TtUs article reviews the scholarly literature in cross-cultural business communicationand discusses the shortcomings of the existitig research. It demonstrates the limita-tions of the Western, linear paradigmsand expounds upon some unresolved importantquestions which have been inadequately researched and hence need in-depth exanUna-titm. Finally, the artidedevelops a few testable hypotheses for the 1990s, emanatingfrom the discussion of the research questions.Cross-CultiiralBusinessCommunicationResearch:Stateof the Art andHypotheses for the1990sMohanRLimayeColorado State UniversityDavid A. VictorEastern Michigan UniversityCross-cultural business communication has become a trendysubjectof study over the last decade and a half, judging by the presentationsmadeatacademicmeetings.Interestincross-culturalbusinesscom-municationhasresultedinasteadyincreaseinarticlespublishedintradeandscholarlyjournals(Bond,Leung,&Wan,1982;1986;Gudykunst,1983;Maisonrouge,1983;McCaffrey&Hafher,1985;Sanders,1988: Ting-Toomey,1985). Similarly, several books largelyanecdotal have beenpublishedin the field(Axtell,1989; Chesanow,1985; Copeland& Griggs, 1985; Kennedy,1985; Ricks,1983; Snowdon,1986;Valentine,1988).Thelastdecade,additionally,hasseentheemergenceof businessguidestospecificcultures,includingtheArabWorld (Almaney & Alwan,1982; Nydell, 1987), Brazil (Harrison, 1983),China(DeMente,1989; Seligman,1989; Wik,1984),France(Carroll,1988), Japan(Condon, 1984; DeMente,1981; Hall & Hall, 1987; March,1988),Korea(DeMente,1988; Leppert,1989); Mexico(Condon,1985;Kras, 1988); Singapore (Leppert, 1990) and Thailand (Fieg, 1980). Basedon these publications, one can predict a growing authorship and audiencefor materials in this discipline over the decade of the1990s as well.Severalfactorshavecontributedtothepopularityof thesubjectofcross-culturalbusinesscommunicationinrecentyears.Chiefamongthesefactorsis thephenomenalgrowthinthevolumeofinternationaltrade. Over the last 20 years, the total value of import-export tradefortheUnitedStates hasgrowntremendously,surpassing$857 billionin1990: imports: $493,652,000,000 andexports: $363,807,000,000 (Direc-tionofTradeStatisticsYearbook, 1990, p. 402).Internationaltradeis278The Journalof Business Communication28:3:Summer1991equally or more importantelsewhere as well, comprising more than25percentof alleconomicactivityinmostwesternEuropeanandnewlyindustrializedcountries. Indeed, a host of majormultinationalcorpora-tions have more thanhalf of theirsales in foreignmarkets ratherthantheir home base of operations (e.g., the U.S.-based IBM, Dow Chemical,Coca-ColaandColgate-Palmolive,theSwitzerland-basedNestleandCiba-Geigy,theIreland-basedJeffersonSmurfitgroup,theNether-lands-basedPhilips,theSweden-basedVolvoandElectrolux,Japan'sSonyandHonda,andFrance'sMichelin,to name justavery fewinalong list).Similarly,foreigndirectinvestmenthasrisendramaticallyaroundtheglobe.IntheUnitedStates,forexample,thedirectinvestmentofforeign-basedcompanies over the last 25 years has risen from $9 billionin1966 to $1,786 billion, and U.S. direct investment abroad has jumpedfrom $52 billion in1966 to $1,120 billion in1988 (StatisticalAbstracts,1990, p. 793). These figures are matched or exceeded in most of Europe,Japan, Korea, and, in terms of portfolio investments, among most of theoil-producing nations of the MiddleEast.Worldwide, business oi^anizations have discovered that interculturalcommimication is a subject of importance not just because they have todeal increasingly with foreignersbutalso because the workforceof thefuturewithintheirownnationalbordersisgrowingmoreandmorediverse, ethnicallyandculturally.Questionsof multiculturalismarisedomestically within national borders as well. Most obvious of thesearenations with more than one native culture represented by people in largenumbers.ThefrequentlydiscusseddifferencesbetweenFrenchandFlemish Belgians; Francophone and Anglophone Canadians; Ibo, Hausaand Yoruba Nigerians; Chinese, Malay, and Indians in Malaysia and the16 government-recognizedculturalandlinguisticgroupsinIndiaareonlyafewofthemostnotableexamples.Similarly,thelarge-scileimmigration of former colonials, especially to the Netherlands and GreatBritain,thetremendousinfluxofSovietJewstoIsrael,andclassicimmigrationtotheUnitedStatesandCanadahavecreateddomesticmulticultural work environments in these countries.More difficultto handle than those immigrating with the intention ofbecoming new citizens, however, are what the Germans have called thegastarbeiter or guest worker. These guest workers are foreignnationalsliving findworking forlong-termindefiniteor even permanentperiodsin a host country with a higher standard of living. Attitudes toward theseworkershaverunthegamutfromacceptanceandaccommodationtopolitical movements for their expulsion. Most notable among the accom-Cross-Oultural Business CommunicationLimayeA^ictor279modationist policies are those in Sweden whose roughly 1,100,000 guestworkers (in a population of only 8,330,000 Swedes) receive the right tovote and hold local office.Indeed, since1973, Swedish employers havebeen required by law to give their guest workers 240 hours of paid leaveofabsencetoattendfreeSwedishlessons.Attheotherextreme,Switzerland'sproposed"overforeignization"nationalreferendumwasonly narrowly defeated.Its guest worker population lives atstandardswell below the Swiss norm. Similarly, the rise in France of the extremerig^t wing racist platform of Jean-Marie LePen who won fully 15 percentofthe1988FrenchvoteisbasedinpartonaplatformoftougherimmigrationandstrongsentimentagainstguestworkersinFrancewhere7 percent of thepopulationconsistsof immigrants.In betweenthese two extremes are the double standards meted out to the nonciUzenworkforce of the United States with its1989 ImmigrationControl andReform Act and of Germany whose hostile sentiments against Turks andother gastarbeiter led to streetdemonstrationsandsmall-scaleurbanriots in the mid-1980s. In theGulf Arab states, the nativecitizenryisactuallya marked minorityrelativeto the numbersof guest workers.For example, by the1980s fully 80 percent of the workers in Qatar andpre-invasion Kuwait were guest workers.Theendresultofallofthesecasesdirectimmigration,nationalmulticultural divisions, or guest worker relations^is similar: employersare increasingly facing the need for cross-cultural business communica-tionevenintheirowndomesticworkplace.Inshort,themanagerorexecutivedoes not have to engage in international business to need toknow the principles of international business communication.In this article we will (a) definethescope of cross-culturalbusinesscommunication,(b)discussthetraditionalparadigm,(c)reviewtheliterature in the field, (d) discuss the limitations of the work done so far,(e)delineatetheissuesinvolvedandpointouttheresearchgapsininterculturalcommunication,and(f)poseresearchquestionsmostinneed of answers (as hypotheses to be tested).DEFINmONAND SCOPEThe term cross-cultural business communication merits explanation.First, it should be recognized that the word culture is too elusive to defineprecisely. The fact that Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) list more than ahundred definitions of cultiure only accentuates the debate surroundingthe concept of culture. A precise, totally agreed-upon definition of cultureseems at the moment neither possible nor necessary for the purposes of280The Journal of Business Communication28:3:Sunimer1991this article. Generally speaking, culture could be said to refer to the waypeople understandreality or theworld around them. For our purposes,we mightagree on the definition of Simcha Ronen (1986, p. 17) who writesthatculture"representsasharedwayof being,evaluating,anddoingthat is passed from one generation to the next." We could also add to thisGeert Hofstede's frequently cited definition (1980, p.25) that "the essenceof culture is the collective programming of the mind."Inthispaper,noattemptis made todistinguishbetweentheterms"cross-cultural" and"intercultural." While distinctionsexist, thetermshave frequently been used synonymously in the literature. Similarly, intheliteratureonintemationalbusinesscommunication,writershaveoflenlinkedculturetocountryornationthoughthisimprecisiondoesnot materiallyaffectthe review below of the scholarly literatureon thissubject.Sinceasuccessfulmanagerisaboveallaneffectivecom-municator, the literature review also includes relevant work on compara-tive or cross-cultural management as partially falling within the purviewof intercultural businesscommunication.TRADITIONALPARADIGMBothmanagementandcommunicationtheories,duringthepastseveral decades, have been dominated by Western scholars, particularlyfromtheUnitedStates.Foryears,theconventionalscholarlyandpractical wisdom has been that concepts and precepts of communicationandmanagementareuniversalandhencecanbeappliedacrosscountries or cultures. This paradigmstarting from Fayol (1937), Koontzand O'Donnell (1955), andMintzberg (1973), to namea fewscholars oforganizationalmanagement,stillpersists(Carroll&Grillen,1987;Osigweh,1983). Inthefieldof communication,culturehasoflenbeenignored, especially by those whose interests have been fiexibility, direc-tion, and speed of information fiow (Berlo, 1960; Schramm,1955; Shan-non & Weaver,1949). The Shannon-Weaver model for instance does notrepresentthemeaning,purpose,orintentionof theparticipants.Kor-zybski(1958) indescribing thecommunicationprocessin hissemanticreactionmodelprovidedanon-Aristotelianconceptualizationofcom-munication that countered Shannon and Weaver. Still, Korzybski essen-tiallyoverlookstheimportanceofculturalorientationinthecommunicationprocess.Likewise,Berlo(1960),whogarneredwidespread appeal for the simplicity and clarity of his modification of theShannon-Weaver model to include channels of communication, nonethe-less fails to address the meaning and intentionof the participants. As aCross-Cultural Business Communication LimayeA'^ictor281result, Berlo only cursorily touches on factors that have relevance for thecross-culturaldimension in the communication process.Nevertheless, the awareness or perception that the universalist viewisparochialornonfunctionalinaglobalsetting appearsto begainingground. Scholars and practitioners are increasingly becoming sensitizedto the fact that cultural factors heavily influence management practices(Adler,1983; Child,1981; Hofstede,1980; Laurent,1983; Mamyama,1984; Triandis,1982-83;). Similarawakening hasoccurredin thefieldof business communication as well (Haworth & Savage, 1989; Kilpatrick,1984).LITERATUREREVIEWDespitetheincreasinginterestinthesubjectnotedabove,untilrecently a relative paucity of work has existed on intercultural businesscommunication. This should not, however, seem surprising consideringthatgeneralcommunicationasadisciplinehasonlyrecentlygainedrecognitionin businessstudies. Evenin theareaof international busi-ness studies, research of intercultural business communication as afieldin its own right has been notably absent. Thus, in such major reviews ofthe state of the field in international business research as Dymza (1984)andHawkins(1984), businesscommunicationreceivednomentionatall. Moreover,in thesurveyconductedby theeditors of the JournalofInternationalBusinessStudiesidentifying the top 20 articles in the fieldofinternationalbusiness(Ricks,1985),onlyone(Hall,1960)directlydeals with businesscommunication.International business communication is a nascent field. For example,withtheexceptionofHildebrandt^scollectionofessays(1981)andVictor'sInternationalBusinessCommunication(inpress),almostnoscholarly books or textbooks have appearedexpressly on businesscom-munication.Instead, most of the important work on cross-cultural com-municationresearch,atleastsomewhatrelevantto business,surfacesin a wide rangeof other disciplines ranging fromcomparative manage-ment,organizationalbehavior,andpsychologytoanthropologyandforeignlanguagestudies. We have,therefore,selectivelycitedarticlesrelevanttobusinessfromthesedisciplinestohelplayafoundationdevotedspecifically to cross-cultural businesscommunication.For example, most of the work on intercultural communication whichhashadsomebusinessfocushasoccurredinthelastthreedecadesfollowing the pioneering work of the anthropologist Eklward Hall (1959).Hall has written on how the various cultures of the world affectpeople's282The Journal of Business Communication28:3:Summer1991behaviors and nonverbal communication. In addition to Hall's later work(1966,1976,1983), others haveexaminedthe field. InkelesandSmith(1974) discussed the effectsof "modernity^ in six nations. Bass, Burger,DoktorandBarrett(1979)examinedtheeffectsofdifferentculturalvaluesandsocialnormsintwelvenationsonmanagerialbehavior(includingcommunicationpractices).Jaggi(1979)andKaker(1971)studiedvaluessuchasneedandauthorityastheyoperateinIndianorganizations. Graham(1984) explored the differingstances of intema-tionalbusinessnegotiators.Finally,AndreLaurent(1983,1986),theFrenchmanagementresearcher,studiedmanagementconceptionandculturalloyaltieswithinthemultinationalcorporation.Alloftheseauthorsgenerallyinvestigatedtheeffectsofculturalvariablesonpeople's valuesandbehaviorsin businessandorganizationalcontexts.Mostrecently,Limaye(1989) proposedthatthetwo factorsleading tosuccess incross-culturalbusiness negotiationsincludedbothcognitiveandaffectiveaspects(knowledgeandsensitivity)ofanintemationalexecutive's overseaspreparation.Empirical work in the interculturalarena is time-consuming, expen-sive, andrequires coordinationof manyscholarsacross nationalboun-daries. Initial efforts of the early eighties include the work of Bhagat andMcQuaid (1982), Child (1981), Hofstede (1980), and Ronen and Shenkar(1985).Inrecentyears,thepacehaspickedup(Beck& Moore,1985;Laurent,1983,1986; Triandis,1988). Tayeb (1988) has emphasizedtherole of cultureinshaping behaviorof employeesinorganizationsand,implicitly, its effect on human communication in business firms. Casimir(1985) and Fisher (1988) emphasize differingschemata, cognitive maps,ormindsets.AdlerandGraham(1989) havealludedtointerpersonalorientationindexesdevelopedbyearlierpsychologistsaspredictors ofsuccess for intemational negotiators. Additionally, Albert (1983) and hercolleagueshavedevelopedInterculturalSensitizers(ICSs)andtestedthem withdiverse groups.LIMITATIONS OF THEEXISTING WORKMost work in this field suffers from five shortcomings:1. Anecdotal treatmentdominates the field (Chesanow,1985; Harris& Moran,1987; Kennedy,1985; Snowden,1986; Punnett,1989). Anec-dotalworkoninterculturalbusinesscommunication,whileusefulforillustratingkeyconceptsandcontributingtothestockofinformationavailable, needs to be supplementedby rigorous empiricalresearch.Cross-Cultural Business CommunicationLimayeA^ictor2832.However, much existing research lacks this rich conceptual basis(Borisoff& Victor,1989; Condon& Yousef,1985; Copeland & Griggs,1985; Ricks,1983; Valentine,1988). Conceptual frameworksor strongtheoretical underpinnings are a necessary characteristic of seminal andsignificant research of the kind mentioned at the beginning of this review(Shannon& Weaver,1949; Korzybski,1958; Berlo,1960). Such workprovidestheheuristicandnewparadigms thatencouragefurther re-searchinafield.Butcurrentworkoncross-culturalbusinesscom-municationhaspaid littleattentioneither(a) toadapt theseseminalworks on general communication to the needs of intercultural businessor(b)tocreatenewmodelsmorerelevanttocross-culturalbusinessexchanges.3.Somelimited empiricalresearchon comparativeor interculturalbusinesscommunicationhasbeenconductedbutusuallyonbroaderissuesthanbusinesscommunicationalone(Bass,Burger,Doktor &Barrett,1979;Haneda&Shima,1983;Hofstede,1980;Kelley&Worthley,1981; Laurent,1983;Sathe,1985; Torbjom, 1985). Consider-ably more empirical work exists on cross-cultural business communica-tion between two cultures only (e.g., Eiler & Victor, 1988; Halpem, 1983;Vamer,1988; Victor,1987; Victor & Danak1990, Zong & Hildebrandt,1983), but such studies are too culture-specific and also treat only narrowslices of those cultures. As a result, it is debatable whether their findingscan apply across cultures.E. C. Stewart (1985) has studied the decision-making styles prevalentin businessacross severalcultures and listed the technicalstyle (com-mon intheU.S.),thelogicalstyle(employed inWestern Europe), thebureaucraticstyle(in whichacommitteeisresponsible for decisions),andthesocialcollectivestyle(prevalentinJapan).Likewise,R.H.Kilpatrick's (1984) survey of business communication, though limited tothemoremundaneaspectsof businesswriting,representsanefforttoward greater multinational empirical research. Even so, the corpus orsample of illustrations for both Stewart and Kilpatrick is broadly fromthe cultures of the industrialized nations of the world.4.Anotherpersistentweaknessoftheresearchoninternationalmanagement and, by extension, cross-cultural business communicationlies in some scholars' assumption of comparability where none may existSimilarly, these researchers assume that theories and models developedinonesocialsystemmay beapplicableor operativeinanother.Somenon-WesternscholarstrainedinWesternuniversitiesandWesternmethods of social research have arguably been infiuenced in many casesby Western modes of thinking (Hamnett & Porter, 1983). In other words.284The Journal {^Business Communication28:3:Summer1991theresearchofsuchAsianorAfricanscholarshasbeenteintedorcontaminatedtetheextentthattheirtheoriesarenotnativeorin-digenous te the soil This fiaw has been drawn attention te in some recentwork(Adler,1983; Adler&Graham,1989; Hofstede,1980;Osigweh,1988).5.TheprevailinglinearparadigmforcommunicationmodelsinEuropeandNorthAmericaisalsolimiting(Berlo,1960; Shannon&Weaver,1949). The complexity and sophistication of recent models haveadmittedlyenhancedtheoldercommunicationmodels, buteventheseignoretheimiquenessofcross-culturalcommunication.BowmanandTargowski(1987), forexample,suggestaneed formore elementsthanthe traditional processive paradigm allows. In a later article (Targowski& Bowman,1988) theyactuallydevelop alayer-basedpragmaticcom-municationprocessmodelcoveringmorevariablesaffectingthecom-municationpaththananyearliermodel.Nevertheless,theyonlyindirectlyaddresstheroleof culturalfactersamong theirlayer-basedvariables.Inasimilarvein, HaworthandSavage(1989) developedachannel-ratio model specifically for interculturalcommunication. However, theiraccommodation of interculturalelements remains very limited as it is aone-variable-orientedmodel which is essentially a reducedreconfigura-tionof theShannon-Weavermodel. While theirchannel-ratiomodelispraiseworthy in focus and usefulfor aneilyzing one variable, it is inade-quatelycomprehensive.HaworthandSavage,inshort, failteaccountfullyforthemultiplecommunicationvariablesintheinterculturalcommunicationenvironmentWe thereforehypothesize:Hypothesis1: TraditionalWesternlinearandprocessmodelsofcommunicationdo notrepresentthecomplexityof cross-culturalcom-munication.RELEVANT ISSUES AND RESEARCHGAPSiN iNTERCULTURALCOMMUNiCATiONCognitive FramesTrieuidis and Albert (1987) maintain that "the basic ideas concerningcognitive framesare thesame regardlessof setting" (p. 265). Cognitiveframesmay,however,differfromcultureteculture.Fisher(1988)emphasizes the possibility of differingmindsets. Cognition as ahumanfacultyisprobablysharedbyallpeopleacrosscultures, butcognitiveschema and frames cannot be assumed te be identical in all cultures. TheCross-Cultural Business Communication Limaye/Victor286dominant values of a society, its ideologies, and its ways of looking at theworld around itaffectthe nature,scope, and definitionsof rationalityand of the inquiry by researchersin thatsociety (Kumar,1976, p. 9).What is rational and logical thus apparently differs among cultures andcountriesbecauseworldviewsorperceptionsdifferradicallyamongpeople around the globe. Harris and Moran (1987) cite such diversity asleadingtoculturalsynergy.W.E.Demming'ssuccessinJapaninmelding U.S. and traditional Japaneseconcepts supports this belief inculturalsynergy.Such thinking isstill relatively new: Few executivescan think of the advantages that can accrue to an organization becauseof the cultural diversity of its employees (Adler, 1991).Bamlund (1975,1989) and Kumon (1984) expound upon the differen-ces betweenthecognitiveprocessingof informationby JapaneseandWesterners.Similarly,Adler,Doktor,and Redding,(1989, p. 42) em-phasize the differences between Japanese and Western modes of reason-ing. TeruyukiKume's survey (1985)of North Americanand Japanesemanagerial attitudes toward decision-making lent empirical support tothis contrast. Kume found Japanese business communication style to beindirectandagreement-centeredwithan"intuitive" (p. 235)decisioncriterion.ThisstylewasdiametricallyoppositetheNorthAmericancommunicationstylewhichKume'sdatarevealedtobedirectandconfrontation-centeredwitha"rational"(p.235)decisioncriterion.Kume, in short, showed North American business communication styletoderivefromaculturalemphasisonpracticalempiricismwhileJapanesebusinesscommunicationisshaped by the needtomaintaingroup harmony. It can hence be hypothesized that:Hjrpothesis2:Businesspersons'perceptionsofissuesrelatedtonegotiations or communication events are influenced l^ their cognitiveframes or unique world views.Subjective and Objective CuKureThedivisionbetweensubjectiveculture(referringtovalues,be-havioral norms, attitudes, and religion) and obrjective culture (referringto infrastructure, technology, and other "material" obgects) is importantfor understanding a group of people because that group's obrjective andsubjectiveculturesputitapartfromotheridentifiablegroups. Com-municationdifferentialacross cultures can, for instance,be partly ac-counted for by asociety's view of natureand technology.Itinfluencespeople's roles, actions and stances toward one another in complex ways.Communication scholars note frequently that technology (one aspectofobjectiveculture)infiuencescommunicationprocesses^whocom-286The Journal of Business Communication28:3:Summer1991municates with whom, how many times, and inte what mediumwithinand among organizations (Borisoff & Victer,1989; Calder,1969; Druck-er, 1970; Douglas, 1986; Ellul, 1964; Gregory-Smith, 1979; Huber & Daft,1987;Illich,1977; Rybczynski,1983; Schiller,1976).Somehavealsonotedthatadvancedindustrialnationsheavilyuseelectronicallymediatedcommunicationtechnologyandemphasizewrittencom-munication over oral or face-te-facecommunication. They cite the UnitedStates,CanadaandGermanyasexamplesofthistrend.ButJapan,which hasaccess te the latest communication technologies, relies moreon face-te-faceor oral communicationthanthewrittenmode. We thinkthatthedeterminingfacterisnotthedegreeof industrialization,butwhetherthecountryfallsintelow-contextor hig^contextculturesasEdward hall defines the categories (Hall, 1959). In high context cultureslike that of Japan, a larger portion ofthemessage is left unspecifiedandaccessedthroughthecontext,nonverbalcues,andbetween-the-linesinterpretation of what is actually said or written. In contrast, in the U.S.,which is labeledasalow-contextculture, messagesareexpectedtebeexplicitandspecific.Moreisspelledoutthanleftforthereceivertededuce fromthe context. Hence we proposethat:Hypothesis3:Relativeemphasiseitheronwrittenororalcom-municationis a functionof whether the country has a high- or low-con-text culture.We also propose, as a corollary,that:Hsrpothesis 4: Business organizations in hig^-context cultures do notemphasizerulesandregulationstetheextentthatbusinessorganiza-tions in low-context cultures do.Linear and Circuiar (Monochronic andPolychronic)Concepts of TimeVaryingattitudestetimeindifferentcultureshave beentreatedinpast literature, particularly the linear or monochronic temporal concep-tiondominantintheUnitedStates,Canada,andNorthernEuropeversus the more polychronictemporalorientationdominant inmost ofLatin America, Southern Europe, and most part of Asia and Africa (Doob,1971;Fraser,1987;Hall,1959,1983;Kluckhom&Stodbeck,1961;McClelland,1961). Themonochronicor lineartemporalorientetionofmuch of NorthernEurope and En^sh-speaking North America and itseffectson communication are therefore fairly well known. For example,peopleinthemonochronicculturestendtefollowthedirectplanap-proach in good news or neutral business letters. In other words, membersof these cultures come te the point very quickly with littleintroducteiyCross-Cultural Business CommunicationLimaye/Victor287phrasing.Similarly,membersofthesemonochronicculturestendtovalue quick responses in discussions with little introductory phrasing orpolitenesses.Morepointedly,monochronicculturesusuallyfragmenttasksintopredeterminedunitsof time scheduling thatlimitthelengthanddepthofbusinesscommunication.Alloftheseexamplesindicate a linear time perception.Bycontrast,timeisnotlinearinmostothercultures.Thesepolychronicculturesmorefrequentlyviewtimeasfiexible.Conversa-tions and written communication can be more indirect or circular. Thus,abusinesstalkcanacceptably indeed, in manycases must go offontangentstothemainsubjecttoplaceallinformationinitspropercontext. Polychronic cultures, therefore, are likely to view the direct planapproachof lineartimeconceptionasrudeorso lackinginadequatedevelopment as to seem unclear.Asanextendedexampleof differingattitudestowardtime,Indianpolychronicorcircularperceptionof timecanbecontrastedwiththelinear orientation. The U. S. linear perceptionregards time as ascarceresource. Once gone time can never be retrieved. The all-familiar conceptof "time is money" implies that a person's current activities take on primeimportance,fortheprofitabilityof thefutureisdependentuponhoweffectivelythe present is used. In the same vein, futuretime is budgetedanditsefficientusemeasuredagainstthegoalsestablishedinthepresent (Limaye & Hig^tower,1982/83).Incontrast,thecircularperceptionof timeprevalentinIndiaandmanypolychronicbusinessculturesregardstimeasarenewableresource.Consequently,timeisnotconsideredsubjecttowaste.Thisperception views time as repeating itself: Time has neither abeginningnor an end. Besides being a common religious concept in HinduismandBuddhism,manyagriculturalsocietiessharedthisperceptionaswell.Consistentwiththisview, valuei^stemsandprioritiesdevelopwhicharenot governedbythemerepassageof time(Meade& Singh,1970;Limaye&Hig^tower,1982/83).Thepolychronicperceptionoftimeallows Indian businesspersons to be unhurriedduring negotiations.Ina dyadic communication situation, the other party with the monochronicmindset,on theother hand, feelsthepressureof deadlines. Henceourhypothesis:Hypothesis5: Differingtimeperceptionsinvariousculturesmaycause failures in business negotiations between participants who do notshare identical attitudes to time.288The Journalof Business Communication28:3:Summer 1991Convergence versusDivergenceAdebatehasbeengoingonbetweenuniversaUstsandrelativists:Universalists maintain that organizations across the globe are converg-ing te a point of homogeneity as far as macro issues are concerned (Child,1981;Negandhi,1985). Technologicalsimilarities,homogenizationofconsumertestes,and interdependence of nations are causing organiza-tional management to be more similar te one another thaneverbefore.Advocates of this global viewargue thatcontingenciesof technologies,market conditions, and organizationalstructures have a greaterimpacton management styles and processes than cultural variations: "Gone areaccustemed differencesin national or regional preference" (Levitt, 1983,p. 92). On the other hand, relativists like Hofstede (1980), Laurent (1983)and Heller and Wilpert (1979) maintain that organizationmanagementhas beenculturespecificand continues te be so. The similaritiesaretebe found chiefly in modem technologies of manufacturing processes andcommunication,whilehumanresourcesmanagementiswidelydiver-gentacrosscultureclusters,formulatedonthebasisofwork-relatedemployee values andattitudes(Ronen & Shenkar,1985). For instance,Adleretal.quoteFugisawaassayingthat"JapaneseandAmericanmanagementis95percentthesame,anddiffersinallimportantrespects" (Adler, Dokter, & Redding, 1989, p. 27). We thereforepropose:Hypothesis6: Thoughtechnologiesinbusinessorganizationsareconvergingacrosscultures, meaningsconveyedthroughthem(that is,humancommunicationstyles) arenot.Even(I!hild(1981)foundimportantdifferencesinbehavioramongworkers coming from varying cultural backgrounds, and Laurent (1983)substantiated this finding in his investigation across countries. He foundthatattitudesandbehaviorsdifferedamong multi-culturalemployeesin far-flungsubsidiariesof thesamemultinationalcorporation.Hencewe hypothesize (as a replicationof Laurent's study):Hypothesis7:Cultureisamoresignificeintfacterininfluencingwork-related values and communicationbehaviors than facterssuch asprofession,and role (power position) within theorganization.Non