Cross-Cultural Group Management:
A Review of Research Development in the Field
Vas Taras*
University of Calgary
Haskayne School of Business
Human Resources and Organizational Development
441 Scurfield Hall, 2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
(403) 220-6074
taras@ucalgary.ca
Julie Rowney
University of Calgary
Haskayne School of Business
Human Resources and Organizational Development
441 Scurfield Hall, 2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
(403) 220-6592
julie.rowney@haskayne.ucalgary.ca
Keywords: Cross-Cultural Teams, Diversity, Team Management, Literature Review
*All correspondence should be directed to Vasyl Taras
1
Cross-Cultural Group Management:
A Review of Research Development in the Field
Abstract
The rapid ethnic and cultural diversification of the labor force and the expansion of
businesses overseas in the recent decades have been reflected by an increasing interest to
cross-cultural issues in management. Several papers have offered general overviews of the
literature in the field of cross-cultural management. This study specifically focuses on
research developments in the area of cross-cultural group management and offers an overview
of the general tendencies, most popular research topics, and commonly used empirical
methods in this subfield. The paper also provides a discussion of the typical limitations of
studies on cross-cultural group management and offers directions for future research.
2
Cross-Cultural Group Management:
A Review of Research Development in the Field
Recent decades were signified by unprecedented cross-national migration around the
world. Traditionally, the United States, Canada, and Australia have been welcoming the
largest numbers of newcomers. However, with the expansion of the European Union, most of
the Western European countries have also been experiencing extensive waves of immigration.
On the other hand, the economic boom in many Asian countries and in China in particular has
been associated with an unprecedented migration of expatriates from Western countries, as
well as Japan and South Korea, into the region. Likewise, the fall of the “iron curtain”
following the collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the markets of the former SocialistBlock countries to foreign businesses leading to an immense migration of Western expatriates
to the new independent states in Eastern Europe.
The annual migration flow in Europe is estimated at about half a million people
(Fassmann & Münz, 2002) and the number is growing due to the expansion of the EU. The
US immigrant population grew by 11.3 million during the 1990’s - faster than at any other
time in the country’s history (Camarota & McArdle, 2003). Based on the figures from the
Annual Report on Immigration prepared by the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Canada has been welcoming almost a quarter million immigrants annually for
the last 20 years (CIC, 2006). Immigration to Australia reached its 15 year high at 123,450 in
2005 (StatAustralia, 2006). The data reported above does not include hundreds of thousands
expatriates, international students, and illegal immigrants.
3
To put the statistics into plain words, every day millions of people born outside
countries of their current residence come to their offices, workshops, construction sites, or
classrooms. They interact with locals and with each other. They manage and are managed.
Cultural diversity and multicultural workgroups are no longer an option for the workplace but
a core characteristic of the contemporary organization.
Although extremely popular in recent decades, cross-cultural management is a
relatively new topic in the management literature. It was almost completely neglected up to
the 1970’s. In the early eighties, less than five percent of organizational behavior articles
published in world’s leading management journals were discussing cross-cultural issues
(Adler, 1983). However, as more companies around the globe were deciding to go
international and as the composition of the labor force in Western countries was getting more
diverse, it became obvious that one size does not fit all. A growing body of evidence
suggested that the Western way of human resource management in general, and team
management in particular, was not the best one when working with individuals from other
parts of the world. This led to an explosion of interest in cross-cultural issues in management
literature.
There have been a number of articles offering overviews of the literature in the field of
international management; however, their focus has been rather broad (e.g. Adler, 1983,
Clark, Gospel, & Montgomery, 1999, Ricks, Toyne, & Martinez, 1990, Werner, 2002). This
paper refines the focus and concentrates on reviewing a specific subfield of international
management - multicultural group management. First, we summarize the general trends in the
literature on cross-cultural group management and overview of the major waves of interest
and the evolution stages of research in the subfield. Then, we provide a typology of the types
4
of groups that are most frequently analyzed in literature. Next, we outline the most popular
research topics in studies on cross-cultural groups and explore what statistical analysis tools
are most commonly used in the subfield. Finally, we discuss typical limitations of the studies
in the field and provide directions for future research.
Major Waves of General Interest in Cross-Cultural Research
Most of the early cross-cultural studies were anthropological by their nature. The
research was usually driven by pure scientific interest in new cultures and most of the studies
simply described traditions, customs, protocols and ways of doing business in different parts
of the world. Although there were some earlier publications in the business literature, only in
the seventies did issues of cultural diversity become truly popular in management. With
booming globalization, entertaining stories about new cultures were no longer good enough.
The practitioner managers wanted to know how to optimize operating of their business and
make profits in the global arena.
Talking about early research on cross-cultural groups, most of the prominent studies of
the seventies were conducted in the United States. Reflecting the tensions between the
African American and Anglo-Saxon groups, the main focus was placed on management of
racial diversity (e.g., Becker, 1975, Ruhe & Eatman, 1977). Later in the seventies, gender
diversity became a popular topic (e.g., Odiorne, 1975, Simpson, 1975, Wolf & Fligstein,
1979).
The research in the field of cross-cultural management can also be characterized by
waves of interest in certain “hot” countries during certain periods. With the rise of the
Japanese economy and the expansion of Japanese companies into North America in the late
5
seventies and eighties, the primary focus of the scholars interested in cross-cultural issues was
shifted to the studies of differences between American and Japanese ethnic and business
cultures (e.g., Ishida, 1986, Negandhi, Eshghi, & Yuen, 1985). Slightly later, the discussion
was expanded to the other South-East Asian “tigers”: Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea
(e.g., Bond, 1986, Bond & Hofstede, 1989, Earley, 1987, Evans, Hau, & Sculli, 1989).
Gorbachev’s era of the late eighties and early nineties signified the fall of the iron
curtain between the Soviet block and the rest of the world. After the collapse of the regime in
1991, virtually all post-Soviet states abandoned central planning and declared their free
market orientation. The new independent countries emerged as potential markets and possible
sources of well-qualified and relatively cheap labor. This was reflected in the literature on
cultural diversity by an increased level of attention to Russia and its satellites (e.g., Ardichvili,
2001, Elenkov, 1998, Luthans, Welsh, & Rosenkrantz, 1993, Puffer & Shekshnia, 1996).
Finally, the booming development of China and its emerging potential to become the
world’s biggest economy initiated the latest wave of interest in cross-cultural studies. Since
the nineties, China has enjoyed considerable attention from scholars around the globe (e.g.,
Baird, Lyles, & Wharton, 1990., Björkman & Lu, 1999, Butter & Leung, 1998, Fan &
Zigang, 2004, Huo & Randall, 1991).
Leading Countries in the Research on Cultural Diversity
Despite the expectation that the United States, as one of the most culturally diverse
countries with economic and political ties all over the world, would produce the largest
number of studies on cross-cultural team management, it is not so. Most of the world’s
leading scholars in the field are not American. The most influential studies in the field of
6
cross-cultural management have been published by Geert Hofstede from the University of
Limburg at Maastricht in the Netherlands, Anne-Wil Harzing from the University of
Melbourne in Australia, Nancy Adler from McGill University in Canada, Kwok Leung from
the City University of Hong Kong, Jan Selmer from Hong Kong Baptist University, C. Harry
Hui from the University of Hong Kong, Shalom Schwartz from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem in Israel, Joseph J. DiStefano and Martha Maznevski (Canadians by origin) from
the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland, P. Christopher
Earley from London Business School in the UK, and Fons Trompenaars, managing director of
the Centre for International Business in the Netherlands. Theodore M. Singelis from
California State University and Harry Triandis from the University of Illinois are leading
scholars from the United States.
Theoretical Foundation for Research on Cross-Cultural Group Management
One of the most popular frameworks for analysis of cross-cultural issues in human
resource management was that offered by Geert Hofstede (1980a). The model was based on
five bipolar dimensions along which cultural differences could be analyzed: high/low power
distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, high/low uncertainty avoidance,
and long/short time orientation. Later, alternative models of cross-cultural analysis were
developed and tested by other scholars (House, et al., 2004, Maznevski & DiStefano, 1995,
Schwartz, 1994, Trompenaars, 1993).
Whereas Hofstede’s original study was descriptive and its main outcome was a concise
set of cultural scores describing national cultures, it was followed by numerous papers which
applied Hofstede’s model for studying the effects of cultural diversity on various aspects of
7
workplace-related behaviors and processes. For example, cultural differences have been
studied in relation to culture-specific perceptions of justice and their effects on team dynamics
(Leung & Morris, 2000, Mueller & Clarke, 1998), leadership styles (Ardichvili, 2001, Ensari
& Murphy, 2003), group decision making behavior (Chung & Adams, 1997), motivation
(Fisher & Yuan, 1998), negotiation styles (Butter & Leung, 1998), cognitive processes
(Abramson, Keating, & Lane, 1996), cross-cultural perceptions of ethics (Armstrong, 1996,
Beekun, et al., 2003, Christie, et al., 2003), trust (Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003),
satisfaction and commitment (Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., &
Wienk, J. A., 2003) and sexual harassment (Luthar & Luthar, 2002). Later, models of cultural
differences offered by Schwartz, Trompenaars and Maznevski were used for similar types of
analysis (Gopalan & Thomson, 2003, Singelis, et al., 1999, Steenkamp, 2001, Watkins, et al.,
1998).
Of note, despite the huge popularity and extensive use of Hofstede’s model and the later
alternative models, it has been suggested that they be used with caution (Baskerville, 2003,
McSweeney, 2002, Yeh, 1988). Due to significant within-country variations in cultural
values, there is a major concern regarding the use of one’s nationality to make assumptions
about one’s cultural values (Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001, Gastil, 1975, Lenartowicz,
Johnson, & White, 2003, Lenartowicz & Roth, 2001). For example, although the Unites States
is one nation, it should not be assumed that people native to New York City will share the
same set of values as those living in a traditionally Mormon town in Utah. Similarly,
representatives of the highest caste in India are quite different from members of the lowest
caste (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2000). In addition, personal cultural values are affected by age,
level of education, socioeconomic status, religion, and other factors (Taras & Steel, 2005) .
8
Evolution of the Research on Cross-Cultural Groups: Description, Inquiry,
Prescription
Up until the seventies, the labor force in North American and Europe was relatively
homogeneous with white males comprising the major portion of the labor force. The diverse
workgroups were seen as an option and the question practitioner managers were asking was
simply, “Should we use homogeneous or heterogeneous teams?” As a result, the early
research papers on diverse group behavior were mainly focusing on whether homogeneous or
heterogeneous workgroups generally perform better and there seemed to be no differentiation
between the types of groups, tasks, and work settings (Anderson, 1966, 1983, Hoffman &
Maier, 1961). Later research became more inquisitive. Questions like “Why?”, “How?” and
“Under which circumstances?” became more frequent (Cox, 1993, Swierczek, 1991).
By the end of the nineties, it had become obvious that diverse workgroups were no
longer an option, but a necessity. Consequently, the question became “Given the need to deal
with diverse workgroups, how do we improve their performance?” In the literature, this was
reflected by an increasing number of papers providing more detailed analyses and guidelines
for optimizing the work of culturally diverse groups (e.g., Berger, 1996, Davison & Ward,
1999, Trent, 2003).
It has been found that learning and performance curve of heterogeneous groups differ
substantially from that of homogeneous ones. Specifically, heterogeneous workgroups tend to
experience more difficulties and display lower levels of performance in the initial stages of
team life. However, once past the adjustment period, diverse teams tend to outperform
9
homogeneous teams, especially on tasks involving problem solving and creative thinking
(Adler, 2002, Earley & Mosakowski, 2000, Hambrick, et al., 1998).
Several other findings on cross-cultural team behavior are also of interest. For instance,
culturally diverse groups are less likely to be affected by groupthink and are thus are capable
of generating more high quality ideas and performing better on creative assignments
(Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992, McLeod & Lobe, 1992). It seems that a competitive
organizational culture negatively affects the performance of diverse groups (Kwak, 2003).
Compared to homogeneous groups, diverse groups tend to be more reluctant to make risky
decisions (Watson & Kumar, 1992). Diverse groups perform better when lead by a minority
representative (Kwak, 2003). Finally, cross-cultural training is essential for the success of
culturally heterogeneous workgroups (Davison, 1994, Earley, 1987).
Types of Cross-Cultural Groups
Not all cross-cultural groups are alike. Two factors that greatly affect the team’s
dynamics are the composition and the purpose of the team. Based on the team composition,
the following types of diverse workgroups have been recognized and addressed in the
literature:
Groups with a single representative from a different culture. The role of a single
foreigner, sometimes called a “token”, has been found to depend on his or her actual or
perceived status. A token can be an extreme instance of minority, in which case he or she
tends to be treated as “invisible” by the rest of the team (Davison & Ward, 1999), or can play
a major role, as in the case of a Western expatriate in a developing country (Björkman &
Schaap, 1994, Chen, Choi, & Chi, 2002, Selmer, 1996).
10
Groups with a majority/minority split. This type of cross-cultural groups is usually
associated with stereotypes and a somewhat ignorant behavior of the majority towards the
minority. This usually results in mistrust and dislike among the team members (Adler, 2002).
Due to dominance of the majority, the minority members are frequently deprived of a chance
to fully contribute to the team’s work (Blau, 1977). Stereotypes and power misbalance typical
for workgroups with majority/minority split were found to lead to lower satisfaction with
communication in the group and possible withdrawal from interaction (Goto, 1997).
Bicultural groups with approximately equal numbers of representatives from each
culture. Although usually described as the optimal composition, workgroups of this type may
also experience communication and cooperation problems. It has been found that in crosscultural settings people often find themselves more attracted to those from their own culture
(Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965). As a result, team members tend to interact more frequently
with colleagues from their own culture, which may lead to insufficient communication
between the team subgroups.
Groups with representatives from multiple cultures with no obvious majority. These are
frequently referred as global teams and have been mainly discussed in relation to increased
levels of complexity in cross-cultural communication (e.g. Berger, 1996). On the other hand,
if managed properly, teams of this type are least likely to experience groupthink (Janis, 1982)
and are most likely to achieve diversity-based synergy (Adler, 2002).
Further, based on the mission and purpose, the following types of cross-cultural
workgroups have been recognized and studied:
Single event teams. For example, teams representing their companies in a single
negotiation episode. In the literature, the issues of cross-cultural communication and
11
differences in traditions and protocols are usually discussed in relation to single event teams
(Butter & Leung, 1998, Chang, 2003, Ingham, 1991). Because the team members spend only
a short period together, they frequently have no time or interest to learn more about each
other. As a result, the team members may misinterpret behavior of their counterparts and
experience misunderstandings and difficulties achieving agreement.
Short-term project teams. For example, a team of technical experts installing equipment
for a foreign partner. Short-project teams are usually described as the least likely to
experience serious problems caused by cross-cultural differences. First, project teams usually
have a clear goal – project completion – that unites the team. Second, working together for
only a short period of time, the team members may never reach the point where conflict
becomes unbearable. Nevertheless, project teams still need to deal with different work styles
and the difficulties of cross-cultural communication to achieve maximum effectiveness (Sarin
& Mahajan, 2001, Sethi, Smith, & Park, 2001).
Permanent workgroups. Typically associated with stable, full-time membership,
permanents workgroups usually produce goods or provide services. In most cases, permanent
workteams are assumed to consist of grassroots employees. Cross-cultural work teams may
include international team members, or consist of residents of one same country who came
from different parts of the world. Because members of work teams assume lower positions in
organizational hierarchies, they frequently experience little attention from the top
management and receive no cross-cultural training and guidance as to how optimize their ingroup communication (Anderson, 1983, Earley, 1993, Granrose & Oskamp, 1997, Meyer,
1993).
12
Management or executive teams. These are responsible for providing direction and
coordination of subunits. Although executive teams are typically created to work together
over an extended period of time, the team members usually meet only periodically for
problem-solving or improvement-oriented projects. Partly due to the high importance of the
results of work of executive teams and partly because such teams include representatives from
the highest levels of organizational hierarchies, teams of this type enjoy the most attention of
top management and scholars (Johnson, Korsgaard, & Sapienza, 2002, Li, et al., 2002,
Sanders & Carpenter, 1998).
Popular Topics in the Field of Cross-Cultural Group Management
Certain subtopics within the field of cross-cultural management have generated
particular interest. The earlier years produced a large number of descriptive studies on crosscultural teams facing difficulties due to differences in customs and business event protocols
across cultures (e.g. Ingham, 1991). More recently, such topics as stereotypes and pre-justice
(Bond, 2002), cross-cultural communication (Berger, 1996, Orasanu, Fischer, & Davison,
1997), and negotiations have been frequently addressed in the literature (Chang, 2003,
Graham, Mintu, & Rodgers, 1994).
One area in which a great number of studies have been conducted is cross-cultural
differences in perceptions of justice and fairness. The focus is on perceptions of justice in
relation to rewards and pay (Murphy-Berman & Berman, 2002), workload distribution (Leung
& Stephan, 1998), conflict resolution procedures (Brockner, et al., 2000), ability to voice
opinions (Au, Hui, & Leung, 2001), and recruitment and exit (Johnson, et al., 2002).
13
Another area of interests is the interaction of corporate and national cultures. For some
time, these appeared to be separate topics. However, with the growing number of transnational companies, it became evident that the two do intersect, and their interaction creates
new and unexpected challenges (Adler & Jelinek, 1986, Lau & Ngo, 1996, Schneider, 1988).
Further, staffing at foreign subsidiaries has been a very important issue for multinational
companies. It has been approached in the literature from the perspective of three different
questions. First, what staffing policy is preferable for a multinational company: expatriates or
host country locals? (Harvey, Speier, & Novicevic, 2001, Harzing, 2001). Second, if the
company decides to use expatriates, what would be the best way to select, train and introduce
them to their new working environment? (Björkman & Gertset, 1992, Caligiuri, 2000). On the
other hand, if the company chooses to rely upon locals, what would be the best way to
introduce them to the new corporate culture (Tung, 2001)? Finally, if the company chooses to
rely upon expatriates, what challenges should it be aware of (Black & Gregersen, 1999,
Brewster, 1991, Selmer & Leung, 2003)?
Empirical Research: Sampling Techniques and Statistical Analysis Tools
Review of the literature in the field of cross-cultural group management revealed that
the most common methods of data collection were mail surveys (e.g. Gibson, Zellmer-Bruhn,
& Schwab, 2003), experiments (e.g. Gelfand, 1996), observations (e.g. Workman, 2001), and
interviews (e. g. Workman, 2001). Unfortunately, most of the scholars did not have the luxury
of big data sets. Virtually every empirical paper was based on the data specifically gathered
for the study. Too frequently, response rates in mail surveys were less than desirable
(Harzing, 2000). Moreover, most of the quantitative studies were based on convenience
14
samples. For example, the majority of observations and experiments were conducted using
students as subjects (e.g. Abramson, et al., 1996, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001, McLeod &
Lobe, 1992) thus making generalization to the “real business world” questionable. Also, data
gathered through business organizations were frequently drawn from a single organization.
Simple correlation analysis was usually applied to the relationship between cultural
heterogeneity and different types of performance (e.g., Anderson, 1966). Variations of factor
analysis were typically used for exploration of the cultural dimensions (e.g., Hofstede, 1980,
Schwartz, 1994). ANOVAs and MANOVAs have been the most popular tools for testing
differences between cross-cultural teams (Abramson, et al., 1996, Watson & Kumar, 1992).
The review of the literature revealed that advanced statistical analysis techniques such as
structural equation and hierarchical linear modeling, time-series analysis and even simple
regression analysis were used very rarely.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The analysis of the large body of literature on cross-cultural group management revealed
that certain limitations have been typical for a substantial portion of the studies. As
mentioned, most of the studies have been based on relatively small datasets. Cross-cultural
comparisons of team processes and behaviors have been mainly studied using only two and,
less frequently, three to four nations. Typically, Americans were compared to Asians.
“Overstudying” of some cultures and lack of attention to others has led to the formation of
certain stereotypes. Due to a significant number of studies on the USA and China, Americans
have become a symbol of a masculine, low power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, and
individualistic culture. Conversely, China has become a synonym for collectivism, high
15
power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance. Nevertheless, according to Hofstede (1980),
the USA is certainly not the “most” masculine (rank 15/50), low power distance (rank 38/50),
and low uncertainty avoidance (rank 43/50) nation, although its culture is highly
individualistic. Similarly, Chinese culture is not the most collectivist, feminine, and highpower distance, as it is usually presented in the studies. This finding has also been confirmed
by more recent research (e.g., House, et al., 2004, Taras & Steel, 2005).
Furthermore, very little attention has been given to subcultures. As discussed earlier,
depending on region, social status, religion or age, representatives of the same nation may
have opposing sets of values (Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2001, Taras & Steel, 2005). Despite
this, numerous instances of ecological fallacy, i.e. making assumptions about one’s cultural
values based on one’s nationality, have been observed. Such phrases as “cultural background
was measured by the current citizenship (passport status) of each of the managers”
(Offermann & Hellmann, 1997: 346), “individualism-collectivism was operationalized by the
respondent’s native culture” (Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991: 73), “participants were
divided into high and low power distance groups by county-of-origin” (Eylon & Au, 1999:
378), “subjects were assigned to one of three groups based upon Hofstede’s national cultural
rankings along the masculinity index” (Crotts & Erdmann, 2000: 412), or “on the basis of
their Hofstede country index, the subjects were divided into high and low PD and IND
groups” (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994: 233) have been commonplace. The fallacy of this
approach is obvious as this is equivalent to assigning height by sex, because on average
women are shorter than men.
Whereas a large number of studies in the area of cross-cultural team management have
been conducted on executive and expert teams, very little, if any, attention has been given to
16
grassroots employees. Also, common assumption that a cross-cultural team includes members
from different countries has made local multicultural groups, consisting of recent immigrants,
almost invisible. This can be partly justified by the fact that it is usually the employees
working in professional and managerial positions that receive global assignments. Yet,
millions of workers with diverse cultural backgrounds share their workplace with each other
and experience unique challenges every day, as does the organization with such diversity.
Finally, very little differentiation has been made between cross-cultural teams and
groups. A team is defined as a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks,
who share responsibility for outcomes, and who see themselves and are seen by others as an
intact social entity (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Their processes may be quite different from those
in a group, which is characterized by a lesser degree of interdependence.
Conclusions
Based on the review of the literature on cross-cultural group management, the following
conclusions can be made. First, it is apparent that the countries playing a more significant role
on the international business arena have enjoyed greater attention of cross-cultural scholars.
The vast majority of the studies have been conducted with the focus on the USA. Also, a great
number of publications produced in the eighties and the early nineties were concerned with
the Japanese business culture and starting from the nineties the main focus has been places on
China.
Second, although the USA is playing the key role in the globalization processes, the leading
scholars in the field of cross-cultural management are not Americans. The most influential
works have been written by scholars from Western Europe, Canada, Hong Kong, and
17
Australia. Third, over the last three decades, the focus of the research has been shifted from a
simple description of cross-cultural team behaviour towards explanation of the team
dynamics, as well as development of guidelines for optimizing the work of cross-cultural
teams. Fourth, most of the researchers have used Hofstede’s (1980) model as a theoretical
framework for their analysis. Hofstede’s national average cultural indexes have also been
frequently used for further analyses. Finally, most of the studies in the field of cross-cultural
team management were conducted using expert and executive global teams, while diverse
teams consisting of grassroots employees have been given little attention.
18
Bibliography
Abramson, N. R., Keating, R. J., & Lane, H. W. (1996) Cross-national cognitive process
differences: A comparison of Canadian, American and Japanese Managers,
Management International Review, 36(2): 123-148.
Adler, N. J. (1983) Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend, Academy
of Management Review, 8(2): 226-232.
Adler, N. J. (1983) Domestic Multiculturalism: Cross-Cultural Management in the Public
Sector, in Eddy, W. (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Management. Dekker: New
York, pp: 481-499.
Adler, N. J. (2002) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South-Western
College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.
Adler, N. J. & Jelinek, M. (1986) Is "organization culture" culture bound? Human Resource
Management, 25(1): 73-90.
Anderson, L. R. (1966) Leader behavior, member attitudes, and task performance on
intercultural discussion groups, Journal of Social Psychology, 69: 305-319.
Anderson, L. R. (1983) Management of mixed-cultural work group, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 31(3): 303-330.
Ardichvili, A. (2001) Leadership styles and work-related values of managers and employees
of manufacturing enterprises in post-communist countries, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12(4): 363-383.
Armstrong, R. W. (1996) The relationship between culture and perception of ethical problems
in international marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11): 1199-1208.
19
Au, K., Hui, M. K., & Leung, K. (2001) Who should be responsible? Effects of voice and
compensation on responsibility attribution, perceived justice, and post-complaint
behaviors across cultures, International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4): 350364.
Baird, I. S., Lyles, M. A., & Wharton, R. (1990.) Attitudinal differences between American
and Chinese managers regarding joint venture management. Management
International Review, 30 (special issue): 53-68.
Baskerville, R. F. (2003) Hofstede never studied culture, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 28(1): 1-14.
Becker, G. (1975) The Economics of Discrimination. 2 ed, University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.
Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. H., & Barghouti, J. A. (2003) Comparing business
ethics in Russia and the US, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14(8): 1333-1350.
Berger, M. (1996) Cross-Cultural Team Building: Guidelines for More Effective
Communication and Negotiation, McGraw Hill UK: New York.
Björkman, I. & Gertset, M. (1992) Selection and training of Scandinavian expatriates:
Determinants of corporate practice, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12(4): 2436.
Björkman, I. & Lu, Y. (1999) The management of human resources in Chinese–Western joint
ventures, Journal of World Business, 34(3): 306-324.
Björkman, I. & Schaap, A. (1994) Outsiders in the Middle Kingdom: Expatriate managers in
Chinese-Western joint ventures, European Management Journal, 12(2): 147-153.
20
Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. (1999) The right way to manage Expats, Harvard Business
Review, 77(2): 52-61.
Blau, P. M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity, Free press: New York.
Bochner, S. & Hesketh, B. (1994) Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
25: 233-257.
Bond, M. H. (ed.) (1986) The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Oxford University Press:
Hong Kong.
Bond, M. H. (2002) Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede's ecological analysis - A 20year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002), Psychological Bulletin, 128(1):
73-77.
Bond, M. H. & Hofstede, G. (1989) The cash value of Confucian values, Human Systems
Management, 8(3): 195-200.
Brewster, C. (1991) The Management of Expatriates, Kogan Page Ltd: London.
Brockner, J., Chen, Y. R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000) Culture and
procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 138-159.
Butter, E. A. & Leung, K. (1998) The difference between Chinese and Western negotiations,
European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4): 374-389.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000) Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating
effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and crosscultural adjustment, Management International Review, 40(1): 61-80.
21
Camarota, S. A. & McArdle, N. (2003) Where immigrants live: An examination of state
residency of the foreign born by country of origin in 1990 and 2000, Center of
Immigration Studies Annual Report, http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1203.html.
Chang, L. C. (2003) An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede
framework, Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(2): 567.
Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Chi, S.-C. (2002) Making justice sense of local-expatriate
compensation disparaty: Mitigation by local referents, ideological explanations, and
interpersonal sensitivity in China-foreign joint ventures, Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4): 807-818.
Christie, P. M. J., Kwon, I. W. G., Stoeberl, P. A., & Baumhart, R. (2003) A cross-cultural
comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United
States, Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3): 263-287.
Chung, I. K. & Adams, C. R. (1997) A study on the characteristics of group decision making
behavior: Cultural difference perspective of Korea vs. U.S. Journal of Global
Information Management, 5(3): 18-29.
CIC (2006) Immigration Statistics, [www document] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/youasked/section03.html (accessed 10 February 2006).
Clark, T., Gospel, H., & Montgomery, J. (1999) Running on the spot? A review of twenty
years of research on the management of human resources in comparative and
international perspective, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
10(3): 520-565.
Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290.
22
Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2001) Cultural orientations in the United States:
(Re)Examining differences among ethnic groups, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 32 3(3): 348-364.
Cox, T., Jr (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations, Berett-Koehler Publishers: San
Francisco.
Crotts, J. C. & Erdmann, R. (2000) Does national culture influence consumers evaluation of
travel services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences, Managing
Service Quality, 10(6): 410-416.
Davison, S. C. (1994) Creating a high performance international team, The Journal of
Management Development, 13(2): 81-90.
Davison, S. C. & Ward, K. (1999) Leading International Teams, McGraw-Hill International:
London, UK.
Earley, P. C. (1993) East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and
individualistic work groups, Academy of Management Journal, 36(2): 319-348.
Earley, P. C. (1987) Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary and
interpersonal methods, Academy of Management Journal, 30(4): 685-698.
Earley, P. C. & Mosakowski, E. (2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning, Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 26-50.
Elenkov, D. S. (1998) Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural
comparative study, California Management Review, 40(4): 133-157.
Ensari, N. & Murphy, S. E. (2003) Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and
attributions of charisma to the leader, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 92: 52-66.
23
Evans, W. A., Hau, K. C., & Sculli, D. (1989) A cross-cultural comparison of managerial
styles, The Journal of Management Development, 8(3): 5-13.
Eylon, D. & Au, K. Y. (1999) Exploring empowerment: Cross-cultural differences along the
power distance dimension, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(3):
373-385.
Fan, P. & Zigang, Z. (2004) Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China,
Singapore Management Review, 26(1): 81-89.
Fassmann, H. & Münz, R. (2002) EU enlargement and future East-West migration in Europe
International Organization for Migration: Migration Challenges in Central and
Eastern Europe. 2002 Report: United Nations, pp.
Fisher, C. D. & Yuan, X. Y. (1998) What motivates employees? A comparison of US and
Chinese responses, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3): 516539.
Gastil, R. D. (1975) Cultural Regions of the United States, University of Washington Press:
Seattle.
Gelfand, M. J. (1995) Attributes of individualism-collectivism and the behavior of
representatives in intergroup negotiations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Univeristy of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Gibson, C. B., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Schwab, D. P. (2003) Team effectiveness in
multinational organizations: Evaluation across contexts, Group & Organization
Management, 28(4): 444-474.
24
Gopalan, S. & Thomson, N. (2003) National cultures, information search behaviors and the
attribution process of cross-national managers: A conceptual framework, Teaching
Business Ethics, 7(3): 313-328.
Goto, S. G. (1997) Majority and minority perspectives on cross-cultural interactions, in
Granrose, C. S. & S. Oskamp (eds.) Cross-cultural Work Groups. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, pp: 90-112.
Graham, J. L., Mintu, A. T., & Rodgers, W. (1994) Explorations of negotiation behaviors in
ten foreign cultures using a model developed in the United States, Management
Science, 40(1): 72-95.
Granrose, C. S. & Oskamp, S. (eds.) (1997) Cross-Cultural Work Groups. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998) When groups consist of
multiple nationalities: Towards a new understanding of the implications,
Organization Studies, 19(2): 181-205.
Harvey, M., Speier, C., & Novicevic, M. M. (2001) Strategic human resource staffing of
foreign subsidiaries, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 9(2):
27-56.
Harzing, A. W. K. (2000) Cross-national industrial mail surveys: Why do response rates differ
between countries? Industrial Marketing Management, 29(3): 243-254.
Harzing, A. W. K. (2001) Who's in charge: an empirical study of executive staffing practices
in foreign subsidiaries, Human Resource Management, 40(2): 139-158.
25
Hoffman, L. R. & Maier, N. R. F. (1961) Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by
members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 62(2): 401-407.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (eds.) (2004) Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks.
Huo, Y. P. & Randall, D. M. (1991) Exploring subcultural differences in Hofstede’s value
survey: The case of the Chinese, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(2): 159-173.
Ingham, C. (1991) When Business East Meets Business West: The Guide to Practice and
Protocol in the Pacific Rim., Wiley: New York.
Ishida, H. (1986) Transferability of Japanese human resource management abroad, Human
Resource Management, 25(1): 103-120.
Janis, L. (1982) Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Johnson, J. P., Korsgaard, M. A., & Sapienza, H. J. (2002) Perceived fairness, decision
control, and commitment in international joint venture management teams. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(12): 1141-1161.
Kiffin-Petersen, S. A. & Cordery, J. L. (2003) Trust, individualism and job characteristics as
predictors of employee preference for teamwork, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14(1): 93-117.
Kirchmeyer, C. & Cohen, A. (1992) Multicultural groups: Their performance and reactions
with constructive conflict, Group & Organization Management, 17(2): 153-170.
26
Kwak, M. (2003) The paradoxical effects of diversity, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3):
7-8.
Lau, C. M. & Ngo, H. Y. (1996) One country many cultures: Organizational cultures of firms
of different country origins, International Business Review, 5: 469-486.
Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. P., & White, C. T. (2003) The neglect of intracountry cultural
variation in international management research, Journal of Business Research, 56(12):
999-1008.
Lenartowicz, T. & Roth, K. (2001) Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural
study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil, Journal of
International Business Studies, 32(2): 305-325.
Leung, K. & Morris, M. W. (2000) Justice through the lens of culture and ethnicity, in
Sanders, J. & V. L. Hamilton (eds.) Handbook of Justice Research in Law. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum: New York, pp: 343-378.
Leung, K. & Stephan, W. G. (1998) Perceptions of injustice in intercultural relations, Applied
and Preventive Psychology, 7(3): 195–205.
Li, J., Xin, K., Pillutla, M., & Pillutla, M. (2002) Multi-cultural leadership teams and
organizational identification in international joint ventures, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 13(2): 320-337.
Luthans, F., Welsh, D. H. B., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1993) What do Russian managers really
do? An observational study with comparisons to U.S. managers, Journal of
International Business Studies, 24(4): 741-761.
27
Luthar, V. K. & Luthar, H. K. (2002) Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain
sexually harassing behaviors in an international context, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 13(2): 268-285.
Maznevski, M. L. & DiStefano, J. J. (1995) Measuring culture in international management:
The cultural perspectives questionnaire, The University of Western Ontario Working
Paper Series: 95-39.
McFarlin, D. B. & Sweeney, P. D. (2000) Cross-cultural applications of organizational
justice, in Cropanzano, R. (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice.
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, pp: 67-96.
McLeod, P. L. & Lobe, S. A. (1992) The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in
small groups, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Best Papers Proceedings:
227-231.
McSweeney, B. (2002) Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis, Human Relations, 55(1): 89118.
Meyer, H. D. (1993) The cultural gap in long term international work groups: A German
American case study, European Management Journal, II(1): 93-101.
Mueller, S. L. & Clarke, L. D. (1998) Political-economic context and sensitivity to equity:
Differences between the United States and the transition economies of Central and
Eastern Europe, Academy of Management Journal, 41(3): 319-330.
Murphy-Berman, V. & Berman, J. J. (2002) Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of
distributive justice: a comparison of Hong Kong and Indonesia. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 33(2): 157-170.
28
Negandhi, A. R., Eshghi, E., & Yuen, E. (1985) The management practices of Japanese
subsidiaries overseas, California Management Review, 27(4): 93-106.
Odiorne, G. S. (1975) The Corporation and the women’s revolution, Training & Development
Journal, 29(5): 3-12.
Offermann, L. R. & Hellmann, P. S. (1997) Cultures consequences for leadership behavior:
National values in action, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3): 342-351.
Orasanu, J., Fischer, U., & Davison, J. (1997) Cross-cultural barriers to effective
communication in aviation, in Granrose, C. S. & S. Oskamp (eds.) Cross-Cultural
Work Groups. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, pp: 134-162.
Puffer, S. M. & Shekshnia, S. V. (1996) The fit between Russian culture and compensation,
The International Executive, 38(2): 217-241.
Ricks, D. A., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. (1990) Recent Developments in International
Management Research, Journal of Management, 16(2): 219-254.
Ruhe, J. & Eatman, J. (1977) Effects of racial composition on small work groups, Small
Group Behavior, 8(4): 479-486.
Sanders, W. & Carpenter, M. (1998) International and firm governance: the roles of CEO
compensation, top team composition, and board structure, Academy of Management
Journal, 41: 158-178.
Sarin, S. & Mahajan, V. (2001) The effect of reward structures on the performance of crossfunctional product development teams, Journal of Marketing, 65(2): 35-53.
Schneider, S. C. (1988) National vs. corporate culture: Implications for human resource
management, Human Resource Management, 27(2): 231-246.
29
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of
values, in Kim, U., H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (eds.)
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications. Sage: London, pp:
85-119.
Selmer, J. (1996) What expatriate managers know about the work values of their
subordinates: Swedish executives in Thailand, Management International Review,
36(3): 231-243.
Selmer, J. & Leung, K. (2003) International adjustment of female vs male business
expatriates, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7): 11171132.
Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001) Cross-functional product development teams,
creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products, Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(1): 73-85.
Simpson, E. J. (1975) Problems of females in the world of work, Theory Into Practice, 14(1):
49-63.
Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, C. S. Y. (1999) Unpackaging cultures
influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(3): 315-341.
StatAustralia (2006) Immigration in Australia reaches 15 year high, [www document]
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_01_02/australia/immigration_reachs_15_year
_high.htm (accessed Feb-10-06).
Steenkamp, J. B. (2001) The role of national culture in international marketing research,
International Marketing Review, 18(1): 30-44.
30
Swierczek, F. W. (1991) Leadership and Culture: Comparing Asian Managers, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 12(7): 3.
Taras, V. & Steel, P. (2005) Cross-cultural differences and dynamics of cultures over time: A
meta-analysis of Hofstedes taxonomy. Paper presented at Academy of Management
conference, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Trent, R. (2003) Planning to use work teams effectively, Team performance management,,
9(3/4): 50-58.
Triandis, H. C., Hall, E. R., & Ewen, R. B. (1965) Some cognitive factors affecting group
creativity, Human Relations, 18(1): 33-35.
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global
Business, Irwin Professional Publishing: Chicago.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S.-L. (1991) The influence of individualismcollectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 15: 65-84.
Tung, R. L. (2001) Selection and Training Procedures of the US, European, and Japanese
Multinationals, California Management Review, 25(1): 7-71.
Watkins, D., Akande, A., Fleming, J., Ismail, M., Lefner, K., Regmi, M., Watson, S., Yu, J.,
Adair, J., Cheng, C., Gerong, A., McInerney, D., Mpofu, E., Singh-Sengupta, S., &
Wondimu, H. (1998) Cultural dimensions, gender, and the nature of self-concept: A
fourteen-country study, International journal of Psychology, 33(1): 17-31.
Watson, W. E. & Kumar, K. (1992) Differences in decision making regarding risk taking: A
comparison of culturally diverse and culturally homogeneous task groups,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(1): 53-66.
31
Werner, S. (2002) Recent developments in international management research: A review of
20 top management journals, Journal of Management, 28(3): 277-306.
Wolf, W. C. & Fligstein, N. D. (1979) Sex and authority in the work-place: The causes of
sexual inequality, American Sociological Review, 44: 235–252.
Workman, M. (2001) Collectivism, individualism, and cohesion in a team-based occupation,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1): 82-97.
Yeh, R. (1988) A critical review of Hofstedes value framework, Eastern Academy of
Management Proceedings: 112-114.
32