Cross-cultural management research is done in both the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Calls are repeatedly made to consider this diversity, thus asking for more multiparadigm research, which is both challenging and methodologically vague. This article proposes a clear method for a bi-paradigm study leading to theory development. Multiparadigm studies present challenges that are first explained and then addressed with the strategy of interplay. The authors assert that interplay is a paradigmatic conversation that respects and builds upon the connections and differences between paradigm's components used by Kuhn to stress continuity and change during scientific revolutions. With the Kulturstandard method, the authors illustrate the feasibility of interplay between the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Interplay is reached by first conducting analyses in their respective paradigms. Then, in light of each other, they reveal mutually enriching themes that lead to a shift of attention toward a venue of interplay. This venue is then explored to investigate its respectful consideration of the paradigms and how it contributes to theory. The authors conclude by underscoring the methodological contributions of this article to multiparadigm research.

Cross-cultural management research is often confined to the positivist tradition, which is archetypically illustrated by the seminal work of Hofstede. However, this gives an incomplete overview of the field to which three additional research paradigms contribute: interpretivist, postmodern, and critical. Our ambition is to raise awareness of the presence of multiple paradigms in cross-cultural management research. This meta-theoretical positioning allows researchers to consider the insights and contributions from the different paradigms. We aim to achieve this by presenting a brief overview of the state of the field in each paradigm, thus, stressing areas of studies that enrich our understanding of the interaction between culture and management (at the national, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels). We then highlight the specific contributions of these four paradigms, drawing especially upon the postmodern and critical works, as they have been repeatedly overlooked in reviews. The article concludes by mentioning how more interactions between the paradigms can be developed and can lead to further knowledge development.

Cross-cultural management research made an international breakthrough from a macro-comparative perspective with the seminal work of Hofstede. The main purpose of early research in this field was to put forward the idea that culture had an influence on organizations, business and management. Yet, by now, the awareness that culture and cultural differences play their role has become a part of the organizational and managerial body of knowledge. Hence, the current question to be investigated is how exactly cultureor the perception of cultural differencesbecomes important and meaningful in complex and often paradoxical situations. This question is based on the understanding that the cultural context of every given situation, interaction or organization might be characterized by multiple elements, dormant or salient cultural identities, complex and fluid processes of meaning making and more. This special issue contributes to this new development in the field of cross-cultural management. Many scholars have asked that other factors than national culture be considered (Holden et al., 2015; Sackmann, 1997; Tsui et al., 2007), giving the impression of a search for the exhaustive list of variables influencing international and intercultural interactions. In contrast to the latter, we do not see context as an accumulation of different factors but rather as intertwined dynamic complexities, of which power is an important factor. It means that, rather than the search for even more influencing factors, it is the investigation of how these factors are interconnected and how power relationships take part in this combination that becomes of interest. In other words, we wish to stress the point that power manifests itself in multiple, context-specific ways which need to be investigated critically.

No abstract