understanding cross-cultural management interaction

8/12/2019 Understanding Cross-Cultural Management Interaction

1/24

38 FINK (AUSTRIA), NEYER (UK), & KLLING (AUSTRIA)

Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., vol. 36, no. 4, Winter 20067, pp. 3860. 2007 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.ISSN 00208825 / 2007 $9.50 + 0.00.DOI 10.2753/IMO0020-8825360402

GERHARD FINK, ANNE-KATRIN NEYER, AND MARCUS KLLING

Understanding Cross-CulturalManagement InteractionResearch into Cultural Standards to ComplementCultural Value Dimensions and Personality Traits

Abstract: Understanding why critical incidents emerge and interpreting theirimportance in cross-cultural interactions requires novel constructs of culture.Therefore, we suggest cultural standards as a new tool for research. With referenceto the Parsons and Shils theory of action, we reect on the interrelations of culturalstandards with cultural dimensions and personality traits, which constitute thoseconstructs that are most widely used in the English-language literature. Finally,in the context of management, we develop a model of cross-cultural learning andadjustment, triggered by critical incidents and performance achieved.

Gerhard Fink is a professor of international management at the Vienna Universityof Economics and Business Administration, Althanstrasse 3945, 1090 Vienna, Austria(tel.: +43 (0) 131 336 4134; fax: +43 (0) 131 336 758; e-mail: [email protected]). Anne-Katrin Neyer is Advance Institute of Management (AIM) Research Post-doctoral Research Fellow at London Business School, Regents Park, London NW14SA, United Kingdom (tel.: +44 (0) 207 262 5050 3269; e-mail: [email protected]). Marcus Klling is assistant professor at the Center for Leading Innovation andCooperation (CLIC) at the HHL-Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany(e-mail: [email protected])

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a Professional Development Work-shop of the 2003 Academy of Management annual meeting at Seattle, Washington,and was presented as part of a substantial paper that won the best paper award of theinternational management track at the 2004 meeting of the Southern ManagementAssociation. The authors thank Sylvia Meierewert, Markus Pudelko, discussants,


2/24

UNDERSTANDING CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT INTERACTION 39

Our overall area of investigation is to contribute to understanding cross-cul-tural management interactions that might be impeded by critical incidents.In that context, the decisive issue is not the existence of cultural differencesper se, but the way behavioral differences are perceived, interpreted, andmanaged by individuals of different national cultures in the context of do-ing business. Because individuals usually grow up within a single culture,critical incidents may occur when people interact with others who are froma foreign society, nation, culture, or even only a different organizationalgroup. Incidents are critical when the behavior or action taken, according to

the prevailing norms of behavior of the actor, leads to unexpected outcomesor triggers unexpected reactions by counterparts. For example, the followingcritical incident was reported by a Hungarian employee in an interaction withher Austrian supervisor:

My boss walks over to me and says: (X), I do not like . . . this and that.She does this, however, in a manner that is simply not appropriate. Shedoes not say: I would like you to do this in a particular manner. What doyou think of it, but I want you to do this in this way. This irritates meto an extent that I cannot work like this any more. What she does is good,

in principle. The point is not that she does something inappropriate, butthe way she does it. (Horvth 1998, as quoted by Meierewert and Horvth-Topcu 2001, 113)

So far, not very much is known that would help us to understand why thiscritical incident emerged or why it is important. It is obviously not sufcientto know cultural dimensions and the measured scales of these dimensions ofour own and foreign cultures (e.g., Hofstede 1980; House et al. 2004), becausethat will not explain the emergence of critical incidents like this. Therefore,stimulated by Leung et al., we propose research into cultural standards as a

largely novel construct of culture, because it offers new concepts for under-standing differences in business practices (2005, 358). The cultural standardmethod explicitly addresses differences in the modes of perceiving, sensing,thinking, judging, and acting within and across different cultures (Fink andMeierewert 2001; Thomas 1996, 2003).

So far, literature in the English-speaking world has mainly concentratedon two types of cultural constructs: cultural dimensions and personality traits.Screening the intercultural literature (1996 to 2004) conrmed that literatureon cultural dimensions (i.e., general culture descriptions [Hall and Hall 1990,

2000; Hofstede 1980, 1993, 2001; House, Javidan, and Dorfman 2001; Houseet al. 2002, 2004; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961; Rokeach 1973; Schwartz1992; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998]) is dominant along with the


3/24


Mendenhall, and Oddou 1991; Caligiuri 2000a, 2000b; Gudykunst, Hammer,and Wiseman 1978; Oguri and Gudykunst 2002; Parker and McEvoy 1993;Ward, St. Bochner, and Furnham 2001).

Only within Central Europe, notably in Germany and Austria, do we nda third arealiterature on cultural standards that deals with modes of per-ceiving, sensing, thinking, judging, and acting (Fink and Meierewert 2001;Thomas 1996, 2003).

Although all three approaches deal with ways of structuring and investigat-ing cultures of nations, to date, they are more or less separately applied. To

put these three research strands into a more coherent theoretical framework,we will refer to the Parsons and Shils theory of action (1962). It offers aframework of analysis for why and how cultural dimensions, personality traits,and cultural standards are interrelated. With this concept, we can contributeto a better understanding of critical incidents in cross-cultural interactions.Our preliminary conclusion is that a deeper understanding of the relationsbetween these three strands of research in cross-cultural management, of theprocesses that lead to the emergence of critical incidents, and of the reac-tions of individuals to critical incidents allows individuals to enhance theirperformance in cross-cultural interactions and, thus, also the performance ofthe organizations to which they belong.

Review of literature on cultural dimensions andpersonality traits

Cultural dimensions measure valuesthat is, a conception, distinctive of anindividual . . . of the desirable which inuences the selection from availablemodes, means and ends of action (Kluckhohn 1951, 395). Following Buss(1991) personality traits can be understood as dispositional motives used by

individuals during goal attainment.Cultural dimensions are the most widely used explanatory variables in

extant cross-cultural management literature: A quick check with SCIRUS, thescientic information search engine (www.scirus.com), reects the importancethat scholars assign to these constructs On April 8, 2005, we typed in crosscultural in combination with other keywords: for values we got 13,878 hits,for value dimensions 4,931 hits, and for personality traits 657 hits.

Research on cultural dimensions

C. Kluckhohn assumed that there are universals or near universals that cutacross cultural boundaries (Kluckhohn 1962 273) Based on this assumption


4/24


They formulated the problem areas into ve basic questions and attributedthe corresponding value orientations:

1. What is the character of innate human nature? Human NatureOrientation.2. What is the relation of man to nature (and supernature)? Man NatureOrientation.3. What is the temporal focus of human life? Time Orientation.4. What is the modality of human activity? Activity Orientation.

5. What is the modality of mans relationship to other men? RelationalOrientation. (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961, 11)

Their approach set the benchmark for all further research on values and forthe development and measurement of cultural dimensions. Cultural dimensionsare constructs of values, which can be measured along quantitative scales.

As is widely known, the seminal work of Geert Hofstede is based onresponses by IBM staff across the world. In different countries, the samequantitative questionnaires were used to identify and measure the personalvalue orientations of IBM employees in their work situation (i.e., to create

value dimensions). Data were collected in two periods during the years 1968and 1972. Hofstede emphasized that rst he had more than 116,000 ques-tionnaires lled in by IBM employees in the 40 largest subsidiaries of IBM(40 countries) and later in ten more countries and in three global regions(several countries grouped together). In the second round, factor analysiswas employed to analyze the responses to 32 questions, and the famous fourvalue dimensions were derived by grouping the responses: power distance,individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance(Hofstede 2001). According to Hofstede, those four dimensions explain 49percent of a variance across countries (Hofstede 2001). Because that meantthat 51 percent of cultural differences cannot be explained by these four fac-tors, further research in the eld was appropriate.

The anthropologist Edward T. Hall had his rst intercultural experiences incollaboration with Native Americans from 1933 to 1937. His later research wasstrongly inuenced by that experience. Based on 180 open-ended interviewswith people engaged in business, Hall and Hall (1990) developed four valuedimensions to help U.S. managers understand the behavior of West Germanand French employees at their workplace: fast and slow messages, high andlow context, space, and time.

Similar to Kluckhohn, Shalom Schwartz (1992) also found the analysisof basic human needs to be supportive for developing a system of values. Hed t k hi t h i i tig ti i t l i t ti t th


5/24


Parsons and Shils (1962), Allport (1961), Kluckhohn (1962), Rokeach (1973),Hofstede (1980) and also on his own work with Bilsky (1987 and 1990),Schwartz used the value survey developed by Rokeach (1973) and distin-guished among content and motivational aspects to group values with the samegoals to form a value type. By that he could transform 56 values into elevenvalue dimensions. The validity of these eleven value dimensions was testedwith a questionnaire, and individual value priorities were identied. Along anine-point Likert scale, interviewed persons were asked to assess whether avalue has a meaning to them in their life. This method also made it possible to

identify negative value connotations. The sample consisted of approximately200 teachers and 200 students in 20 countries (Schwartz 1992).Fons Trompenaars perception of culture also corresponds to the basic

assumptions of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Culture is an offer of spe-cic problem solutions for members. Trompenaars addressed three problemareas: relations with other human beings, relation to time, and relation to theenvironment (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998), within which theydeveloped seven dimensions (Table 1). When his 1993 book appeared, hisdatabase included 15,000 completed questionnaires from 30 corporations withsubsidiaries in 50 countries. In 47 countries, he had more than 50 responsesthat were used for further analyses (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner1998). He used quantitative questionnaires with Likert scales. The data werevalidated with cluster and correlation analysis (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998).

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project(GLOBE) led by Robert House, Mansour Javidan, and colleagues aims toidentify the impact of cultural values on organizational practices and leader-ship in a large number of countries. National cultures in 61 countries wereinvestigated along nine value dimensions (House et al. 2002). Quantitative

questionnaires with seven-point Likert scales were used to identify the appro-priate items for the nine value dimensions (Table 1). Each of the interviewedpersons was asked to ll in their perception of the present situation as is andas the desired situation should be. The idea is that the difference between as is (practices) and should be (values) would indicate possible future development.Culture-specic qualitative data of focus groups, interviews, and publicizedinformation were analyzed with content analysis methods to support analy-sis and validation of quantitative data (triangulation) (House et al. 2001). Inaddition to the nine dimensions of societal values, 21 leader attribute itemswere identied to show that different value perceptions have an impact onthe perceptions of good leadership (House et al. 2004).

To summarize, cultural values provide general guidance to behavior on the


6/24


in a very general way describe cultures to which individuals belong. Culturaldimensions are used to measure presumed cultural distance. However, toexplain our critical incident between the Hungarian and Austrian, there aretwo particular caveats:

1. The scales of cultural dimensions (i.e., values) can serve as a proxy forexpectation of some difference in behavior in cross-cultural interaction, butthe particular behavior of individuals will also depend on their personalitytraits and the prevailing cultural standards in their society and, thus, cannotbe predicted with the scales of the value dimensions.

2. The perceptions of cultural differences may be different and deviate fromthe objective quantitative measures. An example comes from the GLOBEproject, which groups Germany (former East and former West), Austria,Switzerland, and the Netherlands into the Germanic cluster (Brodbeck,Frese, and Javidan 2002; Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman 2002). Because themeasures of cultural values along the nine GLOBE dimensions are similar,societal practices within the Germanic cluster are also expected to besimilar for all countries. Thus, concluding from measured cultural distance,one could expect little conict in cross-cultural interactions to emerge.However, in contrast to these expectations, cross-cultural interaction

analysis using the cultural standard approach shows other results. Thereare widespread culturally determined critical incidents that differ amongWest German, East German, and Austrian managers and staff (Brck 2001;Klling 2004). It is also worth noting that Spanish managers perceiveAustrian managers as low in rule orientation in contrast to strongly rule-oriented German managers (Dunkel 2001). From this example, we seethat although cultural dimensions are similar, cultural standards and theperception of these cultural standards might be different. In order to gaina deeper understanding of why and what critical incidents might occur incross-cultural interactions, we also have to consider personality traits andcultural standards.

Research on personality traits in cross-cultural literature

At the core of this literature is the observation that people suffer from adjust-ment problems (culture shock syndrome) if they are systematically confrontedwith behavior not compatible with their own culturally determined rules ofbehavior. This applies to students, sojourners (people working abroad), tour-ists, and local people who are confronted with large numbers of incoming

tourists (Aycan 1997; Black et al. 1991; Parker and McEvoy 1993; Ward etal. 2001).

B li i l h i i d h di i i l


7/24


l e 1

lu e

d i m e n s

i o n s

i n m a

i n s

t r e a m

l i t e r a

t u r e

e s e a r c

h e r s

( s o u r c e s )

D e p e n

d e n

t v a r i a

b l e

I n d e p e n

d e n

t v a r i a

b l e s

M e

t h o

d

S a m p

l e / C o n

t e x t

c k h o

h n a n

d S t r o

d t -

k ( 1 9 6 1 )

H u m a n p r o

b l e m

s o

l u t i o n s

F i v e

d i m e n s i o n s :

H u m a n n a

t u r e o r i e n

t a t i o n

M a n n a

t u r e o r i e n t a

t i o n

T i m e o r i e n

t a t i o n

A c t

i v i t y o r i e n

t a t i o n

R e

l a t i o n a

l o r i e n

t a t i o n

Q u a n

t i t a

t i v e q u e s t

i o n -

n a

i r e ,

q u a

l i t a

t i v e r e p o r

t

1 0 6 p e r s o n s :

N a v a

h o

I n d i a n s ,

P u e

b l o I n d i a n s ,

S p a n

i s h A m e r i c a n v i

l -

l a g e , T

e x a n a n

d O k l a

h o -

m a n

f a r m

i n g v i

l l a g e ,

a n

d

a M o r m o n v i

l l a g e

ll a n

d H a

l l ( 1 9 9 0 )

C o m m u n

i c a

t i o n a

t w o r k

F o u r


F a s t a n

d s l o w m e s s a g e s

H i g h a n

d l o w c o n t e

x t

S p a c e

T i m e

Q u a

l i t a

t i v e o p e n

i n t e r v

i e w s

1 8 0 e m p

l o y e e s a n

d

m a n a g e r s

i n t h e

e l d o

f

e c o n o m y

fs t e d e (

1 9 8 0 )

N a

t i o n a

l c u

l t u r a

l

d i f f e r e n c e w

i t h i n o n e

o r g a n

i z a

t i o n

F o u r


P o w e r

d i s t a n c e

I n d i v i d u a

l i s m

/ c o

l l e c t

i v i s m

M a s c u

l i n i t y / f e m

i n i n i t y

U n c e r t a

i n t y a v o

i d a n c e

Q u a n

t i t a

t i v e q u e s t

i o n n a

i r e

A p p r o x i m a

t e l y 1 1 6

, 0 0 0

I B M

e m p

l o y e e s

p e n a a

r s ( 1 9 9 3 )

M a n a g e m e n t - r e

l e v a n

t

p r o

b l e m

s o

l u t i o

n s

S e v e n


T i m e s t a

t u s

A c h

i e v e m e n

t / s t a t u s

a s c r i p

t i o n

I n d i v i d u a

l i s m

/ c o

l l e c t

i v i s m

U n

i v e r s a

l i s m

/ p a r t i c u

l a r i s m

E m o

t i o n a

l / n e u

t r a l

S p e c i

c / d i f f u s e

M a n n a

t u r e r e

l a t i o n s h

i p

Q u a n

t i t a

t i v e q u e s t

i o n n a

i r e

w i t h s c a

l e s

1 5

, 0 0 0 e m p

l o y e e s

i n

c o m p a n

i e s


8/24


w a r t z (

1 9 9 2 )

P r e s e n

t a n

d f u t u r e

i n

s o c

i e t y

E l e v e n


S e

l f - d i r e c

t i o n

S t i m u

l a t i o n

H e

d o n

i s m

A c

h i e v e m e n

t

P o w e r

S e c u r i

t y

C o n

f o r m

i t y

T r a

d i t i o n

S p

i r i t u a

l i t y

B e n e v o

l e n c e

U n

i v e r s a

l i s m

Q u a n

t i t a t i v e q u e s

t i o n n a

i r e

w i t h n

i n e - p o

i n t

L i k e r t s c a

l e s

A p p r o x i m a

t e l y 2 0 0 t e a c h -

e r s a n

d 2 0 0 s t u

d e n

t s p e r

c o u n

t r y ,

i n 2 0 c o u n

t r i e s

s e e

t a l . ( 2 0 0 4 )

O B E

B u s i n e s s

l e a d e r s

h i p

p r e s e n

t a n

d f u t u r e

N i n e


P e r f o r m a n c e o r i e n

t a t i o n

F u

t u r e o r i e n

t a t i o n

A s s e r t

i v e n e s s

H u m a n e o r i e n

t a t i o n

G e n

d e r e g a

l i t a r i a n

i s m

P o w e r

d i s t a n c e

I n s

t i t u

t i o n a

l c o

l l e c t

i v i s m

I n - g r o u p c o

l l e c

t i v i s m

U n c e r t a

i n t y a v o

i d a n c e

Q u a n

t i t a t i v e q u e s

t i o n n a

i r e

w i t h s e v e n - p o

i n t s c a l e s

a n

d a n a

l y s

i s o

f q u a

l i t a t i v e

d a

t a w

i t h c o n

t e n

t a n a l y s i s

1 7

, 0 0 0 m

i d d l e m a n a g e r s

i n 6 1 c o u n

t r i e s

r c e :

F i n k , K

l l i n g , a

n d N e y e r , 2

0 0 5 , 7 8 .

e : G L O B E :

G l o b a l L e a

d e r s

h i p a n

d O r g a n i z a

t i o n a l

B e h a v

i o r

E f f e c

t i v e n e s s

P r o

j e c t .


9/24


related research questions are as follows: How can individuals cope withculture shock? and What personal characteristics and dispositional motivesare needed for some individuals to adjust better to the challenges of an inter-national assignment? or How can expatriates be selected who ex ante can beconsidered to have better dispositions for international assignments?

The most important ndings of this strand of literature are (for a detailedoverview see Table 2), that there are means (learning devices) to help individualscope with the related adjustment problems (Ward et al. 2001); that individualswith specic personality traits have fewer problems adjusting or coping with

the ambiguous situations emerging in cross-cultural encounters (e.g., Caligiuri2000a, 2000b); and that specic personality traits have an impact on interculturaleffectiveness (e.g., Arthur and Bennett 1995; Gudykunst et al. 1978).

Research on personality traits and on developing capabilities to identifythose traits of individuals who are best equipped for an international assign-ment is of high importance. As the research on personality traits and theGLOBE project (Brodbeck et al. 2002) clearly have shown, personality traitsand cultural values as measured by dimensions are statistically distributed. Itcan be expected that globally and within a given society, these distributionsare close to a normal distribution. For the sake of convenience, national dif-ference is usually approximated by the differences between the locations ofthe mean or the median of these distributions. However, this means that inany society, within a certain range, we can nd different people with differentvalue perceptions and different personality traits. These differences are oftensmaller within a given national culture than the differences between individu-als from different cultures, but there may be overlap between similar cultures.Thus, depending on the kind of people engaged in cross-cultural encountersand in management actions, the reactions of the interacting individuals tocritical incidents will vary, too.

Linking the ndings of the personality traits literature to our AustrianHun-garian critical incident leads us to the following conclusion: If the Austrianmanager had the personal qualities of strong cultural empathy, openness, andrelational skills, she might have behaved in a more culturally sensitive manner.If the Hungarian subordinate had the same personality traits, she might haveattributed the behavior of her Austrian supervisor to cultural difference andwould not have taken the style of criticizing so personally. We could assumethat in this case the critical incident might not have triggered such a strongnegative reaction by the Hungarian subordinate. However, not only culturalempathy and openness would have been required, but also knowledge aboutnormal behavior in Hungary and Austriain our case, the cultural standardof communicatingand criticizing.


10/24


Research on cultural standards

Cultural dimensions do not embrace the actual problems emerging in busi-ness and management encounters. They do not help us to understand howcross-cultural encounters are perceived and interpreted, and how and whymanagers and staff react in specic ways.

To deal with these issues, Thomas (1988, 1996) developed the concept ofcultural standards as a way to generate more cultural-specic and actionableknowledge. The cultural standard concept is based on Jean Paul Piagets (1975)

developmental psychology and Ernst Boeschs (1980) cultural psychology andconcept of action, which demand explicit consideration of the cultural contextof the organization and possible reaction of others. Thomas gave the followingdenition: By cultural standards we understand all kinds of perceiving, think-ing, judging, and acting, which in a given culture are considered by the vastmajority of the individuals for themselves and others as normal, self-evident,typical, and obligatory (1993, 381, translation by the authors).

Cultural standards are more specic and, thus, are providing more specicknowledge about cultural differences than cultural dimensions can provide.Differences in cultural standards between two cultures are not necessarilythe consequence of differences in a single cultural dimension (i.e., values).It can be safely assumed that contexts, choices, and decisions made withina society by groups or organizations and interactions among sets of values(combinations of values) can inuence the emergence of specic culturalstandards. Although these choices are based on values, different modes ofbehavior may be relevant within different contexts.

It is fairly obvious that, for example, students will experience criticalincidents different from those experienced by sojourners or businesspeople.Students are unlikely to negotiate contracts worth large amounts of money

and thus will gain little insights into contract sanctity, time of delivery,punctuality of payments, or aspects of motivating or de-motivating subor-dinate staff.

It can also be easily illustrated that values can be the same but culturalstandards can be different. Among the best examples is one about trafcrules: In all industrial societies we nd the value of protecting human life.As a consequence, societies developed rules to regulate road trafc in orderto reduce casualties. At the core of all trafc rules is the knowledge that traf-c in one direction should be either on the left-hand or right-hand side of aroad to avoid collisions. That is seemingly a simple choice to be made. Asin different societies these choices were made independently, we have left-hand or right-hand trafc in different societies Both rules apparently serve


11/24


Table 2Selected personality traits and their impact on intercultural efciency,intercultural adjustment, ability to cope with culture shock, and expatriatesuccess

Dependentvariable Explanatory variable Study

Inter-culturalefciency

Ability to deal with psychologicalstressFrustration, stress, interpersonalconict, etc.

Gudykunst, W., M. Hammer,and R. Wiseman. 1978. Di-mensions of Intercultural Ef-fectiveness: An ExplorativeStudy. International Journalof Intercultural Relations 2(4): 382393.

Ability to effectively communicateEntering into dialogue with otherpersons, initiating interaction with astranger, dealing with communicationmisunderstandings, etc.

Ability to establish interpersonalrelationshipsDevelopment of interpersonal rela-tionships, maintenance of interper-sonal relationships, ability to work

effectively with other people, etc.Job knowledge and motivationManagerial ability, organizationalability, imagination, creativity, admin-istrative skills, alertness, responsibil-ity, industriousness, initiative andenergy, high motivation, frankness,belief in mission, perseverance, tech-nical skills and know-how, experiencein company

Arthur, W., and W. Bennett.1995. The International As-signee: The Relative Impor-tance of Factors Perceivedto Contribute to Success.Personnel Psychology 48 (1):99114.

Relational skills

Shows respect, kindness, sincerity,empathy, integrity, patience, toler-ance, condence, and race/ethnictolerance and is nonjudgmental

Flexibility/adaptabilityResourcefulness, ability to deal withstress, exibility, emotional stability,willingness to change, tolerance forambiguity, adaptability, intellectualcuriosity, independence, depend-ability, political sensitivity, positiveself-image, listening skills, communi-

cation skills


12/24


would emerge if left-side drivers and right-side drivers would mingle on thesame road.

Analyzing our initially provided critical incident from the AustrianHun-garian context, we can explain it with the cultural standard criticism: Comparedwith Hungary, in Austria the normal behavior (e.g., the way of criticism) ismore direct (and matter of fact). This is not the case in Hungary. In Hungary,criticism is voiced in an indirect way, where the question of honor and notlosing face play an important role (Meierewert and Horvth-Topcu 2001). TheAustrian style of criticizing is often perceived by Hungarians as being oblique

but nally direct. First, Austrians talk a lot to establish a good communica-tion basis, but after a while they voice their criticism quite openly. Austrianmanagers often perceive the Hungarian style as allusive (i.e., criticizing takesplace between the lines). Why is this of importance? Styles of communicationand of criticizing, in particular, have a direct impact on motivation (Schulzvon Thun 1991; Watzlawick and Beavin 1969). As seen in our example, un-prepared Hungarians perceive the Austrian way of criticizing as improper andoffensive. Austrian managers, however, often discourage their subordinates orteam members without intending to do so. By contrast, the Hungarian allusivestyle of criticizing may be found to waste time and be inefcient and may notbe understood by Austrian managers (Fink and Neyer 2005).

The Parsons and Shils model of action as a point of reference

The three strands of cross-cultural literature (i.e., cultural dimensions, person-ality traits, and cultural standards) help to explain certain effects of encountersin cross-cultural interaction. Therefore, we strongly advocate further researchto relate constructs from these research elds to each other and to explicitlyconsider (model) these relations in further analyses, which will provide a better

understanding of the complexity of cross-cultural interactions.To develop a model, we refer to Parsonss sociological theory of action.

P d Shil (1962) d ib ti t hi ti f ti f

Dependentvariable Explanatory variable Study

Extra-cultural opennessVariety of outside interests, interestsin foreign cultures, youthfulness,interest in nationals, openness,knowledge of local language, outgo-ingness and extraversion, desire togo abroad, overseas experiences


13/24


is organized in three systems: cultural system, personality system, and socialsystem. These systems are interdependent but remain self-contained (Figure1). In general, the underlying assumption in the Parsons and Shils model isthat personality traits and cultural values characterize individuals and governtheir behavior (i.e., the action they undertake in the social system) (Parsonsand Shils 1962), and by that action the social system is reconstituted. Commonpersonality traits within a group determine shared values (i.e., the culture ofthat group and vice versa). The values shared within a group allow the groupto distinguish itself from other groups (different cultures).

To better understand cross-cultural interactions, we integrate the three major

strands in intercultural research in the Parsons and Shils model of action. Thisleads us to the intercultural action model:

Cultural system: cultural values and cultural dimensions Individualpersonality system: personality traits, need dispositions, and

interests Social system: cultural standards and interaction

Analyzing in more detail the concepts of cultural, personality, and socialsystems, it becomes obvious that Parsons and Shils are using a much broaderconcept of culture than just values. Characteristics of a culture are values, but

also symbols, artifacts, language, joint memory about history, societal identity,and other factors. All these elements form the cultural system, among whichcultural dimensions constitute a set of important elements. Personality (i.e.,the personality system) also consists of many more elements than personal-ity traits (e.g., need dispositions, interests, capabilities, skills, and physicalappearancethat is, the makeup of a personality). In that sense, personalitytraits constitute an important element of personality, but knowing personalitytraits would not be exhaustive in characterizing a personality. Consequently,cultural dimensions in the cultural system and measures of personality traits in

the personality system are only a proxy for cross-cultural differences betweenthese systems. However, as we learned from our critical incident example,knowledge of both systems is not enough for us to really understand cross-

Figure 1. The Parsons and Shils (1962) model of action

Culture System

Social System

Personality System


14/24


The social system, which is constituted and permanently reconstituted byaction taken, is characterized by actions (i.e., the behaviors of individuals inthe broadest sense). Within the social system, the involved persons distinguishbetween a kind of normal behavior, what is reected by the construct culturalstandard, and behavior that deviates from that normal behavior. To sum up,cross-cultural interaction takes place among the social systems of differentcultures, by that constituting a common cross-cultural space. It is importantto note that there is no direct interaction between the value systems or the

personality systems. Action and interaction can take place only in the socialsphere (Figure 2).

Individuals are embedded into existing cultures, where culture is somethingthat older generations pass on to younger generations (Samovar and Porter1991). Thus, individuals do not act in a social vacuum but do so within thegiven sets of value orientations and cultural standards (i.e., normal modes ofperceiving, thinking, judging, and acting), according to their own personalitycharacteristics and interests.

This is important because there are many situations in social life in whichdecisions have to be made by individuals but values are in conict. For ex-ample, a possible conict can exist between issues of time-related behavior

and solidarity among friends in a management context.Case 1 : A young manager proceeds towards her ofce to meet a subor-dinate On her way she passes a couple of good colleagues almost friends

Figure 2. Cross-cultural interaction model based on Parsons and Shils (1962)(Neyer and Klling, 2003)

Culture ASymbols:

ValuesCultural Dimensions

Culture BSymbols:


Individual APersonality Traits Need dispositions

Interests

Individual BPersonality Traits

Need DispositionsInterests

Social System AInteraction

Culture Standards

Social System BInteraction

Culture ASymbols:


Culture BSymbols:


Culture ASymbols:


Culture BSymbols:


Individual APersonality Traits Need dispositions

Interests

Individual BPersonality Traits

Need DispositionsInterests


Culture Standards


Cultural Standards


Cultural Standards


Interaction among the socialsystem A and the social system B:Critical incidents: Yes/No?


15/24


given by the top boss. They are having trouble putting the pieces togetherand ask her for support.

Question to case 1: How would she behave? Would she not help her friendsso she can be on time to meet her subordinate, or would she help her friendsand be late to the appointment?

There is clearly a decision to be made: punctuality versus solidarity.The decision to be made by the young manager depends on a set of values(e.g., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism), on herpersonality traits and her interests (i.e., the personality system), and also on

cultural standards, or the normal way of handling issues of time, normal wayof communicating with friends, and normal way of showing solidarity. Guidedby cultural dimensions (i.e., cultural values), actions are chosen by the indi-viduals from the available repertoire of modes of behavior. Different modes ofbehavior may produce undesired conict and counterproductive results if thevalid cultural standards of counterpart cultures are not adequately considered. Finally, the decision will be strongly inuenced by the goals pursued by theacting person and her personality traits (i.e., dispositional motives utilizedduring goal attainment).

A deeper analysis of the interplay of cultural dimensions, personality traits,and cultural standards would be needed to interpret the possible outcomes ofthis situation. We can assume that the outcome would be different in differentcultures, depending on differences in the values of in-group collectivism, asser-tiveness, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Although the constructsof cultural values, personality traits, and cultural standards were developedin different elds of research on different levels of analysis (i.e., individualversus society), we can possibly identify important similarities among theconstructs developed and used in the three elds of research (Table 3) andwhat supports the validity of the Parsons and Shils model. Following this

comparison, we further conclude that in a given culture, which is character-ized by a specic set of values, individuals are predisposed to carry certainpersonality characteristics that are compatible with these values.

To conclude this section, we return to our critical incident between theAustrian and the Hungarian. Applying the intercultural model of interaction(based on Parsons and Shils) to this particular critical incident allows us togive a detailed explanation of what happened in the interaction between theAustrian and the Hungarian: The Austrian and the Hungarian women chosetheir modes of behavior within the frame of their own cultures (i.e., the be-havior of both was guided by cultural dimensions [values], their personalitytraits, and their social system [cultural standards]). If only one of these threeaspects would change, then this cross-cultural interaction might have ended


16/24


cultural interaction, it is of utmost importance to apply these three strands ofresearch together.

Cross-cultural management in the context of value dimensions,personality traits, and cultural standards

Based on the Parsons and Shils model (1962), we illustrated how culturaldimensions, cultural standards, and personality traits are related and conse-quently determine the behavior in cross-cultural interactions. By examiningthe way in which these three major strands in cross-cultural literature inu-ence the behavior in cross-cultural interactions at work, we gain a deeperunderstanding of cross-cultural management.

As a next step, we apply the Parsons and Shils model to the interculturalcontext in business and management, where economic imperatives are atwork (revenues have to be larger than costs) and economic performance is ofutmost importance (Figure 3). This allows us to show how the constructs thatwere developed at the different levels of analysis are related to cross-culturalinteraction. Before we describe this model, it is important to note that criticalincidents in encounters may emerge due to interest conict, and then they arepossibly intended; they may also emerge due to an unanticipated cultural dif-ference, and then they possibly arise as a surprise. In this paper, we are mainlyconcerned with the latter, the nonintended cross-cultural critical incident.

Our model illustrates that critical incidents in cross-cultural interactioncan occur because of differences in cultural dimensions in personality

Figure 3. Cross-cultural performance model

Cross-cultural interactionA/B

Values A

Performance

Critical incidents

Cross-culturallearning

Adjustment

Culturalstandards A

Adjustment

Adjustment

PersonalityA

PersonalityB

Culturalstandards B

Adjustment

Adjustment

Values B

Adjustment

C o n

t e x

t a n

d m o

d e r a

t i n g

f a c

t o r s

Cross-cultural interactionA/B

Values AValues A

PerformancePerformance

Critical incidentsCritical incidents

Cross-culturallearning

Adjustment

Culturalstandards A

Adjustment

Culturalstandards A

Culturalstandards A

Adjustment

Adjustment

PersonalityA

Adjustment

PersonalityA

PersonalityA

PersonalityB

Culturalstandards B

Culturalstandards B

Adjustment

Adjustment

Values BValues B

Adjustment

C o n

t e x

t a n

d m o

d e r a

t i n g

f a c

t o r s


17/24


Table 3Assumed similarities in connotations between cultural standards, culturaldimensions, and personality traits

Cultural standardSimilar cultural

dimensions Similar personality traits

Doing orientation Self-efcacy

Communicationbehavior

Information ow Openness, external/internalorientation, extroversion

Elite thinking Status ascription,power distance,

uncertainty avoidance

Status orientation

Hierarchy Power distance Status orientation

Status orientation Power distance Status orientation

Time behavior Time

National pride Collectivism

Relationshiporientation

Human orientation Social orientation, privateness,independence, professional

orientation, autonomyExperience Willingness to learn

Personal freedom Individualism Social orientation

Egoism Individualism Social orientation

Familiarism:central concept offamily

Collectivism Social orientation

Capability ofimprovisation, ruleorientation

Universalism Rule consciousness

Authority throughknowledge

Status ascription Status orientation

Paternalism Collectivism Social orientation

Economic thinking Performanceorientation

Performance orientation, work habits,competition orientation

Awareness ofquality

Performanceorientation

Performance orientation, work habits,competition orientation

Clientelism, cor-ruption (in group)

Particularism External/internal orientation


18/24


Cultural standardSimilar cultural

dimensions Similar personality traits

Traditional genderimage

Gender egalitarism

Varying self-con-dence

Emotional stability

Need for security Uncertainty avoidance Risk and competition seeking,fearlessness

Title emphasis Power distance Status orientation

Respect ofachieved positions

Power distance Status orientation

Formal distance Power distance Status orientation

Fact orientationdominates overharmony

Assertiveness Problem preference, fearlessness,external/internal orientation, thorough



Performance orientation

Quest for ef-ciency


Engagement, professional orientation

Future orientation Future orientation

Straightforward-ness (communica-tion behavior)

Assertiveness Purpose, fearlessness

Amigo business In-group collectivism,risk avoidance

External/internal orientation

Conuence ofwork groups andfamily ties

In-group collectivism Social orientation

Harmony Agreeableness, emotional empathy,warmth, social orientation

Keeping face/giving face

Warmth, sensitivity

Reciprocity, in-group/out-group

In-group collectivism External/internal orientation

Reluctance Sympathy

Sources: Hall and Hall (1990, 2000), Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004), and Trompe-naars (1993); see also www.testzentrale.de and www.testzentrale.ch.

Note: German-language items will be provided upon request.


19/24


However, different cultural dimensions do not directly lead to cross-culturalconict. Critical incidents emerge only in the encounters of individuals andtheir interactions. In a cross-cultural interaction, individuals from culture Aare likely to choose their action according to their own cultural values andcultural standards. In the same way, individuals from culture B are likely tochoose their re-action. By choosing actions and re-actions according to theirparticular cultural values and cultural standards and ignoring the others valuesand cultural standards, critical incidents occur. A clash of the different modesof behavior may produce undesired conict and counterproductive results.

Furthermore, individuals are able to learn from previous success andfailure. Performance and critical incidents alike will stimulate individualsto reect on their past performance and consequently adjust their behavior(i.e., the mode of actions they take in situations, which previously invokedcritical incidents). Repeated adjustment of behavior may change the personaldispositions of how individuals act (i.e., their personality traits). Finally, ifa large number of individuals are changing their behavior, this should affectcultural standards and cultural values.

On the one hand, critical incidents in cross-cultural interactions mightnegatively inuence cross-cultural performance. On the other hand, criticalincidents are important and useful if they are managed in the right way andlead to adequate behavioral change: Feedback from critical incidents and fromperformance makes individuals learn and adjust their behavior. Individuals maylearn to adapt their behavior if they encounter reactions by their counterpartsthat are unusual or strange and will chose alternative forms of action dependingon the success of previous actions. Thus, individuals may adjust their valuesand their personality traits, reconsider their cultural standards, and may actdifferently in future actions. From a management perspective, this will lead toless critical incidents and improved cross-cultural performance.

Context and moderating factors inuence the patterns of action (e.g.,students have a different set of modes of behavior than tourists, sojourners,or managers). From an individuals point of view, it can be assumed that ifone person is adjusting or changing his or her behavior, then his or her per-sonality might also change. If, within a society (or a group), a large numberof individuals are changing their behavior in the same manner, a change ofthe value dimensions of a society (or a group) may follow from that (as it isassumed by the GLOBE should be dimensions).

Coming back to our initial AustrianHungarian case, in order to becomesuccessful cross-cultural managers, both sidesthe Austrian manager andher Hungarian subordinatewould have to become more open to the otherculture and more aware of different values and cultural standards, and both


20/24


Austrians and Hungarians in light of the prevailing cultural values and therecurring critical incidents. Both would have to adjust their behavior, as statedby Ernst Boesch: An acting person is always considering possible views and

judgments of their counterparts as well as own experiences and assumed ex-periences of others. The reacting person always will consider the desirabilityor necessity to achieve a consensus with a specic partner and also the normsof judgment of his own culture (1980, 135).

To foster cross-cultural performance, an understanding of the interrela-tion between cultural dimensions, personality traits, and cultural standards

is needed. The analysis of critical incidents and its underlying reasons (i.e.,the relations of cultural values, personality traits, and cultural standards) al-lows researchers and managers to gain a deeper understanding of the waysin which cross-cultural performance can be improved.

Summary

We believe that cross-cultural management researchers must consider the po-tential conceptual relations between cultural dimensions, cultural standards, andpersonality traits. In this paper based on Parsons and Shilss model (1962), we

jointly modeled the constructs of the cultural dimensions literature, personalitytraits literature, and cultural standards. We emphasize that much still needs to bedone to understand the cross and joint effects of cultural dimensions, personalitytraits, and cultural standards on chosen actions and on the outcome of actions(performance). The joint effects of cultural dimensions, cultural standards,and personality traits on modes of management action are not yet empiricallyinvestigated. Consequently, for future research in cross-cultural management,we recommend combining quantitative and qualitative methods to test the so-ciological and psychological aspects of our cross-cultural interaction model.

Another interesting question for future research is what combination ofvalues, personality traits, and cultural standards works best in different cul-tural contexts?

To conclude, managers operating cross-culturally and researchers engagedin cross-cultural research need to develop an increasing awareness of theinterrelations between cultural dimensions, cultural standards, and personal-ity traits to understand and manage their own cross-cultural behavior, that ofother individuals, and cross-cultural performance.

References

Arthur, W., and W. Bennett. 1995. The International Assignee: The Relative Im-f F P i d C ib S P l P h l


21/24


Aycan, Z. 1997. Expatriate Adjustment as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: Individualand Organizational Level Mediators. International Journal of Human Re-source Management 8 (4): 434456.

Boesch, E.E. 1980.Kultur und Handlung. Einfhrung in die Kulturpsychologie.(Culture and Action. Introduction to the Psychology of Culture). Bern: Huber.

Brck, F. 2001. Kulturunterschiede im deutschsprachigen Europa: KulturvergleichDeutschlandsterreichSchweiz (Cultural Differences in German-speakingEurope: A Comparison of Culture Germany-Austria-Switzerland). In Inter-kulturelles Managementsterreichische Perspektiven (Intercultural Man-agementAustrian Perspectives), ed. G. Fink and S. Meierewert, 143166.Vienna: Springer Verlag.

Buss, D.M. 1991. Evolutionary Personality Psychology. In Annual Review ofPsychology (no. 42), ed. M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, 459492. PaloAlto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Caligiuri, P. 2000a. Selecting Expatriates for Personality Characteristics: AModerating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Host NationalContact and Cross-Cultural Adjustment. Management International Review40(1): 6180.

. 2000b. The Big Five Personality Characteristics as Predictors of Expatri-ates Desire to Terminate the Assignment and Supervisor-Rated Performance.Personnel Psychology53 (1): 6786.

Dunkel, A. 2001. SpanischeDeutschesterreichische Kulturstandards im

Vergleich (Comparison of Spanish-German-Austrian Cultural Standards). In Interkulturelles Managementsterreichische Perspektiven (Intercultural Man-agementAustrian Perspectives), ed. G. Fink and S. Meierewert, 185200.Vienna: Springer Verlag.

Fink, G., and S. Meierewert, ed. 2001. Interkulturelles Managementster-reichische Perspektiven(Intercultural Management-Austrian Perspectives).Vienna: Springer Verlag.

Fink, G., and A.-K. Neyer. 2005. The Cultural Standards Research and Its Impli-cations for Multinational Team Management: Experiences from German andAustrian Managers. In L. Weatherly,Proceedings of the Annual Conference ofthe Southern Management Association. Charleston, 2005, available at www.southernmanagement.org/meetings/2005/proceedings/PaperID188.pdf.

Fink, G., M. Koelling, and A.-K. Neyer. 2005. The Cultural Standard Method. EIWorking Paper no. 62, Europe Institute (University of Economics and BusinessAdministration), Vienna.

Gudykunst, W., M. Hammer, and R. Wiseman. 1978. Dimensions of InterculturalEffectiveness: An Explorative Study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2 (4): 382393.

Gupta, V., P.J. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. Cultural Clusters: Methodology andFindings. Journal of World Business 37 (1): 1115.

Hall, E.T., and M.R. Hall. 1990.Understanding Cultural Differences: Keys to Suc-cess in West Germany, France and the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercul-tural Press.

. 2000.Understanding Cultural Differences: Keys to Success in West Ger-many, France and the United States, 11th ed. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

H f d G 1980 C l C I i l Diff i W k R


22/24


. 1993. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-RelatedValues, 11th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

. 2001. Lokales Denken, globales Handeln, Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeitund globales Management(Local Thinking, Glogal Action, Intercultural Col-laboration and Global Management), 2d ed. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.

House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. Understanding Culturesand Implicit Leadership Theories Across the Globe: An Introduction to ProjectGLOBE. Journal of World Business 37 (1): 310.

Kluckhohn, C. 1951. Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: AnExploration in Denition and Classication. InToward a General Theory of

Action, ed. T. Parsons and E. Shils, 388433. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.. 1962.Culture and Behavior, Collected Essays of Clyde Kluckhohn. Glen-

coe, IL: Free Press.Kluckhohn, F.R., and F.L. Strodtbeck. 1961.Variations in Value Orientations.

Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Klling, M. 2004. Interkulturelles Wissensmanagement Deutschland Ost und

West (Intercultural Knowledge Management in Germany East and West).Ph.D. dissertation, Wirtschaftsuniversitt Wien, Vienna.

Meierewert, S., and K. Horvth-Topcu. 2001. Kulturstandards im Vergleich: s-terreich und Ungarn (Comparison of Cultural Standards: Austria and Hunga-

ry). In Interkulturelles Managementsterreichische Perspektiven (InterculturalManagementAustrian Perspectives), ed. G. Fink and S. Meierewert, 111124.Vienna: Springer Verlag.

Neyer, A.K., and M. Klling. 2003. Redening Cultural Standards. A Meta-Anal-ysis of 650 Interviews. InTheory and Methods in the Study of InterculturalKnowledge and Interaction, ed. G. Fink, A.K. Neyer, and W. Reichel, 4354.Studien des Instituts fr den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa, no. 4. Vienna: Insti-tute fr den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa.

Oguri, M., and W.B. Gudykunst. 2002. The Inuence of Self Construals and Com-munication Styles on Sojourners Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (5): 577593.

Parker, B., and G.M. McEvoy. 1993. Initial Examination of a Model of Inter-cultural Adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 17 (3):355379.

Parsons, T., and E. Shils. 1962a. Values, Motives and System of Action. InTowarda General Theory of Action, ed. T. Parsons and E. Shils, 47233. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. 1975. Nachahmung, Spiel und Traum. Gesammelte Werke 5: Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta.

Rokeach, M. 1973.The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.Samovar, L.A., and R.E. Porter. 1991.Communication Between Cultures.Pacic

Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks, Cole.Schulz von Thun, F. 1991. Miteinander reden, Strungen und Klrungen(Talking

with Each Other: Dysfunctions and Clarications). Reinbek: Rororo.Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoreti-

l Ad d E i i l T i 20 C i I M Z dAd


23/24


Schwartz, S.H., and W. Bilsky. 1987. Toward a Psychological Structure of HumanValues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (3): 550562.

. 1990. Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values:Extension and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 58 (5): 878891.

Thomas, A. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines Interkulturellen Hand-lungstrainings in der Managerausbildung (Investigations into the Developmentof an Intercultural Training of Managers). Psychologische Beitrge 30 (12):147165.

Thomas, A., ed. 1993. Kulturvergleichende Psychologie, Eine Einfhrung (Com-parative Cultural Psychology). Gttingen: Hogrefe Verlag fr Psychologie.

. 1996. Psychologie interkulturellen Handelns(Psychology of InterculturalAction). Gttingen: Hogrefe Verlag fr Psychologie.. 2003. Kulturvergleichende Psychologie (Comparative Cultural Psychol-

ogy). 2d ed. Gttingen: Hogrefe Verlag fr Psychologie.Trompenaars, F. 1993. Handbuch Globales Managen, Wie man kulturelle Un-

terschiede im Geschftsleben versteht(Handbook Global Managing, How toUnderstand Cultural Differences in Business Life). Dsseldorf: Econ-Verlag.

Trompenaars, F., and C. Hampden-Turner. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Un-derstanding Cultural Diversity in Business,2d ed. London: McGraw Hill.

Ward, C.; S. Bochner; and A. Furnham. 2001. The Psychology of the Culture Shock .Hove: Routledge.

Watzlawick, P., and J.H. Beavin. 1969. Menschliche Kommunikation(Human Com-munication). Bern-Stuttgart: Huber.


24/24

understanding cross-cultural management interaction

Documents