Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management

Commentaries and Critical Articles

CCM

International Journal of

2006 Vol 6(3): 361–376

Cross Cultural Management

Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research Hamid Yeganeh Laval University, Quebec, Canada

Zhan Su Laval University, Quebec, Canada This article is a reflection on conceptual foundations of cultural management research. By relying on extant literature, a few conceptual underpinnings are examined and criticized, and some suggestions for improvement are proposed. Discussing such issues can be useful not only for advancing future research but also for achieving a more profound understanding of previous studies and their limitations.

ABSTRACT

KEY WORDS • cultural dimensions • culture • cross cultural research • international management • methodology

Over the last decades organizational studies have witnessed an increasing interest in culture. Despite this trend, cultural studies seem to lag behind other fields of management science. While some shortcomings encountered in cultural management research may be categorized solely as methodological issues, others have their origins in conceptual and theoretical foundations on which research hinges. The methodology of cultural research has commonly been discussed (e.g. Bhagat and McQuaid, 1982; Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Fischer et al., 2005; Nasif et al., 1991;

Schaffer and Riordan, 2003; Sekaran, 1983; Tayeb, 1994, 2001; Usunier, 1998). However, it seems that despite some attempts, conceptual issues have not received enough attention. This article is a study of the conceptual foundations of cultural management research. By relying on extant literature, a few major conceptual underpinnings are examined and criticized, and some suggestions for improvement are provided. Discussing such issues can be useful not only for conducting future research but also for achieving a more proCopyright © 2006 SAGE Publications www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1470595806070644

362

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)

found understanding of previous studies and their limitations.

Ontological Orientations and Research Approaches A review of the literature reveals that much of cultural management research is based on a realist perspective both at ontological and epistemological levels, and adopts a positivistic approach (Aycan, 2000). Accordingly, culture is considered as existing and real systems of beliefs and values with deterministic relations among the constituent parts. The goal of research is to explain culture as an objective reality as fully as possible, and most of the time it is supposed that there is only one possible answer to each research question (Arbnor and Bjerke, 1997). The positivistic approach recognizes that culture as an objective phenomenon can be accurately measured, observed and investigated. Therefore, research is inclined towards so-called objective measurement through the use of questionnaires, surveys and mathematical techniques. Definitions and frameworks put forward by Hofstede (1980), Schein (1999) and House et al. (2004) are some examples. The proponents of positivism maintain that operationalization and reductionism seen in this approach are useful for simplifying and explaining an abstract concept such as culture. Most of these studies are characterized by rigor and internal validity and intelligible results. Since the results are relatively context-free they may be replicated for similar cases. The predictability is in line with the instrumentalist perspective of knowledge creation that dominates the modern world. Hence, the value of knowledge is equal to its practical use. This can explain why the aim of the researcher is to discover narrow causeand-effect relationships and generalizable law-like solutions that permit the prediction of implications of culture for organizations. Since these studies create practical and hard knowledge, they are more likely to receive

attention and support from both scholars and practitioners. As a matter of fact, it is widely accepted that studies adopting positivistic and quantitative approaches have more chance of being published in highly ranked management journals, especially in the USA (Johnson and Duberley, 2000). Despite the popularity of the positivistic approach, the extent to which it can be used to examine an abstract and multi-level notion such as culture is questionable. The positivistic approach emphasizes the importance of generalizations and universal laws, however cultural studies based on this approach have established few generalizations. Most importantly, the results are neither general nor exact like those in natural sciences, and therefore they are of limited practical utility in the real world and in predicting organizational behavior. Since culture is a very complicated concept, the researchers adopting a positivistic/analytical approach try to choose parsimonious models utilizing as few variables as possible, with the variables being of an objective kind. By operationalization, they try to reduce complex concepts such as culture to concrete indicators. Parsimonious measures facilitate the research design, but by trying to increase the internal validity (whether or not what has been identified as the cause produces the effect), they may sacrifice the external validity (the extent to which the research findings can be extrapolated to other cases). Since most of these studies are looking for supposed narrow causal relationships, they focus only on very limited aspects of cultural phenomena and they neglect an in-depth understanding. This character of the positivistic approach renders cultural research a process of simple hypothesis-testing rather than thoughtful investigation (Earley and Singh, 1995). Overemphasis on hypothesis-testing has rendered culture ahistorical, linguistically naïve and psychologically unaware. In this respect, some scholars assert that positivistic research can be employed to produce meaningful

Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 363

quantitative measures, but the nature of culture renders its understanding through these techniques very difficult to achieve (Von Krogh and Roos, 1995). In contrast to the positivistic approach, social constructivism focuses especially on the actors’ interpretations or constructions of cultures. Viewing culture as a mental construction implies a hermeneutic approach to investigation rather than using standardized etic measures. In this way, the researcher is looking for the ‘meaning’ of cultural phenomena rather than possible relationships among constituents. Geertz (1974) maintains that culture is essentially a semiotic concept and its analysis should not be experimental in search of law, but rather interpretive in search of meaning. Therefore, interpretive analysis of culture requires an empathic approach in which an attempt is made to understand culture holistically and from the perspective of the participants, rather than through objective analysis by surveys and questionnaires. Geertz (1974) compares the methods of an anthropologist analyzing culture to those of a literary critic analyzing a text: sorting out the structures of significance and determining their social ground and import. For that reason, studies adopting a constructivist approach rely mostly on qualitative methods and try to provide delicate, thick, interpretive and microscopic understanding of cultural phenomena. These studies are generally rich in meaning and incorporate historical and contextual elements to offer a holistic picture. The interpretive approach is very popular among anthropologists and ethnographers; however we know of only a few researchers who have adopted this procedure in the area of organizational sciences (e.g. Gertsen and Søderberg, 1998; Kunda, 1992; Parker, 2000; Vaara, 2000). Brett et al. (1997) suggested that an interpretative approach can be more appropriate for cross cultural organizational research. The main challenge for these researchers is to structure their studies and

develop appropriate strategies to collect and analyze data. Contrary to positivistic studies, which rely on standardized tools and techniques such as questionnaires, surveys and scales, the whole process of constructivist research is unstructured, and qualitative methods are used for both collecting and analyzing the data. The researcher has to engage in a meticulous study of the historical, social, political, economical and institutional systems of cultures prior to designing research and collecting data (Aycan, 2000). This approach requires much effort and renders research a long and tedious enterprise. The results of interpretive studies have been described as ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1974), in-depth, meaningful, historical and linguistically rich. These studies describe details and provide us with a comprehensive understanding of cultural phenomena, but because of the interpretive character of the investigation, the findings remain subjective and contextbound. Once removed from their original context, the results are hardly reliable or replicable. The lack of generalizability in this approach weakens the value of created knowledge and reduces the likelihood of dissemination. To overcome shortcomings inherent in every approach, we propose that the organizational sciences need to take into account not only real and explicit manifestations of culture, but also implicit and semiotic ones that need to be interpreted. Thus a practical and useful view in cultural research can imply some degree of rapprochement between the two approaches. It is suggested that rather than being contradictory paradigms, the positivist and constructivist perspectives correspond to two different epistemological levels, and both of them can contribute to a better understanding of culture and its impacts on organization. At the ontological level, a Kantian perspective implies that the process of perception does not consist only in passive reception of a reality independent of us, but it is a creative process in which our

364


minds produce those objects (Delanty, 1997). Therefore, cultures are not only real systems of beliefs and values, but also products of mental constructions. At the methodological level, it is proposed that the two approaches can be considered as complementary. While constructivist studies are rich in meaning, they are context-bound and poor in generalizability. On the other hand, positivistic investigations involve precision marked by analytical relations and predictability. The thick description of culture produced by constructivist/qualitative research can help us to define variables and frame hypotheses in quantitative research. In a similar way, precision and intelligible measures provided by positivistic/quantitative approaches can lead to the clarification of abstract and hard-tostudy cultural concepts.

Incorporating Culture in the Research While most scholars (e.g. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980; Schein, 1999) see culture as central to international management, a few others view cultural elements as being of less importance. Proponents of a culture-free approach insist on two arguments. They maintain that culture is not essentially a significant variable in management, and that much of its alleged importance is based more on speculation than on facts (Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, 1970). According to this argument, the effects of culture are erased by those of other structural, economic and hard factors. The second argument for a culture-free perspective rests on cultural convergence suggesting that during the last decades the barriers between different cultures have diminished and the world, especially the business world has become more homogeneous (Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1985). This homogenization trend can be observed in areas such as rationalism, secularism, democratization, and increasing interest in capitalism and market-based economies.

The proponents of culture-bound management insist on the importance of culture in organizations. Hofstede (1999) asserts that management is about people, and therefore, it is part of the culture of society in which it takes place. The culture-bound management approach rejects the convergence thesis by maintaining that cultural values are deeply rooted in individuals and will not converge as a result of industrialization or economic ideology. According to this view, cultures differ across borders and managerial practices cannot be considered as universal and context-free (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997). For this group of scholars, management should be tailored to cultural values. The literature reveals that most researchers, especially during last decade, adhere to a culture-bound perspective and accept that culture has some important implications for organizational behaviour and management practices (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997; Hofstede, 1980, 1999; Sekaran, 1983). Over the past years, this trend has gained momentum and led to overemphasizing the importance of culture to the detriment of other social, economic or contextual variables. As a matter of fact, many cross cultural researchers simply compare some aspects of organizational behavior and then, in the absence of other explanations for these differences, attribute them to culture (Tayeb, 1994). Since culture is a broad and nebulous concept, most of time it is very difficult to distinguish between cultural and non-cultural variables because they are closely entangled. Even when it is possible to distinguish between culture and non-cultural variables, it is difficult to separate their effects. For example, the high volume of trade between the US and Canada can be attributed to cultural similarities between the two countries; however, this may be simply because of their geographical and structural proximities. Many factors that are not fully cultural and some others that are non-cultural may have implications for organizational behavior.


While culture can be considered as a variable affecting some aspects of organizations, in many cases it is problematic to incorporate it as the only independent variable of research. We propose that the goal of research should be to provide large variations of independent and dependent variables (Kerlinger, 1986). Therefore, considering culture as the principal independent variable can be justified only if there are substantial variations in both independent and dependent variables. When it is not possible to separate noncultural and cultural factors, researchers can incorporate both groups of variables by defining broader measures. These broader measures may not be completely cultural, but they can serve researchers with more meaningful findings for predicting dependent variables (effects). For example, Goodnow and Hansz (1972) defined geocultural distance as a broad measure referring to a number of variables including the level of development and political stability, and suggested that it can be considered as a factor affecting foreign investment. In the same vein, Johanson and Vahlne (1977) referred to psychic distance as the differences in economic development, language, level of education and legal systems. They suggested that structural differences and language differences should be added to cultural differences. We suggest that in many studies, it would be better to use socioeconomic indices which are much more clear-cut and reliable than so-called cultural variables. Some examples include GDP, GNP, population size and density, market size, stock market characteristics, political system, religious dominance, class structures, or education statistics, which are widely available and relatively accurate (Baskerville, 2003; Lindridge, 2005).

Culture Conceptualization Organizational researchers have borrowed the concept of culture from other disciplines of the social sciences such as anthropology/

psychology and tried to redefine it according to their interests and research orientations. The management literature abounds with definitions of culture; however, most of them are limited in scope and overlook different facets of this vague and complex notion. Roberts and Boyacigiller (1984) suggested that the most fundamental problem in cultural studies is the definitional issue. In fact, the problem is not the lack of definition, but rather the lack of an exhaustive and generally accepted definition. This problem can be attributed to an agreement on general scientific paradigms in the field of cultural research. According to Kuhn (1970), scientific paradigms are universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners. This community of practitioners is a community of scientists who find solutions to the problems defined by the paradigm. Those whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice (Kuhn, 1970). Therefore, an agreement on general paradigms may serve as the definition and operationalization of culture in organizational studies (Ronen, 1986). The classical work of Hofstede (1980), Culture’s Consequences, had a considerable impact on the community of researchers in organizational disciplines and, for a while, served as a model. Affected by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, many researchers tried to define and conceptualize culture in terms of four (or five) bipolar dimensions to study some aspects of organizational behavior. Despite its popularity, Hofstede’s work has been subject to extensive criticism from researchers in the area of organizational science (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ignore important characteristics of culture such as religiosity, language, historicity and context. An analysis of social science journal articles showed that Hofstede’s model received very little attention from other disciplines such as anthropology and sociology, which naturally

366


tend to be interested in cultural research (Baskerville, 2003). In contrast with dimensionalized and narrow definitions, some researchers take culture as a very vague and comprehensive variable representing a wide range of social and economic factors (Dowling et al., 1999). This can be problematic because, if culture is not clearly defined, the study and its results will not be meaningful. Disappointed by the complexity of culture and the lack of agreement on its definitions, some researchers have suggested it is better to abandon the concept of culture (Kraut, 1975). Some scholars are cynical and maintain that cross cultural research has passed its infancy and these shortcomings cannot be justified (Tayeb, 1994). By contrast, others estimate that cross cultural management research is still in its infancy and more advances need to be achieved (Adler, 1983; Nasif et al., 1991; Sekaran, 1983). To overcome such definitional problems, one suggestion is to replace the term ‘culture’ with more refined and theoretically meaningful constructs that can be easily defined, operationalized and measured. Depending on the purposes of the investigation, especially when the effects of independent variables are sought, researchers can narrow their definitions of culture and use relatively unambiguous notions. It is argued that since culture is a vast concept, focusing on some constructs can be very useful for achieving meaningful results. The choice of these notions can be based on the characteristics of countries being investigated. Individualism, hierarchical distance, modernity and religiosity are some examples of notions that can replace the broad notion of culture (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart and Baker, 2000). Whatever the definitions and concepts are, it is important that researchers specify their definitions a priori and demarcate the limitations clearly.

Culture Orientations and Culture Dimensions Since culture is a complex notion, a practical and popular approach among researchers is to identify several of its major characteristics and compare them across borders. These characteristics are usually called culture orientations or dimensions. While both terms are used interchangeably, in this text we distinguish between dimensions and orientations. By dimensions we mean those cultural traits that are bipolar and dichotomous. For instance, the framework proposed by Hofstede (1980) relies on four (later five) bipolar dimensions with extreme points at each end. Cultural dimensions have been extensively criticized. Osland and Bird (2000) called dimensionalization a ‘sophisticated stereotyping’ incapable of understanding cultural behavior. Conceptual properties implied by dimensionalization such as exclusivity, linearity, symmetry and stability are often misleading (Jacobs, 2005). In fact, these properties are imposed on respondents by research questionnaires. A major criticism of all cultural dimensions is that they rely on Aristotelian categories that are mutually exclusive (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993). Dimensionalization implies that cultures are static points on a dual axis and one cultural category necessarily excludes its opposite. Accordingly, cultural traits are supposed to be on a straight line with two extreme poles: individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, and so on. People are situated somewhere between these poles; if they are not individualistic, they are necessarily collectivistic, and vice versa. However, since cultural dimensions are produced by aggregating statistical scores, it is very reasonable to suppose that two opposite traits are present in every culture but one trait is mathematically stronger. This means that an individualistic culture is to some extent collectivistic, and vice versa. In other words, the overall behavior of a culture is determined by


the interaction of existing opposite traits. In contrast with dimensions, cultural orientations can be considered as notions that are not necessarily dichotomous and linear. Models proposed by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993) and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) represent examples of these cultural orientations. HampdenTurner and Trompenaars (1993) view cultures as circular and as dancing from one preferred point to its opposite. According to this assumption, cultural categories do not exclude each other, but seek to manage their opposites (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993). While identifying and measuring some dimensions/orientations across cultures seems a very pragmatic approach, the extent to which this technique can be used to study such a multifaceted concept as culture is limited. Culture dimensions/orientations are essentially etic notions that have been developed by relying on predetermined characteristics and are imposed on other cultures. Moreover, cultural dimensions/orientations rely solely on cultural means and fail to discern the effects of intra-cultural variations within the population (Au, 1999). Intracultural variation (ICV) refers to the population distribution of a characteristic within a culture and it can explain much of intercultural variation (Au, 1999). It is argued that relying on cultural dimensions/orientations can be more useful in cross cultural comparisons that involve numerous cultures. However, the use of such indices is of limited value in explaining and predicting organizational behavior at a micro/organizational level. One suggestion to enhance the applicability of cultural dimensions/orientations at an organizational level is to use them by making sense of the context and its history, and by use of accompanying qualitative approaches (Osland and Bird, 2000). Another important issue in studying culture is the emphasis put on value or cognitive systems (Aycan, 2000; Morris and Peng, 1994). In this regard, it is possible to view cul-

ture from two different perspectives: cognitive- and value-based. The cognitive-based view emphasizes the importance of cognition rather than appealing to a set of values. Cognitive systems can be defined as consistent modes of thought that introduce systematic preferences for particular kinds of information that are used in the problemsolving process. Accordingly, it is argued that culture can be translated as cognitive systems that affect behavior at individual and collective levels. Abramson et al. (1993) argued that defining cultural differences in terms of cognitive processes related to information gathering and decision making would be more useful for managers than defining differences in values and attitudes that are attributable to national culture. Hall’s framework (1960) represents a classic model for analyzing culture that hinges rather on cognitive systems and communication process. The high-/low-context concepts and notions of monochronic/polychronic time and space are narrowly related to cognitive structures and can explain many cultural phenomena. As a matter of fact, very few cultural typologies focus on cognitive structures (Erez and Gati, 2004). In contrast with the cognitive-based view, most authors emphasize the importance of value systems in shaping and affecting individual/collective behavior. Hofstede (1980) considered values as the building blocks of culture and what he has been able to measure as a manifestation of culture. According to Kluckhohn (1951) and Hofstede (1980), values have both direction and intensity. That is, if we hold a value, it implies that there is some relevance (intensity) attached to this value, and with respect to this value we consider some good or bad outcomes (direction). The cross cultural literature provides us with different conceptual frameworks based on value systems along which cultures may be studied (e.g. HampdenTurner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961;

368


Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). In addition to intensity and direction, the ranking and structure of values should be taken into consideration since they have important implications for attitudes, and consequently for organizational behavior. Values can be ranked because they have different relative importance; some are central to individual/collective behavior and overshadow the effects of others. Among the typologies, Rokeach’s framework (1973) ranks cultural values. The model proposed by Schwartz (1992) provides insight into the structure of value types. According to Schwartz (1992, 1994) the values are organized into structures that are almost consistent and universal across cultures.

Cultural Distance The mainstream of cross cultural research is based on describing differences and irregularities across borders. By assuming that two cultures are necessarily different, researchers look for differences and overlook existing commonalities (Cray and Mallory, 1998). In that way, researchers try to build theories explaining the effects of culture by relying only on cultural differences. While pointing out differences is a very useful approach, overlooking commonalities may reduce the capacity of research for building comprehensive theories. It is argued that regularities can be as valuable as irregularities in understanding cultural phenomena. An important issue that may cause confusion is the way cultural differences are conceptualized. Most of the time cultural difference is taken as equivalent to cultural distance and many authors use the terms ‘cultural difference’ and ‘cultural distance’ interchangeably or without considerable distinction. Only a few authors have distinguished between these two terms or defined them precisely (Harzing, 2003; Shenkar, 2001). The term ‘cultural distance’ refers to

an index defined by Kogut and Singh (1988). These authors defined national culture distance as the degree to which the cultural norms in one country are different from those in another. They constructed cultural distance (CD) as a composite index based on the deviation from each of Hofstede’s four national culture scales: ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty avoidance’, ‘masculinity’ and ‘individualism’. Mathematically, the CD index is represented as following: 4

CDj = Σ {(Iij – Iiu)2 /Vi}/4 i=1

Where: CD is cultural distance, Iij is the index for the ith cultural dimension for the jth country, Iiu is the index for the ith cultural dimension for the uth country, Vt is the variance for the ith cultural dimension. Cultural distance as a quantitative measure is quite convenient to be employed in statistical models, but it should be used and interpreted cautiously. Viewing cultures in terms of a few dimensions is an oversimplification of reality, but aggregating these dimensions into one index might create even more conceptual inaccuracies. Even if we rely on Hofstede’s model for defining the CD index, it should be noted that Hofstede’s dimensions do not all affect organizational behavior evenly. It is plausible to consider that among Hofstede’s dimensions some are more significant than others. In this regard, Hofstede (1994) pointed out that power distance and uncertainty avoidance are particularly relevant for organizations’ functioning. Shenkar (2001) discussed some hidden assumptions in cultural distance by dividing them into two categories: conceptual and methodological. The methodological properties of CD are related to some extent to instrumentation; however, conceptual properties are at the core of the CD construct and undermine its very validity. Shenkar (2001) criticized the conceptual properties of cultural distance

Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 369 Table 1 Correlations among four cultural dimensions for 56 countries based on Hofstede’s scores (1980) PDI PDI

IND

MAS

UAI

Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

IND

MAS

UAI

1

–.675 .000 56 .089 .513 56 .172 .205 56

1

.100 .466 56 –.239 .076 56

1

.019 .887 56

1

Note: PDI = power distance; IND = individualism; MAS = masculinity; UAI = uncertainty avoidance

such as symmetry, linearity, stability and causality. Reflection on the conceptual properties of CD such as symmetry and linearity reveals that these conceptual shortcomings emanate originally from the dimensions as defined by Hofstede (1980). Apart from these relatively slender shortcomings, the cultural distance index is conceptually and theoretically flawed and its employment in research is open to discussion. The main idea underlying cultural distance is to aggregate Hofstede’s four dimensions to arrive at a unique bipolar dimension in order to compare cultures based on a similar–dissimilar basis. Inherent in the notion of aggregation is the assumption that all four cultural dimensions are in the same direction and therefore can be added to each other. The dimensions for constructing the CD index as defined by Kogut and Singh (1988) are: 1 2 3 4

individualism power distance uncertainty avoidance masculinity.

Based on the cultural distance formula proposed by Kogut and Singh (1988) ‘indi-

vidualism’, ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’ should have positive correlations, or at least they should not be in opposition. However, as shown in Table 1, there is a very significant and negative correlation between ‘individualism’ and ‘power distance’. The support for the positive correlation between ‘collectivism’ and ‘power distance’ comes from both theory and empirical studies. There is ample empirical evidence that shows societies that are high in power distance tend to be more collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980). In other words, ‘individualism’ and ‘power distance’ represent two opposite cultural dimensions and logically they cannot be aggregated. It is argued that instead of ‘individualism’, Kogut and Singh (1988) should have incorporated ‘collectivism’ in their formula. We argue that while the cultural distance index is a very useful measure, it should be hinged on sound theoretical foundations. One suggestion for building the cultural distance index is to aggregate dimensions that are conceivably in the same direction. For instance, ‘collectivism’, ‘power distance’, ‘low uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’

370


tend to represent undeveloped and traditional cultures and it might be more plausible to incorporate them into a single formula to construct the CD index. Another useful suggestion for building a cultural distance index is to rely on modernization/post-modernization theory as put forward by Inglehart (1997) and Inglehart and Baker (2000). Inglehart (1997) argued that economic development and cultural change go together in coherent patterns worldwide. Once a society has embarked on industrialization and economic growth, a whole syndrome of related cultural changes, from mass mobilization to diminishing differences in gender roles and individualism, might happen. While we maintain that social and cultural changes are not linear, it might be useful to put all the world cultures on a continuum from traditional (agrarian) to industrial (modern) and post-industrial (postmodern). Further empirical research based on the World Value Survey confirms some general and predictable trends in cultural changes (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005).

Difference and Discordance The dominant perspective in cross cultural management views cultural differences as inherent obstacles that ultimately affect organizational performance adversely (Hennart and Larimo, 1998; Sackmann, 1997; Søderberg and Holden, 2002). Rushton (1989) posits that we are more likely to respond positively to similarity. We are attracted to people whom we perceive as similar, and we keep our distance from those whom we perceive as dissimilar. Based on this perspective and by relying on transaction cost economics theory (TCE), many cross cultural researchers argue that difficulties, costs, conflicts, frictions, communication problems and risks increase when two different cultures come into contact (Hoecklin, 1995; Hofstede, 1980; Kogut and Singh, 1988; Seelye and Seelye-James, 1995). The idea that any kind

of cultural difference is necessarily subversive to organizational performance is an oversimplification that fails to take account of synergetic interactions between two different cultures. This view relies on a simple dichotomy supposing that cultures can be compared only on a similar–dissimilar basis. However, a similar–dissimilar basis for explaining relations between two cultures is of limited utility. That is to say, difference is not synonymous with discordance. For example, two similar cultures may have an antagonistic relationship, and two dissimilar cultures may be relatively cooperative. Therefore, it is possible to think that not every cultural difference is detrimental to organizational operations. This perspective has received less attention in the cross cultural literature; however, recently more scholars have questioned the veracity of the assumption that differences in cultures produce an obstacle to organization functioning (Dupriez and Simons, 2000; Harris and Moran, 1979; Hoecklin, 1995; Morosini, 1998; Shenkar, 2001; Teerikangas and Very 2006). Some researchers looked at cultural differences as sources of competitive advantage to a global firm (Harris and Moran, 1979; Hoecklin, 1995; Morosini, 1998; Morosini et al., 1998). From a resource-based perspective, it is argued that cultural diversity increases the internal capacity of organizations to face external uncertainty. Cultural differences should not simply be seen as impediments to organizational effectiveness. One suggestion for theorizing cultural differences is to look at the relationship between cultures as described by Larsson (1990). We can distinguish four possible configurations for two interacting cultures: (1) similar, (2) dissimilar but complementary, (3) dissimilar and unrelated, and (4) conflictual. Similar cultures share common values and their interactions are supposed to be smooth. Dissimilar but complementary cultures do not share many values, but they can offer advantages to each other that may

Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 371 Similar (1) Similar

Dissimilar (2) Complementary

Collaboration

(3) Unrelated

(4) Conflictual Conflict

Figure 1 Configurations between two interacting cultures and their expected levels of collaboration and conflict

increase their overall capability. Unrelated cultures are basically different, do not offer complementarities to each other and are not in an antagonistic relation. Finally, conflictual cultures are those that manifest some degree of animosity and conflict toward each other. Figure 1 summarizes possible configurations for two interacting cultures and their expected levels of collaboration and conflict. In our view, this configuration can provide a better understanding of relationships between two organizations and their respective cultures. It implies that not all cultural differences lead to conflict; some may be useful (complementary), some may be harmful, and others may be unrelated and neutral. This make-up can explain the proposition of Morosini et al. (1998) indicating that differences between two cultures can be sources of value and synergy in inter-firm ventures. Therefore, it is proposed that instead of focusing on measuring cultural differences, cross cultural researchers should try to understand the nature of similarities and dissimilarities. Another important issue concerning interactions between two cultures is the shape of their relationships. As mentioned earlier, by introducing some quantitative measures such as cultural dimensions or the CD index, most researchers build on the implicit assumption that the relationship between two organizations and their cultures is necessarily symmetrical and linear. However, the relationships between two cultures are rarely even.

According to the Political Economy Paradigm (PEP) one motive for a firm to participate or remain in a venture might be the superior bargaining power resulting from its resources and capabilities (Hersch and Style, 2001). When two culturally different organizations are brought together, there will be an interaction between them that can be explained in terms of an acculturation process. Acculturation is defined as a cultural change initiated by the unification of two or more autonomous cultural systems (Berry, 1980). The four identified modes of acculturation are integration, assimilation, separation, and deculturation, which are hardly symmetrical (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, 1988). The asymmetry is of great importance as power relationships between the parties may affect how cultural differences are perceived. Having the upper hand in the relationship makes a culture more dominant and less vulnerable when confronting the other one. Therefore, it is possible to hypothesize that the dominant culture is more likely to impose its values on the subordinate partner. The asymmetries may be of greater importance in the case of cross cultural ventures between developing and developed countries. There is some empirical support for this hypothesis. For instance, in their study of Dutch international joint ventures, Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) found that the effects of cultural differences were especially significant in the case of ventures formed in developing countries.

372


Conclusion This brief article was an attempt to examine and improve some conceptual underpinnings of cultural management research. In the text we moved progressively from fundamental ontological/epistemological matters to definitional and operational considerations, and focused on six major issues: research approaches, incorporation of culture in the research, culture conceptualization, orientations/dimensions, cultural distance and cultural differences. First, by discussing the shortcomings of both positivism and constructivism, we proposed that rather than contradictory paradigms, these approaches correspond to two different but complementary epistemological levels and both can contribute to a better understanding of culture. Therefore, we maintained that a practical and useful view in cultural management research can imply some degree of rapprochement between the two approaches. Also, by recognizing that culture is essentially an abstraction of social and economic phenomena, we highlighted the difficulty of separating cultural and non-cultural variables and we proposed that, due to the entanglement of cultural and other social factors, researchers may incorporate both groups of variables by defining broader measures in their investigation. It is argued that such broad social measures can be better for predicting organizational variables. In contrast, when researchers are concerned with understanding the effects of culture as an independent variable, it would be more appropriate to narrow the definition of culture and use unambiguous and theoretically meaningful constructs instead of using culture as an allencompassing notion. While both terms are used interchangeably in the literature, we distinguished between dimensions and orientations by highlighting the bipolar and dichotomous aspects of cultural dimensions as proposed by Hofstede (1980). We pointed out that cultural

orientations can be considered as notions that are not necessarily dichotomous and linear (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). By discussing inherent assumptions in cultural dimensions/orientations, we proposed that such techniques are very useful for presenting a ‘big picture’ of culture at a macro level; however, they are of limited utility in predicting and even explaining organizational behavior. Therefore, we proposed a sensemaking strategy at the micro level (Osland and Bird, 2000). Bearing in mind that the ‘cultural distance index’ is a convenient and useful quantitative measure we maintained that the formula for CD proposed by Kogut and Singh (1988) is conceptually and theoretically flawed. We pointed out that in this CD formula ‘individualism’ and ‘power distance’ are negatively correlated, and since they represent two opposite cultural dimensions they cannot be aggregated. Instead, we proposed the use of those dimensions in the CD index that are conceivably in the same direction. It is argued that ‘collectivism’, ‘power distance’, ‘low uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’ tend to represent undeveloped and traditional cultures and it might be more reasonable to incorporate them in a single formula to build a CD index. In the end, by examining the fallacy of the dominant perspective in the literature, we mentioned that the idea that any kind of cultural difference is necessarily subversive to organizational operation neglects the synergetic interactions between two different cultures. We maintained that this view originates from a simple dichotomy supposing that cultures can be compared only on a similar–dissimilar basis. To overcome this bias, we proposed a configuration of two interacting cultures: similar, dissimilar–complementary, dissimilar–unrelated, and conflictual. In our view, this configuration can provide a better understanding of relationships between two organizations and their


respective cultures since it implies that not all cultural differences lead to conflict. Thus we proposed that instead of focusing on measuring cultural differences, cross cultural researchers need to understand the nature of similarities and dissimilarities.

References Abramson, N.R., Lane, H.W., Nagai, H. and Takagi, H. (1993) ‘A Comparison of Canadian and Japanese Cognitive Styles: Implications for Management Interaction’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(3): 575–87. Adler, N.J. (1983) ‘A Typology of Management Studies Involving Culture’, Journal of International Business Studies 14(2): 29–47. Ajiferuke, M. and Boddewyn, J. (1970) ‘Culture and Other Explanatory Variables in Comparative Management Studies’, Academy of Management Journal 13: 153–63. Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B. (1997) Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage. Au, Kevin Y. (1999) ‘Intra-cultural Variation: Evidence and Implications for International Business’, Journal of International Business Studies 30(4): 799–812. Aycan, Z. (2000) ‘Cross-cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Contributions, Past Developments and Future Directions’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(1): 110–28. Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) ‘What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures?’, Journal of International Business Studies 28(4): 845–64. Baskerville, R.F. (2003) ‘Hofstede Never Studied Culture’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 1–14. Berry, J.W. (1980) ‘Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation’, in A.M. Padilla (ed.) Acculturation in Theory, Models and Some New Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982) ‘The Role of Subjective Culture in Organizations: A Review and Directions for Future Research’, Journal of Applied Psychology Monographs 67(5): 653–85. Brett, J.M., Tinsley, C.H., Janssens, M., Barsness, Z.I. and Lytle, A.L. (1997) ‘New Approaches to the Study of Culture in

Industrial/Organizational Psychology’, in P.C. Earley and M. Erez (eds) New Perspectives on International/Industrial Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Cavusgil, S.T. and Das, A. (1997) ‘Methodological Issues in Empirical Crosscultural Research: A Survey of the Management Literature and a Framework’, Management International Review 37(1): 71–96. Cray, D. and Mallory, G. (1998) Making Sense of Managing Culture. London: Thompson International. Delanty, G. (1997) Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dowling, P.J., Welch, D.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1999) International HRM: Managing People in a Multinational Context, 3rd edn. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Dupriez, P. and Simons, S. (2000) La résistance culturelle: fondements, applications et implications du management interculturel. Brussels: De Boeck Larcier. Earley, P.C. and Singh, H. (1995) ‘International and Intercultural Management Research: What’s Next?’, Academy of Management Journal 38(2): 327–40. Erez, M. and Gati, E. (2004) ‘A Dynamic, Multilevel Model of Culture: From the Micro Level of the Individual to the Macro Level of a Global Culture’, Applied Psychology: An International Review 53(4): 583–98. Fischer, R., Ferreira, M.C., Assmar, E., Redford, P. and Harb, C. (2005) ‘Organizational Behaviour across Cultures: Theoretical and Methodological Issues for Developing Multilevel Frameworks Involving Culture’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5(1): 27–48. Geertz, C. (1974) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gertsen, M.C. and Soderberg, A. (1998) Foreign Acquisitions in Denmark: Cultural Dimensions of International Mergers and Acquisitions. Berlin: de Gruyter. Goodnow, J.D. and Hansz, J.E. (1972) ‘Environmental Determinants of Overseas Market Entry Strategies’, Journal of International Business Studies 3(1): 33–50. Hall, E.T. (1960) ‘The Silent Language of Overseas Business’, Harvard Business Review 38(3): 87–95. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1993) The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States,

374

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3) Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. New York: Doubleday. Harris, P. and Moran, R. (1979) Managing Cultural Differences. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Harzing, A.W. (2003) ‘The Role of Culture in Entry Mode Studies: From Negligence to Myopia?’, Advances in International Management (15): 75–127. Hennart, J.F. and Larimo, J. (1998) ‘The Impact of Culture on the Strategy of Multinational Enterprises: Does National Origin Affect Ownership Decisions?’, Journal of International Business Studies 29(3): 515–38. Hersch, L. and Style, C. (2001), ‘International Joint Ventures: A Political Economy Framework’, Australasian Marketing Journal 9(1): 20–32. Hoecklin, L. (1995) Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage. London: Economist Intelligence Unit/Addison Wesley. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. London: HarperCollins. Hofstede, G. (1999) ‘Management in the 21st Century’, Organizational Dynamics 28(1): 34–43. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds) (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Inglehart, R.F. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. (2000) ‘Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values’, American Sociological Review 65: 19–51. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacob, N. (2005) ‘Cross-cultural Investigations: Emerging Concepts’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 18(5): 514–28. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) ‘The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments’, Journal of International Business Studies 8: 23–32. Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research. London: Sage. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral

Research, 3rd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Kluckhohn, C.K. (1951) ‘Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action’, in T. Parsons and E.A. Shils (eds) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode’, Journal of International Business Studies 19(3): 411–32. Kraut, A.I. (1975) ‘Some Recent Advances in Cross-national Management Research’, Academy of Management Journal 18: 538–47. Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kunda, G. (1992) Engineering Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Larsson, R. (1990) Coordination of Action in Mergers and Acquisitions: Interpretive and Systems Approaches Towards Synergy. Lund: University Press. Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The Globalization of Markets’, Harvard Business Review 61: 92–102. Lindridge, A. (2005) ‘Religiosity and the Construction of a Cultural-Consumption Identity’, The Journal of Consumer Marketing 22(3): 142–51. McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis’, Human Relations 55(1): 89–118. Morosini, P. (1998) Managing Cultural Differences Effective Strategy and Execution across Cultures in Global Corporate Alliances. Oxford: Pergamon. Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘National Cultural Distance and Cross-border Acquisition Performance’, Journal of International Business Studies 29(1): 137–58. Morris, M.W. and Peng, K. (1994) ‘Culture and Cause: American and Chinese Attributions of Social and Physical Events’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (67): 949–71. Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A.R. (1988) ‘Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions’, Academy of Management Review 13(1): 79–80. Nasif, E.G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. and Thibodeaux, M.S. (1991) ‘Methodological Problems in Cross-cultural Research: An Updated Review’, Management International Review 31(1): 79–91. Ohmae, K. (1985) Triad Power: The Coming Shape

Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 375 of Global Competition. New York: The Free Press. Osland, J.S. and Bird, A. (2000) ‘Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping: Cultural Sensemaking in Context’, Academy of Management Executive 14(1): 65–79. Parker, M. (2000) Organizational Culture and Identity. London: Sage. Roberts, K.H. and Boyacigiller, N. (1984) ‘Crossnational Organizational Research, the Grasp of the Blind Men’, Research in Organizational Behavior 2: 417–51. Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Ronen, S. (1986) Comparative and Multinational Management. New York: Wiley. Rushton, J.P. (1989) ‘Genetic Similarity, Human Altruism, and Group Selection’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 503–59. Sackmann, S.A. (1997) Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions. London: Sage. Schaffer, B. and Riordan, M. (2003) ‘A Review of Cross-cultural Methodologies for Organizational Research: A Best-practices Approach’, Organizational Research Methods 6(2): 169–215. Schein, E.H. (1999) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–66. Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘Are there Universal Aspects of the Structure and Contents of Human Values?’, Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 19–45. Schwartz, S. and Bilsky, W. (1987) ‘Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (53): 550–62. Seelye, H.N. and Seelye-James, A. (1995) Culture Clash: Managing in a Multicultural World. Lincolwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Sekaran, U. (1983) ‘Methodological and

Theoretical Issues and Advancements in Cross-cultural Research’, Journal of International Business Studies 14(2): 61–73. Shenkar, O. (2001) ‘Cultural Distance Revisited: Towards a More Rigorous Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Differences’, Journal of International Business Studies 32(3): 519–35. Søderberg, A.M. and Holden, N. (2002) ‘Rethinking Cross Cultural Management in a Globalizing Business World’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2(1): 103–21 Tayeb, M. (1994) ‘Organizations and National Culture: Methodology Considered’, Organization Studies 15(3): 429–44. Tayeb, M. (2001) ‘Conducting Research across Cultures: Overcoming Drawbacks and Obstacles’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 1(1): 91–108. Teerikangas, S. and Very, P. (2006) ‘The Culture–Performance Relationship in M&A: From Yes/No to How’, British Journal of Management 17: S31–S48. Usunier, J.C. (1998) International and Cross-cultural Management Research. London: Sage. Vaara, E. (2000) ‘Constructions of Cultural Differences in Post-merger Processes: A Sensemaking Perspective on Finnish–Swedish Cases’, M@n@gement 3(3): 121–32. Von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. (1995) Organizational Epistemology. London: Macmillan/New York: St Martins Press.

HAMID YEGANEH is in the Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Laval University, Quebec City (Quebec), Canada, G1K 7P4. [email: [email protected]] ZHAN SU is in the Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Laval University, Quebec City (Quebec), Canada, G1K 7P4. [email: [email protected]]

376


Résumé Sur les fondements conceptuels de la recherche en matière de management culturel (Hamid Yeganeh et Zhan Su) Cet article est une réflexion sur les fondements conceptuels de la recherche en matière de management culturel. En nous appuyant sur la littérature existante, nous examinons quelques bases conceptuelles, en proposons une analyse critique et faisons quelques suggestions d’amélioration. Il peut être utile de débattre de ces questions non seulement pour faire avancer la recherche mais également pour parvenir à une compréhension plus approfondie des études précédentes et de leurs limites.

Hamid Yeganeh and Zhan Su

Copyright of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.