The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5265.

htm

The role of cultural context in direct communication

Cem Tanova and Halil Nadiri
Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to examine how the cultural context and other institutional factors may inuence the amount of direct communication with employees in nine European countries. Design/methodology/approach Nine countries were selected from the Craneld Network on Comparative Human Resource Management database varying from high to low context. The dependent or criterion variable, was direct communication, independent variables were organization size age and industry, strategic role of human resource management (HRM), union presence and communication culture context. Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance and hierarchical regression. Findings The results show that cultural communication context, union presence and strategic role of HRM all have an inuence on direct communication. The authors also see that union presence and cultural context interact. Research limitations/implications The paper relied on data collected from the human resource managers of the organizations; therefore the authors do not know how the communication is perceived by the employees themselves. Future research can investigate not only the amount, also but the quality of the communication by collecting data from employees. Practical implications In todays environment where people from different cultures and companies from different legal systems are increasingly working together, the authors need to realise that context matters. What has worked in one environment may not be successful in another. The authors need to develop models that can guide managers in how they can deal with the differences and be effective in communicating with their employees. Originality/value The paper investigates direct communication in low- and high-context countries as well as medium-context countries. European integration provides a move towards convergence in some practices, however, there remains cultural differences between groups of countries. Keywords Communication, Culture, National cultures, Human resource management, Europe Paper type Research paper

The role of cultural context

185
Received June 2009 Revised August 2009, October 2009, December 2009 Accepted February 2010

Introduction The main purpose of communication can be regarded as providing the necessary information for the employees to carry out the strategic goals of the organisation. In todays rapidly changing environment organisations need to be able to quickly identify, send and receive information that is strategically relevant and accurate. As the strategies are formed organisations need to send and receive internal information. Direct communication means information from management to employees that is not mediated through employee representatives (Croucher et al., 2006). Communication from management to employees may be through workforce briengs, quality management meetings, appraisal interviews, newsletters and electronic communication (Croucher, 2008). In this paper, we use the term direct communication to refer to brieng of non-managerial employees on issues related to business strategy and nancial performance of the organisation.

Baltic Journal of Management Vol. 5 No. 2, 2010 pp. 185-196 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1746-5265 DOI 10.1108/17465261011045115

BJM 5,2

186

Owing to the increased European integration which brings different cultures, languages and structures together, communication with employees in European companies is a growing concern. Some companies are also becoming involved in social dialogue at a European level. European Works Councils have been formed, which may bring procedures on how communication needs to be exchanged in organisations (Fourboul and Bournois, 1999). The aim of this study is to examine how the amount of direct communication with employees may be inuenced by the cultural context and other institutional factors in nine European countries. The importance of increased information sharing Technological advances make it easier With the developments in information systems and communication technology, it has become very easy to disseminate and reach information. Many individuals complain about too much information (emails, phone calls, text messages, blogs, etc.). Although the technology allows more information to be distributed, the decision to share critical information with the employees rests with the management. So, although sharing of information has become easier through technology, the question remains on how benecial managers perceive the sharing of information with their staff to be. In addition, employees today have to go through a much larger amount of data, in extracting information that will be useful for them. Some organizations achieve transparency through the use of intranets where employees can easily look up current decisions, nancial reports, regulations, goals and objectives. Some employers may want to develop an organisational culture of commitment and shared strategies, thus they may wish to increase the amount and the quality of information that they share with their employees. This can be an advantage for companies that wish to retain their valued staff and may even help them recruit better employees. New generation of workers may demand it The new generation of employees may expect or demand information to be provided to them by management. The new generation grew up in environments where information was widely available through world wide web, extensive TV channels, etc. as opposed to their parents or grandparents who had access to fewer conveniently accessible sources of information. This means that the expectations of millennial generation about transparency will be quite different from the previous generations. The commitment of employees may increase because they may prefer well structured situations compared to uncertainty. This helps people to feel secure and to perform better. When there is too much uncertainty this may lead to increased speculative information being transmitted among employees. This could lead to lowered employee motivation (Croucher, 2008). It makes good business sense In addition to convenience of technology for sharing information or the expectations of the employees for transparency, one can argue that internal transparency is good for management, since when employees are aware of the issues that are facing the different units or levels of the organization, they will be more willing to contribute their ideas or they will be more eager to accept changes that may be necessary. In the words

of Drucker (1995), to ensure the success of the organization, it is incumbent upon management to provide todays workers with the information necessary to adapt. Communication by management to employees on organisational strategies and nancial issues has been shown to be linked to improved organizational performance (Pfeffer, 1998). When people have more control and say in the work that they perform, this leads to increased involvement and commitment thus people provide more effort. Increased information sharing can also allow employees to work smarter by understanding the entire perspective of the organisation and building the necessary skills and competencies. Communication and national culture High-, medium- and low-context cultures It is a well known fact that cultural differences will have an inuence on the communication styles or channels used. Hall (1981) classies high- and low-context cultures based on how they communicate. Although he argues that there are no cultures that are completely at one or the other end of the scale, he states that some cultures will tend to be more high context while others may be closer to low context. He states that high-context cultures focus on physical context or information internalised in the person during communication while less emphasis is placed on the coded explicitly transmitted part of the message. Low-context cultures focus on explicitly coded messages. Hall (1976, cited in Kittler, 2006) also introduced the term middle context. Several studies have categorised groups of countries as high, medium and low context (Atwater and Waldman, 2007, p. 74; Callow and Schiffman, 2004; Ulijn and Lincke, 2004; Helsen et al., 1993; Shao and Hill, 1994). Although various studies have used the Halls (1981) high-medium-low context thesis, there is still a lack of empirical support for such a breakdown. Generally low-context countries include North American, Scandinavian and Germanic countries. High-context countries include Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries. And medium-context countries include Mediterranean and other European countries (Shao and Hill, 1994). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005, p. 89) drawing on Halls (1981) work categorises the different ways people from different cultures communicate and interact with the built environment. Based on Halls classication of cultures as high- or low-context, Hofstede and Hofstede (2005, p. 89) state:
[. . .] high-context communication is one in which little has to be said or written because most of the information is either in the physical environment or supposed to be known by the persons involved, while very little is coded, explicit part of the message. This type of communication is frequent in collectivist cultures [. . .] A low-context communication is one in which the mass of information is vested in the explicit code, which is typical for individualistic cultures. Many things that in collective cultures are self-evident must be said explicitly in individualist cultures.

The role of cultural context

187

Salleh (2005) uses four characteristics based on Halls (1981) model to differentiate high- and low-context communication. These are: (1) emotions in a close relationship; (2) directness of message conveyed; (3) use of non-verbal communication; and (4) use of digital or analogous language.

BJM 5,2

188

High-context cultures require close relationships and rely on emotions while low-context cultures use the analytical part of the brain and less personal. In high-context cultures messages are generally indirect. The speaker would only reveal part of the message and expect the listener to ll the remaining pieces. Directness may be understood as being too demanding. Details are not specied; instead the listener has the responsibility to assign meaning to cues and missing information. High-context cultures also rely more on non-verbal cues. Sometimes silence is a very strong statement in high-context cultures while low-context cultures would have difculty assigning a meaning to some of the non-verbal cues. Finally, digital or analogous communication refers to the exactness of the meaning or the variability of meaning in communication. In low-context cultures communication is regarded as more digital meaning that the words are chosen carefully to mean exactly what is attempted to convey. Halls (1981) high- and low-context model has been object to criticisms like bi-polarisation, overgeneralisation, or lack of empirical foundation. However, the model remains widely accepted and used as an organizing construct in the led of intercultural research (Kittler, 2006). Hall and Hall (1990) list Japan, Arabic countries, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, France, North American countries, Scandinavian countries and German speaking countries in order from high to low context. In high-context cultures such as Japan and Arabic countries much of the meaning is conveyed through subtle non-verbal cues where as in low-context cultures such as German speaking countries much of the understanding comes from spoken words (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991). In the current study, nine countries were selected from the Craneld network on comparative human resource management (CRANET) database varying from high to low context. Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece were labelled as high context, Italy, Slovenia and France as medium context, and Estonia, Finland and Sweden as low-context countries. The Turkish culture is characterised as a blend of eastern and western cultures (Aycan, 2001). In the Turkish culture, people will often hide their true thoughts if they feel that others, who do not share their opinion, may feel hurt (Aydin and McIsaac, 2001). Both the Turkish and the Greek culture are classied as high-context cultures (Bayraktaroglu and Sianou, 2001). Bulgaria is also considered a high-context culture. According to Elenkov and Fileva (2006), in Bulgaria people have to know a great deal of information about other individuals before effective communication can occur. In high-context cultures, most of the information is either in the physical context or internalised in the person and very little is encoded in explicit part of the message. Family, friends, co-workers and clients have close personal relationships and large information networks. So, people in high-context cultures have to know a lot about others in order to communicate effectively (Treven, 2002). We have classied Italy, Slovenia and France as medium-context countries. In some studies these countries are compared to Japan and other high-context countries and considered low context. However, studies comparing this group of countries with Germanic or Scandinavian countries consider them as high context. When we list countries ranging from high to low context, these countries fall in the middle. Shao and Hill (1994) and Helsen et al. (1993) place France, Italy and some Central European countries as medium context. Thus, we have decided to label this group as medium context.

Owing to its geographic location and historical ties, Estonian culture has been inuenced by several cultures including, Danish, Swedish, German and Russian (Ryabania, 2008). Estonia is considered as a low-context country (Ryabania, 2008). Researchers emphasise the cultural similarities between Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and Scandinavian countries (Huettinger, 2008). Western cultures in general and Scandinavian cultures in particular are characterised as low context. Finland and Sweden are usually labelled as low-context cultures where information is more explicit. Lives are separated into work and personal lives and interactions with others require more detailed information. They depend on words to convey meaning and appropriate word choice becomes crucial (Treven, 2002). However, some researchers also argue that Estonia and Finland have cultural differences (Ryabania, 2008). Although countries may share geographical similarities and although there may be certain similarities in some aspects of their cultures, we have to realise that there will remain distinctive characteristics between countries. In fact even within countries we have to realise that there will be cultural variations. Hypothesis development High-context cultures rely on the context to relay the message. Thus, formal words are less powerful compared to the context. In fact direct communication from management may be interpreted in a much different way because of the context. For example, if the company shares its nancial situation with the employees, they may put different meaning to why this information was shared thus focusing less on the message but more on the context. Previous research has shown that among human resource (HR) practices communication practices to be strongly related to national culture (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou, 2004). Therefore: H1. In high-context cultures, there will be less direct communication between the organization and the employees. Works council and union representation is a general characteristic of European model of employment relations. Research shows that direct communication to employees and indirect communication through representative bodies go hand in hand. Generally when an organisation has increased indirect communication, they also have increased direct communication. In fact where there is a representative body such as unions that allow indirect communication, employees will also demand more direct communication from the employer. On the other hand when there is no access to unions or works councils, employees saw direct communication as less useful (Croucher et al., 2006). Unions will exert pressure on the management to be more transparent and share more information with the employees. The employees that have access to unions may be in a position to demand more information on the direction and nancial status of the organisation: H2. When the level of unionization is high, there will be more direct communication between organization and employees. Increased communication with employees is part of the high-involvement management concept. Employees need to be involved in the organisation in a strategic way.

The role of cultural context

189

BJM 5,2

190

Policies and procedures need to be in place to ensure that employees not only are aware of the strategic direction of the organisation, but also that they have a role in shaping the strategies and goals. Intensive communication to employees is an important part of high-involvement management (Croucher, 2008). Competitive advantage is achieved in high-involvement management through intensive involvement of employees using increased information both up and down the organisation, jobs redesigned to increase involvement, nancial participation and a more participative management philosophy. HR departments have assumed a more central role in the development of organisational strategies. The strategic role of human resource management (HRM) varies by organisations and countries. Some organisations place more of a strategic role to HRM while others place more of an operational role. The comparative studies on HRM practices also reveal that in some countries this strategic role is more common compared to others. Those organisations that place a strategic role on HRM would also have increased information sharing since the HR department would be expected to maintain direct communication channels with employees as part of their mandate. From the perspective of strategic HRM if the HRM department has been involved in the development of organisational strategies, there will be a better understanding of and integration with the organisations strategic objectives: H3. In organizations that place a strategic role for HRM, there will be more direct communication between the organization and the employees. Methodology Nine countries were selected from the CRANET database varying from high to low context. Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece were labelled as high-context countries, Italy, Slovenia and France as medium context and Estonia, Finland and Sweden as low-context countries. CRANET survey is the largest and most representative HRM survey in the world. It includes data from more than 35 countries. Data from over 30,000 respondents have been collected in the six rounds of the survey since 1990 (Mayrhofer and Brewster, 2007). The survey is administered to the most senior HR manager in the organisation. Although there are criticisms of using key informant data (Kumar et al., 1993), the width of the CRANET data and the opportunities that it provides for studying comparative HRM practices make it a valuable resource. The survey avoids attitudinal questions since it is lled out by a single respondent for the whole organisation. Instead the respondents are asked to provide hard data such as numbers, ratios, or existence of certain practices or policies. Direct communication dependent variable The dependent or criterion variable, direct communication was a composite measure. Based on a question that asks which employee categories (clerical and manual) are formally briefed about the business strategy, nancial performance and organization of the work, the composite variable was created. The composite variable was the total of the employee groups that received information on the three areas. Thus, six indicated that both clerical and manual employees are briefed on all three issues, and zero indicated that neither category was briefed on any of the issues.

Independent variables Control variables. Since factors such as organization size age and industry could also be expected to have an inuence on the direct communication in an organization, we have included these as control variables. The industry sector was coded 0 for manufacturing and 1 for services; organization size was taken as the logarithm of the total number of employees; the age of organization was taken as the logarithm of the number of years since the organization was founded. Strategic role of HRM. The strategic role of HRM was measured by using the questions about head of HR having a place on the highest management board of the organization (yes 1, no 0); the extent to which HRM department was involved in the formulation of business strategy (consulted from the outset 4, not consulted 1); the primary responsibility for pay and benets, recruitment and selection, training and development, industrial relations, workforce expansion/reduction (line management 1, line management in consultation with HR 2, HR in consultation with line management 3, HR department 4). The maximum possible score for strategic role of HRM variable was 25. Union presence. The presence and inuence of unions was measured by using the questions on the proportion of unionized employees (0 per cent 1, 1-50 per cent 2, over 50 per cent 3); whether trade unions have any inuence on the organization (yes 1, no 0); whether the organization recognizes trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining (yes 1, no 0). The maximum possible score for this union presence variable would be 5. Communication culture context. The communication culture context was operationalised as high-context countries of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece coded as 3; medium-context countries of Italy, Slovenia and France coded as 2; and low-context countries of Estonia, Finland and Sweden coded as 1. Findings One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there was signicant difference between the three groups (high-, medium- and low-context countries) in terms of their average direct communication score. As high-context countries, Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece, had 2.23 average direct communication score, as medium-context countries, France, Slovenia and Italy, had 3.03 average direct communication score and as low-context countries, Estonia, Finland and Sweden, had average direct communication score of 4.41. Hypothesis testing H1 predicted that in high-context cultures, there would be less direct communication between the organization and the employees while in low-context cultures the level of direct communication would be much higher. Table I shows the direct communication scores along with the strategic nature of HRM and union presence in the nine countries. We can see the sharing of information with employees is higher in low-context countries. Thus, H1 is supported. The table also allows us to see that the strategic nature of HRM is highest in France and lowest in Bulgaria. Union presence is highest in Sweden and lowest in Estonia. Table II shows the comparisons of the level of direct communication in three groups of countries. Low-context group composed of Estonia, Sweden and Finland;

The role of cultural context

191

BJM 5,2

192

medium-context group composed of Italy, France and Slovenia; and high-context group composed of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. If we compare the individual country mean scores for direct communication in Table I which we have grouped in the same category later in Table II, we can see that there is a variation between countries in Table I. This is because there is some intra category variation in direct communication practices. However, when we look at aggregate results we can clearly see variation between the groups. The difference in direct communication used by organizations between the three groups is signicant. In order to see the inuences on direct communication we have run hierarchical multiple regression with direct communication as the dependent variable. The independent variables were checked for multicollinearity. The variance ination factor (VIF) scores reported in the table show that VIFs are below 10 indicating that there is no cause for concern about multicollinearity. The dependent variable was checked for normal distribution using visual analysis of the data plot, the skewness and kurtosis. In Step 1, industry, age of the organization, and size of the organisation were entered as the control variables. Table III shows that the control variables explain only
Strategic nature of HRM Mean SD 13.48 15.53 9.71 17.26 18.09 14.44 12.90 15.25 13.97 14.51 5.19 5.99 5.70 6.29 3.57 5.04 5.20 4.07 4.73 5.38 Direct communication Mean SD 2.06 2.18 2.46 2.74 3.09 3.21 3.20 4.50 4.76 3.43 1.56 1.57 1.85 1.79 1.85 1.93 1.80 1.76 1.52 2.00

n Turkey Greece Bulgaria Italy France Slovenia Estonia Sweden Finland Total 171 180 157 117 140 161 118 383 293 1,720

Union presence Mean SD 2.62 3.24 2.93 3.88 3.21 3.84 1.92 4.73 4.54 3.71 1.85 1.52 1.73 1.04 1.06 1.17 1.30 0.76 1.01 1.53

Table I. Strategic nature of HRM, union presence and direct communication in nine countries listed in order of high to low context

n Table II. Comparing the means of direct communication for low-, medium- and high-context countries Low context Medium context High context Total ANOVA 794 418 508 1,720

Mean 4.40 3.03 2.22 3.42

SD 1.75 1.86 1.66 1.99

Sig.

251.91

0.000

Step 1 2 3 4

R2 0.026 0.117 0.244 0.256

Adjusted R 2 0.023 0.113 0.240 0.251

R 2 change 0.026 0.091 0.127 0.012

F change 9.85 57.71 188.30 17.75

df 3 2 1 1

Sig. F change 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table III. Model summary

Note: n 1,720

2.3 per cent of the variation in direct communication. H2 predicted that when the level of unionization is high, there will be more direct communication between organization and employees and H3 predicted that in organizations that place a strategic role for HRM, there will be more direct communication between the organization and the employees. To test these hypotheses, in Step 2 we introduced the strategic role of HRM and union presence to the model. This has improved the analysis signicantly, explaining 11.3 per cent of the variation in direct communication. From Table IV we can see in Step 2 that both strategic role of HRM and union presence have signicant inuence on direct communication, thus, H2 and H3 received support. In Step 3, we have introduced cultural communication context to the model to see if it would improve the model further. We can see in Table III that adjusted R 2 has improved to 24 per cent. In Table IV, in Step 3, we can see that beta coefcient is negative and signicant, showing that as we move from low- to high-context cultures, the effect on direct communication is negative. In other words in countries such as Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria where communication relies on the subtle cues instead of direct words, the direct communication is lower. This provides further support for H1.

The role of cultural context

193

B Step 1 Constant Industry sector Age of the organisation (log) Size of the organisation (log) Step 2 Constant Industry sector Age of the organisation (log) Size of the organisation (log) Strategic role of HRM Union presence Step 3 Constant Industry sector Age of the organisation (log) Size of the organisation (log) Strategic role of HRM Union presence Cultural communication context Step 4 Constant Industry sector Age of the organisation (log) Size of the organisation (log) Strategic role of HRM Union presence Cultural communication context Union presence Cultural communication context Note: Dependent variable: direct communication 2.251 2 0.042 0.779 0.012 1.563 2 0.028 0.339 2 0.222 0.047 0.366 3.816 2 0.416 0.174 0.022 0.039 0.182 2 0.924 2.660 2 0.392 0.156 2 0.004 0.040 0.504 2 0.353 2 0.160

t-value 6.494 2 0.354 5.227 0.108 4.527 2 0.249 2.295 2 2.044 4.418 9.574 10.625 2 3.867 1.271 0.212 3.967 4.818 2 13.722 5.913 2 3.664 1.146 2 0.038 4.130 5.924 2 2.341 2 4.214

Sig. 0.000 0.724 0.000 0.914 0.000 0.804 0.022 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.204 0.832 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.252 0.970 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000

VIF

1.020 1.059 1.071 1.023 1.148 1.117 1.040 1.135 1.098 1.156 1.152 1.043 1.297 1.257 1.102 1.158 1.156 1.044 6.658 6.415 7.638

Table IV. Hierarchical regression results

BJM 5,2

194

In order to see how cultural communication context and union presence may interact in their inuence on direct communication, in Step 4 we introduced the product of cultural communication context and union presence to the model. We can see that this increased adjusted R 2 to 25.1 per cent. Furthermore, we can see that the product of cultural communication context and union presence has a negative signicant coefcient. This demonstrates that when an organisation has high unionization in low-context countries this has a bigger inuence on direct communication. However, when the organisation has higher unionization in high-context countries, the impact of this on direct communication is not as high. Conclusion Our results show that cultural communication context, union presence and strategic role of HRM all have an inuence on direct communication. We also see that union presence and cultural context interact. Organisations in low-context countries, which have high unionization seem to have more direct communication; where as organisations in high-context countries which have high union presence do not necessarily have as much direct communication. This may indicate that institutional factors, legal framework, administrative heritage may also have an inuence in addition to cultural context. Multinational companies that operate across cultures have to be aware of the inuence of culture and institutions on the expectations of their employees. However, European Union policies that encourage mobility of students and employees across borders will also lead to workforces that are more diverse. Thus, we can say that all organisations have to become efcient in dealing with different communication needs of employees. Perceptions and inuence of unions also differ across nations. Our ndings suggest that unionization has a positive impact on direct communication. This may be due to management becoming more attentive to communication needs of employees when unions are organised to represent employee interests. However, further research at organisation level is necessary to investigate whether this is actually the case and if so how the mechanism operates. Since organisations are having to constantly to reinvent themselves, they need to develop better quality of communication with their employees in order to allow them to contribute in meaningful ways to the organization. This will also allow the employees to be more motivated and involved in the organisation. Previous research has shown that employees embeddedness to their organisation and community reduces their risk of leaving the organisation (Tanova and Holtom, 2008). In todays environment where people from different cultures and companies from different legal systems are increasingly working together, we need to realise that context matters. What works in one environment may not be successful in another. We need to develop models that can guide managers in how they can deal with the differences and be effective in communicating with their employees. There seems to be a trend where employees are expecting more direct communication than ever before. This will require employers and managers to nd ways of providing direct communication methods that accommodate the various preferences of the employees. Our study relied on data collected from the HR managers of the organizations; therefore we do not know how the communication is perceived by the employees themselves. Future research can investigate not only the amount but also the quality of the communication by collecting data from employees. Furthermore, future research can focus on surveys that will measure attitudes and values of participants.

References Atwater, L.E. and Waldman, D.A. (2007), Leadership, Feedback, and the Open Communication Gap, Psychology Press, Florence, KY. Aycan, Z. (2001), Human resource management in Turkey: current issues and future challenges, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 252-60. Aydin, C.H. and McIsaac, M.S. (2001), The impact of instructional technology in Turkey, ETR&D, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 105-12. Bayraktaroglu, A. and Sianou, M. (2001), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Boyacigiller, N.A. and Adler, N. (1991), The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a global context, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-90. Callow, M. and Schiffman, L.G. (2004), Sociocultural meanings in visually standardized print ads, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1113-29. Croucher, R. (2008), Employee communication, in Muller-Camen, M., Croucher, R. and Leigh, S. (Eds), Human Resource Management: A Case Study Approach, CIPD, London. Croucher, R., Gooderham, P. and Parry, E. (2006), The inuences on direct communication in British and Danish rms: country, strategic HRM or unionization?, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 267-86. Drucker, P.F. (1995), The information executives truly need, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 54-62. Elenkov, D. and Fileva, T. (2006), Anatomy of a business failure: accepting the bad luck explanation vs proactively learning in international business, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 132-41. Fourboul, C.V. and Bournois, F. (1999), Strategic communication with employees in large European companies: a typology, European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 204-17. Hall, E.T. (1981), Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, Garden City, NY. Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME. Helsen, K., Jedidi, K. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1993), A new approach to country segmentation utilizing multinational diffusion patterns, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 60-71. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Huettinger, M. (2008), Cultural dimensions in business life: Hofstedes indices for Latvia, and Lithuania, Baltic, Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 359-76. Kittler, M. (2006), How cultural context interferes with communication: a synthesis of Halls HC/LC-concept and Krippendorffs information theory, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, available at: www.allacademic.com/meta/p92335_index.html (accessed 25 May 2009). Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), Conducting inter-organizational research using key informants, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1633-51. Mayrhofer, W. and Brewster, C. (2007), European human resource management: researching developments over time, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 241-69.

The role of cultural context

195

BJM 5,2

196

Papalexandris, N. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2004), Exploring the mutual interaction of societal culture and human resource management practices: evidence from 19 countries, Employee Relations, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 495-509. Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Prots by Putting People First, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Ryabania, E. (2008), Comparison of Udmurt, Estonian, and Finnish dialogues: characteristics of communicative behaviour, TRAMES, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 40-50. Salleh, L.M. (2005), High/low context communication: the Malaysian Malay style, in Gueldenzoph, L.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention, Association for Business Communication, Irvine, CA. Shao, A.T. and Hill, J.S. (1994), Advertising sensitive products in magazines: legal and social restrictions, Multinational Business Review, Fall, pp. 16-24. Tanova, C. and Holtom, B. (2008), Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntary turnover in four European countries, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 1553-68. Treven, S. (2002), International training: the training of managers for assignment abroad, EducationTraining, Vol. 45 Nos 8/9, pp. 550-7. Ulijn, J.M. and Lincke, A. (2004), The effect of CMC and FTF on negotiation outcomes between R&D and manufacturing partners in the supply chain: an Anglo/Nordic/Latin comparison, International Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp. 111-40. Further reading Koeszegi, S.T., Vetschera, R. and Kersten, G.E. (2004), National cultural differences in the use and perception of internet-based NSS does high or low context matter?, International Negotiation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 79-109. Corresponding author Cem Tanova can be contacted at: cem.tanova@emu.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints