9029

TOMADO DE: THE ACADEt-fY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW. Volume 16, Number 2,April 1991.
f\ two(l<.-my n( Mt'fttugrm,..IH l k ' ' ' ' ~ w
1091, Vol. lli. Nu. l . 21>?.- 2!10.
THE PAROCHIAL DINOSAUR:
ORGANIZATIONAL SCJENCE IN A
GLOBAL CONTEXT
NAKIYE A VDAN BOYACIGILLER
San Jose State Unlversity
NANCY J. ADLER
McGill University
Thia a rtlcle reviewa academic ma nagement from tbreo global por-
apectlvee: contextua!. quanlltatlve. and qua lltatlve. Baaed on multl-
ple methoda ot aueument, academlc management la lound lo be
overly parochial. Cultural valuea of the Unlted Statea underUe and
bave fundamentally framed management reaearch, tbua lmbulng or-
ganlzaUonal acienco with lmpllcit. and yet inappropriate, universal
iam. Recommendations are made to develop a more globally relevant
organlzational sclence in whicb univeraal. reglocentrlc, lntercultural.
and culture-speclfic theorlea and reaearch are clearly demarca1ed.
Its [culture's) inOuence for organizalional behavor ls lhat it op-
erates at such a deep level that people are not aware of its
influences. It results in unexamined patterns of thought that
seem so natural that mos! theorists of social behavlor foil to take
lhem into account. As a resull. many aspects of organlzational
lheodes produced in one culture rnay be inadequate in other
cultures. (Triandls, 1983: 1 39)
Global business has become a reality. Macro and micro economic sta
tstics daily etch that reality into the decision patterns o( political and cor-
porate leaders. Y et the American academic management traclition appears
to have fallen behind. Does the creatlon and dissemination of management
knowledge now lag behind economic reality?
Many leaders of the Academy of Management hove sounded the in-
ternational clarion. As president. Richard Steers focused the 1987 National
Academy of Management' s attenlion on the international climensions o
management (Steers, 1987, 1989). In 1988, president Don Hellriegel pre-
Earlier versions o this arlicle were presentad at the Westem Academy ol Management
meelings in San Francisco and Big Sky, Montana; the Organizational and Strategic Studies
Mini -Symposium al lhe Anderson School of Management ot UCLA; the Universlty of Cc:Jllfornla,
Berkeley Organizational Behovlor Doctoral Seminar; the World Congress of Sociology In
Madrid, july 1990; ond the Academy of International Business meetings In Toronto, November
1990.
262
Boyacigiller, N. y Adler, N. (abril,1991). The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in
a global context. The Academy of Management Review, 16 (2) pp. 262-290. (AR20613)
1991 Boyac1gLller and Adler 263
sentod lnternallonalization as one of the Academy's four main challenges.
Steven Kerr, 1990 president, presided over discussions to join an interno-
tional federatlon of academies of management. Similarly, Eastern Acad-
emy of Management president Carolyn Dexter moved her region's biannual
meetings overseas, arguing that the Academy can no longar remain within
the conceptual or geographicaJ borders of the United States. The Westem
Academy o{ Management followed suit by convening its unlque 1990 meet-
ing in Jopan.
This article inves1igates the global context of management research,
educalion, and theory development in the United States from three perspec-
tivas: contextua!. quantilative, and quolitative. First, from a contextua} per-
spective, it reviews chonges in the externa! environment tha1 potentiolly
impoct academic manogement, including inherent influences that hove
resultad from its being o post- World Wor II. American-basad profession.
Second, from a quanlitative perspectiva. it reviews the publication of inter-
nationol articles in U. S. managemenl journols, olong with American schol-
ars' preparation to conducl such research. Third, and perhops most impor-
tan!, it reviews o selecton of manogement theories (rom a qualitative per-
spectiva. Although mony differences exist between domestlc and global
manogement (including myriad issues involving scale, scope, and com-
plexity), given the limits of a single article, we focus on the cultural assump-
tions that underlie and often frome monagement research as well as the
implicit universalism inherenl in much of organizational science.
Parochiolism ls bosed on lgnorance of others' ways. Ethnocentrism
j udges [oreign ways as inferior to one's own. This article does nol criticize
American-moda organizalional science for beng ethnocentric. It does not
suggest that the main problem ls that American theorists view American
theories as superior lo others' theories. Rother, based on the multiple ob-
servations presentad, one of our prlmary conclusions s that of parochial-
ism. Americana hove developed theories without being sufficiently aware of
non- U.S. conlexts, models, research, and values. Our goal, however, is
not lo extend mode-in-America orgonizational sdence beyond its current
geographical boundaries, but rather to strengthen it by suggesting funda-
mental changas in how scholars can think about and create theories. The
purpose of this arlicle, therefore, is nol to casUga1e the field, its pioneers, or
its presentleaders; rather, by drawing attention to the forces promulgating
parochialism, it reconceptualizes the fleld's roots and thereby focilitates the
creation of a more relevan! futura. A1though the indictments in this article
are at times strong, they ore attempts to ovoid relegating the American
academic monagement tradilion to lhe curiosity of a mid-twentieth-century
fossil.
CONTEXTUAL PAROCHIALISM
Industrial Competitlvenees: The View Since World Wm n
In critical reviews of the field, Lawrence (1987) and Pfeffer (1982) under-
scored the importance of appreciating social context and its influence on
264 Academy ol Monagement Review April
theory development. They indicated that the questions organizational the-
orists hove deemed most interesting to study hove been a function of man-
agers' concerns and, thus, a product of the time. Similarly, such scholars as
Kuhn (1962). Merton (1968), and Whitley (1984). among others, suggested
that the social system of scientists and the environment of scientilic activity
corwlroin knowledgc produclion (Graham & Gronhaug, 1989). According to
Merton ( 1968: 539):
Social orgonization of intellectual activity is significantly related
lo the charocter of lhe knowledge which develops under its
auspices . ... lncreosingly. it has been assumed that the social
structure does not inOuence science merely by focusing the at-
tention of scienlists upon certain problems for research .. . [but
also in] the ways in which the cultural and social context enters
into the conceptual phrasing of scientlfic problems.
What is the sociocultural context of academic management? Most man-
agement schools and academic managemenl journals are American. They,
a long with the Acade my of Management. grew up as distinctly American
institutions in a particular geographical. culturaL and temporal context-
thol of post- World War 11 Unted States. Although the Academy of Man-
agement is over SO years old, two of the most prestigious management
journals, Administrative Science Quarterly and the Academy of Manage-
me.nt ]ournal, were established in 1956 and 1958. respectively, as Whitley
(1988: 47) accurately described (based on Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson et
al., 1959; Smiddy & Naum. 1954; Whtley & England, 1977):
The encouragement of systematic research into managerial
problems and business behavior in the 19S0s was based on the
widespread belief in the Uni ted States at the time that scientific
knowledge could provide the foundation for mproved manage-
rial declslon mak.ng and upgrade the quality of business edu-
cation.
Thus, as William Ouchi presentad in his 1990 Western Academy of Man-
agement keynote address, rnanagement knowledge began to be c:odified
during a particular period of American hislory. To understand the strengths
ond limitations of lhot k:nowledge base, it is incumbent to understand both
its particular historlcal context as well as Lhe currenl economc situalion.
The United States emerged from World War ll as the only major, eco-
nomically developed nation with ts industrial sector unscathed. lmmedi-
ately following World War II, the United States occounted for 75 percent of
the world's GNP (Thurow, 1988). For the next two decades, U.S. multina-
tional corporations dominated world trade. During this period of the United
Slates' postwar economic dominance, American researchers focused on
American firms, American perspectives, and those questions most salient to
American managers, rather than systematically including either non-U.S.
sites or issues. In this context, it was ea sy for researchers-including non-
1991 BoyacigliJer and Adler 265
U. S. researchers (Servan-Schreiber, 1968)-to assume implicitly that Amer-
icon thcori es also dominoted. We could argue that the field was imprinled
wilh o U.S. orientation (Stinchcornbe, 1965). Beechler and Pucik 0989). {or
example. noted that the Japanese importad American managerial theories
primarily during periods of U.S. economic and organizational dominance.
Similarly, consulting firms, such as McKinsey and Company, grew ropidly
following World War II and actlvely exported both the structural and process
solutions they used for U.S. industry (Blackford, 1988: 124). Today, the Unted
States produces less than one quarter (22%) of the world's GNP. Along with
the United Slales' decline in the global economy, the need lo question the
previously assumed universality of U.S. theories has become apparent.
Even though sorne academics and managers believe thal American
managerlal know-how created U.S. economic success-and concomi-
tantly, that Americans must now look lo their management systems to re-
gain economlc superiority-Thurow (1984. 1988) contends that America
was never competltive, but rather, had effortless economic superiority. Ou-
chi (1984) concurs. describing U.S. corporations during the postwar pe-
rlad os ear ning rnonopoly profils and thelr workers as earnlng monopoly
wages; this was not due to the superiority of American management tech-
n1ques, but rather it was primarily due to the Jack of signlficant foreign
competition. Recognizlng the presence today of vigorous foreign competi-
tion, Ouch ( 1984) predicts thot Americans wUl never again eam the mo-
nopoly profils and wages that characterized the decades immedialely ol-
lowing World War ll. Both Thurow's and Ouchi's argumenta suggest an
attribulion error: The economic success of the United States has been attrib-
uted, in part, to Americans' conceptlon of management (a collective interna!
attribution) rather lhan lo the re1ative lack of competition (an externa! attri-
bution).
In lhe 1990s, American industry faces becoming just anolher, albeit
importan!, region of lhe globe. Though corporate and academic perfor-
mance are cerlainly nol identical, perhaps the time has come for American
management professors and faculties to embrace a similar fate. Moreover,
perhaps the particular American heritage thot facilitated the eld's incep-
tion and its initial development now hinders its future contributlons. To
understand better these dynamics, the central institution of American aca-
demic management, the Academy of Management, is examinad.
The Academy of Management: A Global Perspective
As mentioned, post- World War 11 economic conditions played a deter-
mining role in lhe way business approached developing, manufacturing,
and marketing products ond servces. In 1966, Vemon proposed a simple.
yel widely used, three-phase model for understanding firms' development
based on the product lile cycle (see also Vernon, 1971). Adding a fourth
phase to capture the complexilies of today's highly competitive global en-
vironment. these phases could be labeled domestic, intemational, multina-
lional. and global (Adler & Ghadar, 1990). Although the expended model
/kodP.my o( Mcmooemenl Revtew April
outlines key aspects of the evoluti on of multinational enterprises. the four
phases also suggest sorne dimensions for understanding the evolution of
American academlc management theory, education, and instilutions dur-
ing the sorne period. Many attributes characterize the four phases, but a few
are particularly salient in helping scholars to understand their industry, that
is, the creation and russemination of management kno wledge.
The modal. in brief. suggests that in the fi rst phase (domestic), firms
focus on developing and producing unique new products in and for the
domestic market. Toa substantial extent, U1ese frms ignore the world out-
sida of their own borders. During the second phase (international), firms
focus on marketing. They expand their markets internationally: first by ex-
porting thel r domeslically produced products, next by assembllng the prod-
ucts abroad. and finally by producing these products abroad. Usng a muJ-
tho!'le Cirms asse5s each foreign country separately for its
market potentlal. Because internalional activlties constitute a smaU and
generally less 1mpor tant portian of a fi rm's overall operations, lt commonly
relegates the management of such activities lo a separata internationaJ
division. By the third phase (multinational), firms face a much more com-
petitiva multinational environment. They lherefore emphaslze price, that is,
developing leasf.cost production systems by using factor sourcing, produc-
tion. and di stribution that are inlegrated worldwide. At the third phase.
firms frequently organize their substantially larger multinational operations
into highly integrated, global Unes of business. With the growing impor-
tance of economies of scale and scope during this phase, standardization
becomes all-important. By the fourth phase (global), firms must operate
globally as top-quality, least-cost. state-of-the-art producers and distributors
to survive. Strategically and structurally, they must develop flexible systems
that are globally coordinated and integrated whUe remaining highly differ-
entiated and nationally responsive (Bartlett, Doz. & Hedlund, 1990; Bartlett
& Ghoshal. 1989; Porter, 1980; Prahalad & Doz, 1987).
Where does the Academy of Management fit when viewed from the
evolutionary perspective of this four-phase model? Firsl, scholars produce
and disseminate the majority of organizational science research within the
United States (Phase 1-domestic). Second, the scope and primary orien-
tation of most theories is American; however, such theories are presented as
if they were universally applicable. For example, researchers conduct stud-
ies on the job satisfaction of American roen and yet use the results to de-
velop and substantiate overall theories on job satisfaction. A few scholars
then test these U.S. job satisfaction theori es lo see if they apply abroad
(Slocum & Topichak, 1972). The former is a Phase 1 approach (producing for
the home market}, while the latter is a Phase 2 approach (i.e., attempting to
extend the "market" for U.S. theories abroad). Third, the domlnant nation-
ality of the Academy i s American. Its leaders, joumal editors, and editorial
board members are not drawn from scholars worldwide, but rather are
predominantly Americans. Fourth, and as most junior scholars at leading
U.S. universities k.now, researchers must publish in top American journaJs.
1991 Boyocfgiller ond Adler 267
Publication in non-U.S. journals (and. lo a lesser extent, U.S. journals
focusing on international topics) is considerad suspect, that is, suspect of
being inferior (a Phase l assumption). flfth, inlernational research, rather
than being integrated Lhroughoul the Academy, constitules a separate-
and in lhe past. somelimes disparaged-division. The Academy lhus ech-
oes the struclural dynamics of Phase 2 firms; it too has an intemational
dvision that is kept organizatlonally disUnct frorn the mainstrearn core of the
organJzation. Curiously. because the International Oivison has been la-
beled as a separata division, the Acaderny's Management History, Orga-
nlzation Th0ory, and Organization Behavior Divisions implicitly become
domestic divlslons posturing as "universal divisions." llloglcal as ll seems
(except lhrough Phase 2lenses), at present, international is a subdivlsion o
domeslic. Basad on these five examples, as well as many simJlar observa-
tions, the Academy currently appears to combine primarily aspecls of do-
mestic and inlernatlonal organizations, whlle exhibiting few rnultinational
or global characteristics.
Given the dramatic shifts in the externa! economic envlronment. we
recommend that the Academy consider new, more global structures and
processes (the final section of this article lists specific recommendations).
Although the precise formal for "going global" is not important, the result-
rnoving from Phase 1 and 2 structures to lhose of Phases 3 and 4-is criti-
cally importan! lo the future relevance and potential conlribution of Amer-
ican academlc management.
QUANTITATIVE PAROCHIAUSM
Having brlefly reviewed the global context, we can now focus directly
on the issues addressed and the research produced within that context.
Today, between 15 and 30 of the world's 185 countries possess most of its
scientific knowledge, while representing less than one third of its population
(von Alleman, 1974). If rnost science is practicad in fewer than 30 countries,
all social science is practicad in fewer still, and all organizational science in
still fewer (Roberts & Boyacigiller, 1984: 425). The vasl majority o manage-
ment schools are In the United States. The majorlty of management profes-
sors and researchers are American trained. Moreover, as prevlously rnen-
tioned, the vasl majority of management research focuses on the United
States (see Gergen. 1973, for similar trends in social psychological theory).
Lawrence ( 1987: 2-3) cited 30 key contributions in the development of orga-
nizatlonal science, only 5 of which were contributed by non-Americans (6 if
Kurt Lewin is mcluded). Additionally, all five of the non-U.S. researchers
ore European; none are from outside of the occidental tradition (see Adler,
Doktor, & Redding, 1986).
Academic institutons (management schools included) produce and dis-
seminate knowledge. The following section reviews the record of American
management schools in producing internationally educated managers and
professors, as well as the record of those professors in producing interna-
tionally focused research.
Academy of Monagement Review April
Management Schools
Severa! studJes hove recommended improving the intemational busi-
ness educatlon oflered to U.S. college graduales in order to improve the
performance o( American executives worldng abroad (American Associa-
tion of School Admmistrators, 1983; National Advisory Board on Education
Programs. 1983; Presidenfs Commission on Industrial Competitiveness,
1985; Porter & McKibben. 1988). In 1974. the American Assembly of Colle-
giale Schools of Business (AACSB) changed its accredilaton standards to
lnclude o worldwide dimension in the curriculum. By 1979, the AACSB
approved an interpretation of lhat standard, saying, "Every student should
be exposed to the internationa] dimension i n the curriculum" (Nehrt, 1987).
Yel. in 1984. over 20 percent of the AACSB schools' MBA programs had
done nothing to lnlernationalize their curricu1a (Nehrt, 1987). Moroover , al
the 1989 global INTERMAN Conference, the only worldwide meeting for
management school deans, only 10 deans from lhe more than 700 Ameri can
managemenl schools attended, fewer than the number attending Irom the
Peoplc's Republic of China. Perhaps even more sertous, only 17 percent of
the doctoral s1udenls had token an inlemational course; that is, less than
one doctoral student in uve was preparad in any way to teach the interna-
tiona1 d1mensions of their discipline (Nehrt, 1987).
Simlorly, "fewer lhan hoU of aH collegos and unlversitles now require
foreign longuoge study for the bachelor's degree, clown from neorly 90% in
1966" (Bowen, 1984: 91), with most doctoral programs counting a computar
1anguage as suUicient lo meet the foreign language requirement. In the
most recen! AACSB survey (Thanopoulos, J 986), schoo1s were not e ven
asked if lhey offered an internotional organizatlonal behavior course or U
they lncluded an international dimension to thelr rogularly required orga-
nlzalional behavior courses (Thanopoulos & Vernon, 1987). Even though the
AACSB (1988- 1989: 28) now directs business schools to "provide for a bread
education preparing the student for imaginativa and responsible citizenship
and loadership roles in business and soclety- domeslic and worldwide, "
there is Jittle indication lhat U.S. business schoo1s aro currently able to fulfill
the "worldwide'' part of their mandate. Given this pattern, it is not surprising
thot Kobrin ( 1984) found that most AmerJcan managers still acquire their
mternotionol expertise through business experience and nol in rnanage-
menl semlnars and courses.
Management Research
In a survey of 24 joumals during the docade 1971 to 1980, Adler 0983)
found that 1ess than S percent (4.2%) of thc orgamzalional behavior articles
published in top American management journals focused on cross-cu1tural
or intemationa1 i ssues. Of those with a cross-cultura1 focus, the majority
were unicultural, sJngle-country studies (l. 9 %}. Less than 2 percent (1.4%}
comparad two or more cultures, and less than 1 percont (.9%) investigated
the interaction among people from differenl cultures, evon though interac-
1991 Boyaogiller and Adler 269
tion 1s the essence of most intemational business transactions. Adler (1983)
found no increase in the number or proportion of lntornational organiza-
lional behavior articles over the decade.
Two studies replicated Adler's results and (ound no signiHcant increase
in lhe number o( cross-cultural organizational behavior articles (Godlcin,
Braye, & Caunch, 1989a; Peng, Peterson, & Shyl, 1990); this despite the con-
tinued commilment of such journals as the journal of International Business
Studies, the Columbia }ournal of World Business, ond the newer Organi-
zation Studies, Strategic Managemenl }ournal, and Callfornia Manage-
ment Review to publish top-quality inlernational management research.
This i s nellher an impressive showing nora porUcularly favorable harbin-
ger. Godk.in and his colleagues (1989b: 9) concluded thal:
Whlle global economic interdependence has increased and ac-
crediled business schools hove been required lo internotional -
lze their curricula, publicalion in the field of cross-cultural man-
agement seems lo lag as in lhe lote 70's. This is a regrettoble,
bul seemingly continuing lrend. The dangers inherent in re-
moming ignoran! of our neighbors ore d1sturbing; the ramllico
llons o( compehng in ignorance more so. The bhss proverbiaUy
ossoc1oled with ignorance and the orrogance accompanying 11
hove o down side.
Why is there such a paucity of intemotional research in organizational
sclence? As described previously, doctoral programs foil in training re-
searchers both lo understand international lssues and lo develop the tools,
such as foreign language slcills, to conduct such research. Moreover, even
if propared, lnternational research is more difficult to conduct than its do-
mestic counterpart. given the complexity of the multinolional envlronment
and the higher monetary and tme cosls involved in multicountry studies
(Adler, 1984; Wind & Perlmutter, 1973: 131). In addilion, Graharn and Gron-
haug ( 1989) contrastad the lack of fil between the domestic U. S. emphasis on
rigorous quantitative methods and internal validity, with the nature of in-
lnrnollonol ~ d i e s which. by definllion, tend to be contextua} and therefore
demand approaches incorporating high levels o( externa) validity (see
Adlor, Campbell, & Laurent's [1989] description of the challengtts involved
n collecting valid survey dato in a politically repressive environment). To
1gnore or to mjnimize externo! validity is to assume lhat theories apply
irrespective of context, thal is, that they apply under any political, eco-
nomic, cultural, legal, or historical situation. The general acceptance of
laboratory studies in American social science exempfies this acceptance of
context-free methodologies.
Unfortunately, there has been no systemaUc study of the international
aspocls of lhe review process to determine i{ lntematonol research. once
produced, gets published. However, as mentioned previously, the prepon-
derance of American journal editors, the paucity of foreign editorial board
members, and the lack of recognition of forelgn sources is strik:ing. As Whit-
lny (1984: 27 --28) recognized:
270 Academy of Managemenl Review
A major manifestation of the way reputational control llmlls the
orlginalily of contributions to collecllvo intelledual goals is the
tii'<'I'SSily ol referring lo the previous work of colleagues. While
lhis rnay be necessary to avold prollx redundancias In the text.
il is also a way of exerting social control ovar novel Ideas .... In
a sense, citaUons are a way of ritualistically affirming group
goals and norms, of demonslralmg group membership and
ldentily.
Aprll
Given that few international articles hove been published and that articles
pubHshed in foreign journals are of suspect quality by many American
editorial boards. lnlernational researchers are hard pressed to "ritualisti-
cally afflrm group membership ... that is. to cite a sufficient number of rele-
van! articles published in leading American journols to pass the test of
"building on prior research" (Graham & Gronhaug, 1989). Arndl (1985: 19)
ottested to the difficultles of breaking the American-basad, logical empiricist
mold (in marketing, although the same is certainly lrue for organizational
science): " In our enlightened age, the dissident ... scientislls not burned at
the stake. Instead, he or she is rather likely to suffer the slow burnout of
never emerging from the journals' revislon purgatorias." Graham and
Gronhaug's (1989) occurate, and yet discouraging, conclusion ls that re-
search methods are driving k.nowledge production rather than the problems
ond needs of managers. policy makers. and students.
QUALITATIVE PAROCHlALISM
The concepls of the field are seldom valuefree, and most could
be replacod wilh other concepts carrylng far different valua-
lionol baggage ... if our values were olherwise, social con-
formily could be viewed as pro-solldarlty behavlor; attitude
chango as cognitiva adaptation; and lho risky shlft as lhe cou-
rageous convers1on .... Perhaps our best option ls lo mainlain
os much sonsiUvily as possible to our biases and lo communi
cate lhem as openly as posslble. (Gergen. 1973: 312)
Assumptions obout underlying values would be unimportant if either
organzational lheorles were based on universal values or values did not
hove an impact on organizalional behavior (Gonzalez & McMillan, 1961).
Neither supposition ls tenable given the research substantiatlng the cultural
diversity of volues and the impact of such diversity on organizotional be-
havior (e.g., Englond. 1975; Holstede, 1980; Kelley & Worthley, 1981; Lane &
DiSte(ano, 1988; Laurent, 1981; Moore, 1974; Oberg, 1963). Child (1981: 347-
348) summarized diversity's impact on micro organlzational behavior:
Cultural eUecls will be most powerful ln lhe process of organi-
zolions relating to authority, style. conduct. partlcipallon and
altitudes, ond less powerful in formal structurlng and overall
slrategy. However , we sllll requiro o more adequate lheory -:>f
I!Y.ll BoyaclgJJiar and Adler
organlzatlons which specifies lhe points al whlch conllngency,
culture and the system o[ economlc relatlonshlps have lheir
tnaln eflecls.
271
Even though values and cultural assumptions profoundly lnfluence micro
organizational behavior. lhey equally dearly lnfluence macro organization
theory. f or example, Laurent (1983: 75-76) described his difficulty explain-
ing matrix managementto French managers:
The idea of reporting lo two bosses was so allen to these man-
agers that mere consideration of such organlzlng principies was
an imposslble, useless exerclse. What was naedod lira! was a
thorough exominatlon ond problng of the holy principie of the
single chain of command and the managers' recognition that
this was a slrong element of their own bollef syslem rother thon
o constonl olement In nalure.
Not surpnsingly, Lawrence (1987) credited European researchers (wtth their
more soctological orientation and therefore keen interest in size, technol-
ogy, structure, and contingency theory) wlth being the irnpetus behind the
developmenl of the macro side of the Ueld.
Organi zatlonal theorists appear to be vicms of an attribution error. As
described by Jones and Nisbett (1971), the fundamental attribution error
posits that individuals are prone to view thc behavior of others as deter-
minad by their individual characteristics and motivations rather than by
characteristics of the environment. Similar to other individuals, organiza-
llonal theorists seem to hove underestirnated the extenl lo which their per-
ceplions and interpretatlons. and consequentl y their building of organiza-
tional theory, are influenced by the externa! cultural envlronment. Cultural
biases keep scholars from seeing the fui! ranga and diversity of organiza-
tional phenomena. For example, ln reviewing contrlbutions by leading Eu-
ropean scholars, Hofstede ( 1981 : 32) ound remarkable differences in focus
according to the particular researcher's background: "Authors from Latn
Europe, focus on power; from Central Europa, lncluding Germany, on truth;
from Eastem Europa, on efliciency; from Northern Europa. on change" (also
see Hofstede & Kassem, 1976; Lamrners, 1990). Laurent ( 1983) usad British
scholars' focus on structure as contrastad with thelr french counterparts'
(ocus on power to exemplify the sorne point. Similarly, Roberts and Boy-
acigiller ( 1983), in a survey of cross-natlonal researchers, also found na-
tional patterns in research emphasis.
Assumed Universality and Organi%ational Theory
Although important, recognizing culture's profound influence on the
development of theories i s dillicult (Triandis, 1972). lf culture is invisible,
one's own culture is most mvistble (HaJI, 1959). As Boulding 0961: 16) elo-
quently summarized over 25 years ago:
Tha development of images is part of tho culturo or the subcul-
ture In whlch they are developed. and lt dependa upon all el-
272 Acodemy of Manogement Revlew
emc-nts of thot culture or subculture. Science is o subculture
omong subc:ullures. 11 con cl oim lo be useful. 11 can cloim rother
more dubiously lo be good. 11 connol cloim lo give volldity.
Aprtl
L1ke all naUons, the Umted States has deeply embedded values that
influence the ways m which Americans perceive and th1nk about the world
as well as the ways in which they behave within that world. Most American
lheones. however. hove been developed and presentad as if they were
acultural. Yel. as Berger and Luckman (1966} argued ln The Social Con-
::;truction of Reolity, ocultural perceplion. observation, interpretatlon, and
theory building hove yet to be proven lo exisl.
As has been notad, most organization theories w ere "made-
in-the-USA" ond, therefore, were inOuenced by the politicol. economic, ond
cultural context of the Umted States. Yet , few researchers hove explicitly
addressed the influence of American values on U.S. -based organizat1onal
science (Adler . 1986; Adler & Jelinek, 1986: Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Hofstede,
1980: Newman, 1972}. Ra1her, most organJzotion lheories appear implicitly
to assume universality (see Hofstede & Bond. 1988; Lammers & Hickson,
1979, Osigweh, 1989a.b; Smi th & Peterson, 1988, for notable exceptions).
Even when lhe applicability o these theories to olher cultures is testee!.
researchers usually select methods thot are most acceptable according to
American norms. thereby rendering results that are just as culturally con-
ditioned (see Morey & Luthans. 1984; Sekoran. 1983, for exceptions).
Though cultural volues potentially hove an impact on a ranga o( micro
und macro orgonlzotional pheuomcna. the scope of this orticle limlts the
number of examples we mighl cite. The following section offers examples of
porticularly powerful cultural influences. Because a number of models for
examining value orientations ore well regarded and increasingly widely
used in the field, rather than limiting ourselvcs to one modal. we have
chosen examples from three: Kluckhohn ond Strodbeck (1961), Hofstede
(1980), and Hall (1959). The selected examples demonstra1e how U.S. values
regarding free will, ndividualism. anda low-context orientotion profoundly
a!fect how the field conceptualizes organizatlonal behavior. The selected
examples neither represent aU value differencos nor the complete range of
lheir impact on organizations and managcment.
Free Will Versus Determlnism: Orientationa Toward Power and Ef1icacy
A prevailing American cuJtural belief is that indivlduals can affect their
immediate ci rcumstonces. ore responsiblo for lheir actions, and can influ-
ence futura events (Stewort, 1972}. Amerlcans generolly see themselves as
capable of controlling their own circumstances and, toa substantial degree,
their environment:
While recogntzmg the innuence of both natura ond nurture,
Americana rarely see themselves as ulllmately constrnined by
their blologJcoJ or psychologicol inherilonce, thelr chiJdhood so
1991 BoyadgiUer and Adler
c ralizalion. or even their prior experience. lnstead, they sea
themselves as infinitely capable of seU-changa, as evident lrom
the number ol salf-help books lining the shelves of popular
Ameri can bookstores. (Adler & Jelinek, 1986: 82)
273
Similarly, the huge amount ($210 billion) spent annually in the United States
on work-r elated training (American Society for Training and Development,
1989) reflec ts Amerlcans' confidence in adult learning and, therefore, the
possibility of dlrected changa.
By contrast , many other cultures tradlti onail y see causality as deter-
minad by factors beyond their control, factors such as God, fate, luck, gov-
ernment, one's social class, or hlstory. Most fundamentalist Moslems, for
Gxample, see lile os following a path preordained by the will of God (e.g.,
Harris & Moran, 1979: 46). Similarly. the Chinese invoke " Joss," a combina-
lion of luck and late. to explain events. These more deterministic cultures
generally define accountability and responsibility more diffusely than cul-
tures that rely on free will. ln deterministic cultures. people cannot assume
responsibility for many events because such events are perceived as oc-
curring outside of their control. Perhaps the essentially stable, post- World
War II economlc, political. social, and legal environment in the United
States made it particu1ar1y easy for American managers and management
theori sts to emphasize free will and, thus, personal efficacy and control. For
instance, becouse Americans hove not had to contend with major changas
or radical breakdown in their legal system, they generally trust the enforce-
ability ol contracts. Similarly, because coups. mllitary or otherwise, hove
not alterad the poltica! dynamics of the United States, Americons can reli-
ably predict an environmental stabillty lhat is absent in many other parts of
the world.
Americans' emphasis on free will and their relatad belief that peop1e
can control and dominate the environment (Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961)
profoundly influence their view of orgonizational design and changa (Gal-
braith. 1973; Miles & Snow, 1978). Mosl commonly today through organiza-
tional culture and leadership model s and metaphors. American theorists
describe organizations as malleable; lhat is, given the appropriate inter-
vention. managers can changa organizations to create a better alignment
with the environment. Similarly, American theorisls conceptualize manag-
ers as having sufficient power lo inUuence the environment, thus ensuring
the continuad flow of critica! resources (Pfeffer & Sa1ancik, 1978).
By contrast, Kiggundu (1988: 182) notes that In Africa. similar to many
other economically developing oreas of the world. because of the asyrn-
melrical relationship between the organization and its relevan! environ-
ment, managing interdependenci as with the externa! environment is much
more problematlc than lt ls In the Unlted States. In such cultures, nelther the
organization as a whole nor the individual manager can strongly influence
organizational outcomes.
Externa! environmental deterrninism is not irrelevant for Americans. It
274 Acodemy o{ Management Revlow Apn1
slmply foils to hove the pronounced, irrefutable relevance that it has for
many other cul tures. Americans, for instance, usod the oll crisis (an externa!
factor perceived to be beyond their control} to explain the U.S. dollar's high
value in 1974. Similarly today, in referring to Japonesa protectionist legis-
latlon, Americans occept a limited tieterminism in oxpla!ning sorne of their
difflculties in resolving the U.S. trade deficl. From the perspectiva of orga-
nizalional science, the problem is that most theories foil to sufficienUy em-
J:'lhosizA externa! environmental factors in general, or to lnclude such cul-
lurnl varlonts as determinism In particular.
Indlvidualism and Collectivism: Orientatlons Toward Motlvation
and Commitment
In whot cultural and hislorical conlexl does the groalest good
lnvolve being able to break aporl lrom one's collecllve base lo
stand alone, seU-sufficienl and self-contalned? ln tho contex1 of
an mdlvidualistic society in which individualism and seU-
containment is the ideal. the person who most separatas soU
from the group is thereby seen as embodying that Ideal most
strongly; the person who remains wedded lo a group ls no! our
[American) esteemed ideal. CSampson, 1977: 776)
Hofstede's (1980) reseorch invesligoting dominant cultural values ranks
the United Stotes highest on indiv1duolism among his 40-country sample.
When thls rosearch wos extended to over SO countrles. the United States still
maintolned tts first-place posilion on lndividuaUsm (Horstede, 1983). Amer-
icons define themselves using personal chorocteristics and ochievements
rather than their place within o group or collectivity. Note, for exomple. the
U.S. selection J,:>ractice of us!ng rsums listing personal ochievements
rather than hlring relotives, which ls pejoralively labeled as nepotism.
Sampson (197'7: 769) summarized lhls issue: "Our [American] culture em-
phaslzes !ndividuality, in particular a kind of individual self-sufflciency that
describes an extreme of the indlvidualistic dimension."
Many organizatlonal theories reflect this indivldualist bias. Allen,
Millar, and Nath (1988) note thot in countr]es where lndividualism domi-
nates, lndlviduals view their relotionship with the organizaUon Irom a cal-
culative perspectiva, whereos in collectivist socielies, the tles between the
individual and orgonization hove o moral componen!. Clearly, the concept
of organrzaliona) commitment {e.g .. Stow, 1980) carries very different con-
notatlons m collectivist soceties than In individuoUstic socleUes. Employees
who hove collect.ivist values commlt to orgonizations primarily dueto their
hes with managers, owners, co-workers (collectivism), ond much less due to
the job ltself or the particular compensa1ion scheme (lndividualistic incen-
tives). Consonant with its individuallstic orientation, the United States has
lhe most executive searr.h rms and one of the highest levels of managerial
mobllity in the world. lt is therefore not surprislng, and yet highly unfortu-
nate, thot American theoretical structures foil to include a full range of
1991 Boyadgiller and Adler 275
explanallons for organizational commitment and the lack thereof (see Ear-
ley. 1989, for a notable exception).
SJmilarly, most American theories of molivation reflecta decidedly in-
dividualistic perspectiva. In a review of the motivation literatura, Staw (1984:
650- 651) states that " whether the driving force is thought to be prior rein-
forcement. need fulfillment. or expectancies of futura galn, the individual is
assumed lo be a rational maximizer o{ personal u tUity." Staw (1984: 651)
queslions how this indi viduaVcalculative view of rnot1vation applies across
cultures. suggesting that il "could be a fundamental ornission In our moti-
vol.i on thomioB." F.quily theory provides a case in polnt. Accordlng to Samp-
son (1977: '177) , social psychologists continua to search within lhe psychol-
ogy of the individual to explain demands for personal cqulty, rather than
within the group or collectivity for less-lndividuollstic explanotions. What
would our theories ol motivation look like if thcorisls viewed the individual
as part o( o tightly bound social fobric? What would thoy look like in a
country w1th more than a quarter of the populollon unemployed (e.g ., in
many parts of A frica)? How would our theories explain motivation if scholars
viewed jobs as cntical not only for the individuol's well-belng but also for the
well-being of the ex1ended family? What would a motivation theory look l.ike
in countries where the govemment assigns people lo jobs, rather than al-
lowing individuals lo exercise free choice (e.g., for workers In the People's
Republic of China)?
Miller and Grush ( 1988: 119) argued that thc popularity of expectancy
lheory can be explalned by "the logical appeal of ts undorlying assumption
that the perceived consequences of actions rationally determine human
behavlor," and " thol conceptual advances can be made In expectancy
theory by Jncludi ng addilional variables or by idcntHying the theory's lirn-
iting conditions." Cross-culturally bosed research would facilita te theory
development by suggestng additional variables as well as identifying such
Hmiting conditlons. The importance of biaoxian in evaluatlng Chinese work-
ers exemplifies thl s point. Biaoxian means
lo manlfest somelhing thatls an expresslon of a deeper, hidden
quallty . .. the term applies to the bread and vague/y deflned
realm of behavior that is subject to leadorshlp evaluation ...
behavlor that indicates underlying altitudes and orlenlaUons
worthy of reward. (Walder, 1983: 60- 61. emphasls added)
lncorporoting th1s vew and. in particular the vagueness ol its measure-
ment, becomos highly problema tic for expectancy thoory.
The extreme individualism of the U.S. culture also lnfluences leader-
ship theories (see Bass. 1981. for a cross-culturol roviow). Smith and Peter-
son (1988: 97) noted thot "the particular uniquencss of thc USA should alert
us lo the posslbility that the indvidualistic nature of much American-
derlved leadership theory is a facet of U.S. culture, rather lhan o firm base
upon which to build leadership theories of universal applicabllity." For
276 Academy of Management Review Aprl
cxample. although charismatic leadershlp is valuad and studied today by
Americans (e.g., Conger. 1989), it is disparaged by Germans.
High- and Low-Context Cultures: Orientations Toward Communication
and Understandlng
A high-context communication or message is one in which most
o! the i nlormation i s either in the physical context or lntemalized
in the person, whe very little is In the coded, expliciUy trans-
mittod part of lhe message .... A low-contoxt communicatlon is
jusi tho opposite; Le. , the mass of tnformotion is vosted in the
Pxplld t <xx.h ... Although no culture exlsts excluslvely al one
rlld oltho F:call", sorne are hlgh whllo others are Jow. (Hall. 1981/
1976: 91)
In high-context cultures. the externa! environment, sltuoUon, ond non-
verbo! behavlor ore crucial for understond1ng commumcotion. By contrast,
in low-context cultures. o much greater portion o{ the meaning in o given
communicotion comes from the spoken word. In languoges spoken in high-
context cultures, such as Jopanese. Arobic, and Chinese, subtlety is val uad.
Much of the meanlng of messages ls derl ved from the paralanguage, facial
expressions. settlng. ond timing. Alternalively, in low-context cultures, the
literal words chosen convey much more of the meanlng. The relatively
low-context orlentalion of the United States is evtdent in Americans' empha-
sis on written legal documents, whereos mony other cultures put more fai th
in foce-to-face personal ogreement. In mony cultures, the relalionship , not
lh<" lnqol docum(mt , bmds the ogreement. Glvon this orientation, it i s not
surprising lhat the United States has the mosl lawyers per copila in the
world: 279 lawyers per 100,000 populotion, os comparod with 114 i n the
United Kingdom, 77 m West Germany, 29 1n Franca, and 11 i n Jopan (Coun-
cil on Compctiliveness, 1988: 3). Americans' low-contoxt orientation also
underlias their concept o separation, for oxample. separatlon of church and
state. employees' societal status from thelr organlzational status, and man-
agers' cultural conditioning from their expected behovior at work.
The low context orientotion of the United States (and also England) may
explain the mlnimal emphasis organlzahonal theory historically has placed
on such contextua! factors as history, social settlng, culture, and govem-
ment. Thus, for the future development of the field, one benefit from schol -
ars' current lnterest i n Jopan Hes in Japan's hlgh-context culture. Japanese
organizational phenomena connot be understood without using o contex-
tuo!, instilutlonal framework. Scholars understand Japanese omployees
only when thcy understand the organlzations and soclety In which these
employees are embedded, including the network of relationships among
Jopanese government ond business organizations (e.g., Gerlach, 1987; Un-
coln & McBnde. 1987; Ohmae, 1987). The contextual, historical, and institu-
tionol approaches necessory to explain }apanese orgonizational behavor
undoubtedly are eruiching the study of organizations worldwide.
How would orgonizotional researchers lncorporate massive enviren-
1991 Boyacigiller and Adler 277
mentol ond political chonge mto models of motlvatton, leadership, and
orgomzahon struclure? Corroll. Delacroix. ond Goodstoin (1988: 360) note
lhat:
Allhough foundotions of orgamzolionol thoory llo wllhln politi-
col soclology. curren! perspectivas on orgonlzotlons show llttle
of thls heriloge .... Curiously, the mojor lntellectuolleap from
closed lo open syslems models of orgonlzolions has colnclded
with the de {acto dismissol of mony of the polllicaJ issues that
concerned mony of the eorly theorists su eh os Michels ( 1949),
Selznick (}949), and Gouldner (1954).
{\ l 111<"' cculogk:al levol, Carroll and bis colleogues found lhal poUl!cal vari-
ables hod a significont impact, for example, on organizational founding
and death rotes (Carroll & Delacroix, 1982: Corroll & Huo, 1986; Delacroi.x &
Carroll. 1983). Similarly, al the individual leve}, ignoring what lhe 1997
return of Hong Kong to lhe People's Republic of China means to lhe Chinese
in Hong Kong or what lhe 1989 violence in Beijing means to lhe Chinese in
lhe People's Repubhc of China relotive lo their work motivation and com-
matment triviolizes any theory's explanatory power.
Together, these three cultural characteristics- free will, individualism,
and low-conlext orientation-also explan much of the emphasis that orga-
nizational science places on managers. All lhree characteristics foster lhe
view that managers hove a high degree of discretion and much influence
over their organizotions. However, surprisingly few empi rical studies hove
lesled tho actual impact of managerial actions (Lieberson & O'Connor, 1972;
Thomas, 1988). Despite lhe spirited debate in sorne quarters over the influ-
ence of manageria1 behavior on organizational oulcomes (A1drich, Mc-
Kelvey. & Ulrich, 1984; Chlld. 1972), much of organizational science is based
on the assumption that managerial behavior makes a difference. The b1a-
tancy of this ossumption belies the existence of deep1y held cultural val-
ues.
lmportant theones exist ernhodying cultural values other lhan those
discussed above; one example is institutional theory. However, the current
mterest in instilutlonal theories of organization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;
Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer & Scott, 1983; Scott, 1987; Zucker. 1988) does
not mitigate the fact that since Selznick's classic 1949 work, organizatianal
science has reflected primarily lhe American cultural vaJues of rationality
ond free will (see Stinchcombe, 1965, for a notable exception). Sorne believe
that todoy's emphasts on institutional and ecological perspectivas (e.g.,
Corroll, 1987; Honnan & Freeman, 1989; Zucker, 1988) ls, in part, a reaction
to Americons' previous overreliance on rational and ahistorical models of
organizahonal behavior. Even though nonrational views of organizotion
hove been published, lhe "rational view steadlly gained lhe upper hand"
(Ouchi & W!lklns, 1985: 465). Ouchi and WUkins (1985), among others, al-
tribute the domlnance o( rotionol approaches lo the increasod emphosis on
oxplicit, quontitotlve, and computer-aided analysis Jn the U.S. social
278 Acodemy of Management Revlew AprU
sclences. Pfelfer ( 1982) suggested that forcelul cultural values hove lec! us lo
be more open to certain approaches than others.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MORE INTERNATIONALLY RELEVANT
ORGANIZA TIONAL SCIENCE
This review focuses on acadernic management from three perspec-
tives-conlex1uol, quantitative, ond qual!tative. From all three perspec-
tivas, we render the sorne verdict: inappropriate parochiallsm. The current
body of knowledge and processes for creating that knowledge are bounded
ond limlting. They lock suficient breadth and depth to explain the very
phc-momena that we purport to study. Organizational sclence has become
trapped, that is, trapped within geographical, cultural, temporal, and con-
ceptual parochialism.
Organizatlonal science is in a state of reOection tha1 requires theorists to
review the history ol the field and critique existing work (e.g., Pinder &
Moore, 1979; Van de Ven & Joyce, 1981). Like a weed patch, sorne theories
hove been allowed lo run rampant due to overgeneralization: They need to
be cleared. Overemphasizing particular views of organizatlonal phenom-
ena has caused other perspectivas to be underemphasized. As Pfeffer (1982:
l) observad:
The domam of organization lheory ls coming to resemble moro
ol o weed patch than o well -tended gorden .... lt is ofton dil-
flcult lo discem in what direcUon k.nowledge of orgonlzatlons ls
progressing-or H. indeed. 1t ls progresslng al aU.
To date, the development of cross-cultural organizotlonal bchavior has
helped littlo lo weed the garden because most cross-cultural studies hove
been unlcultural or comparativa, designad simply to extend U.S. -developed
theories abroad (Adler, 1983; Negandhi, 1975). Rarely has the feld focused
on the theories themselves.
As described next and summarizod in Table 1, we mako 13 recommen-
dalions for creating a more globally relevan! organizational sclence. Rec-
ommendattons are made both to individual researchers and to the Acad-
emy of Management.
Recommendatlons: Reflec1ion
For organlzational science to continua to develop, we recommend that
scholors explicltly address cultural assumptions. Through this reOection,
scholars will develop an appreciotion of the cultural condltioning of orga-
nization theories. Thus, they will become more cognizant of how American
values underlie much of orgamzation theory and, consequently, render it
constrained. Examlmng the cultural roots ond assumptions is a necessary.
but not suWclent, condition for beglnning to uncover neglected, overem-
phasized, ond overgeneralized aspects of organizational theory.
1991 Boyacigi/ler and Adler 279
TABLE 1
Recommendations for a More lntemationally Relevant
Orga.nizational Science
Rec:oromenda1lona
Reflectlon
r:xpllcllly oddrass the lnfluence of
ntl tmol Vlllues on how wo
orgonizollon phenomena
ond construcl organlzallon theori es.
Examine tha eJctent lo which the
organizational raflocl U.S.
cultural values.
Actlon Stepa for Individual Res.archers
State the cultural and geographlcal
dol'TlOln of theortes ond reseorch. as
well as lndu:ote other locales m which
rt apphes.
lndtcate the nationol ond \:ultural
characterlstlcs of reseorch samples.
Reseorch management systems outside
olthe Unlted States.
Study non- U.S. monogement systems on
thelr own terms (!drogrophic resaorch);
develop thlck descnplions ol
orgonl7.alionul nnrl the
contexls In which they ore embedded.
Creote more multinallonal and
multiculturol reseorch tooms
Use non- U.S setllngs to fra me
theoreticol and methodologicol
approaches.
Take sabboticols In forelgn countries.
Orga:nUa1ional Changea
Journal edrtors, revtewers. and scholars
should question one onother regarding
therr cultural aasumphons and
reseorch domolns.
Expond editorial boards lo include globai
representatlon and expertise.
Helps scholars uncover neglected.
overornphaslzed, ond overgeneralized
aspects ol theorloa.
Incrooses scholaru' understonding o(
American culture and lts impact on
tholr percoptlons. thoughts and
scholarahtp.
Manlmrzes lrnphdt unlversahsm.
Asslsts rooders ol thc research lo
recognlzo potontlal hmrtallons.
Creotes now thoorohcol ond
methodologlcol opproaches not
predlcotod on American assumptions.
lncreooos tho orgonlzatlonol forms and
contexls wlth whtch scholars are
lomihor. as woll as increosing their
understandtng olthe unlqueness ol
U.S. orgonlzotlonal lorms.
Focllltalos rocognltlon of cultural biases
In theory dovolopment.
Exponds domoln ol organizational
th130rlos.
lncreasos scholors' understanding ol
loreign cultures ond their own
cultures, lncludlng providing personaJ
thtck descrlpllons ol the loreign
sobbaucol culture
Reworchno caroful expos1tion of the
googrophrcol ond cultural domain will
check lmpllctt unaversoltsm.
lncreoses the perspectivos representad,
both 3ubstanllvely ond symbohcally.
/.RO 1\e<Jdemy of Manc.rgoment Revlew April
TABLE 1 (contlnued)
Recommendolione Slgnlflcance
Consider formmo "global fines of
busmess, strotegc al llanees. ond
networks among academic
orgontZaUons worldwlde.
facllitcrtes mterncrtionalizaUon. and, thus,
contnbutes lo futura relevance.
Select leaders of academic monagemenl
orgamzatlons from multiple nations.
lncreases perspectivas and knowledge
bases represented. thus locililoUng
framo-br(Xlldng chongo.
Recommendatlons: Action Steps for Individual Scholars
Minor ( 1980: 8) ldonUfied seven charocleristlcs that a good theory should
exhibtt. Of the seven. one is parlicularly relevan!:
There should be a clear delinealion of the domain the theory
covcrs. The boundaries of applcahon should be specifiod so
thal the lheory is not utilizad fruitlassly m situalions for whlch it
was nevar lnlended. This has been an often neglected aspcct ol
thoory building In the social sctonces generally (Dubln, 1973),
mcluding lhe field of organizalional behavtor.
To develop a more robust organizational sclence, we recommend that
scholars cleorly state the cultural and geographical domain of their theo-
rles. By not lndicaUng the domain. scholars i nappropriately promulgate a
unlversali slic view of organizational theory.
We support I lolstede' s ( 1980) recommendation that researchers indicate
lhe national and cultural characlerislics of thelr sample so that readers can
recognize the potental limitations. For example, Gersick's (1988: 34; 1989)
exemplary research shows that "groups use temporal milestones to pace
their work and that . . . reaching those milestones pushes groups into
transitions." Given lhe voriance in how diflorent cultures vlow time (Hall,
1959; Kluckholn & Strodbeck. 1961), one must ask lo what extent Gersick's
findings aro a cultural artifact. Clearly Gersick should continua her re-
search. However, replications should be conducted in cultures with very
differenl limo orientaUons. At present. a clarificaUon such as "given the
deep-seoted dilforences in how cultures vlew U me, these findlngs should be
vlewed with caution outside the United Stales" would add to her work's
contribuUon lo the literatura.
We recommend researchi ng cultures and managoment systoms out-
side of the Unlted States. Especially recommended is research. such as the
rcx;ent 22-country study (based in the People's Republic of China) of Hof-
stede and Bond (1988}. using non- U.S. setti ngs to frame both the lheoretical
and methodological approach. Cross-national reseorch Corees scholars to
question the adequacy of their domestically derivad models. lhereby en-
couraging them to create theoretcal and methodological approaches not
1991 Boyacigiller ond Adler 281
predicated sololy on single-culture (especially American) assumptions.
Through thls process. single-nation researchers can learn much from their
cross-national colleogues (e.g. , Child & Kieser, 1979; Hamllton & Biggart,
1988; Tannenbaum, Kavcic, Rosner, Vianello. & Wieser. 1974).
In addition, we recommend that scholars study foreign organizations
on their own terms (idographic research). By developing thick descriptions
of other cultures (Geertz. 1973) and lheir managemenl systems, scholars
increase the types o{ organizational forms and environmental contexts with
which they are familiar (e.g .. Child & Kieser, 1979; Hamilton & Biggart.
1988). Tannenbaum and his colleagues (1974), for example, devoted a full
chapter to descri bing the political. economic, and institutional settings of the
countries they studled. Although single-notion studles may not immedi ately
evidence su eh a need, McKelvey ( 1982), among others (Roberts, Huln, &
Hosseau. 1978). urgro scholars lo avoid overgenorolization by descr ibing
lhcir research scttinqs 111 grcotcr delail. Thls approach tncreases research-
ers' understanding o ( the uniqueness of U.S. organlzational forms (Roberts
& Boyacigiller, 1984), thus allowing them to view most previously accepted
models as context specic (Ciark, Kim, & Freeman. 1989).
We recommend mullinational and multicultural research teams to {a-
cilitate the recognltl on of cultural blases in theory development (Evans.
1975). To develop such coUaborative relati onshlps, we recommend that
scholars take sabbaticals in foreign countries. Spendng time abroad not
only enhances cross-cultural understanding. but il also deepens cultural
seli-awareness and. thus, increoses recognltion of cultural biases in the
theories developed. Clark {Clark et al., 1989: 217) provided a provocativa
example of the value of foreign sabbaticals in describng his initial concem
for the relevance of organizational science in Brazil:
!11 portk:ulor, oxpectoncy lheory, oqulty lheory and goal theo-
ries appeor not lo be predlclive of successful performance in
Brozilion collages and universilles .... Slmilarly, conllngency
theorles of organizalional design, lncludlng prescriptions for
loose/tight coupling, seem to be conlradlcted by Brazilian insti-
tutional practlces ... . finaUy. prescrlptlons resulting from dis-
Lribullve jushce theorles are also contradicted by the central-
ized, yet political and seemingly orbilrary functioning of the
governance structure.
Although Clark concluded that basic organizational theories may still ap-
ply, given key modiflcations, it is clear lhat hts Brazilian sabbatical had a
great impact on his acceptance of received wisdom.
Recommendations: Organizational Changas
The startmg point must be with each indlvidual scholar. but solitary
mtrospection probably is not most effecllve. Rather, we recommend that
scholars, j oumal editors. and reviewers from a ranga o{ countries question
282
Acodemy of Managemenl Review April
one onother mgarding their cultural assumptions. The foHowing questions
~ h o t t l be incorporateci !nto the review process: What is the cultural and
geographical domain of this study, and to what extent do the findings apply
i n other settings? Unless the review process rewards careful exposition of the
cultural and geographical domain, implicit universolism will continue.
Given the rote ond extent of globalization (Miller, 1988), organizational
science appears to be facing a period of frame-break.ing change (Tushman,
Newman, & Romanell, 1986). If this is true, incremental efforts at interna-
tionalizaton will be insuficient to meet increasing demands for more rele-
vant orgonizational research. Rather, more fundamental change is re-
qulred. Management's elite journals, despite well-intentioned efforts, still do
not reflecl this globalization. Tushman and his colleagues ( 1986: 42) found
that in only 6 out of 40 coses did curren! CEOs initiate and implement
{rame-breaking changes: New leaders were essential to achieve such trans-
(ormati onol chonges. Thus, we recommend that editorial boords be ex-
panded lo mclude global representation (scholars from a wide ranga of
counlrics) os well as global process (scholars experienced in researching
lopics outside of their home countries).
During this period of frame-breaking change (and chaos) the field must
accept that leoding journals and conferences will refer to many authors,
theories, and publicotions thot are as yet unknown and unevaluated by the
American research community. At times, mistakes will be mode: Quality
will be mixed, and scholars will wish thot they had not wasted their own or
their colleagues' time. However, a more inclusive editorial strategy will
lnfuse the field with new ideas. theories, and authors, thus increasing the
chance that frame-brealdng odvonces will be made.
We recommend that academic organizations, such as the Academy of
Management, consider forming " globallines of business" (!unctional divi-
sions with a worldwide orientation). lransnational strategic alliances, and
networks with professional orgonizations worldwide (e.g., the Gerrnan Ge-
sellshoft Fuer Betriebswirtshafl and the Japanese Association of Business
Administration). We strongly support the Academy's membership in the
newly forrned International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Man-
ogement. In addition, we recommend that academic organizations select
their leaders from multiple notions, thus faciltating globalization efforts of a
frame-breaking nature and enhancing the field's future relevance and po-
tential contribution. The Academy of Management has made important
decisions designed to move it from an excellent domestic organtzation toan
equally excellent global organization. These decisions include creating the
lnternaliona1 Programs Committee for the entire Academy (rather than lim-
iting it to the International Division); holding regional meetings abroad;
discussing the formation of international alliances; supporting workshops
on internationalizing the organizational behavior, policy, and strategy cur-
ricula: and convening special all-Academy showcase sessions on global
i ssues presentad by scholars from severa! countries.
1991
BoyacigiUer and Adiar
CONCLUSION
To reolly understand a culture and to ascertain moro completely
lhe group's values and overt behavior, it is lmporalive to delve
mto lhe underlying assumptions. which oro typlcally uncon-
scious, but which octually determine how group members per-
ceive, think. and feel. .. . [ A]s a value Jeads lo a bohovlor, and
as thot behavior begins to solve !he problem which prompted it
in the first place. lhe volue graduolly is trons(ormed inlo an
underlyi ng assumption obout how thi ngs reall y are. As tho os-
(lUmpti on ls lncreasingl y token for granted. lt drops OtJI of
oworeness. (Schein. 1984: 446. emphasis odded)
283
The task before us is a dillcult one: for what we ar e asldng of oursel ves
and our colleagues is to focus on what has, for most of us. dropped ou t of
awareness. Yet, the cost of nol progressing toward an organizational sct-
ence that is more internationally relevant is very high. Not only is it unfair
lo conshluents outside of the United States, but it also falls short of the
mandate to educate and to inform managers inside the United States who
are facing on increosingly multicultural and international workpl ace.
As the field begtns to follow these recommendolions, we hope tho1
major orgonizational science joumals will typlcolly include artlcles in each
of the followmg calegones and label them as such:
Unlversally opplicable theories: thearles that can apply In wldel y different cullural
mihoux.
2 Regocentric theories: theories thot con apply In a ranga of cullures sharing cer-
tain common choracteristlcs, lar example, theorles appllcable In conUguous geo-
graphic creas (e.g .. Asia. l..atln Amenca. or the Slovtc cauntries) or under similar
levels of economlc developmenl.
3. lnterculturalllleories: lheories that explain the lnteracllon among peoples o dU-
ferent cultures.
'1. lutrcwu/turalthoories: thearies that describo speclflc cultures (e.g ., American. Jap-
onesa. lndian).
If these rocommendations are followed. theories applicable only to the
United States will be subsidiary toa wider body of universal theories ap-
plicable globally. Domestic reseorch will become a subsidi ary of mor e
broadly based research. The era of international research being relega ted
too subsidtary of domestic reseorch will be over.
REFERENCES
Adler . N. 1 1983. Cross-culturol managemenl reseorch: The ostrlch and the trend. Academy ol
Monagement RevJew. 8: 226- 232.
Adler. N. J. 1984 Understanding the ways of understandlng. Cross cultural management
IWl lhorlnlcxrY In R. N. Farmer (Ed.). Advonc Jra JnternaiJonaf comporaflve
rnanagement . vol. 1: 31 6'7. Greenwich, CT: JAJ Proae.
?84
Academy o/ Management Rev1ew Apnl
Adiar, N. 1 1986. lntemational dimensions ol orvanizatlonal behavior. Boston Kent Publish-
ing.
Adler. N. J Compbell . N .. & Laurent. A. 1989 In seorch of appropriate methodology: Outside
1he Peoplo's Republic of Chmo. looking tn / oumal of lntemoflonal Busfneu Studles. 20( 1 }:
61 - 74
Adler. N 1. l>oklor. H . & Aeddmg. S. G. 1986 From the Atlonlic lo the Pacllic century: Cross-
culturol rnonogement rovlewed. /oumol ol Management. 12(2): 295-318.
Adler. N. 1. g, Ghodor. r 1900. lntemallonol Slrotegy lrom the perspectivo of people and
culture: The North Amanean contexl. In A. Rugmon (Ed.). Research in global strategfc
managementr lnternotlonal resean:h lor the twenly-/frst cenlury. vol. 1: 179-
2.05. Greenwlch. CT: !Al Press.
Adiar, N. J .. & )allnok, M. 1986. ls "orgonizaton culturo" cul ture bound? Human Resoun:e
Management. 25(1): 73- 90.
Aldnch, H .. McKelvoy, B . & Ulrich. D. 1984. Design stratogy from the populotlon perspectiva.
/oumal ol Manogement. 10(1): 67-88.
Allf'n. D. B . MHier. E. D .. & Nath, R. 1988. North Amonca. ln R. Nath (Ed. ). ComparatJre
management: 23 54. Cambrid<;e. MA: Ballinger.
Aml:"ncan Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Buslnoss. 1988-1989. Accreditatfon CouncJJ Poi-
id os. Procedures & Standards. St. louis. MO: Amortcan Assembly of Colleglota Schools
ol 1\u:;inms.
As:;oclolton ol Admintstrators, 3 12. 1983. Tbe excellence reporl: U1lng lt to
lmprove your 1chools. Arlington, V A: American Associatlon of School AdmlnJstrators,
3 12. (Conlo1nB the report lo the Pres1dent 1982. A notion at rlslc: The lmperallve lor
educational relorm )
American Soc1ety for Trammg and Developmenl. 1989. Troinjng in Amerfca: Leaming to work
/or the twenty-llrst century. Alexandrla. VA. American Soc!ety for Troimng and Devel-

Arndt, J. 1985. On makJng marketing scJence moro sclentlflc: Roles of onentatJons, parod1gms,
metaphors. ond puzzle solving. /ournaJ ol Morhtfng. 49(3): 11 -23.
Bartlett, C. A . & Ghoshal. S. 1989. Managing acrou borden: The transnatlonol 1olution.
Boston: Harvord Busmess School Press.
Bartlelt. C. A .. Doz. Y .. & Hedlund. G. 1990. Managing the globalllrm. London: Rouedge
& Kegon Poul.
Bas!l , B. M. 1981 Loodershlp in different cultures. In B. M. Bass (Ed.), Stogdlll' handbooJc ol
lcadership: 552 549 New York: Free Press.
Beechler, S. L. & Pucik. V 1989. The dlffusion of Amanean orgonlzatJonal theory In postwa:r
Jopan. In C A B Os1gweh (Ed.). Organizotfonol scfence obroad: Constralnts and per-
specti.,es: 119- 134. New Y orle; Plenum Presa
Bergor. L . & Luclcmon. T. 1966. The social con.slructi on ol realltr. Gorden City. NY Double-
day.
Blacldord. M G. 1988 The rlse o/ modem busne.ss fn Great Brftoln. the Unlted States and
Jopan. Chapo! Hill The Unlversity of North Carolino Press.
Bouldtng. K. E 1961. Tbe image. Ann Arbor: Unlverslty of Michlgon Press/Ann Arbor Paper-
bocks.
Bowen. E. 1984. Powerful pitch for the humamUes Time. December 10: 91.
Burrell. G .. & Margan. G 1979. Sociologicol paradlgms and orgoniuJfionol anolysls. London:
Hememann.
Corroll. G R. 1987. Ecologlcal models ol orgonlzatJon. Cambridge. MA: Balllnger.
1991 Boyac1gl1ler and Adler 285
Carroll. G. R. . & Delocroax, J_ 1982. Orgonizotaonal mortallty In the newspoper Industries of
Argentina ond lreland: An ecologicol approach. Adminfstralh Science Quarferly. 27:
169- 198.
Carroll, G R . Delocrolx. ] .. & Goodstein. ]. 1988. The politicol environments of orgamzations:
An ecologacal v ~ w In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummangs (Eds.), Research in organfzatfon
beharlor. vol 10: 359-392. Greenwich. Cf: IAJ Press.
Carroll. G R. . & Huo. Y. P. 1986. Orgamzational task ond tnstitutlonal envuonmenls in eco-
1ogicol perspec11ve: fa.ndjngs from the loco) nowspoper ndustry. American }oumal ol
Soclology. 91: 838 873.
Child. ]. 1972. Orgomzotion structure. envlronrnent and performance: The role of stralegic
choice. Soc:lology. 6: 2- 22.
Chald. ). 1981. Culture. conllngancy and copltolisrn in the cross-no\ional study of organlzatlons.
In B. M. Staw & L. L. Curnrrungs (F.:ds.). Rosearch In organfzalional beha..,lor. vol. 3:
303- 356. Croonwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chald. l . & Kieser. A. 1979. Organization and manager1al roles m British and West Germen
componas. An examination of !he culture free thesfs ln C. ]. Lammers & D. ]. Hiclcson
(Eds.). Organllation.s alih and unlfh: 251- 271. London: Rout1edgo & Kogan Paul.
Clark. K. S .. Kim M. V . & freeman. S. 1 1989. Controdichons between Brazilian and U.S.
organzatlons: lmphcations for organtzallonal theory. In C. A. B. Osagweh (Ed.), Organl-
zalionol sclence abroad: Conslraints and petspecll'f'el: 203-226. Now Yorlc: P1enum
Press.
Conger, ]. A. 1989. The charbmatic leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cnuncl on CnrnJY.hhvonf>!l:-1. 19R8. Charhna competilivenoss. ChaJlenges. 1(5): 3.
OelacraLX. J & Carral!. G. R. 1983. Orgontzatlonol foundlngs: An eco1oglcaJ study of the
newspaper Industries ol Argentina and lreland. AdmlnlslraU"e Sclenc Quarterly, 28:
274 zq t.
DIMoggio, P ]., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The lron coge revtslted: lnshtutional isomorphism and
collee:llvR rollonolity in orgonlzational flelds American Sociological Ref'lew. 48: 147- 160.
Dubm. R. 1973. Theory building. New York: Free Press.
Eodey, P. C. 1989. Socialloafing and collectiv1sm: A comparison of the Umted States a nd the
People's Republic ol China. Adminlatratfve Sclence Quarterly, 34: 565 581.
l::ngland, G. W. 1975. Tho manager and hlJ valuea: An lnlematlonal perspectl,.e. Cam
bridge, MA: Bollinger.
Evans, W. M. 1975. Measunng the impact of culture on organJzatlons. lntematlooal Studles of
Management & Organizalion. 5{1): 91 - 113.
Galbrallh. l 1973 Designing complex organizallons. R90dang. MA: Addlson-Wesley.
Ceertz. C. 1973 The inlerpretatlon ol cult ures. New York Bosic Boolc:s.
Gergen. K. 1 1973. Social psychology as htstory }oumal ol Penonality and Social Pqch ol-
ogy, 26 309 320.
Gerlach. M. 1987. Business alhonces and the strolegy of the Japonesa flrm. CalJfomJa Man-
agement Re..,lew. 30()): 126- 142.
Gerstck. C. J. G. 1988. Tame ond transauon tn worlt teams: Toward a now modal of group
daveloprnent. Academy ol Managemenl /oumal. 31 : 9- 41.
Gersiclc. C. J G 1989 Marking time: Pre<hctoble transat1ons in task groups Academy ol Man-
agemenl }oumal. 32. 274- 309.
Godlun. L.. Braye, C. 1: . & Counch. C. L. 1989o. U.S. basad cross-cultural manogement
reseorch in the elghbes. }oumal o/ Busineu and Economlc Perspectlre&, 15(2): 37-45.
2B6 Academy ol Monogement Revlew Apl
Godldn. L. . Broyo. C. E .. & Caunch. C. L 1989b. U.S. bo1ed crou-culturol management
nuearch In the elghlie. Working paper, Lomar Unlverslty. Beoumont, TX.
Gonzolet R. F . & McMillan, C .. Ir., 1961. The un!versaltty ol American management philos-
ophy. Academy ol Management ]oumal. 41: 33- 41.
Gra ham. J. L.. 8c Gronhoug. K. 1989. Ned Ha11 didn't get a halrcut; or why we haven' t 1eamed
much o bout tntarnotionol marketing In lhe los\ 25 yoara. ]oumal ol Highet Educaton,
60(2): 152- 157
Ha ll , E. T. 1959. The llent longuage. New York: Ooubleday.
Hu11. C. T. 1981/1976. Beyond cult ure. New York: Dou.bloda y.
Hornlton, G. G . . & Biggart. N. W. 1988. Market, cult uro ond a uthorlty: A comparativa analysis
of monagBme nt organization in the Far East. American Journol ol Sociology.
91\(supplement): 52- 94.
Ho nno n, M. T., 8c Free mon, ). 1989. Orgonizationoleeology. Cambridge, MA: Ho rvard Uni
v(Otrslty Prosa.
Ha rrls. P., & Moran, R. T. 1979. Managlng cultural dlllerenc Houston: Gulf.
Hofstede. G. 1980. Culture' comequence: Internotfonol dflferences in worl-related Yaluea.
&verly Hills, CA:. Sage.
Hofstede. G. 1981. Culture and orgoniz.ations. Intemotfonal Studle ol Managemeot and
ganizolfon. 10(4): 15- 4 J.
Holstede, G. 1983. DimensJons of nahonal culturas In fil ty countrlos and lhrec regions. In J. B.
Deregowsld, S. Dziurow1ec. 8c R. C. Anrus CEda.), ExplaoaiJona In cro11-cultural
ogy: 335 355 Usse. Netherlonds: Swets and Zelthnger.
G. , & Bond. M H. 1988. The Confucius connectJon: From cultural roots to economic
growth. OrganizaiJonol Dyn.amlcs, 16(1): 4- 21.
Hofl'ltede, G , 8c Kassem, M S. 1976. European conlrlbuflona to organlaatlon theory. Assen,
Netharlonds: Von Gorcum.
lnzertlll. G. 1981. Preface: Sorne conceptua l issuos In the study olthe relallonships between
a nd societl es. Internotional Studle ol Managoment and OrganflatJon.
10(4): 3 14.
Iones. E. E., 8c Nisbett, R. E. 1971. The actor and the oblerYer: DJYergent percepton ol the
cause o/ behofor. Morristown. NJ: General Leomlng Pross.
Koll ey. L., & Worthley. R. 1981. The role o! cult ure In comporative ma nogoment: A cross-
cultura 1 porspective. Academy ol Monagement Joumal. 2!l: 164- 173.
K1ggundu, M. 1988. Afrlca . In R. Nath (Ed. ), ComparatJye manogement: 169- 244. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
K1uckho1n. r. R. . & Strodbeck, F. L. 1961. Variatlons In Yalue orlentatlon. Evanston. U..: Row,
Peterson
Kobnn, S J. 1984. Internotfonal expertfle in American buaineu: Ho"' to leam lo play wfth tbe
lrlds on lhe lreet. New York: lnstltute o! lntorna honal Educohon.
Kuhn, T S. 1962. fbe slrucfure ol the clentllc reTo/utforu. Chlcago: Unfverslty of Chlcago
Press
Lammers C. 1 1980. Soclo1oqy of orgomzations a round lhe SimJ1arlh8S and differences
between American, Bribsh. French. German and Dutch brands. Orgonbaflon Studfes. ll:
179 -205.
Lommers. C. J.. & Hickson. D. ). (Eds.). 1979. Organllation1 alllre and unllh: Infemallonal
aludlea In the aodology ol organlzation. London: Routlodge & Kegan PauJ.
Lana, H., & DiStofono, J. 1988. lntematJonal managoment behoYfor. Scarborough, Ontario:
Nelson Canoda .
1991 Boyacigiller and Adler
Laurent. A. 1981 Motri.x orgonlzations ond Latln cultures. /nternatlonal Sludfes o/ Manage-
ment and Organltatlon. 10(4): 101 - 114.
Laurent, A. 1983. Tha cultural dJversity of western conceptlons ol management. lntemational
Studies o/ Management and Organizatlon. 13(1- 2) 75-96.
Lawrenc:e, P. R. 1987 Hlstoncal development of nrgoniwllonol behavior. In J, W. Lorsch (Ed.).
Handbooi: of organlz:ational bebCIY'ior: Englewood Clills, NJ: Prenco-Holl.
Lleberson. S., & O'Connor. J. f. 1972. Leodership and organizotionol performance: A study of
Jorge corporotions. American Sociological Ref'Jew, 37: 117- 130.
l.inmln. J. R . 8t Mc8r1de, K. 1987. Japonesa industrial organlzation in comparollve perspec-
tivo. Annua/ Re.-lttw o/ Soclology, 13: 289-- 335.
McKalvey, W. 1982. Organfzational systema!Jca: Taxonomy. nolution. classilicatlon. Berlce-
ley: Universlty of Cohlomia Press.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social theory and social &tructure. New York: Freo Press.
Meyer. J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. lnstitutionallzed organizations: formol structure os myth ond
ceremony American /ournal ol Soclology, 83 340-363.
Meyer. }. W .. & Scott. W. R. 1983. OrgonJzallona/enf'lrorunents: Ritual and ratlonality. Bev-
erly Hil1s, CA: Sago
Milos. R. E .. & Snow, C. C. 1978 Organizationalslrategy, slruclure ond proces1. New York:
McGrow-Hill.
Millar, E. L. 1988. lnternallona/ management: A fleld In transiiJon. what willll take to reacb
maturity. Paper prosented al the Resea:rch for Relevonco in Intemationol Monagemenl
Conference, Unlvarstty of Wmdsor. Ontario.
Mtllar. L. E., & Grush, J. E. 1988. lmproving predlchons in expectancy theory: Ellects of per-
.. .onohty, oxpcctandos ond norms. Acodemy o/ Manogement /ournal. 31: 107-122.
Mtnf'r, j . B 1900. Theorlu o/ bebolor. Hinsdale, lL: Oryden Pross.
Moore. R. 1974 The cror,s-cultura1 study o{ orgonizotlonol bohovlor. Human OrganllatJon. 33:
37- 45.
N., & Luthans, f . 1984. An emic perspectivo ond ethnoscience methods for orgonlzo-
tfonal roAOOrch. Academy o/ Managcmenl Ref'Jew, 9: 27-36.
Nallonal Advisory Board ollnlernolonal Educatlon Programs. 1983. CrUJcol needs in Jnter-
nalional educatlon: Recommendallons for acllon. Woshing1on. DC: Natlonal Advisory
Board on lnternatJonal Educotion Progroms, Decembar.
Negondht, A. R. 1975 Comparativa monagemont and orgarzotion theory A marriage
needed. Academy ol Monagemenl }ournal, 18: 334-344.
Nehr1. L. C. 1987. Tho lnternotonol studies of the curnculum. }oumal o/lntemallonal BusJneu
Studies. )8(1): 83-90.
Newmon. W H. 1972 Cultural ossumplions underlying U,S monagement concepts. In). L.
Mossie & S Layt1e (Eds.). Management in an lntematlonal contexl: 327- 352. New York:
Horper & Row.
Oberg, W. 1963. CrOMcultural perspectivas on management prindples. Academy o/ Man-
agement / oumal. 6: 129-143.
Ohmae. K. 1987 Berond nalional Re/lecllons on /apan ond tbe world. Homewocxl,
IL: Dow Jones-lrwln
Ostqweh, C. A. B. l989o. Organizafional acfence abroad: Constrointt ond perspoctins. New
York: Plenum
Oslgweh, C. A. B. 1989b. The myth of universolity in tronsnationol organlzaUonal scienco. ln
288 1\cademy of Managemont Revlow AprU
Osigweh, C. A D. (Ed.), Organizotfonol scfenco abroad: Comtralnls ond penpecU..-es:
3-26. New York: Plenum
Oucht. W 1984. Tho M-form socety. Readlng, MA: AddisonWesley.
Ouchi. W G & Wllhns A L 1985. Orgamzational culture. Annual Ro..-lew ol Soclology. 11:
457 463.
Peng, T. K., Peterson, M. f ., & Shy1, Y. P. 1990. Quantitative methods in cross-national man
agement research: Trends and eqwvalence issues. /oumal ol Orgonitalional BehaYior: m
press
Pfeffer, 1. \982. Organlzatons and organization theory. Boston: Pitman.
r!nf(nt , J .. Snkmclk, G. R. 1978. The extftrnol control o/ orgonbatfons. New York: Harper &
How.
Pinder, C , & Moore, L. F. <Eds.). 1979. Mlddle range theorr and the study ol organizatlons.
Letden. Nftlherlands: Martlnus Ni!holl.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competiti..-e strategr: Tecbnlque lor anolyalng Industries and competi-
tors. New York Free Press.
Portar, L. W., & McKibben, L. E. 1988 Management educaflon and de..-elopment: Drilt or
thrust l nto the 21st century. New Yorlc. McGraw-HiiJ.
Praha1od. C. K .. & Doz. Y. L. 1987. The mulfinotlooal mluion. New Yorlt: Free Press.
President's Commisslon on lndustrial Competitiveness 1985. Global competlflon: The new
reality (vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prinling Oillce, )anuory.
Roberts, K. H., & Boyocagiller, N. A. 1983. A susvoy of cross-national organizotional research-
ers. Their vlews and opinions. Organi&atlon Studfes. 4: 375- 386.
Roberts. K. H., & Boyaclgiller, N A. 1984. Cross naUonal organlzational reseorch: The grasp of
1he blind men. In B M. Slaw & L. L Cummmgs (Eds.). Research In orgoolaational be-
havior. vol 6: 423 - 475. Greenwich, Cf: IAI Pross.
Roberts. K. H. , Hulln, C. L, & Rousseau. D. M. 1978. De..-.Joplng an lnterdlsc:lpllnary science
o{ orgonlzotlons. San Francisco: lossey-Boss.
Sampson, E. E. 1977. Psychology and the Amanean adeal. /oumal of Pcraonalltr and Social
Psyc:hology. 35: 767- 782.
Schein, E. H. 1984. Comlng lo a new awareness ol organlzatlonol culture. Sloan Management
Ro..-iew. 25: 3- 16.
Scolt, W. R 1987. The odolescence ollnstitulional lheory. Scfence Quarterly.
32: 493- 511.
Sek.oran, U. 1983. Are U.S. organizahonal concepls and moosures transferable to another
culture? An emptrtcal mvesligation. Academr ol Management /oumal. 2: 409- 417.
Selznlck, P 1949. TVA ond lhe gras.s roots. Berl::eley, CA: Unaversity o/ Collfornlo Press..
Sesvan-Schrelber, J.). 1968. The American challenge. (R Sleel. trans.). New York: Athenum.
Slocmn, l. W., & Toptchok, P. M. 1972. Do cultural diflerencesallectjobsalisfactaon? Joumal ol
Applled Psychology. 56: 177- 178.
Srnllh. P B .. & Peterson, M. f . 1988. Leadershlp. orgonbotiona ond culture. Bevorly Hills, CA:.
Sage.
Staw, B M. 1980. Rollonality and justalacaiion in organtzatlonal lile. Jn B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummangs (Eds. ), Researc:b in organizatlonal bba..-or. vol. 2: 45- 80. Greonwlch, CT: JAl
Press
Stow. B. M. 1984. Organtzotionol behavior: A review and re[ormulalion of the lield's outcome
variables. Annual Rc..-lew ol Psychology. 35: 627- 666.
1991 Boyac1glller and Adlor 289
Steers, R. M. 1987. The ntematlonal challenge to manogoment educaUon. Academy ol Mon-
ogemenl New.sleller. 17(4): 2-4.
Steers. R. M. 1989. Orgamzohonol SCJences tn o global env1ronment: Futura dlrections. ln
C. A B. Osigweh (Ed.). Orgonizotional sclence obroad: Constraint.s ond
293- 304. New York Plenum Press.
Stewart. E. C. 1972. American cultural pattem.s: A cron-<: ultural perspeclin. Chicago: Inter-
cuJtural Presa.
Stlnchcombe. A. L. 1965. Socaul structure and organlzotlons. In J. G. Morch (Ed.), Handbook ol
orgonlzatlona: 142- 193 Chicago: Rand McNally.
Tannenbaum. A. S., Kavclc, B .. Rosner, M .. Vlonello, M., & Wieser, G. 1974. Hl erarchr In
orgonh:otlon:r. Son Francisco: )ossey-Bass.
Thonopoulos, ). (wlth the osslslance of J. W. Leonard). 1986. InternatfonaJ bualneu currfcula:
A global sui'Yey. OH: Academy ol Lnternotional Business.
TIonoJJOulos. J., & Ver non. l. R. 1987. lnternahonal business education In tho AACSB schools.
/oumo/ ollntemotlonal Busines.s Studle.s. 18(1): 91 - 98.
Thornas, A. B. 1988. Does leadership malee a dlfference lo organizaUons' performance? Ad-
minlstralf.,e Science Quarterly. 33: 388-400.
Thurow, L. 1984. Rev1tohzlng American indust:ry: Managing in a compellhve world economy.
CalJiomlo Management Review. 27(1): 9- 41.
Thurow, L. 1988 Keynote addres.s. Presented at the annual meeting olthe Wostern Academy
of Manogomant. Blg Sky, MT.
Triandas, H. C. 1972 The analysi.s ol subjecti.,e culture. New York: Wlley.
Tnondis, H C 1983. Dimenslons of cultural varialions as porameters of organizotional theo-
n(>C: lntornotlonal Studie.s o/ Management and Organisation. 12(4): 139- 169
Tu&laman. M l. , Nnwmon, W. H., & Rornanelll , E. 1986. Monaging the unateady poco ol
orgoni zohonal evoluhon. CalUomia Management Re.,Jew. 29(1): 29- 44
Van de Ven. A H . . & )oyce, W. F. (Ed.s.). 1981. Perspecti .,es on organllatlon deslgn and
behaYior . New York: John WUey.
Varnon, R. 1966. (ntormttlonal investment ond lnternational \rade In the product cycla. Quar-
ter/y /ournal ol f.conomics, 80: 190-207.
Vernon. R. 1971. SoYereJgnty at bay: The mulUnatlonal spreod ol U.S. enterprlsea. Now York:
Baste Booka.
von A llaman, H. 1974. lntemational contacts ol universlty stoll membors: Some problems in the
mternolionallty of soence. lntemaUonal Social Sclence /oumaJ. 26. 4-45-457. (Note: von
Allemon St tcs 120 countries but today there are 185 accordlng lo The Statosman's Y earbook
1989- 90 editad by John Pa:x:ton. London, England: MacmHlan Press. 1989.)
Walder, A. 1983. Orgontzed dependency and cultures of authority in Chlnese lndustry . /oumal
ol A.slon Studle.s. 43(1): 51-76.
Whuloy, R. 1984. The lntellectual and social orgonlzatlon ol the sclenc:es. Oxford: Clorendon
Presa.
WhJtley, R 1988 The ma.nagement sdences and manageria.l slcllls. Organf.zotlon Studl es. 9:
47- 68.
Wmd. Y . & Perlmutter, H. V. 1973. On the tdenUcation of {ronher lssues In multinaUonal
marketing. Columbia /ouma/ ol World Business. 12{4): 131 - 139.
Zucker, L. 1988. lnstftutlonal pattems and organlzotlons: Culture and en.,Jronment. Cam-
bridge. MA: Ballinger .
290 Academy o/ Managoment Revrew April
Nakiye Avdan Boyac:lglller received her Ph. D. lrom the Unlverslty ol California. Berko
ley. She is an associate professor of lnternatlonal management al San }ose State
Unlversrty. Her curren! research inlerests mclude human resourco management issues
lacing fapanose multmationals in the Unlled States and lhe lnfluence of nallonal,
lndustry, and organizational foctors on the anlroductlon of new products In the Japo-
n'lse, U S., and Gorman pharmaceuhcol Industries.
Nancy J. Adler rocel ved her Ph.D. in managoment from the Universlty o! CalHomla at
Los Angeles. Sho ls a professor o( organizallonal behavior and cross-cultural man-
agement al the faculty o! Management, McGill University in Montreal , Ganada. Her
lelds ol lnlerest lnclude strategic intemalionol human resources management. expa-
lriatlon, wornen in lnternallonol managemenl, lntornatlonal negotloting. culturaUy
synerglstlc opproaches lo problem solvlng. and fntomotlonal organizotlon devolop-
rnnnt.