Cross-cultural management research is done in both the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Calls are repeatedly made to consider this diversity, thus asking for more multiparadigm research, which is both challenging and methodologically vague. This article proposes a clear method for a bi-paradigm study leading to theory development. Multiparadigm studies present challenges that are first explained and then addressed with the strategy of interplay. The authors assert that interplay is a paradigmatic conversation that respects and builds upon the connections and differences between paradigm's components used by Kuhn to stress continuity and change during scientific revolutions. With the Kulturstandard method, the authors illustrate the feasibility of interplay between the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Interplay is reached by first conducting analyses in their respective paradigms. Then, in light of each other, they reveal mutually enriching themes that lead to a shift of attention toward a venue of interplay. This venue is then explored to investigate its respectful consideration of the paradigms and how it contributes to theory. The authors conclude by underscoring the methodological contributions of this article to multiparadigm research.

This article contributes to critical diversity management studies by exploring how human resources professionals do not see that the diversity measures they initiate can contribute to the reproduction of inequalities. We argue that framing such practices as benevolent obscures the fact that they are discriminatory acts. Drawing on the concept of benevolent discrimination, we conceptualise it along three dimensions: (1) a well-intended effort to address discrimination within (2) a social relationship that constructs the others as inferior and in need of help, which is granted with (3) the expectation that they will accommodate into the existing hierarchical order. Benevolent discrimination is a subtle and structural form of discrimination that is difficult to see for those performing it, because it frames their action as positive, in solidarity with the (inferior) other who is helped, and within a hierarchical order that is taken for granted. We develop the concept of benevolent discrimination building on an in-depth qualitative case study of a Swedish organisation that is believed to be exemplary in its engagement in diversity management initiatives. The organisation is however swayed by an inequality regime based on the intersection of class and ethnicity. We argue that it is precisely because human resources professionals frame their actions as acts of benevolence that they cannot see how they take part in organisational discrimination.

Cross-cultural management research is often confined to the positivist tradition, which is archetypically illustrated by the seminal work of Hofstede. However, this gives an incomplete overview of the field to which three additional research paradigms contribute: interpretivist, postmodern, and critical. Our ambition is to raise awareness of the presence of multiple paradigms in cross-cultural management research. This meta-theoretical positioning allows researchers to consider the insights and contributions from the different paradigms. We aim to achieve this by presenting a brief overview of the state of the field in each paradigm, thus, stressing areas of studies that enrich our understanding of the interaction between culture and management (at the national, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels). We then highlight the specific contributions of these four paradigms, drawing especially upon the postmodern and critical works, as they have been repeatedly overlooked in reviews. The article concludes by mentioning how more interactions between the paradigms can be developed and can lead to further knowledge development.

Ethicalisation processes that partake in the construction of a firm or a professional group's ethical identity are often described as a relatively linear combination of several components, such as policies (starting with the development of a code of ethics), corporate practices, and leadership. Our study of a professional community dealing with the topics related to cultural diversity indicates a more reciprocal relationship between ethical identity and ethicalisation processes. We argue that a tangible form of ethical identity can pre-date the ethicalisation process of a professional group, and additionally, can impact this process at the start. We highlight that, despite the absence of official ethical statements in the community, a form of ethical professional identity is already present among the interculturalists of the international organisation Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research. Using critical discourse analysis, we identify the proclaimed humanist ethos in the discourses that interculturalists co-produce and diffuse during conferences, on on-line discussion forums, and in the mission of their professional organisations. This study contributes to the literature on ethical identity development by showing how a pre-existing form of ethical identity can influence the early stage of the development of a code of ethics. In addition, we indicate that, similar to organisational identity construction, ethical identity construction uses self-other identity talks, thus, defining an ethical other (or less ethical other) in its development.

Critical perspectives on cross-cultural management (CCM) are increasingly present in our research community; however, they are spread over multiple research fields (e.g., international business, International Human Resource Management (IHRM), diversity, and gender and/or race studies). Critical researchers tend to have agendas and foci that address topics others consider beyond CCM's scope, such as gender in intercultural training, religion in the multi-cultural workplace, or the relationship between CCM knowledge and the military. We intend to sketch here the contours of this stream of research we call critical CCM and to clarify the broadly shared research studies' agenda. By using Burrell and Morgan (1979) matrix and stressing critical studies' inspirations in two paradigms, radical structuralism and radical humanism, we propose a paradigmatic positioning of the studies. Subsequently, we articulate Critical CCM research agenda around denaturalization, reflexivity, and emancipation. We conclude by asserting a critical performative agenda in a dialog with practitioners. In brief, our ambition is to specifically outline Critical CCM research and show its emergent contribution to CCM research.

Cross-cultural management research made an international breakthrough from a macro-comparative perspective with the seminal work of Hofstede. The main purpose of early research in this field was to put forward the idea that culture had an influence on organizations, business and management. Yet, by now, the awareness that culture and cultural differences play their role has become a part of the organizational and managerial body of knowledge. Hence, the current question to be investigated is how exactly cultureor the perception of cultural differencesbecomes important and meaningful in complex and often paradoxical situations. This question is based on the understanding that the cultural context of every given situation, interaction or organization might be characterized by multiple elements, dormant or salient cultural identities, complex and fluid processes of meaning making and more. This special issue contributes to this new development in the field of cross-cultural management. Many scholars have asked that other factors than national culture be considered (Holden et al., 2015; Sackmann, 1997; Tsui et al., 2007), giving the impression of a search for the exhaustive list of variables influencing international and intercultural interactions. In contrast to the latter, we do not see context as an accumulation of different factors but rather as intertwined dynamic complexities, of which power is an important factor. It means that, rather than the search for even more influencing factors, it is the investigation of how these factors are interconnected and how power relationships take part in this combination that becomes of interest. In other words, we wish to stress the point that power manifests itself in multiple, context-specific ways which need to be investigated critically.

No abstract

No abstract