By introducing anthropological ritual theory, particularly the concept of liminality, this article contributes to a process-oriented view on intercultural negotiations and highlights the importance of bicultural or marginal individuals for their success. These individuals are understood as experts of the intercultural transition (ICT), which needs to be made for a successful negotiation process. Focusing on a specific Sino-German context, this study provides an example for how high bicultural identity integration (BII) facilitates the success of intercultural negotiations. The contribution of this study lies in contextualizing large theoretical concepts such as biculturality, cultural otherness, and marginality and in applying ritual theory to intercultural negotiations and the cultural ‘in-between’. It highlights the role and importance of liminal actors with a high BII for their success. These findings suggest that cross-cultural management research and practice should pay particular attention to marginal or bicultural individuals. Culture should be studied at its margins and as a process that evolves in specific intercultural micro-contexts.
AlvessonM (2003) Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review28(1): 13–33.
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: Routledge.
4.
BrannenMYThomasDC (2010) Bicultural individuals in organizations – implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management10(1): 5–16.
5.
BülowAKumarR (2011) Culture and negotiation. International Negotiation16: 349–59.
6.
CzarniawskaBMazzaC (2003) Consulting as a Liminal Space. Human Relations56(3): 267–290.
7.
EllisNYbemaS (2010) Marketing identities: shifting circles of identification in interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies31(3): 279–305.
8.
GarstenC (1999) Betwixt and between: temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations. Organization Studies20(4): 601–17.
9.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
10.
GelfandMLunJLyonsS (2011) Descriptive norm carriers of culture in negotiations. International Negotiation16: 361–81.
11.
HallETHallM (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences, Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
12.
HofstedeG (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
13.
HofstedeG (2003) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: Sage.
14.
HouseRHangesPJavidanM. (2004) (eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
15.
JohnsonGPrashanthamSFloydS. (2010) The ritualization of strategy workshops. Organization Studies31(12): 1589–618.
KramerF (2000) Ritual. In: StreckB (ed) Wörterbuch der Ethnologie. Wuppertal: Peter Hammer, pp. 210–13.
18.
LinL-HHoY-L (2009) Confucian dynamism, culture and ethical changes in Chinese societies – a comparative study of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management20(11): 2402–17.
19.
MahadevanJ (2013) Performing interplay through intercultural simulations: insights on tacit culture in a Taiwanese–German management team. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management13(3): 243–63.
20.
MahadevanJ (2015) Guest editorial: nomadic identities and workplace diversity: implications for theory and practice. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal34(4). URL (accessed 26 May 2015): http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/EDI-03-2015-0014
21.
MahadevanJZehJS (2015) Third-country graduates and their transition to the German labor market. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal34(4): 325–45.
22.
MartinJ (2003) Meta-theoretical controversies in studying organizational culture. In: TsoukasHKnudsenC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 392–419.
23.
MoriJ (2003) The construction of interculturality. Research on Language and Social Interaction36(2): 143–84.
24.
ÖzbilginM (ed.) (2009) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work. Cheltenham and New York: Edward Elgar Press.
25.
ÖzbilginMTatliA (2008) Global Diversity Management: An Evidence Based Approach. London and New York: Palgrave.
26.
RomaniLPrimeczHTopçuK (2011) Paradigm interplay for theory development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method. Organizational Research Methods14(3): 432–55.
27.
SturdyASchwartzMSpicerA (2006) Guess who’s coming to dinner? Structures and uses of liminality in strategic management consultancy. Human Relations59(7): 929–60.
28.
ThomasA (2003) Kultur und kulturstandards. In: ThomasAKinastESchroll-MachlS (eds) Handbuch Interkulturelle Kommunikation und Kooperation. Band 1: Grundlagen und Praxisfelder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 19–31.
29.
TrompenaarsFHampden-TurnerC (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
30.
TurnerV (1977 [1969]) The Ritual Process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
31.
Van MaanenJ (2006) Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management1(1): 13–21.
32.
WarnerM (2010) In search of confucian HRM: theory and practice in greater china and beyond. International Journal of Human Resource Management21(12): 2053–78.
33.
WongY-TWongS-HWongY-W (2010) A study of subordinate–supervisor guanxi in Chinese joint ventures. International Journal of Human Resource Management21(12): 2142–55.
