Abstract
Otherness in contemporary cross-cultural management (CCM) studies often emerges from migration and refugee movements, with ensuing integration challenges. In this context, ‘difference’ is perceived as being more problematic than enriching, and this makes it difficult to contribute to integration via a Positive Organizational Scholarship. Introducing the sociology of conflict, I propose that the success of a positive cross-cultural management engagement with Otherness should not be measured in terms of the degree to which difference is overcome and integrated, but in terms of the degree to which more parties engage more deeply with relevant conflict and friction. Investigating Otherness by means of a sociology of conflict approach thus radically changes the assumptions, research agendas, practices, presumed goals and potential responsibilities of a contemporary cross-cultural management theory and practice: deeper conflict signifies better integration, and assuming otherwise is both unrealistic and mis-fitting. I exemplify this reverse logic, and how to employ it, with a discussion of the ‘refugee crisis’ and the dynamics of ‘migration background’ in Germany. Thus reconfigured, integration in Germany emerges as more successful than is commonly believed.
Keywords
Introduction
The approach to difference in Cross-Cultural Management (CCM) studies has evolved from an obstacle to be overcome to a resource to be utilized. However, whereas some contexts, such as global virtual teams, have already been investigated with regard to the positive potential of ‘difference’ (DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000), other phenomena, such as migration and refugee movements, are still perceived as involving ‘problematic’ differences. In particular, there are perceptions of ethnic, religious or cultural Otherness and the question of how such fundamental differences can ever be reconciled. If one assumes that the desired end-state is transforming difference into complementarities and synergies, then it is, indeed, difficult for CCM studies to contribute to migrants’ and refugees’ integration by means of the ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’ envisaged by Stahl and Tung (2015) and Stahl et al. (2016). However, the picture changes if one proceeds from different assumptions.
Introducing the sociology of conflict, I propose that the success of a positive cross-cultural management engagement with Otherness should not be measured in terms of the degree to which difference is overcome and integrated, but rather in terms of the degree to which more parties engage more deeply with relevant conflict and friction. Pursuing difference from a sociology of conflict perspective thus radically changes the assumptions, research agendas, practices, presumed goals and potential responsibilities of a contemporary cross-cultural management theory and practice. I exemplify this reverse logic, and how to employ it, with a discussion of ethnic Otherness (as evoked by the concept of ‘migration background’) and the ‘refugee crisis’ in Germany to show how deeper conflict signifies better integration. The main contribution of this article lies in re-conceptualizing cross-cultural management’s engagement with difference, and in exemplifying such an approach for the increasingly relevant theme of ethnic Otherness, as related to migration and refugee movements. Integration in Germany then emerges as more successful than is commonly believed.
To make this contribution, I outline how the engagement with difference in CCM studies has evolved in relation to the idea of a Positive Organizational Scholarship. I highlight how the cross-cultural management approach to the (mainly ethnic) Otherness emerging from migration and refugee movements is still underpinned by ideas of negative difference. Next, I introduce the sociology of conflict (Dahrendorf, 1959), rooted in assumptions of radical change (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), as a novel lens through which to conceptualize Otherness in postmigration societies and organizations. I show that present approaches to difference in CCM studies are order theories and, thus, limited, and that the desired disciplinary goal of ‘intercultural synergies and complementarities’ (e.g. Barmeyer and Franklin, 2016) is both unrealistic and mis-fitting. This is particularly true for the paradoxical integration dynamics in postmigration societies and organizations which are characterized by multiple singularities. To come to a more realistic assessment of present postmigration realities, managers and organizations should therefore embrace conflict and explore friction, not perpetuate the illusion of an unrealistic, ‘positively integrated’ end-state in which differences have been transformed into complementarities and synergies. This way, cross-cultural management scholars and practitioners can make a positive organizational and, potentially, even societal contribution, not despite, but because of conflict, re-conceptualized as the enabler, explanatory mechanism, and outcome or effect of a more successful integration.
Background and rationale
Evolvement of the cross-cultural management engagement with difference
Cross-cultural management is the discipline that studies the interrelations between culture, and management, organizations and societies across and between – somehow conceptualized – cultures and cultural demarcation lines (cross-cultural differences). CCM is thus not so much about describing single cultures but rather about connecting, interpreting, comparing and/or contrasting different cultures.
Yet, what constitutes cross-cultural difference and how it manifests in the contemporary managerial world is different from early disciplinary assumptions (Mahadevan, 2023b). Studies from the 1960s and 1970s mainly highlighted how managerial values, attitudes, behaviour et cetera as originating from macro-cultural orientations differed across countries. Consequently, the first engagement of CCM studies with cross-cultural differences was characterized by the notion of ‘culture shock’ experienced by those who moved across countries (Oberg, 1960). The very term ‘culture shock’ signifies that difference is something undesirable, uprooting or challenging: a very negative approach towards Otherness.
However, by now, the term ‘culture shock’ has been replaced by the term ‘cross-cultural adjustment’ (e.g. Peltokorpi, 2008). This is to make the point that any experience of low adjustment is neither pathological nor to be avoided, but rather should be embraced as an indispensable stepping stone for triggering deeper intercultural learning and for facilitating intercultural competency development: individuals might master ‘culture shock’ by means of an intercultural learning process (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1963). Phase models of intercultural learning (e.g. Bennett, 1986) are built upon this understanding that Otherness may (and should) be overcome, and that relating oneself to the Other will help integrate what was previously thought of as different: the goal is thus to make Otherness disappear.
It is also no longer taken as a given that individuals are representatives of national cultures. Rather, the idea is that individuals, institutional contexts and cultures are mutually constitutive (Thomas, 2020). Furthermore, due to migration, mobility and globalization effects, the micro-level of people’s cultural identities are increasingly given prominence over macro-levels of culture, such as nations (Brannen, 2020): an acknowledgement of the increasing fluidity and multiplicity of what constitutes Otherness in an interconnected world.
Rather than being conceptualized as a ‘given reality’, cross-cultural differences are increasingly understood as a hypothesis to be tested upon a situation or setting (see Birkinshaw et al., 2011). If viewed from this perspective, it is not that (national) culture causes difference, but rather that social interactions necessarily involve difference: a change from a causal to a holistic approach to cross-cultural differences (Leung and Van de Vijver, 2008). For instance, rather than being a sub-variable of national culture causing difference, religion can also be thought of as influencing people’s identifications holistically, as intersecting with nationality or ethnicity (Hajro et al., 2021; Romani et al., 2018): a process of cultures and Otherness becoming co-constitutive.
Context matters: Global virtual teams versus migration, and the idea of a positive scholarship
In its evolution, cross-cultural management has moved from ‘culture shock’ to the need for adjustment, individuals are assumed to have more agency to ‘create’ culture, and the demarcation lines between cultures have become increasingly blurred (see previous section). At the same time, there are notable differences in how positively difference is viewed: essentially, it depends on the phenomenon in question and under study.
For instance, there are the so-called global virtual teams that were made possible due to advances in information and communication technologies in the 1990s (overview in Maznevski, 2012). It is in this context that difference is perceived the most positive in CCM studies (e.g. DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000). The understanding is that cross-cultural diversity in global virtual teams, if moderated in positive ways, contributes to increased team performance and output (see Stahl et al., 2010; Stahl et al., 2016). Stahl and Tung (2015) have referred to this positive approach to difference as a means of leveraging complementarities and building synergies across cultural diversity as ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’ (POM): the turn from Otherness as a difference to be overcome to Otherness as an opportunity for individual learning and collective growth.
At the same time, many societies started to experience increased migration, resulting in increased inner-societal cultural diversity. Martha Maznevski (2020) thus argued that cross-cultural management needs to be ‘inward-bound’, that is: to consider cross-cultural phenomena ‘at home’. Consequently, migration became one of the relevant root causes of the cross-cultural differences to be considered by a CCM ‘at home’ (Hajro et al., 2021; Romani et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020): the experience of Otherness coming to people (unwantedly), not of people choosing to engage with Otherness by going abroad or deciding for a multicultural work experience.
The disciplinary approach to difference thus varies across contexts: whereas studies of global virtual teams have stressed the positive effects of difference over the negative ones, and have also departed from a more fluid notion of cross-cultural differences, CCM studies of migrants at work have rather focused on difference as boundaries in the sense of ethnic, religious or cultural demarcation lines and have also pointed out how migrants’ integration at work is potentially problematic for numerous reasons (see Romani et al., 2018). It is therefore unclear how to achieve the ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’ envisaged, for instance, by Stahl and Tung (2015), with regard to inner-societal cultural diversity ‘at home’, and as brought about by presumably problematic migration and refugee movements: engaging with the Other is perceived as becoming complicated.
Matters are complicated by the insight that questions of migrants’ societal and organizational integration involve both objective (institutional) and subjective (cultural) differences (e.g. Mahadevan and Kilian-Yasin, 2017), and both come together regarding migrants’ integration at work: Otherness as involving all those processes by which, in a specific setting or in relation to certain individuals, and within certain institutionalized boundary conditions, a person is suddenly perceived as and/or becomes ‘the Other’. For example, the ways in which Muslim migrant workers are portrayed and experienced as ‘different’ by the receiving organization and its members, namely as ‘traditional’ and ‘religious’, also defines the receiving organization’s ‘Western modernity’ and confirms its superiority in contrast to the constructed ‘Other’. Otherness thus works with objective differences, for example Muslim praying rites at work, and turns them into an explanatory variable for a person’s or group’s sensemaking process (subjective difference) (Mahadevan and Kilian-Yasin, 2017).
From this perspective, it then becomes the researcher’s and manager’s task to find answers to the question to which extent, how exactly and what kind of cross-cultural differences characterize a certain managerial situation or organizational phenomenon, as well as why and how some people perceive distinct people as ‘the Other’, under which objective boundary conditions these take place, what the consequences of these processes might be, and how they should then be managed: relating to the Other has become inevitable, and Otherness has started to underlie the social and organizational experiences and realities of all involved.
Goal and purposes of this article
Otherness can be understood as the complex cross-cultural differences to be addressed by a contemporary CCM studies. The discipline aims at a somewhat ‘positive’ engagement with difference, however, in relation to migration and refugee movements, this, so far, has seemed difficult to achieve. Against this background, this article proposes the sociology of conflict, to be outlined in the following, as a conceptual ‘lens’ for investigating and, consequently, managing Otherness, as defined above. This approach will then be placed in relation to the question asked by Stahl and Tung (2015), namely how to achieve Positive Organizational Scholarship. Or, in other words: this article wishes to answer the question: how can cross-cultural management scholars and practitioners engage with the Otherness stemming from migration experiences and refugee movements in such ways that it becomes a positive organizational and, potentially, even societal contribution?
The sociology of conflict in relation to cross-cultural management studies
The sociology of conflict, local globality and the postmigration society
Burrell and Morgan (1979) identify the roots of sociological conflict theory mainly in Max Weber’s (1947) Theory of Social and Economic Organization, in particular his understanding of ‘status’ and ‘party’, with additional Marxist influences. The underlying idea of conflict theory is that any social or organizational system necessarily involves a conflict of interest, and that this interest is structural (or: systemic), that is: built into the system. For instance, every organization necessarily involves hierarchies, and no social system can avoid social differentiation and, potentially, stratification. Ralf Dahrendorf (1959), with his outline of Class and Conflict in Industrial Society is supposed to be the main foundational thinker of conflict theory. Integrating Weberian and Marxist approaches to structural inequality, he maintains that both ‘position’ (status) and ‘class’ are fundamental to any social system.
With the sociology of conflict, Dahrendorf (1959) speaks out against what Burrell and Morgan (1979) have called ‘order theories’ (sociology of regulation), that is: sociological theories that focus on explaining, not on challenging the status quo. It is important to note that ‘order’ and ‘conflict’ theories are not in fundamental opposition. Rather, their angle on ‘the social’, and their assumptions concerning social processes and their outcomes, differ. Whereas ‘order’ theories emphasize stability, integration, functional co-ordination and consensus, ‘conflict’ theories emphasize change, conflict, disintegration and coercion (Dahrendorf, 1959). For example, concerning migrants’ integration at work, a sociology of conflict does not ask the question of how refugee integration might be improved. Rather, it understands society and its systems, such as organizations or the labour market, as the permanent interplay of forces that try to achieve outcomes that are to their respective interests. Thus, Otherness is simply part of the experience: it is nothing to be ‘overcome’.
An
The
Difference in cross-cultural management studies in light of the sociology of conflict
The sociology of conflict is a ‘radical change theory’ (see Burrell and Morgan, 1979) in the sense that it assumes that processes, such as migration, must result in the conflict of interests and, thus, contest attempts at change. If viewed from this perspective, then all conceptualizations of difference in cross-cultural management are rooted in the sociology of stability, or, in other words: they are order theories.
For example, models promoting the older idea of ‘difference as culture shock’ (e.g. Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1963) assume that individuals undergo a linear, phase-based development towards higher cross-cultural adjustment: the underlying ontological assumptions are the stability of cultures and cultural identities, and the goal and desired end-state of integrating cross-cultural differences. It is assumed that coordination is possible and that consensus, resulting in increased cross-cultural stability, may be achieved.
The present idea of difference as a resource to be leveraged by cross-cultural management (‘difference as diversity’) aims at achieving synergies and complementarities (e.g. Barmeyer and Franklin, 2016), and is thus underpinned by ‘consensus’ assumptions as well. Immanent to this approach is the idea of what Stahl and Tung (2015), drawing from existing literature, have referred to as ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’ (POS): difference should be embraced as a source for positive discoveries by cross-cultural management scholars (and managers). The underlying assumption is that one should overcome negative divergent cross-cultural processes, such as conflict, place emphasis on positive divergent processes, such as innovativeness (e.g. Maznevski, 2012), and focus on “the bright side of multicultural team diversity” (Stahl et al., 2010). For example, as Stahl and Tung (2015) find in their overview of studies on cross-cultural differences, there is still a “pervasive tendency (…) in the (…) literature towards emphasizing the adverse outcomes associated with cultural differences more than the positive effects” (p. 391). Thus, as the authors argue, researchers and practitioners should focus on how overcoming difference is only an intermediate step toward positive effects, such as integration, complementarity or synergy.
Cross-cultural management’s approach to conflict, similarly to its approach to difference, therefore takes place mainly in relation to regulation and order (overview in Mayer and Louw, 2012). For instance, conflicts are classified into potentially ‘harmless’ ones, namely those that are constructive and functional, and potentially ‘harmful’ ones, namely those that are dysfunctional and deconstructive (Amason, 1996; Deutsch, 1973). The ensuing cross-cultural recommendation is then to embrace constructive and functional conflict, and to prevent dysfunctional and deconstructive conflict (see application in Mahadevan, 2012), based on the understanding that conflict needs to be transferred into order via regulation, or, in other words: that the positive integration of difference should overcome conflict.
Conversely, the sociology of conflict understands human interaction and social systems as ongoing processes of divergent, often contesting, positions and interests. Rather than being an intermediate stage to be overcome, conflict then becomes the constant means by which radical change (as an ongoing process) is attempted, opposed and, potentially, achieved. This understanding then changes the whole ‘logic’ from which to assess the cross-cultural benefits and consequences of difference: if one proceeds from the sociology of regulation, order needs to be established. Consequently, the fewer conflicts one observes, the higher the extent to which the potential of difference is leveraged, measured as the degree to which ‘integration’ is achieved. However, if one proceeds from the sociology of conflict, the ‘logic’ is reversed: the more and deeper relevant conflicts more parties engage with, the higher the extent to which the benefits of difference are leveraged, measured as the degree to which radical change is possible, promoted and ongoing. For answering Stahl et al.’s (2016) question, namely how to leverage the benefits of diversity, the ontological viewpoint underpinning one’s approach (order via consensus and regulation or radical change via friction and conflict) is thus fundamental. By means of an illustrative example, the next sections will outline the difference which a sociology of conflict approach makes for the cross-cultural management engagement with Otherness.
Illustrative example: ‘Migration background’, ‘the refugee crisis’ and the state of integration in Germany
This section illustrates the difference which a sociology of conflict approach makes to CCM studies by means of two phenomena in Germany. The first one, ‘migration background’, exemplifies key dynamics of openness-closure and inclusion-exclusion. The second one, the so-called ‘refugee crisis’, brings these dynamics into focus. Together, the learnings from these two phenomena can then be applied to assess the current state of integration in Germany.
‘Migration background’
Germany provides a relevant context for applying the sociology of conflict lens. First, it is a country whose image in relation to how well it promotes and achieves cultural, ethnic, religious or gender integration is average at best (Bade, 2017). Second, Germany is a country wherein race or ethnicity are not measured or assessed, for instance, by means of self-identification and census, as it is common in other countries. A major reason given for why race and ethnicity are not measured in Germany is German national history wherein the classification of people in terms of race has proven to be disastrous (Bade, 2017). Race and ethnicity are thus silent, not explicit categories in Germany (Lentin, 2008). This means, that, in theory, openness and closure, and inclusive/exclusive interests should not be organized along the lines of race. However, internal closure and exclusion emerges nonetheless in the following ways:
The only category which is measured in Germany is a person’s ‘migration background’ (Migrationshintergrund). This category applies to a German national if at least one of their parents or they themselves have been born outside of Germany. However, as German sociologist Aladin El-Mafaalani (2020) has pointed out, this migration-background is only ascribed if it involves a migration-foreground, that is: a visible, discernible Otherness that is rooted in race, ethnicity and/or religion, and or a combination thereof. ‘Migration background, as the only distinction made besides nationality, therefore does not serve the purpose of identifying migrants, as it is too fuzzy and imprecise (how can one see ‘background’ if it is not in the ‘foreground’?). Rather, what the concept does is to ‘Same’ a certain group as ‘German’ and to affirm a certain type of identity as being ‘more German’ than others. In other words: German national identity is constructed by means of ascribing ‘migration background’ to all those who do not fit the requirements of the thus constructed national identity (e.g. Bade, 2017). This has less to do with who is Othered and more with those who are Samed (namely the thus constructed privileged ‘ethnic Germans’, under which only those migrants without discernible ‘migration foreground’ might be subsumed). ‘Migration background’ is thus mainly a boundary-drawing mechanism and a potentially exclusive closure dynamic.
Regarding those to whom it is ascribed, ‘migration background’ is nebulous and can be filled with all types of interests, interpretations, fears and aspirations. For defining national identity in the sense of ‘drawing the line’ between those who are considered to be ‘German’ and those who are not, it is an insufficient category. Many of the individuals to whom ‘migration background’ is ascribed are already ‘German’ in the sense that they live in the country, speak German as their first language and hold German citizenship, this being a result of external openness. Nonetheless, the term ‘migration background’ ascribes some shared ‘strangerness’ (Schütz, 1944) to this otherwise heterogeneous group.
Simmel (1971; see also Levine, 1977) has detailed on the purposes of the social form of the stranger: the idea behind is to make social sense out of those who are almost part of the ‘we’, but who need to be kept in a state of partial Otherness in order to maintain self-identity – a status contradicting the desired end-state of integration. This means that, in the German context, there is some inner and outer openness. However, there are also closure mechanisms associated with both. For instance, if Otherness is ascribed to third or fourth descendants of migrants whose migration ‘background’ is in the ‘foreground’, then full belonging is denied to them and they might then retreat into ‘ethnic communities’. On the other hand, if ‘migrants’ and ‘descendants of migrants’ also think of themselves and of their ‘being German’ along the lines of ‘migration background’, they contribute to closure, obstruct system change and ultimately exclude themselves. Therefore, openness-closure and inclusion-exclusion are brought about by the dynamics across all parties, in particular by how they explore friction.
On the other hand, closures of such kind are also proof for a successful integration process in the sense of previously different social and cultural realities growing together: it is only the ‘near stranger’ (Levine, 1977) who challenges cultural identity, not the distant one (Schütz, 1944). For instance, it is highly debated in Germany whether Islam belongs to Germany or not. The problematic image and reality of Islam in Germany is then often given as proof for failed or not yet achieved integration (Hafez and Schmidt, 2015). Yet, those German citizens self-identifying as Muslim who feel excluded by these sentiments thereby prove their sense of belonging: why else, if not because they feel their existing loyalty being rejected, should they perceive exclusion? (El-Mafaalani, 2020). Therefore, it is the friction zones between closure and openness, and the conflicts emerging between closure and opening tendencies by means of which integration is ultimately achieved.
The ‘refugee crisis’
Crises often bring phenomena, such as dynamics of openness-closure and inclusion-exclusion, in focus. This is also the case for the ‘refugee crisis’ in Germany. The term ‘refugee crisis’, as used in this paper, refers to the unprecedented influx of forced migrants (refugees), mainly from Syria, to Europe between 2015 and 2017 (Holmes und Castañeda, 2016; also see Naccache and Al Ariss, 2017).
In the German context, the starting point is the ‘welcome culture’ (Willkommenskultur) issued by former Chancellor Merkel in 2015 which resulted in Germany letting refugees into the country, mainly via the Balkan route: a strong signal of external openness. Germany is reported to have admitted more than one million persons seeking protection between 2015 and 2016 (UNHCR, 2018: 1), with 112,000 refugees arriving at Munich central station in 2015 (Willner, 2016). Despite reportedly chaotic circumstances, refugees received high public and individual support, and this was coined ‘the German miracle’ (Joffe, 2015). Internationally, this was taken as proof that the country had, indeed, overcome the legacies of national socialism and World War II, and had rid itself of the residues of any xenophobic sentiments originating from this period. The Telegraph (Hall et al., 2015), for instance, reported that “Germans gathered by the hundred at train stations on Sunday to welcome refugees arriving in their cities as if they were long-lost friends or returning war heroes”. Thus, despite the country being overwhelmed by external openness, there are also internal dynamics towards openness, and actors who wish to work towards both external and internal inclusion.
This is also indicated by the term ‘welcome culture’ itself: by using it, Chancellor Merkel reinvigorated a phrase from the 1990s (Ginsburg, 2017). During that time, a large number of refugees originating from African countries and the Balkan states came to Germany. Media reports spoke of 50,000 asylum-seekers in 1990, approximately 100,000 in 1991, and 440,000 in 1992 (Grimmer, 2015), and a presumed ‘misuse of asylum’ was a key topic of discussion (pointing to external and internal closure dynamics). These years also saw an increase in violence against asylum-seekers (Joffe, 2015), a violent attempt at exclusion. It was therefore pondered how to restrict the right to asylum in Germany, and subsequent changes of the judicial system into that direction followed (Ginsburg, 2017): institutionalized external closure. In light of the overwhelming influx of refugees, one can thus understand ‘welcome culture’ as a means for positioning the system towards openness and inclusion, rooted in the moral obligation of the open society. However, believing that friction may be overcome by such easy means is unrealistic, and this is evidenced by two representative public-opinion polls shortly thereafter.
In September 2015 (Infratest dimap ,2015a, six out of 10 Germans were “not afraid of ‘too many’ refugees” (p. 2). Further results are: 95% support initiatives for refugees (p. 2); and 85% wished to “create legal means for immigration to Germany” (p. 2). The background to the latter statement is that, at that time, individuals could only obtain a residency permit for Germany via being born in the country to parents residing there, via attending university or via presenting a valid work contract (see discussion in Mahadevan and Zeh, 2015). As a result, seeking asylum in Germany was in practice also used as a way to immigrate to the country (Joffe, 2015). This insight refers back to ‘migration background’ as a closure mechanism, as exceptions were made only for immigrants who could prove German ancestry, for example the so called ‘Russian-Germans’ whose ancestors had left Germany in the 19th century (Mahadevan and Zeh, 2015).
In the November 2015 edition of the same representative public-opinion poll (Infratest dimap, 2015b), the following question was asked: “I would like to know what exactly you fear if many refugees come to Germany” (p. 6). Fears mentioned (p. 6) are – in order of relevance – increase of rightist party support (87%), higher public debt (85%), higher competition on the real estate market (79%), costs for housing and provisions for refugees (78% each), influence of Islam in Germany becoming too high (78%), increased rates of criminal offence (75%), the influence of alien cultures in Germany becoming too high (69%), endangerment of affluence in Germany (53%), and higher competition on the job market (49%).
In the second poll, refugees are thus constructed as different mainly in terms of culture and religion (Islam and ‘alien’ cultures) and as potentially more criminal (increased rates of criminal offence). Ethnic Otherness in line with the ideas underpinning the concept of a ‘migration background’ is visible in these statements. Despite half of the respondents fearing increased job market competition, a view on refugees as requiring help dominates (housing/real estate, provisions, increase in public debt). Both the assumption of costly help and fear of competition constitute potentially exclusive interests: they provide rationales for closure. At the same time, there is also openness: the biggest fear mentioned is a potential increase in the support of rightist parties, as it has already happened in the 1990s. If one considers that the question asked in the second poll already pre-supposes closure (fear of refugees is taken for granted), one may identify the biggest fear mentioned (fear of increase in rightwing party support) as a clear counter-dynamic of openness. The way in which Germany ‘welcomed’ or excluded refugees is thus neither proof for definite closure nor indicative of ‘stable’ openness. Rather, both are dynamically interrelated. Via bringing these dynamics to light, a sociology of conflict perspective enables managers and organizations to view the tensions between closure and openness, and between inclusion and exclusion not as either-or, but as interrelated processes by means of which the conflict of integration is permanently ‘done’ in social practice.
Integration in Germany: Unrealistic ideal versus social practice
What do these findings mean for understanding the state of integration in Germany? First of all, it is relevant to consider the recent history of immigration to (former West) Germany, starting with the so called ‘guest workers’ (Gastarbeiter). These were mainly unskilled labourers hired in countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, former Yugoslavia and Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s in order to perform manual labour in Germany. It was expected by both sides that they would leave the country after a few years of employment, but, in fact, many of them stayed, and many Germans with a ‘migration background’ are descendants of this group (Bade, 2017).
As studies suggest (Weichselbaumer, 2020), those to whom a Turkish and/or Muslim ‘migration background’ can be ascribed (migration foreground) still pay the ethnic penalty associated with the ‘guest worker’ history. For example, it is less likely for ethnic Turkish women wearing a headscarf to be invited for a job interview for a top management position, even in case of equal qualification (ibid.). At the same time, in historic perspective, the participation and opportunities of ethnic minority Germans have increased since the 1960s when the first ‘guest workers’ came to the country, and Germany has transformed from a closed to an open society (Bade, 2017; Oltmer, 2017). Therefore, again, one finds the paradoxical parallelism of openness-closure and inclusion-exclusion.
To assess the seemingly paradoxical state of integration in Germany, El-Mafaalani (2020) thus suggests picturing society as a table. The integration of former ‘guest workers’ in comparison to today’s descendants of ethnic minority migrants and refugees in Germany can be understood by means of this picture: the former ‘guest workers’ were newcomers who were expected to sit on the floor and who also did not expect to be invited to the table. The next step was to invite migrants and their descendants to the table, but it was silently expected that they would only receive the food and drink given, and accept the prevalent seating order, menu and table manners: ethnic privilege, ordered along the lines of ‘migration background’ in the sense of ‘migration foreground’, prevailed. This process created singularities, yet, at the same time, more interest groups than ever before wished to participate in or dominate seating order, menu and table manners. As opportunities to participate and demands for full participation increased, the danger of losing privilege to other groups became more ‘real’. Consequently, everyone at the table now perceives the situation as more conflicting than before, and integration as ‘failed’. However, as El-Mafaalani (2020: 38) argues, what is problematic is not the factual state of integration but the gap between (unrealistically ‘peaceful’) expectations and perceptions, and actual reality. This is not to say that strong attempts at closure do not exist. Rather, it implies that one should not give into the fear that the mere existence of attempts at closure already ‘prove’ that integration has ‘gone wrong’ because the development is not ‘positive’. If one proceeds from this understanding, then also recent events can be viewed in a new light.
For instance, on January, 15, 2024, media reports exposed a secret right-wing meeting aiming at planning a large ‘remigration’ scheme, that is: the forced or voluntary expulsion of culturally, religiously or ethnic minorities, with or without German passport, who are considered to be ‘unintegrated’ in the sense of not being fully assimilated to (ethnic) ‘German culture’ (Correctiv, 2024). As a result of these plans being exposed, some 900,000 people participated in anti-right-wing demonstrations on January 20 and 21, 2024, including representatives of a variety of political parties, from left to conservative, and of a variety of migrant, religious and ethnic communities and unions (Zeit Online, 2024). The conflicts and friction zones associated with a ‘migration background’ and the ‘refugee crisis’ in Germany thus seem stronger than ever before. However, this signifies a better, not a worse, state of integration, as the unprecedented alignment of multiple singularities against closure and exclusion indicate that the depth, scope and plurality of a relevant engagement with Openness and inclusion have increased. Nonetheless, again, this is not proof of closure having been overcome, as there are also indicators to the contrary. For example, participation in anti-right-wing demonstrations varies across regions (Zeit Online, 2024) – a potential opening for more and more fragmented singularities.
Discussion: Towards a positive cross-cultural management scholarship of conflict
How can cross-cultural management contribute ‘positively’ to how organizations approach migration and refugee movements, and ensuing integration challenges? Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS, see Stahl and Tung, 2015) involves the aim and practice of influencing moderating factors of a managerial and organizational reality via conducive research and managerial recommendations. POS may involve a variety of theories. It is thus not a single theory but a ‘lens’ from which to view management and organizations. As Stahl and Tung (2015: 403) write: “the POS lens seeks to unravel processes through which organizational dynamics can produce positive or unexpected outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels”. Citing Cameron and Caza (2004) and Dutton and Sonenshein (2007), the authors state that, in order to achieve this goal, the analysis needs to focus on the (1) enablers, (2) explanatory mechanisms, and (3) outcomes or effects related to positive phenomena (p. 403).
The sociology of conflict enables CCM studies to re-imagine integration conflicts and frictions as such positive phenomena. It proposes that, the more people seek to integrate difference, the more conflicting the cross-cultural reality which they experience will become and the more relevant it will be for them to construct respective ‘Others’ (because these other groups now constitute a real identity threat and bring about real loss of privilege).
Rather than struggling to define a presumed ideal ‘integrative end-stage’, the sociology of conflict assumes friction between parties to be ‘normal’ and ongoing, as evidenced by the illustrative example: conflict is the enabler of radical change. As Stahl et al. (2016) write, the question of a positive engagement with difference is no longer whether ‘difference’ is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but rather how those involved in it may leverage the potential benefits of difference and minimize its potentially adverse effects. Integration is never achieved in the sense that conflict is resolved. Rather, integration dynamics create their own friction zones and opposing forces. This friction will never be ‘overcome’ in the sense of a sociology of regulation, nor should it be. Conflict enables dialogue (it crosses difference while not cancelling out or aiming at ‘overcoming’ divergent positions), and successful integration then means to embrace this dialogical friction (also see Bakhtin, 1981).
Conflict in the sense of ongoing dialogical friction is also an explanatory mechanism, for instance, for those experiencing Otherness in diverse societies, organizations and teams. These individuals, groups and organizations might struggle with the experience that conflict between interest groups and parties seems to increase, not decrease, despite more efforts towards achieving system integration. Also, in the German case, the more ‘equal’ migrant-host relations become, the less predictable they are, and the more conflicts manifest and are experienced by more parties. From the perspective of a sociology of conflict, ‘silencing conflict’ via integration is exclusive to some positions: it is thus a negative phenomenon to be prevented. Likewise, integration in the sense of a ‘stable’ and ‘orderly’ end-state necessarily involves dominance and thus is a negative phenomenon to be prevented. Thus, contrary to what order theories of ‘culture shock’ (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1963) and cross-cultural conflict management (Mayer and Louw, 2012) propose, ongoing conflict is neither dysfunctional nor deconstructive (Amason, 1996; Deutsch, 1973), but rather signifies an engagement with the Other than is even more ethno-relativist than the presumably highest stage of ‘integration’ proposed by Bennett (1986).
Concerning positive outcomes or effects, the sociology of conflict highlights how conflict serves a purpose and enables scholars, managers and organizations to clearly understand this purpose. For instance, Stahl and Tung (2015) refer to previous literature on ‘contextual intelligence’, such as cultural intelligence, as a prerequisite for leveraging the benefits of diversity. They cite Khanna (2014: 60) who defines contextual intelligence as “the ability to understand the limits of our knowledge and to adapt that knowledge to an environment different from the one in which it was developed”. From a sociological conflict perspective, the ability to identify the outcomes and effects of conflict would be an indispensable part of this ‘contextual intelligence’.
Implications: Engaging positively with the integration paradox in cross-cultural management studies
The sociology of conflict perspective adds to the existing literature on cross-national interactions as ‘friction zones’ (Shenkar, 2012) by acknowledging inner-societal diversity and the power-processes related to people’s identity work in the postmigration society. Whereas Shenkar’s (2012) approach is rooted in an objectivist and etic approach to culture, sociological conflict theory integrates objective and subjective analyses, highlights the need for acknowledging multiple (emic) standpoints, and also acknowledges power to a higher degree. It brings down the level of analysis to interpersonal and organizational interactions and builds the argument on higher, ontological and epistemological, rather than empirical levels. Again, this shows that the sociology of conflict is not in opposition but in addition to existing theories.
Postmigration societies are necessarily characterized by multiple singularities, which then bring about multiple closure and opening tendencies. Not everyone lives and identifies the same way in a heterogeneous organization, as brought about by migration and mobility: there are multiple experiences of human existence which cannot be unified. Existing cross-cultural management theories would understand the effects of singularities – for example the conflicts that become apparent in the illustrative example – as a danger to a successful, integrative cross-cultural management. For instance, it is assumed that migrants or expatriates may assimilate, integrate or separate, or be marginalized, in the host-organization (Lee, 2014). Integration, that is, highly identifying with both ‘home’ and ‘host’, is understood to be the best possible solution for all, and marginalization, identifying with neither ‘home’ nor ‘host’, is thought of as the worst scenario. The sociology of conflict perspective reverts this evaluation: rather than being detrimental to all, marginalization, if discussed, expressed, and related between singularities, could well be the dimension with the highest potential of conflict and, if embraced across multiple singularities, thus facilitates internal and external openness the most.
Openness is dynamically coupled with closure. Closures are not a characteristic of failed integration, as the sociology of order would argue, but rather the engine by which previously homogeneous and ‘closed’ organizations are transformed into open and inclusive ones. It is therefore unrealistic to believe that ‘cross-cultural conflict’ will be overcome by devising even better ways of working towards synergies and complementarities. Rather, because more groups now have the opportunity to claim a ‘seat at the table’, perceived Otherness and conflict, as well as the friction zones that manifest between singularities, will increase.
This fundamental insight, namely that ‘more conflict is better’, is referred to as the ‘integration paradox’ (De Vroome et al., 2014): in the open and postmigration society, more people and interest groups have successfully achieved the right not only to ‘sit at the table’ but also to contribute to what is eaten, how, when and so on. Consequently, all involved perceive more (not less) Otherness and conflict. If they assume that order via regulation is the goal, then they will presume integration to have ‘failed’, compared to the closed pre-migration society in which a selective order was maintained with less efforts (only some, similar, people had the right to ‘sit at the table’ or to invite other groups in). This then implies: the more a society or organization seeks to ‘integrate’ difference in the sense of achieving order via regulation, the less cross-cultural differences they will experience. However, what they miss out on is that only some ‘sit at the table’ and/or define the rules and that dialogue across singularities and friction zones is restricted or even silenced, and positive CCM scholarship means to make them aware that this is the case.
In a closed organization, there is less diversity amongst the managerial class because privilege prevents some groups from taking ‘a seat at the table’. The inner-organizational result is an almost automatic and largely unquestioned belonging for all, without the friction zones and relevant conflicts that emerge from the dynamics of opening and closure tendencies. Consequently, cultural differences are mainly experienced on a country level (because managers from one country ‘seem’ and ‘are’ alike). This then suggests that concepts such as cultural dimensions or cultural value orientations (e.g. Hofstede, 2010; House et al., 2004) which measure relative cross-cultural differences on the country level are the most relevant for closed social systems. They are not significant indicators for open societies and organizations: the most they can do is describe the value orientations of the dominant cultural group, not the whole of a society or organization. However, because CCM studies still engages with differences from an order perspective, individuals in cross-cultural interactions continue to make sense of the experience by means of national-cultural generalizations: they converge and unify what is actually an ongoing and dissonant (Lyan, 2021).
Rather than seeking to understand the conflict’s ‘core’, cross-cultural management scholars and practitioners should therefore focus on why and how some demarcation lines of ‘Otherness’ are chosen over others, and by whom and for what purposes. For example, as Mahadevan (2023a) suggests in her investigation of the intercultural training industry in Germany, it is the power-processes across interest groups, such as trainers’ precarious employment conditions intersecting with dominant masculinity, that explain why this business functions in certain, but not in other, ways. Thus, it is the friction lines of conflict across multiple singularities that explain why intercultural training is often inadequate, not its content or trainers’ presumed insufficient qualifications, and certifying intercultural trainings in even better ways cannot solve the problem. This way, a sociology of conflict approach to difference may reveal those power inequalities and positions that are cancelled out or silenced by a presumably ‘peaceful’, but actually more dominant, end-state of ‘integration’. If cross-cultural management is, indeed, a table at which the manners, menu and seating order (and many more aspects) shall be discussed and negotiated freely amongst all potential interest groups, then the envisaged synergy and complementarity emerging from ‘positive scholarship’ is not only unrealistic but also not the desired end-goal.
In the most plural and open postmodern organization, the diversity of the managerial class is high, as must be the number of conflicts across singularities and interest groups. However, if the organization assumes the goal to be ‘synergies’ and ‘complementarities’ (sociology of regulation), members then perceive ‘more conflict’ as a decrease in their successful engagement with difference. Yet, they might be wrong in this assessment, as their higher engagement with conflict and dialogical friction facilitates processes across more singularities. If one follows this logic, then the most interculturally competent manager might no longer be the person who bridges difference the most but the person who embraces conflict in the most dynamic and relevant ways. Likewise, the most ‘culturally intelligent’ individual (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008) might not be the person who overcomes cultural diversity frictions the best, but the one who experiences, reflects upon and engages with conflicts the deepest. Teaching managers to embrace friction and dissonance, and to learn from those who already have done so (e.g. ethnic minorities, migrants or refugees), might thus be the more responsible approach which also does more justice to people’s singular experiences and the power-configurations framing them (e.g. Mahadevan, et al., 2020; Primecz et al., 2016). For achieving this goal, core cross-cultural management theories and concepts need to be revised.
Summary and conclusion
Realities and perceptions of ethnic, religious or cultural Otherness in contemporary cross-cultural management often arise from migration and refugee movements, and ensuing integration challenges. In contrast to other contexts, such as global virtual teams, which have already been conceptualized as positively ‘diverse’, migration and refugee movements still tend to be perceived as involving ‘problematic’ differences. This makes it difficult for cross-cultural management studies to contribute to this phenomenon by means of a ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’.
The sociology of conflict assumes that radical change, not order, underlies human existence. From this perspective, the positive cross-cultural management engagement with Otherness should therefore not be measured in terms of the degree to which difference is overcome and integrated, but rather in terms of the degree to which more parties engage more deeply with relevant conflict and friction across interest groups. Pursuing difference from a sociology of conflict perspective thus radically changes the assumptions, research agendas, practices, presumed goals and potential responsibilities of a contemporary cross-cultural management theory and practice.
The most open organizations are those with the highest internal diversity amongst the managerial class and the highest degree of external openness towards the global job market. If these organizations truly seek integration – pictured as a table at which all may sit and have an equal say in what is done and how – they will be characterized by more and deeper conflicts across more singularities, that is: the group interests from which the whole of the organization is experienced. More integration thus necessarily requires more conflict. This seemingly contradicting dynamic is also referred to as the ‘integration paradox’, and CCM studies need to approach conflict from this perspective and to also teach this to managers and organizations.
The insight that deeper conflict across more parties signifies better integration, and how to employ it, was exemplified by a discussion of the ‘refugee crisis’ and ethnic Otherness (as evoked by the term ‘migration background’) in Germany. ‘Migration background’ is as much an internal closure mechanism as it is the result of external openness, and ‘the refugee crisis’ brings into focus ongoing exclusion-inclusion dynamics towards a more open and plural postmigration society. Together, this suggests that the present state of integration in Germany is better than commonly assumed: more diverse interests are presently aligning towards openness, also in light of more radical attempts at closure. The issue is thus not that integration in Germany has ‘failed’ but rather that there is the unrealistic perception that one should measure integration by means of how ‘peaceful’ it is. Conflict, if emerging from the friction zones between all or at least more and more singularities is not the problem to be overcome: it is the enabler, explanatory mechanism, and outcome or effect of a deeper and more inclusive cross-cultural management engagement with Otherness in postmigration organizations and societies.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
