Why is cross-cultural management scholarship blind to power relations? Investigating ethnicity, language, gender and religion in power-laden contexts

Abstract

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.

Positivist, constructivist and critical approaches to international human resource management and some future directions

“…The third wave of IHRM research includes new themes -postcolonial analysis (Boussebaa and Morgan, 2014;Mahadevan, 2015) and gender discrimination in foreign assignments (Adler, 1984(Adler, , 1987Altman and Shorthand, 2001;Janssens et al, 2006;Mayrhofer and Scullion, 2002;Metcalfe, 2006;Tung, 2004) -while the dominance of positivism is inevitable and can be identified in perhaps the most influential textbook in the field, that of Dowling et al (1999). There is a growing number of publications in cross-cultural management, which intentionally apply critical approaches (Mahadevan et al, 2020;Primecz et al, 2016;Romani et al, 2018bRomani et al, , 2020, and these studies can inspire further critical IHRM studies in the future.…”

Cross-Cultural Management Studies: State of the Field in the Four Research Paradigms*

“…The second major contribution of these paradigms is the demonstration of the role of power at play in connection to culture, either in the narrative construction of national culture differences or individual identities (Ybema and Buyn 2009;Tukiainen 2015;Moore 2016) or in the use of cross-cultural training (see Cheng 2010). Referring to culture can hide social, political, or other forms of inequalities that the individuals who are interacting are experiencing (Primecz, Mahadevan, and Romani 2016). Consequently, this contribution helps us to see our respondents' talks about cultural differences in a new light: they are not solely telling us about cultural differences; they are conjointly expressing potential power struggles that they Cultural dimension frameworks and cultural differences as narrative construction, performativity of language Hidden power structures at play in our approach to culture and cultural differences CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES frame as cultural.…”

Fringe Voices in Cross-Cultural Management Research: Silenced and Neglected?

“…This Guest Issue of International Studies of Management & Organization showcases that there are, indeed, silenced and/or neglected voices in CCM research (Primecz, Mahadevan, and Romani 2016). These voices are advanced and theorised by 13 different cross-cultural and international management scholars amid six articles.…”