Managing cross-cultural encounters

Organizational Dynamics (2014) 43, 138—145

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn

Managing cross-cultural encounters: Putting things in context Luciara Nardon, Richard M. Steers

‘‘When in Rome, do as the Romans,’’ so says the centuries-old advice to foreign travelers. Understand the culture and mimic it to the extent possible, so you fit in and are accepted. Nothing strange; nothing unusual. Blend in and succeed. The problem with this advice–—and there are many similar examples of equally misleading recommendations–—is that it is based on four incorrect assumptions: first, that all Romans (or whoever) are alike; second, that people from different cultures will behave as we expect them to in cross-cultural situations; third, that it is necessary to act like everyone else in order to get along; and fourth, that it is possible for people to mimic local behaviors without losing their authenticity and hence their effectiveness. Surely a manager’s global environment is far more complex than simply understanding cultural differences and responding accordingly. In this paper, we explore the interrelationship between culture, context, and managerial behavior, and draw some potential lessons for managers facing the multiple challenges of working across cultures.

BEYOND CULTURE: CONTEXT MATTERS Our basic argument here is simple: Understanding cultural differences only takes us so far in navigating cross-cultural interactions, because each situation is unique. While culture itself obviously matters, it can matter in different ways across different situations. Thus, while understanding how business is conducted in Saudi Arabia, for example, may be interesting, it provides us with little guidance when trying to negotiate a contract with a Saudi manager working for a French company in Brazil. And learning about French and Brazilian cultures, again while useful, still leaves us short in understanding what to do in the current situation. This example may seem a bit extreme, but it illustrates several challenges that are commonplace in cross-cultural encounters:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2014.03.008 0090-2616/# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 There is often more than one culture involved in an interaction, and it is not always clear how each one plays out or is dominant in a particular situation. In our illustration, is it the Saudi cultural background of the individual, the company culture perhaps influenced by the French business culture, or the local Brazilian culture where the interaction takes place that determines appropriate–—and inappropriate–—behaviors?  People often behave differently in cross-cultural situations than they do in intra-cultural situations. Think about it: While you are trying to figure out how to deal with your Saudi counterpart and adjusting your behavior as best as you can, what do you think your counterpart is doing? The same thing.  Cultures are fragmented, and even within a particular cultural environment different behaviors are observed in different subgroups. In order for cultural information to be useful, it is often important to be specific as to which subgroup we are dealing with. Consider the following example: Korean-based automobile company Kia Motors has two principal facilities in the U.S.: a manufacturing plant in Georgia and a sales and marketing operation based in Southern California. We might expect that the biggest challenge for Kia headquarters in Seoul is to understand American culture so its expatriate managers can succeed in their overseas assignments. But this is only part of the challenge. In interviews with employees at both locations, we found that subtle, and not so subtle, differences emerged in the two groups of American employees. The catch phrase that was repeatedly heard among employees in the American South was ‘‘family, church, and company–—in that order.’’ And lots of high school and college football. Yes, the company is important, but perhaps less so than church and family. Such comments were never mentioned in interviews in the West. Instead, we heard repeated comments about cars,

Managing cross-cultural encounters restaurants, travel, and working around the clock to help Kia succeed. No mention was made of religion and little said about family. What does this mean for Korean managers sent to work in the U.S.? It means that, while there may be some cultural underpinnings that are common to these two U.S. locations, the situations or contexts surrounding them are somewhat dissimilar, often requiring different ways of viewing and managing local employees–—in the same country. And Kia is not alone. Companies from Microsoft and IBM to Siemens and Volkswagen report having similar problems. Our argument in this paper is that managers are more likely to succeed to the extent that they are able to focus on the specifics of each situation surrounding a cross-cultural encounter. They cannot simply look for macro level cultural variables (e.g. power distance, gender role orientation, etc.) because the impact of culture on behavior does not happen in a vacuum. It occurs within a context made up of an organizational reality with specific actors involved. As noted sociologist Ann Swidler observes, ‘‘The debate over whether or how much culture influences action obscures a crucial insight: that culture’s influences vary by context . . . yet there is remarkably little analysis of the contexts in which culture is brought to bear on action.’’ For many managers, context, not culture, represents their biggest challenge in succeeding in global transactions.

UNDERSTANDING CONTEXT The context of the global manager is multidimensional and often involves multiple countries with different political, economic and cultural systems, as well as multiple organizations with different goals, strategies, and organizational cultures. Moreover, any particular interaction–—such as a team meeting or negotiation–—plays out in a very specific situational context; that is, in one locale, with a specific set of players, and around a specific set of issues. In the case of Kia Motors in the U.S., operations are influenced by two national cultures (South Korea and the U.S.), two diverse regional cultures in the U.S. (the American Exhibit 1

139 West and South), Kia’s strong performance-oriented organizational culture and management policies, and multiple situational contexts. For instance, South Korean managers working in the U.S. may have significantly different challenges when dealing with corporate finance, marketing or service, parts suppliers or auto dealerships across the country. These differences can include the amount of face-to-face time required for successful interactions, certification requirements for different functional areas, educational levels, and so forth. And of course, the individuals themselves, with their roles, competencies, and personal characteristics, also make each encounter unique. As illustrated in Exhibit 1, at least three sets of contextual factors can be identified that moderate global encounters:  Cultural and institutional context. The cultural and institutional context incorporates much of the macro environment in which the organization operates. On some occasions, the institutional environment is a country, but some regional, industrial or professional characteristics may operate across countries (e.g. European Union regulations or product standards) or be specific to regions within one country (e.g. languages and cultural norms governing business practices in Wallonia, Flanders or Brussels can vary significantly, even though they are all part of Belgium).  Organizational context. The organizational context provides managers with a set of rules, policies, procedures and norms of behavior to guide action in the form of standard operational procedures and organizational cultural norms. Organizational culture may either replicate or reject national cultural values and norms, creating a microenvironment in which national norms are reinforced or do not apply. For example, even though punctuality may not be the norm in a particular cultural environment (e.g., Mexico or Brazil), an organization in that country may reject this cultural norm and enforce punctuality in its activities for very sound reasons (e.g., maintaining global flight schedules at AeroMexico or TAM). Indeed, many

The context of cross-cultural encounters at Kia Motors’ U.S. operations.

140

L. Nardon, R.M. Steers

global organizations deal with the challenges posed by multiple national cultures by creating clear behavioral guidelines across the organization.  Situational context. Finally, the situational context in which a manager finds him or herself is also influenced by the very circumstances in which a specific interaction is taking place. This includes one’s structural position where a manager is located within an organization (e.g. finance or marketing, top manager or rank and file employee); physical setting, including the geographic location, the layout of equipment and furniture, and nature of available cultural artifacts where the interaction takes place (e.g. in the factory floor, the board room, or a local pub); and socio-dynamics, or the nature of interaction between individuals involved, including individual characteristics and specific processes of interaction (e.g. in person or virtually, with or without interpreters).

WHY CONTEXT MATTERS: ATTENTION, INTERPRETATION, ACTION Understanding context is important for three reasons: First, it focuses individuals’ attention toward some things and away from others. Second, it provides a system of meaning to interpret what is going on. Third, it limits the availability of behavioral options, thus influencing action (see Exhibit 2). These influence patterns are also cyclical in nature. That is, while structural-institutional, organizational, and situational factors can influence what people see and do, the resulting actions in turn influence the contexts in which people find themselves. We explain each in detail below. Exhibit 2

Context, cognition, and action: a model.

Context Influences Attention Research suggests that the focus of attention by individuals is triggered by characteristics of the situation. In fact, situational differences may be even more important than individual characteristics in influencing behavior. There are two main reasons for this. First, characteristics of the situation make some issues more salient than others. For example, a meeting at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California, is more likely to focus the attention of participants on company needs and goals (e.g., product design, corporate finance, marketing), while a meeting at Apple’s manufacturing subcontractor Foxconn in Shenzhen, China, is more likely to focus attention on local issues (e.g., manufacturing problems, labor issues). Second, when people notice a trend in the behavior of others they tend to unconsciously adjust their behavior to fit the situation. Thus, if our boss dresses formally or, conversely, informally, we are likely to follow his or her lead. What this means is that the particular situation of a crosscultural interaction, including the specific location where the interaction takes place, the characteristics of the organizations and individuals involved, and which artifacts are salient all work to guide the attention of managers toward some aspects of the situation and away from others. Such factors guide behaviors in ways that may not be explained by cultural variables alone.

Context Influences Interpretation The context where an encounter takes place also provides individuals with a system of meaning with which to interpret

Managing cross-cultural encounters information and behaviors. People don’t make sense of behaviors in a vacuum; instead, they put them in context to decide or estimate what they mean. For example, regardless of her cultural background, a woman’s decision of wearing a headscarf for a meeting will be interpreted differently if she is located in Saudi Arabia, where headscarves are mandatory, France, where headscarves are banned in some places, or Canada, where wearing headscarves is an individual choice. In addition, within a particular cultural environment, different situations may call for different interpretations. Who is doing what and where are important questions before deciding if a behavior is appropriate or inappropriate, and what it means. While an off-the-cuff remark like criticizing company policies may be interpreted as authentic or creative in an off-site environment like a bar or restaurant, it may be interpreted as unprofessional (or even career limiting) in the workplace.

Context Influences Action Finally, characteristics of a particular context can influence the availability and attractiveness of behavioral options. For instance, the degree to which non-compliance to rules and norms is tolerated, as well as the consequences of noncompliance, expands or restricts the options of managers operating in that locale. These constraints may be part of the legal and cultural framework of the nation where business takes place, part of the organization’s formal and informal norms, or part of the specific situation of the manager. Regardless of their origin, consequences often result. Consider: While many Japanese managers tend to be very guarded about their personal views in the office, during enkais–—office parties with copious amounts of alcohol–— blowing off steam and exchanging blunt complaints or sharing personal information are commonplace. In other words, the behavioral options available at an enkai are different from the ones available in the office–—again with differing potential consequences. In summary, multiple layers and characteristics of context influence what managers’ notice and how they act. While we discussed each layer of context separately and independently, different layers and aspects of context co-exist and interact in the reality of management. At different points in time, different aspects of context will be more or less dominant in influencing a managers’ behavior.

RETHINKING CROSS-CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS We tend to think of foreign contexts and cultures as objective, material and separate from us, relatively independent of individual managers or organizations. It is assumed that the ‘‘external other’’ is static and accessible to be discovered and understood. In other words, we assume that our presence in the foreign environment is inconsequential, and that the behaviors we observe are the same they would be if we were not there. In reality, the context of global work is neither objective nor static, but rather dynamic, changing, and ambiguous, simultaneously shaping and being shaped by the actions of the global manager and other key players. As the global

141 manager enters a foreign context, the context is no longer the same. His or her relationship with individuals and organizations in the foreign context shape and reconstruct the context. As such, global managers may play an active role in shaping the context around them, through interactions with other actors, influencing interpretation, and shaping understandings, as we discuss later. In this regard, we view the global manager as a sensemaker, someone actively engaged in assigning meaning to actions and events that are otherwise ambiguous. It is our position that a key to a global manager’s success is his or her ability to manage the information processing of multiple actors through increased awareness of how actions are attended and interpreted and of actors’ power to shape context. What does this mean for managers? We suggest that, despite widespread recognition of the complexities associated with the multiple contexts surrounding many global managers, the context of global management has frequently been interpreted almost solely in terms of differences in national cultures as they affect attitudes and behaviors. We suggest further that a more complex, yet necessary, view of on-the-job behaviors is required that incorporates interactions between cognitive processes and three layers of context: cultural-institutional, organizational and situational. In addition, the context of global management is not static or independent of the manager, but rather is shaped by the manager and his or her interactions with others. As people interact, new understandings are created that reinforce or modify how each party to an exchange interprets the situation. For example, when an American manager arrives in a foreign location, local employees may expect stereotypical American behavior but change their expectations when the manager announces fluently in the local language that he or she has lived in the foreign country for several years in the past. To the extent that this reasoning is correct, it is important for managers to rethink several traditional assumptions about managing across cultures: 1. Rethink the prescription that global managers should necessarily adapt to the host environment. Conventional wisdom implies that the key to a successful international global assignment or interaction is the ability of a manager to adapt to the foreign culture. However, a recognition of the existence of multiple layers of context in shaping perceptions of reality suggests, as noted above, that the maxim ‘‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’’ obscures significant complexity and ambiguity. Consider the real-life example of an Anglo-American expatriate working for a U.S. company with South Korean business ties. The expatriate had a degree in East Asian studies, was fluent in Korean and was passionate about Korean culture. When his employer needed an executive assistant to be located in Seoul to help managing the dayto-day administration of its joint venture, he seemed like the perfect choice. He was easily able to mix with the local population and quickly embraced many of the characteristics of a typical Korean executive, including listening to subordinate’s personal problems and keeping close ties with many of the men in the organization. However, his Anglo-American

142 superior did not appreciate his adaptation and assimilation into the local culture and soon started perceiving him as an adversary. The expat’s assignment was deemed a failure and he was told to return to headquarters. Instead, he decided to take a position with a local Korean competitor. This expat’s behavior is in line with typical advice provided to international managers: He learned the local language, immersed himself in the local environment, and adapted his behavior to fit local expectations. He clearly had high levels of cultural adaptability. Yet, his assignment failed. An analysis of the multiple contexts of the assignment, including the organizations involved, the structural position he occupied, the key players, the socio-dynamic context of their interactions, and the goals and tasks of the assignment would reveal significant more complexity and demonstrate that ‘‘adaptability’’ is not sufficient to succeed abroad. 2. Rethink the role of cultural differences in global management. Researchers have recognized that some foreign contexts may present special challenges and barriers to global managers. One way to look at this is through the concept of cultural distance. Cultural distance represents the degree to which two cultures are either similar or different. It is thought that the degree of cultural distance between the home and host country is an important determinant of the difficulties of the assignment. The main assumption here is that the more culturally distant or different a host culture is from the individual’s home culture, the more difficult it is for him or her to adjust to the new environment. Consider the different circumstances of a Chinese expatriate in Britain and a British expatriate in China. The British manager may be pleased with his or her lifestyle in China, where Western comfort is available and affordable with good expatriate pay and career prospects, given the business opportunities in China. On the other hand, the Chinese executive may see his or her assignment more negatively. Chinese expatriates typically do not enjoy the same pay and perks as their Western counterparts, and often need to give up some home comforts such as housemaids. In addition, considering the importance of building relationships for career advancements in China, several years away from home base can seriously erode a manager’s career prospects. As this example illustrates, while cultural and country differences between home and host culture are important, these differences are not inherently good or bad, but will be interpreted differently depending on the specific context of the assignment. A broader meaning of context, including its multiple layers and its effect on information processing, opens the possibility to different understandings of the role of cultural differences. Cultural distance may, in fact, be far less important in successful interactions than having both sides understand the context in which the interactions transpire. As such, cultural adaptability alone is insufficient to predict a manager’s success abroad, since several other factors besides cultural differences come into play, including the relationship of the organization with its institutional environment, the players involved and their relationships with others, and the structural position of the manager, which in turn will

L. Nardon, R.M. Steers influence which differences between the home and host environment are most salient and how these differences are interpreted. 3. Rethink the relationship between culture and behavior. The observation that context, not just culture, is an important force in shaping action highlights the possibility of fragmentation in cultural manifestations and challenges the predictive validity of current value-based models. Recent research suggests that while cultural values can be related to job-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction and employee commitment, they are much weaker in predicting on-the-job behaviors that are more highly influenced by contextual factors. Placing context in the center of action suggests that culture influences behavior through its interaction with cues embedded in the physical and social environment. In other words, situations are not just a neutral field of activity for intentions that were conceived outside of that situation, but a key force in causing actions. As such, understanding the link between culture and behavior must account for the context of the situation in which the behavior takes place. 4. Rethink the role of global managers and the competencies required to succeed. When we recognize that context is an important force in shaping behavior and that individuals have some influence in shaping contexts, we may be able to recognize the potential role of global managers in shaping the interpretive context of their actions. That is, instead of thinking of a global manager as a superinterpreter, someone endowed with cognitive superpowers to absorb, interpret and integrate multiple sources of information, a global manager becomes a meaning maker, entrusted with the role of managing and influencing the information processing of multiple constituencies. Becoming a meaning-maker requires a rethinking of management skills required to succeed in a global, multicultural, dynamic environment. Rather than focusing on knowledge acquisition of the other culture, or cultural adaptability, it may be more fruitful to investigate how managers may gain increased awareness of how actions are attended and interpreted by others, not just those in the host culture, as well as identify some more practical skills that may aid managers in a dynamic global context, such as framing communications, identifying and influencing aspects of context, and quickly learning about individual players and their cognitive processes.

STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING CROSSCULTURAL ENCOUNTERS While a focus on contextual influences on behavior may challenge many of our current assumptions about global managers, it also opens the possibility for identifying new strategies for working across cultures. If the context in which managers are embedded is a key influence on their thinking, and if we accept that this context is malleable and constantly changing based on interactions between players, it follows

Managing cross-cultural encounters that managers may be more purposeful in manipulating and changing contexts. Just as the context of an interaction influences what a manager notices, the manager may play an active role in shaping the context around him or her, through interactions with other actors, influencing interpretation and actions. It is our position that a key to a global manager’s success is his or her ability to manage the information processing of multiple actors through increased awareness of how actions are attended and interpreted and of actors’ power to shape context. We propose that managers have the potential to influence others’ cognitions and actions in two ways: by altering the objective context of the interaction and by influencing others’ perceptions of the context, as illustrated in Exhibit 3 and explained below.

Managing objective contexts Managers’ actions have the potential to alter the situational, organizational and institutional context of management. Depending on the individual’s rank and position, his or her impact on different layers of context will vary. While some managers may create significant cultural changes at the macro level, most managers’ influence is limited to the organizational and situational context. At the organizational level, managers influence focus of attention through modifications in the physical arrangements (e.g. instituting an open office format), introduction or elimination of artifacts and symbols, issuing of formal documents and communications, introduction or elimination of initiatives, procedures, goals and tasks, measurement and control systems, and modifications of the organizational structure. For example, the decision to create multicultural teams in organizations such as PepsiCo, Yum Brands, Mary Kay and others is likely to focus attention of many individuals on cross-cultural issues. Even small and localized activities may have organization-wide implications. For example, at one of the author’s university, a committee dealing with health issues posted signs by the elevator calling attention to the health and environmental benefits of taking the stairs, Exhibit 3

143 making walking a more salient alternative than it previously was. Simple actions such as the placement of symbols and messages may focus individuals within an organization on issues that are not salient in the institutional and cultural environment. On a smaller scale, managers often have the discretion to select the meeting venue, to select or modify the physical arrangement of the space (e.g. moving a chair to sit side by side rather than across the table), and even select the players and actors involved in a particular interaction. For example, managers may choose to have a particular challenging discussion at an off-site location, where work norms may be relaxed and individuals may be more prone to speak openly. Likewise, when a manager proposes a discussion around communication rules within the team, such action can focus a team’s attention on communication styles and differences. At a minimum, awareness of how contextual forces shape basic communication processes may prepare the managers for possible challenges and suggest different strategies. Managers may also influence action through the establishment and enforcement of rules and procedures. For example, managers may implement a very clear procedure on how to deal with customers worldwide, favoring some actions over others and perhaps overruling local cultural norms. Managers may also provide individuals with some basic rules of interaction, clearly stating expectations about punctuality, formality, or communication style.

Managing perceived contexts Managers may guide the attention and interpretation of other actors involved in the situation by drawing attention to particular aspects of the overall experience, transforming what may be a complex and ambiguous field of activity into something discrete and imbued with meaning. Managers may use communication mechanisms to structure attention and evoke patterns of meaning that give them control over the situation being managed. For example, managers may symbolically manipulate how the situational context is perceived by calling attention to features of the context that are

Managers’ ability to influence context.

Cognitive activity

Managers’ influence on objective context

Managers’ influence on perceived context

Attention

Manipulate the salience of symbols or aspects of the situation to call attention to issues or solutions. Example: Have a meeting at the factory floor to highlight operational versus strategic issues. Manipulate the environment to provide a system of meaning. Example: Use symbolism to evoke desired interpretations (e.g. public recognition of exceptional customer service).

Draw attention of other actors to aspects of the overall experience. Example: Highlighting in communication certain aspects of a situation at the expense of others (e.g. calling attention to the multicultural nature of a team). Provide interpretations or re-interpretations of symbols and experiences. Example: Explicitly proving an interpretation of ambiguous stimuli (e.g. suggesting that the absence of titles is a symbol of a performance based organization). Explicitly suggesting a preferred action alternative. Example: requesting to be called by the first name.

Interpretation

Selection of behavioral options

Establish rules and procedures that restrict alternatives of action. Example: Have a clear procedure on how to deal customer complaints.

144 important, such as the presence of representatives from multiple countries or the multicultural nature of the team, deflecting attention from any local cultural norms. Following this principle, success across borders depends not only on how adaptable a manager is, but also upon the extent to which others embrace the manager’s definition of the situation. In other words, success across borders is dependent upon the degree of symbolic power, or the power to define the situation, enjoyed by a global manager. When managers are cognizant of their symbolic power — or lack thereof - they may engage in purposeful activities to influence meaning creation or to attain additional symbolic power. Symbolic power is achieved by gaining legitimacy from others who value the practices of the manager. Managers may engage in impression management to shape their own practices or the meaning attributed to their practices, so that they are valued by others. In a cross-cultural situation, this may be explaining behaviors that usually do not require explanation and imbuing them with meaning. For example, a manager who tends to speak informally and disregard titles may explain that the behavior is meant to demonstrate that individuals are not valued based on their position, but rather their contributions. In other words, this perspective suggests that managers may move away from a preoccupation with ‘‘mimicking behaviors’’ of the foreign culture to a focus on ‘‘explaining and framing behaviors’’ so they are imbued with appropriate meanings.

Managing through improvisation Despite a manager’s best efforts, there are times when managing objective and perceived contexts are not possible–—or even desirable. In these situations, managers have a third option: improvise. The recognition that cultural influences on behavior are mediated by the contextual characteristics of the situation and that context is highly dynamic and variable, suggests that each cross-cultural interaction is unique. As a consequence, managers must become first and foremost quick learners, learning about and negotiating each interaction as it evolves. We call this learning on the fly. While managers may have ideas about how to manipulate the context of the situation and the cognition of the players involved, these manipulations may not work in a specific situation. For example, a manager may decide to take a foreign partner to a relaxed lunch discussion at a restaurant and discover in the course of the interaction that his partner is observing Ramadan. Managers may compensate for a lack of a priori knowledge about a specific interaction by developing and drawing on their learning skills. An effective crosscultural interaction is the result of successful interdependent learning, through which two or more parties negotiate ways of working together. Learning on the fly implies self-analysis and knowledge, and a focus on understanding the focal situation and the manager’s role in shaping and enacting that situation.

L. Nardon, R.M. Steers

CONCLUSION As the examples in this paper suggest, succeeding in crosscultural encounters requires more than knowledge of other cultures for three reasons: There is often more than one culture involved and it is not clear how each one plays out; people behave differently when they interact with others from different cultures than they do in their own culture; and culture is in itself fragmented and allows for a variety of behaviors. In this paper, we have proposed that an understanding of the context of a cross-cultural encounter may be beneficial. Context is a multilayered construct including institutional, organizational and situational layers and influences what individuals notice, how they interpret information, and how they behave. Further, we have argued that the context of global management is malleable and changes as a product of the intended or unintended actions of multiple actors. Focusing on the role of context in global management challenges some important presumed assumptions of the field and suggests alternative strategies for working across borders. From a conceptual point of view, a contextual perspective of cross-cultural interactions challenges the notion that adaptation to the host culture is a key determinant of success and suggests that managing multiple demands and expectations of players in various contexts is equally or more important. It also challenges the notion that higher levels of cultural difference equal more challenges, and suggests that such differences receive diverse interpretations based on the specific context of the manager. Finally, this perspective raises interesting questions about the role of global managers and the competencies required to succeed. Rather than focusing on training managers to acquire more knowledge about more cultures, we may do better by focusing instead on increasing awareness of how actions are attended and interpreted and how managers may influence such interpretations. From a practical point of view, we propose that the key to succeeding across borders is to acquire awareness of the relevance of context and purposefully manage the cognitions of multiple actors, acting as a meaning maker rather than an information processer. We further suggest that managers must become more aware and proficient in managing contextual variables, influencing interpretations and quickly learning how to interact with multiple players from different cultures and contexts. So the lesson for global managers is not to ‘‘do as the Romans,’’ but rather it is to seek greater understanding of the demands, constraints, and opportunities that characterize each unique situation and adapt accordingly.

Managing cross-cultural encounters

145

Selected bibliography This article expands on previous research on situational contexts and cross-cultural interactions reported in Richard M. Steers, Luciara Nardon, and Carlos Sanchez-Runde Management Across Cultures: Developing Global Competencies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). This book examines cultural, organizational and situational influences on management practices, and explores managerial and multicultural skills that have been found to be effective among global managers. For more information on developing learning skills to deal with dynamic and changing cross-cultural encounters, we refer readers to our earlier article ‘‘The New Global Manager: Learning Cultures on the Fly,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2008, 37(1), 47—59. For more information on communicating across cultures, we refer readers to Luciara Nardon, Richard Steers, and Carlos Sanchez-Runde, ‘‘Seeking Common Ground: Strategies for Enhancing Multicultural Communication,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2011, 40(2), 85—95. Readers interested in learning more about how situations influence behavior should refer to Sam Sommers, Situations Matter: Understanding How Context Transforms your World (New York: Riverhead Books, 2011). For a more in depth

understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of context on behavior, we suggest the multidisciplinary edited volume of Philip Robbins and Murat Aydede, The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (Cambridge University Press, 2009). For readers interested in academic articles discussing the role of context and culture, we suggest Oded Shenkar, Yadong Luo, and Orly Yeheskel, ‘‘From ‘Distance’ to ‘Friction:’ Substituting Metaphors and Redirecting Intercultural Research,’’ Academy of Management Review, 2008, 33(4), 905—923; and Ann Swidler, ‘‘Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,’’ American Sociological Review, 1986, 51 (April) 273—286. Readers may also wish to see K. Kim and John Slocum, ‘‘Individual Differences and Expatriate Assignment Effectiveness: The Case of U.S.-based Korean Expatriates,’’ Journal of World Business, 2008, 43(1), 109—126; Lena Zander, Peter Zettinig, and Cristina Makela, ‘‘Leading Global Virtual Teams to Success,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2013, 42(3), 226— 237; Paula Caligiuri, ‘‘Developing Culturally Agile Global Business Leaders,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2013, 42(3), 175—182; and Soo Min Toh and Geoffrey Leonardelli, ‘‘Cultural Constraints on the Emergence of Women as Leaders,’’ Journal of World Business, 2012, 47, 604—611.

Luciara Nardon is an associate professor at the Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Canada. Her research explores the role of culture on management practice, with particular emphasis on identifying skills and processes required to succeed in multicultural environments, including global leadership, cross-cultural communication, international assignments, and technology mediated work. Her recent books include Managing in the Global Economy (with Richard M. Steers, Sharpe, 2006), and Managing Across Cultures (with Richard M. Steers and Carlos Sanchez-Runde, Cambridge, 2010 & 2013). She has taught graduate and undergraduate courses focusing on international management in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, and the United States. (Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, 926 Dunton Tower, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada. e-mail: [email protected]).

Richard M. Steers is professor emeritus of organization and management in the Charles Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon. His principal teaching and research interests include employee motivation, leadership, and cross-cultural management. He is a past president and fellow of the Academy of Management and senior editor of the Journal of World Business. His most recent books include Management Across Cultures: Developing Global Competencies (Cambridge University Press, 2013) and the Handbook of Culture, Organization, and Work (Cambridge University Press, 2009). He has held academic appointments in England, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, and South Korea (Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405, USA. e-mail: [email protected]).