cultural theory in use

Cultural theory in use: theintersection of structure, process andcommunication in business practiceCamille P. Schuster1*,y and Michael J. Copeland2z1College of Business Administration, California State University San Marcos, USA

2Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

� Examining and understanding the culture of 200þ countries to determine how business

is conducted in those countries is a daunting and overwhelming prospect. By combining

theories of culture, it is possible to create a Classification Of Cultures Model using Time,

Task and Relationship concepts. However, this model does not suggest how to adapt when

conducting business in a particular political/economic environment. Continua of cul-

tural elements related to conducting business are created based upon structural elements,

process elements and communication elements. Combining the continua with the

Classification of Cultures Model creates the Global Business Process Model. This frame-

work is a way to capture the array of cultures, identify similarities and differences in

business practices, and provide a starting point for creating adaptive strategies and

behaviours.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Culture is a total way of life held in

common by a group of people. Learned

similarities in speech, behavior, ideology,

livelihood, technology, value system and

society bind people together in a culture. It

involves a communication system of

acquired beliefs, perceptions and attitudes

that serves to supplement and channel

instinctive or inborn behaviour (Jordan

and Rowntree, 1986).

As a concept, ‘culture’ has been a topic ofinterest in sociology, anthropology, ethnogra-phy, psychology, communication and edu-cation. Investigations of culture are multi-faceted leading to many different definitions,areas of study and theories. Each disciplineexamines culture from its particular perspect-ive: how groups function, how the culturefunctions, how to learn about cultures, howpeople within a cultural group think, therelationship between culture and communi-cation style and how people in a particularculture learn.

Just a few years ago, ‘cultural pioneers’ werethe only people responsible for knowingand acting appropriately in another country.With today’s communication vehicles, suppli-ers, account representatives, order processors,

Journal of Public AffairsJ. Public Affairs 8: 261–280 (2008)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.290

*Correspondence to: Dr Camille P. Schuster, College ofBusiness Administration, MH 355, California State Uni-versity San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096, USA.E-mail: [email protected] of Marketing.zHuman Resources Manager (retired).

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, November 2008

DOI: 10.1002/pa

contact centre employees or purchasing depart-ment employees may be working in anothercountry, so every interaction has potentialcultural connotations. Business practices areembedded within a culture, so learning cultures,monitoring changes in culture and understand-ing the impact of culture on business practices isimportant for success (Yip, 1995; Kanungo,2006). Every employee who interacts acrossborders needs to be culturally aware and adeptat adjusting personal style as appropriate to thesituation. Remembering, retrieving and applyingeach individual piece of information from everycultural group around the world are not feasibleor practical techniques in a dynamic businesssituation. Success, however, depends on beingable to modify the home country approach tobusiness practices in international locations.

In any given culture, government policies,legal systems and/or the use of hierarchy fordecision-making create the structure withinwhich business functions. How activities flow,adherence to norms of punctuality and theintegration of one’s public life with businessactivities create the process of how thingshappen. The role of truth, use of words, style oflanguage and forms of logic create expec-tations for the role of communication inbusiness activities.

The purpose of this paper is to establish acultural model that creates a theoreticalperspective for understanding the intersectionbetween general concepts of culture, includingthe structure of public affairs, the process ofconducting business and appropriate formsof communication, as they apply to the practiceof business. The first section of the paper willaddress theories of culture commonly used inthe marketing literature. The second sectionwill present new models. The third section willaddress the intersection between the modelsand provide examples of adaptation.

Theories of culture

U.S. anthropologist Edward T. Hall distin-guished cultures on a continuum of high-and low-context communications (Hall, 1976).The low-context cultures using explicit

languages are the Swiss, German, Scandinavianand North American. An explicit language,according to Hall (1976), is one in whichwords have specific meanings. Context plays asmall role in ascertaining the meaning of whatis said because meaning is specifically relatedto the words being used. The cultures in themiddle of the continuum are French, Englishand Italian. The high-context cultures usingimplicit languages are Spanish, Latin American,Arabian and Japanese. An implicit language,according to Hall (1976), is one in whichwords have many meanings depending uponthe relationship of the people and companiesinvolved in the conversation, the topic and thecontext. Words are ambiguous and have manymeanings. For example the Japanese word‘sumimasen’ means ‘please’, ‘thank you’, ‘I’msorry’ or ‘excuse me’, depending upon thesituation. This concept of explicit and implicitlanguages is an important and useful con-tinuum used in many contexts. However,Hall’s (1976) work excludes the languages ofa number of emerging countries that are nowstrong players in the global economy such asRussia, India, China, Indonesia, Ghana, Nigeria,Hungary, Czech Republic or Estonia. While thehigh/low-context concept is significant, theabsence of countries and languages importantin today’s marketplace is not helpful forguiding adaptation in many current businesssituations.

Hall (1959, 1983) also identified a number ofcultural constructs related to time. Monochro-nic time views time as sequential or linear;western cultures are identified as monochro-nic. Western cultures structure time aroundtasks and view time as money in businesssituations. This orientation is consistent with abelief by western countries that governmental,political and legal systems, processes andpolicies provide the structure for completingtasks efficiently. Polychronic time views timeas simultaneous with several events happeningat the same time and is associated withthose cultures that are less task oriented andmore relationship oriented. Eastern and LatinAmerican cultures have a more flexible view oftime, believe that family and relationship


DOI: 10.1002/pa

262 Camille P. Schuster and Michael J. Copeland

activities are an equally valid use of time andcomplete tasks when time permits, but not atthe expense of personal or familial require-ments. Asian and Middle Eastern countriesview relationships as the gateway for doingbusiness so maintaining relationships is moreimportant than completing a task.

Hofstede (1980) began his work by studyingthe values of people who worked for IBMin over 50 countries and identified fourdimensions of culture: power distance, collecti-vism versus individualism, femininity versusmasculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Theresearch results identify a score for each countryon each dimension. Knowing the relativeposition of each country on each dimensionreveals similarities and differences amongcountries. When examining similarities anddifferences across countries, it is relatively easyto determine how one country scores on all fivedimensions compared to your home country.These concepts have formed the basis ofmuch empirical work, some of which supportsthe use of these concepts and some of whichdoes not (Hoppe, 1990; Smith, 1994; Akouret al., 2006; DeJong et al., 2006; Harzing, 2006;Lee and Croker, 2006; Srite and Karahanna,2006; Guss and Wiley, 2007; Johnson, 2007;MacNab et al., 2007). One major work addres-sing the challenge of integrating concepts andcountries (deMooij, 2005) applied the conceptsacross countries in an analysis of how theconcepts are portrayed in advertising.

The results of Trompenaars’ (1998) studieshave many similarities with the research resultsof Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1997) in that theapproach is to examine and compare countrieson individual values. Comparing manycountries on one value is relatively straightfor-ward. Comparing more than two countrieson many values is difficult. The insights arevaluable but application of the model isdifficult for businesspeople who generallyfind themselves both short of time and askedto make comparisons and decisions aboutgroups of countries within a close deadline.

Usunier’s (1996) book specifically addressesapplications in marketing: consumer beha-viour, market research, marketing strategy,

defining market clusters, product policy, brandimage, price policy, distribution channels,communication, advertising, personal sellingand negotiations. In this book, concepts ofculture, such as time, face, need for preciseanswers or loyalty, are examined and related tomarketing decisions. The breadth and depth ofthe material in this book is excellent and animportant tool for thinking about how cultureaffects marketing decisions. However, as withHofstede’s and Trompenaar’s work, there is nounifying model for understanding how to usemultiple concepts across several countries tocreate marketing strategies.

The Cultural Orientations Model created byWalker et al. (2003) is a ‘framework forexploring and mapping the components ofculture at any level’. The 10 dimensions in thismodel include those that provide a basicshared orientation for behaviour at any levelin social life. Using these dimensions toexplore a culture is an excellent basis forunderstanding many levels of social behaviour.The book provides an in-depth examination ofeach dimension and how it applies to culturalanalysis. However, that is a level of detail thatbusinesspeople are not likely to use when theyhave a very limited time to prepare for a tripabroad, which may include more than a singlecountry or culture and meetings with partici-pants from a variety of locations at the sametime.

The theories and models created by thesegiants in the field focus on specific elements ofculture such as time, language, values, spaceor competitiveness. They do not specificallyaddress the interdependence of concepts withinand across countries applied to the conduct ofbusiness. The next section presents a model thatcreates a visual tool representing the interplaybetween public structure, process and com-munication related to business practices.

Cultural models, public structureand business practice

Commercial, political and economic systemshave become increasingly interdependent over


DOI: 10.1002/pa

Cultural theory in use 263

the past three decades. Political and economicsystems are part of the public structure thatinteracts with personal and organizationalculture to impact business practice in aparticular geography. All parts of an organiz-ation now routinely operate across multipletime zones and cultures. Since not everyemployee is a student of culture, and manystill do not accept that culture has anyrelevance to their objectives, a model thatrepresents the application of cultural con-structs in business situations would be a usefultool to orient and guide planning, decision-making and adaptation.

Several caveats are necessary regarding thetwo models presented in this section. First, thefundamental culture of a country changesslowly over generations or in response tospecific traumatic national events. Therefore, astatic assessment of a culture is generallyrepresentative but not specifically descriptive.That said, cultures are dynamic and in aconstant evolutionary state, albeit somewhatinvisible to the outsider. This is paradoxical,but evident in surface behaviours, trends andfads, which appear to be sudden and dynamic,but have little lasting affect on the culture of acountry or region. Second, each countryexhibits a range of cultures. Each region,major city and/or ethnic group has its own setof cultural assumptions that are related to thecountry’s overall culture but are not identical.Third, each person’s personal socializationand development affects his or her culturalassumptions. Therefore, a static set of culturalassumptions, based on a general understandingof norms or specific behaviours, might not beappropriate for the individual with whom onemeets to conduct business. The modelspresented here are meant to guide thinkingnot to represent the behaviour of specificindividuals.

Classification of Cultures Model

Assumptions regarding the use of time, theapproach to the task at hand and the role ofrelationships in making business decisions vary

throughout the world. While 24 hours a day is aconstant throughout the world, people usethat time differently. Hall’s (1959, 1966, 1976,1983) concepts of time relate to how people inparticular cultural groups use time. Thosewho perceive time as monochronic see timeas linear or sequential, even referring to thisintangible ‘as money’ and are quick to not‘waste’ it. Time must be used wisely toaccomplish tasks. Spending time, developingand/or maintaining relationships are lessimportant than accomplishing tasks by thedesignated deadline to those with a mono-chronic view of time. Those who perceivetime as polychronic find it normal to allowseveral events to happen at the same timeor for time to expand like ‘rubber’. Whileaccomplishing tasks may be an importantgoal, developing and/or maintaining relation-ships may be equally or more importantmeaning that time can be taken away fromtask accomplishment to use on deepening,developing or repairing a relationship. Thosewith a polychronic approach to time expectinterruptions involving important issues thatmay be family, relationship or task related.Completing a task by a deadline may not be themost important goal if a more important issueinvolving a critical relationship surfaces.

Hofstede’s (1980, 1983, 1997) concepts arehelpful for identifying how people work withinorganizations. The concept of uncertaintyavoidance relates to the need to know orcontrol what will happen. Germany has amoderately high score (65) and, in Germany,agendas are normally circulated well before ameeting so everyone will arrive prepared todiscuss the items on the agenda (www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php).Japan has a very high score (92) and, in Japan,meetings are generally very formal with theexpectation that no decisions can be maderegarding an idea proposed at that meetingbecause the group needs to meet to developconsensus on the new idea. The concept ofpersonal distance refers to how acceptingpeople at lower levels of society are to theidea that those who have higher levels of statusand power should be allowed to follow


DOI: 10.1002/pa


different rules. The patriarchal society ofMexico has a high score (81) so decisions inMexico are made by those who have status andauthority at the top of the hierarchy. Sweden,on the other hand, has a low score (31) and isa country in which management practiceencourages individual empowerment anddecision-making. The concept of individual-ism/collectivism refers to whether decisionsare made for the benefit of individuals orgroups. With a low score (18), South Koreansgenerally make decisions as a group so one ortwo representatives attending a meetingusually do not have the authority to make acommitment for the company. With a highscore (90), Australian businesspeople areusually empowered to make decisions on behalfof their company. The concept of masculinity/femininity refers to the importance of accom-plishments versus the importance of nurturingefforts. With a relatively high score (69)Mexicans are more concerned with accom-plishment, while Swedes with a low score (5)are more concerned with making sure everyoneis assured quality of life. All of these conceptsare embedded in the structure of governmentand the process of doing business.

Studying concepts individually yields greatinsight and understanding about people of aparticular culture, how they look at the world,or might behave in a particular businesssituation. However, remembering the specificposition of each country on each of Hofstede’s,Trompenaars’, Usunier’s, the Cultural Orien-tation Model’s, or Hall’s dimensions and howthose dimensions interact with each other tocreate the structure, process and communi-cation norms that impact business practiceacross countries is extremely difficult.

Since many employees in organizations facethe challenge of conducting business withpeople from other countries, often in secondor third languages, often having little timefor preparation, there is a need for culturalinformation to be classified in a way that makesit easy to recall and apply. Tucker (1982)created a model that placed countries on acontinuum based upon these concepts andpresented it at Procter & Gamble. The model

was adapted by Michael Copeland (1987,1988, 1993) at Procter & Gamble. After amodification by Ballon, (1994) at SophiaUniversity in Tokyo, Schuster and Copeland(1996) published the Cultural ClassificationModel that places countries or regions on acontinuum anchored by the concepts of Task,Relationship and Time.

In the succeeding 10 years, eastern andcentral European countries have changedconsiderably during their transition to a freemarketplace. China continues in its journeyto create a socialist, free marketplace philos-ophy. Countries in Africa are developing atdifferent stages and are becoming more activeparticipants in the world economy. India isalso emerging as a strong economic player.The concepts used as anchors in the modelcontinue to be important dimensions ofcultures related to how time is spent onbusiness activities. Decisions about classifyingcountries or regions depend upon whetherthe differences within a group of countriesare greater or smaller than the differenceswith the groups on either side in the model.The classification has been updated in theClassification of Cultures Model (Schuster andCopeland, 2006) to reflect the differentpositioning of countries as their orientationtowards Task, Relationship and Time adjustsduring their transition to a free marketplace(Figure 1).

This model is a useful tool for identifyingsimilarities and differences among countries byvisualizing where a country or region is placedon the model. This is important for business-people who move quickly from one area of theworld to another or who are going to a countryfor the first time. The model provides a broadframework for quickly placing a country interms of the Task, Relationship and Timedimensions. However, there are other import-ant elements of culture that are distinctive,need to be included in business planning andhave significant impact on the conduct ofbusiness. The Classification of Cultures Modelis not sufficient for an in-depth understandingof culture and/or knowing how to adapt to dobusiness successfully in a country or region,


DOI: 10.1002/pa


but it does provide a sound basis forpreparation and planning.

Elements of business culturecontinua model

Every culture has a unique view of the world;every community or organization within thatculture has its own method of operation withinthat culture; every individual has his or herown personality and set of values. Whilesuccessful businesspeople adapt to individualsin specific business situations, understandingthe world as billions of individuals is notfeasible for people involved in either globalgovernment or commerce.

Identifying and understanding the elementsof culture is an important first step but does notnecessarily address the conduct of business.Classifying cultures according to Task, Relation-ship and Time is also helpful for comparing howgroups view business tasks. However, neitherof these approaches takes the conceptual

information and describes how it impacts thepractice of business. Doing business in aparticular country or region is directly affectedby that country or region’s cultural approachto the structure of the business environmentwhich is created out of cultural norms towardsthe role of government, rule of law andsense of hierarchy in that culture (Yip, 1995;DeJong et al., 2006; Kanungo, 2006; Yasinand Yavas, 2007). Doing business is alsoconstrained by the accepted and expectedprocesses for doing business—how activitiesflow, expectations regarding punctuality orthe separation between private and publiclife (Yasin and Yavas, 2007). These constraintsaffect where and when business takes place.Business is also affected by the way peoplecommunicate. Whether words have explicitor implicit meaning has a major impact onthe role of contracts. Both style, whetherdirect or indirect, and the form of logicdetermine how information is presentedand whether it is perceived as persuasive(Harzing, 2006; Guss and Wiley, 2007).

Figure 1. Northwestern and Central Europe includes the countries to the north and west of Switzerland including thecity of Paris but not the rest of France. Mediterranean Europe includes France (with the exception of Paris), Spain,Portugal, Greece and Italy. Eastern Europe and Russia includes the former Soviet block of countries.From Schuster and Copeland. Global Business Practices,1E. # 2006 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc.Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions


DOI: 10.1002/pa


Truthfulness has an immediate and con-sequent effect on the credibility of communi-cation which is foundational when establishingrelationships or creating agreements. Thecombination of beliefs, attitudes and values ineach country or region creates differentpositions on all of these elements. Countriescan be placed on each of these continua bycombining theoretical and empirical infor-mation. The next section describes positionson each continuum (Figure 2).

Structure (Role of Government,Rule of Law, Sense of Hierarchy)

The governing philosophy in a countrydetermines the degree of freedom companieshave for conducting business, resulting, ingeneral, from the government’s adoption of afree trade or central control philosophy orsome variation of the concept. For example thelegacy of noblesse oblige in Europe carriesthrough in the current government which is

Figure 2. Elements of Business Culture Continua.


DOI: 10.1002/pa


empowered to protect its companies and takecare of its citizens. Transitional countries maynot have a strong system of government orwell-established rule of law. As a result,hierarchy, status and place within a strongsocial structure provide the constraints lackingin the political system. Western countries witha strong task and time orientation rely heavilyon a legal system that specifies either whatbusiness must do or what business cannot do.Consistent enforcement of the laws createstransparency and determines the reliability ofthese political systems. In countries withunstable governments and legal systems, theinformal hierarchy among citizens in thatcountry provides the constraints, guidelinesand protections for doing business.

Role of Government

On one end of the continuum are countriessuch as the United States, Australia and Canada,which were founded on Adam Smith’s view ofa laissez-faire government that creates policiesto allow business activities to flourish in afree marketplace (Harris, 1982; George, 1983;Miller, 1987; Zemke, 1988). On the other endof the continuum, are countries, such asTaiwan or Cuba, that allow government, eithercentral or local or both, to be directly involvedin business activities (Rotzoll, 1986; Zamet andBovarnick, 1986; Garten, 1992; McGregor,1993a,b; Marble and Lu, 2006). A more centristapproach is taken in countries such as Japan orSingapore, in which government providespolicies, goals or directions for the businesscommunity but is normally not a partner inbusiness agreements (McCooey, 1984; About,2003).

Rule of Law

At one end of the continuum, countries, suchas Germany or Great Britain, believe thatsystems and procedures created by anapproved process establish the guidelines thatgovern business transactions (Ghauri, 1986;Nye, 1987; Harris and Moran, 1991; Moran and

Stripp, 1991). These systems, procedures orlaws can be relied upon and are consistentlyenforced, thereby creating transparency inbusiness practice. At the other end of thecontinuum, countries, such as Russia, Indone-sia or Nigeria, have not created systems andprocedures that are routinely and equitablyenforced throughout the country but relymore on a situational or pragmatic approachto conducting business (Renwick, 1982;Gosling, 1990; Wosinski and Zischke, 1992).While difficult to accept for some business-people, ends often justify the means incountries without an established or respectedrule of law. Adherence to norms, establishedwithin accepted networks, is often moreimportant than abiding by laws and govern-ment policies.

Sense of Hierarchy

Countries, such as Australia and the UnitedStates espouse the value of equality on oneend of the continuum, meaning that eachindividual has the same set of rights, obli-gations and duties (Fieg and Blair, 1975;Wallin, 1976; Winham, 1979; Hofstede,1980, 1983, 1997; Graham and Herberger,1983; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1983;Nadler and McScoggins, 1993; Campbell,1994). No one has special privileges becauseof position, birth or wealth. Individualsare empowered to make decisions, takerisks, undertake new ventures or solveproblems on their own or as delegated bytheir organization. At the other end of thecontinuum, countries, such as Argentinaand Japan, have hierarchical systems inwhich people of high status are expected tohave special privileges (Yoshimo, 1968;Guittard, 1974; Wallin, 1976; Hofstede,1980, 1983, 1997; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky,1983; Copeland and Griggs, 1986; Hartman,1987; Mendosa, 1988; Hill and Birdseye, 1989;Harris and Moran, 1991; Chatterjee et al.,2006; Marble and Lu, 2006). Individuals knowtheir position within the hierarchy and adhereto the norms of the group. In countries with


DOI: 10.1002/pa


known and respected hierarchical systems,the comfort and familiarity of implied expec-tations make it easy for the local people toconduct business, while creating a difficultdynamic for the uninitiated foreigner, whomay not understand with whom to deal orwhen to ask for third parties to intervene. Incountries without well-established and well-enforced political and legal systems, thehierarchies within informal networks createand enforce group norms.

The form of government, rule of law and/orimportance of hierarchy determine howbusinesses can interact with one another andto what guidelines of individual behaviourindividuals need to adhere for success whenconducting business.

Process (Punctuality, Flow ofActivities, View of Privacy)

Time is conceptualized in a number ofdifferent ways. A monochronic view perceivestime as moving forward in a linear andsequential fashion with segments clearlydefined (Graham and Herberger, 1983;Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky, 1983; Copeland,1986; Miller, 1987; Joy, 1989; Laurent, 1991;Salacuse, 1991). A polychronic view perceivestime as moving forward in a nonlinear andsimultaneous fashion (Alghanim, 1976; Lee,1980; Catoline, 1982; Copeland, 1986; Cope-land and Griggs, 1986). A flexible view of timeperceives that there is always more time to beused on a given activity (Huneeus, 1984;Mendosa, 1988; Laurent, 1991; Moran andStripp, 1991). A cyclical view of time perceivestime as moving in phases with each eventbeing given the amount of time it needs(Renwick, 1982; Hawrysh and Zaichkowsky,1983; Ghauri, 1986; Fadiman, 1989). Knowinghow a particular culture views time isimportant for understanding how businessactivities will likely flow and how individualsare expected to use time. The value of a cultureregarding the separation of public and privatelife is important for understanding whichactivities are appropriate in which situations

as well as when personal or business topics areappropriate for discussion.

Punctuality

Some countries, such as the United States andNetherlands, view time as fixed and linear;time can be segmented into discrete blocks(Kennedy, 1967; Wallin, 1976; Saxe and Weitz,1982; Galante, 1984; McCaffrey and Hafner,1985; Copeland, 1986; Bryan and Buck, 1989).Time is valuable and not to be wasted onnon-task activities. The mark of a professionalis the ability to strictly adhere to timelines. Onthe other end of the continuum, in countriessuch as Indonesia or Saudi Arabia, time isflexible and stretches like rubber to cover allimportant or predestined tasks (Alghanim,1976; Rand, 1976; Lee, 1980; Ghauri, 1986;Wasnak, 1986; Schuster, 1987; Fadiman, 1989;Harris and Moran, 1991; Moran and Stripp,1991). Important people have many demandson their time and will attend to all importanttasks as soon as possible.

Flow of Activities

On one end of the continuum are countriessuch as Germany or Canada that view time aslinear, looking backward to the beginning oftime and forward to the end of time (George,1983; Miller, 1987; Harris and Moran, 1991;Snyder, 1993; Drabble, 1994). Activities aredivided into discrete blocks of time with eachactivity relegated to specific time periods: mealtime, bedtime, family time or study time. Inother countries, such as Japan or Chile, time isseen as cyclical, with time devoted to eachphase of life: birth, growth, death and rebirthor regeneration. As a result, time is not solimiting as in the more linear countries wheretime is treated more as a commodity (Davis,1970; Wallin, 1976; Kazuo, 1979; Huneeus,1984; Mendosa, 1988; Banthin, 1991; Harrisand Moran, 1991). Accomplishing tasks meansthat sufficient time must be spent on allphases rather than rushing through phases tomeet a deadline. Time may not be perceived as


DOI: 10.1002/pa


linear so activities can and do happensimultaneously.

View of Privacy

On one end of the continuum, in countriessuch as Germany, Netherlands and Japan,individuals keep their private life and businesslife totally separate (Ballon, 1977; Ramsey andBirk, 1983; March, 1985; Biggar, 1987). Timefor family is spent with extended members ofthe family or close friends and does notimpinge upon time set aside for work. Onthe other hand, family obligations are central toboth social and business life in Brazil orThailand (Davis, 1970; Wallin, 1976; Lee,1980; Copeland, 1985; Copeland and Griggs,1986; Alghanim, 1976; Mendosa, 1988; Harrisand Moran, 1991). Business discussions areconducted within a family group or smallnetwork so need not be continued only atofficial meetings. A business network includesfamily members so there is little, if any,separation between private and public life.There is just all-inclusive life.

These elements determine how and whenbusiness can be conducted—whether businessactivities are separate from family events orpart of family events, whether businessactivities take place within discrete time peri-ods, whether social activities include businessdiscussions, whether time is flexible and theimportance of deadlines.

Communication (Truth, Words,Style, Logic)

Understanding the language of a particularcultural group is valuable for learning howmembers of that culture view the world.English presents a linear view of the world;whereas, Chinese presents a holistic view ofthe world. Learning the philosophical under-pinning of a culture’s perception of truth iscritical for determining how to rely on themeanings of words when negotiating a deal orcrafting a contract. Western cultures are basedupon the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle

which holds that there are universal truths soideas, activities and constructs are oftenviewed as good or bad, right or wrong or trueor false. Eastern philosophies have hierarchiesas a foundation of their worldview so the goalof interaction is to preserve harmony asopposed to working within a framework ofabsolutes. Many of the Eastern culturesrecognize that there may be several variationsof ‘the truth’ and view nothing as absolute.When using implicit languages (e.g. Chinese,Arabic, Japanese), words need to be inter-preted in light of how they have been used tomaintain harmony within the group in aparticular situation. In those cultures orientedtowards maintaining harmony, relationshipsare extremely important. Conversation tendsto be indirect to avoid upsetting harmony.

When using explicit languages (e.g. Swedish,Dutch, English), words are used in a concreteway, so that what is written in a contract isthe behaviour that will be expected. In thosecultures oriented towards universal truths,language is direct and specific so that allparticipants are clear about directions, expec-tations and deadlines. In western countries,logic is formal based on the philosophies ofAristotle and Plato. Evidence is critical andarguments must adhere to specific rules. Inother cultures, forms of logic may be basedupon a sense of honour, long-term relation-ships or intuition. As a result, creatingpersuasive arguments and using appropriateforms of evidence will vary. Objective data andcharts or spreadsheets are not persuasive in allareas of the world. In some cultures, such asTaiwan, asking for a favourable decision basedupon the length of a relationship may be morepersuasive than objective data.

Truth

Countries with a dominant Judeo-Christianreligious tradition, such as Israel, Italy orCanada tend to believe in a universal truth—things are either right or wrong, and sometruths are always true (Ramsey and Birk, 1983;Garten, 1992; Hofstede, 1997; Trompenaars,


DOI: 10.1002/pa


1998). Countries with a different religioustradition, such as India or Japan, have apragmatic view of truth, with every situationand each person’s perspective being different.Maintaining harmony is an important goal inthese countries and truth tends to be relativerather than absolute (Fieg and Blair, 1975;Ballon, 1977; Ramsey and Birk, 1983; Joy,1989; Mortenson, 1992; Hofstede, 1997;Trompenaars, 1998; Chatterjee et al., 2006).There may even be several competing truths ina given business situation. Cultures with aJudeo-Christian foundation want one versionto be accepted as ‘true’ or ‘right’. Cultures witha pragmatic view are comfortable with severalversions of the truth existing at the same time.

Words

In countries in which English or a romancelanguage is the native language words refer tospecific objects, people or ideas (Hall, 1959;Ballon, 1977; Ghauri, 1986; Miller, 1987;Campbell et al., 1988). Precision requiresthe use of the specific words to conveythoughts accurately and efficiently. On theother end of the continuum, languages such asJapanese or Chinese use groups of symbols toconvey thoughts, ideas and objects whilemaintaining face with participants (Zametand Bovarnick, 1986; Brunner and You,1988; Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Stone, 1989;Zhang and Kuroda, 1989). Individual symbolshave significantly different meanings depend-ing upon the combination of symbols, relation-ships between speakers or context of thesituation.

Style

Countries such as Sweden or the United Statesvalue language that is direct, to the point andconcise (Willett and Pennington, 1966;Olshavsky, 1973; Foy and Gadon, 1976; Hall,1976; Fisher, 1980; Donohue, 1981; Grahamand Herberger, 1983; Donohue et al., 1984;Soldow and Thomas, 1984; Schuster andDanes, 1986; Schuster, 1988; Alexander

et al., 1991). In these countries, it is oftensaid that people should ‘say what they meanand mean what they say’. On the other end ofthe continuum, in countries such as Mexico,Indonesia and India, ‘saving face’, maintainingharmony or respecting the other person’shonour requires the use of an indirect form ofcommunication in which there are manyways to convey information without statingsomething literally or directly—especiallydisagreeable information that might upsetthe harmony (Fieg and Blair, 1975; Hawryshand Zaichkowsky, 1983; Hall, 1976; Zamet andBovarnick, 1986; Biggar, 1987; Graham, 1987;Zhang and Kuroda, 1989). Understanding ideasconveyed may depend upon what is not said,as much as or more so, than what is said duringa conversation.

Logic

Forms of logic, on the one hand, are formal,syllogistic deductive arguments used inWestern countries such as France or GreatBritain in which it is critical to have soundpremises, or inductive arguments such asthose used in the United States, in whichobjective evidence and representative exam-ples are critical (Davis and Silk, 1972; Fisher,1980; George, 1983; Galante, 1984; McAlisteret al., 1986; Perdue et al., 1986; Campbellet al., 1988; Laurent, 1991; Fisher et al., 1993;Snyder, 1993). On the other end of thecontinuum, alternative forms of heuristicsare legitimate, such as circular logic orarguments based on honour or relationships(Alghanim, 1976; Radway, 1978; Catoline,1982; Chatterjee et al., 2006; Kazuo, 1979;Fisher, 1980; Graham and Sano, 1984; Graham,1985a,b; Copeland and Griggs, 1986; Ghauri,1986; Mendosa, 1988; Harris and Moran, 1991;Moran and Stripp, 1991; Salacuse, 1991;Graham et al., 1992; Mortenson, 1992).

Effective communication depends upon athorough understanding of not only thelanguage, but also the style, sense of truthand logic that is used by a particular culturalgroup. Assuming only one approach to com-munication and/or assuming that everyone


DOI: 10.1002/pa


speaking English as an acquired language isusing an American/British approach to businessdecisions is a recipe for disaster. Understand-ing the form of communication used by aparticular cultural group allows for appropriateadaptation.

The purpose of the next section is tocombine the two models presented in thissection and create a framework that can beused to suggest how behaviour can be adaptedby those doing business in other countries. Thenext section presents a matrix created bylocating the countries or regions identified inthe Classification of Cultures Model on each ofthe continua identified in this section.

Intersection of theories of cultureand business practice

Theories of culture in isolation or theories ofgeneral cultural constructs are useful for manyactivities and for understanding a givencultural group. However, learning how touse that information to adapt one’s behaviourwhen conducting business activities in othercountries requires a different framework.Learning the specific cultures in each of200þ countries and how the cultural valuesof each country affect business activity is animpossible task—especially for a person’sfirst overseas assignment or for someonewho has to troubleshoot a problem and isbeing sent to a new country in 2 days. Themodel that follows incorporates culturalinformation relevant for business activity inan easily retrievable manner so decisions aboutadaptation can be made.

The countries and regions in the Classifi-cation of Cultures Model (Schuster and Cope-land, 2006) were used to form the vertical axisof the Global Business Practices Model (GBPM;Figure 3). When creating models some level ofdetail is generally lost in an effort to present auseable framework. While differences occurwithin and across countries and regions, thesedifferences are less significant than the differ-ence between groups. Areas of consensusacross the work of Hall (1959, 1966, 1976,

1983), Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1997), Schusterand Copeland (1996, 2006), Usunier (1996),Trompenaars (1998), Walker et al. (2003) andthe research cited in the previous section, aswell as empirical work conducted by theauthors over 40þ years and validation frombusinesspeople in these cultural groups wasused to place countries on either end or in amore central position on each continuum. Thisinformation forms the horizontal part of thematrix resulting in the GBPM (Figure 3).

Two observations are immediately apparentfrom the matrix: (1) no two country groups areidentical and (2) there are major differencesbetween ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ businesspractices. This is a good visual representationof ‘psychological distance’ while providingsubstance as to the nature of that distance. Theaccepted business practices from any onecountry group will generate some level ofsuccess in the country groups located next tothem in the matrix. The further distant theother country is on the matrix from one’shome country, the more dissimilar businesspractices will likely be.

An advantage of using the matrix is that itimmediately identifies major similarities anddifferences as a starting point for adaptation.Without having to learn everything there isto know about a country’s culture, the matrixencapsulates a considerable amount of infor-mation that can be used as a guide foradaptation. Once differences and similaritiesacross concepts are identified, the person orteam who will be representing the companycan spend time preparing strategy, materials,arguments and style of communication thatwill be most effective when doing business inthe identified country or region. This sectionwill provide brief examples of a few forms ofadaptation to consider.

In those areas with a black square in theRole of Government column, expect to usetime meeting government officials, formingrelationships with government officials andseeking their approval or involvement withbusiness transactions. When doing business incountries that have a grey square, taking timeto understand the role of government is


DOI: 10.1002/pa


important. In some countries, the governmentmay be in a transitional phase creating newregulations requiring permits or approvals,may have incentives for certain industries ormay have high tariffs for some products. Insome way the government participates inshaping the marketplace. In the countrieswith a white square the government is notnormally involved in specific industries, withthe exception of national defence.

In those countries with a white square in theRule of Law column, the legal system is highlydeveloped and relied upon to create theparameters for doing business. The laws areexpected to be followed because enforcementis routine. The legal system typically operates

in an objective manner making decisions basedupon the merits of a case when complaints arebrought to the court. Therefore, creating acontract is a serious undertaking specifyingwho will do what within what time frame withwhat results. Obtaining a signed contract is animportant goal of business. With a signeddocument, all parties understand what specificexpectations will be fulfilled. That is what isexpected of a transparent business system. Therest of the countries or regions have a grey orblack square signifying that the legal system isnot as well developed. Either the laws have notbeen created or are not enforced. In theseregions, business activity cannot solely relyupon the terms of a contract being fulfilled or a

Figure 3. Global Business Practices Model. Role of Government: white, the government sets parameters andconstraints to create the environment for doing business; black, direct involvement of government in business asa business partner. Rule of Law: white, reliance on systems and procedures; black, pragmatism or situationalconsiderations. Sense of Hierarchy: white, assumption of equality; black, assumption of status difference. View of

Privacy: white, business and private matters are separate; black, business and private matters are all part of one reality.Sense of Time: white, fixed time; black, flexible or ‘rubber’ time. Flow of Activities: white, time works in a linearfashion; black, time works in a cyclical fashion. Truth: white, universal truth; black, many truths exist at once. Words:white, words have explicit meanings; black, words have implicit meanings. Style: white, communication is direct andforthright; black, communication is indirect. Logic: white, formal deductive reasoning; black, alternative heuristic.From Schuster and Copeland. Global Business Practices, 1E. # 2006 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc.Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions


DOI: 10.1002/pa


complaint being upheld in court. Taking thetime to understand the system and to createrelationships with respected businesspeople iscritical for success. Managing the terms of thecontract by continued personal contact isessential for success. Legal issues regardinggifts and bribery need to be understood aboutthe area in which business will be conductedand in the home country of the company doingbusiness.

In the countries with a white square for theRole of Hierarchy there is an expectationthat businesspeople have authority to makedecisions, that people at many levels in theorganization are empowered to make de-cisions regardless of their title, and thatceremony or formality is not highly valued.When doing business in the areas that have agrey square, titles and status are moreimportant. Skipping over people to talk withsomeone higher in the hierarchy is not lookedupon kindly. Ceremony, formality and eti-quette are highly valued. In those countrieswith a dark square, systems and processes arenot well established so the hierarchy andnorms of networks are very important. Takingtime to identify the members of a network, tobecome accepted and introduced to others inthe network, to understand the concepts ofsaving face and/or maintaining honour, thepersonal obligations of membership and thelegality of adhering to obligations are conceptsthat need to be understood before doingbusiness in these areas. All three of theseconcepts (government, law, hierarchy) createthe structure within which companies con-duct business.

In those areas that have a white square forthe View of Privacy, the expectation is thatbusiness will be conducted in an office,conference room or maybe during a mealwith only the participants involved in theproposed business transaction. These activitiesare separate from family life or general socialactivities. In those countries with a greysquare, meal times and social activitiesare more often part of business, but alsoinclude relationship dimensions. Friends orother business associates are often invited to

participate. Demonstrating appreciation forart, cuisine, history, sports or architectureoften helps to establish relationships. Inthose areas with a dark square, there is littleseparation between public life and private life.Business may take place anywhere at any timewith different combinations of participants. Animportant part of doing business is getting toknow one another as individuals so business isbeing conducted even when business is notthe topic of discussion. As a result, waiting for aformal meeting to discuss business is not aneffective practice and will result in lost timeand opportunity.

In those areas with a white square forPunctuality the expectation is that businessmeetings will start on time, that all memberswill be present and that business should beconcluded within the timeframe of the meet-ing. Those countries with a grey square aregenerally more flexible about the start time ofbusiness meetings. Important people havemany commitments and cannot be expectedto be prompt at every meeting. Importantissues that emerge have to be addressed, buteach meeting will be given an appropriateamount of time when it begins. Punctuality inthose areas with a dark square is much moreflexible. Sometimes the infrastructure requiresflexibility because of traffic jams; sometimesother more important business or relationshipissues arise and have to take precedence. Inmany countries, the question about what timeis being used for meetings is becomingcommon; participants want to know whichtime frame is being used for a specific meeting.

In those areas with a white square for Flowof Activities, time is linear, specific anddedicated to specific activities. Decision-making, planning and collaboration occur indiscrete time periods dedicated to specifictasks proceeding in a linear fashion byconsidering issues one at a time. In thoseareas with a grey square, time is more flexiblewith meetings starting later, stretching longerand including business as well as socialactivities. Rushing to keep things on scheduleresults in frustration. The areas with a darksquare have a longer perspective on time often


DOI: 10.1002/pa


including cultures that are thousands of yearsold. Given this perspective, time often flowswithout a sense of haste. Schedules canchange; social and business activities are bothimportant. Since people are important, takingtime to know people before making businessdecisions is critical for success. Decisions arenot made on each issue in a sequential fashion.All the issues need to be discussed andconsidered first, so decisions can be made ina holistic manner. All three of these concepts(view of privacy, punctuality and flow ofactivities) determine when business is con-ducted with which people and at what pace.

In those areas with a white square in theTruth column, universal truths are perceivedto exist. These truths cover all people in allareas of the world with expectations thateveryone should adhere to them and that thereis only one truth. In those areas of the worldwith grey squares, adherence to an absolutetruth is tempered with the need to protectnetwork members, preserve one’s honour anddemonstrate loyalty to family. As a result, truthcan have several versions. In those areas of theworld with dark squares there is no perceptionof a universal truth. Different truths can and doexist at the same time. It is often necessary tosay what must be said to maintain harmony andsave one’s face. As a result, agreement does notnecessarily equate to commitment. Probingbeyond the obvious meanings of words isimportant for success.

In those areas of the world that have a blacksquare in the Words column, the meanings ofwords are altered by the relationship betweenpeople, the topic and circumstances. There-fore, asking several questions in different ways,spending social or personal time with peopleand listening to how they say things or what isnot said are all important. Identifying differ-ences in what words mean, probing forconsistency and learning to interpret levelsof formality are critical for success. In countrieswith grey squares, nuanced or double mean-ings of words are often relevant duringdiscussions. Developing a sophisticated voca-bulary and paying attention to specific mean-ings during conversations is important. Tact,

confrontation, respect and disrespect can beconveyed by the choice of words. In thosecountries with white squares, words havespecific meanings. When making agreementsthe words used create specific expectations forfuture behaviour so choosing words carefullyis important.

In those countries with a white square inthe Style column businesspeople tend to havedirect conversations. Some areas may be moreformal than others but identifying problems,issues, alternatives and solutions is prettystraightforward and direct. Yes/no questionsare often asked. Yes responses indicatecommitted agreement with expectations offuture behaviour. In those areas with a greysquare, topics may be addressed in a directmanner but the style of conversation is moretactful and nuanced. Agreements and disagree-ments are equally polite and pleasant so payingattention to the words used is important. Inthose countries with a dark square thepreferred style is indirect. Words have ambig-uous meanings so a yes response does notindicate committed agreement; rather, itrepresents polite acknowledgement. Listeningto what is not said or to what is implied is justas important to understanding a conversationas is listening to what words are used. Askingdirect yes/no questions results in no usefulinformation. Learning to ask indirect questionsis important for success.

In those countries with a white square forLogic, objective data (generally numerical) areimportant. Referring to data from crediblesources is also effective. The form of argumentis usually deductive in which conclusionsfollow from accepted premises. Careful con-sideration is necessary when agreeing topremises. In those areas with a grey square,acceptable forms of logic may be deductive,inductive, based upon friendship or appeal toone’s honour depending upon the peopleinvolved. Generally objective data are helpfulwhen creating persuasive arguments butarguing from circumstance or precedent canalso be effective. In those areas with darksquares deductive, circular or emotional argu-ments can be made based upon honour or


DOI: 10.1002/pa


precedent or religious principles. Preparingarguments that can be effective in differentareas of the world is a useful tool. All four ofthese concepts (truth, words, style and logic)will have a part in determining the mosteffective communication in a country orregion. This framework, while having to bemodified based upon the individuals withwhom you are doing business, provides afilter for interpreting the words and actions ofthe people with whom you are conductingbusiness.

The value of the GBPM is that it provides aframework for condensing a great deal ofcultural information and demonstrating howcultural differences intersect with businesspractices. While the GBPM does not provide aprescriptive list of how to do businessguidelines in any particular culture, theframework can be used to facilitate prep-aration, to guide a search for additionalinformation and to interpret behaviour. TheGBPM is an important heuristic to use whenpreparing to work effectively within othercultures. Instead of being left on one’s own ‘toadapt to the local culture’, the matrix providesguidance for working through decisions ofhow and when to adapt and what the nature ofthe adaptation should be to be successful.

Conclusions

Many theories of culture exist and are usefulfor understanding the way people in a culturethink, behave and live. However, thesetheories do not necessarily focus on howbusiness is conducted in that culture or howone can prepare to do business effectively withpeople in that culture. The purpose of thispaper is to create an intersection between thetheories of culture and the practice ofbusiness.

Using the Classification of Cultures Modelidentifies major cultural groups rather thanhaving to process cultural information for200þ countries. Elements of culture, such asstructure (government, legal and personal),process (time and people) and communication(style, words, truth and logic), that are

particularly relevant to conducting business,were used to create a set of continua.Combining those two perspectives resultedin the GBPM which is the intersection betweentheory and business practice.

Knowing what elements of culture impactbusiness activities in ways that are similar ordifferent between one’s home country and thecountry in which business is being conductedis important for success. Knowing where tofocus efforts in examining cultural differencesand how they relate to business behaviour is asignificant step forward in understanding how,where and when culture impacts businesspractice. The models portrayed in this paperprovide a theoretical framework that can beused for future research. As countries change,as business practices evolve and as culturesevolve, testing these relationships at differenttime periods is important so that continuedmodifications in the GBPM can be made.

Remember the caveat: each individual’sculture is determined by one’s country, family,ethnic group, educational system and com-pany training. Therefore, no two individualsfrom any country will act in an identicalfashion. The matrix presented here, however,creates a useful framework for beginning toadapt behaviour and providing members of theteam with a repertoire of tools to be used.Deciding whether and when to use them is leftup to the team members in a specific situation.Having more knowledge and tools increasesthe possibility of success when doing businesswith people from another cultural group.

Biographical notes

Camille P. Schuster (Ph.D. from The OhioState University) is currently a Full Professorof Marketing and Management at CaliforniaState University San Marcos and President ofGlobal Collaborations, Inc. Dr. Schuster hasalso taught at Virginia Polytechnic Institueand State University, Arizona State University,Xavier University, Thunderbird School ofManagement, and Indiana State UniversityNorthwest. Dr. Schuster has authoredover 30 articles in professional and academic


DOI: 10.1002/pa


publications and has conducted seminars andworked with over 60 companies in more than20 countries around the world.Michael J. Copeland is a retired human

resources manager with Procter & Gamble.Beginning in 1978 he was a key manager innumerous technology transfers from the Uni-ted States to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.He was also involved in recruiting and trainingemployees in the international are of P&G’sglobal business. He has authored a number oftotal quality, business writing, and inter-national training articles. He has lived inEurope, Asia, and North America.

Schuster and Copeland co-authored Global

Business Practices: Adapting for Success

(2006) and Global Business: Planning for

Sales and Negotiations (1996).

References

About Nippon Keidanren. 2003. http://www.

keidanren.or.jp/english [31 October].

Akour I, Alshare K, Miller D, Dwairi M. 2006.

An exploratory analysis of culture, perceived

ease of use, perceived usefulness, and Internet

acceptance: the case of Jordan. Journal of Inter-

net Commerce 5(3): 83–108.

Alexander JF, Schul PL, Babakus E. 1991. Analyzing

interpersonal communications in industrial mar-

keting egotiations. Journal of Academy of Mar-

keting Science 19(2): 129–139.

Alghanim K. 1976. How to do business in the

Middle East. Management Review 65(8): 19–28.

Ballon R. 1977. Americans, Europeans, and

Japanese. In PHP, Ennokoshi K (ed.). PHP Insti-

tute: Tokyo; 73–80.

Ballon R. 1994. Interview by Camille Schuster at

Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan (11 November).

Banthin J. 1991. Negotiating with the Japanese.

Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 7(3): 285–

307.

Biggar J. 1987. Meeting of the twain. Psychology

Today 21(11): 46–52.

Brunner JA, You W. 1988. Chinese negotiating and

the concept of face. Journal of International

Consumer Marketing 1(1): 27–43.

Bryan RM, Buck PC. 1989. The cultural pitfalls in

cross-border negotiations. Mergers and Acqui-

sitions 24(2): 61–63.

Campbell J. 1994. Despite labor costs other factors

make Pacific Rim attractive. Business Record

(22–28 August): 14.

Campbell NCG, Graham JL, Jolibert A, Meissner HG.

1988. Marketing negotiations in France,

Germany, the United Kingdom, and the

United States. Journal of Marketing 52(2):

49–62.

Catoline JE. 1982. Bridging cultures: strategies for

managing cultural transitions, Digital Equipment

Corporation (June).

Chatterjee SR, Pearson CAL, Nie K. 2006. Interfa-

cing business relations with Southern China:

an empirical study of the relevance of

quanxi. Journal of Management 13(3): 59–

76.

Copeland L. 1985. Cross-cultural training: the

competitive edge. Training World 22(7): 49–53.

Copeland L. 1986. Skills transfer and training

overseas. Personnel Administrator 31(6): 107–

117.

Copeland MJ. 1987. International training. In

Training and Development Handbook, Craig

RL (ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York; 717–725.

Copeland MJ. 1988. Cross-cultural dynamics in the

workplace. Presentation for Procter & Gamble

managers in Istanbul, Turkey (December).

Copeland MJ. 1993. Managing in a multicultural

workplace. Presentation delivered in Hong Kong

for Procter & Gamble managers (June).

Copeland L, Griggs L. 1986. Getting the best from

foreign employees. Management Review 75(6):

19–26.

Davis SM. 1970. U.S. versus Latin American:

business and culture. Harvard Business Review

12(2): 19–26.

Davis HL, Silk AJ. 1972. Interaction and influence

processes in personal selling. Sloan Manage-

ment Review 13(2): 59–76.

DeJong E, Smeets R, Smits J. 2006. Culture and

openness. Social Indicators Research 78(1):

111–136.

deMooij M. 2005. Global Marketing and Advertis-

ing: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes (2nd

edn). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Donohue WA. 1981. Development of a model of

rule use in negotiation interaction. Communi-

cation Monographs 48(2): 106–120.

Donohue WA, Diez ME, Hamilton M. 1984. Cooling

naturalistic negotiation interaction. Human

Communication Research 10(3): 403–425.


DOI: 10.1002/pa


Drabble P. 1994. Selling to Canadians. Export

Today 10(9): 54–55.

Fadiman JA. 1989. Should smaller firms use third

world methods to enter third world markets: the

project head as point man overseas. Journal

of Business and Industrial Marketing 4(1):

17–28.

Fieg JP, Blair JJ. 1975. There Is a Difference. Mer-

idian House International: Washington, DC.

Fisher G. 1980. International Negotiation: A Cross-

Cultural Perspective. Intercultural Press: Chi-

cago.

Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B. 1993. Getting to Yes:

Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

Houghton Mifflin Company: New York.

Foy N, Gadon H. 1976. Worker participation: con-

trasts in three countries. Harvard Business

Review 54(3): 71–83.

Galante S. 1984. U.S. firms aim to avert cultural

clashes. Wall Street Journal (30 July).

Garten JE. 1992. A Cold Peace. Times Books: New

York.

George WW. 1983. How Honeywell takes

advantage of national cultural differences. Aus-

tralian Medical Association Forum (Septem-

ber): 30–31.

Ghauri PN. 1986. Guidelines for international

business negotiations. International Marketing

Review 3(6): 72–82.

Gosling LAP. 1990. Your face is your fortune:

fortune telling and business in southeast Asia.

Journal of Southeast Asia Business 6(4):

41–52.

Graham JL. 1985a. Cross-cultural marketing nego-

tiations: a laboratory experiment. Marketing

Science 4(21): 130–146.

Graham JL. 1985b. The influence of culture on

business negotiations. Journal of International

Business Studies 16(1): 81–96.

Graham JL. 1987. Deference given the buyer: vari-

ations across twelve cultures. In Cooperative

Strategies in International Business, Lorange

P, Contractor F (eds). Lexington Books: Lexing-

ton, Massachusetts; 473–485.

Graham JL, Evenko LI, Rajan MN. 1992.

An empirical comparison of Soviet and American

business negotiations. Journal of International

Business Studies 23(3): 387–418.

Graham JL, Herberger R Jr. 1983. Negotiators

abroad—don’t shoot from the hip. Harvard

Business Review 61(4): 160–168.

Graham JL, Sano Y. 1984. Smart Bargaining:

Doing Business With the Japanese. Ballinger:

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Guittard SW. 1974. Negotiating and administering

an international sales contract with the Japanese.

International Lawyer 8: 822–831.

Guss CD, Wiley B. 2007. Metacognition of proble-

m-solving strategies in Brazil, India, and the Uni-

ted States. Journal of Cognition and Culture

7(1/2): 1–25.

Hall ET. 1959. The Silent Language. Doubleday:

New York.

Hall ET. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday:

New York.

Hall ET. 1976. Beyond Culture. Doubleday: New

York.

Hall ET. 1983. Dance of Life. Anchor Books/Dou-

bleday: New York.

Harris DG. 1982. How national cultures shape

management styles. Management Review (July):

58–61.

Harris PR, Moran RT. 1991. Managing Cultural

Differences. Gulf Publishing Company: Houston.

Hartman CR. 1987. Selling in Japan. D. & B Reports

(May–June): 51–54.

Harzing A. 2006. Response styles in cross-national

survey research. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management 6(2): 243–266.

Hawrysh BM, Zaichkowsky JL. 1983. Cultural

approaches to negotiations: understanding the

Japanese. International Marketing Review 7(2):

28–42.

Hill JS, Birdseye M. 1989. Salesperson selection in

multinational corporations: an empirical study.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-

ment 9(2): 39–47.

Hofstede G. 1980. Motivation, leadership, and

organization: do American theories apply

abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

Hofstede G. 1983. National cultures in four dimen-

sions: a research-based theory of cultural differ-

ences among nations. International Studies of

Management and Organization 12(1, 2): 46–74.

Hofstede G. 1997. Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead.

Hofstede G, Bond MH. 1988. The Confucius con-

nection: from cultural roots to economic growth.

Organizational Dynamics 16(4): 4–21.

Hoppe MH. 1990. A comparative study of country

elites: international differences in work related

values and their implication for management


DOI: 10.1002/pa


training and development. Unpublished PhD

Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,

NC.

Huneeus P. 1984. Finding the lush life in Latin

America. Wall Street Journal (11 May): 23.

Johnson TP. 2007. Cultural level influences on

substance use and misues. Substance Use &

Misues 42(2, 3): 305–316.

Jordan TG, Rowntree L. 1986. The Human Mosaic

(4th edn). Harper and Row: New York.

Joy RO. 1989. Cultural and procedural differences

that influence business strategies and operations

in the People’s Republic of China. SAM

Advanced Management Journal 54(3): 29–33.

Kanungo RP. 2006. Cross culture and business

practice: are they coterminous or cross-verging?

Cross Cultural Management 13(1): 23–32.

Kazuo O. 1979. How the ‘inscrutables’ negotiate

with the ‘inscrutables’: Chinese negotiation tac-

tics vis-a-vis the Japanese. China Quarterly 79:

529–552.

Kennedy JJ. 1967. The management of negotiation.

Journal of Purchasing (August): 41–51.

Laurent A. 1991. Managing across cultures and

national borders. In Single Market Europe: Oppor-

tunities and Challenges for Business, Makridakis

SG (ed.). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 195–214.

Lee E. 1980. Saudis as we, Americans as they. The

Bridge (Fall): 3–5, 32–34.

Lee L-Y, Croker R. 2006. A contingency model to

promote the effectiveness of exptriate training.

Industrial Management & Data Systems

106(8): 1187–1205.

MacNab B, Brislin R, Worthley R, Galperin BL,

Jenner S, Lituchy TR, MacLean J, Aguilera GM,

Ravlin E, Tiessen JH, Bess D, Turcotte MJ. 2007.

Culture and ethics management. Whistleblowing

and internal reporting within a NAFTA country

context. International journal of Cross Cul-

tural Management 7(1): 5–28.

Marble RP, Lu Y. 2006. Culturalizing enterprise

software for the Chinese context: an argument

for accommodating quanxi-based business prac-

tices. International Journal of Production

Economics 107(2): 364–379.

March R. 1985. East meets west at the negotiating

table. Winds (April): 55–57.

McAlister L, Bazerman MH, Fader P. 1986. Power

and goal setting in channel negotiations.

Journal of Marketing Research 23(3): 228–236.

McCaffrey JA, Hafner CR. 1985. When two

cultures collide: doing business overseas.

Training and Development Journal 39(10):

26–31.

McCooey C. 1984. Dolly Parton & Lobsters. Winds

(December): 41–47.

McGregor J. 1993a. Agency in China changes its

priorities. Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly (21

April): A10.

McGregor J. 1993b. Deng seems to aim at reforming

Chinese law while strengthening hand of polit-

buro cadre. Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly

(22 March): 12.

Mendosa EL. 1988. How to do business in Latin

America. Purchasing World 32(7): 58–59.

Miller S. 1987. Painted in Blood: Understanding

Europeans. Atheneum: New York.

Moran RT, Stripp WG. 1991. Successful Inter-

national Business Negotiations. Gulf Publishing

Company: Houston.

Mortenson EA. 1992. Business opportunities in the

Pacific Rim for Americans in small business: the

importance of cultural differences in doing

business. In 1991 Conference on U.S. Competi-

tiveness in the Global Marketplace, Braaten DO,

Anders G (eds). Thunderbird Publishing Group:

Thunderbird.

Nadler IB, McScoggins SW. 1993. A primer on

Canadian law. Business Record (29 November–5

December): 10.

Nye DA. 1987. Formation of contracts: the law in

Norway. North Carolina Journal of Inter-

national Law and Commercial Regulation 12

(Spring): 187–248.

Olshavsky RW. 1973. Customer–salesman inter-

action in appliance retailing. Journal of Market-

ing Research 10(4): 208–212.

Perdue BC, Day RL, Michael RE. 1986. Negotiation

styles of industrial buyers. Industrial Marketing

Management 15(3): 171–176.

Radway RJ. 1978. Negotiating in the Caribbean

basin: trade and investment contract. Inter-

national Trade Law Journal 4(Winter):

164–169.

Ramsey S, Birk J. 1983. Preparation of North

Americans for interaction with Japanese: con-

siderations of language and communication style.

In The Handbook of Intercultural Training,

Landis D, Brislin RW (eds). Pergamon Press:

New York; 227–259.


DOI: 10.1002/pa


Rand EJ. 1976. Learning to do business in the

Middle East. Conference Board Record 13(2):

49–51.

Renwick GW. 1982. Malays and Americans: definite

differences, unique opportunities. In Americans,

Malays and Chinese: Intercultural Relations in

Malaysia, Renwick GW (ed.). Intercultural Pre-

ss: Chicago.

Rotzoll KB. 1986. Advertising in China: reflection

on an evolving institution. Advertising Working

Papers, Department of Advertising, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Salacuse J. 1991. Making Global Deals. Houghton

Mifflin Company: Boston.

Saxe R, Weitz BA. 1982. The SOCO scale: a measure

of the customer orientation of salespeople. Jour-

nal of Marketing Research 19(3): 343–351.

Schuster CP. 1987. Using depth interviews to

examine the organizational buying process in

international markets. Proceedings, AMA Winter

Educator Conference, Chicago; 157–160.

Schuster CP. 1988. Interact matrix system: a

method for analyzing sales interaction. Research

in Consumer Behavior 3: 271–323.

Schuster CP, Copeland MJ. 1996. Global Business:

Planning for Sales and Negotiations. Dryden

Press: Ft. Worth.

Schuster CP, Copeland MJ. 2006. Global Business

Practices: Adapting for Success. Thomson:

Mason, OH.

Schuster CP, Danes JE. 1986. Asking questions:

some characteristics of successful sales encoun-

ters. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man-

agement 6: 17–27.

Smith P. 1994. National cultures and values of

organisational employees: time for another look.

EIASM Workshop on Cross-cultural Perspect-

ives, Comparative Management and Organis-

ation, Henley Management College,

Henley-on-Thames.

Snyder J. 1993. Promoting consumer goods

and services in Quebec, Canada’s distinct

French-speaking market. Business America

(November 1): 22–23.

Soldow GF, Thomas GP. 1984. Relationship com-

munication: form versus content in the sales

interaction. Journal of Marketing 48(1): 84–93.

Srite M, Karahanna E. 2006. The role of espoused

national cultural values in technology accep-

tance. MIS Quarterly 30(3): 679–704.

Stone R. 1989. Negotiating in Asia. Practicing

Manager 9(2): 36–39.

Trompenaars F. 1998. Riding theWaves of Culture:

Understanding Diversity in Global Business

(2nd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.

Tucker M. 1982. Lecture presented to Procter &

Gamble managers (October), Cincinnati, OH.

Usunier J-C. 1996. Marketing Across Cultures (2nd

edn). Prentice-Hall: New York.

Walker DM, Walker T, Schmitz J. 2003. Doing

Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross-

Cultural Success (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill: New

York.

Wallin TO. 1976. The international executive’s

baggage: cultural values of the American frontier.

MSU Business Topics 24(2): 13–22.

Wasnak L. 1986. Knowing when to bow. Ohio

Business (March): 31–38.

Willett R, Pennington AL. 1966. Customer and

salesman: the anatomy of choice and influence

in a retail setting. Proceedings, AMA Winter

Educators Conference, Chicago; 598–616.

Winham GR. 1979. Bureaucratic politics and Cana-

dian trade negotiation. International Journal

34(1): 64–89.

Wosinski M, Zischke G. 1992. Doing business

in central Europe: opportunity for the small

and medium-size U.S. companies. In 1992

Conference on U.S. Competitiveness in the

Global Marketplace, Braaten DO, Anders G

(eds). Thunderbird Publishing Group: Phoenix;

328.

Yasin MM, Yavas U. 2007. An analysis of e-business

practices in the Arab culture; current inhibitors

and future strategies. Cross Cultural Manage-

ment 14(1): 68–73.

Yip GS. 1995. Total Global Strategy. Prentice-Hall:

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Yoshimo M. 1968. Japan’s Managerial System.

MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zamet JM, Bovarnick ME. 1986. Employee relations

for multinational companies in China. Columbia

Journal of World Business 21(1): 21–26.

Zemke R. 1988. Scandinavian management—a look

at our future. Management Review 77(7):

44–47.

Zhang D, Kuroda K. 1989. Beware of Japanese

negotiation style: how to negotiate with Japanese

companies. Northwestern Journal of Law and

Business 10(Fall): 195–212.


DOI: 10.1002/pa


cultural theory in use

Documents