Commentaries and Critical Articles CCM International Journal of

Cross Cultural
2006 Vol 6(3): 361–376 Management

Conceptual Foundations of
Cultural Management Research

Hamid Yeganeh
Laval University, Quebec, Canada

Zhan Su
Laval University, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT This article is a reflection on conceptual foundations of cultural management

research. By relying on extant literature, a few conceptual underpinnings are examined and
criticized, and some suggestions for improvement are proposed. Discussing such issues can
be useful not only for advancing future research but also for achieving a more profound
understanding of previous studies and their limitations.
KEY WORDS • cultural dimensions • culture • cross cultural research • international
management • methodology

Over the last decades organizational studies
have witnessed an increasing interest in cul-
ture. Despite this trend, cultural studies seem
to lag behind other fields of management
science. While some shortcomings encoun-
tered in cultural management research may
be categorized solely as methodological
issues, others have their origins in conceptual
and theoretical foundations on which research
hinges. The methodology of cultural research
has commonly been discussed (e.g. Bhagat
and McQuaid, 1982; Cavusgil and Das,
1997; Fischer et al., 2005; Nasif et al., 1991;
Schaffer and Riordan, 2003; Sekaran, 1983;
Tayeb, 1994, 2001; Usunier, 1998). How-
ever, it seems that despite some attempts,
conceptual issues have not received enough
attention.
This article is a study of the conceptual
foundations of cultural management research.
By relying on extant literature, a few major
conceptual underpinnings are examined and
criticized, and some suggestions for improve-
ment are provided. Discussing such issues
can be useful not only for conducting future
research but also for achieving a more pro-

Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications

www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470595806070644
362 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
found understanding of previous studies and
their limitations.
Ontological Orientations and
Research Approaches
A review of the literature reveals that much
of cultural management research is based on
a realist perspective both at ontological and
epistemological levels, and adopts a positivis-
tic approach (Aycan, 2000). Accordingly,
culture is considered as existing and real sys-
tems of beliefs and values with deterministic
relations among the constituent parts. The
goal of research is to explain culture as an
objective reality as fully as possible, and most
of the time it is supposed that there is only
one possible answer to each research ques-
tion (Arbnor and Bjerke, 1997). The posi-
tivistic approach recognizes that culture as an
objective phenomenon can be accurately
measured, observed and investigated. There-
fore, research is inclined towards so-called
objective measurement through the use of
questionnaires, surveys and mathematical
techniques. Definitions and frameworks put
forward by Hofstede (1980), Schein (1999)
and House et al. (2004) are some examples.
The proponents of positivism maintain that
operationalization and reductionism seen in
this approach are useful for simplifying and
explaining an abstract concept such as cul-
ture. Most of these studies are characterized
by rigor and internal validity and intelligible
results. Since the results are relatively con-
text-free they may be replicated for similar
cases. The predictability is in line with the
instrumentalist perspective of knowledge
creation that dominates the modern world.
Hence, the value of knowledge is equal to its
practical use. This can explain why the aim
of the researcher is to discover narrow cause-
and-effect relationships and generalizable
law-like solutions that permit the prediction
of implications of culture for organizations.
Since these studies create practical and hard
knowledge, they are more likely to receive
attention and support from both scholars and
practitioners. As a matter of fact, it is widely
accepted that studies adopting positivistic
and quantitative approaches have more
chance of being published in highly ranked
management journals, especially in the USA
(Johnson and Duberley, 2000).
Despite the popularity of the positivistic
approach, the extent to which it can be used
to examine an abstract and multi-level notion
such as culture is questionable. The positivis-
tic approach emphasizes the importance of
generalizations and universal laws, however
cultural studies based on this approach have
established few generalizations. Most impor-
tantly, the results are neither general nor
exact like those in natural sciences, and
therefore they are of limited practical utility
in the real world and in predicting organiza-
tional behavior. Since culture is a very com-
plicated concept, the researchers adopting a
positivistic/analytical approach try to choose
parsimonious models utilizing as few vari-
ables as possible, with the variables being of
an objective kind. By operationalization, they
try to reduce complex concepts such as cul-
ture to concrete indicators. Parsimonious
measures facilitate the research design, but
by trying to increase the internal validity
(whether or not what has been identified as
the cause produces the effect), they may
sacrifice the external validity (the extent to
which the research findings can be extra-
polated to other cases). Since most of these
studies are looking for supposed narrow
causal relationships, they focus only on very
limited aspects of cultural phenomena and
they neglect an in-depth understanding.
This character of the positivistic approach
renders cultural research a process of simple
hypothesis-testing rather than thoughtful
investigation (Earley and Singh, 1995). Over-
emphasis on hypothesis-testing has rendered
culture ahistorical, linguistically naïve and
psychologically unaware. In this respect,
some scholars assert that positivistic research
can be employed to produce meaningful
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 363
quantitative measures, but the nature of
culture renders its understanding through
these techniques very difficult to achieve
(Von Krogh and Roos, 1995).
In contrast to the positivistic approach,
social constructivism focuses especially on the
actors’ interpretations or constructions of
cultures. Viewing culture as a mental con-
struction implies a hermeneutic approach to
investigation rather than using standardized
etic measures. In this way, the researcher is
looking for the ‘meaning’ of cultural phe-
nomena rather than possible relationships
among constituents. Geertz (1974) maintains
that culture is essentially a semiotic concept
and its analysis should not be experimental in
search of law, but rather interpretive in
search of meaning. Therefore, interpretive
analysis of culture requires an empathic
approach in which an attempt is made to
understand culture holistically and from the
perspective of the participants, rather than
through objective analysis by surveys and
questionnaires. Geertz (1974) compares the
methods of an anthropologist analyzing cul-
ture to those of a literary critic analyzing a
text: sorting out the structures of significance
and determining their social ground and
import. For that reason, studies adopting a
constructivist approach rely mostly on quali-
tative methods and try to provide delicate,
thick, interpretive and microscopic under-
standing of cultural phenomena. These
studies are generally rich in meaning and
incorporate historical and contextual ele-
ments to offer a holistic picture.
The interpretive approach is very popular
among anthropologists and ethnographers;
however we know of only a few researchers
who have adopted this procedure in the area
of organizational sciences (e.g. Gertsen and
Søderberg, 1998; Kunda, 1992; Parker,
2000; Vaara, 2000). Brett et al. (1997) sug-
gested that an interpretative approach can be
more appropriate for cross cultural organiza-
tional research. The main challenge for these
researchers is to structure their studies and
develop appropriate strategies to collect and
analyze data. Contrary to positivistic studies,
which rely on standardized tools and tech-
niques such as questionnaires, surveys and
scales, the whole process of constructivist
research is unstructured, and qualitative
methods are used for both collecting and
analyzing the data. The researcher has to
engage in a meticulous study of the historical,
social, political, economical and institutional
systems of cultures prior to designing research
and collecting data (Aycan, 2000). This
approach requires much effort and renders
research a long and tedious enterprise. The
results of interpretive studies have been
described as ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1974), in-depth,
meaningful, historical and linguistically rich.
These studies describe details and provide
us with a comprehensive understanding of
cultural phenomena, but because of the
interpretive character of the investigation,
the findings remain subjective and context-
bound. Once removed from their original
context, the results are hardly reliable or
replicable. The lack of generalizability in this
approach weakens the value of created
knowledge and reduces the likelihood of dis-
semination.
To overcome shortcomings inherent in
every approach, we propose that the organi-
zational sciences need to take into account
not only real and explicit manifestations of
culture, but also implicit and semiotic ones
that need to be interpreted. Thus a practical
and useful view in cultural research can
imply some degree of rapprochement between
the two approaches. It is suggested that
rather than being contradictory paradigms,
the positivist and constructivist perspectives
correspond to two different epistemological
levels, and both of them can contribute to a
better understanding of culture and its
impacts on organization. At the ontological
level, a Kantian perspective implies that the
process of perception does not consist only in
passive reception of a reality independent of
us, but it is a creative process in which our
364 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
minds produce those objects (Delanty, 1997).
Therefore, cultures are not only real systems
of beliefs and values, but also products of
mental constructions. At the methodological
level, it is proposed that the two approaches
can be considered as complementary. While
constructivist studies are rich in meaning,
they are context-bound and poor in general-
izability. On the other hand, positivistic
investigations involve precision marked by
analytical relations and predictability. The
thick description of culture produced by con-
structivist/qualitative research can help us to
define variables and frame hypotheses in
quantitative research. In a similar way, preci-
sion and intelligible measures provided by
positivistic/quantitative approaches can lead
to the clarification of abstract and hard-to-
study cultural concepts.
Incorporating Culture in the
Research
While most scholars (e.g. Hampden-Turner
and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980;
Schein, 1999) see culture as central to inter-
national management, a few others view cul-
tural elements as being of less importance.
Proponents of a culture-free approach insist
on two arguments. They maintain that cul-
ture is not essentially a significant variable in
management, and that much of its alleged
importance is based more on speculation than
on facts (Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, 1970).
According to this argument, the effects of cul-
ture are erased by those of other structural,
economic and hard factors. The second argu-
ment for a culture-free perspective rests on
cultural convergence suggesting that during
the last decades the barriers between different
cultures have diminished and the world, espe-
cially the business world has become more
homogeneous (Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1985).
This homogenization trend can be observed
in areas such as rationalism, secularism,
democratization, and increasing interest in
capitalism and market-based economies.
The proponents of culture-bound man-
agement insist on the importance of culture
in organizations. Hofstede (1999) asserts that
management is about people, and therefore,
it is part of the culture of society in which it
takes place. The culture-bound management
approach rejects the convergence thesis by
maintaining that cultural values are deeply
rooted in individuals and will not converge
as a result of industrialization or economic
ideology. According to this view, cultures
differ across borders and managerial prac-
tices cannot be considered as universal and
context-free (Barkema and Vermeulen,
1997). For this group of scholars, manage-
ment should be tailored to cultural values.
The literature reveals that most researchers,
especially during last decade, adhere to a
culture-bound perspective and accept that
culture has some important implications for
organizational behaviour and management
practices (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997;
Hofstede, 1980, 1999; Sekaran, 1983).
Over the past years, this trend has gained
momentum and led to overemphasizing the
importance of culture to the detriment of
other social, economic or contextual variables.
As a matter of fact, many cross cultural
researchers simply compare some aspects of
organizational behavior and then, in the
absence of other explanations for these dif-
ferences, attribute them to culture (Tayeb,
1994). Since culture is a broad and nebulous
concept, most of time it is very difficult to dis-
tinguish between cultural and non-cultural
variables because they are closely entangled.
Even when it is possible to distinguish
between culture and non-cultural variables,
it is difficult to separate their effects. For
example, the high volume of trade between
the US and Canada can be attributed to cul-
tural similarities between the two countries;
however, this may be simply because of their
geographical and structural proximities.
Many factors that are not fully cultural and
some others that are non-cultural may have
implications for organizational behavior.
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 365
While culture can be considered as a variable
affecting some aspects of organizations, in
many cases it is problematic to incorporate it
as the only independent variable of research.
We propose that the goal of research
should be to provide large variations of inde-
pendent and dependent variables (Kerlinger,
1986). Therefore, considering culture as the
principal independent variable can be justi-
fied only if there are substantial variations in
both independent and dependent variables.
When it is not possible to separate non-
cultural and cultural factors, researchers can
incorporate both groups of variables by
defining broader measures. These broader
measures may not be completely cultural, but
they can serve researchers with more mean-
ingful findings for predicting dependent vari-
ables (effects). For example, Goodnow and
Hansz (1972) defined geocultural distance as
a broad measure referring to a number of
variables including the level of development
and political stability, and suggested that
it can be considered as a factor affecting
foreign investment. In the same vein, Johan-
son and Vahlne (1977) referred to psychic
distance as the differences in economic devel-
opment, language, level of education and
legal systems. They suggested that structural
differences and language differences should
be added to cultural differences. We suggest
that in many studies, it would be better to use
socioeconomic indices which are much more
clear-cut and reliable than so-called cultural
variables. Some examples include GDP,
GNP, population size and density, market
size, stock market characteristics, political
system, religious dominance, class structures,
or education statistics, which are widely avail-
able and relatively accurate (Baskerville,
2003; Lindridge, 2005).
Culture Conceptualization
Organizational researchers have borrowed
the concept of culture from other disciplines
of the social sciences such as anthropology/
psychology and tried to redefine it according
to their interests and research orientations.
The management literature abounds with
definitions of culture; however, most of them
are limited in scope and overlook different
facets of this vague and complex notion.
Roberts and Boyacigiller (1984) suggested
that the most fundamental problem in cul-
tural studies is the definitional issue. In fact,
the problem is not the lack of definition, but
rather the lack of an exhaustive and generally
accepted definition. This problem can be
attributed to an agreement on general scien-
tific paradigms in the field of cultural
research. According to Kuhn (1970), scien-
tific paradigms are universally recognized
scientific achievements that for a time pro-
vide model problems and solutions to a com-
munity of practitioners. This community of
practitioners is a community of scientists who
find solutions to the problems defined by the
paradigm. Those whose research is based on
shared paradigms are committed to the same
rules and standards for scientific practice
(Kuhn, 1970). Therefore, an agreement on
general paradigms may serve as the definition
and operationalization of culture in organiza-
tional studies (Ronen, 1986). The classical
work of Hofstede (1980), Culture’s Consequences,
had a considerable impact on the community
of researchers in organizational disciplines
and, for a while, served as a model. Affected
by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, many
researchers tried to define and conceptualize
culture in terms of four (or five) bipolar
dimensions to study some aspects of organi-
zational behavior. Despite its popularity,
Hofstede’s work has been subject to extensive
criticism from researchers in the area of
organizational science (McSweeney, 2002).
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ignore impor-
tant characteristics of culture such as religios-
ity, language, historicity and context. An
analysis of social science journal articles
showed that Hofstede’s model received very
little attention from other disciplines such as
anthropology and sociology, which naturally
366 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
tend to be interested in cultural research
(Baskerville, 2003). In contrast with dimen-
sionalized and narrow definitions, some
researchers take culture as a very vague and
comprehensive variable representing a wide
range of social and economic factors
(Dowling et al., 1999). This can be problem-
atic because, if culture is not clearly defined,
the study and its results will not be meaning-
ful. Disappointed by the complexity of
culture and the lack of agreement on its defi-
nitions, some researchers have suggested it is
better to abandon the concept of culture
(Kraut, 1975). Some scholars are cynical and
maintain that cross cultural research has
passed its infancy and these shortcomings
cannot be justified (Tayeb, 1994). By con-
trast, others estimate that cross cultural
management research is still in its infancy and
more advances need to be achieved (Adler,
1983; Nasif et al., 1991; Sekaran, 1983).
To overcome such definitional problems,
one suggestion is to replace the term ‘culture’
with more refined and theoretically meaning-
ful constructs that can be easily defined,
operationalized and measured. Depending
on the purposes of the investigation, especi-
ally when the effects of independent variables
are sought, researchers can narrow their
definitions of culture and use relatively
unambiguous notions. It is argued that since
culture is a vast concept, focusing on some
constructs can be very useful for achieving
meaningful results. The choice of these
notions can be based on the characteristics of
countries being investigated. Individualism,
hierarchical distance, modernity and religios-
ity are some examples of notions that can
replace the broad notion of culture (Ingle-
hart, 1997; Inglehart and Baker, 2000).
Whatever the definitions and concepts are, it
is important that researchers specify their
definitions a priori and demarcate the limita-
tions clearly.
Culture Orientations and
Culture Dimensions
Since culture is a complex notion, a practical
and popular approach among researchers is
to identify several of its major characteristics
and compare them across borders. These
characteristics are usually called culture
orientations or dimensions. While both terms
are used interchangeably, in this text we dis-
tinguish between dimensions and orienta-
tions. By dimensions we mean those cultural
traits that are bipolar and dichotomous.
For instance, the framework proposed by
Hofstede (1980) relies on four (later five) bipo-
lar dimensions with extreme points at each
end. Cultural dimensions have been exten-
sively criticized. Osland and Bird (2000)
called dimensionalization a ‘sophisticated
stereotyping’ incapable of understanding
cultural behavior. Conceptual properties
implied by dimensionalization such as exclu-
sivity, linearity, symmetry and stability are
often misleading (Jacobs, 2005). In fact, these
properties are imposed on respondents by
research questionnaires. A major criticism of
all cultural dimensions is that they rely on
Aristotelian categories that are mutually
exclusive (Hampden-Turner and Trompen-
aars, 1993). Dimensionalization implies that
cultures are static points on a dual axis and
one cultural category necessarily excludes its
opposite. Accordingly, cultural traits are
supposed to be on a straight line with two
extreme poles: individualism–collectivism,
masculinity–femininity, and so on. People are
situated somewhere between these poles; if
they are not individualistic, they are neces-
sarily collectivistic, and vice versa. However,
since cultural dimensions are produced by
aggregating statistical scores, it is very reason-
able to suppose that two opposite traits
are present in every culture but one trait is
mathematically stronger. This means that an
individualistic culture is to some extent col-
lectivistic, and vice versa. In other words, the
overall behavior of a culture is determined by
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 367
the interaction of existing opposite traits.
In contrast with dimensions, cultural ori-
entations can be considered as notions that
are not necessarily dichotomous and linear.
Models proposed by Hampden-Turner and
Trompenaars (1993) and Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (1961) represent examples of
these cultural orientations. Hampden-
Turner and Trompenaars (1993) view cul-
tures as circular and as dancing from one
preferred point to its opposite. According to
this assumption, cultural categories do not
exclude each other, but seek to manage their
opposites (Hampden-Turner and Trompen-
aars, 1993). While identifying and measuring
some dimensions/orientations across cul-
tures seems a very pragmatic approach, the
extent to which this technique can be used to
study such a multifaceted concept as culture
is limited. Culture dimensions/orientations
are essentially etic notions that have been
developed by relying on predetermined char-
acteristics and are imposed on other cultures.
Moreover, cultural dimensions/orientations
rely solely on cultural means and fail to dis-
cern the effects of intra-cultural variations
within the population (Au, 1999). Intra-
cultural variation (ICV) refers to the popula-
tion distribution of a characteristic within a
culture and it can explain much of inter-
cultural variation (Au, 1999). It is argued that
relying on cultural dimensions/orientations
can be more useful in cross cultural com-
parisons that involve numerous cultures.
However, the use of such indices is of limited
value in explaining and predicting organiza-
tional behavior at a micro/organizational
level. One suggestion to enhance the applic-
ability of cultural dimensions/orientations at
an organizational level is to use them by
making sense of the context and its history,
and by use of accompanying qualitative
approaches (Osland and Bird, 2000).
Another important issue in studying cul-
ture is the emphasis put on value or cognitive
systems (Aycan, 2000; Morris and Peng,
1994). In this regard, it is possible to view cul-
ture from two different perspectives: cogni-
tive- and value-based. The cognitive-based
view emphasizes the importance of cognition
rather than appealing to a set of values.
Cognitive systems can be defined as con-
sistent modes of thought that introduce
systematic preferences for particular kinds of
information that are used in the problem-
solving process. Accordingly, it is argued that
culture can be translated as cognitive systems
that affect behavior at individual and collec-
tive levels. Abramson et al. (1993) argued
that defining cultural differences in terms of
cognitive processes related to information
gathering and decision making would be
more useful for managers than defining
differences in values and attitudes that are
attributable to national culture. Hall’s frame-
work (1960) represents a classic model for
analyzing culture that hinges rather on cog-
nitive systems and communication process.
The high-/low-context concepts and notions
of monochronic/polychronic time and space
are narrowly related to cognitive structures
and can explain many cultural phenomena.
As a matter of fact, very few cultural typolo-
gies focus on cognitive structures (Erez and
Gati, 2004).
In contrast with the cognitive-based view,
most authors emphasize the importance of
value systems in shaping and affecting indi-
vidual/collective behavior. Hofstede (1980)
considered values as the building blocks of
culture and what he has been able to meas-
ure as a manifestation of culture. According
to Kluckhohn (1951) and Hofstede (1980),
values have both direction and intensity.
That is, if we hold a value, it implies that
there is some relevance (intensity) attached to
this value, and with respect to this value
we consider some good or bad outcomes
(direction). The cross cultural literature
provides us with different conceptual frame-
works based on value systems along which
cultures may be studied (e.g. Hampden-
Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede,
1980; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961;
368 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz
and Bilsky, 1987). In addition to intensity
and direction, the ranking and structure of
values should be taken into consideration
since they have important implications for
attitudes, and consequently for organiza-
tional behavior. Values can be ranked
because they have different relative impor-
tance; some are central to individual/collec-
tive behavior and overshadow the effects of
others. Among the typologies, Rokeach’s
framework (1973) ranks cultural values. The
model proposed by Schwartz (1992) provides
insight into the structure of value types.
According to Schwartz (1992, 1994) the
values are organized into structures that are
almost consistent and universal across cul-
tures.
Cultural Distance
The mainstream of cross cultural research is
based on describing differences and irregu-
larities across borders. By assuming that two
cultures are necessarily different, researchers
look for differences and overlook existing
commonalities (Cray and Mallory, 1998). In
that way, researchers try to build theories
explaining the effects of culture by relying
only on cultural differences. While pointing
out differences is a very useful approach,
overlooking commonalities may reduce the
capacity of research for building compre-
hensive theories. It is argued that regularities
can be as valuable as irregularities in under-
standing cultural phenomena.
An important issue that may cause con-
fusion is the way cultural differences are
conceptualized. Most of the time cultural
difference is taken as equivalent to cultural
distance and many authors use the terms
‘cultural difference’ and ‘cultural distance’
interchangeably or without considerable dis-
tinction. Only a few authors have distin-
guished between these two terms or defined
them precisely (Harzing, 2003; Shenkar,
2001). The term ‘cultural distance’ refers to
an index defined by Kogut and Singh (1988).
These authors defined national culture dis-
tance as the degree to which the cultural
norms in one country are different from
those in another. They constructed cultural
distance (CD) as a composite index based on
the deviation from each of Hofstede’s four
national culture scales: ‘power distance’,
‘uncertainty avoidance’, ‘masculinity’ and
‘individualism’. Mathematically, the CD
index is represented as following:
4
CDj = Σ {(Iij – Iiu)2 /Vi}/4
i=1
Where: CD is cultural distance, Iij is the
index for the ith cultural dimension for the
jth country, Iiu is the index for the ith cultural
dimension for the uth country, Vt is the vari-
ance for the ith cultural dimension.
Cultural distance as a quantitative meas-
ure is quite convenient to be employed in
statistical models, but it should be used and
interpreted cautiously. Viewing cultures in
terms of a few dimensions is an oversimpli-
fication of reality, but aggregating these
dimensions into one index might create even
more conceptual inaccuracies. Even if we
rely on Hofstede’s model for defining the CD
index, it should be noted that Hofstede’s
dimensions do not all affect organizational
behavior evenly. It is plausible to consider
that among Hofstede’s dimensions some are
more significant than others. In this regard,
Hofstede (1994) pointed out that power dis-
tance and uncertainty avoidance are particu-
larly relevant for organizations’ functioning.
Shenkar (2001) discussed some hidden
assumptions in cultural distance by dividing
them into two categories: conceptual and
methodological.
The methodological properties of CD are
related to some extent to instrumentation;
however, conceptual properties are at the
core of the CD construct and undermine its
very validity. Shenkar (2001) criticized the
conceptual properties of cultural distance
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 369

Table 1 Correlations among four cultural dimensions for 56 countries based on Hofstede’s
scores (1980)

PDI IND MAS UAI

PDI Pearson correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
IND Pearson correlation –.675 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 56
MAS Pearson correlation .089 .100 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .513 .466
N 56 56
UAI Pearson correlation .172 –.239 .019 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .205 .076 .887
N 56 56 56

Note: PDI = power distance; IND = individualism; MAS = masculinity; UAI = uncertainty avoidance

such as symmetry, linearity, stability and vidualism’, ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty

causality. Reflection on the conceptual prop-
erties of CD such as symmetry and linearity
reveals that these conceptual shortcomings
emanate originally from the dimensions as
defined by Hofstede (1980).
Apart from these relatively slender short-
comings, the cultural distance index is con-
ceptually and theoretically flawed and its
employment in research is open to discussion.
The main idea underlying cultural distance is
to aggregate Hofstede’s four dimensions to
arrive at a unique bipolar dimension in order
to compare cultures based on a similar–dis-
similar basis. Inherent in the notion of aggre-
gation is the assumption that all four cultural
dimensions are in the same direction and
therefore can be added to each other. The
dimensions for constructing the CD index as
defined by Kogut and Singh (1988) are:
1 individualism
2 power distance
3 uncertainty avoidance
4 masculinity.
Based on the cultural distance formula
proposed by Kogut and Singh (1988) ‘indi-
avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’ should have
positive correlations, or at least they should
not be in opposition. However, as shown in
Table 1, there is a very significant and nega-
tive correlation between ‘individualism’ and
‘power distance’. The support for the positive
correlation between ‘collectivism’ and ‘power
distance’ comes from both theory and empiri-
cal studies. There is ample empirical evidence
that shows societies that are high in power
distance tend to be more collectivistic (Hof-
stede, 1980). In other words, ‘individualism’
and ‘power distance’ represent two opposite
cultural dimensions and logically they cannot
be aggregated. It is argued that instead of
‘individualism’, Kogut and Singh (1988)
should have incorporated ‘collectivism’ in their
formula.
We argue that while the cultural distance
index is a very useful measure, it should be
hinged on sound theoretical foundations.
One suggestion for building the cultural dis-
tance index is to aggregate dimensions that
are conceivably in the same direction. For
instance, ‘collectivism’, ‘power distance’, ‘low
uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’
370 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
tend to represent undeveloped and tradi-
tional cultures and it might be more plausible
to incorporate them into a single formula to
construct the CD index.
Another useful suggestion for building a
cultural distance index is to rely on modern-
ization/post-modernization theory as put
forward by Inglehart (1997) and Inglehart
and Baker (2000). Inglehart (1997) argued
that economic development and cultural
change go together in coherent patterns
worldwide. Once a society has embarked on
industrialization and economic growth, a
whole syndrome of related cultural changes,
from mass mobilization to diminishing differ-
ences in gender roles and individualism,
might happen. While we maintain that social
and cultural changes are not linear, it might
be useful to put all the world cultures on a
continuum from traditional (agrarian) to
industrial (modern) and post-industrial (post-
modern). Further empirical research based
on the World Value Survey confirms some
general and predictable trends in cultural
changes (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005).
Difference and Discordance
The dominant perspective in cross cultural
management views cultural differences as
inherent obstacles that ultimately affect orga-
nizational performance adversely (Hennart
and Larimo, 1998; Sackmann, 1997; Søder-
berg and Holden, 2002). Rushton (1989)
posits that we are more likely to respond
positively to similarity. We are attracted to
people whom we perceive as similar, and we
keep our distance from those whom we per-
ceive as dissimilar. Based on this perspective
and by relying on transaction cost economics
theory (TCE), many cross cultural researchers
argue that difficulties, costs, conflicts, fric-
tions, communication problems and risks
increase when two different cultures come
into contact (Hoecklin, 1995; Hofstede,
1980; Kogut and Singh, 1988; Seelye and
Seelye-James, 1995). The idea that any kind
of cultural difference is necessarily subversive
to organizational performance is an over-
simplification that fails to take account of
synergetic interactions between two different
cultures. This view relies on a simple dichoto-
my supposing that cultures can be compared
only on a similar–dissimilar basis. However,
a similar–dissimilar basis for explaining
relations between two cultures is of limited
utility. That is to say, difference is not syn-
onymous with discordance. For example,
two similar cultures may have an antagonis-
tic relationship, and two dissimilar cultures
may be relatively cooperative. Therefore, it
is possible to think that not every cultural
difference is detrimental to organizational
operations. This perspective has received less
attention in the cross cultural literature; how-
ever, recently more scholars have questioned
the veracity of the assumption that differ-
ences in cultures produce an obstacle to orga-
nization functioning (Dupriez and Simons,
2000; Harris and Moran, 1979; Hoecklin,
1995; Morosini, 1998; Shenkar, 2001; Teeri-
kangas and Very 2006). Some researchers
looked at cultural differences as sources of
competitive advantage to a global firm
(Harris and Moran, 1979; Hoecklin, 1995;
Morosini, 1998; Morosini et al., 1998). From
a resource-based perspective, it is argued that
cultural diversity increases the internal
capacity of organizations to face external
uncertainty.
Cultural differences should not simply be
seen as impediments to organizational effec-
tiveness. One suggestion for theorizing cul-
tural differences is to look at the relationship
between cultures as described by Larsson
(1990). We can distinguish four possible con-
figurations for two interacting cultures:
(1) similar, (2) dissimilar but complementary,
(3) dissimilar and unrelated, and (4) conflict-
ual. Similar cultures share common values
and their interactions are supposed to be
smooth. Dissimilar but complementary cul-
tures do not share many values, but they can
offer advantages to each other that may
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 371
Similar
(1) Similar (2) Complementary
Collaboration
Figure 1 Configurations between two interacting cultures and their expected levels of
collaboration and conflict
increase their overall capability. Unrelated
cultures are basically different, do not offer
complementarities to each other and are not
in an antagonistic relation. Finally, conflict-
ual cultures are those that manifest some
degree of animosity and conflict toward each
other. Figure 1 summarizes possible configu-
rations for two interacting cultures and their
expected levels of collaboration and conflict.
In our view, this configuration can provide a
better understanding of relationships between
two organizations and their respective cul-
tures. It implies that not all cultural differ-
ences lead to conflict; some may be useful
(complementary), some may be harmful, and
others may be unrelated and neutral. This
make-up can explain the proposition of
Morosini et al. (1998) indicating that differ-
ences between two cultures can be sources of
value and synergy in inter-firm ventures.
Therefore, it is proposed that instead of
focusing on measuring cultural differences,
cross cultural researchers should try to
understand the nature of similarities and dis-
similarities.
Another important issue concerning inter-
actions between two cultures is the shape of
their relationships. As mentioned earlier, by
introducing some quantitative measures such
as cultural dimensions or the CD index, most
researchers build on the implicit assumption
that the relationship between two organiza-
tions and their cultures is necessarily sym-
metrical and linear. However, the relation-
ships between two cultures are rarely even.
Dissimilar
(3) Unrelated (4) Conflictual
Conflict
According to the Political Economy Para-
digm (PEP) one motive for a firm to partici-
pate or remain in a venture might be the
superior bargaining power resulting from its
resources and capabilities (Hersch and Style,
2001). When two culturally different organi-
zations are brought together, there will be
an interaction between them that can be
explained in terms of an acculturation
process. Acculturation is defined as a cultural
change initiated by the unification of two or
more autonomous cultural systems (Berry,
1980). The four identified modes of accul-
turation are integration, assimilation, separa-
tion, and deculturation, which are hardly
symmetrical (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh,
1988). The asymmetry is of great importance
as power relationships between the parties
may affect how cultural differences are per-
ceived. Having the upper hand in the rela-
tionship makes a culture more dominant and
less vulnerable when confronting the other
one. Therefore, it is possible to hypothesize
that the dominant culture is more likely to
impose its values on the subordinate partner.
The asymmetries may be of greater impor-
tance in the case of cross cultural ventures
between developing and developed coun-
tries. There is some empirical support for this
hypothesis. For instance, in their study of
Dutch international joint ventures, Barkema
and Vermeulen (1997) found that the effects
of cultural differences were especially signifi-
cant in the case of ventures formed in devel-
oping countries.
372 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
Conclusion
This brief article was an attempt to examine
and improve some conceptual underpinnings
of cultural management research. In the
text we moved progressively from fundamen-
tal ontological/epistemological matters to
definitional and operational considerations,
and focused on six major issues: research
approaches, incorporation of culture in the
research, culture conceptualization, orienta-
tions/dimensions, cultural distance and cul-
tural differences. First, by discussing the
shortcomings of both positivism and con-
structivism, we proposed that rather than
contradictory paradigms, these approaches
correspond to two different but comple-
mentary epistemological levels and both can
contribute to a better understanding of
culture. Therefore, we maintained that a
practical and useful view in cultural manage-
ment research can imply some degree of
rapprochement between the two approaches.
Also, by recognizing that culture is essentially
an abstraction of social and economic phe-
nomena, we highlighted the difficulty of
separating cultural and non-cultural vari-
ables and we proposed that, due to the entan-
glement of cultural and other social factors,
researchers may incorporate both groups of
variables by defining broader measures in
their investigation. It is argued that such
broad social measures can be better for pre-
dicting organizational variables. In contrast,
when researchers are concerned with under-
standing the effects of culture as an indepen-
dent variable, it would be more appropriate
to narrow the definition of culture and use
unambiguous and theoretically meaningful
constructs instead of using culture as an all-
encompassing notion.
While both terms are used interchange-
ably in the literature, we distinguished
between dimensions and orientations by
highlighting the bipolar and dichotomous
aspects of cultural dimensions as proposed by
Hofstede (1980). We pointed out that cultural
orientations can be considered as notions that
are not necessarily dichotomous and linear
(Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993;
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). By dis-
cussing inherent assumptions in cultural
dimensions/orientations, we proposed that
such techniques are very useful for presenting
a ‘big picture’ of culture at a macro level;
however, they are of limited utility in predict-
ing and even explaining organizational
behavior. Therefore, we proposed a sense-
making strategy at the micro level (Osland
and Bird, 2000).
Bearing in mind that the ‘cultural distance
index’ is a convenient and useful quantitative
measure we maintained that the formula for
CD proposed by Kogut and Singh (1988) is
conceptually and theoretically flawed. We
pointed out that in this CD formula ‘indi-
vidualism’ and ‘power distance’ are nega-
tively correlated, and since they represent two
opposite cultural dimensions they cannot be
aggregated. Instead, we proposed the use of
those dimensions in the CD index that
are conceivably in the same direction. It is
argued that ‘collectivism’, ‘power distance’,
‘low uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘mascu-
linity’ tend to represent undeveloped and
traditional cultures and it might be more
reasonable to incorporate them in a single
formula to build a CD index.
In the end, by examining the fallacy of the
dominant perspective in the literature, we
mentioned that the idea that any kind of
cultural difference is necessarily subversive to
organizational operation neglects the syner-
getic interactions between two different
cultures. We maintained that this view origi-
nates from a simple dichotomy supposing
that cultures can be compared only on a
similar–dissimilar basis. To overcome this
bias, we proposed a configuration of two
interacting cultures: similar, dissimilar–com-
plementary, dissimilar–unrelated, and con-
flictual. In our view, this configuration can
provide a better understanding of relation-
ships between two organizations and their
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 373
respective cultures since it implies that not all
cultural differences lead to conflict. Thus
we proposed that instead of focusing on
measuring cultural differences, cross cultural
researchers need to understand the nature of
similarities and dissimilarities.
References
Abramson, N.R., Lane, H.W., Nagai, H. and
Takagi, H. (1993) ‘A Comparison of
Canadian and Japanese Cognitive Styles:
Implications for Management Interaction’,
Journal of International Business Studies 24(3):
575–87.
Adler, N.J. (1983) ‘A Typology of Management
Studies Involving Culture’, Journal of
International Business Studies 14(2): 29–47.
Ajiferuke, M. and Boddewyn, J. (1970) ‘Culture
and Other Explanatory Variables in
Comparative Management Studies’, Academy
of Management Journal 13: 153–63.
Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B. (1997) Methodology for
Creating Business Knowledge, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.
Au, Kevin Y. (1999) ‘Intra-cultural Variation:
Evidence and Implications for International
Business’, Journal of International Business Studies
30(4): 799–812.
Aycan, Z. (2000) ‘Cross-cultural Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Contributions,
Past Developments and Future Directions’,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(1):
110–28.
Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) ‘What
Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of
Partners are Detrimental for International
Joint Ventures?’, Journal of International Business
Studies 28(4): 845–64.
Baskerville, R.F. (2003) ‘Hofstede Never Studied
Culture’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28:
1–14.
Berry, J.W. (1980) ‘Acculturation as Varieties of
Adaptation’, in A.M. Padilla (ed.) Acculturation
in Theory, Models and Some New Findings.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982) ‘The
Role of Subjective Culture in Organizations:
A Review and Directions for Future
Research’, Journal of Applied Psychology
Monographs 67(5): 653–85.
Brett, J.M., Tinsley, C.H., Janssens, M.,
Barsness, Z.I. and Lytle, A.L. (1997) ‘New
Approaches to the Study of Culture in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology’, in
P.C. Earley and M. Erez (eds) New Perspectives
on International/Industrial Organizational
Psychology. San Francisco: New Lexington
Press.
Cavusgil, S.T. and Das, A. (1997)
‘Methodological Issues in Empirical Cross-
cultural Research: A Survey of the
Management Literature and a Framework’,
Management International Review 37(1): 71–96.
Cray, D. and Mallory, G. (1998) Making Sense of
Managing Culture. London: Thompson
International.
Delanty, G. (1997) Social Science: Beyond
Constructivism and Realism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dowling, P.J., Welch, D.E. and Schuler, R.S.
(1999) International HRM: Managing People in a
Multinational Context, 3rd edn. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.
Dupriez, P. and Simons, S. (2000) La résistance
culturelle: fondements, applications et implications du
management interculturel. Brussels: De Boeck
Larcier.
Earley, P.C. and Singh, H. (1995) ‘International
and Intercultural Management Research:
What’s Next?’, Academy of Management Journal
38(2): 327–40.
Erez, M. and Gati, E. (2004) ‘A Dynamic, Multi-
level Model of Culture: From the Micro Level
of the Individual to the Macro Level of a
Global Culture’, Applied Psychology: An
International Review 53(4): 583–98.
Fischer, R., Ferreira, M.C., Assmar, E., Redford,
P. and Harb, C. (2005) ‘Organizational
Behaviour across Cultures: Theoretical and
Methodological Issues for Developing
Multilevel Frameworks Involving Culture’,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
5(1): 27–48.
Geertz, C. (1974) The Interpretation of Cultures. New
York: Basic Books.
Gertsen, M.C. and Soderberg, A. (1998) Foreign
Acquisitions in Denmark: Cultural Dimensions of
International Mergers and Acquisitions. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Goodnow, J.D. and Hansz, J.E. (1972)
‘Environmental Determinants of Overseas
Market Entry Strategies’, Journal of International
Business Studies 3(1): 33–50.
Hall, E.T. (1960) ‘The Silent Language of
Overseas Business’, Harvard Business Review
38(3): 87–95.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F.
(1993) The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value
Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States,
374 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)
Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the
Netherlands. New York: Doubleday.
Harris, P. and Moran, R. (1979) Managing Cultural
Differences. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Harzing, A.W. (2003) ‘The Role of Culture in
Entry Mode Studies: From Negligence to
Myopia?’, Advances in International Management
(15): 75–127.
Hennart, J.F. and Larimo, J. (1998) ‘The Impact
of Culture on the Strategy of Multinational
Enterprises: Does National Origin Affect
Ownership Decisions?’, Journal of International
Business Studies 29(3): 515–38.
Hersch, L. and Style, C. (2001), ‘International
Joint Ventures: A Political Economy
Framework’, Australasian Marketing Journal 9(1):
20–32.
Hoecklin, L. (1995) Managing Cultural Differences:
Strategies for Competitive Advantage. London:
Economist Intelligence Unit/Addison Wesley.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences:
International Differences in Work-related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and
Its Importance for Survival. London:
HarperCollins.
Hofstede, G. (1999) ‘Management in the 21st
Century’, Organizational Dynamics 28(1): 34–43.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman,
P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds) (2004) Culture,
Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of
62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inglehart, R.F. (1997) Modernization and Post-
modernization: Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. (2000)
‘Modernization, Cultural Change, and
the Persistence of Traditional Values’,
American Sociological Review 65: 19–51.
Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization,
Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human
Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jacob, N. (2005) ‘Cross-cultural Investigations:
Emerging Concepts’, Journal of Organizational
Change Management 18(5): 514–28.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) ‘The
Internationalization Process of the Firm: A
Model of Knowledge Development and
Increasing Foreign Market Commitments’,
Journal of International Business Studies 8: 23–32.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding
Management Research. London: Sage.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral
Research, 3rd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
Kluckhohn, C.K. (1951) ‘Values and Value
Orientations in the Theory of Action’, in T.
Parsons and E.A. Shils (eds) Toward a General
Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961)
Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.
Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘The Effect of
National Culture on the Choice of Entry
Mode’, Journal of International Business Studies
19(3): 411–32.
Kraut, A.I. (1975) ‘Some Recent Advances in
Cross-national Management Research’,
Academy of Management Journal 18: 538–47.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kunda, G. (1992) Engineering Culture. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Larsson, R. (1990) Coordination of Action in Mergers
and Acquisitions: Interpretive and Systems Approaches
Towards Synergy. Lund: University Press.
Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The Globalization of Markets’,
Harvard Business Review 61: 92–102.
Lindridge, A. (2005) ‘Religiosity and the
Construction of a Cultural-Consumption
Identity’, The Journal of Consumer Marketing
22(3): 142–51.
McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s Model of
National Cultural Differences and their
Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A
Failure of Analysis’, Human Relations 55(1):
89–118.
Morosini, P. (1998) Managing Cultural Differences
Effective Strategy and Execution across Cultures in
Global Corporate Alliances. Oxford: Pergamon.
Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. (1998)
‘National Cultural Distance and Cross-border
Acquisition Performance’, Journal of
International Business Studies 29(1): 137–58.
Morris, M.W. and Peng, K. (1994) ‘Culture and
Cause: American and Chinese Attributions of
Social and Physical Events’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology (67): 949–71.
Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A.R. (1988)
‘Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions’,
Academy of Management Review 13(1): 79–80.
Nasif, E.G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. and
Thibodeaux, M.S. (1991) ‘Methodological
Problems in Cross-cultural Research: An
Updated Review’, Management International
Review 31(1): 79–91.
Ohmae, K. (1985) Triad Power: The Coming Shape
 Yeganeh & Su: Conceptual Foundations of Cultural Management Research 375
of Global Competition. New York: The Free
Press.
Osland, J.S. and Bird, A. (2000) ‘Beyond
Sophisticated Stereotyping: Cultural Sense-
making in Context’, Academy of Management
Executive 14(1): 65–79.
Parker, M. (2000) Organizational Culture and Identity.
London: Sage.
Roberts, K.H. and Boyacigiller, N. (1984) ‘Cross-
national Organizational Research, the Grasp
of the Blind Men’, Research in Organizational
Behavior 2: 417–51.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values.
New York: Free Press.
Ronen, S. (1986) Comparative and Multinational
Management. New York: Wiley.
Rushton, J.P. (1989) ‘Genetic Similarity, Human
Altruism, and Group Selection’, Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 12: 503–59.
Sackmann, S.A. (1997) Cultural Complexity in
Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions.
London: Sage.
Schaffer, B. and Riordan, M. (2003) ‘A Review
of Cross-cultural Methodologies for
Organizational Research: A Best-practices
Approach’, Organizational Research Methods 6(2):
169–215.
Schein, E.H. (1999) Organizational Culture and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in the Content
and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20
Countries’, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 25: 1–66.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘Are there Universal
Aspects of the Structure and Contents of
Human Values?’, Journal of Social Issues 50(4):
19–45.
Schwartz, S. and Bilsky, W. (1987) ‘Toward a
Universal Psychological Structure of Human
Values’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology (53): 550–62.
Seelye, H.N. and Seelye-James, A. (1995) Culture
Clash: Managing in a Multicultural World.
Lincolwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Sekaran, U. (1983) ‘Methodological and
Theoretical Issues and Advancements in
Cross-cultural Research’, Journal of International
Business Studies 14(2): 61–73.
Shenkar, O. (2001) ‘Cultural Distance Revisited:
Towards a More Rigorous Conceptualization
and Measurement of Cultural Differences’,
Journal of International Business Studies 32(3):
519–35.
Søderberg, A.M. and Holden, N. (2002)
‘Rethinking Cross Cultural Management in a
Globalizing Business World’, International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2(1):
103–21
Tayeb, M. (1994) ‘Organizations and National
Culture: Methodology Considered’,
Organization Studies 15(3): 429–44.
Tayeb, M. (2001) ‘Conducting Research across
Cultures: Overcoming Drawbacks and
Obstacles’, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 1(1): 91–108.
Teerikangas, S. and Very, P. (2006) ‘The
Culture–Performance Relationship in M&A:
From Yes/No to How’, British Journal of
Management 17: S31–S48.
Usunier, J.C. (1998) International and Cross-cultural
Management Research. London: Sage.
Vaara, E. (2000) ‘Constructions of Cultural
Differences in Post-merger Processes: A
Sensemaking Perspective on Finnish–Swedish
Cases’, M@n@gement 3(3): 121–32.
Von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. (1995) Organizational
Epistemology. London: Macmillan/New York:
St Martins Press.
HAMID YEGANEH is in the Faculty of
Administrative Sciences, Laval University,
Quebec City (Quebec), Canada, G1K 7P4.
[email: hamid.yeganeh@fsa.ulaval.ca]
ZHAN SU is in the Faculty of Administrative
Sciences, Laval University, Quebec City
(Quebec), Canada, G1K 7P4.
[email: zhan.su@mng.ulaval.ca]
376 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3)

Résumé
Sur les fondements conceptuels de la recherche en matière de management
culturel (Hamid Yeganeh et Zhan Su)
Cet article est une réflexion sur les fondements conceptuels de la recherche en matière de
management culturel. En nous appuyant sur la littérature existante, nous examinons quelques
bases conceptuelles, en proposons une analyse critique et faisons quelques suggestions
d’amélioration. Il peut être utile de débattre de ces questions non seulement pour faire
avancer la recherche mais également pour parvenir à une compréhension plus approfondie
des études précédentes et de leurs limites.

Hamid Yeganeh and Zhan Su

Copyright of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.