managing international teams: a practical approach to cultural problems

Paul Banks and Bob Waisfisz ITIM, Holland

In 1987, a major international oil company, eager to rationalize and streamline its organization in Europe, decided to merge its Belgian and Dutch operations into a single Benelux entity. Up to that point, all the company’s activities in Europe had been organized on the basis of national subsidiaries, each operating within its own national boundaries, employing (with the exception of a small number of temporary expatriates) their own national staff and enjoying a large degree of national autonomy. The merging of two national operations into a unified regional structure was seen as an important initial step towards a more general reorganization in Europe along transnational lines.

All the indicators for the future of the new Benelux organization were favourable: more efficient product supply and logistics, more effective use of manpower, fewer offices, reduced administration costs. Furthermore, there would be no language problems to bedevil the management of the new entity: Dutch is, after all, one of the official languages of Belgium and in any case the company’s previous Belgian operations had been concentrated in the Flemish area of the country with its office in Antwerp, only a few

’This article appears in H. Shaughnessy (ed.), 1993, Collaborative Project Management, Wiley, Chichester, and is used with permission.

Managing international teams: a practical approach to cultural problems’

kilometres from the Netherlands frontier. If only transnational organization in the rest of Europe could be so easy!

~ ~~ -

The Belgian and Dutch employees of the new

company were finding it dzlfficult to cooperate

Within weeks of the new organization being launched, the problems began. The Belgian and Dutch employees of the new company were finding it difficult to cooperate and, more seriously still, there were clear signs of poor communication, lack of trust and even discord among the two nationalities at the management level. The Belgians felt they had been taken over by the Dutch; they regarded their Dutch colleagues as often pompous and rude and not taking enough account of the need to do things in Belgium the Belgian way. The Dutch on the other hand found the Belgians bureaucratic; they always seemed to want to check with the hierarchy before making decisions; at the same time, they seemed to be always improvising. Relations in the management team had become so tense that the company’s performance was clearly being affected. The chief executive began to see that despite all the assumptions that had been

310 P. Banks and B. Waisfisz

made when the new organization had been put in place, what he had on his hands was a cultural problem and he was going to need help to solve it.

Most managers will recognize the kind of difficulties experienced by this company. In the last decade, there has been a growing awareness of the impact that differences between national cultures can have on the management of international business. There has been, of course, for many years general acknowledgement (though perhaps limited understanding) of the most marked consequences of cultural difference, such as the problems encountered by many Europeans attempting to do business in Japan. The rapidly increasing incidence of intercultural encounters resulting from the globalization of world trade has now begun to bring about a realization that cultural difference can begin to impact on the conduct of business as soon as the manager crosses the border into the neighbouring country. This realization has been particularly acute in Europe as more and more companies seek to build their international positions by forming alliances with companies in other European states, this in turn creating a demand for managers who can work effectively in multinational teams.

Managing in an intercultural environment

is a complicated and subtle issue

Managing in an intercultural environment is a complicated and subtle issue, requiring a lot more than a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’, Traditionally, preparation for managers conducting business across national boundaries or undertaking expatriate assignments, where it has occurred at all, has generally taken the form of briefings on the history, institutions, climate and social customs of the countries to be encountered. Such briefings are not, of course, without value and can certainly help the businessman

to develop local contacts more quickly and prevent him making elementary social gaffes. They do, however, confine themselves to the more superficial manifestations of national culture. A recent report on this kind of training in the house journal of a major company talked about such things as the importance, for Americans, of realizing that French colleagues expect to shake hands each morning, the different conventions surrounding the acceptability, in different European countries, of addressing people by their first names and differing attitudes to informal dress. This may be useful as advice on how to mind one’s manners in a foreign country but, it does not penetrate into the deep-seated value systems which are at the core of every national culture. It is of limited value to managers who have to grapple with intercultural issues of the kind faced by the Benelux company cited above.

What managers need in situations such as this is a general conceptual framework which can help them to understand how, on average, people from different nations are conditioned to deal with the basic problems that face all human societies. The problems are common to all nations but the answers are different in each. If we can identify the main common issues which have consequences for the way in which societies function, and then map the relative ways in which different cultures deal with these issues, we can begin to provide managers with a flexible instrument which can be used to diagnose and resolve a wide variety of intercultural problems. Such a map of different national value-systems and their consequences for the conduct of business across cultural frontiers is the basis of what is offered by The Institute for Training in Intercultural Management (ITIM).

The training and consultancy offered by ITIM is founded on the pioneering work of Geert Hofstede , Professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at the University of Limburg in Maastricht. Hofstede defines culture as

Journal of Strategic Change, December 1993

Managing international teams 311

‘the collective programming of the human mind which distinguishes the members of one society or group from those of another’.

Culture consists of patterns of thinking which parents transfer to their children, teachers to their students, friends to their friends, leaders to their followers. Culture is reflected in the meaning people attach to various aspects of their lives, their way of looking at the world and their role in it, in what they consider ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and in their collective beliefs. Culture, resident in people’s minds, is crystallized in the institutions and organizations of society, which in turn reinforces the mental programming. This assumption of mental programming does not, of course, imply that everyone in society is programmed in exactly the same way: statements about culture can only be statements of central tendency and there will be wide differences among individuals and sub-groups. The collective programming that is referred to as culture should be seen as a collective component shared between the minds of otherwise different individuals and absent from the minds of those belonging to a different society.

Against this background, the Hofstede research, carried out over a period of 15 years analysed some 1 16,000 questionnaires on values completed by employees of a single multinational corporation in 67 countries. As the research then compared responses from ‘matched samples’ (i.e. employees in similar occupations) from the different countries, and they all worked for the same organization, differences in the distribution of responses could not be due to occupational or organizational values and had to be due to nationality. Statistical analysis of the responses from the various national groups showed that the differences among the countries reflected the existence of four underlying cultural dimensions along which each country could be positioned. Sub- sequent research, carried out with similar methodology in the Far East, identified a fifth

cultural dimension. The dimensions represent elements of common structure in the cultural systems of the countries and are centred on five very fundamental issues to which every human society has to find its particular answers. Together they form a five-dimensional construct or model covering 50 countries and three regions. This model is the central element of ITIM’s training and consultancy.

The five dimensions of the ITIM model are described below.

Power distance

Power distance or the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is how a society handles inequalities among people when they occur. People in societies exhibiting high power distance accept an hierarchical order in which every- body has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low power distance, people strive for power equalization and demand justification for inequalities of power. This has obvious implications for the way people build their institutions and organizations. In low power distance societies, hierarchy in an organization is seen as an inequality of roles established for convenience, decentralization is preferred, subordinates expect to be consulted, and the ideal boss is a resourceful democrat. At the opposite end of the range, in high power distance societies, hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting existential inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do, and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Individualism versus collectivism

Individualism can be defined as a preference for a loosely knit social framework in which individuals are supposed to take care only of themselves and their immediate families. Its opposite, collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly knit framework in society in



which individuals can expect their relatives, clan or other members of their in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdepen- dence a society maintains among its members. It is concerned with whether people’s self- concept is defined in terms of ‘I’ or ‘we’. In collectivistic societies, offending leads to shame and loss of face, employer-employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in- group, and management is the management of groups. In individualistic societies, offending causes guilt and loss of self-esteem, the employer-employee relationship is calculative (a contract based on mutual advantage), hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

Masculinity versus femininity

Masculinity represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material success. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for relationships, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. The fundamental issue here is the way in which society allocates social roles between the sexes. Some societies aim for maximum social differentiation between the sexes and here the norm is that men are given the assertive roles and women the caring, nurturing roles. The maximum social differentiation in these societies will permeate the institutions (mostly populated by men) with an assertive mentality. Such societies become ‘performance’ societies and this is shown even in the values of their women. They are termed masculine societies. Other societies strive for minimal social differentiation between the sexes. This means not only that women can take on assertive roles if they wish but, more especially, men are permitted to take on relationship-oriented, caring roles. These societies, if wealth permits, become ‘welfare’ societies in which caring for all members is an important goal for men as well

as women. They are termed ‘feminine societies. In feminine countries, the priority is ‘work in order to live’, managers strive for consensus, stress is laid on equality, solidarity and quality of working life, and conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. In masculine countries, on the other hand, people believe in ‘live in order to work’, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the stress is on equity, competition and performance, and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Uncertainty avoidance

This is the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that time runs one way and the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. Low uncertainty avoidance societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. Uncertainty avoidance also has implications for the way in which countries build their institutions and organizations. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, there is an emotional need for rules, even if the rules never work, time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, and security is an important element in individual motivation. In societies exhibiting low uncertainty avoidance, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they do not work they should be dropped or changed, time is seen as a framework for orientation, hard work is undertaken when needed but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, and innovation is not seen as threatening .


Managing international teams 31.3

Long-term versus short-term orientation

While the first four dimensions proved to be a valuable model for explaining and predicting culturally derived differences of behaviour in many countries, it did not appear to explain what to many observers was self-evidently a fundamental difference in the way of thinking as between East and West. The supplementary research in the Far East, referred to earlier, identified a fifth dimension which clarified this difference. The dimension is closely related to the teachings of Confucius and can be interpreted as dealing with society’s search for virtue. Short-term orientation societies generally exhibit strong respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save, strong social pressure to ‘keep up with the Joneses’, impatience for quick results and a strong concern with finding the truth. Western societies are typically to be found towards the short-term end of this dimension. Long- term orientation societies show an ability to adapt traditions to a modern context, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, perseverance in the achieving of results that may be slow to come and an overriding concern for respecting the demands of virtue. The countries of South- East Asia and the Far East are typically to be found towards the long-term end of this dimension. In dealing with intercultural issues involving encounters between Western countries, it is usually adequate to refer only to the first four dimensions.

Some 50 countries and three regions (East Africa, West Africa and the Middle East) have been scored and positioned on the first four dimensions and scores for 18 countries and two regions have so far been derived on the fifth. This provides us with a powerful model which enables us both to analyse the behaviours that are observed in particular intercultural encounters and to predict with some accuracy the sorts of issues that are likely to occur when interactions between specific nationalities take place. Such analysis is entirely non-normative: it does not suggest that some forms of behaviour are ‘better’ or

more productive than others. In training managers to use the model, it is as important to bring them to an understanding of where they are coming from in terms of their own cultures as it is to get them to understand the cultural values of the countries with which they are going to have to deal. Only then are they likely to be able to control their own (entirely natural) cultural bias and handle intercultural encounters in an objective and constructive manner.

At this point, it might be objected that all this presents a rather static picture with the research done, the model complete and all the anwers available. Are we not simply providing our own pigeon holes to fit everyone into? A number of important points need to be made here. Firstly, the Hofstede model cannot be used to identify or describe the characteristics of individuals. As noted earlier, the model identifies only central tendencies in societies: any attempt to use it mechanistically is likely to lead to error. Behaviour results from a combination of the individual personalities involved, the cultural backgrounds from which they come and the specifics of the situation in which they find themselves. Culture is only one element, albeit an important one, in the equation; it cannot explain everything.

Secondly, the five-dimension model is only an entry ticket into a society. There are other cultural differences besides those related to nationality. Indeed, in some countries (e.g. the erstwhile Soviet Union), national culture does not exist as a meaningful concept and, in these cases, regional differences become of overriding importance. In some other countries, while an overall positioning in the model of the country as a whole remains valid, there are important regional sub- cultures about which more data are progressively becoming available and which will add detail (and complexity) to the picture.

Finally, while there is much evidence to suggest that national cultures remain remark- ably stable over time, it has become clear that the positioning of countries can change progressively, especially on the dimensions of power distance and individualism. The



latter dimension, in particular, shows a very significant correlation with national wealth: as nations become richer the trend is for them to become more individualistic. The

The picture given by the model is therefore far

from static or complete

picture given by the model is therefore far from static or complete and continual validation will be needed with adjustments being made where and when necessary. None of this invalidates the use of the model for analytical and predictive purposes. Indeed, since the original Hofstede research, a number of other studies carried out by other scholars have shown a high degree of correlation with the five-dimension model.

So what is the practical relevance of all this to managers? Managers are concerned with the coordination of resources (material, financial and human) for the effective achievement of business objectives. But from what has been said already it will be easily seen that what may be an effective means of coordination in one country may prove to be ineffective or actually counterproductive in another. This is particularly true in the area of human resource management, where the effectiveness of different approaches to such crucial issues as leadership, communication, motivation, reward, appraisal, selection and reward can be shown to be highly culture- dependent. An understanding of the five- dimensional model enables managers to analyse the likely outcome of management techniques and employment policies in different national contexts and to modify or replace them where they can be seen as likely to be dysfunctional. This is especially important in a world where the overwhelming majority of management ‘packages’ originate in the USA and are based on American cultural assumptions, making them difficult, or even dangerous, to apply in other cultures. Some examples will help to reinforce the

point and we can begin, relatively simply, by considering some of the implications for management of a country’s positioning on a single dimension.

Looking first at the dimension of power distance, we have already noted that in high power distance societies, employees will be comfortable with a paternalistic management style; there will be no strong need felt for consultation or involvement of subordinates in decision making. Conversely, in societies with low power distance, paternalistic management will have negative connotations and there will be an expectation of some form of consultation with subordinates, though not necessarily through a formalized structure. The feasibility of applying leadership packages such as management by objectives (MbO) will be highly dependent on where the country concerned is positioned on this dimension. MbO is based on joint goal setting between superior and subordinate, involving a measure of negotiation, and on joint appraisal against the agreed goals after a given period. This is very unlikely to work in high power distance cultures where respect for the hierarchy will mean that the subordinate will wait for the superior’s message (direct or indirect) about what the objectives and the appraisal should be.

Turning next to individualismkollec- tivism, we can see, for example, that theories of motivation based on self-actualization such as Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ are likely to work well in individualistic societies, where esteem and self-actualization are indeed likely to be the highest of motivators, with ‘belongingness’ needs consigned to a lower place in the hierarchy. This is, however, unlikely to be the case in collectivistic countries where people will tend to have an overriding need for actualizing their in-group: ‘belongingness’ will come before esteem and self-actualization as a motivator. In an individualistic society, nepotism is generally considered to be objectionable, and there may even be rules forbidding members of the same family working in the same department. In collectivistic countries, the domains of work and family more easily

~~~


Managing international teams 315

overlap and employing many members of the family will generally be considered desirable rather than the reverse.

If we then look at masculinity/femininity we see that in masculine societies competi- tiveness between fellow workers is seen as a good thing, the strong should win and rewards should be distributed according to performance. In a feminine culture, competition between colleagues is to be deprecated: solidarity between fellow workers is prized, the strong should help the weak and rewards should be allocated according to need. The implications of this for remuneration and incentive policies are obvious. In masculine countries, such as the USA, reward systems based on high-profile bonus schemes and competitive ‘employee of the month’ programmes will generally be highly motivating. In feminine countries, such as Sweden, they will generally be disliked and counterproductive.

When we come to the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, we can begin to touch on the more complex applications of the model by considering the interaction of two of the dimensions at the same time. We noted above that uncertainty avoidance relates to formalization: the degree to which people feel the need for formal structure in the social or work environment. Equally we noted that power distance was related to centralization: organizations in low power distance societies will tend to be less centralized than those in high power distance countries. Taken together, these dimensions have implications for the models of organization one can expect to encounter in different countries. Thus in countries exhibiting low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance, such as Great Britain, we can expect to find organizations which are both decentralized and light on formal structure; colleagues negotiate and outcomes will be determined neither by hierarchy nor procedures. In societies showing high uncertainty avoidance and low power distance, such as Austria, we can expect organizations to be decentralized but relatively formalized; the operation of the organization

will be determined by rules without the need for hierarchical intervention on a day-to-day basis. Where we find high uncertainty avoidance and high power distance as, for example, in France, organizations will tend to be both highly structured and centralized: everyone will have a clear place in the hierarchy, interacting according to the rules. Finally, there will be countries, such as India, which exhibit low uncertainty avoidance and high power distance. Here, authority is centralized but outcomes are not predeter- mined by formal procedures, analogous to the working of a family.

These examples should show the capacity of the five-dimensional model to deal with the complexities of cultural difference in a way that can provide practical outcomes for managers, once they have an understanding of the model and gain some fluency in its use. Can the value of intercultural training for management be measured in terms of the bottom line however? As with many other forms of management training, the answer must be: not directly. But the costs of failing

The costs of failing to manage cultural d ayferen ce

will quickly become apparent in results

to manage cultural difference will quickly become apparent in results, ranging from failure to win contracts, misunderstanding with clients leading to disputes and delays, problems with employee communication and motivation, labour disputes, failure to build effective multinational teams and so on. Perhaps even more insidious is the possibility of some parts of the organization merely paying lip service to policies which they find culturally threatening.

The case of the Benelux organization cited at the beginning of this article is a real-life example of how failure to take cultural issues into account can impact directly on the performance of an organization, with the



effects being transmitted straight to the bottom line. In this case, an intervention by an ITIM consultant was able to correct the situation and the cultural impediments to building a cooperative management team have been removed. This does not mean that the players have been culturally ‘de- programmed’ or that Belgians have been trained to behave like Dutchmen or vice versa. What has happened is that they have been brought to a reasonably profound understanding of their own cultural starting points and those of their colleagues. They have been given the means to recognize cultural issues as they arise and have acquired a language in which to make these issues explicit and to work for solutions. Cultural clashes may still occur but they can now be dealt with and need not result in impasse. A more complex situation, which is increasingly likely to arise as companies establish transnational organizations, occurs in headquarters staffed by employees of many different nationalities. ITIM has been working over the last several years with a major international company which has set up a European headquarters in Brussels. There have been up to 18 different nationalities working together in this headquarters and the potential for intercultural stress was high. The imptemen- tation of intercultural training has defused much of this negative potential and has begun to show signs of enabling the company to build on the richness of its diverse cultural mix. As significant numbers of the management and professional staff (starting with the chief executive) have now been through intercultural training there is now, through- out the organization, a much greater readiness to make allowances for colleagues’ needs and to be prepared to relax personal cultural prejudices once they are understood for what they are. An independent review of the intercultural training in this company said:

The intercultural training seminars have a significant impact on [the Company’s] productivity, mainly through increased understanding and reduction of destructive conflict.

How can management identify situations where intercultural training is likely to be needed? There are several main categories of management who are prime candidates for such training:

-managers who are expected to undertake expatriate assignments and be responsible for achieving results in a foreign environment with local personnel;

-managers who are required to work cooperatively in multinational teams;

-managers whose success depends on dealing effectively with foreign clients;

-managers with responsibility for coor- dinating/directing the activities of subsidiaries abroad;

-Human resources managers responsible for the selection and preparation of employees (and their spouses) for expatriate assignments and for designing human resources policies for application in multicultural environments.

ITIM offers training for managers in all these categories. ITIM does not offer simply awareness training; all its training is highly practical involving work on realistic management issues and real-life case studies. General seminars (public or in-house) give an understanding of the five-dimensional model as an analytical tool and a language in which intercultural issues and their implications can be made explicit. More tailored training or consultancy can be provided on the specifics of intercultural reactions between particular nationalities and on how identified problems may be tackled.

ITIM success stories include a top banker in Luxembourg who, 5 years after he and his colleagues received training, reports that he ‘uses it every day’; a client in Africa, responsible for the administration of devel- opment aid in his country, who states ‘relations between foreigners and locals have never been so good’; a major bank in the Netherlands which has made ITIM training obligatory for any employee going on expatriate assignment; perhaps most signifi- cantly, practically all the clients who signed


Managing international teams 31 7

on with ITIM after it was established in 1983 are still clients.

What then are the practical procedures and/or possible problems for an organization in implementing the ITIM approach to intercultural management?

Firstly, how does one decide whether the ITIM approach will be suitable for a particular organization’s problems? The first require- ment is always to spend some time with the company in question analysing the intercultural issues and identifying the key players to be involved. The ITIM approach has shown itself to be robust in meeting the whole range of intercultural problems but there are some things that ITIM does not do:

-We do not believe in the ‘quick fix’ and we try to convince clients looking for such a solution that it cannot work: culture is too complex an issue for this to be possible. Clients who persist in believing that one-shot interventions can solve their intercultural problems are advised to turn to somebody else.

-We do not believe that you can enhance intercultural effectiveness merely by giving information about the other culture or cultures which are to be encountered. For example, if a British company only wants to be informed about the culture of the French, ITIM will not accept an assignment on these terms. What we would accept would be an assignment to help the company to understand the interaction between their own British culture and that of the French. Culture becomes meaningful only in relative terms and clients must be prepared to begin by gaining an understanding of their own cultural starting points.

--Some clients ask us to evaluate whether a particular individual will make it in a given foreign culture but ITIM does not believe that this can be done with any reasonable reliability and there are no properly validated instruments available for the purpose. There are tests of course which measure an individual’s personality or intelligence, but not his culture. The

former are located at the individual, the latter at the aggregate level. This is not to say that individual cultural ‘profiling’ is not offered by competitors, but ITIM will not undertake it.

Secondly, what are the essential steps to be taken in order to get an intercultural training programme off the ground? The basic requirements are:

-Commitment at the top: ideally, the top ‘sponsors’ of the importance of intercultural understanding should be seen to undertake the training themselves, if possible early in the programme. Not only will this be an important signal but will give the top management the ability to discuss intercultural issues with the people involved in a common language.

-On the other hand, do not confine the training to a small number of managers. A reasonable aim is to get at least half of the people who will be required to operate cross-culturally through the training within 1-2 years from launching a programme. Once there exists a critical mass of people who have the same level of intercultural skill and a common language in which to communicate, an increase in intercultural effectiveness should be perceived across the organization.

-Be prepared to invest adequate time in the training process. There is sometimes pressure from clients to pack the training into, for instance, a half-day session. Such sessions will provide merely an introduc- tion to the issues of intercultural management, useful in themselves, but they cannot begin to equip participants with practical skills. For really effective training, a minimum course of 2 days in length is needed.

What about ITIM training methods?

-The emphasis is on cognitive learning rather than role play, mainly because the latter is relatively time-consuming and therefore less attractive from the clients’

Journal of Strategic Change, December 199.3


point of view. ITIM, however, does have role-play and simulation developed around the Hofstede model.

-The typical ITIM seminar is a combination of participative lectures, cognitive exercises and real-life case studies. An example of a cognitive exercise might be: explain in terms of the five-dimensional model why, in Germany, people show respect to the authorities despite the fact that Germany scores low on power distance or why the French, more often than individuals in other Western countries, agree verbally with their boss while doing things their own way.

- ITIM has a number of case studies involving different nationalities all developed from real-life situations in client companies. Given reasonable notice and access to the key people, cases can be developed from situations in a client’s own organization.

-A number of special exercises have been developed to meet specific issues such as the cultural specificity of management tools and planning techniques, expatriation

issues, the management of international acquisitions and mergers.

-All ITIM trainers, in addition to their training skills, have wide international experience as residents in countries other than their own, are widely travelled and have well-developed language skills.

Possible problems which may need to be managed and of which clients should be aware are:

--Some participants can find the training threatening, especially those who hold strong normative beliefs. This should not be surprising as one of the messages of the training is that there are more realities and truths in the world than those that we grew up with in our home countries.

-It is important to ensure that the level of abstraction in the training is matched to the ability of the participants to handle it. It is, after all quite a challenge to unfold the cultural complexity of the world in 2 days.

1057-9265/93/06O3O9-IO$I.O.OO @ 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


managing international teams: a practical approach to cultural problems

Documents