Introduction
Among the variations of management disciplines, cross-cultural management is separately distinguished. The reasons for such emphasis can be largely connected to the recent globalization of business in the world. The theoretical comprehension of the patterns of business cultures’ interactions started after World War II, where the topic of internationalization of companies and the emergence of multinational corporations has largely driven the research in international business, specifically a Harvard research study in 1960s on multinational companies. Nevertheless, it can be stated that the problems of cross-cultural management, i.e. managing the processes of business communications, are as old as the economy itself, with the origins being traced to the earliest trade diasporas (Curtin, 1984, p.1-2). It should be stated that cross-cultural management is not limited to business communication only.
Nancy Adler (2002), cited in (Browaeys and Price, 2008), defined cross-cultural management as the discipline explaining, describing, and comparing the behavior of people around the world, to understand and improve the interactions between the stakeholders from different countries and cultures (16). Accordingly, the main aim of cross-cultural management is to “facilitate and direct synergistic action and learning at interfaces where, knowledge, values, and experiences are transferred into multicultural domains of implementation” (Holden, 2002, p.59).
In that regard, expanding on the subject of cross-cultural management, this paper reviews two articles, “Fitting In” (2004) by Van Vianen, De Pater, Kristof-Brown, and Johnson, and “Managerial Behaviors and Job Performance” (1991) by Black and Porter, outlining their theoretical foundation, practicability and academic significance.
The Review
In Black and Porter (1991), the main emphasis of culture differences was in terms of managerial behavior as an element of the culture. The influence of such factors was measured in terms of the company’s performance. The participants of the study were American expatriate managers (EXMs) in Hong Kong, where the measurement of their behavior was based on two distinct categories, which are Consideration, involving “behaviors concerning leader supportiveness, friendliness, openness of communication, recognition of subordinates contributions, and so on” (Black and Porter, 1991, p.103), and Initiating Structure, involving organizational aspects such defining roles, planning, and solving problems (103). Similarly, Van Vianen et al. approached cultural differences, albeit in terms of another dimension, which is the depth of cultural differences. The outcomes measured in the study were the adjustments of the participants, i.e. EXMs in multinational companies, categorized into general adjustment and work and interaction adjustment (Van Vianen et al., 2004, p.705). It can be stated the main similarity of the approaches in both studies, apart from their emphasis on cultural differences, is the focus on adjustments. In that regard, although called adaptation in Black and Porter, it nevertheless refers to a close concept, at least in a single element, which is interaction with host country nationals (HCNs). Accordingly, the similarity might be seen in the focus on performance, which is a single outcome in Black and Porter, while in Van Vianen it is a single dimension of adjustment, experiencing which represents “the ability to function during everyday activities without severe stress” (Black and Porter, 1991, p.697).
The differences between the articles are apparent on many levels. On one level, it can be seen that in terms of individual-corporate priorities Black and Porter emphasize the latter, where the measurement of performance as a significant outcome as well as the choosing behavior adaptation implies the focus on corporate interests in the study. On the contrary, Van Vianen et al. focus on the individual, i.e. EXMs, which can be apparent through conceptualizing cross-cultural adjustment as a degree of psychological comfort (Van Vianen et al., 2004, p.697), the inclusion of personal interactions as a measurement, rather than exclusive focus on work setting, e.g. aspects of life in the host country against managerial behavior with subordinates (Black and Porter, 1991, p.103). It can be implied that the change in the priorities order does not necessarily mean the elimination of one of them, where individual satisfaction is definitely reflected in job performance, while the adaptation of managerial practices and their subsequent influence on job performance, as proved in Black and Porter, will likely to be reflected on the personal satisfaction and comfort of EXMs.
Accordingly, the next difference is stemming from the previous, which is reflected in the implications of the results. While both studies supported the role of cultural differences in positive job performance in foreign countries and the significance of adaptation and adjustment to foreign culture, the implications of the studies might differ. Black and Porter outlined cross-cultural training as an important aspect for successful adaptation of managerial practices in foreign culture, while it can be implied from Van Vianen et al. the emphasis on “individuals’ personality, knowledge, skills, and abilities in selection procedures for international assignments… [and] attention to people’s values” (707). Although Black and Porter also include personal characteristics such as cognitive and cultural flexibility, it can be assumed that the priority is put on training as managerial behaviors can be more easily adapted, specifically related to Initiating Structure type of behavior.
In terms of academic value, it can be stated that both studies are grounded on different theoretical frameworks, where Black and Porter selected the differences between the practical and the cross-cultural school of thought as the basis for the article, taking the practical as the foundation for the study’s hypothesis. Van Vianen, on the other hand, selected the theory of cross-cultural adjustments and a modification of diversity differences framework. Nevertheless, the rationale of the study can be seen in more discrepancy between the literature review, implications and limitations in the study by Black and Porter. Both schools of thought were not tested before, as indicated in the article, and in that regard, a study by one of the authors, i.e. J. Stewart Black was used as a support for the practice of thought. Thus, there were no clear indications of why this school of thought was specifically chosen to be tested. The limitations of the study, e.g. limiting EXMs to a single country are seen in another study by the same author “A study of American expatriate managers in Japan” (1988), which considering the inability of generalizing the findings puts their significance in question. Accordingly, the practical implications of the study are based on suggestions that are remotely connected to the study’s objectives and findings.
In Van Vianen such issues were handled more successfully were, the rationale of the study is founded on an existing gap in knowledge evident through the conceptual rationale of the literature review. Accordingly, the diversity of the participants’ sample contributes to the study’s generalization. Adding the direct relation between the implication and the purpose of the study, it can be implied that the study by Van Vianen is academically better than the study by Black and Porter.
In general, it can be stated that the findings and the implications, specifically in terms of the significance of training and individual skills and qualities, are still relevant. In that regard, a recent study by Wang, Tong, Chen, and Kim (2009), analyzing the relation between expatriates and the success of the subsidiary showed that expatriates with motivation and adaptability for knowledge transfer directly correlates with subsidiary performance (Wang et al., 2009). Adding to the scope of the characteristics and training of expatriates, a 2002 article in Business Week cited a study that outlines the importance of the spouse happiness and his/her preparation and familiarisation with the culture of their destination. Partner dissatisfaction and family concerns were among the most influential factors in assignment failures (GLOBAL MANAGER, 2002). The latter expands the scope of training and selection from only the employee to include his/her family as well. The latter is also emphasized in International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions (2005) by Richard Mead, where training should be given to “both the manager and the spouse and other dependants”, with cross-cultural content being an essential part of the training (Mead, 2005, p.397-398).
Personally, I would prefer combinatory method, in which the findings of both studies would be implemented. Training is a costly issue, and thus, preliminary testing based on preferred qualities and skills will serve as preliminary screening for candidates eligible for training.
Conclusion
It can be stated that the importance of cross-cultural management cannot be overstated. The studies presented in this paper indicate that sending expatriate managers abroad is not a simple task, similar to the appointment of local employees. Training and selection can be seen as suitable methodologies to increase the success of the expatriates’ assignments in foreign countries. In that regard, it can be stated that with rapid globalization, there is a need for a universal framework for expatriate selection and training, in which the required qualities and attributes will be identified. Such a framework would be specifically important for multinational corporations, in which no identifiable cultural majority can be seen.
References
BLACK, J. S. & PORTER, L. W. 1991. Managerial Behaviors and Job Performance: A Successful Manager in Los Angeles May Not Succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 99-113.
BROWAEYS, M.-J. & PRICE, R. 2008. Understanding cross-cultural management, Harlow, England ; New York, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
CURTIN, P. D. 1984. Cross-cultural trade in world history, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
GLOBAL MANAGER. 2002. Home Truths About Foreign Postings. Business Week [Online]. Web.
HOLDEN, N. 2002. Cross-cultural management: a knowledge management perspective, London, Pearson Education EMA.
MEAD, R. 2005. International management : cross-cultural dimensions, Malden, Mass. ; Oxford, U.K., Blackwell.
VAN VIANEN, A. E. M., DE PATER, I. E. D., KRISTOF-BROWN, A. L. & JOHNSON, E. C. 2004. Fitting in: Surface- and Deep-Level Cultural Differences and Expatriates’ Adjustment. The Academy of Management Journal, 47, 697-709.
WANG, S., TONG, T. W., CHEN, G. & KIM, H. 2009. Expatriate Utilization and Foreign Direct Investment Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Management, 35, 1181-1206.