A critical analysis of intercultural
communication research in
cross-cultural management
Introducing newer developments in
anthropology
Toke Bjerregaard, Jakob Lauring and Anders Klitmøller
Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – Functionalist models of intercultural interaction have serious limitations relying on static
and decontextualized culture views. This paper sets out to outline newer developments in
anthropological theory in order to provide inspirations to a more dynamic and contextual approach for
understanding intercultural communication research in cross-cultural management (CCM).
Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyzes the established approaches to the cultural
underpinnings of intercultural communication in CCM and examines how newer developments in
anthropology may contribute to this research.
Findings – The standard frameworks for classifying cultures in CCM are based on a view of culture
as static, formal mental codes and values abstracted from the context of valuation. However, this view,
underwriting the dominating research stream, has been abandoned in the discipline of anthropology
from which it originated. This theory gap between intercultural communication research in CCM and
anthropology tends to exclude from CCM an understanding of how the context of social, organizational
and power relationships shapes the role of culture in communication.
Practical implications – The paper proposes to substitute the view of culture as comprising of
abstract values and codes as determinants of communication with concepts of culture as dynamically
enfolded in practice and socially situated in specific contexts, in order to give new directions to theories
on intercultural communication in CCM.
Originality/value – Scant research has compared intercultural communication research in CCM
with new anthropological developments. New insights from anthropology are analyzed in order to
open up analytical space in CCM.
Keywords Social anthropology, Culture, Language, Cross-cultural management, International business
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Jack et al. (2008) recently argued that cross-cultural management (CCM) is still
entrenched in a functionalist or positivist paradigm with little reflection of the
consequences. This has also been noted by a number of other researchers during recent
years (Adler, 1983; Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991; Redding, 1994; Sullivan, 1998;
Westwood, 2001, 2004; Whitley, 1991a, 1999). Despite arguments for more
interdisciplinary research, functionalist and positivist sociological and psychological
thinking still dominates the field (Dunning, 1989; Jack et al., 2008).
The theoretical understanding of culture that underlies these perspectives is based
on a conception of culture as something self-contained and stable that can be identified
and generalized (Jack et al., 2008). Shenkar (2001) thus describes how the much-used
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1742-2043.htm
A critical
analysis of CCM
207
critical perspectives on international
business
Vol. 5 No. 3, 2009
pp. 207-228
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1742-2043
DOI 10.1108/17422040910974695

idea of cultural distance conceals the different roles of the home and host environments
and confuses firm and environment as presumably interchangeable (Shenkar et al.,
2008). While the introduction of the cultural distance metaphor has popularized culture
as a research variable, it has forced the phenomenon into a methodological and
theoretical stagnation that has been counterproductive for the understanding of the
concept of culture in CCM. Researchers have come to assume that national cultural
identity remains separate and distinct throughout the process of interaction
(Boyacigiller et al., 2004) and thus, conceptualized national cultures as discrete
entities, portraying a “billiard ball” view of nations (Wolf, 1982). This is problematic
because culture, when described in functionalist terms, tends to become a static and
decontextualized concept of little use in analyzing actual intercultural encounters
(Søderberg and Holden, 2002; Vaara et al., 2003).
Hence, the functionalist perspective has led to an unproductive understanding of
culture and acculturation where potential for disagreement, antagonism, power
relations and conflict are never dealt with, where social and political overtones are
squelched, and where sensitivities relating to hierarchical positioning and power
differentials across partisan interests are habitually overlooked (Shenkar et al., 2008,
Jack and Westwood, 2006; Lauring, 2008). This development is bound to harm the
academic outlook – especially in a field such as CCM where a dynamic and complex
environmental mosaic necessitates multiple disciplinary lenses (Roberts and
Boyacigiller, 1984; Shenkar et al., 2008; Søderberg and Holden, 2002).
One area within CCM where a static view on culture detached from context is
particularly damaging is intercultural communication. As an interaction process,
communication yields changes among the participants and thus alters their perception
during the encounter (Yoshikawa, 1987). Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson (2003) thus
argue that the dimension of culture and social behaviour that seems to have received
the least attention in the disciplines mentioned so far is power. However, this is
relevant to understand in order to account for how and why individuals choose to
communicate the way they do when interacting with other nationalities or other speech
communities (Silverstein, 1998; Lauring, 2007).
The simplified views of culture in CCM are based on determinist notions of culture,
which dominated American cultural anthropology until the 1950s. More recent
developments in anthropology, however, present a view on culture that is much
different from this (Kapferer, 1988; Friedman, 2002, 1999; Sahlins, 1999; Hannerz, 1992;
Ortner, 2006). However, such ideas are denied access to the scene of CCM by the narrow
but still dominating functionalist and neo-positivist approaches (Jack and Westwood,
2006; Dahle´n, 1997). Jack et al. (2008) thus argue that, while anthropology is frequently
mentioned and cited in mainstream cross-cultural and international management,
business research has failed to acknowledge more recent developments within the
anthropological field from which it once derived its underlying theoretical
assumptions.
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the weaknesses of the functionalist
perspective on intercultural communication research in CCM and to enrich the field
with newer insights from anthropology, thereby providing new directions to theory
development. We suggest a theoretical shift from a culture-as-code to a
culture-in-context view in intercultural communication studies. We thus draw
inspiration from the practice turn in the anthropological and sociological literature
CPOIB
5,3
208