27 Jul 2016

Decision-making behaviour, gender differences, and cultural context variables

An innovative new article to look out for in the December 2016 issue of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management.

Author, Sven Horak describes his work:

Following the recent call for a deeper contextualization of cross-cultural research in international management studies, this study explores differences in the decision-making behavior of men and women in Korea and Germany exposed to cultural context variables specific to the Korean cultural context. I’ve designed a two-stage research approach. The first stage I have used semi-structured interviews to identify cultural variables that have an important influence on decision making in Korea. In the second stage I have used these contextual variables in a series of behavioral experiments . My findings indicate that Korean men responded strongly to the contextual variables, showing either egoistic offer behaviour and even rejecting advantageous offers. Surprisingly, Korean women, like German men and women, altered their decision-making behaviour very little when exposed to the contextual variables. The results reveal significant gender differences in response to culture-specific contextual factors that have not previously been reported, and open up new avenues for future research based on the identification and testing of specific high-impact cultural context variables.

We are excited to be publishing Sven’s work, and look forward to your comments when you have read the article. Do please contact Sven. And look out online prior to publication for this important article.

25 Jul 2016

Power in Critical Cross-cultural Management Studies

Guest blog post by Henriett PrimeczJasmin Mahadevan and Laurence Romani

This is an abridged version of an editorial for a Special Issue International Journal of Cross Cultural Management  on Power in Critical Cross-cultural Management Studies, edited by the above, to be published in issues 16(2), August 2016.

The current question in cross-cultural management studies is how exactly the perception of cultural differences becomes important and meaningful in complex and often paradoxical situations. This question is based on the understanding that the cultural context of every given situation, interaction or organization might be characterized by multiple elements, dormant or salient cultural identities, and complex and fluid processes of meaning-making.

As distinct from other scholars such as Sackmann (1997), Tsui et al (2007) and Holden et al (2015) we do not see this type of question being answered through a search for an exhaustive list of variables influencing international and intercultural interactions. Nor do we see context as an accumulation of different factors. Rather, we see this as intertwined dynamic complexities, of which power is an important factor. This suggests that rather than a search for even more influencing factors, it is the investigation of how these factors are interconnected and how power relationships take part in this combination that becomes of interest. In other words, we wish to stress the point that power manifests itself in multiple, context-specific ways which need to be investigated critically.

We aim to contribute to the critical study of cultural complexities in organizations, keeping in mind that it is the nature of dynamic complexities to be fluid and difficult to grasp systematically. Our contribution evolves around one key element which, to our mind, is prevalent in virtually all cross-cultural management contexts, namely: power discrepancies.

We are seeking to highlight-ing how power is intertwined with the contexts wherein current cross-cultural management takes place, and how it is equally intertwined with cultural explanations.

Locating power in context

We understand context as referring to relations of power, to the specific nature of interactions, and to wider geopolitical frameworks and their historical roots.

Locating power in context requires taking into account diverse issues. For example, colonialism has shaped the map of the world, and most of todays’ flows of power and knowledge can still be understood in terms of the dichotomy between former colonizers and colonized (Cairns and Śliwa, 2008; Moussebaa & Morgan, 2014). Cultural interactions and the world’s economic system are linked to imperialist thought (Said 1998; Gallagher and Robinson, 1953), with limited attention being given to knowledge flows from the global South to North.

Mirroring the idea of a supremacy of the West, cross-cultural management builds on the ideology of universalism and objectivity of macro-comparative analysis originating in the first world. Managerial and organizational flows of power originate from global North and West as well (Cooke, 2004), and it is often assumed that it is the ‘Western’ managers responsibility to “manage the third world” (Cooke, 2004), based on the presumed superiority of the ‘Western’ and implicitly white and male manager. Cross-cultural management knowledge and practice can be considered instrumental to this project (Leeds-Hur- witz, 2014), and the corporate intercultural training business tends to overstress the difference of those who are considered ‘the non-Western Other’ and to present them “through Western eyes” (Szkudlarek, 2009; Jack & Lorbiecki, 2003). Ultimately cross-cultural management theory and practice is linked to studying others in order to satisfy the needs of mainly western managers: it is considered instrumental to “global competitiveness” (Kedia and Mukherjee, 1999), be it merely on the explicit level of having more successful business interactions, or on the implicit level of manipulating others. In other words, cross-cultural management knowledge and practice is linked to an agenda of control of ‘the Other’ (Jack and Westwood, 2009), which creates, asserts and institutionalizes power inequalities.

Race: migrants or expatiates

Perceptions of race are implicit components of power in context, with cross-cultural management suspiciously silent about race. According to Jackson (2014: 3), these and other cross-cultural management blindspots might be due to the self-image of the discipline as being “non-political” (Jackson, 2014: 3). Following Jackson (2013), this leads to a (presumably) neutral understanding of terms such as ‘indigenous’, which silences a critical analysis of race in cross-cultural management contexts.

From a critical perspective, cross-cultural management studies should reflect upon the processes by which race is constructed and the reasons why this is done. Critical intercultural communication studies, which have already linked diversity categories such as race, ethnicity and sexual orientation to cross-cultural interactions, might provide valuable insights (Romani and Claes, 2014; Halualani and Nakayama, 2010).

On a more general level, management research and practice differentiates between categories such as ‘expatriate’ and ‘migrant’. Whereas expatriates are implicitly thought of as white, skilled and as moving voluntarily from developed to developing countries or within developed countries, migrants are more often than not assumed to be non-white, low-skilled and compelled to move from developing to developed countries, due to the poor economic or political situation of their home country (Al Ariss and Crowley-Henrey, 2013). As a result of this implicit dichotomy, cross-cultural management research deals with ‘the expatriate’, whereas diversity research studies ‘the migrant’ (Berry and Bell, 2012). When these categories are challenged, terms such as ‘self-initiated expatriates’ or ‘skilled migrants’ are created (McKenna and Richardson, 2007; Chun and Al Ariss, 2015) which make sure of the supremacy of some, while still excluding the vast majority of those individual movements which take place outside the managerial sphere. In other words, cross-cultural management studies develops theories about individuals on the move (‘expatriates’) excluding a large body of research on migrants.

Context, culture and gender

Contexts are always a combination of several components intertwined with power dichotomies, and gender issues run across these components. For example, as Moore (2014) has observed, predominantly male managers in a multinational automotive joint venture are united in their firm belief ‘that production work is nothing for women’. This belief creates and institutionalizes power inequalities in the sense that it makes women ‘the cultural Other’ and perpetuates gender inequalities in global cross-cultural management. Likewise, top (male) executives describing national cultural differences at play in an international merger do so in a way that excludes women and thereby justifies the discrimination of women from top positions in the new organization (Tienari et al., 2005).

When the intersections between history, geopolitics, power, gender and race/ethnicity are investigated in context, the presumably ‘non-Western’ female Other faces multiple marginalizations (Mohanty, 2003) in current cross-cultural management.

For example, as Prasad (2006) argues, the headscarf is implicitly thought of as pre-modern and discriminatory, and it is not even considered that non-Muslim females might choose to wear it. The headscarf is a highly significant “stigma symbol” (Goffman, 1963), and is virtually impossible to wear in a power-free manner - as the great film divas of the 1950s and 1960s have done so glamorously.

Islam can be understood as one of the most prominent markers of ‘Otherness’ in current Western discourse (Ramm, 2010), and those practicing Islam risk raising suspicion (Mahadevan, 2012), but the power-laden mechanisms underpinning dominant discourse are by no means limited to a specific cultural context. Rather, any signs of ‘female non-Westerness’ might suffice, and these signs might not even be linked to the managerial task at hand. For example, Indian female managers wearing a Sari in a German company face double marginalization (Mahadevan, 2015). If they dress in a pant-suit, as expected by their German superiors, they lose status in the eyes of their local subordinates; if they dress in a Sari, they are perceived as ‘too traditional to be good managers’ by German headquarters. Likewise, Indian engineers adhering to a vegetarian diet risk being perceived as limiting themselves and not following the principles of global and presumably culture-free engineering in the eyes of their western counterparts (Mahadevan, 2012). This suggests that those interacting in specific contexts use those cultural interpretations available for plays of power, and in this process and due to specific configurations of power discrepancies, some lose and other win.

Language in cross-cultural management research

Language is receiving increasing attention in cross-cultural management (Lauring, 2008, Brannen et al, 2014; Mughan, 2015) and provides another illustration of the interplay of power implications and culture. Vaara et al. (2005) reveal how the use of Swedish as a corporate language in a Nordic merger leads to the empowerment or disempowerment of certain employees whose competences are perceived differently based on their individual language proficiencies. They also point out how the imposition of one language leads to the reification of post-colonial and neo-colonial organizational structures, constructing some as superior and others as inferior. Likewise, bicultural/bilingual individuals are thought of as culture savvy individuals and presented as important resources for organizations (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Yet they can equally serve as gate keepers and sometimes, too, filter or block information to their advantage (Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011; Peltokorpi, 2010). By being language and culture savvy, bicultural individuals access distinctive status and networks and thus possess a different power-base (Neeley, 2013; Hinds et al., 2013).

Marschan-Piekkaria et al. (1999) show, for example, how employees with language skills build broad contact networks within a multinational corporation. Their investigation also reveals that language is often used as an informal source of expert power.

Power-blindness in cross-cultural studies

While cross-cultural management studies on language start to unveil how context is power laden, most other studies still suffer from power-blindness. Neglecting power discrepancies bears the risk of viewing individuals solely in terms of dominant categories, and to lose sight of diversity issues and related cultural dynamics. However, locating power in context is not an easy and mono-dimensional task, as the previous examples suggest. It is rather multiple influences that lead to the marginalization of certain individuals. To uncover these mechanisms, cross-cultural management research need to discard the assumption of being able to employ culturally-neutral perspectives and move beyond mono-level and power-blind macro-comparative research. It needs to investigate wider geopolitical frameworks, history, gender, race/ethnicity language and social class, and to link them back to specific contexts while considering power. The contributions to this special issue provide examples for doing so.

The Special Issue and future research

This special issue brings together six context-rich practice-based theoretically in- formed studies from four continents. They are all unique with regard to their different contextual sense making, but one important aspect stands out in every contribution: contextual power-laden elements are an integral part of every cross-cultural interaction. The historical, political, social, organizational and economic circumstances shape these contexts, and eventually the power position of the participants. This suggests that the very idea of what culture entails and how cultural borders become relevant in cross-cultural management needs to be reconsidered.

Rather than comparing national cultures and pre-imposing (ethnocentric) categories of difference, researchers and practitioners are invited to investigate the categories of cultural difference as they unfold from specific and power-laden con- texts, depending on the context studied and the intersections of wider geopolitical frameworks, history, gender, race/ethnicity, language and social class.

With this statement, we do not wish to imply that the whole of cross-cultural management is simplistic on a nationally comparative level. However, we wish to make the point that even those concepts which intend to uncover different and contrasting perspectives on specific cultural contexts are unsatisfying. For example, as Jackson (2014) has argued, the frequently used categories of emic and etic (Petersen and Pike, 2002), are biased as they remain unpolitical and do not ques- tion the dominant concept of presumably global ‘Western’ versus presumably local ‘indigenous’ management knowledge. Rather than using the emic/etic divide when talking about ‘Western’ versus ‘indigenous’ management, cross-cultural manage- ment researchers might better reflect upon researcher positioning and the pur- pose of the research conducted on indigenous management, such as outsider versus insider positioning or control versus resistance (Smith, 1999, also see Jack- son, 2014: 3) differentiated into control and resistance.

Based on the contributions from this special issue, we also suspect that the new categories of ‘cultural differences’ that unfold are linked to the ones in a position of power. If ethnicity/race is silenced as a category, it might be because the search consultants are from the dominant ethnic group. If social class emerges, it might be because the white expatriates are from a higher social class. If language emerges, it might be because the colonial languages are dominant. If age emerges as a relevant diversity category, it might be because top management feels that this is a category relevant to them. In other words, replacing pre-defined categories with emerging ones does not guarantee having more or fairer categor- ies. So, the question remains: What can or should be done? Can we – cross-cultural management researchers and practitioners – have categories at all? And how can we make sure that also the ‘anti’-category, developed to the best intentions and with the purpose of tracing power discrepancies in context, do not become a re- ified and dominant cultural containers at a certain point?

With this special issue, we come further than stating that power imbalances play a role in cross-cultural management practice (Mahadevan, 2012; 2015; Primecz, Romani and Sackmann, 2009; Romani et al., 2011). The articles investigate and exemplify the complexities of power discrepancies within and across specific cross-cultural management contexts. In other words, they show how the dynamics of power discrepancies actually work in context and provide a first basis for the de- velopment of critical cross-cultural management.


Al Ariss, A. and Crowley-Henry, M. (2013), Self-initiated Expatriation and Migration in the Management Literature, Career Development International, 18(1), 78-96.

Berry, D. P. and Bell, M. P. (2012): ‘Expatriates’: Gender, Race and Class distinctions in International Management, Gender, Work and Organization, 19(1), 10-28.

Brannen, M. Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2014). The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 495-507.

Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. (2010). Bicultural individuals in organizations implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross Cul- tural Management, 10(1), 5-16.

Cairns, G. and Śliwa, M. (2008) A Very Short, Reasonably Cheap and Fairly Interesting Book about International Business. London: Sage.

Cooke, B. (2004), ‘The managing of the (third) world, Organization, 11(5): 603-629.

Chun G. and Al Ariss, A. (2015). Human resource management of international migrants: current theories and future research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1287-1297.

Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R. (1953), ‘The imperialism of free trade’, The Economic History Review 6(1): 1-15.

Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, London: Simon & Schuster.

Halualani, R.T. and Nakayama, T.K. (2010), ‘Critical intercultural commu- nication studies: At a crossroads’, in: Nakayama, T.K. and Halualani, R.T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Chichester: Wi- ley-Blackwell, pp.1-15.

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2013). Language as a light- ning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536-561.

Jack, G. & Lorbiecki, A. (2003) Asserting possibilities of resistance in the cross-cultural teaching machine: re-viewing videos of Others, in Anshu- man Prasad, Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: a critical engagement. Palgrave: Houdmills, pp. 213-232.

Jack, G. and Westwood, R. (2009), International and Cross-Cultural Management Studies – a Postcolonial Reading. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson T, (2013), Reconstructing the indigenous in African management research: implications for international management studies in a globalized world. Management International Review 53(1):13–38.

Jackson, T. (2014), Editorial: Cross-cultural management from the South: What a difference global dynamics make, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 14, 1: pp. 3-5.

Kedia, B.L. and Mukherji, A. (1999), ‘Global managers: Developing a mindset for global competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, 24(3): 230-215.

Lauring, J. (2008). Rethinking social identity theory in international en- counters language use as a negotiated object for identity making. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3), 343-361.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2010), ‘Writing the intellectual history of intercultural communication’, in: Nakayama, T.K. and Halualani, R.T. (2010), The Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 17-33.

McKenna, S. and Richardson, J. (2007), ‘The Increasing Complexity of the Internationally Mobile Class: Issues for Research and Practice’, Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 307-320.

Mahadevan, J. (2012), Are engineers religious? An interpretative approach to cross-cultural conflict and collective identities. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 12 (1), pp. 133-149.

Mahadevan, J. (2015), Caste, purity, and female dress in IT India: Em- bodied norm violation as reflexive ethnographic practice, Culture and Organization, 21(5): 366-385.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8(4), 421-440.

Mohanty, C. T., (2003). Feminism without borders, decolonization theory, practicing solidarity, London: Duke University Press.

Moore, F. (2014), ‘An unsuitable job for a woman: a ‘native category’ approach to gender, diversity and cross-cultural management’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2014.922356 (last retrieved October 01, 2015).

Mughan, T. (2015) Language and languages: moving from the periphery to the core, in Holden, N., Michailova, S. and Tietze, S. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management, London: Routledge, 79-84.

Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24(2), 476-497.

Peltokorpi, V. (2010). Intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries: The influence of expatriates’ language and cultural competencies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 176-188.

Peterson MF and Pike KL (2002) Emics and etics for organizational studies: a lesson in contrasts from linguistics. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2(1): 5–20.

Prasad, A. (2006). The jewel in the crown: Postcolonial theory and work- place diversity. In A.M. Konrad, P. Prasad and J.K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Diversity (pp. 121-144). London: Sage.

Primecz, H., Romani, L., Sackmann, S. A. (2009): Editorial. Cross-Cultural Management Research: contributions from various paradigms, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2009/ Dec., pp. 267-274.

Ramm, C. (2010). The Muslim Makers. Interventions – International Journal of Post-Colonial Studies, 12, 183-197.

Romani, L., & Claes, M. T. (2014). Why critical intercultural communication studies are to be taken seriously in cross-cultural management re- search?. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1), 127-132.

Sackmann, S. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings, London, E. Elgar, pp. 1-17.

Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, UK: Zed Books.

Szkudlarek, B. (2009), ‘Through Western eyes: Insights into the corporate training field’, Organization Studies 30(9): 975-986.

Tienari, J., Sødeberg, A-M., Holgersson, C., Vaara, E, (2005) Gender and National Identity Constructions in the Cross-Border Merger Context, Gender, Work, and Organization, 12(3), 217-241.

Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of management studies, 42(3), 595-623.

Yagi, N., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Boundary work: An interpretive ethnographic perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 629-653.