The role of cultural contextin direct communication

Cem Tanova and Halil NadiriEastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to examine how the cultural context and other institutionalfactors may influence the amount of direct communication with employees in nine European countries.

Design/methodology/approach – Nine countries were selected from the Cranfield Network onComparative Human Resource Management database varying from high to low context. Thedependent or criterion variable, was direct communication, independent variables were organizationsize age and industry, strategic role of human resource management (HRM), union presence andcommunication culture context. Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance andhierarchical regression.

Findings – The results show that cultural communication context, union presence and strategic roleof HRM all have an influence on direct communication. The authors also see that union presence andcultural context interact.

Research limitations/implications – The paper relied on data collected from the human resourcemanagers of the organizations; therefore the authors do not know how the communication is perceivedby the employees themselves. Future research can investigate not only the amount, also but the qualityof the communication by collecting data from employees.

Practical implications – In today’s environment where people from different cultures andcompanies from different legal systems are increasingly working together, the authors need to realisethat context matters. What has worked in one environment may not be successful in another. Theauthors need to develop models that can guide managers in how they can deal with the differences andbe effective in communicating with their employees.

Originality/value – The paper investigates direct communication in low- and high-context countriesas well as medium-context countries. European integration provides a move towards convergence insome practices, however, there remains cultural differences between groups of countries.

Keywords Communication, Culture, National cultures, Human resource management, Europe

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe main purpose of communication can be regarded as providing the necessaryinformation for the employees to carry out the strategic goals of the organisation.In today’s rapidly changing environment organisations need to be able to quicklyidentify, send and receive information that is strategically relevant and accurate. Asthe strategies are formed organisations need to send and receive internal information.

“Direct communication” means information from management to employees that is notmediated through employee representatives (Croucher et al., 2006). Communication frommanagement to employees may be through workforce briefings, quality managementmeetings, appraisal interviews, newsletters and electronic communication (Croucher,2008). In this paper, we use the term direct communication to refer to briefing ofnon-managerial employees on issues related to business strategy and financialperformance of the organisation.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5265.htm

The role ofcultural context

185

Received June 2009Revised August 2009,

October 2009,December 2009

Accepted February 2010

Baltic Journal of ManagementVol. 5 No. 2, 2010

pp. 185-196q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1746-5265DOI 10.1108/17465261011045115

Owing to the increased European integration which brings different cultures,languages and structures together, communication with employees in Europeancompanies is a growing concern. Some companies are also becoming involved in socialdialogue at a European level. European Works Councils have been formed, which maybring 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 withemployees may be influenced by the cultural context and other institutional factors innine European countries.

The importance of increased information sharingTechnological advances make it easierWith the developments in information systems and communication technology, it hasbecome very easy to disseminate and reach information. Many individuals complainabout too much information (emails, phone calls, text messages, blogs, etc.). Althoughthe technology allows more information to be distributed, the decision to share criticalinformation with the employees rests with the management. So, although sharing ofinformation has become easier through technology, the question remains on howbeneficial managers perceive the sharing of information with their staff to be. Inaddition, employees today have to go through a much larger amount of data, inextracting information that will be useful for them.

Some organizations achieve transparency through the use of intranets whereemployees can easily look up current decisions, financial reports, regulations, goalsand objectives. Some employers may want to develop an organisational culture ofcommitment and shared strategies, thus they may wish to increase the amount and thequality of information that they share with their employees. This can be an advantagefor companies that wish to retain their valued staff and may even help them recruit betteremployees.

New generation of workers may demand itThe new generation of employees may expect or demand information to be provided tothem by management. The new generation grew up in environments where informationwas widely available through world wide web, extensive TV channels, etc. as opposed totheir parents or grandparents who had access to fewer conveniently accessible sourcesof information. This means that the expectations of millennial generation abouttransparency will be quite different from the previous generations. The commitment ofemployees may increase because they may prefer well structured situations compared touncertainty. This helps people to feel secure and to perform better. When there is toomuch uncertainty this may lead to increased speculative information being transmittedamong employees. This could lead to lowered employee motivation (Croucher, 2008).

It makes good business senseIn addition to convenience of technology for sharing information or the expectations ofthe employees for transparency, one can argue that internal transparency is good formanagement, since when employees are aware of the issues that are facing thedifferent units or levels of the organization, they will be more willing to contribute theirideas or they will be more eager to accept changes that may be necessary. In the words

BJM5,2

186

of Drucker (1995), “to ensure the success of the organization, it is incumbent uponmanagement to provide today’s workers with the information necessary to adapt”.

Communication by management to employees on organisational strategies andfinancial 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 byunderstanding the entire perspective of the organisation and building the necessaryskills and competencies.

Communication and national cultureHigh-, medium- and low-context culturesIt is a well known fact that cultural differences will have an influence on thecommunication styles or channels used. Hall (1981) classifies high- and low-contextcultures based on how they communicate. Although he argues that there are no culturesthat are completely at one or the other end of the scale, he states that some cultureswill tend to be more high context while others may be closer to low context. He states thathigh-context cultures focus on physical context or information internalised in the personduring communication while less emphasis is placed on the coded explicitly transmittedpart of the message. Low-context cultures focus on explicitly coded messages.

Hall (1976, cited in Kittler, 2006) also introduced the term middle context. Severalstudies have categorised groups of countries as high, medium and low context (Atwaterand 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 Hall’s(1981) high-medium-low context thesis, there is still a lack of empirical support for such abreakdown. Generally low-context countries include North American, Scandinavianand Germanic countries. High-context countries include Asian, Middle Eastern andLatin American countries. And medium-context countries include Mediterranean andother European countries (Shao and Hill, 1994).

Hofstede and Hofstede (2005, p. 89) drawing on Hall’s (1981) work categorises thedifferent ways people from different cultures communicate and interact with the builtenvironment. Based on Hall’s classification of cultures as high- or low-context, Hofstedeand Hofstede (2005, p. 89) state:

[. . .] high-context communication is one in which little has to be said or written because most ofthe information is either in the physical environment or supposed to be known by the personsinvolved, while very little is coded, explicit part of the message. This type of communication isfrequent in collectivist cultures [. . .] A low-context communication is one in which the mass ofinformation is vested in the explicit code, which is typical for individualistic cultures. Manythings that in collective cultures are self-evident must be said explicitly in individualistcultures.

Salleh (2005) uses four characteristics based on Hall’s (1981) model to differentiatehigh- 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.

The role ofcultural context

187

High-context cultures require close relationships and rely on emotions while low-contextcultures use the analytical part of the brain and less personal. In high-context culturesmessages are generally indirect. The speaker would only reveal part of the message andexpect the listener to fill the remaining pieces. Directness may be understood as beingtoo demanding. Details are not specified; instead the listener has the responsibility toassign meaning to cues and missing information. High-context cultures also rely moreon non-verbal cues. Sometimes silence is a very strong statement in high-contextcultures while low-context cultures would have difficulty assigning a meaning to someof the non-verbal cues. Finally, digital or analogous communication refers to theexactness of the meaning or the variability of meaning in communication. In low-contextcultures communication is regarded as more digital meaning that the words are chosencarefully to mean exactly what is attempted to convey.

Hall’s (1981) high- and low-context model has been object to criticisms likebi-polarisation, overgeneralisation, or lack of empirical foundation. However, the modelremains widely accepted and used as an organizing construct in the filed of interculturalresearch (Kittler, 2006). Hall and Hall (1990) list Japan, Arabic countries, Greece, Spain,Italy, England, France, North American countries, Scandinavian countries and Germanspeaking countries in order from high to low context. In high-context cultures such asJapan and Arabic countries much of the meaning is conveyed through subtle non-verbalcues where as in low-context cultures such as German speaking countries much of theunderstanding comes from spoken words (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991).

In the current study, nine countries were selected from the Cranfield network oncomparative human resource management (CRANET) database varying from high tolow context. Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece were labelled as high context, Italy, Sloveniaand France as medium context, and Estonia, Finland and Sweden as low-contextcountries.

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 theyfeel that others, who do not share their opinion, may feel hurt (Aydin and McIsaac, 2001).Both the Turkish and the Greek culture are classified as high-context cultures(Bayraktaroglu and Sifianou, 2001). Bulgaria is also considered a high-context culture.According to Elenkov and Fileva (2006), in Bulgaria people have to know a great deal ofinformation about other individuals before effective communication can occur. Inhigh-context cultures, most of the information is either in the physical context orinternalised 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 largeinformation networks. So, people in high-context cultures have to know a lot aboutothers in order to communicate effectively (Treven, 2002).

We have classified Italy, Slovenia and France as medium-context countries. In somestudies these countries are compared to Japan and other high-context countries andconsidered low context. However, studies comparing this group of countries withGermanic or Scandinavian countries consider them as high context. When we listcountries ranging from high to low context, these countries fall in the middle. Shao andHill (1994) and Helsen et al. (1993) place France, Italy and some Central Europeancountries as medium context. Thus, we have decided to label this group as mediumcontext.

BJM5,2

188

Owing to its geographic location and historical ties, Estonian culture has beeninfluenced 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 culturesin general and Scandinavian cultures in particular are characterised as low context.Finland and Sweden are usually labelled as low-context cultures where information ismore explicit. Lives are separated into work and personal lives and interactions withothers require more detailed information. They depend on words to convey meaning andappropriate word choice becomes crucial (Treven, 2002). However, some researchersalso argue that Estonia and Finland have cultural differences (Ryabania, 2008).

Although countries may share geographical similarities and although there may becertain similarities in some aspects of their cultures, we have to realise that there willremain distinctive characteristics between countries. In fact even within countries wehave to realise that there will be cultural variations.

Hypothesis developmentHigh-context cultures rely on the context to relay the message. Thus, formal words areless powerful compared to the context. In fact direct communication from managementmay be interpreted in a much different way because of the context. For example, if thecompany shares its financial situation with the employees, they may put differentmeaning to why this information was shared thus focusing less on the message butmore on the context.

Previous research has shown that among human resource (HR) practices“communication” practices to be strongly related to national culture (Papalexandrisand Panayotopoulou, 2004).

Therefore:

H1. In high-context cultures, there will be less direct communication between theorganization and the employees.

Works council and union representation is a general characteristic of European model ofemployment relations. Research shows that direct communication to employees andindirect communication through representative bodies go hand in hand. Generally whenan organisation has increased indirect communication, they also have increased directcommunication. In fact where there is a representative body such as unions that allowindirect communication, employees will also demand more direct communication fromthe 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 moreinformation with the employees. The employees that have access to unions may be in aposition to demand more information on the direction and financial status of theorganisation:

H2. When the level of unionization is high, there will be more directcommunication 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 ofcultural context

189

Policies and procedures need to be in place to ensure that employees not only are aware ofthe strategic direction of the organisation, but also that they have a role in shaping thestrategies and goals. Intensive communication to employees is an important part of“high-involvement management” (Croucher, 2008). Competitive advantage is achieved inhigh-involvement management through intensive involvement of employees usingincreased information both up and down the organisation, jobs redesigned to increaseinvolvement, financial participation and a more participative management philosophy.

HR departments have assumed a more central role in the development oforganisational strategies. The strategic role of human resource management (HRM)varies by organisations and countries. Some organisations place more of a strategic roleto HRM while others place more of an operational role. The comparative studies on HRMpractices also reveal that in some countries this strategic role is more common comparedto others. Those organisations that place a strategic role on HRM would also haveincreased information sharing since the HR department would be expected to maintaindirect communication channels with employees as part of their mandate.

From the perspective of strategic HRM if the HRM department has been involved inthe development of organisational strategies, there will be a better understanding ofand integration with the organisation’s strategic objectives:

H3. In organizations that place a strategic role for HRM, there will be more directcommunication between the organization and the employees.

MethodologyNine countries were selected from the CRANET database varying from high to lowcontext. Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece were labelled as high-context countries, Italy,Slovenia and France as medium context and Estonia, Finland and Sweden as low-contextcountries.

CRANET survey is the largest and most representative HRM survey in the world. Itincludes data from more than 35 countries. Data from over 30,000 respondents have beencollected in the six rounds of the survey since 1990 (Mayrhofer and Brewster, 2007). Thesurvey is administered to the most senior HR manager in the organisation. Althoughthere are criticisms of using key informant data (Kumar et al., 1993), the width of theCRANET data and the opportunities that it provides for studying comparative HRMpractices make it a valuable resource. The survey avoids attitudinal questions since it isfilled out by a single respondent for the whole organisation. Instead the respondents areasked to provide “hard data” such as numbers, ratios, or existence of certain practices orpolicies.

Direct communication – dependent variableThe dependent or criterion variable, direct communication was a composite measure.Based on a question that asks which employee categories (clerical and manual) areformally briefed about the business strategy, financial performance and organizationof the work, the composite variable was created. The composite variable was the total ofthe employee groups that received information on the three areas. Thus, six indicatedthat both clerical and manual employees are briefed on all three issues, and zeroindicated that neither category was briefed on any of the issues.

BJM5,2

190

Independent variablesControl variables. Since factors such as organization size age and industry could also beexpected to have an influence on the direct communication in an organization, we haveincluded these as control variables. The industry sector was coded 0 for manufacturingand 1 for services; organization size was taken as the logarithm of the total number ofemployees; the age of organization was taken as the logarithm of the number of yearssince the organization was founded.

Strategic role of HRM. The strategic role of HRM was measured by using thequestions about head of HR having a place on the highest management board of theorganization (yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0); the extent to which HRM department was involved inthe formulation of business strategy (consulted from the outset ¼ 4, not consulted ¼ 1);the primary responsibility for pay and benefits, recruitment and selection, trainingand development, industrial relations, workforce expansion/reduction (linemanagement ¼ 1, line management in consultation with HR ¼ 2, HR in consultationwith line management ¼ 3, HR department ¼ 4). The maximum possible score forstrategic role of HRM variable was 25.

Union presence. The presence and influence of unions was measured by using thequestions on the proportion of unionized employees (0 per cent ¼ 1, 1-50 per cent ¼ 2,over 50 per cent ¼ 3); whether trade unions have any influence on the organization(yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0); whether the organization recognizes trade unions for the purpose ofcollective bargaining (yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0). The maximum possible score for this unionpresence variable would be 5.

Communication culture context. The communication culture context wasoperationalised 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-contextcountries of Estonia, Finland and Sweden coded as 1.

FindingsOne-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there was significant differencebetween the three groups (high-, medium- and low-context countries) in terms of theiraverage direct communication score. As high-context countries, Turkey, Bulgaria andGreece, had 2.23 average direct communication score, as medium-context countries,France, Slovenia and Italy, had 3.03 average direct communication score and aslow-context countries, Estonia, Finland and Sweden, had average direct communicationscore of 4.41.

Hypothesis testingH1 predicted that in high-context cultures, there would be less direct communicationbetween the organization and the employees while in low-context cultures the level ofdirect communication would be much higher. Table I shows the direct communicationscores 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-contextcountries. Thus, H1 is supported. The table also allows us to see that the strategicnature of HRM is highest in France and lowest in Bulgaria. Union presence is highestin Sweden and lowest in Estonia.

Table II shows the comparisons of the level of direct communication in threegroups of countries. Low-context group composed of Estonia, Sweden and Finland;

The role ofcultural context

191

medium-context group composed of Italy, France and Slovenia; and high-context groupcomposed of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. If we compare the individual country meanscores for direct communication in Table I which we have grouped in the same categorylater in Table II, we can see that there is a variation between countries in Table I. This isbecause there is some intra category variation in direct communication practices.However, when we look at aggregate results we can clearly see variation between thegroups. The difference in direct communication used by organizations between the threegroups is significant.

In order to see the influences on direct communication we have run hierarchicalmultiple regression with direct communication as the dependent variable. Theindependent variables were checked for multicollinearity. The variance inflation factor(VIF) scores reported in the table show that VIFs are below 10 indicating that there isno cause for concern about multicollinearity. The dependent variable was checked fornormal 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 enteredas the control variables. Table III shows that the control variables explain only

Strategic natureof HRM Union presence

Directcommunication

n Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Turkey 171 13.48 5.19 2.62 1.85 2.06 1.56Greece 180 15.53 5.99 3.24 1.52 2.18 1.57Bulgaria 157 9.71 5.70 2.93 1.73 2.46 1.85Italy 117 17.26 6.29 3.88 1.04 2.74 1.79France 140 18.09 3.57 3.21 1.06 3.09 1.85Slovenia 161 14.44 5.04 3.84 1.17 3.21 1.93Estonia 118 12.90 5.20 1.92 1.30 3.20 1.80Sweden 383 15.25 4.07 4.73 0.76 4.50 1.76Finland 293 13.97 4.73 4.54 1.01 4.76 1.52Total 1,720 14.51 5.38 3.71 1.53 3.43 2.00

Table I.Strategic nature of HRM,union presence and directcommunication in ninecountries listed in orderof high to low context

n Mean SD F Sig.

Low context 794 4.40 1.75Medium context 418 3.03 1.86High context 508 2.22 1.66Total 1,720 3.42 1.99ANOVA 251.91 0.000

Table II.Comparing the means ofdirect communication forlow-, medium- andhigh-context countries

Step R 2 Adjusted R 2 R 2 change F change df Sig. F change

1 0.026 0.023 0.026 9.85 3 0.0002 0.117 0.113 0.091 57.71 2 0.0003 0.244 0.240 0.127 188.30 1 0.0004 0.256 0.251 0.012 17.75 1 0.000

Note: n ¼ 1,720Table III.Model summary

BJM5,2

192

2.3 per cent of the variation in direct communication. H2 predicted that when the levelof unionization is high, there will be more direct communication between organizationand employees and H3 predicted that in organizations that place a strategic role forHRM, there will be more direct communication between the organization and theemployees. To test these hypotheses, in Step 2 we introduced the strategic role of HRMand union presence to the model. This has improved the analysis significantly,explaining 11.3 per cent of the variation in direct communication. From Table IV we cansee in Step 2 that both strategic role of HRM and union presence have significantinfluence on direct communication, thus, H2 and H3 received support.

In Step 3, we have introduced cultural communication context to the model to see if itwould improve the model further. We can see in Table III that adjusted R 2 has improvedto 24 per cent. In Table IV, in Step 3, we can see that beta coefficient is negative andsignificant, showing that as we move from low- to high-context cultures, the effect ondirect communication is negative. In other words in countries such as Turkey, Greeceand Bulgaria where communication relies on the subtle cues instead of direct words, thedirect communication is lower. This provides further support for H1.

B t-value Sig. VIF

Step 1Constant 2.251 6.494 0.000Industry sector 20.042 20.354 0.724 1.020Age of the organisation (log) 0.779 5.227 0.000 1.059Size of the organisation (log) 0.012 0.108 0.914 1.071Step 2Constant 1.563 4.527 0.000Industry sector 20.028 20.249 0.804 1.023Age of the organisation (log) 0.339 2.295 0.022 1.148Size of the organisation (log) 20.222 22.044 0.041 1.117Strategic role of HRM 0.047 4.418 0.000 1.040Union presence 0.366 9.574 0.000 1.135Step 3Constant 3.816 10.625 0.000Industry sector 20.416 23.867 0.000 1.098Age of the organisation (log) 0.174 1.271 0.204 1.156Size of the organisation (log) 0.022 0.212 0.832 1.152Strategic role of HRM 0.039 3.967 0.000 1.043Union presence 0.182 4.818 0.000 1.297Cultural communication context 20.924 213.722 0.000 1.257Step 4Constant 2.660 5.913 0.000Industry sector 20.392 23.664 0.000 1.102Age of the organisation (log) 0.156 1.146 0.252 1.158Size of the organisation (log) 20.004 20.038 0.970 1.156Strategic role of HRM 0.040 4.130 0.000 1.044Union presence 0.504 5.924 0.000 6.658Cultural communication context 20.353 22.341 0.019 6.415Union presence £ Cultural communication context 20.160 24.214 0.000 7.638

Note: Dependent variable: direct communication

Table IV.Hierarchical regression

results

The role ofcultural context

193

In order to see how cultural communication context and union presence may interact intheir influence on direct communication, in Step 4 we introduced the product of culturalcommunication context and union presence to the model. We can see that this increasedadjusted R 2 to 25.1 per cent. Furthermore, we can see that the product of culturalcommunication context and union presence has a negative significant coefficient. Thisdemonstrates that when an organisation has high unionization in low-context countriesthis has a bigger influence on direct communication. However, when the organisationhas higher unionization in high-context countries, the impact of this on directcommunication is not as high.

ConclusionOur results show that cultural communication context, union presence and strategic role ofHRM all have an influence on direct communication. We also see that union presence andcultural context interact. Organisations in low-context countries, which have highunionization seem to have more direct communication; where as organisations inhigh-context countries which have high union presence do not necessarily have asmuch direct communication. This may indicate that institutional factors, legal framework,administrative heritage may also have an influence in addition to cultural context.

Multinational companies that operate across cultures have to be aware of the influence ofculture and institutions on the expectations of their employees. However, European Unionpolicies that encourage mobility of students and employees across borders will also lead toworkforces that are more diverse. Thus, we can say that all organisations have to becomeefficient in dealing with different communication needs of employees. Perceptions andinfluence of unions also differ across nations. Our findings suggest that unionization has apositive impact on direct communication. This may be due to management becoming moreattentive to communication needs of employees when unions are organised to representemployee interests. However, further research at organisation level is necessary toinvestigate whether this is actually the case and if so how the mechanism operates.

Since organisations are having to constantly to reinvent themselves, they need todevelop better quality of communication with their employees in order to allow themto contribute in meaningful ways to the organization. This will also allow the employeesto be more motivated and involved in the organisation. Previous research has shownthat employees’ embeddedness to their organisation and community reduces their riskof leaving the organisation (Tanova and Holtom, 2008).

In today’s environment where people from different cultures and companies fromdifferent legal systems are increasingly working together, we need to realise that contextmatters. What works in one environment may not be successful in another. We need todevelop models that can guide managers in how they can deal with the differences andbe effective in communicating with their employees. There seems to be a trend whereemployees are expecting more direct communication than ever before. This will requireemployers and managers to find ways of providing direct communication methods thataccommodate 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 employeesthemselves. Future research can investigate not only the amount but also the qualityof the communication by collecting data from employees. Furthermore, future researchcan focus on surveys that will measure attitudes and values of participants.

BJM5,2

194

References

Atwater, L.E. and Waldman, D.A. (2007), Leadership, Feedback, and the Open CommunicationGap, Psychology Press, Florence, KY.

Aycan, Z. (2001), “Human resource management in Turkey: current issues and futurechallenges”, 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 Sifianou, M. (2001), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case ofGreek and Turkish, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Boyacigiller, N.A. and Adler, N. (1991), “The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in aglobal context”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-90.

Callow, M. and Schiffman, L.G. (2004), “Sociocultural meanings in visually standardized printads”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1113-29.

Croucher, R. (2008), “Employee communication”, in Muller-Camen, M., Croucher, R. andLeigh, S. (Eds), Human Resource Management: A Case Study Approach, CIPD, London.

Croucher, R., Gooderham, P. and Parry, E. (2006), “The influences on direct communication inBritish and Danish firms: country, ‘strategic HRM’ or unionization?”, European Journal ofIndustrial Relations, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 267-86.

Drucker, P.F. (1995), “The information executives truly need”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73No. 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 CulturalManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 132-41.

Fourboul, C.V. and Bournois, F. (1999), “Strategic communication with employees in largeEuropean 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 segmentationutilizing 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: Hofstede’s indices for Latvia, andLithuania, Baltic”, Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 359-76.

Kittler, M. (2006), “How cultural context interferes with communication: a synthesis of Hall’sHC/LC-concept and Krippendorff’s information theory”, paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International CongressCentre, Dresden, available at: www.allacademic.com/meta/p92335_index.html (accessed25 May 2009).

Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), “Conducting inter-organizational researchusing key informants”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1633-51.

Mayrhofer, W. and Brewster, C. (2007), “European human resource management: researchingdevelopments over time”, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic HumanResource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 241-69.

The role ofcultural context

195

Papalexandris, N. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2004), “Exploring the mutual interaction of societalculture and human resource management practices: evidence from 19 countries”, EmployeeRelations, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 495-509.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Ryabania, E. (2008), “Comparison of Udmurt, Estonian, and Finnish dialogues: characteristics ofcommunicative 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 BusinessCommunication Annual Convention, Association for Business Communication, Irvine, CA.

Shao, A.T. and Hill, J.S. (1994), “Advertising sensitive products in magazines: legal and socialrestrictions”, Multinational Business Review, Fall, pp. 16-24.

Tanova, C. and Holtom, B. (2008), “Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntaryturnover in four European countries”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 1553-68.

Treven, S. (2002), “International training: the training of managers for assignment abroad”,EducationþTraining, Vol. 45 Nos 8/9, pp. 550-7.

Ulijn, J.M. and Lincke, A. (2004), “The effect of CMC and FTF on negotiation outcomes betweenR&D and manufacturing partners in the supply chain: an Anglo/Nordic/Latincomparison”, International Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp. 111-40.

Further reading

Koeszegi, S.T., Vetschera, R. and Kersten, G.E. (2004), “National cultural differences in the useand perception of internet-based NSS – does high or low context matter?”, InternationalNegotiation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 79-109.

Corresponding authorCem Tanova can be contacted at: cem.tanova@emu.edu.tr

BJM5,2

196

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