From cultural differences to cultural globalization: towards a new research agenda in cross-cultural management studies

Abstract

Purpose This paper responds to calls for a new raison d’être in the field cross-cultural management (CCM) and culture-sensitive studies of international business (IB) more broadly. It argues that one way of addressing the crisis of confidence in the field is to develop a line of inquiry focussed on corporate-driven cultural globalization. This paper also proposes a theoretical approach informed by international political economy (IPE) and postcolonial theory and outlines a research agenda for future work on cultural globalization. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a desk-based analysis that draws on relevant research in the wider social sciences to insert cultural globalization into the CCM/IB field’s intellectual project. Findings The paper finds the field of CCM and culture-sensitive IB studies more broadly to be almost exclusively focussed on studying the impact of cultural differences. Surprisingly, little attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of corporate-driven cultural globalization. Research limitations/implications The paper redirects the field and presents a research agenda, calling for studies on the role of four related actors in cultural globalization: MNEs, global professional service firms, business schools and CCM/IB researchers themselves. Practical implications CCM/IB scholars may be able to reorient themselves towards the phenomenon of cultural globalization and, in so doing, also seize an opportunity to contribute to important debates about it in the wider social sciences. Originality/value The paper suggests possibilities for renewal by redirecting CCM/IB towards the study of cultural globalization and by encouraging the field to develop a postcolonial sensibility in future research on the phenomenon.

From ‘sick nation’ to ‘superpower’: Anti-corruption knowledge and discourse and the construction of Indonesian national identity (1997–2019)

“…In its claims to universality and objectivity, international anti-corruptionism acts as a form of 'cultural globalization' (cf. Boussebaa, 2020) that effaces its geopolitical and temporal origins at the same time as it is constructed around ideas of national difference and similarity. As is so often the case then, 'international' and 'global' stands in for the 'zero-point' (Bhambra, 2014;Grosfoguel, 2007;Wanderley and Barros, 2019) of Western/ Eurocentric dominance of management knowledge, rather than the declining importance of geographical location and transcendence of national boundaries.…”

“We care about others”: discursive constructions of corruption vis-à-vis national/cultural identity in Indonesia’s business-government relations

“…There is still a limited discussion, however, on how the colonial discourses of corruption and its underpinning concepts of integrity and ethics actually play out in organizational life, particularly in postcolonial settings. Moreover, there is an assumption of the totalizing effects of the dominant discourse and that the agency of the colonized is almost absent (Boussebaa, 2020). Previous research suggests that in responding to “universal” externally imposed ideas (such as corruption), local actors may accept, adapt and/or appropriate those ideas, simultaneously, to achieve their strategic interests (Boussebaa, 2015; Frenkel, 2008).…”

Englishization and the politics of translation

“…From the perspective of management knowledge production, this has meant that peoples and cultures outside of these dominant centres are frequently essentialised as an object of study (Fougère and Moulettes, 2012) and only "conceptualised through the refracting lens of Western categories, constructs and theories" (Westwood, 2004, p. 63). The continued dominance of these centres of knowledge production has meant that such an approach has produced little self-scrutiny, and is rarely recognised for the ideologically bound and parochial perspective that it is (Boyacilliger and Adler, 1991;Westwood, 2004;Jack, 2004;Jack et al, 2011;Boussebaa, 2020). Accordingly, there is now a substantial critique of the ways in which American management practices have been transported to developing economies under the guise of modernity, which reinforces the boundary between these centres of knowledge production and those on the periphery which at the same time legitimises and strengthens their hegemonic position (e.g.…”

“…We recognise the utility of BELF in communicating in multilingual environments; however, to claim neutrality is a de-historicized perspective, ignoring historical and geopolitical factors that have led to the contemporary choice of English as a global language of communication (Boussebaa, 2020).…”