Cross-cultural management (CCM) needs to move beyond the paradigmatic schism between positivist and interpretative research. What both paradigms share is the need to understand a specific configuration of culture in context. This article suggests multi-paradigm research through interplay on cultural performances as a means of acknowledging both paradigms. Data is based on action research in a Taiwanese–German management team. The contribution of this study lies in moving single-method interplay in CCM research to the level of cultural performances and in suggesting intercultural simulations as a viable method. Furthermore, this study shows that intercultural simulations can help uncover tacit culture that is performed but not verbalized. When used in action research, intercultural simulations facilitate integrated intercultural learning and increase the interpretative scope of qualitative research through a renegotiation of researcher–field relations.
BateP (1997) What happened to organizational anthropology? A review of the field of organizational ethnography and anthropological studies. HumanRelations50(9): 1147–75.
2.
BennettM (1986) A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations10(2): 179–95.
3.
BergerPLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. New York, NY: Doubleday.
4.
BrannenMYThomasD (2010) Bicultural individuals in organizations: implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management10(1): 5–16.
ChevrierS (2009) Is national culture still relevant to management in a global context? The case of Switzerland. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management9(2): 169–184.
7.
ChokarJBrodbeckFHouse R (eds) (2007) Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Czarniawska-JoergesB (1998) A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
9.
DeardorffD (2006) The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education10(3): 241–66.
10.
DonaldsonL (1998) The myth of paradigm incommensurability in management studies: comments by anintegrationist. Organization5(2): 267–72.
11.
DorfmanWHangesPBrodbeckF (2004) Leadership and cultural variation: the identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In: HouseRHangesPJavidanMGuptaV (eds) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, pp. 669–719.
12.
FlickU (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th revised ed. London, UK: Sage.
13.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
14.
GioiaDAPitreE (1990) Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review15(4): 584–602.
15.
GreenbaumT (1998) The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks/London/New Dehli: Sage.
16.
GreenwoodDLevinM (1998) Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks/London/New Dehli: Sage.
17.
HallE (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
18.
HassardJKelemenM (2002) Production and consumption in organizational knowledge: the case of the ‘paradigms debate. Organization9(2): 331–355.
19.
HatchMYYanowD (2003) Organization theory as an interpretative science. In: TsoukasHKnudsenC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–87.
20.
HouseRJavidanM (2004) Overview of GLOBE. In: HouseRHangesPJavidanMGuptaV (eds) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, pp. 9–28.
21.
HouseRHangesPJavidanMGuptaV (eds) (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
22.
JavidanMHouseRDorfmanW (2004) A nontechnical summary of globe findings. In: HouseRHangesPJavidanMGuptaV (eds) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, pp. 29–48.
23.
KolbD (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
LeeAS (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organizational Science2(4): 342–65.
25.
LewisMWGrimesAJ (1999) Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple perspectives. Academy of Management Review24(4): 672–90.
26.
LewisMWKelemenML (2002) Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations55(2): 251–75.
27.
MahadevanJ (2011) Reflexive guidelines for writing organizational culture. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management6(2): 150–70.
28.
MahadevanJ (2012) Engineering culture(s) across sites: implications for cross-cultural management of emic meanings. In: PrimeczHRomaniLSackmannS (eds) Cross-Cultural Management in Practice: Culture and Negotiated Meanings. London, NY: E.Elgar, pp. 156–174.
29.
MahadevanJKilian-YasinK (2013) Interkulturelles Lernen im berufsbezogenen Kontext: ein beispielhaftes Modell zur kombinierten und integrierten Kompetenzentwicklung. In: BerkenbuschGVHelmoltKJiaW (eds) Interkulturelle Lernsettings: Konzepte – Formate – Verfahren, London, NY: E.Elgar.
MartinJ (1992) Cultures in Organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
McNiffJWhiteheadJ (2000) (eds) Action Research in Organizations. London/New York: Routledge.
33.
McSweeneyB (2009) Dynamic diversity: variety and variations within countries. Organization Studies30(10): 933–57.
34.
MorganDL (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
OslandJSBirdA (2003) Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: cultural sensemaking in context. In: ThomasDC (ed) Readings and Cases in International Management: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, pp. 58–69.
36.
PfefferJ (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review18(4): 599–621.
37.
PolanyiM (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
38.
PrimeczHRomaniLSackmannS (2009) Cross-cultural management research contributions from various paradigms. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management9(3): 267–74.
39.
RomaniLPrimeczHTopçuK (2011) Paradigm interplay for theory development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method. Organizational Research Methods14(3): 432–455.
40.
ScheinE (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
SchultzMHatchMJ (1996) Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay in organization culture studies. Academy of Management Review21(2): 529–57.
42.
ShahSCorleyK (2006) Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies43(8): 1821–35.
43.
SchererAG (1998) Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: a problem in search of a solution. Organization5(2): 147–69.
44.
SchererAGSteinmannH (1999) Some remarks on the problem of incommensurability in organization studies. Organization Studies20(3): 519–44.
