Business Communication for Multicultural Workforce

in a Globalized World

Banikanta Mishra, Ph. D.

Professor of Finance

XIMB (Xavier Institute of Management – Bhubaneswar)

India

banikant@ximb.ac.in

and

Mahmud Rahman, Ph. D.

Professor of Finance

Eastern Michigan University

USA

mrahman@emich.edu

[Revised Draft: 24 June 2009]

Presented At:

Global Advances in Business Communication and Practices, 24-27 June 2009

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197, USA

(Track: International and Cross-Cultural Business Communication)

Business Communication for Multicultural Workforce

in a Globalized World

In this paper, we present a novel model of intercultural-communication (IC hereafter) and show

that firms would strategically choose a level of integration within the organization, such that,

given the resultant increase in “internal friction” within employees and decrease in “external

friction” between customers and employees, the cost of such frictions would be minimum.

The paper is organized as follows. Section-I introduces the concept. Section-II gives a brief

overview of literature on intercultural communication. Section-III delineates the existing

theoretical frameworks on intercultural communication. Section-IV presents our model and its

implications. Section-V concludes the paper.

Section-I: Introduction

Competition necessitated race for the best talents. But talents come from all corners of the

world. So, a multinational business intent on having the best talents will end up having a

workforce like no other time, even compared to a few decades ago. What we have is a fusion - a

rainbow coalition of every dimension: language, culture, religion, region, race, color, ethnicity,

sex, and the like. A corporate culture emerges from such a mix and match. But, whose culture is

it? They may be part of the same dish, but each retains its unique texture, taste, and color. It is

more like a salad, than a blended V8. So, how do you keep them communicating with each

other?

2

Communication is the nervous system - nothing gets done without it. In today’s business

organizations, people often work literally in a world apart. Yet, they work for the same

organization. Add to it the diversity that each part represents, particularly the workforce. What

you have is a potent mix: an elixir of excellence to one, but a poison to another. You can scale

the mountain or sink to the abyss of the ocean. The defining act, the key to the kingdom, is

having an effective communication system - a system that works with the grain, and not against

it.

Consider a simple act of salutation. Calling your boss by the first name is collegial in the US.

Try it in some Asian culture - it’s a death nail on your career. Silence during a conversation is a

sign of deference and thoughtfulness to one, but an apathy or indifference to a westerner. A

single word “yes” can be a contract to one, but simply an agreement to “consider it further” to

another, or simply a “show of respect” by not saying “no” (followed, of course, by other

expressions that indicate the true intention, such as a non-agreement). Arriving on time when

invited is courteous and expected in the US, but an act of inconsideration in some Asian

countries, where you arrive late to allow the host to be “ready” for you. That behavior may bleed

into business meetings, too.

Any communication has two sides: sending a signal and receiving it. If radio signal is

broadcasted in one frequency and received at another frequency, no communication is achieved,

despite the fact that both the transmitter and the receiver is working and tuned in. Same goes for

business communication where task force is multicultural or diverse in other ways. A language

is a living dynamic process. So are other forms of communications like gesture, posture,

physical actions, or non-verbal expressions. To make a seamless communication work in a

diverse workforce, recognize the drivers that create such varied expressions. Then, address it to

bring transparency for all, so that miscommunication is avoided, friction is minimized, but the

richness of varied background is not reined in; on the contrary, it is harvested for all its richness.

3

Research shows that a multilingual child has a better command over language and mastery of

concepts; some would even claim a better IQ. A similar argument can be made for the firm with

multicultural workforce compared to one with conformity in these dimensions. But, the

perception is opposite: that a multicultural firm is handicapped when it comes to effective

communication.

The proposed research paper intends to look at some of the major drivers of communication.

Those drivers are interactive in a multidimensional space, though most literature would present,

for ease of understanding, a two dimensional matrix at a time.

Let us consider some, which by no means make the complete list. Let us look at different forms

of communication: a) verbal, b) written, c) gesture, d) posture, and e) actions. Bring in sundry

attitudes, that towards a) superiors, b) juniors, c) colleagues, d) acquaintances, e) customers, f)

friends, and g) family. A third dimension could be priorities: a) individualism versus

collectivism, b) risk taking versus uncertainty avoidance, c) relationship versus transaction

oriented, and d) materialism versus spiritualism. On each of these dimensions, one can further

add variances due to differences in a) religion, b) language, c) region, and d) economic

conditions. Neuliep (2006) captures these varied dimensions by dwelling at length on the

cultural, microcultural, environmental, perceptual, and socio-relational context and

distinguishing, as should be, between the verbal and non-verbal code.

We need to formulate two sets of strategies: one to strengthen the communicability and the other

to eradicate miscommunication. Let us examine some oft-prescribed strategies. For

strengthening communication, one is advised to respond immediately to any request received for

an action, with an acknowledgement detailing what and how the action would be carried out; that

allows an agreement for both the sender and the receiver of what action has been requested,

before actually carrying out the action. Similarly, a prescription for reducing miscommunication

is to use global templates for reporting (to facilitate transparency, translation ease, and

4

comparability); such actions, the literature suggests, minimize distortions or biases in

communication, especially when the parties operate in different cultural environment, though

they belong to the same global firm.

Section-II: Brief Survey of Literature

Intercultural communication is a far more complex issue than interpersonal communication, but

this recognition has come only in recent years. As early as in early 90s, Fine (1991) had realized

that research and theory in business communication till that time had not taken the cultural

diversity of US workforce into account and had suggested that later research in multicultural

communication should document different organizational discourses and analyze privileged

organizational discourse and resistance to it while also documenting multicultural organizational

discourse. Again, more than a decade ago, Fine (1996) had observed that research till that point

had primarily focused on organizational communication in the context of different national or

extra-national cultures and explored “cultural voices in the workplace” and had recommended

“multicultural discourses” that takes into account the sundry voices of all workers, even from

alternative theoretical perspectives like feminist and critical theories and sociological paradigms.

Harris (2001), basing on perceived influence of culture on communication dynamics in the UN,

had warned at the beginning of the millennium that US workforce would be drawn to firms

accepting multicultural perspectives and that Corporate America would lose if it does not

embrace diversity.

Pless and Maak (2004) had contended that, since diversity is especially about cultural value and

norms, the real challenge is to reflect on creating an environment where people from different

cultural backgrounds feel respected and recognized.

Gudykunst, Lee, Nishida, and Ogawa (2005) give an excellent account of the evolution of

theories of communication, and we present a summary of it in the later part. Interestingly,

5

though many a discipline or subject claim or believe that they are addressing issues pertaining to

discipline, some perhaps fail to reckon that conceptualization of what “communication” is can

vary widely across disciplines (Fraser and Schalley, 2009).

Realizing that cultural conflict arises due to differences in “language and communication style,

values, attitudes towards authority and time”, Lopez-Rocha (2007) had addressed these issues

within the context of , inter alia, stereotypes and prejudices about cultures, differences in culture

along language, values, and attitudes – as highlighted in the introduction – and the creation of a

diverse workforce.

An exploratory study by Shachaf (2008) that involved interviewing 41 team-members from nine

countries employed by a Fortune-500 company seemed to suggest that “cultural diversity had a

positive influence on decision-making and negative influence on communication”; it found e-

mail and teleconferencing with e-meeting to be effective in alleviating adverse effect of cultural-

diversity on communication.

Manathunga (2009) highlights that modern research has to address issues relating to cultural

boundaries between different ethnicities, sundry disciplines, various professional and workplace

cultures, and even between universities and industry, and raises an interesting concern: whether

researchers are adequately trained and prepared to work in this sensitive area.

In an interesting empirical study on intercultural negotiation, Adair, Taylor, and Tinsley (2009)

studied negotiation schemas of hundred experienced US and Japanese negotiators and found that,

because negotiators adjust their schemas by visualizing how the counterparty would negotiate in

an intra-cultural setting, they fail to account for the fact that the counterparty adjusts expectation

for the intercultural context, thus leading to clash.

6

In a research exploring the interrelationship between culture, language, and communication,

Liddicoat (2009) argues that use of language communication is intricately tied to the “cultural

context” in which they are created and received, in the sense that, “what is communicated

depends as much on the cultural context in which the communication occurs as it does on the

elements from which the linguistic act is constructed”. As the author puts it quite poignantly,

“Languages are, at least in part, culturally constructed artifacts which encode conceptual

understandings of the world at various levels of embeddedness.”

Section-III: Existing Theoretical Frameworks

Gudykunst, Lee, Nishida, and Ogawa (2005) classify theories of intercultural communication

into seven categories. First group consist of theories that blend culture with communication

processes. Three main perspectives in this group have been (a) constructivist theory by

Applegate and Sypher (1983, 1988), (b) coordinated management of meaning by Cronen, Chen,

and Pearce (1988), and (c) cultural communication research of Philipsen (1992) and Philipsen,

Coutu, and Covarrubias (2005).

Second set of theories have tried to focus on individual and cultural level attributes to explain

cross-cultural differences. The principal ones in this group are (a) face-negotiation theory by

Ting-Toomey (1988) and Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998), (b) conversational constraints theory

by Kim (1993, 1995), and, in some sense, (c) Burgoon’s (1992, 1995) expectancy violation

theory, which focuses on cross-cultural variability of theory developed in the US. It is

imperative to mention here that these theories rely to a great extent upon the four dimensions of

cultural variability identified by Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001): individualism-collectivism, low-

high uncertainty avoidance, low-high power distance, and masculinity-femininity.

Instead of trying to concentrate on processes, the third group of theories – in the positive spirit as

distinct from normative one - focus on outcomes, as captured by effective communication and

7

group decisions. They belong to four segments: (a) cultural convergence theory enunciated by

Barnett and Kincaid (1983), (b) anxiety and uncertainty management theory of Gudykunst

(1995), (c) effective group decision making theory by Oetzel (1995), and (d) integrated theory of

interethnic communication by Kim (1997).

How communications adapt to each other is where lies the spotlight of the fourth set of theories,

consisting of (a) communications accommodations theory (CAT) of Galois, Giles, Jones,

Cargile, and Ota (1995), (b) intercultural adaptation theory by Ellingsworth (1988) and co-

cultural theory of Orbe (1998). It is worth noting in this context that CAT’s root goes back to

SAT (speech accommodation theory), espoused by Giles and Smith (1979), that suggests that

speakers use linguistic strategies to win over others they are interacting with.

Eschewing focus on specific communication behavior, the fifth segment of theories divert their

attention to how people adapt their identities and are divided into (a) cultural identity theory of

Collier and Thomas (1988), (b) identity management theory of Cupach and Imahori (1993), (c)

Ting-Toomey’s (1993) identity negotiation theory, and (d) communication theory of identity by

Hecht (1993).

The next, or sixth, set of theories resemble the “family nexus theory” in that they posit that an

individual’s behavior is driven more by his relationship with others – “the social environment” in

some sense - than by his own characteristics. These network theories mainly are (a) outgroup

communication competence theory of Kim (1986), (b) intercultural versus intracultural networks

theory by Yum (1988), and (c) Smith’s (1999) networks and acculturation theory. Personal

networks stress upon the links between individuals. As Kim (1986) puts it nicely, “one of the

most important aspects of a personal network is ego’s conscious and unconscious reliance on the

network members for perceiving and interpreting various attributes and actions of other (and of

self).”

8

Acculturation, about which we just spoke and which basically refers to a process whereby one

adapts to a new culture by embracing its attitudes and practices, and adjustment, which

particularly pertains to immigrants, has driven the last group of theories, which is subdivided into

five categories: (a) communication acculturation theory of Kim (1988, 2001), (b) interactive

acculturation model of Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, and Senecal (1997), (c) anxiety/uncertainty

management theory of adjustment by Gudykunst (1998), (d) theory of communications in

assimilation, deviance, and alienations states by McGuire and McDermott (1988), (e) Nishida’s

(1999) a schema theory of adaptation.

Section-IV: Our Model

Our model lies in the interface between the third and fourth set of theories delineated in the

previous section. We posit a simple firm with its employees and customers belonging to two

cultures: Culture-1 and Culture-2. We refer to people belonging to Culture-1 (Culture-2) as C-1

(C-2) people or, sometimes, when the context is clear, simply C-1 (C-2). C-1 people are

assumed to be more parochial or rigid – or, euphemistically, culture-loyal – than those from

Culture-2, who are more flexible or less culture-loyal or culture-centric.

Whenever C-1 people communicate with C-2 ones, there is an intercultural communication

friction. But, the friction is more pungent for C-1 people than C-2 people. When C-1 employees

interact with C-2 ones, there is “internal friction” within the firm, but C-1 persons react more

strongly than C-2 in this situation. We denote 1 (2) as the cost, to the company, due to the

friction or adverse reaction from a C-1 (C-2) employee in this context. Given our

characterization, 1 > 2, and, in some instances, 2 may even be zero.

In the spirit of consumer sovereignty, we, however, assume that when there is intercultural

communication friction between an employee and a customer – what we call the “external

friction” – its source is the customer, not the employee. Thus, when a C-1 employee

9

communicates with a C-2 customer, there is a friction arising from C-2, measured by a cost equal

to 2. Similarly, when there is communication between a C-2 employee and a C-1 customer,

there is friction engendering from C-1, measured by a cost equal to 1. Again, like in the case of

employees, we postulate that, given the higher culture-loyalty of C-1, 12. Figure-I presents

a picture of these two frictions.

If the firm does not integrate inside – implying that C-1 and C-2 employees do not interact with

and learn from each other – cost of internal friction remains zero. But, this also implies that C-1

employees are unaware of the modalities of C-2 culture and vice versa. This creates problems

when employees belonging to one culture interact with customers belonging to the other, thus

exacerbating the external friction. As the firm strives to integrate, internal friction increases and

so does the consequent cost, but the external friction reduces – due to employee from one culture

being versed with the communication attitudes of the other culture – and so does the related cost.

The firm’s “optimal” strategy is to go for a level of integration that minimizes the sum of the

costs of internal and external friction.

Let us presume that the firm has fraction of C-1 employees and fraction of C-1 customers.

Assuming that a customer gets connected to an employee randomly, there is an chance that (1-

) fraction of customers, who belong to C-2, would get connected to C-1 employee, creating a

friction. Its resultant cost would be (1-) 2. Similarly, the total cost of external friction

arising from C-1 customers interacting with C-2 employees is (1- ) 1. But, before the firm

integrates, its cost of internal friction is zero. So, without integration, its total cost from internal

and external friction is as follows (where TC denotes Total Cost and subscripts WO, IW and EW

denote, respectively, Without, Internal Without, and External Without.

TCWO = TCIW + TCEW = 0 + [ (1-) 2 + (1- ) 1] ----- (1)

10

Note that we would seem to be taking not the total cost, but the cost per employee sometimes, as

we just did, and cost per customer at some other. But, there is no problem there. To ensure that

the total cost of friction does not get influenced by relative scales of number of customers and

employees, we simply assume that per-employee cost of friction is in the same unit as the per-

customer cost, but is scaled by the ratio of number of customers to the number of employees.

Now, if the firm integrates, an internal friction would start. Total cost of internal friction when

integrated would thus become as follows (II denoting Internal when Integrated)

TCII = 1 + (1- ) 2 ----- (2)

But, because the employees now would know the “other” culture, external friction would reduce.

Specifically, when a C-1 customer would be interacting with a C-2 employee, the cost would

come down from 1 to 1 – 1; there would be a similar reduction from 2 to 2 – 2 when a C-2

customer would be interacting with a C-1 employee. Then, the total cost of external friction

under integration would become as follows (EI standing for External under Integration)

TCEI = (1-) (2 – 2) + (1- ) (1 – 1) ----- (3)

Thus, the total cost of internal and external friction becomes (WI meaning Without Integration)

TCWI = [ 1 + (1- ) 2] + [ (1-) (2 – 2) + (1- ) (1 – 1)] ----- (4)

Two points about is worth mentioning here. First, is in the additive (or subtractive) format

here. It could have been in a multiplicative format, meaning that post-integration cost of friction

could have been i x i or simply i x (which still implies that C-1 and C-2 would countenance

different extent of reduction in external friction). Second, it is not clear prima facie whether 1 is

higher or lower than 2. From one perspective, C-1 people, being parochial, would be much

11

more resistant to the integration exercise and thus 1 < 2. But, from another perspective, C-1

people have much to gain from the integration exercise and also have much friction to reduce,

thereby implying that 1 > 2. Anyway, in the limiting case where 2 = 0, we have to have 2 = 0

(as 2 – 2 cannot be negative), in which case 1 > 2.

Note that we have not explicitly specified the cost the firm has to incur for integrating its

employees. Similarly, we also have not specified how much the firm can expend to eliminate the

intercultural friction among its integrated employees. One way to defend this stance at this point

would be to say that that cost is prohibitively high and is never voluntarily incurred by any firm.

Anyway, in the framework of our simple – rather simplistic – model, it would be worth

integrating for a firm if and only if the total cost of friction is lower after integration, that is, from

Equation-1 and Equation-4,

[ 1 + (1- ) 2] + [ (1-) (2 – 2) + (1- ) (1 – 1)] < (1-) 2 + (1- ) 1 ----- (5)

which translates to [ 1 + (1- ) 2] < [ (1-) 2 + (1- ) 1)] ----- (6)

Note that the LHS in the above inequality is the increase in the cost of the internal friction while

the RHS is the decrease in the cost of the external friction. So, what the inequality suggests is

obvious: integrate if the increase in the cost of the internal friction is outweighed by the decrease

in the cost of the external friction.

Thus, the inequality (6) would hold under different scenarios, depending upon the relative

fraction of C-1 and C-2 employees (), the relative fraction of C-1 and C-2 customers (), the

relative costs of internal friction arising from C-1 and C-2 employees when they are interacting

with each other (), the relative cost of external friction arising from C-1 and C-2 customers

12

when they are interacting with an employee from the other culture (), and the relative extent of

reduction of the cost of external friction ().

To get a simple view of the model, let us start with 2 = 0, 2 = 0, and 2 = 0. In this case, for the

above inequality (5) to hold, we need that

1 < (1- ) 1, that is, (1- ) < 1 / 1 ----- (7)

meaning that the relative proportion of C-1 and C-2 employees should be less than the relative

proportion of the cost of reduction in external friction and the cost of (increase in) internal

friction (which starts at zero, when there is no integration) weighted by the fraction of C-1

customers. In fact, 1 / 1 can be taken here as the “benefit-cost” ratio.

To analyze the condition a bit more, let us assume that is quite low where is quite high,

suggesting that the firm has a high fraction of C-1 employees but low fraction of C-1 customers.

Then, integration would make sense only if 1 is much higher than 1, that is, the extent to which

C-1 customers enjoy interacting with the integrated C-2 employees is much higher than the

extent to which C-1 employees dislike this integration. That makes eminent sense. So, if it does

happen, we can safely say here that it is (C-1) customer-driven integration, despite they having a

relatively small base.

Now, let us consider the reverse situation: where the firm has a high fraction of customers

belonging to the rigid culture but correspondingly a low fraction of employees. So, we can

visualize that, in this situation, the rigid customers must be having a lot of friction while

interacting with the employees of the other culture, who account for a high fraction. Such a firm

must be desperate to integrate with a view to reducing this huge external friction. That is what

our required condition, as implied by inequality (7), suggests. Since is low and is high, the

inequality would hold – and the firm would integrate - even if the benefit-cost ratio is quite low.

13

Many such scenarios can be visualized and analyzed. Most importantly, the “extent” of

integration should be made a continuous variable and the optimal level endogenously

determined. In that case, and may quite likely be functions of the extent of integration. In a

similar vein, in many situations, and , instead of being exogenous as taken here, may indeed

be endogenous: a firm may have the choice of deciding what level of cultural mix among its

employees and customers it would go for. Some firms may indeed choose not to have

intercultural communication problem at all by seeking employees and customers belonging to

only one culture, as, we strongly believe, some local and regional small firms do.

V: Conclusion

In this paper, we have constructed a very simple model that captures two aspects of intercultural

communication, say like the one we see now-a-days in call-centers or answering-service-outfits.

One is the internal friction within an organization between employees belonging to different

culture – intrafirm intercultural conflicts, if you like. The other is the external friction between

customers and employees belonging to different cultures – extrafirm intercultural conflicts.

When a firm strives to integrate its employees to make them understand the “other cultures” so

as to bring some commonality among them in their approach to customers of various cultures,

there arises a friction within the organization among employees of different cultures, with more

culture-sensitive or culture-loyal groups reacting more strongly. But, on the other hand, the

more culture-loyal customers welcome this move as they realize that they can now interact better

with employees of the “other culture” as they have been sensitized to their – customer’s – own

culture. The firm has to weigh the trade-off in arriving at an optimal level of integration, which

would be driven also by, inter alia, the fraction of the firms employees and the fraction of firms

customers belonging to different cultures as well as extent of reaction of the rigid and dominant

cultures and flexible and satellite ones.

14

REFERNCES

Adair, Wendi L., Taylor, Masako S., and Tinsley, Catherine H. (2009) ‘Starting out on the Right Foot: Negotiation Schemas when Cultures Collide’, Negotiation & Conflict Management Research, 2-1, pp. 138-163

Applegate, J. and Sypher. H. (1983) ‘A Constructivist Outline’, In: Gudykunst, W. B. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 63-78

Applegate, J. and Sypher. H. (1983) ‘A Constructivist Theory of Communications and Culture’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 41-65

Barnett, G. A. and Kincaid, D. L. (1983) ‘Cultural Convergence’, In: Gudykunst, W. B. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 171-194

Bourhis, R., Moise, L., Perreault, S., and Senecal, S. (1997) ‘Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model’, International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386

Burgoon, J. K. (1992) ‘Applying a Comparative Approach to Non-verbal Expectancy Violation Theory’, In: Blumler, J., Rosengreen, K., and McLeod, J. (eds.), Comparatively Speaking, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 53-69

Burgoon, J. K. (1995) ‘Cross-cultural and Inter-cultural Applications of Expectancy Violations Theory’, In: Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 194-214

Collier, M. J. and Thomas, M. (1988) ‘Cultural Identity’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 99-120

Cronen, V., Chen, V., and Pearce, W. B. (1988) ‘Coordinated management of Meaning’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 66-98

Cupach, W. R. and Imahori, T. (1993) ‘Identity Management Theory’, In: Wiseman, R. L. and Koester, J. (eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 112-131

Ellingsworth, H. W. (1988) ‘A Theory of Adaptation in Intercultural Dyads’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 259-279

15

Fine, Marlene G. (1996) ‘New Voices in Workplace: Research Directions in Multicultural Communication’, Journal of Business Communication, 28-3, pp. 259-275

Fine, Marlene G. (1996) ‘Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: The State of the Field’, Journal of Business Communication, 33-4, pp. 485-502

Fraser, H. and Schalley, A. C. (2009) ‘Communicating About Communication: Intercultural Competence as a Factor in the Success of Interdisciplinary Collaboration’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29-1, pp. 135-155

Gallois, C., Giles. H., Jones. E., Cragille, A’, and Ota, H. (1995) ‘Accommodating Intercultural Encounters’, In: Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 115-147

Giles, H. and Smith, P. (1979) ‘Accommodation Theory’, In: Giles, H. and St. Clair, R. (eds.), Language and Social Psychology, Blackwell: Oxford, UK

Gudykunst, W. B. (1995) ‘Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory’, In: Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 8-58

Gudykunst, W. B. (1998) ‘Applying Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory to Intercultural Adjustment Training’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, pp. 227-250

Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., and Ogawa, N. (2005) ‘Theorizing about Intercultural Communication: An Introduction’, In: W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-32

Harris, Heather (2001) ‘The Perceived Influence of Culture and Ethnicity on the Communicative Dynamics of the United Nations Secretariat’, Business Communication Quarterly, 64-2, pp. 105-113

Hecht, M. L. (1993) ‘2002 – A Research Odyssey toward the Development of a Communication Theory of Identity’, Communications Monographs, 60, 76-82

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill, London, UK

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences (2nd ed.), Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA16

Kim, M. S. (1993) ‘Culture-based Interactive Constraints in Explaining Intercultural Strateegic Competence, In: Wiseman, R. L. and Koester, J. (eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 132-150

Kim, Y. Y. (1986) ‘Understanding the Social Structure of Intergroup Communication’, In: Gudykunst, W. B. (ed.), Intergroup Communication, Edward Arnold: London, UK, pp.86-95

Kim, Y. Y. (1988) Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Multilingual Matters: Clevendon, UK

Kim. Y. Y. (1995) ‘Cross-Cultural Adaptation: An Integrative Theory’, In: Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 170-194

Kim, Y. Y. (1997) ‘The Behavior-Context Interface in Interethnic Communication’, In: Owen, J. (ed.), Context and Human Behavior, Context Press: Reno, NV, pp. 261-291

Kim, Y. Y. (2001) Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA

Liddicoat, Anthony J. (2009) ‘Communication as Culturally Contexted Practice: A View from Intercultural Communication’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29-1, pp. 115-133

Lopez-Rocha, Sanda (2007) ‘Diversity in the Workplace’, International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities & Nations, 5-5, pp. 11-18

Manathunga, Catherine (2009) ‘Research as an Intercultural “Contact Zone” ’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30-2, pp. 165-177

McGuire, M. and McDermott, S. (1988) ‘Communication in Assimilation, Deviance, and Alienation States’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 90-105

Neuliep, James W. (2006) Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA

Nishida, H. (1999) ‘A Cognitive Approach to Intercultural Communicaation Based on Schema Theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, pp. 753-777

Oetzel, J. G. (1995) ‘Intercultural Small Groups: An Effective Decision-Making Theory’, In: Wiseman, R. L. (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 247-270

17

Orbe, M. P. (1998) ‘From the Standpoint(s) of Traditionally Muted Groups: Explicating a Co-cultural Communications Theoretical Model’, Communications Theory, 8, pp. 1-26

Philipsen, G. (1992) Speaking Culturally, State University of New York Press: Albany, NY

Philipsen, G., Coutu, Lisa M., and Covarrubias (2005) ‘Speech Codes Theory’, In: W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 55-68

Pless, Nicola M. and Maak, Thomas (2004) “Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes, and Practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, 54-2 (Part 1), pp. 129-147

Shachaf, Pnina (2008) “Cultural Diversity and Information and Communication Technology Impacts on Global Virtual Teams: An Exploratory Study”, Information and Management, 45-2, pp. 131-142

Smith, L. R. (1999) ‘Intercultural Network Theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, pp. 629-658

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) ‘Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 213-238

Ting-Tommey, S. (1993) ‘Communicative Resourcefulness: An Identity Negotiation Theory”, In: Wiseman, R. L. and Koester, J. (eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 72-111

Ting-Toomey, S. and Kurogi, A. (1998) ‘Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, pp. 187-225

Yum, J. O. (1988) ‘Network Theory in Intercultural Communication’, In: Kim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp. 239-258

FIGURE - I18

19