and were able to tell a
number of stories about each other. Especially, for the
Korean manager, Park, who initially came to an office with
only American employees, the adaptation process was
inevitable and was not easy for him. His stories seem to
imply that his managing capability seemed severely impeded
or at least limited by his role as a cultural integrator,
and he felt a need for a cultural mediator between himself
and Americans including his American subordinates.
The "told stories" about others that people learn from
various sources inform and guide the way they understand and
relate to others, and also their process of cultural
adaptation in the diverse workplace. However, "told
stories" about others may become a source of two-fold
problems in the participants' lived experiences. The first
problem is that these "told stories" about others may
contradict or conflict with other stories such as one's own
cultural stories or "stories as lived" which emerge as a
product of the ongoing interaction. For instance, a Korean
manager of multicultural company may be caught between two
conflicting cultural stories, the American cultural story
about egalitarian managers and his own cultural story about
submissive subordinates. The Korean manager, Park,
alternated between two positions. First, as a democratic
and egalitarian manager, he was on a first name basis with
his American subordinates. He often even initiated a joke
106
with them. On some occasions, his position was an
authoritarian leader who expects his subordinates to be
submissive and respect him unconditionally, which, in the
similar situations, most American managers would not expect
For instance, Park stated that it was the most distasteful
when his American workers said "no, " without hesitation, to
his request, which, rarely happens with Korean subordinates
In Korea, as an authority figure, Park was entitled to
unconditional obedience from his subordinates. However, in
America, a subordinate is allowed to give his/her different
views and opinions to a superior as long as he/she can
justify or rationalize his/her position.
Secondly, unintended consequences may occur when both
parties engaged in the intercultural situation try to make
cultural adaptation. In other words, each party already
knows of "told stories" about the other and tries to make
adjustments to the other accordingly. When this mutual
cultural adjustment process occurs, one's "told stories"
about the other may no longer be valid or useful. In this
case, "told stories" may often mislead one's understanding
of "goings on" in his or her lived experience, and his
ability to coordinate with the other may be impeded. For
instance, an American subordinate, Pete, was surprised by
the open and approachable Korean manager, Park, who did not
fit his "told stories" about Koreans as otherwise. Further
given the "told stories" about Korean managers that was
confirmed by his lived experience with them, he did not
107
understand why the manager was different from most Koreans
he knew. As Pete observed, the manager's openness and
approachableness may have been part of Kim's unique self-
concept or his background. However, it was more likely to
be part of his cultural adaptation process. What makes him
differ the most from other Korean managers is the unique
intercultural situation he came into. He came to an office
with only Americans. Although he assumed a superior
position, in a way, he was an outsider and minority in this
new environment, and cultural adaptation is much more needed
on his part. What Pete was not informed of or did not take
into consideration was that the manager was put in the
situation where he had to make an extra effort to establish
a good working relationship with his American subordinates.
As part of the effort, he had to be consciously sensitive to
the cultural differences. For example, when he was with a
Korean subordinate, the interaction pattern was very
different than when he was with Americans. With Koreans, he
spoke Korean. When an American subordinate saw the manager,
consciously or unconsciously alternate between the two
different cultural styles and languages, he was not aware of
or considerate of the manager's effort to adapt himself to
cultural differences. Rather, he/she took it as a divisive
and discriminatory act and resisted it harder than he would
have if the manager had used the same style consistently.
The manager's good-intention to make cultural adjustments
resulted in the climate of differentiation and division in
108
the office and, in consequence, created the story about the
manager being discriminating against Americans. And, this
story about the Korean manager reaffirmed the existing
("told") story about the discriminative organization. This
issue of differentiation/discrimination will be addressed
next.
Dif ferentiation/Division/Discrimination
When managing a multicultural organization, the

manager's well-intended efforts to sensitize and adapt
himself to cultural differences may create the climate of
differentiation in the workplace. When not being careful,
cultural adaptation may result in inconsistency in the
manager's acts toward his diverse subordinates. He will try
to be sensitive to cultural differences by interacting with
and relating to different people differently based on their
cultural backgrounds. He may also switch back and forth,
intentionally or accidently, between his own cultural
patterns of interaction and the other's depending upon
ongoing situations. As a result, his genuine effort to
manage cultural differences may bring about an unintended
consequence of dividing people at work. He may even be
wrongfully accused of discrimination by those who felt
treated differently by the manager when they were not
properly informed of the rationale for the manager's
inconsistent acts.
109
This was clearly the case of the organization under
study. For instance, there were a number of stories of
differentiation told by Pete about Park such as being
partial, not trusting American employees, privileging
Koreans over Americans, etc. Even a Korean subordinate,
June, also complained about being differentiated and
disadvantaged because of the manager's Americanized ways.
His "told stories" about Korean bosses did not fit his
"lived stories" about Park. For example, June stated that
Park was too individualistic unlike other Korean managers he
knows in the organization. Most Korean managers, he said,
hang out with their men all the time after work, but Park
doesn't even though the company would pick up the cost of
social events for employees. What June did not know was
that Park was sensing that social events and activities that
they had so far did not seem effective with the American
employees, or at least he was not satisfied with the
results.
The role of manager of a multicultural organization
becomes even more difficult when he has to be sensitive to
cultural differences and, at the same time, has to carry out
his integrating role as a leader and achieve goals set by
the organization. Often, the case in this study seems that
the climate of differentiation/division which is a byproduct
of the cultural adjustment process gets in the way of
creating a climate of unity and integration. Especially,
for a Korean manager whose organizational culture emphasizes
110
harmony and wholeness, and the group over the individual,
his important job of creating a harmonious working
environment is severely impeded by his equally important job
of managing cultural differences. This issue of wholeness
and harmony in the workplace was addressed by the manager
and it emerged as one of the important themes in the data
for this study.
Harmony
One of the cultural themes that were known to influence

organizational behavior in Korea is harmony, "inhwa" (Kim,
1992; Maddox, 1993) or harmonious social relations (Hamzah-
Sendut, Madsen, Tinsin & Longman, 198 9). The Korean term,
"inhwa", refers to harmony between unequals in rank, power
and prestige. The emphasis on harmony is reflected in the
leadership styles and decision-making patterns of Korean
managers.
For Korean managers, leadership responsibility goes
beyond specific business objectives. It includes social
responsibility. Korean managers, for instance, cherish good
interpersonal relations with their subordinates, and try to
form an emotional human bond with them by keeping the needs
and feelings of the subordinates in mind. Subordinates, in
return, respect and give their loyalty to their managers.
In this sense, harmony can be maintained only when each
party has responsibility to support the other.
Ill
The Korean decision-making process also reflects the
harmony-oriented leadership. Korean managers usually try to
maintain good relationships with their subordinates, even
though they may sometimes have to compromise group
performance. Harmony oriented decision-making discourages
expressing different views openly or open confrontation.
Hence, people have difficulty in airing their views,
especially the opposing views which may embarrass or
antagonize one's superior or provoke one's colleague. For
this reason, the process of informal consensus is important
in harmony-oriented decision-making. For example,
subordinates use informal occasions or settings to discuss
matters with or voice their views to their superiors.
However, the Korean emphasis on harmony does not
necessarily mean that Koreans will always act according to
their cultural norm of harmony. There are also those who
like to voice their opinions and views strongly to their
superiors even in formal settings or those who welcome and
value new ideas from their subordinates. Depending on the
situation, these variations within culture may become a
source of interpersonal problems in the workplace or provide
an opportunity to reexamine some organizational practice
through a critical lens and bring about a change in the
existing organizational practice.
Harmony was another salient theme which emerged from
the data. The stories told and lived by the Korean manger,
Park, was colored by the theme of harmony. He told a story
112
about the Korean decision making process which emphasizes
the importance of reaching an informal mutual consensus
before the formal decision making process as a way of
maintaining harmony during decision making.
We comply with any order from our bosses even though

we are not happy with it. We will first obey
without reservation. We don't directly challenge
our bosses. Order is very important in a Korean
organization. We will loose a lot if we do. If we
like to raise an objection, we do through informal
channels. We make suggestions harmoniously in
that way. In decision making, what is most
important is creatingeating a rapport and mutual
consensus among people before we have a formal
meeting. We create it in informal meetings. First, we
try to find out if we share a mutual consensus with
other people. You go out for a drink with them and
talk about it. Before we go to a formal meeting, we
have to be sure of a mutual consensus among us.
Harmony is established and maintained in subtle ways. One

has to frequently guess other people's thoughts and feelings
and make subtle moves to reach an informal mutual consensus
with them.
Park also told about his efforts to create harmony in
the office. For example, Park, on various occasions,
expressed his earnest wish to provide a good working
environment for his people in the office. He also often
tried to sense and understand how his subordinates feel and
what they need without asking them directly. His concern
about his employees' well-being seemed to derive as much
from his emphasis on harmony as from his need to achieve
business objectives. He also organized various social
activities and events in order to create "something that did
113
not exist before" among the employees which he seemed to
refer to "harmony" or unity.
His strong concern with establishing harmony or unity
seems even more necessitated by the unique situation he was
placed in. His role as the first Korean manager in an all-
American office posed him a difficult job of cultural
adaptation and integration. Entering a new culture is
potentially a confusing and disorienting experience (Kim,
1988) . One might experience a sense of loss arising from
being uprooted from one's familiar surroundings or a feeling
of impotence from being unable to competently deal with an
unfamiliar environment (Taft, 1977) . For Park who had to
not only integrate himself to the new environment but also
head the environment as a leader, creating "harmony" seemed
to be the most pressing task.
The theme of "harmony" was also shared by a Korean
worker, June, in his stories told and lived. He tries to
maintain a harmonious relationship with his boss by not
openly challenging or confronting him. June often
sacrifices himself in order to please or obey Park. He
always complies with Park's orders or requests even though
he feels that they are not reasonable. He also tries to
keep harmony with his co-workers. He said,
I like to keep in good terms with my co-workers. I

try not to be like Yune. He did not get along well
with people here. He only did what he was supposed
to do. Sometimes, I don't mind doing Kate's job.
It's not that I am capable or responsible for it.
114
I like us to help each other and be on good terms.
Kate may help me later in return.
On the other hand, Park seemed to find it difficult to

form a harmonious relationship with his American
subordinates. During the interview, he expressed his
disappointment with his American subordinates1 lack of
respect and support for him by saying, " when I request
something, they (Americans) say "no" too easily without
hesitation, and it's a bit hateful." For Park, it seems
inappropriate for subordinates to refuse superiors' order
flatly. From Park's harmony-oriented view, they are more
concerned with their own self-interest rather than keeping a
good relationship with their boss. The lack of expected
respect and support on the part of the American subordinates
could impede his effort to form a harmonious relationship
with them.
Biculturaliam
The issue of biculturalism posed another problem for

the manager's job of running a multicultural workplace. The
company is largely composed of 1.5 or second Korean-
Americans. Most Korean 1.5 or second generations are
bilingual and bicultural. They speak both English and
Korean languages fluently and are familiar with the customs,
values and practices of both cultures. This makes them
ideal workforce for most Korean companies that have business
115
operations in the United States. Since Korean home staffs
assigned in the U.S. operation usually speak limited English
and limited experience with American culture, they can take
great advantage of those bilingual and bicultural Korean-
Americans. However, contrary to this expectation, in this
study, the presence of a bicultural person, Yune, seemed to
complicate even more the manager's already difficult job of
managing the diverse workforce. This seems to derive, among
others, from his lack of experience with and knowledge
about particular problems that have been faced by the Korean
1.5 or second generations.
Recently, it has been known that the Korean 1.5 or
second generations in America have been facing significant
problems that are related to their identity. In her study,
Kim (1992) addressed this issue.
Korean-Americans1 reference group is neither fully

Koreans in the homeland nor fully Americans in the
United States. They are doubly marginalized, once
from the culture of origin and twice from the
culture that they are currently in.
The notion of double marginalization seems to make difficult

the bicultural experience of the Korean 1.5 or second
generations. According to Kim (1992) , their immigrant
parents who are still have close ties with their culture of
origin seem comfortable with the idea that they are "Koreans
in America" (Hurh, 1980). Consequently, they still prefer
and feel comfortable with Korean ways of thinking and doing
things in America. On the contrary, Kim continues, the 1.5
116
or second generations view themselves more as Korean-
Americans if not totally Americans, and seem to settle down
with the idea that America is home. They liked to be
identified both as American and Korean but they are often
perceived as neither. Their identification with Americans
are often criticized and rejected by their Korean immigrant
parents or other Koreans who perceive them as Koreans who
are trying to act like Americans. As a result, the 1.5 or
second generation Koreans do not feel fully accepted as
Koreans by the Korean community. The "double alienation"
that Chen (1997) used to describe the experience of Chinese
American women applies to Korean Americans as well. They
are alienated from the mainstream American culture because
of their race, gender, and ethnic heritage, and from their
own Korean communities because of their inevitable
Americanization.
One of the main reasons for Koreans' rejection of
American identity seems due to the radical difference
between the Korean and the American cultures. As a body of
related literature reveals, the difference between Korean
and American cultures are so enormous that often each
conflicts with the other. In other words, often American
cultural practices go against Korean cultural norms and vice
versa. For instance, American egalitarian communication
styles and relationships may be viewed as socially
inappropriate and unacceptable on various social occasions
in the hierarchically organized Korean society. On the
117
other hand, they do not feel totally accepted as Americans
in the American society either. Their biological and
physical attributes differentiate them from Americans making
them viewed as the Other, ethnic minorities, or even
foreigner. Kim argues that this double marginalization made
them a "lost generation" that has failed to develop a
positive self-identity within either the Korean or American
culture (Yu, 1983).
The pattern of "double marginalization" or "double
alienation" of Korean Americans emerges in the stories told
and lived by the subjects in this study. Yune, a 1.5 Korean
generation, who came to the office initially as a potential
cultural mediator for the manager, became engaged in a
conflict with the manager over a long period of time, and
finally resigned the company after a fierce verbal
confrontation with the manager. As the manager expresses
during an interview, he had no knowledge or understanding
about and even interest in what it means to be a bi-cultural
person. To him, Yune was just another capable Korean who
are fluent in both Korean and English languages. Park
seemed to think that Yune1s biculturalism was an asset he
can use rationally depending on the situation. It seems
Park expected that Yune should be able to adapt himself to
both cultures without any difficulty and freely move back
and forth between the two cultures as it becomes necessary.
He expected Yune to be always a Korean and to become like an
American only when it is necessary.
118
However, biculturalism is, in fact, inherent in Yune
and his actions. Often times, he finds himself struggling
between the two different cultures when he unconsciously
moves back and forth between the two cultures. Due to his
constant shift between the two cultures, people see him as
neither fully Korean nor fully American. People do not seem
to realize that biculturalism is part of Yune's identity.
It is what constitutes him not something that he possesses
and can rationally manipulate from situation to situation.
Park also clearly sees biculturalism as a tool (knowledge) a
person can use effectively. He stated during the interview,
A bicultural person knows the difference between two

cultures, he should be able to act appropriately from
situation to situation. If he/she is not able to
do so, that1s because he/she does not know the two
cultures well enough.
For Park, Yune was just an inefficient and even

undisciplined person who does not know how to use
effectively what he has. Although, as Park claimed, Yune
might just have been a bad worker, Pete's contrasting view
of Yune as a "basically good kid" seems to suggest that
Yune's actions can be interpreted differently by different
people depending on the nature of the relationship they form
with him.
Pete and Yune are on good terms. They agree with each
other about a number of things. Among others, they agree
that the company is inefficient and impractical, and Korean
managers are not doing a good job. Pete seems to favor
119
Yune's ideas and opinions, and sympathize with his
biculturalism, in his term, "being between in everything."
On the contrary, the relationship between the manager and
Yune was complementary in the beginning but later became
antagonistic due to, among others, the manager's lack of
understanding of and inability to embrace biculturalism. It
seems that Yune's double-marginalized identity was
experienced in his relationship with the manager in this
particular organizational situation.
Language
In a multicultural organization, often language becomes

a significant source of communication difficulties and
problems between people of different cultures. Most studies
suggest that communication problems derive from language
barrier. For example, Kim and Paulk (1994), in their study
on American and Japanese co-workers, found that language
barrier such as misunderstanding of terminology, poor
pronunciation, inadequate grammar was one of the main
sources of communication problems between Japanese and
American co-workers. Another source of the communication
difficulties was different communication patterns and
styles. American workers pointed out the Japanese tendency
toward ambiguity and indirection, as opposed to the American
tendency toward explicit and straightforward verbal and
nonverbal behavior, as a main source of communication
120
difficulties. On the other hand, Japanese workers pointed
out the American tendency toward detailed instruction and
their rapidity of speech as a main difference.
In addition to these linguistic aspects of language,
some theorists and researchers argued for the reflexive
nature of language. Among others, Cronen, Chen, & Pearce
(1988) assert that language points beyond itself to (and
derive its meaning from) sets of contexts. Speaking the
same language means more than just sharing the same
linguistic signs or grammars. Language constitutes our
social reality. The way we use language reflects our
cultural identity as well as how we are related to one
another. For instance, Kim (1992) states that English and
Korean indicate different relationships between
communicators. She writes.
There are different relational expectations

depending on which language is spoken. When English
is spoken, the relationship between the speaker and
the hearer is presumed reciprocally equal.
Regardless of relational position, power, and status
of the speaker, the first person pronoun is always
"I" and the second person pronoun is always "you."
But when Korean is spoken, every single sentence
reflects the difference in relational status. In
the Korean language, there are no universal first
person pronoun and the second person pronoun.
Instead, there are hierarchically marked first
person pronouns and the second person pronouns which
should be selected carefully depending on the
relational context.
These relational stories about language seem to

illuminate why Korean workers prefer speaking Korean to one
another in the organization studied even though they are
121
required to speak the host language, English, more
frequently. Given the inherent hierarchy existing in Korean
society, especially in an organization where there is a
clear-cut hierarchical relationship between superiors and
subordinates, speaking Korean seems essential for
maintaining a proper relationship between people of
different positions. The nature of the relationship between
the Korean manager, Park, and his subordinates significantly
changed depending on which language they are speaking.
Between Park and June, Korean was almost always used. Even
in the situations where they are required to speak English,
they rarely spoke directly to each other in English.
Especially, June, a subordinate, seemed to avoid speaking
English to Park. For instance, in staff meetings, June
refrained from talking except when he was helping out Park
with providing information requested by American workers.
When Korean was used, Park was always addressed as 'Manager'
or with honorifics and suffixes that indicate a one-up
relationship. The unequal relationship between the manager
and Yune was consistently maintained in and out of the
office.
However, when the manager spoke English with his
American subordinates, he was called "K.T." which is the
initials for his first name. Given the first name basis and
little status indication inherent in English, their
relationship was clearly equal and symmetrical but it was
not as consistent as that between Park and June. The
122
relational context changed depending upon the situation.
Sometimes, Park's limited English puts him in a less
powerful position where he often looses control over the
conversation.
As indicated in the study by Kim and Paulk (1994),
power imbalance may occur in a multicultural organization,
where one cultural group is forced to use another group's
language they are not fluent in. For instance, in the
aforementioned study, Japanese workers' felt they were
"handicapped" because "they are forced to use English."
And, most American workers were very frustrated with the
poor English of the Japanese coworkers. The linguistic
superiority or advantage of the American workers can easily
put them in a dominant position where they can give feedback
- rejection or approval, on the Japanese coworkers'
communication abilities. Especially, in a country like
America where one's verbal ability is highly emphasized and
its lack results in an individual deprivation, host
nationals can have tremendous power over those who do not
have host language competence. Often times, the Korean
manager, Park, was in a situation where he is asked by his
American subordinates to account for something that he is
not capable of.
The power-imbalance or the reverse of power is clearly
seen in the interaction between Park and Pete. Pete seems
to occasionally overpower Park with his fluent English.
Often, the conversation between Park and Pete takes a
123
pattern of Park being cornered by Pete. Park was put in a
situation where he is asked to account for something that he
is not capable of. Despite of Park's inability to make
himself clearer, Pete kept pushing him for clearer messages
or information. Although Pete only may have intended to
clarify Park's unclear points, his persistent pursuit of his
own purpose (getting clear messages) ended up threatening
Park's higher position. In the harmony-oriented Korean
company, subordinates are not expected to put their
superiors in uncomfortable situations because it may count
as a lack of respect.
Both Pete and Park get frustrated but at different
levels. Pete gets frustrated at the pragmatic level since
he does not get what he needs to know. However, Park gets
frustrated at the relational level since he was put in an
uncomfortable (less dominant) situation by his subordinate.
Nonetheless, Parks's higher position usually enables
him to regain power by initiating or shifting to the episode
of giving order and supervising from the episode of being
held accountable for this and that by Pete. Sometimes, Park
simply stops the conversation, takes himself out of the
uncomfortable situation, and restores harmony (proper
hierarchy) in their relationship.
The Koreans' tendency to speak Korean between
themselves also contributes to creating the climate of
differentiation and division in the office that was
mentioned previously. The American workers are not aware of
124
the foregoing relational implications of language use, and
understand the Koreans' use of their native tongue simply as
a lack of effort to blend in the host culture or an attempt
to "insulate themselves from their unknown outside forces."
Some even claim that Korean workers use Korean to talk about
or speak ill of American workers. Nancy said that she is
"in disabilities when Koreans speak Korean to each other"
because she does not know what's going on around.
The western instrumental view of communication (Yum,
1988) which is prevalent in America, is clearly reflected in
the way American workers think of and talk about language.
A lot of time, they pointed out a lack of clarity in the
Koreans’ speaking. The following conversation with Kate
occurred during the interview in which she talks about the
Koreans1 unclear speaking as part of cultural differences
and difficulties she experiences.
R: What are some of cultural differences that you

have noticed in the office?
K: I worked other companies that are foreign but
I've never dealt with foreign people. I've
interacted with them but never worked with them
in the same office like I do here. It's a little
difficult to understand them sometimes but, no.
R: Can you give me some examples? What kind of
difficulties did you experience?
K: Like when you're asking questions and you're not
quite sure about. If you ask a question and
they try to answer it. You know to a point what
you're saying but then you loose some of it
because their verbal is not as clear or they're
clear to a point but then you're just a little
bit confused, which you know I mean I get that
way in general.
125
R: Then, do you ask again?
K: Yes, ask again. They kind of reword it a little
bit differently so that you understand better or
you understand them saying it better.
R: Do you experience any other cultural differences
or difficulties?
K: No.
The instrumental view of communication also informed

Pete1s view of the Korean coworker and manager. He seems to
see language competence (ability to speak clearly) as the
most important quality, and his language (English)
competence gives him some kind of power over the Koreans.
He said,
In essence, three people work in the office, Nancy,

Kate and myself, in essence.
Pete is saying that the Koreans in the office are not

essential. In other words, he is suggesting that those who
do not have a good command of English are insignificant.
This is typified in his comment on June, "we don't have
luxury to bring in a bridge builder, someone (June) who
speaks very limited English." Even though June speaks
fairly good English, in Pete's view, he does not fit in his
position nor in the Chelm market because he can not speak
like "whites like myself (Pete)." Pete stated the following
during the interview:
June's ability to communicate with the Chelm market...

We know there are not a lot of Koreans here. That
(June's)position is the first call into the office,
126
that's the first go between the outside world and who
we are. In this market, in East, it might be O.K.
because you are used to deal with more diversified
environment. Here in Chelm, white Americans, yes,
there are some Asians, blacks, for the most parat, it's
all whites speaking like myself.
This individual-centered view of communication seems in

contrast to the relationship-oriented view of Koreans (Yum,
1988) . For Koreans, communication is not simply a means of
exchanging clear messages between individuals. Rather, it
is viewed as an infinite interpretive process (Cheng, 1987)
which can not be compartmentalized. Communication is part
of the mutual effort to reach understanding and initiate,
develop, and maintain social relationships (harmonious
relationships) among people. The Korean tendency to
constantly make inference from one's words brings both the
speaker and the listener together rather than set them
apart. And, emotional exchanges of ideas or subjective
experience is the essence of pleasure in conversation for
Koreans. They are mutually engaged in the process of
understanding each other. They cooperate and help each
other to communicate. Hence, language (speaking) competence
does not necessarily give an individual power over other
people with a lack of competence in speaking. In fact,
verbal eloquence or competence is often devalued or as a
sign of insincerity or untrustworthy. Park expresses his
feeling of distrust toward his American subordinate who is a
very assertive (aggressive in the Korean sense) talker. He
127
also points out his American subordinates' lack of ability
and, perhaps of effort to understand him.
I can't trust Americans. They are so verbally

aggressive. They speak and present themselves
so confidently. It turns me off.
I often have difficulty communicating with my
American workers. Often, they don't understand what I
am saying. They have such a lack of understanding.
Pete is a little different. He s better than the rest.
He seems to understand me quite well. He would restate
my words or expressions. He is a little more sensitive
and understanding than others.
Even though Park was often frustrated and uncomfortable

with Pete's direct and assertive style of communication, on
some occasions. Park appreciated Pete's sensitivity and
effort to help him communicate with him. At the same time,
he was annoyed by other Americans' lack of understanding and
mutual effort to communicate with him. As a result of the
American individual-centered (self-assertive) and
instrumental view of communication, Park often acts into the
situation where he seems to be pushed around by his American
subordinates. In the situation, Park tries to explain
something and Americans do not fully understand it and keep
demanding him to give more clear and detailed explanations
or descriptions. He is having trouble making understood
those whose understanding totally depends upon the clearness
and effectiveness of his speaking. His linguistic
disability puts him in an inferior position and, he may feel
that he is overpowered by his subordinates. American
subordinates are more concerned with achieving their own
128
purposes of exchange of messages (ideas and thoughts) rather
than being sensitive to the feelings of the Park. From the
standpoint of Park, their emphasis on the speech acts level
rather than the relational level disrupts harmony in the
relationship. In other words, the Americans were more
concerned with ongoing acts (clear communication) rather
than sustaining a harmonious relationship with Park.
Relevance of the Themes for the Case Analysis
In the case analysis to follow, I will refer to the

aforementioned main themes. Especially general cultural
patterns such as harmony and biculturalism will be referred
to as they are manifested in the situated interaction and
orientation of people in various episodes. These cultural
themes will play an important role in understanding their
ways of interaction.
129
CHAPTER V
A CASE STUDY OF A MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATION
The main corpus of data for this case study consists of

a wide range of stories people tell, act and live which was
obtained from formal and informal interviews and the
researcher's participant observation. These stories fall
into three categories. First, there are general stories
people tell about the organization, themselves, and others
which are not specific to any particular episode. The
second category of stories is stories people tell about
their lived experiences. These stories are acted and lived
in particular episodes. Lastly, there are lived episodic
stories that I(the researcher) tell based on my observation
and the accounts of the participants in the episode.
In this chapter, you will find the analysis of six
episodes: "Hiring Yune," "Asking for a pay raise," "Conflict
between Park and Yune," "A social gathering, "A welcoming
party for June," "A new answering system." The episode of
"Conflict between Park and Yune" has two sub-episodes:
"Customer Complaints" and "Yune's Resignation." These
episodic stories are constructed based on the stories told
and lived by the subjects about the organization,
him/herself, others, and relationships, and the researcher's
observations. Some episodes, for example episode 1 and 3,
covered a long, but not continuous, period of time in which
some of the lived stories that make up the episode were
enacted, and some elements of these stories were talked
about among people. Some other episodes, such as episode 2,
4, and 5, took place over a shorter period of time. A
detailed description of each episode will be followed by its
in-depth CMM analysis. Each analysis will be
organized/informed by the main themes that were introduced
in the previous chapter: cultural adaptation in the
culturally diverse workplace, differentiation/division/
discrimination, harmony, biculturalism and language. In
each analysis the lived experiences of the four main
participants will be examined by identifying and making
connections among various stories told and lived by them.
The in-depth analysis of each episode will reveal various
ways in which one or more of these themes are manifested in
various instances of situated interaction.
Taken together, these episodes will represent major
"goings-on" within the organization. The close look at
these "goings-on" will provide us with insight into some
problems associated with a particular multicultural
organization such as emerging and changing patterns of
interaction and relationships among the four culturally
mixed members of the organization, the extent of
coordination, tensions and conflict among them, and the
changing role and significance of cultural differences.
131
Episode 1: Hiring "Yune"
This episode mainly involves Park and Pete and seems to

represent one of the most significant forms of conflict
between Koreans and Americans within the organization.
Soon after Park came to the Chelm office as a manager,
Yune's position, sales and administration coordinator,
became available. They put an advertising in the local
transportation paper. They interviewed a handful of people
and, in each interview, one of the American employees were
invited to sit. However, they could not find anybody.
One day, Pete was in at an account and was told that a
local university has a transportation program. He got the
name of the department head and suggested to Park that they
call him and put an ad on the bulletin board there and find
someone. Park talked to the head of the department and the
head recommended a Korean-American Yune after he learned
that the inquiring company was a Korean company.
When Yune came for an interview, however, none of the
American employees was invited to sit in the interview. It
was exclusive between him and Park. Yune was immediately
hired by Park who thought Yune's bicultural and bilingual
background would make up for his "deficiency" and help him
with his difficult job of managing and dealing with
Americans.
However, the American employees, especially, Pete
thought that Yune got the job only because he could speak
132
Korean even though he had no working experience. Pete said,
"he (Yune) may have a degree but he didn't have enough
experience to make himself head and shoulder above
everybody." Pete seemed upset also because he was not
consulted about nor informed of Yune's hiring by Park
despite of the fact that Yune was supposed to work in the
sales and administration which would be working immediately
with him. According to Pete, Yune just showed up at work
without any prior notice. In fact, Pete found it out when
he called the office and Yune answered the phone. Pete
expressed his frustration by saying that "all he (Park) was
doing was looking for someone he can feel comfortable with
and could speak his native tongue and just insulate him a
little bit from his unknown outside forces which in my
position would I do the same thing? I don't know." Pete,
however, did not directly confront Park regarding the hiring
process, and hence, there has been no overt conflict between
them in terms of the issues of hiring and discrimination.
However, Pete's story about Park seems relevant only to
this particular episode since he told otherwise about Park
in another story. He said, "he (Park) is open, he is
approachable, he is willing to listen to different ideas. I
think he is willing to act himself into the way of doing
things rather than Trying to make the outside world act into
the Korean way of doing things...he shows more of who he is
and his thought process than anybody else...he is smiling
and more expressive." Pete's view of Park also seems to be
133
informed by or confirm Park's nondiscriminatory approach to
hiring at the beginning.
After Yune's resignation, June was hired. June found
out about the job through his relative who is in the
transportation business. His relative heard about the job
vacancy from someone in the company. The company went
through the informal hiring process this time. Words about
the job were spread among Koreans. When June was hired to
replace Yune, Pete became even more convinced that Park was
discriminating against Americans. He related this
discriminatory hiring process to Koreans' tendency to
distrust Americans. He seemed to come to have a firm belief
that Americans are discriminated in terms of promotion and
hiring because Koreans do not just trust them. He stated,
"Koreans have iron mentality not to trust anybody but
themselves. They are very insulated from the world."
CMM Analysis
The episode has three parts each of which revealed a

new phase of the episode. The three phases are named as
"Harmony," "Turning Point" and "Differentiation/ Division/
Discrimination." In the following, I will present a CMM
analysis of each part. Each analysis will, first, identify
a set of stories that informed each interactant's situated
acts and meaning in this episode. And then, it will explore
134
particular relationships among these stories to illuminate
each interactant's "grammar" of his situated experience.
Harmony
In the first part of the episode, Park tried to
continue his effort to establish a harmonious relation with
his American subordinates by involving them in the hiring
process. Pete seemed receptive to Park's initial approach,
and coordinated and cooperated. Although their "grammars"
of meaning and action in this lived experience were not
identical (corresponding), their actions were well-
coordinated. In other words, without the achievement of
mutual understanding, both Pete and Park seemed happy, to a
great extent, with the way episode went. This part of
episode, therefore, can be described as "harmony."
Park's Grammar When Park initially came, as the first

Korean manager, to the office which had been operated by all
Americans, he had a strong need to form a good relationship
with them. With little knowledge about and lived experience
with the American culture and people, he was not sure how to
interact with nor relate to his culturally different
subordinates. In addition,he did not have a good command
of English, and it made it even more difficult for him to
break the ice and establish a goodrelationship with them.
All of these posed difficulty for him in managing the
all-American office and executing his job objectives set by
135
the company. Although superior in status, he was new to the
host (American) culture and came to the office where the
American culture predominates, and, therefore, he had to
make a conscious effort to adapt himself to the new
situation and lay groundwork for creating a good
relationship with the American workers.
Hence, his superordinate context was his relationship
level context which was yet to be formed, and this
undetermined relationship created a practical need for him
to establish a good relationship with his American
subordinates. His strong need to change the relationship
from "undefined" to "harmonious" served as a desired
consequence throughout this episode.
His practical need and desired consequence to have a
good relationship with his American workers was prefigured
by his cultural story about a being a good leader who
emphasizes, feels responsible for, and is concerned about
subordinates' well-being and maintaining "harmonious" social
relations especially between superiors and subordinates.
In CMM terms, for Park, these two stories served as
higher level contexts for the episode level as shown in
Figure 2.1 on page 162. The relationship story created a
practical need for him to enact the episode of cultural
adaptation in order to manage intercultural interaction with
American subordinates and play out his situated acts. In
other words, the relationship story exerted a practical
force on the episode context and shaped his speech acts
136
accordingly. The cultural story, on the other hand, exerted
a prefigurative force on the episode context, and created a
reflexive need for him to act according to the cultural
pattern of being a good (harmony-oriented) manager.
Hence, for Park, the first part of the hiring process
was part of his cultural adaptation process. In this part
of the episode, Park was very open to his American
subordinates' suggestions and opinions, and adopted the
usual American hiring procedure of placing an ad on the
local transportation newspaper and basically giving
opportunity to anybody who met the job qualifications
regardless of their cultural background, and have an
interview for the position.
As he told, on several occasions, during the interview,
Park was personally in need of a cultural mediator, possibly
a Korean-American, who can make up for his lack of
intercultural experience and communication ability with
Americans. Nonetheless, in the episode, he did not tell his
preference to nor impose his will upon the American
subordinates for fear of misleading them. He did not want
them to be under the impression that he had a preference for
a Korean or Korean-American over Americans. This means that
his practical need for a cultural mediator was found weaker
than his other practical need to establish a good
relationship with the American. In other words, the
practical force from the foregoing relational context was
strong enough to override his other practical need.
137
This does no mean that these two practical needs are
mutually exclusive. In fact, one need complements the
other. In the long term, the first practical need for a
cultural mediator is necessitated by the later need for a
good relationship. However, at this particular moment of
the situation, the first need posed a threat to the second
need, and had to be disregarded. With his strong need to
establish a good working as well as personal relationship
with his American employees, he was obliged to opt for one
speech act of being accommodating over the other of meeting
his own need.
Another level of context that seemed reflexively linked
to the episodic level was his first story of autobiography.
During the interview, Park often described himself or his
position in the office as "not being a good leader, "
"lacking in leadership," or "merely supporter rather than a
leader in the office." According to him, he was never in a
leadership position. He felt unfortunate because the
positions he held so far did not require leadership although
they had in the past. For instance, his previous position,
the head of a section actually headed a section with a
complete control over the section. However, when he had
that position, the company's traditional managerial styles
have been replaced by team management approaches. In these
new approaches, the head of a team became an assistant
director which is his current position and higher than a
section head, Now the position of the team leader has been
138
moved up to a director. Hence, he has never been a leader
and nor had chance to learn how to be a leader. In a way,
in his current job assignment, he was finally given an
opportunity to be a leader, demonstrate leadership, and
possibly to change his undesirable self-concept of "I am not
a good leader" to desirable one of "I am a good leader." In
the context of cultural patterns, being a good leader is
required to have the ability to establish and maintain a
good (harmonious) relationship with subordinates. Hence, if
the desired relational consequence of his speech acts was
achieved, it could have an implicative effect on his self-
concept and shift it to "a good leader." The "undetermined"
relationship context presented him with an opportunity to
demonstrate his leadership and change his self-concept. In
this sense, his context of autobiography also created or
reinforced the practical need to carry out his endeavor of
cultural adaptation and establish a good relationship with
the subordinates.
During the interview, he told another contrasting story
that he "does not like nor need to show off his leadership
due to his personality." He also said, "we don't have to
prove our leadership. It is something that naturally
(automatically) comes out if you have its qualities. It is
judged by other people." Some of the leadership qualities
that he told are "the ability to assert and carry through
one's stand and opinion, to lead everyone including
unwilling people toward the common goal, to exercise power
139
by carrying through his own policy, and to reward his
subordinates by getting them promoted." He also added that
he "doesn't feel that he needs leadership in this small-
scale office with the small number of people."
According to Park, leadership is not something one can
achieve with will power or through efforts. Rather, it is
something that one naturally has, perhaps, he is given or
born with. Therefore, we do not have to try to be a leader.
If you have leadership, it will show. In a way, certain
people can never be a leader and being a leader does not
require active leadership. This fixed notion of leadership
reflects the Korean cultural notion of personhood which is
constructed by a history of actions rather than one's
consciousness, and, thus, it does not change easily.
Ironically, this story of born leadership is
contradicted by the story of leadership qualities in which a
leader is defined by active leadership or the activities
that constitute leadership. One story contradicts the
other. Although there is little data that show how Park
weave these contradictory stories about leadership into his
grammar of the episode, it is, at least, possible for these
stories to either afford him to carry out his adaptive
process or restrain it. Especially, when the story of born
leadership becomes a higher context, his self-concept of "I
am not a good leader" is not open to change and becomes
stagnant. When the story is taken seriously, he really does
not need to work hard to lead the office, integrate himself
140
to the new environment, and to establish harmony in the
office. Hence, these new stories may oblige or force him to
stop trying to continue his actions of adapting and become a
good leader.
The leadership qualities that Park told characterize
the Korean authoritarian leadership. In Korea, corporate
leaders have been strongly influenced by the legacy of a
traditional family tradition in which the father is an
unquestioned and respected head, and has almost absolute
power to wield if he so wishes, and also has full
responsibility to feed the family and to decide the future
of his children (Chang & Chang, 1994; Chen, 1995; Chung &
Lee, 1989) . Like the father, the Korean leader is expected
to head their subordinates powerfully and, at the same time,
to take good care of their well-being. In this sense, like
the harmony-oriented leader, the authoritarian leader also
emphasizes harmony between unequals in rank, power and
prestige, and the leader and his subordinates have
responsibility to support each other.
It seems that two cultural stories of authoritarian
leadership and born leadership could present a dilemma to an
expatriate manager like Park. In Korea, a harmonizing job
is relatively easy because it is inherent in organizational
life. In most cases, new managers come into the office
where hierarchical harmony preexists. The hierarchical
structure of the organization and hierarchical social
relations between superiors and subordinates in Korea enable
141
them to achieve the Korean sense of harmony quite easily.
In most cases, two cultural stories can co-exist in Korea
without much conflict.
However, when an expatriate Korean manager moved into
an office located in the U.S. where hierarchical harmony did
not preexist and hence had to be created from the scratch,
the two stories contradicted each other. On one hand, the
first cultural story created a need for active leadership.
A good manager is defined by his/her harmonious relations
with the subordinates. When Park came to the office where
he could not feel a Korean sense of harmony with the
American subordinates, he felt a strong need to establish it
and to become a leader. This was implied in his scattered
comments in which he showed his strong concern with
"creating something that did not exist before"(harmony) and
his wish to organize social gatherings and events as part of
his effort to create harmony. He said,
This is a small office but I often feel that I need to

create a better, more satisfactory atmosphere for my
subordinates. They spend most of their time at work.
So, I like them to have as little stress as possible.
In the 1st cultural story, his conscious effort to

become a good leader was legitimate. On the other hand, his
need was contradicted by the second cultural story. If he
was truly a leader, he did not have to show nor prove it.
If he was not really a leader, he could never become a
leader. Hence, his practical need for active leadership
142
that was created by the first cultural story was
contradicted by the second cultural story of born
leadership. His practical need for active leadership was
even more denied in the context of autobiography of "I am
not a good leader." In the cultural context of "born
leadership," and in the autobiographical story of "I am not
a good leader," his need for active leadership became
illegitimate and even out of question. This contradiction
may put Park in a dilemmaticic situation where he could not
choose one course of act (acting: active leadership and
adaptive process) over the other (not acting) and become
stuck.
Despite of the contradiction, when the practical need
from the relational level context and the reflexive need
from the 1st cultural story are stronger than the reflexive
need from the 2nd cultural story, he will continue his
adaptive efforts. In this phase of the episode, Park
responded more to his practical need from the relational
context and to the reflexive need from the 1st cultural
context, and carried out his adaptive endeavors.
One more story which seemed to shape Park's situated
acts was a story about the organization. Before his
assignment to the office, he learned that his job assignment
was part of the company's management development or human
resources plan which was designed to develop home country
managers with a global perspective. The company urged him
to learn about the U.S. culture, to be assimilated into the
143
culture, and to broaden his cultural outlook in addition to
his managerial duties and sales and marketing activities.
Those in the HQ told him that, "don't work too hard, play
golf, learn customs like a table manner...try and experience
various things there in the U.S." Hence, primarily, it was
an educational purpose and the company's long-term objective
for a home country national to be assigned to a foreign
operation with which he was not familiar. Hence, it was
part of the company's effort to enhance its dealing with
different cultures in its overseas operations that informed
Park's lived intercultural experience of cultural
adaptation. In CMM terms, Park's conscious efforts to
culturally adapt himself to the host culture and people were
prefigured by the foregoing organizational story.
Pete's Grammar Pete's understanding of the first part

of the hiring process seemed different from that of Park and
informed by a different set of stories (See Figure 2.1 on
page 162) . Pete did not seem to be aware of or did not
indicate his knowledge of or understanding about Park's
difficult position as an expatriate manager of the all-
American office.
Nonetheless, their acts and meanings were well-
coordinated. Pete seemed quite happy with the way Park
handled the hiring. Everybody in the office including
himself was involved and cooperating in the process, and, as
a consequence, all of them contributed to the creation of
144
harmony in the office as Park had hoped for. His positive
view of the episode as a teamwork had a reflexive effect on
his view of Park as open, approachable, and adaptable. It
constructed or reinforced his view of Park as distinctively
different from most Korean managers he had dealt with. From
Pete's standpoint, Park did not fit the "told" and "lived"
stories about the organization and Korean managers.
According to his lived experiences and "told stories"
about the organization, Korean managers are close-minded,
unapproachable ("aloof"), and authoritative. He stated
during the interview,
They try to make the outside world themselves act

into the Korean way of doing things. They would
say, "this is how we do things in Korea. This is
how it is done in Korea and you should do it." Quite
honestly, the U.S. mentality is quite different. It's
individual. It's not a greater group. Yes,it's a
greater group to a sense but it still comes down to
individual me.
Pete described the difference between Korean and American

cultural patterns in terms of bi-polar concepts, conformance
vs individuality. Based on this generalized view, Pete saw
Park's difference only as a consequent of being a unique
individual who did not fit the Korean managerial pattern of
conformance.
However, as previously illustrated, Park's acts were
constructed by a variety of stories: an autobiographical
story; a story about the organization; cultural stories.
145
Guided by these stories at various levels, Park enacted the
episode of cultural adjustment.
What this seemed to implicate is that Pete1s view of
Park may have derived from his limited lived experience
within the organization and may have given him a narrow
picture and biased view of the organization, and generalized
"told stories" about the organization which do not reflect
subtle changes at various levels, especially, at the higher
level in the organization. Pete did not seem to realize
that even in the Korean organization, there may be
variations or a changing trend in the managerial practice.
In fact, as indicated in the story about the organization
Park told, the company was fully aware of the need to adapt
its policies and strategies to different cultural
environments, and Park’s individual adapting effort was part
of that effort at the higher (organizational) level.
In CMM terms, Pete's episode level did not have a
strong implicative force to shift his story about the
organization from conforming to diverse and changeable.
Park's different attitude towards American subordinates was
viewed only as a consequence of his unique individuality and
it is not related to the diversity or ongoing change within
the organization.
Turning Point
The second part of the hiring episode was enacted by
Park and an American professor at the local university.
146
This part became the turning point in the episode. This
part set the stage for a change in the episode level from
harmony toward differentiation/ division/discrimination.
The shift in the episode level was brought about by someone
outside the organization, an American professor at a local
university.
In the first part, Park ignored his need for a cultural
mediator because he thought it would interfere with his
effort to create a harmonious atmosphere in the office.
However, in the second part, his need was met by a local
university professor.
The interaction between Park and the professor was
well-coordinated as seen in Figure 2.2 on page 163. Their
acts were informed by the same story regarding multinational
companies and their expatriate managers. What became
problematic was that the reflexive effect this episodic
level context had on Pete's view of Park and the
organization which became clear in the third part of the
episode.
Professor's G r am m a r-1 when the professor was asked by a

Korean manager of a Korean company, he recommended a Korean-
American student, Yune. Informed by the widely accepted
xSince the professor was a peripheral player in this episode,

I was not able to interview him and obtain more data from
him. What I presented here is all the data I have, and it
was obtained from Park.
147
view that bi-cultural and bi-lingual persons are highly-
valued in multinational organizations, he seemed to assume
that Yune with his bicultural and bilingual background can
be an asset to a multicultural Korean company. Hence, in
CMM terms, it became legitimate for him to recomend Yune to
the Korean company. His desired consequent of his act was
clearly benefiting the company and Park. In a way, the
professor seemed to understand a special need of the multi
cultural organization and its expatriate manager.
Park's Grammar When the recommendation was made from

outside the organization, it became legitimate for Park to
consider and eventually hire a Korean-American applicant who
is bilingual and bicultural, an ideal cultural mediator for
him. His enactment of a new speech act did not change other
contextual levels. His episodic level was still cultural
adjustment because the adjustment effort necessitated hiring
a possible cultural mediator. It would also help him
establish harmony and hence become a good leader. In other
words, his cultural and relational level contexts remained
the same with strong reflexive needs. This means that his
needs to establish harmony and become a good leader were
still sustained by his new acts of hiring Yune.
Dif ferentiation/Division/Discrimination
Park accepted Yune1s application and arranged an
interview with him. When Park conducted an interview with
148
Yune, he did not invite any of his American subordinates.
It was "exclusive between him and Yune" according to Pete.
The exclusive interview created a context in which the story
of division/discrimination came to replace the story of
harmony. For Pete, the exclusion counted as a
discriminatory act whereas for Park, it had a totally
different meaning.
Park1s ^rairmgr Park's exclusive interview which was an

allegedly discriminating act can be accounted for in terms
of one of the foregoing central themes in this study,
language. Besides the comfort of speaking the native
language, the exclusive interview enabled Park to enact an
appropriate cultural talk between Koreans. Between Koreans,
especially when there is a difference in status, the Korean
language is preferred because it reflects their cultural
identity and indicates proper relationships between
communicators. With his fluent Korean, Yune was seen by
Park as just another Korean who was bi-lingual. It seemed
natural for Park to speak Korean with another Korean. He
did not need to justify speaking his native tongue with his
fellow Korean.
With a Korean interactant, his contextual levels
changed. As indicated in Figure 2.3 on page 164, the
episodic level changed from cultural adaptation (in the
intercultural situation) to a cultural talk and the
relational level from undefined to hierarchical. Unlike
149
with his American subordinates, Park seemed to have a clear
sense of how to interact with and relate to Yune.
These changes were embedded within the superordinate
context of cultural pattern of communication between Koreans
with two deontic operators of legitimate and obligatory.
Within the Korean cultural context, Park was legitimized to
use Korean when he was speaking with another Korean of lower
status. Within the cultural context, he was also obliged to
speak Korean in order to maintain a proper relationship with
another Korean. The use of Korean required an exclusive
interview between Park and Yune. Park's speech acts were
still influenced by a strong reflexive need from the
relational context with his desired consequence of creating
harmony. The ultimate reason behind the exclusive interview
was to create, not destroy, harmony in the office,and hence
it could be viewed as part of his adapting efforts and
managing the culturally diverse workplace.
However, what Park did not seem aware of was that the
exclusive interview with Yune might result in an intended
effect of disrupting the harmonious environment he had been
trying so hard to create. Pete's grammar which will be
discussed in the following clearly revealed an unfortunate
consequence of Park's well-intended acts.
Pete's Grammar The third part of the episode

illustrated the process in which Pete came to confirm his
"told" and "lived" story about the organization as
150
discriminating against American employees. This part
reflected his changed view of Park from different from other
Korean managers to the same as them, and reinforced his
initial view of Park's appointment to the office as a
manager.
Initially, Pete was not happy or receptive to the idea
of bringing in a Korean manager to the office because he
felt that it was unfair for himself. Before Park came, Pete
was given "ability to work independently from the immediate
supervisory control." However, his independency has been
limited and supervisory capacity has been deprived of since
Park came to the office.
Basically, Pete was unhappy about the company's
decision to bring in a Korean homestaff as manager of the
office which he used to head practically. However, Pete's
lived story with Park led him to have a different view of
Park's appointment. He thought that they all had been
benefited from him. He described Park's influences into the
Chelm office and the close working relationship between Park
and him.
P: I think he helped in a lot of cases, for the fact

that he brought his Korean influence into
the office. Now we have someone speaking on
our behalf to the managers who make the decision
who are Koreans...he came along and he helped
us out with more staffs, upgrading our status
within the company, .more equipments..we all
feel better..we are a viable office. ..we used to
be under the blanket of the East regional
off ice., now we have identity ...even people in
the east coast (the company's U.S. headquarters)
know who we are, Seoul know who we are now.
151
R: With whom do you work most closely?
P: Park, just for the sales and marketing and to get
things accomplished because all my success is
based on getting certain concessions from the
organization to propose and put on the table for
the account. So I need him in my dealing with
Seoul. I send E-mailoriginated from me but he
places a call, speaks Korean.
R: Before Park came, did you talk directly to Seoul
through email?
P: Yes, email back and forth.
R: Did you get satisfactory responses?
P: I got some responses and answers, but I think
even in my job, what I do, you get more results
when you converse directly than through some
other medium. My emails are fine but by getting
on the phone, you can explain so much over the
email. It's much easier to do the talk and get
answers to the specific questions and get things
done.
As indicated in the statements, Pete had been successful by

bringing Park to the office. Pete benefited greatly from
having Park who could speak Korean with Korean staff in
Seoul and get things done faster and easier than he had been
able to. Pete's initial view of Park's appointment was
changed by his lived experience with Park.
However, in his another lived experience with Park,
Pete's view of Park's appointment changed back to the
initial view. In the third part of the episode, the initial
view reemerged and, in fact, was reaffirmed. His experience
in the episode also reinforced his "story told" about and
"lived" in the organization. These stories render the
152
company discriminatory and Koreans distrusting. The stories
are included in the following statement that Pete told
during the interview.
You are looking at the organizational structure of

North America, every office is headed by home staff,
every second in command is by home staff, all the
major offices, in my almost five years working with
the company. ..Koreans have iron mentality not to trust
anybody but themselves. They are very ensulated from
the world although they are an economic power. Very
educated but they don't trust anybody but people who
can speak the same language as you.
Pete also related his lived experience of the

organization's distrust and discrimination toward Americans,
which reaffirmed and solidified his "told story" about the
organization. In the following account of his lived
experience, his autobiography of "I am capable but I am not
trusted by the company" was revealed. His autobiography,
with its reflexive effect, also contributed to the
(re)formation of his negative view of Park as well as of the
organization as a whole in the episode.
But if you go back to that idea of the trust issue,

is it because I don't speak Korean that I am not able
to get certain concessions that he (Park) gets. Is it
that I don't look the same? I have tried to
implement prior to Park coming, voice mail changes in
the way how we work. Was I successful? No. Park came
to the office, a Korean home staff. All of a sudden,
we had a budget for voice mail, we had a budget for
more employees, upgrading the office furniture, more
equipment. Because I said it any different? I don't
think so. I just think the manager is being a Korean.
In the first part of the hiring episode, Pete could not

account for Park's openness and adaptability except in terms
153
of his unique individuality. Although this view of Park did
not change his "told stories" about the organization, it did
not, at least, reinforce those "told stories." However, in
the third part of the episode, Pete's "told stories" about
the organization reappeared and were reaffirmed. In CMM
terms, Pete's episode level context had a reflexive effect
on his existing view of the organization.
The context of the episode also had a reflexive effect
on Pete's view of Park. With a strong implicative force,
Park's actions of exclusion changed his view of Park from
open, approachable, and adaptable to close-minded and
authoritative. This change was shown in the following
statement by Pete.
All he (Park) was doing was looking for someone he

can feel comfortable with and could speak his
native tongue and just insulate him a little bit from
his unknown outside forces. No matter what I say,
things are gonna be done to Park's liking.
The statement implicates that Pete understood Park's acts in

terms of comfort of speaking his native tongue. He did not
seem aware of the cultural story about language that
constructed Park's actions, and this became a source of a
possible tension or conflict between them.
However, Pete did not initiate a conflict by
confronting Park about his discriminating acts or expressing
his dissatisfaction with Park's acts of exclusion and
discrimination. Despite of his emphasis on individuality,
Pete seemed to conform to an organizational norm of not
154
openly challenging one's immediate boss. Pete's
autobiography changed from "I am capable but the company
does not trust me" to a subordinate whose "life depends on
the company" and, hence, he did not want to upset his boss.
His second autobiography informed his act of avoiding a
direct confrontation with his immediate boss. The desired
consequent of his act was to keep a good relationship with
his boss and to keep his job.
Summary and Discussion
This hiring "Yune" episode illustrated the process in

which Pete came to believe that the hiring process in the
office was representative of discrimination against American
workers within the organization. Although the episode did
not suggest any serious, overt conflict between Park and
Pete, Pete's dissatisfaction with and resentment toward the
company and Korean home staff managers including Park was
evident in his stories of division/discrimination, and could
be developed into a conflict with Park or, the conflict may
be already building up.
At this point, Pete was able to keep his resentment to
himself. However, it seems possible that his episodic story
would serve as a context for his future interaction with
Park. In other words, the future interaction would be
informed and influenced by his lived experience in this
particular episode. In so doing, it may become a source of
155
various forms of subtle tension between himself and Park.
He may also tell his "lived" story to his co-workers and
create an unnecessary division in the office.
However, from Park's standpoint, the whole episode had
a totally different meaning. His view of the episode was
mainly informed by his story of cultural adaptation. As an
inexperienced expatriate manager, he was facing a difficult
job of managing cultural differences between himself and his
American subordinates. Although he was consistently
concerned with creating harmony in the office through
cultural adjustment on his part, it seemed obvious that the
result was not what he intended and desired to have.
Unintendedly, he contributed to the making of
differentiation/division/discrimination in the office, and
his adjustment efforts became little efficient. However,
what needs to be noticed is that the shift from harmony to
division was initiated by someone from outside not by Park.
Unfortunately, there is no indication in the data about
whether Pete clearly knew of this external influence or not.
Further interviews with Pete could provide a clue to Park's
unexpected problems. Another information that was missing
in the data was whether Pete had any knowledge about the
importance of Korean language in maintaining proper
relationships among Korean people. In my conversations with
him, I found out that, in general, he did not have much
knowledge about Korean culture. Hence, his knowledge about
Korean language could have made a difference in his view of
156
Park. The issue of language was a significant source of the
misunderstanding between Park and Pete, and required a
further discussion.
The Issue of Language

As discussed in the previous chapter, language was one
of the main themes that were found in the data. In this
episode, it seemed like a main source of the subtle tension
and potential conflict between Park and Pete.
Pete's lack of understanding as well as consideration
of the reflexive nature of language was, in part, attributed
to for his premature conclusion and accusation of being
devisive and discriminatory against Park and other Koreans.
The reflexive relationship between language, and patterns of
relationship and cultural identity was something Pete did
not take into consideration in his accounts of Park's acts.
What also needs to be noticed is that the relationship
between language and power. In the previous chapter, it was
pointed out that from the instrumental view of language,
one's linguistic handicap may put him/her in a less powerful
position than the linguistically fluent. The Koreans'
limited English was regarded as a primary reason for their
unfitness for their job. Pete's statement that "In essence,
there are three people working in the office, Nancy, Kate
and myself" clearly indicated that Koreans were not
essential workers in the Chelm office, and his assessment
157
was based on language (English) ability. This clearly
indicates Pete's power over Koreans.
Ironically, in this episode, Pete was presented as
linguistically handicapped. He told a story about his
language disability as a reason for his being unable to do a
good job of leading the office when he was the acting BSG, a
job that necessitated concessions from the HQ. He blamed
the company's discrimination for his disadvantages, which in
fact were the result, at least in part, of his language
(Korean) inability rather than of his cultural identity.
On the other hand, as pointed out in the background
description, Pete pointed out Koreans' language disability
as a definite reason for their unsuitableness for their job.
He was committing the same discriminatory act against
Koreans as, he claimed, the company was doing against him.
Pete took his language inability for granted whereas he used
it as the basis of job ability assessment against Koreans.
Given the reflexive relationship between language and
culture, a multicultural organization should be able to
embrace language diversity as well if they want to be
multicultural in practice. This kind of multiculturalism
was obviously not manifested in the episode.
A suggestion for changing Pete's (probably most
Americans' ethnocentric) bias would be the implementation of
Korean language fluency as a review criterion for promotion
for American employees. The experience of learning Korean
may lead the Americans to empathize with the Koreans'
158
difficulty with English, and their mutual effort to learn
each other's language may create a cooperative working
environment and promote a cooperative working relationship.
Through mutual efforts, their cultural gap may be closed a
little by little.
The Extent of Coordination

In general, the interaction between Park and Pete in
the episode revealed a moderate level of coordination. In
the first part of the episode, the mutual satisfaction was
achieved and successful (a high degree of) coordination was
maintained. Although the things with Park and the company
were not coherent to Bob, he was quite happy with the way
Park handled the hiring process, and the way the episode
unfolded. Park also seemed quite satisfied in the initial
stage of the episode. Although he was not able to meet his
personal need, he was willing to sacrifice it for harmony
which was the most pressing task for him at the moment.
However, things started changing in the second phase of
the episode by the outsider's involvement. The change that
was initially brought about by the outsider became evident
in the third part. The mutual satisfaction between Park and
Pete disappeared. Pete was very disappointed with Park and
the company. His complaints and criticisms resurfaced.
Nonetheless, at least on the surface, coordination was
maintained in the sense that Pete did not break the ongoing
pattern of interaction with Park, and enact a new episode of
159
conflict by confronting and challenging him. He just held
back his negative feelings toward Park and the company, and
went along with the way "things were done to Park's liking."
What is more, his discontent which was evidently experienced
in this episode had not lent itself to any overt conflict
with Park so far. At least, there has been no sign of
overt or open conflict which could be observed during my
fieldwork, and also no such indication was found from the
data.
The coordination, however, was achieved to a little
degree because dissatisfaction was evident on Pete1s side.
We can see a "tension between coherence and coordination" in
Pete's grammar of situated acts. On one hand, Park's
actions were not sensible, inappropriate and unacceptable to
Pete, which constrained his acts of coordination. On the
other hand, Pete had a practical need to keep his job
secure. His practical need afforded him to override
incoherency and to privilege coordination over coherence.
Therefore, coordination prevailed. It turned out that
his practical need was strong enough to force him to
coordinate. Pete's practical need not to jeopardize his
career forced ("caused") him to coordinate with Park and to
"act into" his actions. This pattern of interaction was
maintained throughout the episode. Pete's practical need
guided him "how to go on" or develop "a grammar of action"
in the episode where his "grammar of coherence" could have
led him to a possible destructive action. This stable
160
pattern has been sustained at least up until the termination
of the fieldwork. The next episode to be presented is
another example of the "forced" coordinated interaction
between Pete and Park.
161
PARK
CP Active, authoritarian leadership

B o m leadership
ORG Cultural adaptation and cultural learning
AUTO X am not a good leader

I don't like to show off my leadership
RELA Undefined
EPI Cultural adjustment
[Need to hire ] (oblig (I-Y/) establish

a new employee Open to different harmony
ideas and suggestions
and involve everyone in
the hiring process
[Fair hiring] (oblig (I-Y/) fair management

process I cooperate process & good
with Park relationship
EPI Teamwork
RELA Working relationship
AUT I am capable but the company does not

trust me because I am an American
ORG: Korean managers do not trust Americans

Americans are discriminated
CP Equality (equal opportunity) ,

individuality
PETE
Figure 2.1 Harmony
162
AMERICAN PROFESSOR
CP The most qualified personshould be

recommended for a position available
ORGA Bi-cultural and bi-lingual persons are highly

valued in multi-national companies
REL Professional
EPI Recommendation
[A multi-cultural] (legit (I-Y/) helping the Korean

company is seeking recommend a company
is seeking a new Korean-American
employee with a bi-cultural/
lingual background
[A potential cultural] (legit (I-Y/) establish

mediator was recommended Accept the harmony
from outside the organi- recommendation
zation
EPI Recommendation (Cultural adaptation)
RELA Undefined
AUTO I am in need of a cultural mediator
ORGA Strong emphasis on cultural adaptation

and cultural learning
CP A good leader maintains harmony
PARK
Figure 2.2 Turning Point
163
PARK
CP Proper relationships between people of

different age and status are maintained
through the proper use of language
ORGA Strong emphasis on cultural adaptation to and

cultural learning of the host culture
AUTO I am older and of higher status
RELA Hierarchical
EPI Cultural talk
[Interview with] (legit & oblig (I-Y/) maintain

a Korean conduct the interview harmony
applicant in Korean
[Exclusive interview] (oblig (I-Y/) keep my job

between Koreans caused
Do not confront
EPI Discrimination
RELA Hierarchical
AUTO I am capable but I am not trusted by

the company
My life depends on the company
ORGA Do not directly confront your

immediate boss
CP Equality (equal opportunity) ,

individuality
PETE
Figure 2.3 Differentiation/Division/Discrimination
164
Episode 2: Asking for a Pay Raise
Pete liked to have a raise when he found out that his

sales performance this year had exceeded that of the
previous year. He went to Park and asked for a raise based
on his performance this year. He used as a starting point
per container move above whatever he did last year, and
wanted some amount of dollars per container that he brought
into the company. Park told him that he would talk with his
boss, Kim, in the East office about the raise. After a few
days, Park told Pete that they could not give him a raise.
However, when Pete had a chance to talk to Kim, he got the
impression that Kim did not know about his request for a pay
raise. However, Pete did not complain nor confront to Park
about this. During the interview, he told his version of
what really happened as follows.
P: I questioned whether Park even went to Kim and

asked because maybe it's an area which weren't
used to talking about, don't feel comfortable
talking about. It's typical. Park was
uncomfortable to approach his superior.
Pete also told a story about the organization that, he

believed, seemed to produce Park's acts.
R: Do you find it difficult to communicate with

home staff? Do you think there is cultural
difference in communication patterns?
P: Yes, quite honestly, beyond being able to
understand their dialectic English, in the
beginning I felt more comfortable as to what
was expected of me and what they are looking for
165
as a whole. Until I got that point, I am not
there totally 100%. But I understand what
is the organizational structure, who makes the
decisions, how you are supposed to go through
the organization, boss, your boss's boss and go
up the ladder in a systematic order. And who to
deal with on particular issues. You would
think that by my viewing Korean home staff are
very obscure and gray. Different people have
different opportunities. Some seem to overlap
and some don't . I think that1s the case in a
lot of instances. And middle managers just can
not make a decision or would not make a decision
and I think the decision is made by only a
certain few people within the organization.
It's up to the middle managers. Maybe this is
the same in American business, but what I've
seen is that only a few people make decisions.
Any middle manger would not. They disseminate
the information, put it in a nice neat package
so that everybody understands it. Sit on it for
a while and then they would feel comfortable to
go forward to whomever approach.
Park's version of what actually happened between him

and his boss was not available. The following are some
stories that may shed some light on Park's situated actions
in this particular episode. These stories are told and
lived by June and Park.
R: What concerns the most in the organization?

J: Management style, especially in terms of the wage
policy. Who can ask for a raise, how can one
ask, etc. I think that the Korean employees and
American employees are treated differently on
this matter in this company.
R: How different is the treatment?
J: In Korea, you are not supposed to talk about
money. It's disgraceful. So, a lot of times, I
don't get the money I am rightfully entitled to.
Like overtime pay. I never requested for
overtime pay although I work extra hours a lot.
I am not comfortable requesting it. Those in the
166
East office always tell us to request for
overtime pay, but it's just formality. Once you
start requesting, then they will tell you not to
request too much. Koreans are sensitive and
feel inhibited to ask for the pay but Americans
are not. They request openly without hesitation
and their requests are accepted without any
remark because it1s law here.
R: If you were to give advice to Americans who like
to work for a Korean company what would like you
to give the most?
P: I like them to understand the difference in
management styles. They should be able to infer
the meaning of my words. They should do certain
things before I ask them to do. Should be able
to know what I need now.
R: When do you feel that those thingsare important?
P: Managers have a lot of work to do,a lot to
concern with. So, if they (subordinates) can do
things on their own without problems without
bothering us, it helps us a lot.
R: When did you feel that your subordinates should
have not bothered you?
P: When they ask me about this and that. They could
have done at their discretion only if they have
common sense. I had a lot of experience in this
but can't remember any.
CMM Analysis
The episode 2 is another example of the interactive

pattern between Pete and Park. The pattern entails the
tension between coordination and coherence on the part of
Pete, but coordination prevails over coherence. As in the
case of the episode 1, coordination is afforded but forced
by Pete's practical need to avoid jeopardizing his career.
167
Although similar to episode 1 in terms of the basic
interactive pattern, an in-depth analysis revealed some
different "grammatical features of the situated conjoint
acts" between Park and Pete that are specific to episode 2.
And, these grammatical features can be explored by examining
"grammatical relationships" among a set of stories that each
of them lives and tells. In the following, Pete and Park's
respective set of stories and their grammatical
relationships will be explored.
Pete's Grammar
In this episode, to his surprise, Pete found out, or,
in his words, got the impression that Park did not even talk
to Kim about his request for a pay raise. At first glance,
it seemed difficult to understand for someone whose culture
affords him to converse with his boss(es) about a pay raise
in a straightforward and clear-cut manner. However, he was
able to make sense of it and leave it at that by relating it
to the larger patterns of Korean managers' communication and
decision-making processes. In CMM's terms, the higher level
context which informed Pete's meaning was the story of the
organization, specifically, about communication and
decision-making processes.
There were two significant points in Pete's story about
the organization. First, the decision making process is
obscure and gray because most managers do not have authority
or willingness to make decisions in a clear-cut and
168
straightforward manner or communication style. The
authority-centered (top-down) decision making as well as
dissemination of information is the second point. Decisions
and information that were made at and originated from the
higher level are not questioned nor held accountable
directly and openly by people at lower levels.
Pete's lived story about the organization fits the
existing Korean cultural patterns of decision-making and
communication in business that are told in literature. The
foregoing Korean cultural patterns are usually made sensible
in the theme of harmony in hierarchical relations between
superiors and subordinates. The Korean emphasis on harmony
constrains, to a great extent, open, straightforward and
clear-cut communication in the decision making process. It
also constrains subordinates to accept and not to question
the information that is disseminated by superiors. As a
result, Korean employees are usually reluctant in expressing
their views openly or in a direct manner, especially when
their opinions conflict with those of their superiors or
even colleagues, and carefully avoid open interpersonal
conflicts. However, these constraints can be relieved in
informal settings. The use of informal occasions or
settings enable subordinates to have open communication with
their superiors. It contributes to straightforward and
clear-cut communication.
Although he was not able to pinpoint and articulate it,
Pete experienced the enactment of the Korean cultural theme
169
of harmony in the episode. Therefore, Pete's lived
experience with the cultural difference in the organization
served as a context for his understanding of Park's actions
in this episode. At the same time, his story about the
organization was affirmed in this particular lived
experience.
In CMM terms, there was a strong prefigurative force
from the organizational level story on Pete's meaning with
the deontic operator of obligatory (see Figure 3.1 on page
176) . As a result, Pete's account that Park was
uncomfortable approaching his boss obliged Pete to take it
as the way things are in the organization and let it pass.
He did not question Park about his actions or hold him
accountable for them although he was not happy with the
situation. As in the case of episode 1, Pete's practical
need to keep his job did not afford him to voice his views
in an open and confrontational manner. Instead, it
constrained him to coordinate and act into Park's acts. In
other words, there was a strong prefigurative force on
Pete's action from the relational level context with a
deontic operator of prohibited. His practical need required
him to keep a good (hierarchical) relationship with his
superior and, for this reason, he was prohibited from
challenging Park.
The tension between coherence and coordination that
characterized Pete's grammar in episode 1 was also revealed
in this episode. However, the tension in this episode seems
170
much weaker in the sense that Pete did not seem as
frustrated with Park's inappropriate acts as he did in the
previous episode. At least, it did not seem to trouble his
acts of coordination much as indicated in the data I have.
Park1s Grammar
Park's grammar, in fact, seemed to be developed around
the theme of harmony as illuminated in Pete's coherent story
about his lived episode. Indeed, the reason why he did not
talk to his boss about Pete's request seemed to result from
his strong orientation toward harmony which was indicated in
the cultural story of management styles, specifically what
is expected of subordinates by superiors. His actions were
prefigured by his cultural story with the deontic operator
of obligatory (see Figure 3 .1 on page 176) . Park did not
want to bother his boss with the matter that he could
handle. Hence, he used his own judgment and refused Pete's
request.
However, in his response to Pete, Park positioned
himself as the spokesperson for the collective "we" (Cronen
& Lang, 1994), the company. He switched from the position
of the first person singular, "I" to that of the first
person plural, "we." This shift allowed him to make clear
that he did not have decision-making authority and the
decision was made as a result of the consultation with his
boss or the company.
171
However, in the episode, Park exercised the decision
making authority which was not legitimate in the
organization. But, his illegitimate acts of decision-making
were the consequent of his obligation to his superior.
Hence, the cultural context of harmony afforded him to
violate the organizational rule. In other words, his acts
of violation were legitimized in the overriding cultural
context of harmony. And the simple change of his person
position enabled him to coordinate with Pete in the episode.
But, later on, Pete caught Park's inconsistency but was able
to make sense of it under the theme of harmony, and moved
on.
What was also revealed in Park's grammar of this lived
episode are the themes of cultural adjustment and
differentiation/division/discrimination. June pointed out
in his foregoing statement that the company treated Korean
and American employees differently. The different treatment
was revealed in Park's actions in this episode. As June
said, in Korea, subordinates do not usually ask for a pay
raise because the monetary concern was seen as shameful or
disgraceful. For this reason, Korean superiors do not
welcome their subordinates' request for a pay raise. A
monetary request or concern is viewed negatively and
received unfavorably. The person who requested may be
subject to a criticism or advice from his/her superior.
However, there was no indication of Park's negative reaction
to Pete's request, at least, in the data. His request was
172
received as a matter of course, considered, and denied
cordially. It was part of his cultural adjustment to his
American subordinate. His cultural sensitivity and
consideration guided his interaction with Pete. As
discussed in the previous episode, Park's adjusting effort
was to meet his practical and reflexive needs to establish a
good relationship with him and create a harmonious
atmosphere in the office: the practical need was to achieve
managerial goals, and the reflexive need was to sustain his
cultural patterns of harmony.
In this episode, Park's adjusting efforts were seen as
differentiating acts, and resulted in an unintended
consequence of creating a climate of division/discrimination
as it did in episode 1. However, unlike episode 1, it was a
Korean, June, who felt differentiated and discriminated
against Americans. June's story of different treatment was
affirmed by Park whose actions revealed the theme of
differentiation/ division/discrimination.
This episode was the extension of episode 1, and shared

the similar grammatical features of situated conjoint
actions. There were four similarities between episode 1 and
episode 2.
First, it involved the interaction between Pete and
Park. Second, it revealed some level of coordination
173
between them. Three, Park's actions were prefigured by the
theme of harmony and cultural adjustment but produced an
unintended consequence of creating the theme (atmosphere) of
differentiation/division/discrimination. Four, Pete was
unhappy with Park but his discontent was overridden by his
practical need. His practical need to keep his job secure
forced or afforded him to coordinate in their situated
conjoint actions. In other words, Pete privileged
coordination over coherence.
However, there were also two differences (different
grammatical features) between the two episodes. First of
all, the degree to which Pete was able to make sense of
Park's actions was found to be different. In episode 1,
Park's actions of discrimination were totally incoherent to
Pete. They were viewed as illogical, inappropriate and
undesirable. His interpretation or grammar of the situation
was radically different from that of Park. On the contrary,
in episode 2, the degree of Pete's dissatisfaction with Park
did not seem as high. His grammar of the situation was
quite similar to that of Park: Pete accounted Park's acts in
terms of harmony. Of course, to some extent, he still did
not like or was happy with the inappropriateness of Park's
action, but it did not seem to trouble his coordination with
Park as much as it did in episode 1.
Secondly, the unintended consequence of Park's actions
of cultural adjustment and harmony had a reflexive effect on
different people. In episode 1, American employees
174
including Pete felt that they were subject to discriminat
whereas, in episode 2, it was a Korean, June, who was
frustrated with discrimination against Korean employees.
175
PETE
CP: Open, clear-cut, straightforward style
ORG: Gray, obscure style
RELA: Hierarchical
EPI: Coordination
[Park was un-] (oblig (I-Y/) go on &.

comfortable prohi secure m y job
approaching caused
his boss Let it pass
[Pete's request] (oblig (W-Y/) Meet my superior's

for a raise legit expectation
No, we can't
do that
EPI: Fulfilling my job duties as subordinate and

as superior
RELA: Hierarchical
CP: Harmony-oriented
PARK
Figure 3.1 Asking for a Pay Raise
176
Episode 3: Conflict between Park and Yune
At the time of my field work, Park was having a serious

conflict with Yune who had been regarded as a potential
cultural mediator for Park. The conflict has been building
up over quite a long time, and it has got to the point where
Yune was openly criticizing Park, and Park was very unhappy
with his behavior. Park's major complain about Yune was his
"unreasonable" conduct. Yune is frequently late for work
and even often absents himself from the office. He
challenges Park's decisions and refuses to comply with his
orders or requests. On the other hand, Yune's major
dissatisfactions with Park is his inefficient and rigid
managerial style. Ironically, Yune also claims that Park is
"unreasonable." He thinks that Park is not open to his
subordinates' reasonable suggestions and ideas. He used to
complain openly that, "the Korean managers in this company
including Park do not seem to want to move forward, instead,
they move backward, overriding and missing out so many
opportunities and possibilities."
Park complained to the regional manager in East about
Yune, and Park took his suggestion to transfer Yune to the
regional office. Yune has agreed to transfer. Yune is also
unhappy to continue to work for Park. Yune's compliance to
transfer was based on the conclusion that the reconciliation
with Park was impossible. He said that he lost credit with
Park and it seemed impossible to regain lost credit with a
177
Korean manager. He said, "with bank, it would take 10 years
to regain your lost credit, but with Koreans it is just
impossible." This statement indicates that Yune has been
willing and attempting to work out things with Park, but to
no avail.
As June, Yune's replacement, observed, Yune was a
capable worker with his bi-lingual ability and
transportation background in college. When Yune came into
the office, he saw a huge opportunity to succeed in the
company lie ahead of him. In fact, Korean-Americans are
viable workforce for the Korean company operating in the
U.S. Most Korean managers do not have a great command of
English and most American workers do not speak Korean at
all. In addition to the communication gap, there has been a
strong need to hire more people locally and train local
managers who can make a long-term commitment to its U.S.
operation. All of these make Korean-Americans like Yune
ideal workforce. Having realized his viability shortly
after hiring, Yune has been wanting and trying to act to and
show his ability as a sales person rather than
administrator. He thought that the only way he can show his
ability is through the acts of sales and marketing.
However, individual abilities do not seem sufficient to
gain credit with a Korean manager. Yune's aggressiveness
and confrontational styles, and unwillingness to compromise
his personal interests were viewed as disobedience and a
lack of loyalty to Park rather than enthusiasm or ambition.
178
Yune's seemingly overconcern with his own self-interests and
individual achievement seem egotistic in Park's group-
oriented view. During the interview, June told a story of
what Park expects of his subordinate in which Park's acts
toward Yune become sensible:
Park told me not to be too much concerned with money

and promotion. He said that I would get promoted
when the time comes around. In Korea, promotion is
not based on individual performance and ability but
on seniority. After two years, you will be promoted
to assistant manager, after another two years, to
section manager, etc. And, a talk about money is
disgraceful.
The common pattern of conflict between Park and Yune

seems to develop in the following way. When Park is not
receptive to his suggestions and ideas, Yune gets upset and
neglects his duties at work. For instance, despite of
Yune's desire to do sales work, Park gives him
administrative job duties which involve trivial things like
filing and arranging things some of which are not listed in
job descriptions. Disheartened as well as resistant, Yune
complains in a confrontational style and defies by not doing
what is expected of him by Park. Yune feels that he should
not be doing anything that is not listed in job
descriptions. What is more, it is not efficient for a
capable person like himself to do trivial things.
Park has different ideas about the situation. He
believes that a subordinate does not get to choose his job.
The superior decides it for the subordinate. Besides, the
179
subordinate should be flexible and willing enough to do
everything that needs to be done around the office even at
the expense of his own self-interests. Loyalty and
obedience to one's superior and the company is what is most
expected of a subordinate in the organization. Therefore,
Yune's confrontation and negligence, in turn, makes Park
furious, and leads him to define Yune as unreasonable,
disobedient and bad-natured. Being a Korean manager who
values and expects obedience and loyalty from his
subordinates more than individual ability, Park expects Yune
to comply with his requests. However, Yune is upset with
Park because he is not willing to change inefficient and
impractical things. Yune sees Park as an inefficient
manager when he is not open to his reasonable ideas. On the
other hand, Park sees him as a bad worker when he does not
comply with his request. This is the typical pattern of
conflict between the two.
Unlike Yune, Park does not express any desire or need
to change things around with Yune. Park seems to have
resigned himself to the fact that he can not work with Yune
because he is just a difficult person to work with. His
relationship with Yune has become unnegotiable whereas Yune
still thinks that it could be negotiable.
CMM Analysis
The typical form of conflict between Park and Yune can

be accounted in terms of the theme of biculturalism. What
180
seemed to complicate and aggravate the problems between Park
and Yune was Yune's biculturalism and Park's lack of
knowledge, consideration, and acceptance of it.
Yune is an American in terms of his individual-
centeredness. He is aggressive, confrontational, and
concerned with individual abilities and achievement, and
personal interests. At the same time, he is a Korean. He
knows how to relate to Koreans, and is familiar with
cultural norms and rules of interpersonal relationship among
Koreans. His fluency in Korean language is, in fact, a
token of his fluency in Korean cultural practice given the
intimate relationship between language use and culture as
discussed in the previous chapter. With his biculturalism,
Yune constantly moves back and forth between two cultures
even if the two cultures often conflict with one another.
Therefore, Yune's acts are rightfully justifiable when
embedded in the American cultural context of individualism
(see Figure 4.1 on page 206) . He was trying to be an
autonomous individual striving for self-actualization. His
self-approved autobiography of "I am capable" further
supported the legitimacy of his speech acts. His second
autobiography which was implicated in his speech acts is "I
am an American." However, the language he used in this
episode reflected his third autobiography of "I am a
Korean." Together, they formed his bicultural identity.
However, maintaining his bicultural identity became
impossible in this episode because of the conflicting
181
relationship between the two cultures. As reflected in
Park's reaction, Yune's individual-centered speech acts went
against the harmony-oriented Korean cultural pattern. The
two different cultures became mutually exclusive, and became
a main source of The conflict with Park.
In the episode, it was clear that Park had no knowledge
of Yune's biculturalism, and he was not receptive to Yune's
speech acts that did not conform to the Korean cultural
pattern. For him, Yune was just another bi-lingual Korean.
In the Korean cultural context of harmony-orientation, Park
counted Yune's speech acts as disobedient, unreasonable,
disloyal, and, hence, intolerable.
Park's negative reaction to Yune's speech acts, in
turn, had a reflexive effect on Yune's view of Park as
unreasonable and he defied it. Park's acts reaffirmed his
story of Korean managers are close-minded, inefficient,
impractical and not progressive. Conversely, Yune's defiant
acts had a reflexive effect on Park's view of Yune: Yune's
disobedience was reaffirmed and solidified. In other words,
the acts of each had a continuous reflexive effect on the
other's view of himself.
This pattern of interaction constituted the episode of
conflict which repeated over a long period of time, and got
escalated in each time it recurred. As a result, they
locked in a relationship that was difficult to change. In
CMM terms, for both Yune and Park, the two contexts, the
episode and the relationship, formed a charmed loop (see
182
Figure 4.2 on page 207) . Within the conflict episode, their
relationship deteriorated, and the deteriorated relationship
became a context for the episode itself. The charmed loop
relationship evolved over a long time. In other words, the
relationship became worse until Yune finally resigns.
Episode 3.1; Customer Complaints
The following episode is part of the foregoing episode

of conflict. This episode reveals a specific example of the
conflict between Yune and Park.
Yune's job involved dealing with customer complaints
through the phone. Often times, according to Yune, they
made unreasonable demands and he refused to comply with
them. When their requests were not met, they contacted his
boss, Park, to complain about Yune's decisions and make
requests to him. Upon hearing what happened, Park
immediately apologized and agreed to meet their requests.
He admitted Yune's faults and changed Yune's decisions
without even consulting him.
Yune was not happy with Park's acts because he felt
ignored. When a customer complained about Yune, Park did
not even try to hear his side of story. In his view. Park
seemed to believe and buy the customer's story without
considering his employee's position at all. As a result of
Park's easy concessions, customers often did not want to
deal with Yune. Yune's words were no longer credible. They
183
skipped over Yune and directly talked to Park knowing that
they would be able to get easy concessions from him. Yune
felt ignored. Besides, in Yune1s view, it might be easy for
Park to give verbal concessions to the customers but it was
very difficult for Yune to actually meet those unreasonable
demands. For instance, if a customer's demand was to have
their cargo shipped out on a certain day, he had to find a
container for the cargo by asking the regional office which
had allotted the number of containers to him. Often, he had
to ask for more than what had been assigned to him in order
to meet unexpected demands created by Park, which was not
easy. Yune found it inefficient and impractical.
Park expected Yune to think that customer satisfaction
was the most important in their business, and he should do
his best to satisfy them unconditionally. On the contrary,
Yune felt that Park should be considerate enough to talk to
his employee first before admitting the faults on the part
of his employee and giving a blanket consent to their
complaints and demands. Besides, Yune thought that some
customers are unreasonable and their demands were absurd,
and Park should know their unreasonableness. However, Park
was not receptive to his suggestions. For Park, customer
complaints only reaffirmed his negative view of Yune that he
formed from his own experiences with him. Yune became
frustrated with Park's unreasonable act of disregarding his
story. Park's acts reaffirmed Yune's story about Park as an
inefficient and impractical manager. Being disappointed and
184
frustrated, Yune defied him by neglecting his duties and
coming to work late or not coming to work at all, and his
act of defying only solidified Park's negative view of him
and, further, aggravated their relationship.
CMM Analysis
In this situation, the problem between Park and Yune
seemed to derive from their conflicting expectations from
each other. Their respective expectations were informed by
a different set of stories at various levels.
Park's Expectation For Park, his expectation of Yune

was prefigured by a cultural story of the importance of
harmonious relations between superiors and subordinates in
the hierarchical organization. This was indicated in Figure
4.3 on page 208. During the interview, he told,
Hierarchy is important. If you get an order from

your superior, you obey unconditionally and accept
it even though you are discontented with it. You
don't directly challenge your superiors because
maintaining order in the organization is important.
If you are not really happy about the order, you
voice your discontent through informal channels.
You should suggest your opposite opinions
harmonious ly.
In the context of his culture, unconditional obedience and

respect to superiors were the most important to maintain the
hierarchical order and harmony in the organization. For
instance, June, a Korean subordinate, knows and respects the
cultural story Park told about the relationship between
185
superiors and subordinates. He never refuses Park1s request
even though he is not happy about it. He said,
In America, if you are asked by your boss to do

something which is not in your job descriptions, you
can refuse it. In Korea, you can't. If you refuse
it, the relationship becomes uncomfortable. My life
doesn't depend on this company but I just want to
keep a good relationship with my boss. I don't like
to refuse his requests.
It is obvious in this story that June was primarily

concerned with a harmonious relationship with Park. Both
Park and June's acts were prefigured by the same cultural
story of the proper relationship between a superior and a
subordinate, and their acts were well-coordinated. June's
actions of submission satisfied Park's expectation informed
by the cultural context.
Hence, for Park, the superordinate context was the
cultural context with the deontic operator of legitimate.
Within the context of his culture, it was legitimate for
Park to expect from Yune unconditional obedience to him.
However, unlike June and most Koreans, Yune did not act
according to the Korean cultural pattern. He was pursuing
his own purposes of asserting himself and imposing his point
of view rather than seeking the best for his relationship
with Park. For Park, Yune's actions of asserting himself
had a reflexive effect on the relationship context. The
relationship became equal and, hence, disharmonious and
inappropriate. Hence, Yune's acts were counted as a threat
to harmony and order in the relationship as well as in the
186
organization. This had a reflexive effect on his view of
Yune as disobedient and bad-natured.
Further, his view of Yune led him to believe that
Yune's problems with customers also stemmed from his
insubordination to the hierarchy. Park's episodic level
context strongly prefigured his view of Yune as a bad-
natured person. Both cultural and episodical level contexts
continued to exert a strong prefigurative force on his
future interactions with Yune. It was so strong that his
view of Yune became almost determined. As Yune said with
frustration, "Once you made a bad impression on Koreans, you
can't never recover it nor change it."
Park's actions that were prefigured by the cultural
story of unconditional obedience in the organization
contradicted his autobiography of "I am a reasonable
manager," "I do not ask my subordinates to accept my request
unconditionally as long as they have a reasonable reason not
to" which he told in the interview. His cultural and
autobiographical stories created a contradiction. The two
terms, unconditional and reasonable, are two mutually
exclusive. One contradicts the others. In his story of
autobiography, he encouraged Yune to speak out his views and
opinions. On the other hand, in the cultural story, he
discouraged him to do so. Hence, Park's actions cen be
either legitimate or illegitimate depending on the context.
The legitimacy of Park's acts also depended upon what
counted as reasonable. The subordinate may firmly believe
187
his idea to be reasonable and does not obey, which seemed to
be the case of Yune. Park believed otherwise, and their
inability to agree upon what counts as reasonable became a
source of conflict. The conflict may become impossible to
resolve as long as the disagreement continues.
However, the contradiction became weak in his second
cultural story of "you should voice opposite views to your
superiors harmoniously through informal channels." In other
words, one is allowed to speak out his own views as long as
it does not create disharmony his/her relationship with the
superior. Hence, another cultural story about harmony may
serve as a context in which it Park's acts of contradiction
may be justified. In the second cultural story of harmony,
the issue of what counts as reasonable became insignificant.
What seemed to become significant is how one's different
views are expressed rather than wether the views are
reasonable or not. The process of informal consensus may be
useful for expressing different views without a direct
confrontation.
However, June's story suggested that the cultural story
of harmony may not be the highest context that informed
Park's acts and meanings. June said the following during
the interview,
I work closely with Pete. He gets orders and I

process them. Sometimes, I get into problems in
processing orders because of some unrealistic
conditions under which Pete takes the order. I go
to Pete and tell him that I can't process his order.
Then, he complains to Park about me. Then Park
188
tells me that he has to be on Pete's side even though
he understands my difficulty as an order processor
because business (sales) is more important.
In the cultural story of harmony, Park's priority

should be his relationship with June and June's needs.
However, in June's story, the priority became business.
Park was asking Yune to sacrifice himself for the business
objective. By the same token, in the episode, Park placed
customers above Yune. For Park, customers were important,
and should be satisfied unconditionally and should not be
directly challenged. His overriding context became a story
of "business is the most important." Park's contextual
change did not affect his relationship with June with whom
he was keeping harmony relatively easily. Park explained
the situation to June and asked him to understand his
position. June did not resist and he complied with the
request. After all, he was not in the position where he
could defy his boss. There was a strong pref igurative force
exerted on his acts from the cultural context.
However, things did not go as smoothly with Yune. In
this episode, the same kind of mutual understanding between
Park and June did not occur between Park and Yune. The
difference in the cultural context and the nature of their
relationship did not allow them to have a coordinated
conversation, and mutual understanding and acceptance of
each other's position.
189
Yune1a Expectation Yune's alleged threatening acts and
bad-natured personality in this situation can be reaccounted
by embedding them in the contrasting American cultural story
of individualism which embraces an assertive, rational, and
confrontational individual like Yune. In the individual-
centered, as opposed to harmony-oriented, culture, everyone
is allowed, to a great extent, to seek to assert himself, to
impose his point of view, and to purse his own purposes.
And, the rational approach of persuasion and argument is
highly valued as a means to a goal of self-actualization.
In this cultural context, Yune's attempt to tell his
side of story in the situation and his expectation of Park
to analyze the situation rationally and fairly before
jumping to a conclusion were legitimized. In his view,
Park's demand of and emphasis on unconditional obedience
seemed irrational, impractical and unfair, especially when
it conflicted with his own purposes of asserting himself and
imposing his point of view.
Yune's relationship context had two stories as shown on
Figure 4.3 on page 208. This was mainly the result of his
biculturalism. The conversation between Park and Yune was
conducted in Korean, and hence the nature of their
relationship was hierarchical. Yune's language reflected
that his status was lower than Park, and this unequal
relationship invited Park to enact the appropriate episode
between people of unequal status. However, his assertive
and confrontational communication style clearly reflected an
190
equal relationship. Park regarded Yune only as a Korean,
and, when Yune switched to the American cultural pattern, he
counted it as an indication of his bad-natured personality
rather than as part of his bicultural identity. He probably
would have considered (even if he did not like) it as a
cultural difference if the same act were done by one of his
American subordinates. However, with Yune, the cultural
consideration was out of question. Park did not count
Yune's American identity.
Whereas, in CMM terms, Park saw the switch as Yune's
conscious choice, it might have been caused. In other
words, the switch could have been his unconscious choice.
As I stated before, biculturalism may be so ingrained in a
person that he/she may not be always conscious of his/her
switching back and forth between two cultures, and of a
contradiction in his/her acts as a result of switching.
Yune's action of contradiction and Park's lack of
understanding of biculturalism seemed to be one of the main
sources of the problem in the episode.
Yune's autobiographical story also revealed his
bicultural experience and explained his over-aggressiveness
which seemed to be the main problem Park was having with
him. Yune told his own story of being a fighter. He had
been treated badly by all the people around him, and it had
made him become a fighter. He had to fight for a better
treatment. He had to defend himself, for instance, when he
was called a "chink" and made fun of. He also had to defend
191
himself when his Korean friends, relatives, and
acquaintances criticized and admonished him not to be like
an American because he was acting like an American when in
fact he was being himself. All his life, he had to fight
against all the disrespectful, unfair and unjust treatments
and accusations he had been subject to due to his bi
cultural identity. In his autobiography story of "a fighter
against all odds," he had to become very aggressive, maybe
too aggressive and unbearable for those who never have to be
in his situation. Park was obviously one of them, and
viewed Yune's aggressiveness as defiance and a flaw in his
personality and resisted it hard.
Within the harmony-oriented Korean cultural context,
Yune's aggressive acts were undesirable since they were a
threat to harmony in the organization. Yune was more
concerned with the pursuit of his own purposes rather than
the maintenance of a good relationship with Park. Park's
negative view on Yune's lack of concern with relationships
was shared by another Korean, June. Like Park, June also
saw Yune's aggressiveness as impediment to a good
relationship. In the following statement, he mainly focused
on the relational level by putting good (harmonioius)
relationships above individual achievement and ability.
I think he (Yune) was a very capable person with a

lot of knowledge. He just did not manage his
relationships with people. There were a lot of
complaints about him from customers. He did not have
a good relationship with them. He also did not get
along well with Kate. Yune was in charge of
192
booking and Kate's job was arranging containers for
the order. They were in a close working relationship.
He could have made Kate's job easier but he didn't. He
complained a lot about her. He could have done
something for his co-worker not because he is capable
nor it is his duty but to maintain a good relationship.
Mutual help can be a link to a good relationship. We
can help each other.
On the other hand, Yune's actions were quite sensible

within the American cultural story of individualism which
embraces an aggressive individual like Yune. In this
cultural context, aggressiveness signifies the spirit of
individual achievement and goal-orientation. The American
cultural pattern of individualism was shared by his American
co-worker, Pete. He validated and supported it in his
positive view of Yune's aggressiveness which was in sharp
contrast to those of Park and June. Pete stated,
He (Yune) was a funk. I think he is basically a good

kid. He was just absurd, didn't know where he is
going and how to get there .... He wanted to get to
the finish line but didn't know how to run the race.
All he knew was the finish line. He thought he could
jump hop and skip over everybody.
In this statement, Pete basically thought positively of

Yune's aggressiveness (the pursuit of his own purposes) as
implicated in his saying, "I think he is basically a good
kid." In his view, Yune's acts of trying to achieve his
goals ("getting to the finish line, running the race") were
legitimate and perhaps appropriate. However, he thought
Yunet Yue did not have good and effective means to his goals
("didn't know where he is and how to get there... didn't
193
know how to run the race") , and it cost him success in the
company. In contrast to Park and June, Pete's focus was on
the speech level. He attended to Yune1s acts of trying to
achieve his goals, and assessed them in terms of personal
gains and losses rather than looking at the relational
implications of his acts. Pete did not mention nor
implicate anything at the relationship level.
Yune was aware of and, hence, very frustrated with
Park's rigidity. As his previous statement indicates, Yune
was aware of Park's fixed view of him. In Yune's view,
one's image, like a relationship, is something negotiable,
which means that one episode does and should not determine
it. He was frustrated because he could not seem to
negotiate anything with Park: his image, his relationship
with him or even the episode itself. He was stuck in the
repetitive pattern of destructive interaction which did not
allow him to change anything unless the pattern was broken.
However, the charmed loop relationship between the episode
and relationship contexts made him difficult to break the
pattern. Eventually, he was able to break the pattern only
at the expense of his job.
The nature of the escalated conflict between Park and
Yune can be accounted in terms of the concept of
"punctuation." In terms of the temporal dimension,
punctuation is the act of deciding when an episode began and
when it is over (Pearce, 1994). Often, the source of the
conflict is due to the participants' disconsensus on the
194
punctuation of the episode. At some point along the
repeated episode of conflict, Park and Yune punctuated their
conflict episode differently. Park thought that Yune's
disobedient act initiated the conflict whereas Yune thought
that Park's inefficience and unreasonableness began it.
However, they both were contributing to perpetuating
it. It is a circular process rather than a linear process
of cause and effect (McCaughan & Palmer, 1994). It is not
clear nor productive to find out who caused or initiated the
conflict first. Fixing blame on the other only perpetuates
the conflict rather than ends it as shown in the case of
Park and Yune.
Episode 3.2; Y u ne's Resignation
The conflict between Park and Yune continued. Park

finally gave upon Yune and decided to let him go. However,
with the company's advice, the transfer arrangement was
made, and Yune agreed to transfer. He liked the transfer
idea because he was realizing that it was almost impossible
to reverse his uncomfortable relationship with Park. June
was hired to replace him, and Yune agreed to train him for a
couple of months until his transfer date.
However, Yune's transfer became delayed for several
months because of the postponing of merging. Yune was not
happy about the delay and about having to put up with Park
for several more months. Frustrated, he told Park that he
195
would like to go on leave until his transfer date. Park
refused it flatly. Hoping to be on leave at least several
weeks, Yune lied to Park that he was getting married and
needed a vacation. Park found out about the lie and Yune's
plan became futile.
This incident led to Yune's resignation. At the day he
resigned, Yune exploded and had "heated arguments" with
Park. All day, he stormed in and out of Park's office
yelling at him, verbally attacking him, and speaking out all
the complaints and criticisms he had had about Park and the
company. The all-out argument was loud enough for everyone
in the office could overhear. Park felt that his authority
and dignity was significantly damaged, and this would have a
great impact on his future relationship with the rest of his
subordinates.
The reaction toward Yune's resignation was different
from person to person in the office. Nancy stated that "He
has been a trouble. He wanted to do everything by his
rules. He was just a dominant person. There has been a
tension between Park and Yune for a while, and I am happy
that it is finally over. June commented that it was a
relationship problem and Yune was not able to make a good
relationship with Park. On the contrary, Pete seemed to be
the only one who took Yune's side. He described Yune's
outburst as "jubilation." He even said that "that (Yune's
situation) is how I have been in this company."
He also said that "He is basically a good kid. Just not
196
diplomatic and strategic. He have good goals but don't aim
well. He shoots anywhere." For Park, it had a damaging
effect on his authority. He expressed a strong concern
about the impact that his poor handling a defiant
subordinate may have. He felt that Yune had set a bad
example for his subordinates to follow, and they may be
disrespectful of him.
CMM Analysis
This episode illustrated various ways in which Yune's
presence in the office had impact on four people and their
life in the office. Each person's different view of Yune
and his/her reaction to his acts was informed by a different
set of contexts he/she was embedded in.
Nancy's View For Nancy, the most significant level

story that informed her view is her autobiography of "I am
not ambitious." For an unambitious person like Nancy, what
was most important was a peaceful environment where no one
dominates nor ruffles the feather. Unlike Yune or Pete, she
was less concerned with Park's efficiency or practicality.
Rather, she appreciated Park's harmony-oriented management
style. His efforts to create a harmonious environment, in a
way, was fulfilling her desire for peace. Her desire became
unattainable when Yune came to the office and started
creating problems with Park. Yune's challenges and
confrontations were viewed as a threat to the peaceful life
197
she was hoping for, and what she saw as his dominant
personality became unbearable for her. She became happy
when the creator of all those intolerable problems and
tensions disappeared.
Her desire for peace and a simple life was also
expressed when she declined to have an interview for this
study. The participation in the interview by the outsider
was not part of her routine, and, hence, she took it as
intimidating and possibly disturbing.
June1s View June's higher level story was a cultural

story about the importance of harmonious relations. For
him, what was the most important in the organizational life
was maintaining good relationships with people. This led
him to believe that the main problem with Yune was his
inability to manage his relationship with Park. In a way,
he was also oriented toward peace and harmony as Nancy is.
Whereas Nancy and June supported Park's orientation toward
harmony, Pete and Yune seemed to go against it.
Pete1s View Pete was the only person who could

understand and identify with Yune. What seemed to
distinguish Pete and Yune from the rest was their ambition
and strong sense of achivement which seemed to have
precedence over harmony or peace. The two shared the same
cultural story of individualism which valued an assertive,
confrontational, competitive, and goal-oriented individual.
198
Yune spoke out the disagreements and unhappiness he had with
(about) Park's management but were not able to voice.
Before Yune came, Pete had been unhappy about Park's
appointment as a manager of the office and his hiring
process, and about various company decisions and policies.
But, he had been cautious and discreet enough not to openly
challenge or confront Park or the company. But, Yune was
different. He was more outspoken and confrontational than
Pete, and he spoke out all the things Pete had wanted to say
but would not dare.
Yune and Pete had a lot in common. Yune was also
strongly interested in sales, and initially hired as a sales
coordinator as well as administrator having worked closely
with Pete. They shared the same goals and ideas, which
brought them closer, and, in a way, supported each other.
Their close relationship set them against the rest except
Kate whose view could not be obtained.
To begin with, Yune was hired to play a role of a
cultural mediator. However, ironically, instead of bridging
a cultural gap between Pete and Park, Yune enlarged the gap,
and, made a great contribution to the making of the climate
of division instead of harmony.
Park's View Yune's outburst had a great damaging

effect on Park's autobiography of a harmony-oriented
manager. The conflict that had been building up between him
and Yune finally were exposed in all its nakedness. With a
199
subordinate who showed no respect for him, he lost his face
and authority, and harmony was not existent. He stated that
he mishandled a disobedient subordinate by not taking a firm
stand against him. His strong concern was a possible impact
of this incident on his future relationship with his
subordinates. He was worried that Yune had set a bad
example for the rest of the employees, and they may follow
Yune's course of actions and defy him.
During the interview, when the researcher alluded to
biculturalism as a possible source of the problem he had
with Yune, he responded that "what counts more than culture
is, one's personality, behavior pattern, attitude, and
philosophy of life. Although Park's response may reflect
his own personal view, it also may be the consequent of
Yune's actions of outburst. He seems so frustrated with
this particular experience with Yune that nothing seems to
have an effect on his fixed view of Yune. If he were given
adequate information on Yune's biculturalism before things
get worse between them, he might have given a different
response, and might have helped him to keep their
relationship from getting out of control.
Yune1s View I was not able to see Yune after his

resignation, and it was not possible to get his story about
this incident.
200
The foregoing three episodes present an unexpected, new

challenge for the manager of the multicultural organization.
The challenge is how to interact, work, and coordinate with
a bi-cultural subordinate. Yune was brought into the office
with a hope that he will help Park with his difficult job as
an expatriate manager. Park's as well as the American
professor's presumption that a bi-cultural person will be a
valuable asset for a multi-culturla company has proven
wrong, at least, in this case study, and the inclusion of
the bi-cultural person complicated even more Park's
difficult job of managing a culturally diverse workplace. It
also made difficult for him to create a harmonious
atmosphere he considered important in the organizational
life.
Escalating Conflict
The main problem between Park and Yune was their
destructive pattern of interaction that was developed into a
serious conflict over a long period of time and came to a
tragic end. The conflict escalated every time it repeated
itself. The nature of the escalating conflict was shown in
the charmed loop relationship between the episode level and
the relationship level contexts. The episode which comprise
of destructive patterns of interaction made their
relationship deteriorate. In the deteriorated relationship,
201
the episode of conflict takes place. As the reflexive
connection occurs again and again, the conflict and the
relationship evolved, in other words, became worse.
Punctuation
Since it was not possible to grasp the whole picture of
the conflict, it is not clear nor productive to decide who
caused it. It seemed more sensible to account for the
conflict in terms of "punctuation." Each person punctuated
the episode of conflict in such a different way that each
would fix a blame on the other person. This circular or
systemic explanation of conflict may lead the participants
to re-think the nature of their conflict, and become aware
of their mutual role as the perpetuator of it and their
tendency to employ cause and effect or linear explanations.
Biculturalism
Biculturalism was a main issue in the episodes. It was
a main source of the conflict. Park's lack of knowledge and
understanding of its notion made him difficult to make sense
of Yune's actions and to coordinate his own actions with
Yune's. However, biculturalism does not determine one's
actions nor is it the only (although main) source of the
conflict. In the company, it was told that there are a
number of bi-cultural people, like Yune, working for and
with homestaff managers, like Park, and they do not seem to
have the same problem as Park had with Yune. At least, the
202
researcher was not informed of it. This means that the
conflict was specific to Park and Yune. It was co
constructed by the two unique persons and their stories
lived and told about various "forms of life."
Cultural Disintegrator
In the episodes, Yune who was regarded as a highly
potential cultural mediator turned out to contribute to the
disintegration in the office. Before he came in the
picture, harmony had been maintained, at least, on the
surface. Although Pete did not agree nor was happy with
some of Park's decisions and policies, he did not go against
the flow by openly challenging or criticizing them. He had
been cautious and discreet, and able to work with Park
without any serious problem. The tension or conflict, if
there was any, had been subtle and concealed.
All of this changed when Yune was brought into the
office. Yune, in part, became a divisive force in the
office rather than an integrating or harmonizing force. The
problems that Pete had had with Park became concrete and
manifested by Yune. They were out in the air. As pointed
out above, this set the two against the rest of the people
in the office and created the atmosphere of division and
disintegration.
This was not what Park had envisioned and expected at
the time he hired Yune. Although he did not admit that the
main source of the problem with Yune may have been his
203
biculturalism, he seemed to attribute it to some kind of
cultural differences. Or, he may have concluded that a
Korean-American would not make an ideal cultural mediator
because he hired June, a Korean, to fill in Yune's position.
He did not go through the same hiring process as he did with
Yune. Nor did he consult his American subordinates. He
went through a typical Korean hiring process of using
personal contacts: June was referred by some Korean
acquaintance in the transportation business. At least, in
this phase of his managing experience in America, Park
seemed to give upon the idea of having a cultural mediator.
The Extent of Coordination

Unlike the episode 1, the episode 3 was a clear example
of a lack of coordination. In fact, with increasing
feelings of dissatisfaction and animosity against each
other, coordination between Park and Yune was seen
impossible to achieve in the episode. Yune's sprit of a
fighter and Park's emphasis on harmony and obedience set,
from the beginning, the stage for the repetitive conflict
that was intolerable for both, and gradually escalated to
the tragic ending.
In the previous episode, Park was able to coordinate
with an American, Pete, because he was flexible with him.
He was willing to compromise his principles and adapt
himself to a culturally different person. However, his
flexibleness and compromise became out of question with
204
another Korean, more accurately a 1.5 Korean-American, Yune.
His rigidity had a tremendous effect on Yune who had to
fight, all his life, against people's preconceptions and
prejudice against him. As a result, Yune also became rigid
and refused to compromise. The two created the destructive
pattern of interaction that led to the all-out argument and
Yune's resignation.
It was clear that both Park and Yune could not make any
sense of nor were willing to accept each other's actions.
Their lack of coherence only created hostile feelings
against each other, and, unfortunately, produced the least
coordinated interaction in this study.
205
YUNE
CP Individual-centered
AUTO I am capable
I am an American
I am a Korean
RELA Equal
Hierarchical
EPI Pursuing m y own purposes
[Park does not] (legit (I-Y/) gain recognition

recognize my assert myself
capability
[A disobedient] (legit (I-Y/) restore harmony

subordinate do not tolerate
EPI Maintaining harmony
RELA Hierarchical
AUTO I am a superior
ORGA Subordinates must obey superiors' requests

unconditionally
Opposite views should be voiced through
informal channels harmoniously
Business is the most important
CP Harmony (group)-oriented
PARK
Figure 4.1 A Typical Pattern of Conflict

between Park and Yune
206
EPI Park is close-minded Yune is disobedient
I defy I do not tolerate
RELA Deteriorates
Figure 4.2 A Charmed Loop
207
PARK
CP Harmony-oriented
ORGA Unconditional obedience to superiors and

customers
Voice opposite views to your superiors
harmoniously
AUTO I am a superior
I am reasonable
RELA Hierarchical but disharmonious
EPI Restoring harmony in the relationship
[Yune asserts] (legit (I-Y/) maintain harmony

himself demands and order
unconditional
obedience
[Park is not] (legit, caused (I-Y/) change Park's

receptive continues to view
assert myself
EPI pursuing his own purposes
RELA hierarchical
equal
AUTO I am a fighter
ORGA Korean managers are inefficient and

impractical
CP Individual-centered
YUNE
Figure 4.3 Customer Complaints
208
Episode 4.It A Social Gathering
Park, the Harmony-oriented Korean manager, had been

strongly concerned with creating a harmonious atmosphere in
the office. As a manager, he was very sensitive to the
well-being of his subordinates. He felt a strong
responsibility for making a good, comfortable working
environment for his subordinates both to enhance the
physical condition and morale.
As part of this effort, he decided to arrange various
social events, in his term, "group-solidarity gathering" in
which everybody in the office and their spouse can get
together and build solidarity. They went on a picnic in the
summer, and had a dinner together on Christmas day. For the
picnic, Park asked the subordinates for ideas and Nancy came
up with the idea of having a lunch in a cruising boat and
Park took the idea. Their spouses and children were
included in the lunch plan.
Everybody met in front of the ticket office, and bought
a ticket and got on the boat. There was no table big enough
for everyone to sit together. They sat in small groups at
the several tables. They all had a nice dinner, and enjoyed
the band and the boat ride for about two hours. On the
boat, they talked to one another for some time. After they
got off the boat, they parted. However, Park did not feel
that the events were as successful as expected. His idea of
company picnic was to promote harmony among employees, to
209
relax, and, to get to know about each other, and to use the
informal setting to have open communication for mutual
understanding and trust between one another. He did not
feel that these purpose of the picnic were fulfilled. He
talked about the dinner gathering on the cruising boat:
P: We didn't get a private room where we can all sit

together and talk. We were kind of split,
physically distanced from one another. I was
hoping that it would give us a chance to talk,
but no. I also hoped that they would suggest to
do something else after the boat, but they just
left. In Korea, we do all sorts of things in
group gatherings. We play soccer, soft ball, go
mountain climbing. Through group activities,
through team-work, we create something we didn't
have before.
R: Like solidarity?
P: Right, solidarity. I don't have other ideas but
I like to do differently this year. Maybe we
can rent a park if there are enough people. Do
you have any good ideas?
R: Do you think that other people enjoyed the

picnic?
P: They (subordinates) said that they liked it, but
I felt otherwise. I didn't feel that they
really liked it.
He was not quite sure how he should change it but felt a

strong need to change the episode of the picnic.
Unlike Park, others felt that they had a good time.
Kate stated during the interview,
I went to the Christmas dinner. Very nice. A

little bit difficult to talk when you eat but it was
nice. You know, talked a kind of joked little. It
was hard communicating across the table but it was
nice. Got to meet other spouses and families. It was
210
small. It was just immediate employees and their
spouses and their children. We did it on Friday night
and on Monday everybody said they had a nice time. The
food was good and they all enjoyed the company. The
picnic I heard, they did a nice thing, had a good
time. It was a whole family, it was your children as
well as your spouse.
Kate was quite satisfied with the Christmas dinner, and

reported (she did not attend the picnic since she was hired
after the event) that the picnic (the dinner on the boat)
was favorably responded to by those who attended it. All
enjoyed it and had a good time. No one seemed to take it
seriously except Park.
CMM Analysis
In this episode, Park and American subordinates did not

share the same grammar of the episode. In other words,
their grammars of meaning for what was going on in the
social event were found quite different. Their differing
meanings seemed to stem from their different expectations of
how a social event should go. The different expectations
were informed by a different set of stories.
Park's Grammar of Meaning

In this episode, Park had a strong need to have group-
oriented activities which will unify everyone and bring them
closer. At the lunch, he was hoping to be able to sit
together in a large room where everyone can talk to everyone
211
else, do something that will involve everyone present, and,
in so doing, form solidarity among them. Hence, for Park,
the episode is about creating solidarity among all the
workers. and he was expecting the particular sequence of the
episode he was familiar with.
The context that was creating the need for solidarity
was his autobiography story (see Figure 5.1 on page 226) .
Park's autobiography, that was implicated in various stories
he told, described a harmony-oriented manager (1st
autobiography) but had not been able to do a good job of
integrating and leading culturally different subordinates,
and creating a good and comfortable environment (2nd
autobiography). Several times during the interview, Park
alluded to his subordinates' perceived discontent with him.
He said that he did not know for sure (he could not pinpoint
specific times when he felt it), but, in general, he felt
that they were not happy with him.
Park's perceived view was, in fact, quite right. There
were a number of episodes where the American subordinates
were not happy with Park's managerial practice. As
exemplified in the episode 1, they were unhappy with Park's
divisive and discriminatory actions, especially of hiring,
but they never openly voiced their dissatisfaction with
Park's management. In some episodes, they were
uncomfortable with Park's limited English or Korean styles
of communication and management. But, their discontent and
discomfort were never expressed in words, at least, to Park.
212
Also, as indicated in episode 3, Park was feeling
responsible for discomfort and disharmony in the office that
had been created by the conflict between himself and Yune.
He was blaming his lack of leadership for discomfort and
disharmony that was felt in the office, and this view of
himself led him to enact the episode of group-solidarity
gathering. In other words, the episode was created by a
reflexive need from the 1st autobiography with a desired
reflexive effect on his 2nd autobiography.
Therefore, Park was rightfully sensing their unhappy
feelings but the absence of open discussions about it led
him to a feeling of distance between himself and the
subordinates and constructed his negative self-concept. He
was hoping to eliminate this feeling of distance by
resorting to informal communication channels that are often
used between subordinates and superiors in Korea to smooth
ruffled feathers, (re) establish rapport and trust, and
exchange differing views and opinions without risking
harmony.
In Korea, informal communication channels serve
especially as a viable way for subordinates to voice their
own views and opinions to superiors which, in formal
settings, could threaten superiors, the relationship with
them, and the hierarchy of the organization. This cultural
story of the use of informal communication channels serve as
another context that was creating Park's special need for
solidarity in the episode.
213
In CMM terms, Park's obligatory acts of creating an
informal setting (picnic) was prefigured by the cultural
context with a strong reflexive need from the 1st
autobiography. As a harmony-oriented manger, when sensed
the subordinates' discomfort and unhappy feelings, Park felt
an obligation to provide an informal setting where the
subordinates can have open communication with him so that
mutual understanding and trust, and an emotional bond
between him and the subordinates may be engendered. He was
hoping that the informal setting will serve as the context
in which the subordinates can establish good interpersonal
relations with him. His expectation stemmed from the Korean
cultural assumption that good interpersonal relations with
superiors will help overcome hierarchical barriers to the
subordinates' communication with them.
Another important context that informed Park's actions
was the relational context. Even though, Park's position as
manager practically put him above everyone else, he still
seemed uncertain of how to interact and relate to his
American subordinates due to the absence of mutual
understanding and trust. The context of relationship as
"undetermined" led him to enact a practical act of creating
the "group solidarity gathering" in which the relationship
could shift at his desire.
When the episode did not go in the way he expected it
to, in other words, the episode of "group solidarity
gathering" was not enacted, and, hence, the relationship as
214
well as his self-concept remained the same, Park became
disappointed. He also assumed (inferred) that the
subordinates did not like the social event even though they
told him otherwise. For him, in the episode, the barriers
between him and the subordinates did not disappear and,
their relationship context remained undefined and he still
felt subordinates' unhappy feelings toward him at work.
It seems that, for Park as well as most Koreans, the
social relationship outside the workplace is an extension of
the working relationship. Park1 intended consequence of
creating a social gathering was to pave the way for a good
working relationship with his subordinates. He was hoping
that in the context of relaxed and comfortable social
setting, the relational tensions and problems in the
workplace may be naturally opened up, and, hopefully, eased
and resolved, and a relational bond between him and the
subordinates may be established.
The unseparation between social (personal) and working
relationships between superiors and subordinates was also
shared by June. His "told story" about the organization
emphasized "the importance of social connections between
superiors and subordinates outside the work." He said that
"one's success in the organization depends on his/her good
social relations with the superiors." Because of this, the
subordinates were obligated to maintain and nurture good
interpersonal relationships with their superiors outside the
work.
215
American Subordinates' Grammar of Meaning
It seems obvious, at least, in this episode, that the
American subordinates were not sensitive to nor concerned
with relationship or solidarity building as Park was. In
the American cultural context, a social event like a company
picnic or dinner counts simply as a party, whereas Park
counted it as an activity that would promote group
solidarity, and also as an opportunity to openly discuss
problems at work and hopefully to resolve some. In the
episode of a party, one expects to have a good time and meet
new people, and get to talk to them. Solidarity formation
is not what they usually expect from coming to a party. As
Kate said, she and other Americans had a good time at the
party. They enjoyed food, the company of others, and
meeting other spouses. It gave them an opportunity to
socialize with one another and their spouses outside the
workplace. The social gathering did not necessarily serve
as a context where the patterns of their working
relationships could change. When they came back to the
workplace, things remained the same.
The data for this study showed that, in general, the
American informants were not as concerned about nor
sensitive to the relational aspect of the organizational
life as the Korean informants. Whereas the Korean
informants1 told a number of stories about the relationship
that emphasized its importance in the workplace, the
American informants did not. Their stories usually centered
216
around the gains and losses, or benefits and disadvantages
that they, as individuals or Americans, had been
experiencing with others in the company. This seems to
reflect their individualistic selfhood as opposed to the
socially bound selfhood that grounded the Koreans' heavy
emphasis on the relationship. Pete’s individualistic
selfhood was reflected in his story about his position in
the organization in relation to his co-workers.
R: When do you feel things are going well and when

do you feel pleasant with other people and
accomplished? When are those times?
P: My main concern, my satisfaction comes into
bringing in new accounts to this organization.
Once that's over with, it's done. The chase,
it's almost like the chase that's the fun part.
And then, wether its' yes or no, obviously yes,
it's jubilation, no as maybe next time we
can get him. A lot of it has to do with the
chase, putting everything together the best
possible package, pouring to the information,
Trying to get as much information on the account
as you can. Working in the office? I'd rather
work at home. I probably could do more at home
than I can in the office. I like interaction.
Yes, Nancy, Kate and June, but do I need it?
It's a happy, good day? No, I don't think so.
I spend most of my time by myself whether it's
in the car or wether it's on the road at the
account by myself.
R: With whom do you find most enjoyable and
profitable?
P : Nobody.
R: Are you a loner?
P: I am not a loner. I like interaction, and the
commodity of an office. I don't think Nancy,
Kate, June, or Park know what I am doing.
Purposely, or for my own self-reservation, and
conceptually as to what it takes to succeed in
this particular field, in this environment,
217
what it takes to be a sales person. Nancy gives
a shit all the time about ...here again,
comments about my job, what I'm doing, my reply
is "are you busy?" Yes, you are. Because she
is doing the every result of what I sold. I
don't think that's just with our office though
or I don't think that's Korean/American or I
think you have the mentality of inside people
and the mentality of outside people. Yes, you
could talk and discuss certain issues. But each
other's sites were set on different targets and
your job is in various directions. Yes, you are
working in the same context but each job is so
diverse that you can't expect the operation
person to understand what the sales person goes
through, nor can I understand or put myself in
the position to sit at a desk day in day out.
I've done it. I don't like it.
In his stories, Pete asserted autonomy, and found value

and satisfaction in achievement. What seemed important to
him was meeting the challenge of his job and performing its
tasks successfully. For him, the relationship with his co
workers was part of his pleasure not a necessity. Further,
the nature of his job as a salesman and capacity to work
independently minimized his need to interact and have a good
relationship with his co-workers at work, not to say outside
the workplace.
In a way, Pete separated himself from his co-workers by
differentiating his job from theirs. The separation was
seen inevitable by Pete because of one's lack of
understanding of the other's job. Pete tried to defend
himself from his co-workers' negative evaluation by
asserting the unique nature of his job which, he claimed,
was incomprehensible to his co-workers. He did not expect
or want them to understand his job. He made a clear
218
distinction between "I" and "they, " and "my job" and "their
jobs." The issues of mutual understanding, trust and
cooperation as "we" were absent in his stories, and it seems
clear that they were not his main concerns. He was
concerned with his own purposes of asserting individual goal
and achievement, autonomy, and self-worth (positive self-
appraisal) rather than what would be best for the
organization, for collective "we."
In one of the stories Pete told, he emphasized the
importance of building a good relationship with the
customers. However, his focus is still on his own
individual purpose or goal, the purpose of fulfilling his
self-interest and of accomplishing his sales job. Pete's
interest in building a relationship was for a business
rather than for the celebration of collective "we."
They work with you and they will help you. Again,
getting back to eat lunch, building trust, building
a relationship, you are selling anintangiblee,
whether it's Korean mentality or not, I don't know.
Pete's individualistic, job-oriented notion of

relationship was also reflected in the way he talked about
his relationship to his co-workers. In the following, Pete
relates himself to Park and his co-workers in different ways
than the Koreans would.
R: With whom do you work most closely?

P: Park, just for the sales and marketing and to get
ideas and to get things accomplished because all
my success is based on getting certain
219
concessions from the organization to propose and
put on the table for the account. So I need him
in my dealing with Seoul. I send E-mail
originated from me but he places a call, speaks
Korean. His relationship with people in that
department because that's where he is from. He
has a better understanding of what the company
is looking for than I do. A lot of my success
is tied directly to him. And with Kate and
Nancy, I work more on how are you doing, answer
questions, that's it. Just not enough time.
Our job is so diverse, can't be overlapped.
Pete's highly individualistic, job-oriented stories may

be associated with his job as a sales person, and,
therefore, confined to him who was the only sales person in
the Chelm office. His job was clearly distinct from that of
his co-workers. Hence, his stories could be a mere
reflection or part of his particular position in the office,
and sensible only within his autobiographical story of being
a sales person. Nonetheless, his individual-centeredness
was clearly reflected in his lack of need and effort to
integrate himself to his co-workers and maintain a good
relationship with them. He legitimized and continued the
separation between him and the co-workers rather than trying
to remove it.
It was not clear in the data whether or not Pete's
American co-workers shared his individualistic stories.
However, the limited data drawn from casual conversations
between the researcher and the informants, and the
researcher's participant observation suggested that
interpersonal relationship in and outside the workplace was
clearly not the American workers' main topic of the
220
conversation or their main concern.
The themes of solidarity, mutual understanding and

trust that were Park's (as well as June's) main concern
could not be found in the discourse of Pete, Nancy, or Kate.
Cultural Difference
As shown in Figure 5.1 on page 226, what prefigured the
difference between Park and the American subordinates was
the context of culture. There was a strong prefigurative
force from the cultural context with the deontic operator of
legitimate for both Park and the subordinates. Their
different concerns were coherent and legitimate within their
respective cultural contexts but they made Park's effort to
form group solidarity difficult in the episode.
Although the American subordinates may share the same
higher level context with one another, their lower level
contexts may differ. In other words, the higher level story
may highlight the experience and meaning shared by people of
the same culture. On the other hand, lower level stories
reveal the richness and uniqueness of the individual
experience. For example, Pete and Nancy's actions of being
less concerned with group solidarity and the relationship
with the co-workers may be informed by the same cultural
story of individualism. However, their other stories may
allow us to make sense of their acts differently. For
example, Pete's story may be sensible in light of his
autobiography of being a salesman whereas the same acts of
221
Nancy may be coherent in her autobiography of a private and
unambitious person who does not like to socialize more than
necessary as mentioned in the background description.
By the same token, Park's consideration of group
solidarity and June's emphasis on the importance of the good
relationship over individual abilities and achievement may
be embedded in the same cultural context of harmony.
Therefore, their respective acts may be understood in a
similar fashion, as orienting to harmony. However, they did
not share the same stories at other levels such as
relationship and autobiography. Park's acts became more
sensible when embedded in his "undefined" relationship with
the subordinates and his autobiographical stories of a
harmony-centered manager who was not able to do a good job
of integration. On the contrary, June's actions of
emphasizing good relationships could be better understood or
even more significant within his hierarchical relationship
to Park and cooperative relationship to his co-workers, and
his autobiographical stories of a submissive subordinate and
a cooperative co-worker.
In this episode, Park was disappointed because the

intended consequence of his acts of arranging an informal
social occasion was not satisfied. Through the social
gathering, he expected to be able to close the distance
222
(breaking down the hierarchical barrier) , and engender an
emotional bond and a feeling of solidarity between him and
the subordinates so that they can talk things, especially
unhappy feelings and discontents, over with him freely and
harmoniously. He expected that this open informal
communication would lead to mutual understanding and trust,
but his expectations were not met and he became
disappointed.
The main reason for the unintended consequence of
Park's acts was found to be the cultural difference between
Park and the American subordinates. The two different
cultural patterns, namely, the harmony-centered collective
Korean culture and the individual-centered American culture,
were accountable for the different meanings and significance
the social event in the organization had for Park and the
subordinates.
Generally speaking, the American subordinates were not
much concerned with or in need of establishing an emotional
bond or building a close personal relationship with their
superior outside the workplace. The idea of using informal
occasions to have open communication, to enhance mutual
understanding, and to form group solidarity was not found in
the grammar of the Americans. As a consequence, Park's
considerate efforts became ineffective and even useless. He
could not enact the episode, by himself, in a desired way.
It required the "conjoint actions" of all the participants.
Unfortunately, Park's desired conjoint actions were not
223
achieved because not all the participants shared the same
sequence or pattern of the episode.
However, Park's desired conjoint actions do not seem
impossible to achieve. In the episode, Park was not
actively involved in initiating the desired sequence of the
episode. It was due, in part, to the physical condition
(the large room was not available) . If the physical
condition was satisfied and Park initiated the episode in
the intended way, he might be able to achieve his desired
consequence. After the lunch, Park was hoping that someone
would make a suggestion to do something else. He could have
made that suggestion. The Americans may like Park's
invitation to certain activities and go along with him.
Their coordination, in turn, may enable Park to achieve or,
at least, to believe that he has achieved, his desired
consequence. Park's active involvement in the enactment of
the desired episode could have made a difference.
Hence, it can be inferred that the episode could have
been unfolded in many different ways, and it is contingent
upon a number of things. The higher level structure of
cultural patterns does not solely determine how the episode
will or should go. It only shapes the episode in a
particular way at a particular time at a particular place.
The higher level structure of cultural patterns admits a
variety of possible transformation to situated practice
(Cronen, 1994).
224
It also should be noted that not only cultural
differences but also idiosyncratic differences were found in
the episode. Although the participants' actions were
shaped, to some extent, by the same cultural patterns, the
in-depth analysis of the episode revealed idiosyncratic
features which shaped their actions. The idiosyncratic
features were reflected in the participants' stories about
themselves and the nature of their relationships with
different people.
225
PARK
CP: Harmony-centered, collective "we"
AUTO: I am not a good manager
RELA: Hierarchical
Undetermined
E PI: Solidarity formation
[Sensing discontents] (oblig (I-Y) form solidarity

& unhappy feelings arrange an & create harmony
from the subordinates informal
setting for open
communication
[social gathering] (legit (I-Y) have a good time

relax & enjoy
EPI: A party, socialization
RELA: Equal
CP: Individual-centered
AMERICAN SUBORDINATES
Figure 5.1 A Social Gathering
226
Episode 4.2; A Welcoming Party for June
The Korean subordinate, June, did not participate any

of the major social events that were mentioned in episode
4.1 due to his recent hiring. However, he had a few chance
to join a small lunch or dinner gathering. In fact, there
was a welcoming party for him a few weeks ago to which I was
invited. During a lunch break, all the people in the office
except Kate had a nice lunch together at a restaurant
nearby. At the party, they sat around the round table.
June sat next to Park and they were speaking in Korean most
of time. Pete was speaking to Yune and me throughout the
lunch. Before food, each ordered a drink. When the drinks
were served, Park gave a brief welcoming speech in English
and proposed a toast for June. The toasting was the only
time everybody present was acting collectively. During the
interview, June gave his thoughts on social events in Chelm
office.
R: I understand that companies have a lot of social

events and activities that will boost harmony
among workers. Do you have any in this office?
J: We don't have many. At best, we have a picnic
every year.
R: Have you been to a picnic?
J : Not yet.
R: have you been to any other small lunch or dinner
gathering?
J: There was one, the welcoming party for me. You
were there too. It was the first time I ever
227
went to a lunch with everyone in the office. I
heard that in the East and West offices they
have much more socializing opportunities. They
frequently get together after work either for a
drink or sports. We don11 have such things
here. We don11 have time for that.
R: Do you think that you need more get-together
with your co-workers?
J : I am not sure but I don't think it's a bad idea.
Having lunch with those you know well. I like
the idea. I am not sure wether it's necessary
but personally I enjoy going out with my co
workers for a drink and doing things together.
R: Do you think that Americans like social
gatherings with their co-workers?
J: I think so. They like to go out with their
colleagues whereas Korean do with their
superiors. I heard that in the West office,
managers take their subordinates out for a
drink and fun all the time. They even use their
own money to take care of their subordinates.
Park is different. He is not like other Korean
managers. He is not a generous and respectful
manager. He doesn't even spend the company
money not to mention his own money. I got used
to it, so when he offers to pay for my lunch I
decline it. I always pay for my own lunch. ...He
will not make a successful boss. A successful
boss has subordinates who respect him.
R: What do you find it to be the biggest problem

with the Korean management style?
J: Unclear job descriptions. I often find myself
spending my time doing things that I've never
thought that I would be doing. I have to do
everything Park asks me to do. I prefer the
American style in which you have clear job
descriptions. In America, you can refuse to do
things that are not listed in your job
descriptions. In Korea, you can't.
R: Can you give an example? When did you have to do
things that you did not expect to do?
J : Park gave me a job that needs to be done
immediately. So I spent all my regular work
hours finishing it and than worked overtime to
228
perform my regular job duties. It happens all
the time. I don't ask for overtime payments.
But, Park does not take this into consideration.
When I had to take a half day off for a personal
reason, he deducted it from my pay.
CMM Analysis
This episode is the extension of the previous episode

in terms of their thematic affinity. Both episodes were
about social events and activities in the company. In both
episodes, the social event did not meet Park's expectation
to create group solidarity. In this episode, there was a
clear separation between Pete and Yune, and Park and June,
and Nancy was in between being rather quiet most of time.
However, episode 4.2 showed the Korean subordinate's
view of the social events and activities in the Chelm
office, which was not included in episode 4.1. Some of the
grammatical features that was found in June's view are as
follows.
June's Grammar
In this episode, June basically had a good time.
Further, he liked to have more of this kind of social
gathering, and he became disappointed when he found out that
there were not enough social events and activities. Being a
subordinate, he did not have the same concern with creating
a harmonious atmosphere that had been seizing Park's mind.
What is more, June was not aware of Park's difficult
229
position as the manager of the culturally diverse office and
his difficult job of integrating and unifying culturally
different subordinates, and his frustration with
unsuccessful and unsatisfactory results. As a result, June
came to construct a negative view of Park as a non-typical
Korean manager who is not much concerned with the needs and
feelings of his subordinates, probably those of himself.
As shown in Figure 5.2 on page 235, the higher level
context that prefigured June's expectation for Park to
arrange more social gathering opportunities was the cultural
story of harmony-centered superiors who cherish good
interpersonal relations with their subordinates and try to
keep the needs and feelings of the subordinates in mind, and
harmony-centered subordinates who, in return, respect their
superiors.
However, June was not able to keep the expected
harmonious relationship with his boss, Park, since Park did
not meet all the expectations June had of him. Park would
not try to do things that will bond them together such as
going out for a drink, lunch, or activity. He did not even
return June's loyalty. June sacrificed himself by working
overtime without pay and, in return, he expected Park to
take care of him by not cutting a half-day pay when he took
a half day off. June assumed the presence of mutual
understanding and trust between him and Park, but when he
found out otherwise, he felt disappointed and even betrayed.
These various "lived stories" told by June shaped his
230
relationship level context as an uncaring boss and a devoted
subordinate. This nature of relationship became
inappropriate in the Korean cultural story of harmonious
relations between superiors and subordinates, and spawned
June's legitimate criticism against Park. In CMM terms,
there was a strong prefigurative force from the cultural
context with a deontic operator of legitimate.
When embedded in his contexts of cultural patterns and
relationship, June counted Park's actions of not providing
enough social gathering opportunities as inappropriate, and
formed his view of Park as a not-typical, disrespectful and
unsuccessful Korean boss. June's lived experience with Park
further led him to criticize the Korean management style and
prefer the American style management as shown in his last
statement. His preference for the American style seemed to
be a reflexive effect from his lived episode. In other
words, his episodic context changed his cultural context.
When the Korean style did not work for him with Park, he
turned to the American style which may allow him to break
the undesirable pattern of interaction with Park without
discomfort or guilty of disregarding his obligation to his
boss.
With a strong prefigurative force from the cultural
context, June had to be satisfied with acts of criticizing
Park and his Korean management style during his absence. He
did not dare to reveal his unhappy feelings to Park. In CMM
terms, his practical need for Park to meet his various needs
231
was weaker than his reflexive need to sustain the cultural
pattern by not challenging his superior. After all, the
Korean sense of harmony constrained him to obey his superior
unconditionally even if the superior did not meet his
expectations of him.
Park1b Grammar
As discussed in episode 4.1, Park was primarily
concerned with unifying and bringing everyone together
through group-oriented social events and activities. What
motivated him most in this endeavor was his "undefined"
relationship with the American subordinates. The social
events were part of his effort to establish a good
relationship with them. When the planned social events
turned out to be unsatisfactory, Park had to come up with
new ideas. It is not that, as June thought, he did not like
to have social gatherings but that he did not like the way
they were carried out and was looking for some ways to
change the course of the gatherings.
However, with a Korean subordinate, June, the nature of
relationship was no longer undefined. He had a well-
established relationship with him. The relationship was
hierarchical in a harmonious way, and he was comfortable
with the relationship, perhaps too comfortable to be
sensitive to June's needs and feelings. Besides, he was
preoccupied with his adaptive efforts and managing the
"undefined" relationship with his American subordinates. As
232
a result, it seems that June’s needs became secondary to
him, and he seemed to take for granted June's obligatory
acts as a subordinate and did not return them. In other
words, he did not perform and, thus, neglected, consciously
or unconsciously, what is expected of him as a superior.
His negligence or inconsiderateness to perform his duty to
take care of his subordinate disappointed and even
frustrated June and made his job difficult. Park, also, was
not aware of or considerate of his own particular situation
that generated, in part, his negligence. Park's negligence
and June's disappointment were, at least in part, unintended
consequences of Park's difficult job of managing American
subordinates and leading the culturally diverse office.
What is the most significant about this episode is the

fact that potential problems between Koreans, Park and June,
began to emerge. Ironically, the main source of their
problems, which were yet to surface, was initially
originated from sharing the same cultural pattern. Both
Park and June's grammars of action and meaning were
constituted by the Korean cultural theme of harmony. Both
of them were strongly concerned with having good personal
relations with superiors and subordinates.
However, with his integrating role as an expatriate
manager, Park was more concerned with "establishing" harmony
233
with his American subordinates than "maintaining" harmony
with June. There was a preexistent stable and harmonious
relationship between Park and June. However, with the
American subordinates, it had to be created and the creating
job was not easy for Park at all as shown in previous
episodes. What is more, it was also shown in the episodes
that the job of creating harmony had to be accompanied by
cultural adaptation on Park's part. All of these
complicated and made difficult his job of managing the
diverse workplace, and, as a result, he was not able to pay
equal attention to June's needs and feelings. June's lack
of understanding of and empathy with Park's difficult
position along with Park's preoccupation with the American
subordinates produced an unfortunate result of his critical
views against Park and his Korean management style.
Further, June's criticism could be the start of the conflict
between him and Park if it is not managed well. For now,
June's strong sense of obligation to his superior was
inhibiting him from voicing his critical views openly and
creating (overt) problems.
234
PARK
CP: Harmony-centered
RELA: Undefined
AUTO: I am not a good manager
EPI: Group-solidarity
[Unsatisfied with] (oblig (I-Y/ ) form solidarity

the result of need new ideas &
the social events create harmony
[not enough social] (legit (I-Y/) more social

gatherings criticize Park gatherings
as an uncaring
manager
EPI: Harmony building
RELA: hierarchical, harmonious
CP: Harmony-centered
JUNE
Figure 5.2 A Welcoming Party for June
235
Episode 5: A New Answering System
Since he came to the office, Park, has been trying to

listen to and satisfy the needs and suggestions of his
subordinates. One of their suggestions was to install a new
advanced answering system which will answer the incoming
phone calls and take the messages when they are too busy to
answer them. The subordinates felt that the new answering
system would free them from a great deal of stress and
pressure of having to answer frequent and interruptive calls
during busy times and, thus, enable them to work more
effectively.
Park accepted the suggestion. He talked to the home
office and they approved the high budget for the answering
system. Shortly, it was installed. Despite of their
unfamiliarity with its new features and some problems with
its operation, everybody was happy for some time.
However, since the installation of the answering
system, Park has been receiving a lot of complaints from his
superiors and colleagues in other offices and customers.
The common complaint was their inability to talk to the
person(s) immediately at times of urgency and emergency.
Customers said, "It's an inconvenient system, but I will try
to adapt myself to the system." Colleagues comment, "How
come it's so difficult to get through to you. The new
answering system has problems." His immediate boss made
following reprimanding remarks a few times, "What the hell
236
are you guys doing down there? Why on earth are you not
answering the phone?" These complaints were made only to
Park because he was the manager. Park decided to take some
action in this matter and brought it into a staff meeting.
At the staff meeting, he explained the undesirable
situation that was brought about by the new answering
system. He also suggested that they go back to the old
system and the new answering system will be turned on only
when all the lines are busy and after the close of the
office hours in the evening. The subordinates, of course,
were not happy but did not oppose Park's suggestions at the
meeting, and his suggestions were put into action
immediately.
Among others, June seemed most unhappy with going back
to the old system because it affected him the most. June's
job is, in part, a receptionist, and he is responsible for
answering all the incoming calls and transferring them to
appropriate people. Since the employment of the new system,
he has been able to devote himself to other important duties
that he feels worth spending time. However, now that he is
back to his old job of answering all the calls which he
finds little worth, he is extremely dissatisfied with Park's
decision. The following is what he had to say about the
whole situation surrounding the new answering system and the
Korean management style.
R: Did you find anything different than you thought

about the company? What is the least expected?
237
J: The managerial style is too Korean.
R: Can you give me an example?
J: We spent $6,000 on the new answering system, it's
a lot of money. But with one remark from the
superior, it was cut off (by Park) . As far as
I know, we even got the permission to hire one
more person but Park did not feel that we needed
it.
R: What made you think so?
J : Park told me. He told me that we had a budget
for a new person but he decided we could manage
without a new hireling. I think he wants to
become a hero in the company by cutting down the
expense and reducing the cost. The company will
like a manager who is cost-effective but he
won't be a popular manager.
R: Do others think so too?
J: Yes, everybody thinks that Park reduced the cost
to become a hero.
R: Who is most affected by Park's reducing cost?
J: Everybody. He made us to doso much work. In my
case, I am doing so many different, often
trivial, kinds of work here. When I had chance
to talk to people in other offices, I found out
that the amount of work I do was far more than
what they do. They have fewer job duties than
I have with the same pay or even with more pay for
some experienced people. They can do a real
good job on one or two things. Park thinks that
I can benefit from learning many different kinds
of work. But, it's just toomuch for me. I
talked to Parkabout it. If we hire one more
person to take over some of minor jobs I have,
I can concentrate on the things that interest
me. Like Billing, I really want to learn how to
process bills. It's a very important job. But
things didn't work out as I wished. So, I am
struggling now. I am stuck with all this work.
The following is some of Park's thoughts on the same

situation involving the new answering system.
238
R: I noticed that the answering system is no longer
available. What happened?
P: I received a lot of complaints from my boss,
colleagues, and customers. They complain only
to me, so other people don't know about it.
June wants to turn it on all the time so that he
can concentrate on his own work and only answer
his own calls. But I proposed to turn it on
only after working hours and when all the lines
are busy. Probably, he is not happy with my
decision.
R: Did you ask him?
P: No, it was based on my inference. Even if I had
asked him, he would not have expressed his
discontent. Who would express his/her feelings
totally to those he/she has to face everyday?
There can be individual difference in how much
one expresses his/her emotions but even those
who express emotions a lot would not reveal them
100%. I am not sure if my decision is good but
I feel that we should submit ourselves to
inconvenience to make other people convenient...
I wouldn't object his suggestion but he has to
give me a reasonable alternative. He has to
persuade me to feel that his alternative is
better than the existing system.
CMM Analysis
In this episode, June's discontented feeling toward his

superior that was revealed in the previous episode (4.2)
continued and, in a way, was building up. Although the
American subordinates were also involved, to some extent, in
this episode, the main actors were Park and June. The main
issue in the episode was Park's decision to deactivate the
new answering system and June was the one who was the most
and directly affected by the decision and, thus, most
unhappy with Park. In the following, I will discuss their
239
respective grammars of action and meaning which may
illuminate the nature of their situated interaction at the
deep level, their patterns of interaction and relational
dynamics. These grammars were diagramed in Figure 6.1 on
page 250.
June1s Grammar
As in the case of the previous episode 4.2, June's
complaints in this episode about Park's lack of care for his
subordinate were again informed by the cultural story of
harmony between superiors and subordinates and the reflexive
need to maintain the harmonious relationship, a caring
superior and a devoted subordinate. However, June's
culturally informed expectations of his superior and his
need to keep a culturally patterned relationship with his
boss were not satisfied. In the episode, June was
disappointed and even frustrated with Park's decision to
turn off the answering system. With a prefigurative force
from the higher context of cultural patterns, June counted
legitimately Park's actions as uncaring, and reinforced was
his view of Park as a uncaring manager which had been formed
in the previous episode.
Further, June's lived experience reinforced and
perpetuated his critical view of the Korean management
style. The more Park disappointed him, the more June became
critical toward him as well as the larger Korean cultural
pattern of managing. His criticism was informed by the
240
"told stories" about the organization, specifically about
Korean managers, which seemed originated from American
workers, and was affirmed in his lived experience with Park.
For instance, June's critical view of Park's decision not to
hire a new person was informed by the "hero" story about
Korean managers which seemed to circulate among American
workers and passed along to Korean co-workers. Pete, one of
the American worker, stated during the interview.
I think their (Korean managers) concern is to come

over here, make a name for themselves, increase sales
and reduce cost. So that after your time is up three
years, five years, seven years, you go back home, you
are promoted, you are a big boss. But who is left
behind? Everybody else. Maybe that's what you have. I
think that's a fundamental flaw in or mentality of the
organization. Because what happens is people like me,
or other problems in East or whatever offices, you see
the same thing, only the name of the game is to fill
the ship. Who cares how we do it, what we do it. Just
fill the ship. Is that long term thinking? No, it's
just immediate today. What's found on the road will
come and we will deal with it then. Long range
planning not existent. Come here, increase sales,
reduce cost and come home as a big shot. I have
tendency to feel myself and other guys in the offices,
it's the same thing, with all of them basically, it's a
broad statement, but I think all of them see the exact
same thing.
By the same token, June's critical view of Park's

decision regarding the answering system was informed by
another "told story" about the organization and its Korean
managers that he seemed to have learned from American
workers, and lived and confirmed in this particular
situation. What seemed implicated in June's statement, "we
spent... .with one remark from....cut off" was that Park's
241
decision was inefficient and impractical because it was
based solely on his obligatory relationship to his boss. In
other words, in June's view, Park cut off the expensive
answering system in order to please his superior for no
other reasons than this. Inefficiency or impracticality was
central to June's criticism towards Park's actions. In his
view, Park's exclusive concern with his obligation to his
boss was impractical because it did not allow him to
consider other practical matters.
Inefficiency/impracticality was a theme that was frequently
found in various stories (re) told about the organization by
American workers and Yune, a Korean-American. In episode 3,
it was found that Yune's criticism of Park and the company
in terms of inefficiency and impracticality was directed to
their close-mindedness. Pete's criticism, however, on the
company's inefficiency geared toward non-existent long-range
goals and plans, and clear directions, which were implicated
in his foregoing statement, "who cares....not existent" and
in his following story about his lived experience with a
Korean boss.
The guy who hired me, Chang. He will just say, "do
without fail." "Without fail" will be his running
joke, without fail, not any direction on where you
should concentrate and not any direction on where we
best succeed or long range plans. Immediacy of it,
in this case, was to get the cargo and put in
on the vessel.
What seems significant about the foregoing stories that

informed June's grammar of meaning is that June was
242
privileging practicality of the ongoing situation over the
proper or harmonious superior-subordinate relationship that
he had been so cherished and lived up to that point. June
counted Park's action of deactivating the answering system
as the subordinate's obligatory act to his superior. In his
old grammar, this obligatory act was not only legitimate but
also respected since it was essential to harmony. But, in
his new emergent grammar, the same act became impractical
and, thus, inappropriate. When his own reflexive need to
maintain harmony with Park conflicted with Park's reflexive
need to do the same thing with his superior, harmony became
secondary to him and practicality was given priority. As a
result, he came to align with American workers, and deviate
from the Korean cultural pattern.
Even though June's grammar of meaning revealed that his
meaning was no longer strongly prefigured by the Korean
cultural pattern of harmony, his grammar of action was
still, to a great extent, prefigured by it. In his actions,
he still was a devoted subordinate. He kept his complaints
about Park to himself and continued to be obedient to Park.
As shown in Figure 6.1 on page 250, June's grammar of
meaning and action were informed by a different set of
stories: a cultural story of harmony vs practicality; an
organizational story about Korean managers; a relational
story of a devoted subordinate and an uncaring manager vs a
critical subordinate and an uncaring manager; an episode of
harmony vs criticism.
243
Park1s Grammar
The superordinate context that informed, throughout the
episode, Park's grammar of meaning and action was the Korean
cultural pattern of harmony. He was concerned with and
responded to his subordinates1 needs by installing the new
answering system. However, as indicated in June's grammar,
he was caught between two different relational obligations.
On one hand, as a superior, he was obligatory to keep his
subordinates' needs and feelings in mind. On the other
hand, he also had obligation to other people in the company.
Especially, as a subordinate, he had to obey his superior's
request unconditionally. In CMM terms, his two different
relationships created two different reflexive needs.
And, the two reflexive needs conflict with one another.
They were mutually exclusive in that one need could be
satisfied only at the expense of the other.
However, the relationship with his boss took priority
of that with his subordinates. Park obeyed his boss's
request at the expense of his subordinates, especially,
June. In the Korean cultural context of harmony, Park's
action seemed legitimate since one's obligation to superiors
was unconditional whereas one's obligation to subordinates
was not although central to harmony.
Although Park did not satisfy June's need, he was still
trying to maintain harmony with him by being sensitive to
and concerned with his feelings. He sensed and inferred
June's unhappy feelings about his decision. He knew that
244
June was uncomfortable and even forbidden to speak out his
discontent to his boss ("Even if I had asked him, he would
not have expressed his discontent") . He even knew what
prohibited him from expressing his discontent since they
shared the same cultural pattern. In his statement, "who
would express.... face everyday," he was alluding that what
prohibited June to reveal his discontented feelings was
harmony. Someone does not express his unpleasant feelings
to those he has to "face everyday" for fear of creating
discomfort and disharmony in their relationship. By the
same token, June did not reveal his discontent to Park
because he did not want to make him uncomfortable and threat
harmony with him.
In this sense, there was a high degree of mutual
understanding between Park and June. However, this great
degree of coherence did not lead to mutual satisfaction and,
hence, the degree of coordination between them was minimal.
June was not satisfied but he had to keep it to himself, and
coordinate with Park in action.
Another story that seemed to serve to justify Park's
actions is his autobiographical story of "I am a reasonable
manager" that he told in episode 1. In his statement, "I
wouldn11...the existing system," he reconstituted his self-
concept as a reasonable manager. In this context of
autobiography, it became legitimate for him to not meet his
subordinates' need to turn the answering system back on
unless they can provide him with a "reasonable" alternative.
245
As shown in Figure, 6.1, his 3rd autobiography story allowed
him to be a caring superior (1st autobiography) and, at the
same time, an obedient subordinate (2nd autobiography) .
Although he disregarded his subordinates' need at this
point, he created room for reconsideration for the future.
This reconstituted his 1st autobiography context that had
been threatened by his 2nd autobiography. He was still
concerned with his subordinates' needs and willing to listen
to their ideas and suggestions as long as they are
reasonable. The 3rd autobiography story made it possible,
to some extent, for him to restore harmony with his
subordinates which had been damaged as a result of having to
meet the two conflicting reflexive needs created by the
context of autobiography, that is, by the 1st and 2nd
stories of a caring manager and an obedient subordinate.
This episode illuminated a potential breach between

Park and June. Its CMM analysis revealed the process by
which June's discontent with Park increased and even
extended to the organization. As a result, several changes
in the office were found to be coming along. Some of the
significant points and implications that were found in the
analysis are as follows.
246
Increased June's Discontent and a New Coalition
In episode 4.1, the main source of his discontent was
at the level of relationship. He was disappointed and
unhappy primarily because he was not able to preserve a
culturally patterned (harmonious) relationship between a
subordinate and a superior. Park did not return June's
dedication and self-sacrifice to him. In addition, he did
not even try to nurture his relationship with June through
social events and activities. Basically, for June, Park was
just not a typical Korean manager with whom he can easily
establish a strong bond.
However, in this episode, June's complaints about Park
expanded to about Park's inefficiency, and further he became
critical toward Park as well as the organization. His
increased discontent set him against Park and the
organization. As a result, he became more related to
American workers than to Park, and a new division (between
Koreans rather than between Koreans and Americans) in the
office seemed to be on its way. The coalition or rapport
between Koreans (Park and June) that were evident in other
episodes seems to start breaking down or, at least, not as
strong as before. This suggests that Park's job of managing
the diverse workplace became even more complicated and
difficult. He had to deal with problems not only with the
American and Korean-American workers but also with the
Korean worker. This means that he had to be able to
understand and manage ever changing relational dynamics
247
among people in the office regardless of their cultural
origin.
The Extent of Coherence and Coordination

In the episode, some common grammatical features were
found in Park and June's meaning and action. Embedded in
the same cultural theme of harmony, they were able to
account for each other's action coherently. June counted
Park's decision (to deactivate the answering system) as an
obligatory act as a subordinate (to please his superior) .
Park also counted June's indisclosure of discontent in the
same way, as an obligatory act as a subordinate (not to
discomfort his superior). This great degree of coherence of
each other's acts or mutual understanding led to some degree
of coordination betweem them. June did not reveal his
unhappy emotion, Park understood it and opened up a
possibility of taking June's need into consideration in the
future.
Creative Resolution
A contradiction was created when Park had to meet the
two conflicting role obligations. His need to respect and
please his superior contradicted his need to take care of
his subordinate's needs and feelings, and vice versa. The
contradiction was inherent in the Korean cultural pattern of
harmony in which one has to be sensitive to the needs of
248
both subordinate and superior and their needs might be
conflicting with each other.
However, one's unconditional obedience or obligation to
his/her superior but not necessarily to subordinates enables
him/her to override his/her subordinate1s contradicting
needs as Park chose to do. As a consequence, his harmonious
relation with his subordinate was affected and he may well
be stuck in the uncomfortable or undesirable relationship.
His story of a reasonable manager afforded him to re
establish the damaged relationship with his subordinates,
especially, June. This story provided a context for
restoring the damaged relationship. And, the undesirable
consequence of the contradiction between two relational
needs was creatively resolved, at least, on the part of
Park.
249
JUNE
Action Meaning
CP Harmony Practicality
ORGA Impractical Korean

managers
RELA A devoted subordinate A critical subordinate

& &
An uncaring manager An uncaring manager
EPI Harmony Criticism
[Park's decision] (legit (I-Y/) privilege practicality

to turn off the criticize (M) maintain harmony
answering machine oblig (I-Y/)
do not criticize
or complain (A)
[June did not] (oblig (I-Y/) mutual understanding

complain understand his
unspoken feelings
EPI Two conflicting obligations
AUTO A caring manager

An obedient subordinate
A reasonable manager
RELA Damaged
Restored
CP Harmony
PARK
Figure 6.1 A New Answering System
250
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In this case study, I explored "goings-on" in a

multicultural organization, specifically, its sales office
in Chelm that comprises Koreans, Americans and a Korean-
American. The lived experiences of the four culturally
mixed members of the organization were examined by
identifying and making connections among various stories
told and lived by them.
Guided by the theory of CMM as the theoretical and
methodological framework, the five episodes were
reconstructed based on the participants' stories told and
lived. These episodes were presented as representative of
the major "goings-on" in this culturally diverse
organization during my fieldwork. The analysis of these
"goings-on" was guided by the five main themes that emerged
in the process of organizing data: cultural adaptation,
differentiation/division/discrimination, harmony,
biculturalism, and language. The in-depth analysis of each
episode revealed the ways in which one or more of these
themes were manifested in various instances of situated
interaction.
The analysis of each episode provided some insight into
one or more of the following issues: emerging and changing
patterns of interaction and relationships among the four
culturally mixed members of the organization; the extent of
coordination, tensions and conflict among them; the changing
role and significance of cultural differences. The six
episodes were organized and presented chronologically, and
the comparitive analysis of all the episodes enabled me to
see and describe patterns of transformation that occurred
within the organization.
In the following, I will first summarize the main
findings of this case study which will illuminate major
"goings-on" in the organization. Then, I will discuss the
implications and limitations of this study for intercultural
studies in regard to theory and methodology. This chapter
will be concluded with suggestions for future research.
Goings-on in the Organization
In this section, the main findings of this study will

be discussed in terms of the above-mentioned five main
themes that informed the analysis. In each discussion, I
will also provide insight into some of the following
significant issues: emerging and changing patterns of
interaction and relationships among the four participants;
the extent of coordination, tensions and conflict among
them; the changing role and significance of cultural
differences.
252
Cultural Adaptation as a Process of Transformation
Cultural differences among Koreans, Americans and

Korean-Americans were evident in this study. Each
participant's grammars of meaning and action were
prefigured, to a great extent, by their respective cultural
patterns such as management styles, what is expected of the
superior or of the subordinate, patterns of the interactive
relationship between superiors and subordinates, and among
co-workers. This played a large role in the creation of
problems such as resistance to different cultural patterns
which led to tensions and conflict such as the unintended
division in the organization created by Park, and generated
Pete's unfair accusations of discrimination against Park and
the organization for discrimination, and conflict between
Yune and Park which developed to an all-out argument.
However, cultural patterns are always in the process of
being made, remade, and transformed. Especially, the
process of transformation occurs when existing (old)
cultural stories do not afford one to act appropriately or
effectively in a new situation, or to coordinate with new
people. In the intercultural situation where cultural
differences may constrain coordination among people, they
usually try to adapt themselves to the new situation by
negotiating or changing their old cultural stories.
The nature of interaction in this organization was
intercultural, and, thus, cultural adaptation was one of the
253
key issues. For Park, an expatriate manager, the need for
cultural adaptation was the strongest among the four key
participants because of the unique situation he came into.
His pressing job responsibility to head the office of
Americans led him to change some of his cultural ways of
acting and doing things in a way that might help him to
manage the immediate situation and perform his job
assignment successfully. As a result, he adapted to the new
situation in several ways: he was more sensitive and
responsive to the needs of his American subordinates than he
was to his own needs or those of the Korean subordinates; he
employed some of the American (democratic and egalitarian)
cultural practices such as being on a first name basis with
his American subordinates, being an open, approachable and
expressive manager, not being judgmental to the Americans'
concern with their personal interests (i.e. monetary
concerns) .
Cultural adjustment was also needed on the part of
Pete, an American subordinate. When his "told" stories
about Korean managers (close-minded, aloof, authoritarian)
did not hold in his lived experience with Park, he had to
figure out the reason for the difference betweem "lived" and
"told" stories. He made sense of this inconsistency by
creating a story about Park's self-concept as a unique
individual. However, in a new situation (hiring Yune), his
new story about Park changed and was replaced by the old
stories about Koreans managers. In other words, the story
254
about Park did not hold in the new situation: the old
stories reemerged and were reconstituted and even
reinforced. It seems that the process of cultural
adjustment or transformation was inherent (constantly-
occurred) in this particular multicultural organization.
Park's cultural adjustment had been quite successful in
the sense that there were few stories that suggested
tensions and conflict between Park and the American
subordinates, especially Pete, until Yune and June came into
the picture. Bringing in a Korean-American (Yune) and,
later, another Korean (June) to theorganization turned out
to add difficulty and complexity to Park's job of managing
the organization. Among other things, the process of hiring
Yune provided a backdrop for the emerging stories about
division and discrimination. Park was caught between two
needs: to sustain his cultural patterns with Koreans or
Korean-Americans, and to change his patterns with the
American subordinates. His response to both needs resulted
in an unfortunate but unintended consequence of division in
the organization and Pete and other Americans' unfair
accusations of discrimination against Pete and the
organization. Park's constant switching between the two
cultural patterns were viewed by the Americans and even by a
Korean as differentiation or discriminatory acts rather than
as his conscious efforts of cultural adjustment. The issue
of differentiation/division/ discrimination will be
discussed next.
255
Differentiation/Division/Discrimination
The accusations of Park's divisive and discriminatory

acts were made not only by the American workers, but also by
a Korean worker. The accusations of both parties were the
result of Park's back and forth switches between the two
cultural patterns as part of his endeavor for cultural
adjustment.
Pete's complaints about Park typically included his
lack of trust toward American employees and his privileging
of Koreans over Americans. These were reflected in some of
the typical stories about Korean managers and the
organization "told" by Pete and shared by other American
employees. Pete's "lived" stories about Park confirmed and
reinforced these "told" stories, and added to the tensions
and potential conflict between the Korean management and the
American employees.
A Korean worker, June, also complained about Park as
well as the organization's discrimination against Koreans
that was reflected in his stories about the organization:
the company's unequal treatment between the Koreans and the
Americans in terms of who (the Americans) are and who (the
Koreans) are not allowed to ask freely for a pay raise or
over-time pay. These stories at the organizational level
were reconstituted in his lived experience with Park. Even
though June was not allowed or encouraged by Park to request
a raise or over-time pay, Pete was able to do so freely and
256
openly. This episodic story about discrimination affirmed
and reinforced the stories "told" about the organization's
discrimination against the Koreans.
Transformation by the Outsiders

The change in the patterns of interaction between Park
and the Americans from what is characterized as "harmony" to
"division" was created when Yune was brought in for an
interview and hired. However, it was initiated by someone
from outside (the professor who recommended Yune to Park)
not by Park.
The Extent of Coordination, Tensions and Conflict

Despite the emerging stories about discrimination, both
Pete and June coordinated with Park in their situated
interactions. However, the extent of coordination was a
little different between Pete and June. In Pete's case, it
was minimal in the sense that Park's actions were not only
insensible but also inappropriate in Pete's grammar. Pete
was very unhappy with Park but his practical need to keep
his job forced or, at least, led him to hold down his
resistance to Park and move on. There was a potential
tension between Park and Pete but it did not lead to
conflict.
To the contrary, although June was also unhappy with
Park, he was not as frustrated as Pete was. More over, the
Korean cultural story about the harmonious relationship
257
between superiors and subordinates kept him in his place,
and obligated him to coordinate well with his boss.
Harmony
Harmony which epitomizes the Korean organizational

practice was a main issue in this study. The theme of
harmony was intrinsic in cultural stories "told" and "lived"
by the Koreans, Park and June, about: harmony-oriented
leaders (superiors) and subordinates, the harmony-oriented
decision-making process, the emphasis on the harmonious
relationship between superiors and subordinates.
Park and June's grammars of meaning and action were
richly colored by harmony. Harmony played an important role
in shaping what a manager or a subordinate ought to be.
Park's strong need to create harmony in the office,
especially with his American subordinates, was evident and
prevalent in all the episodes. Even his change of cultural
patterns (cultural adjustment) to the American cultural
patterns was, in fact, part of his efforts to sustain his
cultural patterns of harmony.
Park's preoccupation with the creation of a harmonious
relationship with the Americans had an unfortunate but
unintended effect on his harmonious relationship with June
which had been already established. June who was also a
strongly harmony-oriented Korean became disappointed and
even frustrated with Park who did not properly maintain
258
harmony with him. In June's lived experience with him, Park
did not fit his "told" stories about caring and sensitive
Korean managers. This resulted in a noticeable
transformation in June.
June's Transformation
To begin with, despite his 6 year-long education in
America, June was a very typical Korean employee whose acts
were strongly and consistently prefigured by stories about
harmony. As in the case of Park, a great deal of his
"lived" and "told" stories contained the theme of harmony.
However, all of this started to change when he saw the
discrepancy between his "told" stories about caring Korean
managers and "lived" stories about Park's seemingly uncaring
actions. Gradually, he came to resist Park’s non-typical
managerial practice, and, finally, he started to criticize
the Korean management style and form a coalition with or
relate to the American co-workers. This significant change
was indicated in his most recent (episode 5) "told" stories
about impractical and inefficient Korean managers and the
organization that he seemed to have learned from the
American employees, and his "lived" story about "a new
answering system" in which these "told" stories were
reconstructed and confirmed. By the same token, his
cultural patterns changed: he then privileged practicality
of the ongoing situation over the harmonious relationship.
259
What needs to be noted is that what June resisted most
was not Park's unequal treatment of Koreans and Americans.
It was the result of the contradiction that was inherent in
the Korean cultural patterns of harmony. Caught between his
conflicting obligations toward his superior and his
subordinate (June), Park chose to please his boss. In other
words, it was not so much cultural differences but the
problems within the Korean cultural patterns that expedited
June's process of transformation.
Even though a potential breach or conflict between June
and Park emerged, they still seem to maintain coordination.
In his interaction with Park, June continued to be an
obedient subordinate who did not wish to displease or defy
Park. As long as June was obedient and loyal, Park kept
June's needs and feelings in mind even if, sometimes, he had
to disregard them.
Biculturalism
The issue of biculturalism was important in this study.

In most intercultural studies, the main focus is on the ways
in which two or more (mono) cultures meet and interact.
Rarely is attention paid to bicultures. This study provided
insight into the ways in which a bicultural person
interacted with people from two cultures of he is
simultaneously part. It also shed some light on the
260
possible issues and problems that are associated with
bicultural persons in the organization.
The Third Cultural Pattern

In addition to Korean and American cultural patterns,
there was a third cultural pattern. That was Korean-
American cultural patterns that most 1.5 Korean generations'
experience, as in the case of Yune whose grammars were
strongly prefigured by these bicultural patterns. Korean-
American cultural patterns may afford them to do certain
things (i.e. being familiar with both cultural practices)
but, at the same time, these affordances may have negative
consequences for Korean-Americans (i.e. being rejected by
both cultures: double marginalization). It was Yune's
bicultural patterns and Park's rejection of them that added
complexity and tensions to the patterns of interaction and
relationship among people in the Chelm office.
Cultural Disintegrator as an Unexpected Consequence

In the first place, Yune's bicultural and bilingual
background made him an ideal cultural mediator for Park who
was not quite sure how to act appropriately and competently
in relation to his American subordinates as well as to his
American customers. However, he turned out to be a cultural
disintegrator. With the advent of Yune, the subtle tensions
and potential conflict which had been created in the office
came to the surface. Yune openly confronted and criticized
261
Park's Korean managerial practice, which undermined not only
Park but also the entire organization. Yune's criticism
toward Park and the organization reflected, in many ways,
the latent complaints of the Americans, especially Pete,
against the Korean management. In this sense, Yune
contributed to the perpetuation and reinforcement of the
atmosphere of division. As a result, Yune posed more
problems and difficulties for Park than the American
employees did, and even a threat to his authority as manager
and to the hierarchical order of the organization.
The Pattern o£ Conflict between Park and Yune

Park's lack of understanding about, perhaps, his
unwillingness to understand or accept Yune's bicultural
identity and bicultural patterns had a tremendous impact on
his relationship with Yune. It was Park's view of
biculturalism as a convenient tool which a person can
rationally utilize whenever there is a need for it which
spawned his destructive pattern of conflict with Yune. In
other words, Park expected Yune to use Korean cultural
patterns (harmony) consistently with him and use American
cultural patterns (individualism) only when there is a need
(with Americans).
When Park found out that Yune was not using his
biculturalism effectively and appropriately, that is, when
Yune acted toward Park in American ways, he just could not
tolerate it. This is due to the conflicting relationship
262
between harmony-oriented Korean and individual-oriented
American cultural patterns. Cultural values, beliefs, and
practices are so radically different between the two
cultures that often one's ways go against those of the
other. Therefore, Yune's acts that were prefigured by
American cultural patterns were counted by Park as too
aggressive, disobedient, defiant and bad-natured. On the
other hand, Park's refusal to accept Yune was taken by him
as close-minded, inefficient, impractical and not
progressive. This pattern continued over a long period of
time.
The repetitive pattern of interaction between Park and
Yune was destructive one in which they got stuck in a
charmed loop that was difficult to change: every time the
conflict repeated, their relationship deteriorated and got
worse. In the conflict, there was obviously a lack of
coordination between Park and Yune such that their
respective acts were insensible, inappropriate, and even
unacceptable to each other. They were not able to
intermesh, at all, their acts sensibly with some sense of
satisfaction. The conflict had a tragic ending of all-out
argument and the resignation of Yune.
Language
Language is often a significant issue in multicultural

organizations where it becomes a source of communication
263
difficulties and problems between people who speak different
languages. The multicultual organization that was examined
in this study was not an exception. The common language
used was English. Given the radical difference between
Korean and English languages, language barrier posed a
problem between the Korean and American workers. Most of
the American employees (Kate and Pete) pointed out the
Koreans' incomprehensible English as either the only
cultural difference or a source of communication
difficulties. There were three issues related to language
that invited further attention: power imbalance, reflexivity
between language and context and differing views of
language.
Power Imbalance
Power imbalance was found to be an issue. The
Americans' ability to communicate (speak English) better
seemed to give them some kind of power over the Koreans in
the sense that they often "acted in such a way that created
more constraints" for the Koreans (Cronen, personal
communication). Especially, Pete put himself in a superior
position by evaluating the Koreans including the manager,
Park, on the basis of their command of English. He pointed
out that the Koreans were not essential and suitable for
their jobs. This (stereo)typical ignorance and arrogance of
most Americans were reconstituted when he took for granted
his inability to speak Korean and blamed the company
264
(discrimination) for his disadvantages which, in fact, were
the result of his language inability. Pete's typically
American tendency to assess one's ability based on
competence in speaking implicated the Western individual-
centered, instrumental view of communication as opposed to
the Korean relationship-oriented view of communication.
Reflexivity between Language and Context

What seemed to be the most important finding was the
reflexive relationship between language (communication) and
context (relationships) : the way we communicate is
reflexively related to our social reality. In this study,
it was shown that English and Korean indicated different
relationships between communicators. For example, the way
Park and June were communicating in Korean reflected a
clear-cut hierarchical (harmonious) relationship, whereas
when they switched to English, the relationship context
became equal and symmetrical. Given the Korean emphasis on
harmony, it was almost culturally imperative for Park and
June to speak Korean in order to maintain a harmonious
relationship.
However, their legitimate use of Korean contributed to
the creation and perpetuation of the climate of division in
the office. It was criticized by Pete as a lack of effort
to blend in the host culture or as a lack of progressive
spirit. Nancy even claimed that Korean is used to talk
about the Americans in their presence. The Americans1 lack
265
of understanding about the Korean use of language resulted
in somewhat unfair accusations against the Koreans, and
reinforced the division that already existed.
Implications for Intercultural Studies
In this case study of the intercultural interactions

among Koreans, Americans, and a Korean-American, CMM theory
was employed as the theoretical and methodological
framework. In this section, I will discuss some of the
implications of this study for intercultural studies, first,
in terns of its theory, and then its method. I will
conclude with the implications of this research for future
research.
Implications of Theory
The purpose of this study was to explore "goings-on" in

a particular multicultural organization as everyday
practices. Particularly, I was interested in examining the
extent to which cultural differences among the members of
the organization constrained coordination among them and
thus created problems such as tensions and conflict. The
CMM theory was employed to investigate these focal issues.
The employment of the CMM theory for this study
produced the findings that told us, in detail, what goes on
in a particular multicultural organization. This study did
266
not exclusively focus on cultural differences. Rather, it
examined the intercultural experience as part of daily life
that is continuous in time and place. As a result, I was
able to avoid presenting fragmented accounts of
intercultural experience, and, instead, was able to show the
configuration of intercultural experience as a whole. This
was possible by paying attention to other forms of life or
stories other than cultural patterns such as relationship,
autobiography, etc. all of which make up our social, in this
study, organizational life.
Especially, this study enabled us to get a close look
at the ways in which various patterns of interaction among
the participants in the organization were constructed,
sustained and changed. These interactive patterns, then,
allowed us to understand the intricate nature of the various
relationships among people, the extent of coordination, and
both subtle and overt tensions and conflict that emerged
from some of these relationships. In other words, this
study revealed to us some of the complexities and
contradictions in the organization which, CMM believes, are
inherent in human experience in the social worlds.
This kind of elaborate findings can not be found in most
intercultural studies that employ the traditional approach
(logical positivism) and that is not situated or
contextualized.
Another important theoretical implication of this study
is the utility of literature on general cultural patterns
267
that are studied by ethnographers or those who do
comparative studies. The literature on Korean harmony-
oriented managerial styles was found to be very useful in
this study. Harmony was a main issue in this study, and it
was the most prevalent theme in the stories "told" and
"lived" by the Korean participants, Park and June. During
the interviews, the researcher did not even have to
introduce or allude to this cultural term. The theme of
harmony was at the forefront of most of their stories. It
almost seemed intrinsic in the Korean organizational life.
Literature on Korean-American cultural patterns was also
useful for this study. "Double-marginalization" was found
to be the most pressing issue for the Korean-American, Yune.
It permeated in the stories he told as well as reconstituted
in his lived experiences within the organization.
However, unlike the Koreans and the Korean-American,
cultural patterns were not at the forefront of issues for
the Americans. Although the Americans do not explicitly
talk about their cultural patterns, at least not so much as
the Koreans did, the in-depth analysis showed that their
grammars were also guided by their cultural patterns, and
their "lived stories" reflected some American cultural
patterns.
Hence, the contribution of this research to the study
of general cultural patterns is two-fold. First, this study
supports the studies of general cultural patterns.
Secondly, this study extends this general knowledge by
268
showing detailed ways in which these general patterns become
manifested. What is more, this study is capable of
providing insight into the ways cultural patterns emerge,
sustain and even transform in practice. This accountability
of the process of transformation in cultural patterns was
one of the strengths of the CMM theory. The ever changing,
rather than fixed, role and significance of cultural
differences were, hence, one of the most significant
findings of this study that contribute or add to the most
existing intercultural studies.
Implications of Methodology
The CMM theory and its circular interviewing method

focus on the interactive system or persons in conversations,
and treat the researcher or interviewer as part of social
system under study (Cronen, Pearce and Xi, 1989; Cronen,
1994, 1995a) . In other words, CMM admits that the
participation of researchers will affect the system in one
way or the other (Cronen, 1994). This is especially so in
organizational and intercultural situations where some
people may have more affordances and less constraints than
others, and the researcher may be a member of one of the
cultural groups which comprise the system. Two important
issues are: how the researcher may position herself within
the system and how her position will affect the research
process, and how her cultural identity will affect the
269
research process. There were some implications in regard to
these issues throughout this study. These implications
affected the process of data collection as well as the final
analysis.
First, my attempt at neutral position during the
process of data collection might have had impact on the
research site as a social system. I tried to maintain
neutrality by not aligning with any particular group or
person but with all the participants, and always actively
joining each participant's grammars (Lang, workshop, 1996).
I tried to sustain my active engagement both during
interview sessions and in my participant observation. As a
result, I was on everybody's side rather than nobody's.
This impartial coalition created some problems that are
associated with the researcher's position. My active and
impartial engagement sometimes was mistaken for support, and
each participant attempted to take advantage of it in some
or other forms. Yune, for example, who was having a serious
conflict with Park tried to use my informal interview with
him as an opportunity to voice his views openly and loudly.
On one occasion, he almost shouted that he was not happy
with Korean managers and even the organization. His
shouting was directed to Park who was inside of his office.
This prompted Park to come out of his office. Although Park
did not directly confront Yune, he looked quite disturbed
and it seemed obvious that he came out just to stop Yune
from getting outspoken. On various occasions, Yune seemed
270
to be happy to talk to someone (the researcher) who
understands and even empathizes with his bicultural identity
and the problems and difficulties that are associated with
it.
Pete also used the individual interview session to get
across his critical views of the organization including
Park, and also to obtain some information from me about the
company and Park. He also liked to get some cultural advice
from me, and I recommended to him some books about cultural
differences in managerial practices between Koreans and
Americans.
Park was not exceptional. In most cases, he was
genuinely anxious to get some advice on how to be a good
manager in the multicultural office. The most pressing
concern for him was to create harmony in the office, and
several times, he asked me to give some good ideas about
social activities and events. On one or two occasions, Park
also tried to get from me his subordinates1 reaction to his
decisions. He did not directly ask me but it was insinuated
in his statements.
Although my active engagement did not indicate or lead
to any serious problems during my fieldwork, it is quite
possible that it had some invisible impact on the people
under study. For example, it is possible to conclude that
my participation influenced the system by creating a
communication channel through which anybody in the system
can give voice to their views and opinions about the system
271
which may have been suppressed before. Especially, those,
who had not been able to speak out their views to others
because nobody wanted to engage in them in fear of loosing
their job, were afforded to do so.
A somewhat positive impact of my participation was
educational one with a possible transformative power. Since
the main concern for my research was cultural differences,
cultural differences became a forefront issue in my
encounters with the participants. To different degrees,
each participant seemed to have become aware of or even
concerned with different cultural patterns of others. In
some sense, it became part of their grammars by which they
could make sense of their social practices with others which
had been incoherent to them. The cultural stories that were
not consciously available to the participants might have
suddenly become available, and enabled them to see the
connections between the cultural stories and their other
stories. As a result, a transformation may have occurred in
the interactive or relational patterns among them. The new
stories that they came to learn from the researcher, or they
rendered visible or created themselves during my research
may allow them to better reflect on their intercultural
experience in new ways.
Secondly, the researcher's participation in the
intercultural system could have a possible impact on the
selection of data as well as the analysis of data. My
Korean identity may have affected the selection of data in
272
the sense that my conversations with the participants were
guided by the Korean cultural patterns or a Korean moral
framework that I was not conscious of.
It is also probable that I might have uncovered a set
of stories that an American researcher would gloss over or
vice versa. This might have put the Korean participants at
an advantage over the Americans participants in the sense
that I might have selected, presented and elaborated stories
that reflect the experiences and moral framework of the
Koreans more than those of the Americans.
This might have an effect on the final analysis as
well. Since the final analysis is my interpretation of the
lived experiences of the participants, it might have been
influenced by my cultural identity and my personal
intercultural experiences with Americans. For example, in
the first episode, its second phase was named as "harmony"
which is a culturally loaded term in Korea. An American
researcher, American participants or readers would
understand the situation differently and name it
differently, probably, with another culturally loaded term
in America.
Being a Korean graduate student at an American
university and, hence, being an intercultural participant
myself, in many ways, I was able to sympathize and empathize
with some of the difficulties and problems that were faced
by the Korean participants. As a result, some part of the
analysis reflected my own cultural bias against Americans.
273
Particularly, my analysis reflected my personal abhorrence
of and strong stand against the American view of language
and some Americans' ethnocentric attitude (with a false
sense of superiority) toward those whose first language is
not English. The inclusion of an American co-researcher
would have benefited this study by bringing in a different
perspective to some of these culturally related issues than
the one that was presented in the study.
In general, circular questioning was useful for this
study as an interviewing method. It worked particularly
well with the American, Pete, who was open and willing to
talk about his experiences in the organization. On the
contrary, the method did not work as well with the Koreans.
This method presented some problems for the Korean
participants who probably were not familiar or comfortable
with the mode of circular questions: their responses were
not as detailed and precise as those of Pete.
Although, in general, it was quite useful for this
study, it could be culturally biased against Koreans because
it is a Western method that was developed in the West and,
therefore, largely embodied the Western view of
communication which emphasizes verbal communication. On the
contrary, the Korean cultural patterns of communication
deemphasize verbal communication, reflect a relational view
of language, and require a great deal of sensitivity and
inferring ability to understand meanings and implications
behind words.
274
Therefore, it is suggested that, when applying circular
questioning to Korean participants, the interviewer should
be able to keep in their grammars and accommodate their
distinctive cultural patterns of communication.
Implications for Future Research
This study opened up a number of possibilities for

future research. One possibility would be to provide some
answers to one of the research questions for this study for
which I was not able to come up with direct and adequate
answers: What are some implications of and suggestions for
the management of cultural differences in this organization
for researchers and consultants?
In this study, I was able to identify some of the
problems and difficulties that were associated with cultural
differences in a particular multicultural organization. My
findings suggest that there is a strong need for training
and consulting programs that are specifically designed for
people in multicultural organizations. As pointed out in
the previous section, it seemed that all the participants
(Park, Pete, Yune, etc.) were looking at me (the researcher)
as a door to change in their organizational life,
specifically in dealings with others. As such, it seemed
evident that there is a need for some kind of external
intervention (help or advice, in a simple term) in this
organization. It would take another research project to
275
respond to this need adequately.
However, some suggestions would be: people certainly
need to know more about other cultures, and they also should
know what happens when the two cultures connect and what
those moments are like. Given that culture is so much part
of our daily life and even of who we are that it would be
futile or unethical to eliminate cultural differences among
people. These rather simple suggestions, however, are not
sufficient, and more practical and adequate responses, such
as some of the precise ways to intervene in the interactive
system with the goal of producing some change, require
another research project.
Another follow-up study could be to conduct the second
research in the same organization. It could be done in the
same office where the first study was conducted. In the
second study, it would be interesting to include the two
American female workers who did not participate in the first
study. Their experiences may be different from those male
workers, and may provide some different insight into the
goings-on in the organization. It also would be interesting
to conduct the second research in a different office. The
comparison between the two offices may tell us more about
the entire organization and its culture.
276
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, N. (1983b) . A typology of management studies

involving culture. Journal of International Business
Studies. 14, 29-47.
Adler,N. Duktor,R. & Redding,S. (1989) . From the Atlantic to
the Pacific century: Cross-cultural management reviewed.
In C. Osigweh (Ed.), Organizational Science abroad:
constraints and perspectives. 27-56. N.Y.: Plenum.
Ady, J.C.(1994). Minimizing threats to the validity of
cross- cultural organizational research. In R. Wiseman &
R. Shute (Eds.), International and intercultural
communication Vol XVIII: Communicating in multinational
organizations. Sage Publications.
Alexander, A., Cronen, V.E., Kang, K.H., Tsou,B. & Banks, B.
(1986) . Patterns of topic sequencing and information gain:
A comparative study of relationship development in Chinese
and American cultures. Communication Ouartery. 34. 66-78.
Applegate, J., & Sypher,H.(1983). A constructivist outline.
In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), International and intercultural
communication annual: Vol. 7. Intercultural communication
theory: Current, .perspectives. 63-78, Bevery Hills, CA:
Sage.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A.(1978). Organizational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective.Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1988). Comparative Anthropology and
Moral Domains: An Essay on Selfless Morality and the Moral
Self. Cultural Dynamics, i, 98-128.
Barnett, G. (1988). Communication and Organizational
Culture. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Communication. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Berry, J. (1980) . Introduction to methodology. In H.Triandis
& J. Berry (Eds) , Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:
Vol. 2 . 1-28, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown (1992) .
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and
organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Carbaugh, D. (1990a) . "Soul" and "Self11: Soviet and American
Cultures in Conversations. Unpublished article.
277
Carbaugh, D. (1990b). Cultural Communication and
Intercultural Contact. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence.
Carbaugh, D. (1991) . Competence and cultural pragmatics:
Soviets and Americans in contact. Unpublished article.
Chang, C.S. & Chang, N.J. (1994) . The Korean Management
System: Cultural. Political. Economic Foundations. Quorum
Books: Westport, Conecticut.
Chen, G. (1989, November) . A model of the dimensions of
intercultural communication competence. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Chen, M. (1995) . Asian Management Systems: Chinese. Japanese,
and Korean Styles of Business. Routledge: London and New
York.
Cheng, C.Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary
communication theory. In D.L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication
theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. New York:
Academic Press.
Chong, H.S.(1994).The creation, coordination and development
of a Korean and a North American. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Chung, K.H. & Lee, H.C. (1989). Korean Managerial Dynamics.
Praeger: N.Y.
Cronen, V.E. (1994). Coordinated management of meaning:
Practical theory for the complexities and contradictions
of everyday life. In J. Siegfried (Ed.), The status of
common sense in psychology. New York: Ablex.
Cronen, V.E., Chen, V., & Pearce, W.B. (1988). Coordinated
management of meaning: A critical theory. In Y. Kim and W.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication.
Bevery Hills: Sage.
Cronen, V.E., & Lang, P. (1994). Languge and action:
Wittgenstein and Dewey in the practice of therapy and
consultation. Human Systems, jj, 5-43.
Cronen, V.E. & Pearce, W.B. (1992). Grammars of identity and
their implications for discursive practices in and out of
Academe: A comparison of Davies and Harre1s views to
coordinated management of meaning theory, Theories in
intercultural communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
278
Cronen, V.E. , Pearce, W.B. & Xi, C. (1989) . The meaning of
'meaning' in the CMM analysis of communication: A
comparison of two traditions, Research on Language and
gpsi-aL.interAc.ti-on, 21, 1 -4 0 .
Cronen, V.E. & Shuter, R. (1983) .Initial interactions and the
formation of intercultural bonds. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Intercultural communication theory. Bevery Hills: Sage.
Cui, G.(1989, November). Measuring intercultural
effectiveness: An integrative approach. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Deal, T.E. & Kennedy, A.A. (1982) . Corporate cultures: The
rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA :
Addison-Wesley.
Dodd, C.H. (1981). Cross-cultural communication.
Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt.
Driskill, G.W.(1995). Managing cultural differences: A rules
analysis in a bicultural organization. The Howard Journal
of communications. 5., 353-379.
Engholm, C. (1991) . When Business East Meets Business West.
Wiley: N.Y.
Fielder, T.E. (1967) . A theory of leadership effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Fisher, B. A. (1978) . Perspectives on human communication.
New York: Macmillan.
Friday, R. (198 9). Contrasts in discussion behaviors of
German and American managers. International Joural of
Intercultural Relations. 13. 429-446.
Frost, P. (1980). Toward a radical framework for practical
organizational science. Academy of Management Review. 5,
501-508.
Gonzalez, A., Houston, M., Chen, V.(1997). Our voices:
Essays in Culture. Ethnicity, and Communication. L.A. CA:
Roxbury.
Goring, T. (1981) . Communicative competence: A cross-cultural
study of first conversations between strangers.
Unpublished master's thesis,University of Kansas Lawrence.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1986) . Intraethnic and interethnic
uncertainty reduction processes. In Y.Y. Kim (Ed.)
Interethnic communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
279
Gudykunst W.B. (1988) . Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y.Y. Kim &
W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.) . Theories in intercultural
communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1993) . Toward a theory of effective
interpersonal and intergroup communication: An
anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R.L.
Wiseman & J. Koester, (Ed.) Intercultural communication
competence. Newbury Park: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B., Chua, E. & Gray, A. (1987) . Cultural
dissimilarities and uncertainty reduction processes.
In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook. 10. Bevery
Hills: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Hammer, M.K. (1987) . The effects of
ethnicity, gender and dyadic composition on uncertainty
reduction in initial interactions. Journal of Black
Studies. 1&, 191-214.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Kim, Y.Y. (1984) . Communicating with
strangers: An approach to intercultural communication.
Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Nishida, T. (1984) . Individual and cultural
influences on uncertainty reduction. Communication
Monographs. 51. 23-36.
Gudykunst, W.B., Yang, S.M. & Nishida, T. (1985).
A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory.
Human Communication. 11. 407-454.
Hall, B.J. (1992) . Theories of culture and communication,
Communication Theory. 2, 50-70.
Hammer, M. (1984) . The effects of an intercultural
communication workshop on participants' intercultural
communication competence: An exploratory study.
Communication Quarterly. 32. 252-262.
Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R.(1978) . Dimensions
of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2, 382-
393.
Hamzah-Sendut, T.S.D., Madsen, J. , Tinsin, G.T. & Longman
(1989). Managing in a plural society.
Harris, L.M., Cronen, V.E. & McNamee, S. (1979). An empirical
study of communication episodes. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations. 5., 271-279.
280
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1982) . Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources
(4th ed.) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hildebrandt, H.W. (1981) . International business
communication: theory, practice, teaching throughout the
world. An Arbor, Mich: Division of Research, Graduate
School of Business Administration, University of Michigan.
Hofstede, G. (1980) . Culture1s consequences: International
differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Howe, R. (1971) . A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 16, 321-338.
Hurh, W. M. (1980) . Toward a Korean-American Ethnicity: Some
theoretical models. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 3 (4) . 444-
464.
Johnson, J.D. (1993). Organizational communication structure
Alex Publishing Corporation.
Kealey, D. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness:
Theoretical issues, practical applications. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations. 13, 387-428.
Kelly, L., & Worthley, R. (1981). The role of culture in
comparative management: A cross-cultural perspective.
Academy of Management Journal. 24, 164-173.
Kim, C. S. (1992) . The Culture of Korean Industry: An
Ethnography of Poongsan Corporation. The University of
Arizona Press: Tucson & London.
Kim, M.H. (1992) . Korean-American identity in the postmodern
condition: Narrative accounts of the politics of identity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
Kim, Y.Y. (1983) . Searching for creative integration. In
W.B. Gudykunst & Y.Y. Kim (Eds.).Methods for intercultural
communication research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Kim, Y.Y. (1988) .Communication and Cross-cultural Adaptation:
An Integrative Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kim, Y.Y., & Paulk, S. (1994) . Intercultural challenges and
personal adjustments: A qualitative analysis of the
experiences of American and Japanese co-workers. In R.
Wiseman & R. Shuter, Communicating in multinational
organizations. London: Sage.
281
Koester, J., & Olebe, M.(1988). The behavioral assessment
scale for intercultural communication effectiveness.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 12.
233-246.
Kreps, G.L. (1986) . Organizational communication: theory and
practice. New York: Longman.
Lang, P.(October, 1996). Workshop on circular questioning.
Lincoln, J., Olson, J. & Hanada, M. (1978). Cultural effects
on organizational structure: The case of Japanese firms in
the United States. American Sociological Review. 43.
829-847.
Maddox, R.C. (1993) . Cross-cultural problems in international
business: The role of the cultural integration function.
Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books, cultural
McCaughan, N. & Palmer B. (1994). Systems Thinking for
Harassed Managers. London: Karnac Books.
Morgan, G.(1986). Images of Organization. Sage: Beverly
Hills.
Pacanowsky, M.E. & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982) .
Communication and organizational cultures.
Western Journal of Speech communication. 46. 115-130.
Parkhurst, C. C. (1966). Business Communication for Better
Human Relations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Pawanteh, L. (1996) . Stories of soiourn: A CMM analysis of
the intercultural interactions of Malay women.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of
Massachusetts Amherst.
Pearce, W.B. (1991). Communication: The coordinated
management of meaning (CMM). Unpublished article.
Pearce, W.B. (1992). A campers' guide to constructionism,
Human Systems. 2., 139-162.
Pearce, W.B. (1994) . Interpersonal communication: Making
social worlds. New York: Harper Collins.
Pearce, W.B., Stanback, M. & Kang, K.W. (1984). Cross-
cultural studies of the reciprocal causal relation between
communication and culture. In S. Thomas (Ed.). Studies in
communication theory and interpersonal interaction.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
282
Pennington, D.L.(1985). Intercultural communication. In L.A.
Samovar & Porter, R.E.(Eds.). Intercultural communication:
A reader (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Prosser, M. (1978) . The cultural dialogue: An introduction
to intercultural communication. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Putnam, L.(1982). Paradigms for organizational communication
research. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46,
192-206.
Putnam, L. & Pacanowsky M. E. (1983). Communication and
Organizations: An Interpretive Approach.Sage Publications.
Sarros, J. (1992) . What leaders say they do: asn Australian
example. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal. 13. 21-27.
Schneider, A.E., Donaghy, W.C. & Newman, P.J. (1975).
Organizational communication. McGraw-Hill Book company.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G.
(1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-neutrality: Three
guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
Process. 12:1, 3-12.
Simon, H. A. (1957) . Models of man. New York: John Wiley.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Personal Communication. August 28.
Smith, A. & Tayeb, M. (1988). Organizational structures and
processes. In M. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge
to social psychology. 116-127, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory
of interpersonal competence in the intercultural context.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 13.
241-268.
Swenson, D.L. (1982). On the use of symbolist insight in the
study of political communication. Human Communication
Research. 2/ 379-382.
Tang, S., & Kirkbride, P. (1986). Develooping conflict
management skills in Hong Kong: An analysis of some cross-
cultural implications. Management Education and
Development. 17. 287-301.
283
Taft, R. (1977) . Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N.
Warren (ed.) ,Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology: Vol. I.
London: Academic Press.
Taman, E. (1995) . The influence of ambiguity tolerance,
open-mindedness, and empathy on sojourners' psychological
adaptation and perceived intercultural communication
effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International.
51(11), 4015.
Thornton, S. (1990). Leadership traits that work worldwide.
Association Management. 42. 22-34.
Tompkins, P. K. , & Cheney, G. E. (1982) . Unobtrusive control.
decision making, and communication in contemporary
organizations. paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, November
1982.
Torbiorn, I. (1985). The structure of managerial roles in
cross-cultural settings. International Studies of
Management and Organization. 15. 52-74.
Vroom, V. &
.Yetton, P. (1973) . Leadership and Decision
Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1991). Staying The Course: The Emotional and
Social Lives of Men Who Do Well at Work. Fawcett
Columbine: N.Y.
Wiio, O.(1989, May). Intercultural and international issues
and variables in comparative studies in organizational
communication. Paper presented at a meeting of the
International Communication Association, San Francisco.
Williams, S. (1989). A description of the rules for the
performance appraisal interview utilizing the Coordinated
Management of Meaning theory. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls.
Wiseman, R. , Hammer, M. , & Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of
intercultural communication competence. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations. 13. 349-370.
Wiseman, R. & Shuter, R. (1994) . Communication in
multinational Organizations: Conceptual, theoretical, and
practical issues. In R. Wiseman & R. Shuter, Communication
in multinational organizations. London: Sage.
Wittenberg-Cox, A.(1991) . Delivering global leaders: Top
multinationals are putting high fliers through an
exclusive management course. International Management.
46(1). 52-53.
284
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Wofford, J. C., Gerloff, E. A. & Cummins, R. C. (1977).
Organizational Communication; The Keystone to Managerial
Effectiveness.
Wolfson, K.,& Pearce, B.(1983). A cross-cultural acomparison
Of the implications of self-disclosure on conersational
logics. Communication Quarterly. 31. 24.9-256.
Yu, E.Y. (1983). Korean Communities in America: Past,
Present, and Future. Amerasia. 10(2). 23-51.
Yum, J.O. (1988) . The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal
relationships and communication patterns in East Asia.
Communication Monographs. 55. 388-373.
Zey-Farrell, M., & Aiken, M. (1981). Introduction to
critiques of dominant perspectives. In M. Zey-Ferrell &
Mj . Aiken (Eds .) , Complex orgnizations : critical
perspectives. Glen iew, II: Scott, Foresman.
285

ACFrOgBHmsNFXuy8MHKNa4YHZcrTeVmXGwmY2SOZudmCbaUWm vfCyRNc viOAza9fYBOpqTMmceeltsVn3EwTNMBqfwELi-Ro04yzWcOD5gJFiD9LYKlOT-lEFAgNU

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ACFrOgBHmsNFXuy8MHKNa4YHZcrTeVmXGwmY2SOZudmCbaUWm vfCyRNc viOAza9fYBOpqTMmceeltsVn3EwTNMBqfwELi-Ro04yzWcOD5gJFiD9LYKlOT-lEFAgNU

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Submitted to the Graduate School of the

UMI Microform 9737513

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

Approved as to style and content by:

Vernon E. Cronen, Chair

Marta\ Calas ,vMember

Jarice/JIanson, Department Head

It has been a long journey for me to reach this stage of

COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT

This dissertation presents a rich, detailed account of

|_c Charmed Loop

Recently, intercultural communication in organizations,

The classical literature on organizational

Traditional Approach: A Critique

The following critical review of the traditional

Logical positivism or objectivism literally inherited

Organizations as Physical Entities

Communication as Physical Entities

Research Goals and Orientations

Early studies on organizational communication are

This statement echoes the aforementioned concerns for

Most research on "organizational universal" (Wiseman &

The traditional approach to organizational

The social constructionist paradigm transcends the

Epistemology and Ontology

Communication as the Primary Social Process

Organizations as Social Construction

Research Goal« a n d Orientations

In this approach, the unit of observation is system or

The CMM theory is a particular theory and research

Main Features of the CMM theory

CMM, as Cronen (1994) states, as a practical theory,

Figure 1.1 Person X's Hierarchy of Stories

However, the number of stories and the hierarchical

Higher and Lower Order Story As discussed above, the

Cultural Patterns Cultural patterns are various

Autobiography The autobiography is made up of a number

Relationship One's stories about relationship reveal

Episodes According to Pearce (1994) , episodes are the

Charmed Loop and Strange Loop

Logical Forces, Deontic Operators

Person Positions: Locus of Identity (L.o.I.)

CMM is of great use for the study of intercultural

A Critique of CMM from the Eastern Perspective

E m p h a s is on Verbal Commun-i nation First of all, CMM1s

Hierarchical Model Secondly, CMM's hierarchical model

Deontic Operators Another CMM feature, deontic

A CMM Approach to Intercultural Comrmin-ination Research

As pointed out above, CMM has been utilized to examine

Research on Communication in Multi-cultural Organizations

As people become more and more aware of the cultural

Cross-cultural comparative research, Adler (1983b)

Another common feature of existing studies on cultural

New Research Orientation

There has been some research, although very few, which

Guided by the social constructionist viewpoints,

1.1 What are the significant (both Korean and

As discussed in the earlier part, CMM theory's main

1.3 What do these relationships tell us about this