Close neighbours and distant friends—perceptions of cultural distance

ARTICLE IN PRESS

international

business

review

0969-5931/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ib

�CorrespondE-mail addr

(J. Clegg), pjb@1Tel.: +44 112Tel.: +44 113Tel.: +44 11

International Business Review 17 (2008) 217–234

www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

Close neighbours and distant friends—perceptionsof cultural distance

Malcolm Chapman1, Hanna Gajewska-De Mattos�, Jeremy Clegg2,Peter Jennings Buckley3

aCentre for International Business University of Leeds (CIBUL), Leeds University Business School (LUBS),

Maurice Keyworth Buidling, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Received 29 January 2007; received in revised form 1 August 2007, 11 December 2007; accepted 11 January 2008

Abstract

In this paper we call for a better understanding of cultural distance and its importance to managers across borders. We

report on the structuring and interpretation of cultural distance by managers from Germany, the UK and Poland. In

particular we are interested in the German/Polish, and the UK/Polish contrast. We examine how managers living within

these contrasts create and interpret frameworks within which they can understand one another, and also explain their

failures of understanding. We argue that differences, which are understood, are differences that can be managed. The

paper is based on empirical data collected during 63 face-to-face interviews with managers from Germany, the United

Kingdom and Poland. The findings are the result of qualitative, interpretive analysis.

We argue that cultural distance should be treated as relative and not absolute and that it should be treated on a bilateral

basis. This approach contributes to a better understanding of when cultural distance matters, and when it does not, and it

should be treated as complementary to the objective measures which have been predominant in cross-cultural management

literature.

r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cultural distance and psychic distance; Managerial perceptions; Poland and Germany; Poland and the UK

1. Introduction

The core argument in this paper is that simple and static measures of cultural distance, which have beenpredominant in the international business literature, are not sufficient to fully understand this complexconcept. We propose that ’objective’ measures of culture need to be supplemented by careful and contextualstudies of national cultural meetings at the managerial level. We argue that cultural distance should be

e front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

usrev.2008.01.007

ing author. Tel.: +44113 343 4668; fax: +44113 343 4754.

esses: [email protected] (M. Chapman), [email protected] (H. Gajewska-De Mattos), [email protected]

lubs.leeds.ac.uk (P. Jennings Buckley).

3 343 4492; fax: +44 113 343 4754.

3 343 4592; fax: +44 113 343 4754.

3 343 4646; fax: +44 113 343 4754.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.01.007

mailto:[email protected]





ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Chapman et al. / International Business Review 17 (2008) 217–234218

considered as relative and not absolute, and that it should be treated on a bilateral basis. This approachcontributes to a better understanding of when cultural distance, as measured by objective measures, matters.We argue that this can be achieved by using relative measures as supplementary to objective ones, which havebeen predominant in cross-cultural management literature.

In this paper, we are discussing two pairs of countries—Germany/Poland and the UK/Poland. We first givea brief account of the historical interactions between these two pairs of countries. We do this because webelieve that these historical interactions, as they were experienced and as they are remembered, have majorconsequences for present day interactions at the level of individual managerial experience. Thus theexperiences of nations can be reflected in the attitudes of individuals. From a structural anthropologicalperspective it is to be expected that dualities with resonance at the national scale, will also appear at otherlevels. We are taking a holistic view here, which is characteristic of both economics and social anthropology.

Therefore, cultural distance is both constructed and interpreted by the perceivers, and it is influenced byexperience and history. Our analysis of Hofstede’s work below suggests that we can supplement his indices bya more nuanced and contextualised analysis. This leads us to develop a more sensitive approach to culturaldistance as suggested by Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, and Gibson (2005).

In this article we examine the German/Polish, and the UK/Polish contrast at the level of individualmanager. We examine how managers living within these contrasts create and interpret frameworks withinwhich they can understand one another, and also explain their failures of understanding. We argue thatdifferences which are understood, are differences which can be managed.

2. The concept of cultural distance

In this paper we discuss the structuring and interpretation of cultural distance by managers from Germany,the UK and Poland. We are particularly interested in two contrasts—the German/Polish contrast, and theUK/Polish contrast.

Shenkar (2001, p. 519) noted ‘‘few constructs have gained broader acceptance in the international businessliterature than cultural distance’’. The ‘cultural distance’ to which Shenkar refers is primarily inspired by thework of Geert Hofstede, which is widely cited in literature relating to international business and internationalmanagement (see Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 2001). Hofstede’s ‘dimensions of culture’ have provided researcherswith a way of conceptualizing culture, and also with index scores for countries which have been treated asindicators of ‘cultural distance’. Hofstede’s dimensions are already (as Hofstede himself admits) simplicationsof complex issues. Hofstede’s work has itself been further ‘simplified’, however, in a much-cited article byKogut and Singh (1988), where the four dimensions are boiled down into one index of ‘cultural distance’.Hofstede’s dimensions, and the Kogut and Singh reductio of these, have been very widely used by the businessacademic community (see Bakacsi, Sandor, Andras, & Viktor, 2002; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006); wemust generally conclude that this community has decided that the advantages of simplification in this area areworth the price. The point is arguable, and has been argued (see Hofstede, 2002; Hoppe, 2004; McSweeney,2002a, 2002b; Smith, 2002; Triandis, 2004; Williamson, 2002).

Recent summaries of the field have acknowledged the major influence of Hofstede (Leung et al., 2005, p.357), and the way in which the ‘cultural distance’ concept has come to dominate research (Tihanyi, Griffith, &Russell, 2005, p. 270). Leung et al. (2005, p. 374) say:

Much of previous research on culture and IB has adopted what we view as a simplistic view of culture,which tends to examine the static influence of a few cultural elements in isolation from other culturalelements and contextual variables. For instance, much of the research inspired by the Hofstede dimensionsfalls into this category, which, in our view, was instrumental in kickstarting the field.

Having acknowledged previous work, and the seminal contribution of Hofstede, they go on to call for‘multi-layer, multi-facet, contextual, and systems views of culture’ (Leung et al., 2005). They also say that

A major challenge for the field is to develop mid-range, dynamic frameworks of culture that are sensitive totheir nuances in different contexts (p. 374).

ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Chapman et al. / International Business Review 17 (2008) 217–234 219

We agree with this summary of the state of play, and hope in this paper to provide some of the complexity,context and mid-range dynamism that are called for.

Shenkar (2001, pp. 520–521) notes that the concept of cultural distance has been used to research suchthings as the launch/sequence of foreign investment, entry mode and affiliate performance . He then discussessome conceptual reservations about this work, under a number of headings, among them the ‘illusion ofsymmetry’, the ‘illusion of linearity’, the ‘illusion of stability’, and the ‘illusion of causality’. We fully supportShenkar’s argument about these illusions, and argue that our own work amplifies and illustrates his criticisms.This issue will be fully addressed in a discussion section of this paper.

The concepts of ‘cultural distance’ and of ‘psychic distance’ have often been used interchangeably. In someearly and influential studies of cultural effects on firm behaviour, ‘psychic distance’ was the preferredformulation (see Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975). Sousa and Bradley (2006,p. 63) argue that, while the two concepts are certainly related, they also need to be distinguished. Theysummarise:

Cultural distance reflects a difference in cultural values among countries that should be assessed at thecultural or country level. Psychic distance is based on the individual’s perception and should be assessed atthe individual level (p. 63).

There are a number of important unresolved arguments opening up here, and we do not intend to pursuethese at length. A stark contrast is drawn here between ‘culture’ and the ‘individual’, and the relationshipbetween ‘cultural values’ and ‘individual perceptions’, as if these did not interact and as if they could beseparately assessed. These distinctions are among the great dilemmas of social science, ever since Durkheim,and in our own material we see constant mutual interaction of ‘values’ and ‘perceptions’, and of ‘culture’ andthe ‘individual’. We do, however, warmly agree with the importance that Sousa and Bradley (2006) attach to‘perception’. Our study is ethnographic in character, and ‘perceptions’ are the main focus (for otherethnographic studies see D’Iribarne, Segal, Chevrier, & Globokar, 1998; Salk, 1996–7).

We are, therefore, providing an ethnographic account of cultural difference which is, as Leung et al call for,‘multi-layer, multi-facet and contextual’, which provides ‘mid-range, dynamic frameworks’, and which is‘sensitive to nuance in different contexts’ (see Leung, et al., 2005, p. 374, cited above). We are providing herematerial that allows us to see into the complexities of the ‘illusions’ which Shenkar (2001) invokes—ofsymmetry, linearity, stability and causality. We propose to add another illusion to his list, that of ‘neutrality’.And we make ‘perceptions’ the focus of our study, within the complex interactions between society andindividual, and ideas and action.

3. Close neighbours and distant friends—a contrast of contrasts

When Poland looks to its neighbours, it looks primarily east, to Russia, and west, to Germany. Poland has along history of understanding itself through contrast to these two countries, these two ethnicities. Poland isChristian and Catholic (like parts of Germany, unlike Orthodox Russia.) Poland was heavily influenced by thereformation, and by the counter-reformation. Poland was part of the European Renaissance andEnlightenment, and shone in the Baroque age. Poland is ‘European’, not ‘Asian’. Poland is ‘civilised’, not‘uncivilised’. Poland has been shut away from its rightful historical place in Europe, by half a century ofCommunism. (These, it should be stressed, are major themes of Polishness as commonly expressed by Polesthemselves; they are not our assertions). Polish identity is not only about not being Russian, not beingGerman. Many of these other themes, however (Orthodox or Catholic, Asian or European, ‘Enlightened’ orotherwise, civilised or not) are locally most likely to be expressed in a context which involves thinking aboutRussia and Germany. It is the relationship with Germany which is our prime concern here.

Just as Poland has Germany on its mind, Germany, similarly, has Poland on its mind. Germany’sgeopolitics has found European expression, in recent centuries, on a scale much more ambitious than that ofPoland. It has been the immediate neighbours, however, who have posed the first problems, given the firstpause for thought. Again, the problem is a complex one, and Germany is not homogeneous, not to be summedup in a few phrases. Nevertheless, when Germany is thinking about itself, then comparisons to East and toWest are paramount; they are paramount in thought, and have of course been paramount in action.


The relationship between Poland and Germany is close, intense and highly charged. It has also been anasymmetric power relationship. Historically, Germany has often occupied a position of political and/oreconomic dominance over its eastern neighbour. Investment patterns in Europe in the 20th century havereflected this. Poland, during its brief period of independence between the 1st and 2nd world wars, found itselfapparently ‘invaded’ by foreign investment (with Germany as a prominent source) (Landau & Tomaszewski,1964, 1985; Wellisz, 1938). Foreign capital was generally not an issue during the communist period. After1989, however, Poland was once again open for business, and once again it was Germany companies leading.German ownership of Polish assets, and potentially of Polish land, raised many sensitivities about invasion,occupation, forced emigration, dating back to the violent redrawing of Central European boundaries in theperiod immediately after 1945. Our research concerns Polish firms that have been acquired by, or at leastbrought strongly under the influence of, German and UK firms. There are some Polish firms that have madeacquisitions in Germany, but the number is very modest compared with the much larger inward capital flows.

By contrast to the Germans, when the British look around the world for exemplars of what they are not,Poland hardly comes into the frame. The British look to France, to Germany, to the Celtic Fringe, to theUSA, to the erstwhile Empire and modern Commonwealth. Poland emerged briefly into the Britishconsciousness during diplomatic attempts to contain the increasingly threatening activities of Nazi Germany.It was the German invasion of Poland that drew the UK into the Second World War. This was a definingconflict for the modern world, and it left its traces in the British collective imagination. When the British thinkabout Poland, the earliest event most people have access to is the 1939–45 war, Britain’s alliance with Poland,the participation of Polish fighter pilots in the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain in 1940, and someexperience of Polish emigres living in the UK.

After the war, the Polish communities in the UK remained and prospered, but Poland itself slipped from thenews. The ‘Iron Curtain’ fell, with Poland behind it. Communism and Capitalism, for the duration of the‘Cold War’, trod their separate paths. Poland re-emerged into the western European, and British,consciousness, with the rise of ‘Solidarity’ in the early 1980s. When confidence in the communist systemscollapsed in late 1989, Poland re-emerged as a country aspiring to implement a capitalist economic system. Italso emerged as a country re-assuming membership of Europe (in the sense, wealthy, modern, civilised,sharing a history with neighbouring nation-states) and aspiring to and achieving membership of the EuropeanUnion. This transition from communism to capitalism, for the generations that grew to adulthood during the‘Cold War’, was dramatic, striking, unexpected and welcome. The result is that for many people in the UK,the most important thing about Poland is that it was communist, and now is not. So when the UK looks atPoland, it sees distant friends in a post-communist economy. The close and tense relationship, which existsbetween Germany and Poland, is not there between the UK and Poland. These issues are clearly illustrated byour empirical data, as it will be discussed in more detail later on in this paper.

The relationships between the pairs of countries that we are talking about here are manifold—they haveliterary and theoretical elaborations, but they are also relationships which have been lived. Poles and Germanshave lived in the same towns and villages. They have named the same landscapes with different names. Theyhave fought one another, driven one another out and called one another names. They have intermarried. TheGerman/Polish national difference has multi-dimensional empirical substance behind it. The perceptions ofdifference, emerging from our analysis, are not cloudy fragments of thought, but bits of life—observationsfrom street and market place, farmyard and town centre, school and family, factory and office. It is notsurprising, then, that the means for expression of a Polish/German difference should be readily available to theexecutives under study. The Polish/German difference (along with its not-quite-mirror image, the German/Polish difference), has been thought about, worked upon, argued over, many times expressed—we might evensay it has been polished.

The UK/Polish relationship has been lived as well, but through different experiences, and with far lessintensity. The UK/Poland contrast has some similarities to the German/Polish contrast, but also some veryimportant differences. Like Germany, the UK has been powerful, wealthy and expansive. It has written itsown histories. But it has no experience of long-term contiguity with Poland. In this paper, we will show thatthis has important implications for how Polish and British managers understand their relationship, and theirinteractions with one another. In what follows we will first discuss the research method of this study and wewill then proceed to the empirical part of the paper.


4. Research method

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive methodological approach and treats managerial perceptions asa focus of analysis. One of the reasons why this method is appropriate for the current study is the fact that it isexploratory in nature. It aims to identify the Polish perceptions of German managers for which no suitablesecondary data exist. Quantitative, questionnaire based research could not be used in this case as thecategories of this study are not known. Furthermore, the qualitative, interpretive approach is argued to offer amore certain and precise understanding of the societies under investigation, from the point of view of thosewho are under study (Iribarne, 1996/97; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994).

The main objective of the study is to discover the thoughts and opinions of German, British and Polishmanagers involved in cross-border business activities. We did not, in the classic hypothetico-deductivemanner, try to determine in advance what questions needed answering. We wanted the managers’ views andopinions, expressed in their own terms, and expressing their own priorities. This is in line with the dominantresearch concern in social anthropology, and has been expressed as a concern to research ‘native categories’(see Buckley & Chapman, 1997; Harris, 2000, 2003).

This study was conducted in 12 companies in Germany, the UK and Poland,4 through 63 face-to-face indepth interviews with managers in these companies. The respondents selected for interview were generalmanagers from the foreign-affiliated Polish companies, and area directors responsible for EasternEurope in German and British parent companies. The purpose of this selection was to identify respondentswith extensive relevant knowledge of the topic, who were to some degree comparable between firms(biographical data collected during the interviews confirmed that all interviews had direct and oftensubstantial personal experience of the relevant countries). All Polish respondents came from affiliatecompanies and all German and British ones came from the parent companies. Interviews were heldinitially with a general manager from each of the companies, and then typically with the deputy generalmanager. Further respondents were identified by the first interviewees, employing a ‘snowballing’ technique(Marschan, 1996).

The interviews were conducted in an unstructured way as the respondents would allow (Chapman, 2001).An interview guide (see Appendix A) was prepared to provide a framework for the researcher if theinterviewees ran out of narrative, and it is available from the authors on request. The guide was there to servethe larger purpose, which was to encourage managers to share their view of the world, and specifically of theirimmediate business situation. Every interview had the potential to develop in different ways, which theresearchers tried to encourage, aiming to impose minimum constraints on potential topics of interest (Iribarne,1996/97; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Vaara, 2002; Yin, 1994). Some of the classic questions of internationalbusiness were pursued (motives for market entry, motives for specific market entry mode, problems,organisational and national cultural issues), but the time given to these was determined by the interviewees.Several techniques of constructing questions were applied in the interviews (e.g., ‘grand tour’, ‘proactive’,‘contrast’ and ‘category’ questions) (McCracken, 1988). It was anticipated that there might be interestingmaterial concerning national cultural issues, and interviewees were to some extent provoked to discuss these ifthey felt they were of interest. After this, however, the issues were allowed to surface as and when they would,and given the time and importance which the interviewees wished to accord them.

Chapman, Clegg, and Gajewska-De Mattos (2004), Chapman, Gajewska-De Mattos, and Antoniou (2004)pointed out that who and what you are as a qualitative researcher ‘‘matters to what you are readily able todiscover and to understand’’ (p. 292). In the current study, the issue of language and nationality is of relevancein this context.

The role of language in cross-cultural interviewing has been addressed in the literature (e.g., Chapman,Clegg et al., 2004; Chapman, Gajewska-De Mattos et al., 2004; Marschan-Piekkari & Reis, 2004; Zalan &Lewis, 2004). In the current study, the language in which the interviews were conducted varied depending onthe country. In Poland all the interviews were carried out in Polish, as it was the first language of both the

4Poland is third most populous nation in the area of Central and Eastern Europe, and at the time of conducting this research it was a

candidate country to the European Union. Since initiating its market reforms, it has experienced a large inflow of foreign direct

investment. A considerable amount of this investment came from Germany, and the UK—the existing members of the EU.


interviewer and the interviewees. In Germany and the UK the language of communication was English. Notoperating in one’s mother tongue during an interview could potentially restrict the momentum of theresponses of the interviewees (Chapman, Clegg et al., 2004; Chapman, Gajewska-De Mattos et al., 2004). It isworth pointing out, however, that all the German executives were quite fluent English speakers, andexpressing themselves in English did not seem to be a difficulty.

The impact of the nationality of the interviewer (i.e., Polish) on the richness of the material coming from theinterviews also needs to be addressed here. This is potentially important in the context of a very close andintense relationship between Poland and Germany, in contrast to the more distant relationship betweenPoland and England. This research was concerned with how the Germans and the British viewed the Poles,and how the Poles viewed the Germans and the British. Speaking about this to Poles, meant the interviewerand interviewee shared a common background, however, speaking about this to Germans, meant speaking topeople that had every reason to be highly sensitive about the legitimacy of their opinions. Every effort wasmade, however, to create an atmosphere of cooperation with the interviewees to encourage them to answertruthfully the questions of the study (e.g., by assuring their confidentiality and anonymity).

The interviews were transcribed, and read and re-read. Written up data were compared across interviewsand across the companies, and analysed for common themes, stories and issues. This was achieved by multiplereadings of the transcripts. The interviews were then colour coded and a list of the main topics, themes andstories were developed. The texts from the interviews were then sorted according to these themes. The mainthemes were the issues repeatedly mentioned by the interviewees, discussed by many of them, or pointed outby executives as important. The attention of researchers was also directed to ‘important absences’, and thereasons behind them. There are specialist software packages available on the market (e.g., QSR Nud*ist), butthese do not support data in more than one language, which was the case in the current study. Presented withthis difficulty the authors used Microsoft Word features for managing long documents to organise data. Theinterview transcripts were scrutinised for patterns. The most consistent generator of differences andcommonalities between the transcripts, was provided by the nationality of the interviewees. This was notimposed upon the transcripts by analysis (except in as much as the interviewees were chosen by nationality),but rather one which they offered up voluntarily.

There are several considerations, within the present work, which might serve to assure its validity andreliability. Firstly, a clear rationale for using qualitative enquiry has been adopted (Parkhe, 1997), and datacollection, analysis and interpretation procedures have been clarified (Brewer, 2001; Brouthers & Bamossy,1997; Festing, 1997; O’Grady & Lane, 1996; Teigland, Fey, & Birkinshaw, 2000; Tsang, 2001), as detailed inthe beginning of this section. Secondly, one of the principles of data collection is using multiple sources ofevidence in order to achieve triangulation (Yin, 1994); in the current study primary data were complementedby various other sources (e.g., annual reports and leaflets of companies, press cuttings, internet sources,historical sources). A summary is contained in the section ‘Close Neighbours and Distant Friends—A contrastof contrasts’. This approach allowed the inclusion of new facts and ideas, and increased the opportunity forchecking interpretations and identifying patterns. Thirdly, the narratives were supported with the verbatimresponses of the executives under investigation, to support claims being made in the paper and to offer thereader the opportunity of drawing their own conclusions (Beechler & Yang, 1994; Marschan, 1996). Fourthly,the findings were cross-tabulated with the data on the characteristics of the respondents (e.g., age, education,length of experience in the company, international exposure, etc.), types of the companies (e.g., M&As,greenfield or equity JVs), and different industries. This provided some useful insights, and helped to build theinternal validity of the study (Eisenhardt, 1989). And finally, the findings of the study were compared withconflicting and similar literature, which as Eisenhardt (1989, p. 533) put it ‘builds internal validity, raisestheoretical level, and sharpens construct definitions’.

5. Empirical evidence

In this section, we present empirical evidence from research into perceptions of German and Polishmanagers and British and Polish managers working inside situations of business interaction.


5.1. German polish and British polish contrast

The German managers, in discussing why Poles were as they were, did not refer to the legacy ofcommunism, but referred to a much more distant past. The sense of German/Polish difference, as expressed byboth the Germans and the Poles, seemed to draw on deep roots, and to have less facility for change than theUK/Polish difference. German interviewees saw the Poles as their familiar Eastern neighbour, unchangedeither by communism or subsequent ‘superficial’ reforms:

I think people don’t change a lot. They have the same feeling, but the time changed completely (D3_GE5).

The British respondents, by contrast, sought explanation of their Polish counterparts in the legacy ofcommunism. Here is a British manager on the centralised nature of older Polish organisational structures:

In our company in Warsaw, where everyone has e-mail, fax, it’s very easy to communicate with everyonefrom the senior management to the shop floor. In the old state owned company there was only one fax inthe office of the managing director, and everything had to go through him. We were trying to show that if itworks well in ‘Company I–Poland’ it could also work there [in Poznan] (I1_UK).

The British, like the Germans, tended to see themselves as embodying a set of virtues, which the Poles mightbe encouraged to imitate. The British, however, were uniform in interpreting Polish shortcomings as a result ofthe previous system of central planning. For example:

But that’s the characteristics of all the former COMECON economies, whenever there is much toughercompetition they say that’s too difficult (H2_UK).[y]We were late, we thought we were looking at a ready made facility, but it was lacking in internationalsafety standards, it was run in the old communist way (H4_UK).

The British perceived the Poles to be in a process of rapid mental transformation, as the shadows of centralplanning disappeared.

[y] [Poles] are moving from ‘write me a rule’ people, from one type of society to another (K1_UK).

British managers also tended to see Poland features that were shared with all post-communist societies: theyspoke of ‘typical post communists’, of ‘transforming society’, of a ‘young generation not affected bycommunism’. And for the British managers, the trauma of communism was responsible for making the Polesdifferent; now that it was over, then the British expectation was that the Poles would become like the British—undramatically normal.

The British interviewees also tended to describe Poles and Poland as ‘unfamiliar’:

English people don’t know much about it [Poland]. [y] In the UK you have to get on the plane to come toPoland and Germans are next door (K3_UK).The British presence in Poland is weak, perhaps because of the image of this country, where people arequeuing for bread for example. I wouldn’t have believed myself that there are bank machines there, bigblocks of flats (K2_UK).

It was also pointed out by the Polish managers that Poland is not very well known to The Polish managersechoed this, in their assessment of how much the British knew about Poland:

[y] In many countries Poland is associated with a place where white bears are walking on the streets. Theknowledge of our country abroad is very limited (F2_PL).People from the West do not know us. I know it because I have travelled abroad a lot. Our owners did nothave a clue about Poland. They only got to know the country through our company (J1_PL).

The only instance of familiarity between the Poles and the British, as expressed by the Polish managers, wastheir participation as allies in the Second World War.

5For reasons of confidentiality the names of companies participating in the study were coded. For example: ‘D3_GE’ means that it was a

‘Company D’ originating from Germany.


In what follows, we look at the contrast of contrasts, the differences between the German/Polish oppositionand the UK/Polish opposition and their origins in the different German and UK experiences of Poland.

5.2. Cultural distance—German and polish interpretation

Both German and Polish managers agreed that there were differences between them, and there areinteresting similarities between their expressions of these differences. We begin with two quotations, one froma German and one from a Pole:

First, start to think in Polish. Their way of thinking is different from ours. This is based in a history, and wemust be aware of it. You have to be aware of the history in the contact with Polish people, as our relationsover the centuries have been very specific (C2_GE).[y] It’s very difficult to work together with Polish people because there is another knowledge, another wayto work (D3_GE).One has to point out that there are very big differences in mentality, different law, customs and habits [y](J1_PL).It is simply a different mentality of the nation [y](G2_PL).

It is worth highlighting the assertion that ‘our relations over the centuries have been very specific’. Theinterviewee here probably means ‘very painful and difficult’. This makes an important point: whatever theobjective cultural differences between Germany and Poland (if indeed there are any), they demand to beunderstood in their own binary historical context, and relationships between them must be put in this contextas well. We are trying to act out the admonitions of this first quotation.

The Polish and German managers agreed, therefore, that they were different. This trend was emphasised byall age groups of the interviewees, and from all types of the companies. It is important to mention here thatnearly all the German respondents had visited Poland (some of them had lived there for a limited period oftime), and that they were all generally well travelled.

In Fig. 1 below we present a summary of German interpretation of German–Polish cultural distance.Expressions without diacritics are those used by interviewees; expressions in inverted commas are those

where the phrase was in some way highlighted as slightly unusual by the interviewee. Expressions in

Germans

responsible

disciplined

'do the coaching'

set the rules

(work individually)

(tolerant)

(diligent)

(altruistic)

(controlled)

: Poles

: evade responsibility

: (undisciplined)

: need authority

: need rules and hierarchy

: work in a networking system

: nationalistic

: lazy

: materialistic

: warm and hospitable

Fig. 1. German–Polish cultural distance as perceived by the Germans.


parentheses are adjectives, which are implied by opposition, but not explicitly stated; thus, if, for example, aGerman manager, in discussion of German and Polish qualities, makes the point that Poles are ‘lazy’, then wehave felt able to infer that there was an unspoken assertion to the effect that Germans are ‘diligent’ (or at least,‘more diligent’). We do not do this lightly. It is an important part of our argument that the system ofoppositions referred to above has strong interconnections within it; it is an instrument where, if one string isplucked, the entire structure seems to resonate. There are also contexts where the implied oppositionaladjective remains unexpressed because it is blatantly offensive or self-demeaning.

German and Polish managers made many references to attitudes to authority and responsibility. In thecontext of the firm, German managers saw Poles as individuals lacking in relevant educational and work skills,and so accustomed to authoritarian management that they were unable or unwilling to take responsibility forproblems themselves:

The problem is taking over the responsibility. We [in Germany] have this problem too, but if someone isresponsible in for certain area they take care of it. In Poland it takes a long time to find a person withrelevant education and skills (E5_GE).The self-control [of Polish employees], awareness, positive approach to work, and identification with thecompany leaves a lot to be desired. (E4_GE).One does everything with these people [y], because the Pole is capable, but one has to manage them, showthem a new way (E4_GE).

These Polish national qualities were contrasted to Germany, and presented as a development over time,with Poland behind Germany:

[y] Polish employees work like Germans 15 years ago. What the boss says is the truth, and they do it, theyfollow. In Germany this is not the case. They question the boss a lot (C2_GE).

German managers also pointed out that Poles operated in a networking system, and that it was veryimportant to have the right connections in Poland in order to conduct any business activity there. Corruptionin Poland was also mentioned in this context.

[y] You have to know the right people. The people really taking the decision. And something like a bribedoesn’t ... well it’s helpful (P_B1_GE).

The 1999 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’ ranks countries from 10 to 0,according to the level of corruption perceived to be prevalent in them (10 is not at all corrupt, 0 is mostcorrupt). In 1999, Poland scored 4.2, which put it about half-way between the most corrupt country,Cameroon, and the least corrupt, Denmark. Germany was 14th on the list of 99 countries, with a score of 8.0.

The German managers (e.g., E5_GE) also made reference to Polish nationalism, which they hadexperienced while doing business in Poland. This mainly emerged as a feature of the Polish government, whichaccording to the informants, usually acted in favour of domestic Polish companies. Consider the followingquotes:

It can be also bad luck. We have placed an offer, but the Polish government gave it to the Polish applicant.There is a little bit of chauvinism there (G3_GE).[y] We were surprised about the laws they had in Poland concerning the production, the construction of acompany. They had laws that were even stricter than the German ones, and we didn’t find any Polishproducer meeting those standards. We got the impression that the standards are only made for foreigninvestors, as a kind of protection as well. [y] For example, concerning hygienic topics, we had to meet verystrict standards and none of the Polish producers could meet that [them]. We are sure. I’ve seen 30 of them(P_B1_GE).

German managers also referred to a rather undesirable form of materialism on the Polish side (e.g.P_B1_GE, D3_GE, G3_GE). Although in their view Poles were very committed to their jobs and they wereable to work long hours, they would not do it unless paid accordingly (D3_GE, G3_GE). Some of theexecutives would even call Poles lazy, as they do not want to work if they do not get a lot of money for it

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Germans

‘cybernetic’ society

lack spontaneity and poetics

perform routine tasks

limited

disciplined

down to earth

cold and reserved

presumptuous

uninspired

credulous

responsible

well organised

diligent

clean and tidy

:

: imaginative

spontaneous

: creative

: versatile

: need authority

: romantic

: warm and open

: (modest)

intelligent :

: smart


: chaotic

(lazy) :

: (dirty and untidy)

: Poles

Fig. 2. German–Polish cultural distance, as perceived by the Poles.

M. Chapman et al. / International Business Review 17 (2008) 217–234226

(D3_GE). They are always looking for a good compensation for their work, which can be in a form of money,car or other benefits. ‘When they have a goal, they [will] do everything to achieve it’ (G3_GE).

The positive features of Poles mentioned unanimously by executives were Polish hospitality and warmth(e.g., D3_GE, D2_GE).

Polish perceptions of themselves, and of German managers, are presented in Fig. 2 above. The Polishmanagers described their German colleagues as ‘cybernetic’ (or ‘robotic’), good at routines, but not good atimprovising:

Germans are a society of a higher level of social organisation [y]. A social and cybernetic [organisation],and everyone taken out of the context of their organisation, falls into oblivion of our manager, who is muchmore versatile. He can react much better in a crisis situation, and has much better knowledge andpreparation. [y] A specialist [from Germany] for example from the construction business is trained verywell in his subject and virtually leaves no room for discussion. However when one tries to go beyond hisnarrowly specialised knowledge one totally loses contact with this person, and one is not able to continueconversation (C1_PL).[y] If you look at a German fellow for example, let’s call him Helmut, who is an employee, and who is toperform a task in a certain way, [you will see] that he will be doing only this task and not thinking ofanything else (A2_PL).

This implies that there is orderliness, but orderliness to the point of disfunction, and machine-likeinhumanity. According to Polish managers, Germany had a long tradition of a state of order, where theabove-mentioned ‘cybernetic structure’ of the society functioned without interruptions and where the basicneeds of the society were fulfilled. Poland, by contrast was a ‘young democracy’, where these characteristicswere scarcely developed; this has forced Poles ‘to manage as one can’.

However, Polish managers did not see this as a defect. On the contrary, although they admitted the need tobe coached by their foreign partners, they insisted on being treated as equal partners by German investors (e.g.


A2_PL, E3_PL, E1_PL, G2_PL), and contrasted the German capacity for routine with their own creativityand imagination:

Yes, definitely they are different, and I am saying it is an advantage of our [Polish] employees. In myopinion our [Polish] employees are more open [y]. And if we now go back to Poles [a Pole with the sametask as ‘Helmut’ from a previous quote], he will be thinking, he will be trying to make his work easier, andhe will display greater vivacity and sharpness than an average German (A2_PL).

Polish managers saw themselves as much more dynamic, imaginative, versatile and spontaneous than theGermans. In their view foreign capital encouraged the development of an ambitious workforce, which wasable to think economically, and was entrepreneurial (E1_PL). As was pointed out several times by theinterviewees, Poles were talented and had considerable potential for development. When compared with theirforeign counterparts, Polish staffs were more educated, but lacked the relevant experience (D1_PL).

Germans were also described as being down to earth, cold and reserved, presumptuous and inclined toassume superiority:

They [Germans] are a nation which does not like to admit their mistakes. According to my ownobservations they do not hesitate to show their intellectual superiority, it changes however after some time.A German person needs some time to understand that Poznan, Poland is a country of educated people, whocan be easily partners even for Germans. Moreover, they are disciplined, presumptuous and cold, the lattermeaning that it is difficult to get through to a deeper layer of their personality (A2_PL).In general we get along very well here. However they [Germans] have this little vice, that whatever theyinvented here, what they propose is the best, and there is nothing better. One has to be very intelligent andsmart, to do what one wants to do without going against their opinion, and without explaining that this[what they propose] is not the best (C1_PL).

Again, Poles compared the orderly discipline of the Germans (with its assumption of superiority) with theirown more creative ability to be ‘intelligent and smart’ in dealing with the Germans.

Polish managers were generally prepared to accord to the Germans the virtues of being responsible, wellorganised, disciplined, diligent and clean. They were less inclined to accept as self-characterisations of beingirresponsible, disorganised, indisciplined, lazy and dirty. When the Polish managers characterised themselves,they generally wished to cast themselves in a flattering light.

5.3. Cultural distance—British and polish interpretation

The British and the Poles, like the Germans and the Poles, agreed that they differed.

There was also a cultural issue, as what is common in the UK is unusual in Poland. [y] Poland and CzechRepublic are very similar, but for example Poland and UK aren’t. They are very different (K4_UK).The difficulties were in overcoming the mentality of people, even that of ourselves. We had to switch toanother way of thinking (F4_PL).One has to point out here that there are big differences in mentality, different law, customs and habits [inEngland]. We are required to posses a great knowledge about the market. And of course, if we dosomething well they would even praise us, [y] but they would not implement this solution on their ownground (J1_PL).

Some of the differences that the British and the Poles found between themselves were similar to those thatthe Germans and Poles employed. The degree and variety of contrast was, however, generally perceived to beless strongly marked, less strongly insisted upon, less complex, which is consistent with our argument. TheBritish companies in Poland are in a very similar business position, in relation to their Polish partners, as theGerman companies, which would imply identical tellings of the nature of their business relationship. This wasnot what we found.

British perceptions of themselves and their Polish colleague are summarised in Fig. 3.The British appear as the source of order and rule, which the Poles accept or evade. According to the British

managers, Poles function well in hierarchical structures:

ARTICLE IN PRESS

British

'do the coaching'

set the rules

decentralised

responsible

(controlled)

: Poles

: need authority

: need rules and hierarchy

: with centralised structures


: warm and hospitable

Fig. 3. British–Polish cultural distance, as perceived by the British.

British

need a list of tasks to work

take a long time to decide

phlegmatic and patient

cold and reserved

professional

relaxed and informal

work comes first

: Poles

: creative and imaginative

: spontaneous

: chaotic

: warm and open


: need authority

: family comes first

Fig. 4. British–Polish cultural distance, as perceived by the Poles.

M. Chapman et al. / International Business Review 17 (2008) 217–234228

They can be a bit, Polish people still like rules, they like a clear hierarchy, they are very sensitive about ‘he ismy boss’ for example. They are very formal. That’s not our style. But it evolves over time. When I go toPoland and talk to bankers I have different relationships with staff in Warsaw than in Lodz for example.They treat me, they think this guy must be important, that he comes from the UK, but it doesn’t affect ourrelationship. They have opportunities to ask questions, and people react very well to it (K1_UK).

This need for authority was linked by British interviewees to a Polish tendency to evade responsibility, or topass responsibility upwards:

The difficult part are the cultural traditions of way of working, formed in the past, under a different system,changing attitude, style of work, top down hierarchy, no individual responsibility, reluctance to takedecisions, and take the responsibility. That’s the communist legacy, the legacy of central planning (I2_UK).

The positive features of Poles mentioned by the executives were Polish hospitality and warmth (e.g.,K2_UK).

Polish perceptions of themselves and their British colleagues are shown in Fig. 4.There are some similarities between the Polish perception of the British, and the Polish perception of the

Germans. The British were seen as a cold and phlegmatic people, who took a long time to decide things, andwho needed a list of tasks in order to be able to work:

Englishmen are bureaucratic. What only counts for them is meeting, minutes and action plan. And on topof that, they divide a hair into four, as the saying goes (J2_PL).

The British are perceived to be a source of order and rules. This was contrasted with the Poles who sawthemselves as warm, spontaneous and full of imagination.


Congruent with this, the Poles emphasised British professionalism:

[y] British employees are much more professional. [y] They concentrate on their work, on what they areto do, and do it separately from their personality, from themselves, and this may be the reason why theymight come across as perhaps less friendly but more professional (H2_PL).I think they [British] were surprised by Polish hospitality, approach to people, to guests, openness (I1_PL).

They also spoke of their own need for authority and tendency to evade responsibility. This lastcharacteristic they also tended to blame on the communist system.

Several interviewees observed that their British colleagues were very reserved. Polish interviewees alsopointed out the British ability to keep their professional lives separate from the private one. Just to quote oneof the executives:

We [Poles] have different habits—strong links with the family. They [British] are detached from the family,they can sit here for long hours, and we would like to go home (J1_PL).

As in the Polish/German contrast, the Polish managers were prepared to acknowledge the virtue of thecalculating orderliness, which the British managers seemed to bring, and to aspire to imitate certain aspects.They also, however, found virtue in their own differences from the British—in Polish warmth, spontaneity andimagination. However, the ideas were less frequently and less intensely invoked, than the Polish/Germancontrast.

6. Discussion

If we return to Shenkar’s (2001) paper, our study addresses four of the main illusions, and adds a fifth, thatof ‘neutrality’. We have shown that ‘small cultural distances’, where they are intensely observed, theorised andacted upon, can be far more important than ‘large cultural distances’ which are not. The social psychologistsmight say that this is explained by the fact that the differences were ‘salient’ or ‘not salient’; with Pinker (1997,p. 85) we agree that this, and terms like it, are scams, merely redescribing what they purport to explain. Wehope that we have taken some valuable steps into explanation, rather than mere redescription.

If we look at the different conceptualisations of difference as between Poland and Germany, on the onehand, and Poland and the UK, on the other, we find some issues arising that might reasonably be related toHofstede’s dimensions.

Where there are issues of relative order and disorder, as there are in German/Polish discussion of mutualcharacteristics, then we might want to relate these to Uncertainty Avoidance. Following Chapman, Clegg etal. (2004); Chapman, Gajewska-De Mattos et al. (2004), where there are issues pertaining to need for, andexercise of, authority, we might want to relate these to both Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance. Wewould then want to rank Poland, the UK and Germany, on these dimensions, and explain the differencesexpressed by the managers, as arising from experience of cultural distance so defined. Poland was not in theoriginal IBM study which gave rise to Hofstede’s work, which already presents a difficulty in the use of linearmeasures of cultural distance. We could, however, make some limited sense of our data using such measures.A summary of Hofstede’s scores for Germany, UK and Poland is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Summary of Hofstede’s culture scores for Germany, UK and Poland

PD I/C M/F UA LTO

Germany 35 67 66 65 31

UK 35 89 66 35 25

Poland 68 60 64 93 32

Based on: Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Nasierowski and Mikula (1998).


If the only attribute at stake were ‘cultural distance’, then we might say that Germany and the UK weresimilar (scoring relatively closely, for example, on three of Hofstede’s dimensions), and that we wouldtherefore expect their ‘cultural distance’ from Poland to be similar as well. What we find is dramaticallydifferent from this expectation. The ‘Poland’ that the German managers experience, is not the same as the‘Poland’ that the UK managers experience.

The German managers interact with their Polish counterparts in the context of a long and intimate cross-national relationship, which has been extensively lived and theorised—theorised, that is, by ordinary people inordinary situations. That German managers construct and interpret their experience with Poles has beensupported by the secondary historical data and the primary empirical data.

The UK managers are perhaps not so different from the German managers (in Hofstede’s terms), but theirexperience and interpretation of their Polish counterparts was different. The relationship between the UK andPoland has not been as extensively lived and theorised.

If the perceptions and interpretations constructed by the managers were the product of immediateexperience, then we might expect the German and UK managers to interpret and express their differencesfrom the Poles similarly and with the same vehemence. We do not find this.

If the perceptions and interpretations of managers were in some way independent of experience (if theywere, for example, ‘purely historical’, or ‘mere stereotypes’), then we might expect them to vary randomlybetween examples, and to show little conceptual coherence. We do not find this either.

What we are dealing with are ideas deeply ingrained in peoples’ minds which are carefully built upon pastexperiences, and which are also available for the structuring and construal of immediate and currentexperience. Where the past experiences are similar, then perceptions accord with this. And the same is true forexperiences that are different, i.e., they are expressed differently and expressed with varying force. Theperceptions are built upon experience, but they also feed into and help to create experience. They are notimmutable, but they are not given to rapid change either.

In this context the question of ‘objective cultural distance’ as between the protagonists, therefore, becomeshighly problematic. Relatively minor cultural differences, in situations of intimate contact and long-terminterpretation, can become the basis of well-organised structures of living and interpretation. This is areasonable description of the Polish–German relationship. Greater cultural differences, if these are notrendered important by existing experience and interpretation, can pass by relatively unnoticed. This is areasonable description of the Polish–UK relationship.

In relation Shenkar’s (2001) ‘illusion of symmetry’, we can argue that UK/Polish difference and German/Polish difference demand to be understood in their own historical and specific context. There is a ‘symmetry’in the perceptions and interpretations we present here, but it is complex and subtle. Cultural distance looksimportantly different from each side of these national pairings, and is constructed and acted upon differentlyas a result. This is in spite of the fact that, conventionally, the cultural distance between (say) Poland andGermany is by definition the same as the cultural distance between Germany and Poland.

In relation to the ‘illusion of causality’, we can argue that ‘small cultural distances’, where they are intenselyobserved, theorised and acted upon, can cause far greater problems than ‘large cultural distances’ which arenot. This is related to the issues explored by Brouthers and Brouthers (2001), where the argument is made thatsmall cultural distance, where it is not anticipated, can have more disruptive effects that large cultural distancefor which there is forewarning. This argument is given further application in Fenwick, Edwards, and Buckley(2003).

We could perhaps extend the list of ‘illusions’ surrounding the ‘cultural distance’ concept, by adding the‘illusion of neutrality’: the illusion, that is, that a given ‘cultural distance’ will always have the same effectsupon the action and interpretation of those experiencing it. This ‘illusion’ is addressed, to some degree, by theillusions of linearity and symmetry. Nevertheless, it probably deserves its own listing. Where countries havebeen involved in long and bitter political dispute, and perhaps warfare, then small differences matter; wherecountries have no conflicting interests, then large differences can be ignored or benignly tolerated. Intenseconfrontations like those between, for example, Japan and South Korea, the USA and Mexico, and Germanyand Poland, require recognition that any ‘differences’, whatever they might be, will not be ‘neutrally’ viewed.

In relation to the ‘illusion of linearity’, we can assert that the ‘contrast of contrasts’ that we have outlined,would tell us very little about (for example) UK/German difference. If the distribution of cultural differences


were symmetrical, then if we knew that Poland scored 80 on some hypothetical dimension, Germany 50, andthe UK 10, we would know that the cultural distance between Germany and Poland was 30. No such comfortemerges from our argument (see Chapman, Clegg et al., 2004; Chapman, Gajewska-De Mattos et al., 2004, forfurther discussion of this).

In relation to the ‘illusion of stability’, we can agree with Shenkar (2001) that it is perfectly possible forobjective measures to change over time. However, the qualitative approach to cultural distance in whichexperiences are construed and interpreted, does not involve the measurement of objective features by animpartial observer from year to year. As Tihanyi et al. (2005, p. 374) put it: ‘‘some cultural elements are stable,whereas others are dynamic and changing’’. The relative positions of the Germans and the Poles, of Germanyand Poland, have been constantly changing at many levels, while at the same time sustaining a kind ofconsistency of interpretation on another, even as Poland went in and out of sovereign existence, as religionscame and went, as horses gave way to motor cars, and as communism gave way to capitalism.

7. Conclusions

In this study, we presented routine expressions of managerial experience from Germany, the UK andPoland in specific situations of the meeting of different cultures. We have argued that Germany and Polandhave a close and tense relationship, and that the UK and Poland have a relatively distant and easyrelationship. In this context, they are ‘close neighbours’ and ‘distant friends’.

We argue that the dominant concept of cultural distance in international business studies gives us anincomplete understanding of this complex issue. This is because cultural distance is constructed andinterpreted by the perceivers, and this construction and interpretation is influenced by experience and history.The approach proposed in this paper sheds some light on how individuals from countries close to one anotherin terms of Hofstede’s dimensions, can actually perceive the distance between them to be great. We have alsoshown that countries that are distant on the dimensions can, in the context of history and experience, perceivethemselves as close, or indeed perceive one another with indifference.

This study shows the need for further research. There is clearly a need to improve and refine the objectivemeasures that are typically used. Our main recommendation, however, would not be concerned withimproving existing objective measures, but rather would suggest the need to complement these with deep,dynamic and contextual data. Ethnographic research is one way of doing this.

In other words, by focusing on the qualitative data we can derive dimensional complexities related to theconstruct of cultural distance that can provide a research framework to advance our understanding of thetopic. This approach to conceptualising cultural distance finds ready application in international businesscontexts. In particular, the findings of this study could be useful for better understanding the interactionsbetween different perceptions the partners (might) have within international mergers and acquisitions andjoint ventures. This should facilitate an ability to predict the success or failure of international collaborationprocesses, and developing useful advice for mergers and acquisitions/JVs executives (i.e., it should not beexpected that any one one-size- fits-all solution is available). The ideas presented here are readily transferableto other international business contexts with analogous characteristics (e.g., the US/Mexican contrast, theJapanese/Korean contrast, the Northern European/Southern European contrast and generally core/peripheryrelationships). We also hope that our approach may allow international business managers, in situations likethis, to understand the hostility of others, without being wounded by it (an endorsement of our approach canbe found in the Economist Global Executive, 2004).

Appendix A

A.1. Interview guide—Germany and the United Kingdom

Introduction

Note the time (beginning and end).Confirm confidentiality.Explain the objective and relevance of the research.


Biographical Data Questionnaire.Starting question: Can you tell me a few words about your company?/What has happened in the company

since we last met?

Guiding questions

What is your role in the company?How did your firm get where it is internationally? (first international activity, when, how, main markets).Could you tell me a few words about your activities on the Polish market? (why Poland, were other

possibilities in the region considered, first contact, main difficulties, legal system, main competitors,exceptional events since entering the market, advice to other foreign investors).

What do you associate Poland with?Do you perceive Poles as a uniform nation? (description of main characteristics at national and company

level, comparison with Germans/British).

A.2. Interview guide—Poland.

Introduction

Note the time (beginning and end).Confirm confidentiality.Explain the objective and relevance of the research.Biographical Data Questionnaire.Starting question: Can you tell me a few words about your company?/What has happened in the company

since we last met?

Guiding questions

What is your role in the company?Could you tell me a few words about your cooperation with a foreign partner? (motives, were other

possibilities considered, previous experiences, first contact, length of cooperation, main difficulties, legalsystem, main competitors, exceptional events since entering cooperation, advice to other Polish companies).

Could you tell me a few words about working in a foreign owned company in Poland? (previousexperiences, differences with Polish owned companies, main advantages, main difficulties, exceptional events,legal system, competition).

What do you associate Germany/UK with?Do you perceive Germans/British as a uniform nation? (show the picture with stereotypical images of

Germans/British) (description of main characteristics at national and company level, comparison with Poles).

References

Bakacsi, G., Sandor, T., Andras, K., & Viktor, I. (2002). Eastern European cluster: Tradition and transition. Journal of World Business,

37, 69–80.

Beechler, S., & Yang, J. Z. (1994). ‘The transfer of Japanese-style management to American subsidiaries: Contingencies, constraints and

competencies’. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3), 467–491.

Brewer, P. (2001). ‘International market selection: Developing a model from Australian case studies’. International Business Review, 10(2),

155–174.

Brouthers, K., & Bamossy, G. J. (1997). The role of key stakeholder in international joint venture negotiations: Case studies from Eastern

Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 285–308.

Brouthers, K., & Brouthers, L. (2001). Exploring the national cultural distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1),

177–189.

Buckley, P., & Chapman, M. (1997). The use of ‘native categories’ in management research. British Journal of Management, 8(4), 283–299.

Chapman, M. (2001). Social anthropology and business studies: Some considerations of method. In D. Gellner, & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Inside

organisations: Anthropologists at work (pp. 19–33). Oxford: Berg.

Chapman, M., Clegg, J., & Gajewska-De Mattos, H. (2004). Poles and Germans: An international business relationship. Human Relations,

57(8), 983–1015.


Chapman, M., Gajewska-De Mattos, H., & Antoniou, Ch. (2004). The ethnographic IB researcher: Misfit or trailblazer? In R. Marschan-

Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton,

MA: Edward Elgar.

D’Iribarne, P., Segal, J.-P., Chevrier, S., & Globokar, T. (1998). Cultures et Mondialisation: Gerer Par-Dela Les Frontieres. Paris: Seuil.

Economist (2004). What’s in the Journals, August 2004, The Economist Global Executive, August 27th.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Fenwick, M., Edwards, R., & Buckley, P. J. (2003). Is Cultural similarity misleading? The experience of australian manufacturers in

Britain. International Business Review, 12, 297–309.

Festing, M. (1997). ‘International human resource management strategies in multinational corporations: Theoretical assumptions and

empirical evidence from German firms’. Management International Review, 37(10), 43–63.

Harris, S. (2000). Reconciling positive and interpretative international management research: A native category approach. International

Business Review, 9(6), 755–770.

Harris, S., (2003). National values and strategy formation by business leaders. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to brendan mcsweeney. Human Relations, 55(11), 1355.

Hoppe, M. (2004). An interview with geert hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 75–79.

Iribarne, P. d’ (1996/97). The usefulness of ethnographic approach to international comparison of organisations. International Studies of

Management and Organisation, 26(4), 30–47.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing

foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.

Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies,

12(3), 305–322.

Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating

Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320.

Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3),

411–432.

Landau, Z., & Tomaszewski, J. (1964). Kapita"y obce w polsce 1918–1939. Warsaw.

Landau, Z., & Tomaszewski, J. (1985). The Polish economy in the twentieth century. London: Croom Helm.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their

implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357–378.

Marschan, R. (1996). New structural forms and inter-unit communication in multinationals. The case of Kone elevators. Ph.D. Thesis.

Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Reis, C. (2004). Language and languages in cross-cultural interviewing. In R. Marschan-Piekkari, & C. Welch

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Qualitative research methods series, vol. 13. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

McSweeney, B. (2002a). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis.

Human Relations, 55(1), 89.

McSweeney, B. (2002b). The essentials of scholarship: A reply to geert hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11), 1363.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Nasierowski, W., & Mikula, B. (1998). Culture dimensions of polish manages: Hofstede’s indices. Organisation Studies, 19(3), 495–509.

O’Grady, S., & Lane, H. W. (1996). ‘The psychic distance paradox’. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(20), 309–334.

Parkhe, A. (1997). ‘‘‘Messy’’ research, methodological predispositions and theory development in international joint ventures’. Academy of

Management Review, 18(2), 227–268.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Salk, J. (1996–7). ‘Partners and other strangers: Cultural boundaries and cross-cultural encounters in international joint venture teams’.

International Studies of Management and Organisation, 26(4), 48–72.

Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences.

Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535 third quarter.

Smith, P. (2002). Culture’s consequences: Something old and something new. Human Relations, 55(1), 119.

Sousa, C., & Bradley, F. (2006). Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod?’. Journal of International Marketing, 14(1),

49–70.

Teigland, R., Fey, C. F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2000). ‘Knowledge dissemination in global electronics industry’. Management International

Review, 40(1), 49–77.

Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D., & Russell, C. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE

performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 270–283.

Triandis, H. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 88–93.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). ‘Managerial learning in foreign-invested enterprises of China’. Management International Review, 41(1), 29–51.

Vaara, E. (2002). On the discursive construction of success/failure in narratives of post-merger integration. Organization Studies, 23(2),

211–248.


Wellisz, L. (1938). Foreign capital in Poland. London: Allen and Unwin.

Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 55(11), 1373.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods. Applied social research methods series (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Zalan, T., & Lewis, G. (2004). Writing about methods in qualitative research: Towards a more transparent approach. In R. Marschan-

Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton,

MA: Edward Elgar.

Documents

Close neighbours and distant friends—perceptions of cultural distance