Cross-cultural communication challenges within ...

Download PDF
8 downloads 0 Views 149KB Size Report
Comment
independent companies: Saab Group and Saab Automobile [4]. Aeronautics, with about 3,000 employees, is one of five business units in the Saab Group, ...
Cross-cultural communication challenges within international transfer of aircraft production Anna Malm1,2, Mats Björkman1, Kerstin Johansen1 1

Department of Management & Engineering, Linköping University 2 Saab Group, Business Area Aeronautics Linköping, Sweden [email protected]

Abstract—The research within this paper identifies three main categories of cross-cultural communication challenges within international transfer of aircraft production. The first category is organizational structure, hierarchy and delegation of responsibility the second category is consensus behavior and avoidance of conflicts and the third category is individual motivation factors. Furthermore, the paper discusses the need for specific types of cross-cultural training that can be one solution for reducing the problems and difficulties that cultural challenges may induce. The case study indicates that it is important for Aeronautics, a Swedish enterprise, to apply organized crosscultural training in combination with technical training. To secure the presence of cross-cultural training, suitable types of cultural training could be included in the working process/routine for how to conduct a production transfer. Keywords-component; cross-cultural communication; crosscultural training; transfer; aircraft production; cultural challenges; offset; outsourcing

I.

INTRODUCTION

In times of rapid economic growth and globalization, an increasing number of companies transfer production abroad. Today's global workplaces include various geographic locations and span numerous cultures. According to Johnson [1], transfer of production can involve difficulties such as material supply, assembly instructions, way-of-working, competence differences and so forth. Most of these difficulties within transfer of production are related to failure in the communication between the two sites [1]. Johnson’s analysis supports the need to discuss how and why misunderstandings within communication occur. To reach successful communication between different cultures, cross-cultural training can be a key factor for success. “Culture cannot be known without a study of communication and communication can only be understood with an understanding of the culture it supports” [2]. When communicating with people from different cultures, it is important to remember that culture and communication are strongly connected. The way that people view communication is a part of their culture. A study regarding the effect of cross-cultural training was performed by Accenture (a consulting company) in 2006. The study concludes that the largest issue within outsourcing The financial support from Saab Aeronautics and NFFP (Swedish national aeronautics research program) is acknowledged.

involved miscommunication, and that companies that do not offer cross-cultural training report a significantly larger incidence of miscommunication than companies that do [3]. This strengthens the theory that there is a connection between communication and culture, and also that there are crosscultural training benefits within companies. Within this paper, the research aim is to explore cultural challenges linked to cross-cultural communication when conducting international aircraft production transfer. Based on the empirical result, the paper discusses specific types of crosscultural training that could facilitate the process of transferring production between different cultures. The research described in this paper uses the case study method. The study was performed at the Swedish enterprise Saab Aeronautics (later referred to as Aeronautics). Saab is one name but two independent companies: Saab Group and Saab Automobile [4]. Aeronautics, with about 3,000 employees, is one of five business units in the Saab Group, an aerospace and Defense Company. The business portfolio for Aeronautics involves for example Gripen (fighter aircraft), unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and commercial aeronautics. Aeronautics is situated in Sweden, a relatively small country with a strongly defined culture. The cultural challenges will be viewed from a Swedish perspective. Gesteland [5] emphasizes the importance of being aware of the characteristics in one’s own culture as well as other cultures. “In international business, the seller is expected to adapt to the buyer” and “in international business, the visitor is expected to observe local customs”. In other words, be aware of the local culture, but do not mimic or copy the behavior; be yourself [5]. The different transfers of aircraft production discussed within the case study have been conducted within both offset and traditional outsourcing. Traditional outsourcing is characterized by a company’s decision to engage a subcontractor to perform an activity that previously was inhouse [6]. Companies often use traditional outsourcing when costs of in-house activities are higher than buying products and services on the market [7]. Offset business is a type of countertrade between companies and/or governments in different countries. The buying organization often has the goal that this collaboration should support long-term industrial development of the

country, for example in the form of transferred production from the selling organization [8]. Offset business is frequently used in defense-related industries and in sales of large-scale, highcost products as found in for example the aircraft industry [9]. Offset business often results in large and advanced industrial collaboration between the buying and selling organization. One key factor (amongst others) for successful industrial collaboration would be improved cultural understanding [10].

genders are separated. The male side uphold themselves and focuses on material success. The female side is more caring, appreciates the quality of life and often solves conflict through compromise and discussion. The fourth dimension is Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI). People in uncertainty avoidance cultures (high UAI) feel threatened by ambiguous and uncertain situations. A low Uncertainty Avoidance ranking indicates a society that tolerates freedom of opinion [12].

A case study performed at Saab Aerospace (now Aeronautics) in 2003 shows that during integration of a manufacturing network, up to half of all problems or misunderstandings had a cultural link [11]. This indicates that a way to reduce cultural differences is an important factor for Aeronautics to succeed international business.

A fifth dimension, Long-Term Orientation (LTO), was identified in the late 1980s using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. Countries with high LTO are more concentrated on actions that benefit future rewards. Short-term orientation, in contrast, benefits actions based on the present and history, with success mainly determines for example by the latest quarterly or yearly report [12].

II.

THEORETICAL FRAME

A. Culture description framework Two different models are viewed in this research, Hofstede [12] and Lewis [13]. Hofstede’s model is probably the dominant explanation of behavioral differences between nations [14]. But Hofstede’s model has not been without criticism; some of this comes from Smith [15], who writes “if we compare culture A and culture B on some attribute, the mean scores that we achieve will tell us nothing about variability within each nation, nor will it tell us whether the particular individuals whom we sampled are typical or atypical of that culture” [15]. Smith’s criticism somewhat strengthen the choice of viewing Hofstede’s model; the generalization of cultures could help an organization to get an overall view of cultural variations on a country level. This first view of main overall differences, later on can be managed in a more individual level within a transfer project. The main reason for selecting Lewis’ model is its even more generalizing approach; viewing multiple countries in one picture. Research within this paper views the models as two different ways to categorize people within cultures; it does not aim to review the models. Hofstede [12] defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from another”. Culture is something you learn; it comes from our social surroundings rather than our genes and it is specific for the group or category [12]. In the mid-1970s Hofstede [12] studied data collected from surveys, from over 50 countries, concerning people’s values. The answers showed that mutual problems were found within four dimensions. The first dimension is Power distance index (PDI), which is the extent the less powerful members of organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. Low PDI values is indicative of greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families The second dimension is Individualism (IDV), in which high IDV is symbolized by more individualistic attitudes and relatively loose bonds with others. In cultures with lower IDV most people become integrated from birth into groups with strong solidarity. The third of Hofstede’s dimensions is Masculinity (MAS). A society is called feminine (low MAS) when both men and women have “female” qualities and masculine when emotional

Hofstede’s dimension model with the index values for Sweden and world averaged values are illustrated in Fig. 1. 100 80 60

Sweden World Average

40 20 0 PDI

IDV

Sweden MAS

UAI

LTO

Figure 1. Swedish and World average values from Hofstede’s five dimensions [16].

According to Lewis [13] the world’s cultures can be roughly divided into three categories, as illustrated in Fig.2. The first is Linear actives; who likes to plan and do one thing at a time. They are patient, have limited body language and rarely interrupt. They often assumes that an excellent product sells it self and that it makes way for a successful relationship. The second category is Multi actives, which are lively and impatient. They change plans, do many things at once and have unrestricted body language. They often assume that a personal relationship makes the way for a product. The third category Reactives, who prioritize courtesy and respect, are punctual, ultra honest, avoid confrontation and have very limited body language. They do not see things as black or white, right or wrong, but rather see arguments and ideas as points converging and ultimately merging [13]. The number of countries in the Linear/Multi/Reactive (LMR) model of Lewis [13] has been purposely decreased to include only some of the countries where Aeronautics has business relations. The placement of the countries in relation to one another is not changed. According to Lewis’ model in Fig. 2, Sweden is much more linear active than reactive. In the world at large, Swedes seem to be universally popular. Swedes have a profile of being honest, caring, well-informed and efficient, and are known to produce good quality on time [13].

Multi Active South Africa Poland Brazil The Czech Republic

India Thailand

The USA Great Britain Linear Active

Reactive Sweden

Figure 2. LMR model adopted from Lewis [13].

Swedish management is decentralized and democratic. The power distance is small and the manager is generally available to employees and for discussion. Swedes will go out of their way to avoid conflict, confrontation or taking sides. They have a confidence in the work teams for taking initiative and avoid competing with others at the same company [13]. Employee contribution in decision making is desirable in modern Swedish firms, something which has a negative impact on another important key factor in such firms: quick decisions. Due to Swedes’ horizontal hierarchy, in combination with their eagerness to agree, the decision process has a tendency to be very slow. A communication model typical for Swedes is illustrated in Fig. 3 [13]. Meetings in Sweden usually begin with minimal small talk before getting down to business. After presenting the agenda, tasks or issues are segmented, discussed and dealt with one after the other. Solutions reached are summarized in the minutes [13].

Figure 3. A communication model, illustrating consensus behaviour for Swedes, from Lewis [13].

B. Cross-Cultural communication and training According to Najafbagy [17] “Communication can be seen as one of the most pervasive problems amongst nations even within a single culture, communication tends to have many complex effects. When communication takes place between cultures, these effects get even more complicated, primarily because they are symbolized in one context and transferred into another” [17].

The main argument for using cross-cultural training, according to Black and Mendenhall [18], is that it allows individuals to more rapidly adjust to the new culture and thus be more effective in their new roles. In the review by Black and Mendenhall [18], the relationship between cross-cultural training and performance was studied, and most of the studies found a significant value for training [18]. Greater understanding of the differences between Swedish and receiving countries’ cultures can facilitate comprehension of problems and effects that can occur due to cultural differences in a transfer of aircraft production. Cross-cultural training of project teams before starting a production transfer can be one solution for limiting and minimizing the types of problems that cultural differences may induce [5]. The effectiveness of cross-cultural training, say Kealey and Protheroe [19], is directly related to the specific type of training, as illustrated in Table 1. The content in Table 1 is somewhat simplified from the original version. The area between the hatched lines constitutes the field of cultural training. At the far left is technical training, which aims only to provide people with technological information, not personal skills. To the far right in Table 1, and beyond the scope of most cultural training, are interpersonal sensitivity training and behavior modification. These are aimed at fundamental changes within individuals, although today they are not common methods of cultural training [19]. The three columns within the hatched area in Table 1 are more commonly used within cultural training. Practical information involves information on living conditions in the country of destination, travel arrangements and so forth. Area studies and cultural awareness training focus on, among other things, understanding the host culture’s history, social structure, economics and politics. Within cultural awareness, focus is also on differences in the sending and receiving organizations, for example regarding strategic goals. The difference between area studies and cultural awareness is that in area studies, the training is mostly based on reading material, lectures and seminars. Within cultural awareness training the focus is on a more personal level, with simulations and deeper discussions with personified examples. Intercultural effective skills training involves, learning by doing, and is normally learned by experimental training. Three types of intercultural effective skills are argued to be especially important, adaption skills, cross-cultural communication skills and partnership skills. Acquisition of these skills is believed to enhance personal and family adjustment as well as work performance [19]. TABLE I.

SPECIFIC TYPES OF CULTURAL TRAINING ADOPTED FROM KEALEY AND PROTHEROE

Area studies Intercultural Technical Practical and Cultural Effective Training Information Awareness Skills Cognitive Cognitive learning learning

Cognitive learning

Experimental learning

Interpersonal Sensitivity Training and Behavior modification Affective learning

The terms cognitive, experimental and affective in Table 1 refer essentially to learning style. Cognitive learning means that knowledge and information are acquired by the mind. Experimental learning involves practical experience; people learn by doing, for example through simulations or role play, and this can enhance skills in relationship building, crosscultural communication and negotiation techniques. The goal of experimental learning is to adapt new and more effective behavior to different situations. Affective learning involves emotions and personality [19]. It is valuable to have in mind that short-term training often cannot turn highly inappropriate individuals into excellent cross-cultural communicators; therefore, it is important for companies to have sound personnel selection and project planning [19]. It can be a fine balance between cross-culture training of persons and actually changing cultures. According to Hofstede, trying to change national cultures is high risk within an outsourcing project [22]. Cultures are not preferable to change, and it is often more efficient and advantageous to increase the awareness and the tolerance. It is important to remember that; whatever is done within cross-cultural communication and training, it should be based on understanding, reciprocity and successful cooperation [17]. III.

THE CASE STUDY

A. Methodology Comparative research is used to explore challenges in norms and cultures, although a level of uncertainty in the result might occur. Data for the comparative research was collected by using a case study method. The case study was performed at Aeronautics in Linköping, Sweden during the second half of 2010. The case study method was chosen through its characteristics of combining interviews, observations and document, and text analysis. The choice was also based on the fact that the subject of research was not mature within Aeronautics and the set of definitions and terminology were not yet settled [20]. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with operators, engineers and management, all working with transfers and new product introduction to other cultures. Eight people were interviewed in the case study and they have all together experience from collaboration with numerous companies in countries such as Brazil, Poland, Canada, India, Great Britain, South Africa, the USA, the Czech Republic and Thailand, for example. All data from the different interviews are referred to as Aeronautics, though, the level of analysis is on the culture in general, not on the project level. All interviews were documented and filed. Empirical data also consisted of reviews from”lessons learned” within transfer, offset and outsourcing projects performed at Aeronautics. This study aims to see the cultural challenges from a Swedish perspective. All interviews had one question in common: “What are the three biggest challenges that you have faced involving how Swedish culture has affected your working situation?”

IV.

CASE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

A. Typical challenges described in the case study Compilation of gathered empirical data indicates that many of the cultural differences that emerge and affect transfer of production technology from Aeronautics to subcontractors could be divided into three main categories. When theory according to Hofstede [4] is applied to the gathered result, three of his five dimensions: Power Distance Index (PDI), Masculinity (MAS) and Individualism (IDV) can be applied to the categories. These categories are exemplified in section 1), 2) and 3). 1) Organizational structure, hierarchy, and delegation of responsibility This category is closely connected to Hofstede’s PDI dimension. The interviews revealed that India has the culture which differs most in hierarchy compared to Sweden’s culture. According to Hofstede’s theory, this difference can be seen in the distinction of the countries’ PDI values. India has the highest PDI value, 77, of all countries included in this study, the difference to Sweden’s value, 31, is evident [12]. The case study indicates that organizational structure in many other countries are not organized and managed the same way as the horizontal organization structure at Aeronautics. The differences in organizations often have a great impact in how people in these organizations communicate. At Aeronautics, managers, project managers and project members, usually have two-way communications with one another. All of them, independent of organizational position, can ask questions or take the initiative to communicate with one another when needed and then expect an answer; this communication pattern is illustrated in Fig. 4. This two-way communication at Aeronautics can be explained by its horizontal, non-hierarchical organization. The power distance is small, within Aeronautics, and the managers are generally reachable and available for discussion with other managers and project members [13]. In a more hierarchical organization with higher PDI, communication initiative is more often one-way; the managers initiate communication with the project managers and the project managers with the project members. In generalized form, this communication pattern is shown in Fig. 4. These differences in communication patterns are essential when communicating between projects at Aeronautics and the projects in the recipient companies. Project managers at Aeronautics do, by habit and with good intensions, sometimes use a horizontal two-way communication pattern when they are on-site. They can give information or ask questions both to the receiving organization’s project managers and to employees with lower hierarchy. Then the project managers, in turn, expect that the recipients will take initiative to communicate both upwards and downwards. Often, however, the desired effect does not occur as the information often stops at the wrong level.

Aeronautics Organization Manager

Recipient Organization Manager

Project manager

Project manager

Project members

Project members

Figure 4. Communication initiative within the Aeronautics organization and the recipient organization (with essentially higher PDI than Sweden )

These communication pattern differences can cause substantial confusion and delay projects. When Aeronautics communication is initiated to the “wrong” level, the recipient managers can feel that they are not trusted and that their information is inspected. Both project members and project managers in the receiving project organization can feel that the Aeronautics project managers “lose face” by exposing their ignorance for project members that have lower hierarchy. This can end in a situation where the Aeronautics managers lose respect (from the receiving project’s point of view). The recipient project members and project managers can take a step back in trust. It is important to emphasize that none of the communication patterns described in Fig. 4 is better than the other. It is not suggested that any of the organizations should change their way of communicating, the importance is to achieve understanding between the parties and awareness of the cultural challenges that can occur. 2) Consensus behaviour and avoidance of conflicts This category is connected to Hofstede’s MAS dimension. The genders within the Swedish society are very equal. The male side is encouraged to discuss and reach consensus, the female side and the male side overlap each other. In cultures with higher MAS index is the male side rewarded if they act with authority, the female side and the male side are distinctly separated. The Swedish consensus behavior, illustrated in Fig. 3 can be explained by the fact that Sweden has the lowest MAS value, 5, of all countries included in Hofstede’s theory, illustrated in Fig. 1. This consensus behavior was apparent during the case study; all interviewed described this difference regardless of which culture they were working with. The consensus behavior, closely connected to the two-way communication pattern described in Fig. 4, can involve long discussions with the ambition that the decision should emerge from unanimity. When a fast decision is needed, consensus behavior can lengthen the time to reach a solution. This can be frustrating for cultures with higher PDI and MAS than Sweden (Sweden’s values are shown in Fig. 1) who are used to a more rational and direct way of solving problems.

The case study shows that the Aeronautics interviewees were perceived as very honest and that they often believe whole-heartedly in received information. For Swedes, honesty and information based on facts is very important; they often would rather say nothing at all than risk giving misleading information. Misunderstanding often occurs when they assume that other cultures act the same way as they do. Some other cultures can have a tendency to provide information that they think the other party wants to hear or give estimates that not are verified. These differences in how information is managed can lead to big misunderstandings that can affect time schedules and trust. One example can be taken from a telephone conference in the early stages of the business relationship between a project team at Aeronautics and a project team at a company from a multi active culture with reactive features. During the telephone conference, led by Aeronautics, an agenda with an action list was used; the actions were discussed, one by one, all the way through the list. When deadline dates were set for all actions, Aeronautics project team ended the telephone conference. According to the project team at Aeronautics, the meeting was smooth and effective, with deadlines set prior to the planned time schedule. Both parties felt pleased, and the telephone conference was closed up. The following week, the same procedure began, and actions within the agenda were discussed; after a few action points, however, the Aeronautics team felt uncomfortable. The recipient project team had not fulfilled their promises that were decided on the previous meeting. A few meetings passed with the same result, and both parties became more and more frustrated. The passed telephone conferences had not fulfilled the same purpose for both of the teams. The recipient project team prioritized the relationship and wanted that to grow before operating business (multi active) as a show of respect and courtesy (reactive). The recipient project team did not understand that Aeronautics’ project team was expecting results right away, before the relationship was built (linear active). The receiving team did not, in between the meetings, hear anything from the Aeronautics team, so they decided to wait for more information or Aeronautics to contact them. The Aeronautics team felt confident and satisfied with the meeting, so they did not feel that any further contact was needed. To summarize; Aeronautics wanted to start up business before the relationship was established (linear active versus multi active). The prepared action list, however, made the recipient project team feel controlled and uncertain; to please the Aeronautics team without showing any ignorance, they friendly agreed with Aeronautics team. The recipient team did not perceive the discussions as agreement on deadlines. The cultural differences between the Aeronautics project team and the recipient project team could have been resolved faster if both parties knew more about each other; how they differ in communication and culture. Maybe could more cultural training before start of the meetings have helped the situation?

3) Individual motivation factors In many other cultures (with lower IDV and higher PDI than Sweden), management does not usually encourage initiative-taking. Rather workers are encouraged to wait for more exact information and instructions. Even though they know that there is a better way to solve the problem they will listen to and respect the manager. Awaiting orders or exact information can be beneficial when discipline is an important factor.

by the teams, the atmosphere got more personal and comfortable. The results are hard to measure, but some cultural differences were solved and discussed already during the work shop. One important factor that the project manager at Aeronautics emphasized was to be persistent over time when working with cross-cultural communication and training.

The case study shows that the interviewees are perceived by many other countries as very independent and take their own initiative; if problems occur, the problem is solved, and it is challenging and enjoyable. At Aeronautics in Sweden, operators are used to finding their own solutions to improve the production, managers trust the operators, and the people closest to the product are competent.

A. Discussion Within the theoretical frame, both Lewis and Hofstede describe typical Swedes features; some of these features are also observed in the performed case study. The example with the communication patterns, illustrated in Fig. 4, refers mainly to Sweden’s hierarchical organization, which both Hofstede and Lewis describe. The Consensus behavior example is described in both of the cultural categorization models. Lewis emphasize that Swedes prioritizes business before relations, which could be related to the telephone conference observation describing some of the complexity in the cultural challenges. The theory compared to the case study result match quite well, this indicates that both the models (Hofstede and Lewis) can be suitable to use within cross-cultural training within Aeronautics.

Misunderstandings and time schedule delays do occur when Saab managers expects the recipient operators to take own initiatives and the recipient operators waits to follow given instructions. B. Approaches to ameliorating the difficulties In the case study, another way to manage cultural differences appeared. To kick off a transfer process, a project team from the sender organization in Sweden travelled to the receiving organization’s project team. The sending organization hired an interpreter to help with the language. The interpreter was born and raised in the receiving country, then moved to Sweden and lived there for several years. After a few non-successful meetings between the teams, the interpreter intervened; the two parties did not understand each other. After the next meeting, he talked first to the recipient team about how they perceived the situation, what were the sender’s intentions, and so on. Then the interpreter, talked to the sender team, explaining how the recipient team perceived the situation. The intervention by the interpreter solved a locked situation and the transfer process worked a bit more smoothly. The transfer of the language interpreter to a culture interpreter resulted in success. In referring to Table 1, the interpreter was “trained” very far to the right as he was born and raised in the receiving culture. This is a service/competence that could be bought by a company; it is hard to train employees to this level. Today, cultural training is conducted at Aeronautics, but it is not organized or conducted in the same way within different projects. Many projects receive cultural training in the form of practical information (Table 1); by internet, lectures, seminars and so forth. Some projects have training within cultural awareness (cognitive) and intercultural effective skills (experimental), shown in Table 1. One example is a type of experimental learning both for the sending and the receiving project organization; it was conducted in the form of a work shop. Both project teams did, within their teams, discuss characteristics in their own culture an present this for the other team. Then in mixed groups (between the companies) were some important similarities and differences between the cultures discussed. The main object of this training was to open the consciousness for future cultural challenges. This type of experimental training was appreciated

V.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

During transfer of aircraft production technical training, referred to in Table 1, often is essential for the recipient company in order to start the production. Technical training is often more widespread within transfer processes between companies; probably due to the close connection between the product or system and the technical training. In the case study, there is a quite weak connection between the products or system and cultural challenges, this could be one reason why cross-cultural training not are as acknowledged as technical training. The case study result within this paper indicates that cultural challenges are important to manage to be able to conduct a successful transfer of production. Cross-cultural training may involve different levels, from information in fliers to experimental learning work shops [19]. Today, many companies in Sweden apply practical cultural training, and often the employee, on their own, seeks practical information before departure to another country. It could be beneficial for companies to work with cultural challenges in a more organized way, for example by cross-cultural training. One benefit with cultural training could be that if the awareness is increased, fewer differences may occur. This can lead to higher efficiency within the organizations and shorter adjustment time for individuals placed at the receiving company. And one very important benefit could be improved communication between the organizations. As mentioned in theoretical frame; cultural training often cannot turn highly inappropriate individuals into excellent cross-cultural communicators [19]. It is important for companies to effectively manage personnel selection to posts that function closely with other cultures. For example, managers, who are highly respected in their home country, may have difficulty gaining success in other cultures. Successful managers in countries with low PDI, often are masters of delegation and communication, and are not often authoritarian.

If these managers, in the same way, try to lead a company in countries with high PDI, they will most likely fail. Countries with high PDI often appreciate distinct leaders with authority; delegation and consensus behavior can be seen as weak features. Companies that want to conduct cross-cultural training should be aware of the importance to discuss how the training could be conducted. There are several questions to consider. When in the transfer process should the cross-cultural training be executed? At which level (cognitive or experimental within Table 1) should the training be? Which parts of the organization should receive the training? Should the receiving organization be included in the training program? How do the companies cultures differ from each other? B. Conclusion Empirical result and theory in the study, when considering Lewis and Hofstede, matched well. This indicates that it could be beneficial for Aeronautics to have theoretical education, using theory according to Lewis and/or Hofstede (amongst others), before starting a production transfer. The case study indicates that it is important for Aeronautics to apply organized cross-cultural training (in combination with technical training). Many of the situations described within the case results could have been more easily comprehended if both the involved teams had experienced more cultural training. It is essential for Aeronautics to organize suitable type of cultural training and to adjust the training to match the culture within the sender and recipient country. To secure the presence of cross-cultural training, it could be included at Aeronautics, in the working process/routine for how to conduct a production transfer. Future Work: It would be interesting to investigate how other types and categories of cultural differences could affect a production transfer. Such cultural differences could be: differences in profession cultures, for example engineers versus marketing people or different local business sub-cultures, for example the cultural difference between two different companies within the same company group. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Aeronautics in Linköping, Sweden for their support and sharing of information.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3]

[4] [5]

[6] [7] [8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21] [22]

T. Johnson. “Rapid transfer- a market opportunity,” unpublished. http://www.mtek.se/production-transfer F. E. Jandt. Intercultural communication an introduction, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand oaks, California, 2001. S. R. Assciates, Accenture, (2006) http://www.winningworkplaces.org/library/research/Accenture_Cross_C ultural_Communications_060106.pdf?PHPSESSID=ba2951d287854113 0c2c2a6776838c2c, February 3rd, 2011. Saab Group, http://www2.saabgroup.com/static/split.htm January 13th 2010. R. R. Gesteland. Cross-Cultural Business Behavior- Marketing, Negotiation and Managing Across Culture. Handelshojskolens Forlag, Copenhagen, 1999. L. Bengtsson, C. Berggren, J. Lind. Alternativ till outsourcing. Författarna och Liber AB, Malmö, 2005. O. E. Williamsson. “The modern cooperation: origins, evolution, attributes,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol 1, 1981. M. Ahlström. Offset Management for Large Systems – A Multibusiness Marketing Activity. Department of Management and Economics, Linköping, 2000. M. R. Czinkota, I. A. Ronkainen. International Marketing, 7th ed. South Western - Thomson Learning, Ohio, 2004. A. Malm, M. Björkman, K. Johansen. International transfer of aircraft production- Problems and effects due to cultural differences, unpublished, 2011. K. Johansen, M. Comstock, and M. Winroth, “Coordination in collaborative manufacturing mega-networks: A case study,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol 22, pp. 226-244, 2005. G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede. Organisationer och kulturer, 2nd ed . Studentlitteratur AB, Lund, 2005. R. D. Lewis. When cultures collide: Leading across cultures, 3rd ed. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Boston, 2006. D. Williamsson. “Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture,” Human relations, vol 55, 2001. B. Smith. “Culture’s consequences: something old and something new,” Human relations, vol 55, pp. 119-135, 2002. Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions, http://www.geert-hofstede.com/, January 10th 2010. R. Najafbagy. “Problems of effective cross-cultural communications and conflict resolutions,” Palestine- Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, vol 15/16, pp. 146-150, 2008. S. J. Black, M. Mendenhall. “Cross-cultural training effectiveness: a review and a theoretical framework for future research,” The Academy of Management review, vol 15, pp. 113-136, 1990. D. J. Kealey, D. R. Protheroe. “The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: an assessment of the literature on the issue,” Int. J. Intercultural Rel., vol 20, pp. 141-165, 1996. K. Williamson. Research methods for students, academics and professionals, 2nd ed. Centre for Information Studies, Wagga Wagga New South Wales, 2002. Saab Group, http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-FighterSystem/Gripen-for-ETPS/Backgroud/, 2010-01-10. G. Hofstede. “Culture is the key to success in outsourcing,” Personnel Today, pp. 8-8, 2006.