Int. Studies of Man. <E Org.. Vol. XIII. No. 1-2, pp.

7-15
M.E. Sharps, Inc.. 1983

CROSS-CULTURAL MANACEMENT:
ISSUES TO BE FACED

Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

The focus of cross-cultural management studies is the be-

havior of people from different cultures working together with-
in organizational settings. Cross-cultural management deals
with traditional organizational behavior issues such as motiva-
tion, leadership, decision making, and group dynamics (see
Renwick, Adler, Moran, and Russell, 1981), thus concentrating
primarily on the microlevel — the study of the people within
organizations — rather than on the macrolevel — the study of
the organizations themselves. It includes both international
and intranational studies, the impact of cultural diversity both
across and within national boundaries. It covers descriptions
of the behavior of people from different cultures working within
a single organization and comparisons of the behavior of people
in organizations located in two or more different cultures.
Cross-cultural management thus extends the study of organi-
zational behavior by adding a multicultural dimension. It com-
plements international business studies — which have tended
to focus on the macro- and structural-level issues of multina-
tional corporations — by adding a behavioral dimension. More-

Dr. Adier is a member of the Faculty of Management at

McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
This paper was presented at the International Association
of Applied Psychology' Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, in
1982.
8 . Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

over, it complements comparative management studies, which

have tended to concentrate on identifying similarities and dif-
ferences among domestic organizations in different countries,
by adding the dimension of cross-cultural interaction.
The central questions raised in cross-cultural management
are: What is the impact, if any, of culture on the behavior of
people within organizations? To what extent, if at all, must
managerial styles be altered when working with people from
different cultures? To what extent is the managing of cross-
cultural interaction different from managing interaction within
culturally homogeneous groups?

Is There a Need to Study Organizational

Behavior from a Cross-cultural Perspective?

John Child (1981), a British management theorist, reviewed

a large number of cross-cultural studies. Like other reviewers
of this literature, he found that one subset of articles concluded
that the tendency was toward convergence among organizations
in different cultures whereas another subset of articles con-
cluded that the tendency was toward divergence. The former [
expressed the view that organizations were becoming more and
more similar across cultures and that it would therefore be
appropriate to look for and apply "universal" theories and ap-
proaches to management. In contrast, those who concluded that
there was divergence posited that the world was not becoming
more and more homogeneous but that, on the contrary, national
and cultural differences were being maintained. On closer ex-
amination. Child discovered a second pattern. The majority of
the "convergence" studies focused on macrolevel issues — for
example, the structure and technology' used by organizations
across cultures. The majority of the "divergence" studies fo-
cused on microlevel issues — on the behavior of people within
organizations. Child's conclusion was that organizations in dif-
ferent countries around the world are becoming more and more
alike, but that the behavior of people within those organizations
is maintaining its cultural specificitj'. For instance, whereas
Issues to Be Faced 9

the technology used by organizations in Canada and Germany is

becoming more simitar, the way Canadians and Germans be-
have within those organizations is different, and that difference
is being maintained.
Andre Laurent (1), a French management researcher, con-
ducted an empirical study that corroborates Child's findings.
His study was designed to better understand managerial philos-
ophies and behaviors iri nine European countries and the United
States. A questionnaire was administered to managers from
various companies who were attending an executive seminar.
The study was then replicated within a singie multinational firn
having employees from each of the ten countries. In both group
the results revealed consistent differences in the ways manag-
ers from each of the cultures approached organizational issues
The unambiguous conclusion was that employees were maintain
ing their culturally specific ways of workingevenwhenemployee
within the same multinational organization.
The conclusions of both the Laurent and the Child studies
were upheld in a massive 40-country study conducted by Dutch
researcher Geert Hofstede (1980). Like Laurent, Hofstede
found highly significant differences in the behavior of employee;
from different cultures working within the same multinational
organization. Culture was found to explain more of the nonran-
dom variance in attitudes and behaviors than did any of the com
peting variables, including the employee's profession, level
within the organizational hierarchy and his or her specific job,
age, and gender.
From these studies it appears that a cross-cultural perspec-
tive has much to contribute to understanding the behavior of
people within many organizations. "Universal" approaches to
managing multicultural employee populations — approaches
that assume similarity — seem to be, at best, inappropriate.
Difference had best be assumed until similarity is proven, as
opposed to the more traditional approach of assuming similar-
ity until difference is proven. (2) The assumption underlying
the behavior of people in organizations should not be cultural
convergence.
10 • Nancy J. Adler (Canada).

Although recent studies indicate that it would be appropriate

to approach organizational behavior from a cross-cultural
rather than a unicultural perspective, this has not been the ap-
proach taken by most researchers and theorists. In a review
of over 11,000 articles published in 24 management journals
between 1970 and 1980,1 found that fewer than 5 percent could
be classified as cross-cultural management — i.e., fewer than
5 percent approached organizational behavior from a multicul-
tural perspective (Adler, 1983). The vast majority addressed
issues only within the United States or assumed that American
management theories would apply abroad. This literature r e -
view made it clear that there is as yet no coherent, integrated
body of knowledge about cross-cultural management, that
there is a need to identify and clarify the central issues,
definitions, and trends in this increasingly important area
of management.

Refining a New Area of Study: The Delphi Approach

Delphi studies are generally designed to map complex,

poorly defined issues or areas of inquiry by systematically
collecting the opinions of experts. They are iterative, having
two or more rounds: first, a divergence round, to identify the
breadth of perspectives and approaches to a particular area of
study, and then one or more convergence rounds to identify and
integrate those perspectives and issues that are considered
most important. Rather than randomly selected participants,
Delphi studies use a panel of experts selected for their knowl-
edge of the subject to be studied. To assure that the widest
possible range of ideas and opinions will be considered, these
experts do not interact with each other during the multiround
Delphi process. The Delphi methodology is therefore most
frequently used to generate, rather than to test, hypotheses, to
map a field rather than to test relationships within it. (For a
discussion of the Delphi method and its application to manage-
ment, see Campbell, 1968; Dalkey, 1969, 1972; Dalkey ^ Hel-
mer, 1963: Fusfield & Foster, 1971: Linstone & Turoff, 1975;
Sackman, 1975; and Welty, 1972.)
Issues to Be Faced • 11

For the Cross-cultural Management Delphi Study (DELPHI),

a group of 52 experts was selected on the basis of their pro-
fessional reputations in, and research publications on, manage-
ment. They represented 11 countries (Australia, Canada,
England, France, India, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Uganda, and the United States). Twenty-four participated in
both rounds of the study and, following the DELPHI, attended
the 1981 McGili International Symposium on Cross-cultural
Management in Montreal. (3^) The symposium, loosely designed
as a third round of the DELPHI, further refined and integrated
the experts' understanding of the subject.

Fundamental Questions

In the first round of the Delphi (DELPHI I), panel members

were presented with relatively open-ended questions. The r e -
sponses to these questions were content analyzed. Six central
questions emerged, and were subsequently used to structure
the second round of the Delphi (DELPHI II):
1. What are the major differences between domestic and
international organizations?
2. What is multiculturalism?
3. What are the potential benefits of multiculturalism to an
organization?
4. What are the potential problems and disadvantages of
multiculturalism to an organization?
5. What are the most important human-resources issues
facing multicultural organizations?
6. What skills and abilities are most necessary for manag-
ing in a multicultural organization?
In DELPHI II, the panel ranked the listed issues according
to importance and added new issues where necessary. The
outcomes of round two, which were subsequently discussed at
the symposium, are presented here.
Major Differences between Domestic and
Multinational Organizations
Two primary factors were identified as differentiating
12 Nancy J. Adier (Canada)

Table 1
The Definition of Multiculturalism
Percent of panelists
accepting the charac-
Characteristic teristic (n = 24)
Most organizations that have
more than one culture repre-
sented in their membership
are characterized by:
Cultural diversity 100.0
A diversity of sociocultural
perspectives and world views 100.0
A diversity of life-styles 100.0
Greater complexity than in
domestic organizations 95.8
A diversity of cultures 95.8
A diversity of social skills 95,8
Greater ambiguity than in
domestic organizations 91.7
A diversity of languages 91.7
A diversity of management
styles 91.7
A diversity of cognitive skills
(ways of structuring the
thinking process) 91.7
Geographic dispersion 87.5
A diversity of national edu-
cation and training philoso-
phies 87.5
High visibility 62.5

domestic from multinational organizations: multiculturalism

and geographic dispersion. Multiculturalism is the presence
of people from two or more cultural backgrounds within an or-
Issues to Be Faced 13

ganization; geographic dispersion, within the context of a multi

national organization, is the location of various subunits of the
parent organization in different countries.
Components of the definition of multiculturalism were identi-
fied on the basis of DELPHI I. In DELPHI II, the experts elimi
nated those components that did not apply to most multicultural
situations with which they were familiar. No new components
were added to the definition during DELPHI II, which indicated
that the original DELPHI I listing was comprehensive. As
shown in Table 1, more than 90 percent of the experts agreed
that most organizations that had more than one culture repre-
sented in their membership were characterized by cultural
diversity: a diversity of sociocultural perspectives, worla
views, life-styles, social skills, languages, manasement styies
and cognitive styles.
The inclusion of DOth multiculturalism and geographic dis-
persion is of fundamental importance in differentiating the focus
of cross-cultural management studies from that traditionally
adopted in international business and comparative management
studies. Most international business studies focus on geo-
graphic dispersion and give little recognition to multicultural-
ism. Most comparative management studies, on the other hand
focus on cultural differences among domestic organizations op-
erating in various countries rather than on the geographic dis-
persion aspect of multinational organizations.

The Impact of Geographic Dispersion and

Multiculturalism on Organizations

The panel of experts thought that multiculcuralism and geo-

graphic dispersion led to greater complexity and to both bene-
fits and disadvantages for the organization.

Greater Complexity'

Organizations that have more than one culture represented

in their membership are characterized by diversity- in the ways
14

in CO
CO CO CO G i O CM' CO*
CD CO CO CO C- C-

O WH

CO O
c

o
73
c en y
o U WH U O

0 o
o

CO
1 c" o
dJ
£
s s c
o
o u o •1-1

Q d
c T: b c
c 5) - ij to
I
Q)
o a*
CO
Q)

ffi
O •a

Q CJ

rt o
bD O CD
o
o 7:1 5 c
0.^:5 c c
a > o cj a;
o
U _, o
GJ —-

°t "S .£ ^ rt
-o rt •^
o c: jz ct N T; rt •U tSJ QJ
< Q
 15

CM oa cx) CO
CT; o o 5
\n csi eg CM
^ c rt S
3 rt he
IH

CJ - ^ O

"co tj ,^ 'd
dJ o 2 -
£ QJ O fi
O CO ^ •"
'C 3 «; i?

O W O U

ion
CQ o

parj
OJ d
£ N o •a
gan
QJ
• • ^ £
o rt rt
i3 c
<n o •>-> co'
.3 CO
C S ir- 3 rt CO
rt (H I U
tioni

tC 0) QJ
nee

C r
o c •A-t

CJ —. QJ rt * """
d) O d)
ja 'Jo C .£ 7^ dJ*
o Z rt o ^
tn
rt -4-1
<-> £ O
'd -d QJ £ "c-" c
Qi
•^ 3 £ •—1 Q •I-l

dJ O
rt w c
tions
pleti

nee '

£
•eate

be « ^ o
° gI CQ
_CJ
T3
CJ
£ bo _d>
bC

dj o S
d d. I en u CQ o 'c "o
:: o 3 OJ •I-l

u 3 0 bb
o U rt
o
-> u o f-
QJ
o "rt
"2 3 '-"
" =c5
estii

o CQ -4-t
d>
•i rt g y 5
"« (Q
_o
j-i
CQ rt B r;
IT" W rt ^ rt li .£ be r-H
CJ dJ o a o £
r-
CO
IQ •-I a c B {Q £ T3
u O o 3
d C
»—1 o
CJ
£ 1—1 o o to
QJ — j
£ d
d
OJ
rt "rt c S . m rt
<^ S-, QJ 5 obo
C 'P
11
O
a*
QJ
dj
in
1 "rt£
bs
QJ
CJ <u
rt -2
• »

U rt til rt
U-i W rt u
w o CQ
16 Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

people perceive the organization, work in the organization, and

think about their work in the organization. This diversity leads
to greater complexity within the organization. In DELPHI I,
over 60 percent of the experts identified greater complexity as
the main effect of multiculturalism and geographic dispersion.
In DELPHI II, the perceived causes and effects of this greater
complexity were investigated. As Table 2 indicates, greater
complexity was seen as being an outcome of:
— the need for multinational corporations (MNCs) to be more
sensitive to government, labor, and public opinion concerns
(91.7 percent*) and regulations (62.5 percent); •
— home-country philosophies and practices that are inap-
plicable in foreign locales (83,3 percent);
— the impossibility of implementing uniform personnel prac-
tices (83.3 percent) and performance standards (70.8 percent).
More than 60 percent of the experts saw greater complexity
as resulting in an increased need for: (1) attention to interor-
ganizational relations and communication (100 percent); (2) use
of a variety of management approaches within the same organi-
zation (79.2 percent); (3) more adaptive behavior on the part
of individuals within the organization (79.2 percent); and (4)
more management development, designed to enhance flexibility
and adaptability, including team building among the top cadre
(62.5 percent).

Potential Benefits of Multiculturalism

to an Organization

According to DELPHI I, multiculturalism and geographic

dispersion can yield both advantages and disadvantages for an
organization, though neither will necessarily materialize. In
the second round of the DELPHI, the experts differentiated the
benefits from cultural diversity that most organizations are

*The percentages refer to the proportion of DELPHI I panel-

ists who concurred with the particular view; see the tables for
further explanations.
Issues to Be Faced 17

currently realizing from those that most organizations could

potentially realize in the future. Table 3 summarizes the
former, and Table 4, the latter.
Sixty percent or more of the DELPHI panel saw the major
benefits of multiculturalism that organizations could potentially
realize in the future as enhanced abilities to:
— be more creative and innovative (83.3 percent);
— deal more sensitively with foreign customers (75 percent):
— attract the best personnel from around the world (66.7
percent);
— assume a more global perspective of opportunities (62.5
percent);
— create a unifying organizational culture based on the best
of all members' national cultures (62.5 percent);
— adapt more effectively to environmental change (62.5
percent).
As shown in Table 5, changes between presently realized and
potential future benefits were also investigated. In comparing
future benefits with currently realized benefits, panelists saw
the greatest potential increases in; (1) creating a unifying or-
ganizational culture based on the best of all members' national
cultures ( t54.2 percent) (4), (2) decreasing societal ethno-
centrism ( 137.5 percent), (3) enhancing individual cultural
identity and dignity ( t33.4 percent), (4) generating greater
creativity and innovation (t29.1 percent), and (5) using cul-
turally specific motivation plans (1 25.0 percent). The only
major potential decreases in importance were seen to relate to:
(1) spreading financial risks over a wider range of economies
( (41.6 percent), and (2) developing more successful worldwide
marketing strategies (1 25.0 percent).
The pattern of the panelists' views indicates that universal
approaches — i.e., minimization of cultural differences — ap-
plied to traditional functional areas (finance, marketing, etc.)
were generally seen as producing current benefits, and well-
managed and integrated culturally specific approaches — i.e.,
use, rather than minimization, of cultural differences — ap-
plied to human-resources management were generally seen as
18

bJJ
CJ
u CO
LH
E-
ft

LH

O o
£ CNI
3
Z

QJ
eo
c
o a
c QJ

CJ
H ^ eo
£ 9
CU
Si
o ^ o
5 2 ^ c t c CJ
C LH
o
'cj -o 3 o -^ s
•I LH
£1 O o
d o §* ^ L.
H en -^ c "D en
rt o >
o 53 "
o u
;: - a
TJ tD

S d
CO
O
_d c) ::3 a
•^ I z "rt > rt
Q
—H rt i"
CO
u
;4
u
CJ
TJ
• ; ; " ^

•3 CJ -^ h
u
a "rt > o rt
bl 3 U rt C rt -^ u
O ^1 CJ
•n o "> g S S a
•—I
S CJ c3 0) ,5 IH —' •a
•-« x : I-l >
to —I O
tn E. en w
"3 -a O
LH
s c o „
u id .i3 " -- .E, '"
== rt E2,

o "
(11
m rt a) O CO
::i > ^ a j= K J* -^
o _^
_
rt
.2;
p
LH XJ
CJ O
LH
O
> s o
CJ

JP
CD
C :ti "o en - otc ^o ;:: 3
o '-' ~ o
<u " CJ
en = • c;
.^ ctc G ^ o ^ tL 5
CJ .-5 -t:! 2 eo CJ rt o
O bC .d j;
5 "o
d - CJ en
tc
CJ i 3 tc "tc Si ^
LH
CJ
I ? -^ C y tc
LH O c _o efi
LH T3
rt £1
tc ccto J? = CJ
— 33 0
. - CO
ci; O
'-' O
L, =
rt /; o "rt ">
5' QJ
QJ
t^
- J
eo
LH
^^ *
Q
—>
—. o
<y d
d
c
"S CJ
O
L.
LH
U
U O
a
 19

(M CM CO t - l o in CM CO t- tn o
oi o CD QJ O
in m cn CO <n CO cn •J2
^ tn
OJ
to - i
^3 t^H ^3
_S "S 'a!
O OS
" S -3
^ ci —
£ to - .
o t. tn
« o o
w rt ^
(U r, -

— "3 .2
3^ .y "rt
5 5 'c
^ B ti

o
o O 3
•—I
o
u
^ Ec u i tn
^ -a ^ -a c fc2
!l c
O —'

> c
rt tn c
3 5.
1- s ^

tU - ^ in o — O 3
%. CO
tn u
to d
it
•D
(0 -^ 5 c
•"3 "O •^ 2
> •a S o o =
to ;:; ^ "tn 3
(u >; ^
rt TZ, •a
OJ CL.
- 5 " of 2 ° -- t£ CJ tc
o ^ .2 9
CJ O
tH '"• 5
3 C
"o p "3 O O O
- CR T3 tn o —' — rt
Z I-
~ CJ _^
o H rt
tc .=
tc u CJ O i^
3 C
C K ••-, c
> ^ 5 "g tn
.- 3
C CJ
= tnrt - i . r C i . ' ^ ^ _CJ
'—J ^ ' CO ^^ •— ** - •-4
^" -•* "H — 3 :5 j. gP CJ
^ ,^J ^ " CJ
'S r, — -S -i 5" 3 tn CJ flj O t- CJ — 3 — CJ C 3
< ;; U S < C -3
= £ o " u t)
S O —
t- O UD t- rt
O
O
< i^
20

to

CO ^

o o
3
2

i-> CJ CO
O 2 C
t- o

t4

9 tn
OJ Si "o u 0
0
tc
3
O tc
c c:. c
CJ tc o ~
5^
I CO
(.< tc
._>

o
OJ

o
CJ
c
"in :::
s
* J
05
0
c
0
—. — rt _^
tfl to
to ._,
3 > "0 3 CO
QJ O O
"rt T3 tD
QJ
U t£ tD
^^
1
ndii

alin

UOJ
0
? 0
•—1

u tu '~' OJ
N
gj c \j
O
"rt
—J
5 3 rt ::: CL.
*^ o
3 .z. —1 - rt rt
inovai

t loc a
ersor
Ot 111
n and

ivity

0
a;
5 •c ! o ^
tn o tn o <u
3 0
V}
—^
> rt
N —
•-—'

-H " rt "m c: •^ QJ
OJ '^
£ QJ >i = CJ 5 U —•
ij *-• ty CJ tfi r*
o >
ci
tc £ 3 5 > ^ S5 7 :
tivi
nor

—(
>-
rt o ~ ~ "^ -f= tn
rt — ^ Q z^
to
aui

CJ rt 'J>
a o rt •§ u, '-' ^
P-r

tL rt u tc rt 6 B =
'^ '—' c 1—1
—I -
"tn ^ CJ
— r'i
o ^ "? ^ a - ;
i£ 0 3 rt
"o •3 6 Q
Si
Q
c
n
0
"S S
a C )
6
 O t- tr- as eu to 3

it) in -^ ^
o
= .1 ;>
o "rt "5
o .2 -S
=• rt
O Cft O3 CO CC

w f= to
^ =I
•tc.H -^
3 .^ =
O — rt
C~ O "-H 1—I i-H I— t n
'-' CM CM CM (N C-J CM
CJ W
£ o
rt ^ zi
•^ to =
eeda c
prol

onis
o c
•keti
/ide

CJ
CJ
_o CI — CJ
u — c
o
1
ing

u to "rt in rt -
Ci
JZ
tc
rt
-
o
>
_rt
10 En "U
3 ? CM
O t£
I - —>
ivi
O.I

d o
•a o ^- a £ 3

f r o m . ,."
tvation pi
it ground J
joy able \v

ities ove

o c o
<—1

c >
-a en rt eo
Ci tc "to
CJ en 3
o tc eo u
> o QJ O
> c (J "S V
c
K
O '5 rt B "o £ 3
CJ
>.
O
CJ Q. r
/.^ _C m o
1
>. C en o u £ o c
CJ
"O O "rt 1-.
3 CJ rt "rt u
io a T; O tc 5" o _QJ
OJ
U-l O 3
z rt c •c •a o
Qi —' eo — tc en —
livi

c rt c
ion

—
"^
>.
i to
OJ
u
|)
•ali zati
lenti

O
iter

dUK

tn
ally

io 3
.H C
tor 111

to to
•c
to
'o CO 5 CJ o -
1 CJ M

o 3 eo rt tc
C o
c
,101

t. "rt c 1 "to
a c 'H 3 o
CJ
o "rt
.1 s
nn

tn a) o CJ > o
3 CJ
o c d C
re
c
rt o 'o >
CG £ tc = % .B _>.
CJ
5 Si c" rt -
,.r
en o > ;" o er* c — —
eo u C
1o
Illc

^ c "rt t£ c tc
f. o — =^ .1 tc C 3
nilti
a tor
inhc

id in
at in

vidi

to « •S ^ o a cz -
to E P "r "^ OJ rt c: CJ
"rt "rt
o
eo CJ S o o rt o cJ o CJ ;., OJ
-• G ~ o '—• en CJ tL ^^
CL. > i-
Id
•c o la o
U < C < O O <^ Q O Cfi
 22

clU
cu bii
c c o CO to CO CD to in
a. o a c~ CO Ol in o CD' CO CD CD
eo CO N M
c CM P-
—« bc ir

tlipf
CJ rt c
bD CO
c CO C3:^ CO r- CO
CO c
B 3
eo
—1 U 2

isent
3
LJ
—1

J •
. ^

<u "^
CJ
s
CJ cu
CJ

bfl ^ .4-)
^H .—I O O CO
-H c C CM •-< O5
3 n i;

UIO
^ c o
rj rt

0)
V d c eo
o o •D c en CJ
CQ C
en % "en CJ O 'bi
N • * - •
en

I the b
transc

culture
organi

herefo
: benef

excha
•.J

wliere
in x:

laclies
c
a I eo
rt
X) o CO
•u
a c QJ c bB u. ?-.
bD en 3
H QJ
t-<
eo c uniifyi D v.
O C
O
Ul
CJ
>
c rt
Ul
3
O
f en u, u,
CJ

mo,
e CJ cu CJ

ing
Ul
•o aj > CO O
eo rt
V Ul > i CJ u. Ul
c
rt _3 (A •c QJ u QJ —
<—I
QJ
u rt ; ^ 3
u c c rt O "en "rt
CJ —'
TJ (J o £ .2r o CO CJ c CJ
es (base d on tlie eed 1

; societa i ethnoci itris:

creativi ty and ii ovat:

vidu;
friction and mis ider;
9

local
"supero rganizat )nal (
iivid
pare

•soni
-per

ism
E
I -a
Ul

O Z CJ
o c
s £ c QJ rt c CJ be a j u o £
o a •S )-• __,

societalL isolatii
CJ

ervices,
er "duni b" ethnc

!hing bet.ween ini

cultural identity

Itural 3nrichin(I local c

intial CO

e best p
o K

o! ^. eo
o "c" en
eo
o
turalism

ectivene
e of cult

cu

"stuck"
jolving
E "o
C
o c c" o
c
o rt 10 CJ D be
1 C ho
c c
3 CJ 'S
c
>. £ "rt o tc

leas, 1
ulture
eatini

reatoi
multii

rob lei
areas
reasi
reasi

creas

creas

S)
1
eater
eater

jr
U
CJ
en
CO
s Q
U) "rt CJ o u u. CJ b£ CJ i^ rt cu 3 o
O Q Q O Q o Q
 •c

"d

O
u
tJ

u
nsidermg polil al, s OCl rai, an environmenta

o
o

3
^^
3sues nior

<
_•

p
^^ t

_>. '
CM

'o

o
u
tc
1
1

tc
c.
opting a lc torm laximizin strategy

"^
d

rr
rt
u

a
o

CJ
•n
"o
'%
eater Ilexi bilit vithii orga zation t M
^'

t '

o
u
=
tn

rt
c
o
1
1

C
'iroi TTTl 1 those enviror

c
c
CO

.-a
o
u
to

c£

tc

o
1
1
monstratii tliforeigncusi

1
!!

C
•n

u
3

[H
O
CJ

CJ
oviding ini ces 1 • indivit al countries'

C-
'9'
1

1
ific needs 1

u u
a
IH

o
.-•

T3

CU
tc
he no : difi ences i e., deereasin<
^'

CM
CM

AJ
1
(UTS
thnocontri
t
1 I

o
La
1
eater mot ivati

1
in

t>

N
c

'o
co" C>j

1
1

o o
1

tc
rcei o

p
£2

o a
p
u

o
tn
CJ
1
1

tc
i enjoyi Io working lil

O
D
u

< <; H
> c rt
o
en

-
the MN choosing the

1
o

I
CO

"rt
CO
CM

c
1
1

tn
tc

U
O

"rt
.£
1

c
_CJ
CJ
tc
en

E
oduc entand marke trat

4-)
o

_>>
1-1

. - «

—1
3

3
'rt

a
oa
1

CJ
CJ
1
1

iS

CJ
loth 1( red and nrldwide prcxl

"d
i-i
•a

rt
CO

tL
lanc rtunitie over a wider

°_
•—1

(J

u
T

1
1

o rt
CJ

o
o
en

"c
rt be
onoi

!
—1
«

rt

o
Q

t j
P

rt
N
o

"rt
co
o

o
E
tc

U!)
tn"

C:J
lotct lUow compared wit ion

s-
•
_
^

3
rt

«
c

•D

^4
• uio. ZUll
—^

."
•alorganiz atio compared wit
1

1
1—I

en p
J

z
•a

Q
rt
O

p
c

p
tn

*o
o
CJ

"o
%

1^
i2
—1

E
)st individi mult icu ural ganizat nsbenefitfroi
j ^

CO c
o

•n
"rt

£
o

o
o rt CJ
eo

tn
en en

ioi

;5
of the 25 st ater ey mos 'liich ;trongly agree' tive itu
3

>
3
en p

O
o

a. rt

d
p
.=
"rt

O
U

o
•o
CJ

03

o
x: OJ

tn
o
a —'
CO

5J
"tn"
_§
anol me list 1 the J th which they i
tn p
d ^^
—
CJ
CJ

CJ

tn
CQ

bn CJ
CJ

._;.
CJ
m

o
tn
oI*

Lentialbem Posi tivi chan s score show increase

23

p
3

i
o
o

Si x:

eft

iS "rt
(11

tn
ea

eu

OJ
CJ
tc
uation. Ne scor) show d( reases in the f com
24

C c o o CO C~
CJ
o
o u in in O !£)
k. ^^.^ V C- ID
-CJ4

rt M
ta II
tn c — • CJ
CJ x:

"jiin
Par
"2 3 O Q
rt ^ m
(1)

UIU
ross cultu res
OJ 1 CJ
d tn _ > .
o (I)

zati ons' assui

:hem selve;
icie s, in isundi
/ori tism , ethn
c

iring one I

ltural
al di fferer
CJ
o c
CJ
to OJ c "c:
CD i3 c;

laniz
A0((
u o
c
tn o "c tr
H I zati

atin
tion
f-> tu u
rt rt 3
in o
Q "c t c .— o
13
c a rt 3 c o 'c "a
d rt tu N '—1 U 3 CJ d be y u d CJ c

acti
liici

•ing
org

ude

Is' an org
•a gan c
o c
tc
es "e:
— CJ o u •o c

1 inisj
mpan;
onal 1
and c

cause
ome (

1 put;
tc

tfi
o
c
oblcms, neb 1
a
tc

•5
o
!
rt
;H

to

ies
rt ^_ tn
c to Q
3 3
that of 1

CJ' t and hof o c m a

izntional

tit problc
1
Currc !nt prpbl

e; organ

•y reseiltment o
other CU
onali ties. Pr
ibopt iniizatio

>
of mullticultura

c
o
environ nienis
o
>.

are
tc
_o

— 1
> . c rt
a rt
"rt a 5 rt
rt OJ
tn
in w
LI
tn ^— "^
E d
rt o
o u tn rt u o
TJ t, o u 1 O O
w
"d S- — 3
i4 O J=
c
rt 1H
o D —1
01 c 3 ^ ""*
O CJ •^ S
g o p O CJ
CJ O
:z; "c 1 1
u Uc m ^ :5 c
3
to
o O 5 a.
 u

o
u
u

o
O
lUIUI

5
£
c
1

SJ

u
cn
u
-a
hiding lna cies misu

c
^ o

'o

•a
•a

tfi
d "c

c
r;
1

i
rt
tn
c
o
E
lack clarity, ai

'to*
tn

CO
CJ
loye iiffe lit cultures

3
3
U
o

rt
5

S
rt cc o -cCJ
10
ficu >ing a global organi!

3
D

•Ti

c c
—c
UA UIOJ

o o
rt
CQ
lg people f rio [tur

ti,
ficu ty i i

c
c

t.
o

rt
U IU 1

tn
> i

o
tL
^^
c.

tD
reig authority not boil ete] accei

CO CO CO •-"

c
o
u

u
"^
tn
to to to in m
CO CM N CO O
in in m e^ o

<v
deqi f uni rsal polici,es and

c
i. o
C
'c

rt
rt

cn
tD

E
"i
CJ3
rea; cation cos is cauS' e trai

d
c
t

o
o

tc
rt o "rt
--*
5
puu '

c.
30r quality of sec uagi comii

c —
rt —:
=;
in
o

c
u-i
>_i
O
o

G
•a

^,
---

tJ

c
zj
tJ

o
u
o
selCi

>^
ier iter a (bas

>^ c
u

"rt
rt
CO
in'

st national , or glo

d
o
>> o
2 o

o
3
c
UUI-

T3
CJ
c

,.^
CJ
CJ
it prnblcm s cause and ol

c
7^

.3
a
to

.2
—
ireei atiis for expatriat

G
"3
O

t/;
rea; caused by spouse ) lean

c
o

tn

_rt
jrcii

hi;
tc
rei

tb
.5 §)
e and to adju Itur

*
j

U
c:
u

CJ
tn

rt

:J
CJ
CJ

ntri| etal endo ies; press ure tow nen ition ol '

o
rr

"^
[UtIC

CJ
tn

rt
V.
£
c-

Ec r:

>>
rgai factor;

o
j ;

•a
%

^^
c-

CJ

o
a)

o
1—1
cn
^

nneli s were ask cie

25
26

c O O CO
CO
CJ ID o CO

rt c>j

E
3

n
0) .1-1
1
c

lapu
hos£
Uur
c

ten
o
dJ
c
! •a
!3 o
3 c u 3
c o
O "rt o "T o

ign
. organiz
cn
> c c
cn 's OJ 1 rt

i aero

lear a
betw€
Itures

avori

ria (b
arise
atlon
o

cies,

ria)
cn
5
be
N p—1

rt
•—1

"« rt
c CJ
3
CJ c >, g i-
3
"c
CJ
o c
CJ ty

c rt QJ
5 O
•-' 3 '" IH
rt o 3 'o r'. "rt CJ
C o o U

1
ario

judg
10 nil org;
Iities). 'rob lem; that
N

.)bal
O rt rt

men
isad

ncy
T;
S
"D >
13
"o
a
—• QJ tn
c
cn QJ cn "rt
Cfl

o —"

1
iona
c Ul
c •5 E rt
and

o cn "rt LI
O
*«-l T3

rob lem inc]

icie,

versal| licit
ill, S

ent pro ems

rt
Jcultur, ism

cn •—1
o rt
£ a>
o 1 cn
c
rt o iri wi cn" 2 o Q o

paths 1
y that c
re proc

of clari
st-coun
bL
entmen

a •1-1
c "rt
O c
c "S
O o ^
2 , rt cn c —1
c ^ •-I

E El o
3 t« o rt c o I^
IOI

S L'
O -5 o <U QJ
-o IH tu
^ • '

O
>. •—1
rt
i i o -3. rt = c
U

>>
§ •c
c c T: "rt
o
-

>> °
CJ
CJ
QJ
QJ
m 3
>, o
>—<
o tu 3 ,— rt
3
—1

3 a
—1
--' • — 1

a 3 1-, 3
mvis
tiltui

.tllUO

3tU0t

1
favo:
ost-

cuUi

Eiree
iUic
iffic

0)
a "ci5
c •a
Q Q CJ CJ c u Q
 27

•o
CD
O 9
CSI bi:
ci

r- o

:5
1 bfi 'S
L< —
_O
.i. cn tn tc u
OJ tc QJ c E
5 rt
t£ s cn > "c a
m 41
cn
co 'rt
CJ CJ .—J
^ 4
o 3 o • ~ i

o
lions

1
nvir(

leari

thei
3uoui

ntati
ing c

filisn

m"
jage
i
ure

a U cn c
3
aj
o bo
o 1-1 QJ c •—1
rt
i-
rt
£ o CJ
5; • : ;
N o
ani

3 u g o
u "rt QJ "rt 3 c —
rt
CJ a Q tn 'tn* tc tc ^^
u
out

lee
c o S'
rei

CJ
3 u rt
• ; ;

"rt o •3 c
e3 c a cr: .=: c o •n QJ
o ai
be "S o Ul
•c cn tn
5 QJ tc l-l QJ
_o
"toI H rt *"cn
CJ ^
rt

1o
:Iudi

cS c
luse

CJ "tn
res

res
ure

a
•—1 "o o cn o •a
o T; cn "rt
iip!

; j 3
c •5 u
rt "^ E cn "u "cn 3 6 :5' cr
.~ Si o o 3 > 3 a
—i
tc tn o b tn tn o z? y CD
tc >> E rt o cr
.s
t-i LI
OJ QJ G
rt ","T rt >. '^ of "" CJ
• _
Si SH
rt OJ r^ o
o d
• — *

u rt
use

—1 cr
o o
o
1
n. "tfl o o 1—4 3
.endc

mila
rnov

o cn —
icat ions
lack

tn QJ
o tc rt
cn
rt cn rt "o t£
1—1

a>
.lion

in n

"^ tn a
cn" • a rt rt
"rt "n QJ
>> E J £ rt CJ T J •o QJ " 5
c "rt ~ m O S '- O
T3 3 tn
rt ' o
g. 3 zn tn r:
5 5 rt a
c tn
CJ QJ
OJ
!_,
CJ
CJ
tn
o
t-i c
tc
3 vJ
f

^ > .
3
rt = st.
rt C
Jj
rt
o o QJ o o o I—< II CJ
O
U a o U
28

c
cn OJ
CJ CM in in
p CM CM CM CO
n cy
tc , _ tl 'J* CM CM
«-• . - I
- 1
ci
c •E ^
rt OH
I I
u — QJ
D QJ II
>->
-H .s

her
CJ rt"^
be
—f
? a I I
3 3

rt

aniz
CD

ten invis ible

:eria (home-
rt
cn g> a

problem
b£

derstand
3 arn tlie fore
d
o
r

1 cultures
cu

•4-t

tani zati<
o o C.
"c
a> o
ki
c
o "2
'u
o CQ
w rt
CIJ
u QJ i

'ard se gmen tati

L«
E

variou:3 cult ure

rt

the
3 u cn
o
CJ
J3 s conlpared with 1 c

lelea]

acies
ationai strui
i-,

lietol
0)
rt U
H CJ
*^
tn
QJ
§ CO

econ oniie e]

niultiIllation:
Iici 5 and practic

:IiuaD 3
ticultiuralisn
Si

and p ractice
3

lal cr iteria)
3
O t
u c
UJS

QJ
ID "en U
c
cause
ionali

incl cling i
cultu
rs QJ
rt

UIOJ]
o a
QJ o rt
bL "c
III

o c CJ
3 -p cn -Q CJ m "o 3
cn

nusju dgn
DID
CJ
£ "S
ess

cn OJ
CJ
M o" 1—* QJ |,
o

utliori
gos ol

probl
tors a

:patri;

o c c o c "o

novel aused
u
i
a O
rt tc
J3
"rt a
CJ tc "rt tn bc rt

irdina tin
rose:n t i
IOI

cs CJ
•E o rt •u
3 =
CJ
CJ
tfl be
c
[ uiiivi
SO led
enden

d adji

elopii
igemf

"rt be "en
o
o •I
S
rt cn
CU • a = 5 - o - c i-, rt c ?
>
b£
>. —;
o u o
•a d

1
OUl
uac

tc f >^ c
lty
sed

•J > i

o o rt •—1
tn CJ QJ <-•
rt ^ tc 3
COUI

UUIt
3rei

r
are

ere

•a
J o rt
:^ C
u o c tL, Q U
 29

0)
t~ t- c-
CO CO to
.-H T-H •—I

I I 1
rt ^ J3

CO
I ) i 1 i i
O _^ ^

a;
"O n oj
q o L<
rt O O
BO 1 t
cn •a
a OJ
c "rt "rt
-C
a 0 0 05
d 5 "^ u X) cQJ
nvironi

they a
ocentri

fcD
: favor

0 0
cn
those

CJ
!^
nic tioii

E <u CJ
3 03 T3
<u d LI c "d d u % 5 IH ^—f
C
0) rt
"d
3
5 3
3 rt
0 CJ •—<
ices.

cn
ultui

CU 3
lves

0 0
ion)

.1-1 tD cn
E d 0 d
fl)
CJ 0 cn 3 c U "^
0 tu 0
E 5 "rt m P
C
3
fc£)
0 •H
E CJ • ^ ^ C
> dJ C
& d >> to
rt 0 to
QJ
T3 > .
0 aj
s- tn
CJ d CJ

tn
c
—J .4-1
-—*
c
QJ
U .4-J
tn
3
rt
rt
1
"O
0
cn
'O
d
£ .s rtC
(U 0 C " ^ "O 3 _
QJ cn
0 0
*-; . 1 ^
TT
c rt CO 0 a
3 cn U
c m
u OJ tD i3 u "d
rt
ive

E .S CJ cn
••->
a; cr
"3 -l_t 0 0
0 cn •c
U OJ tH tJ t-l
u
J2 0 cn
QJ
rt
S
lect

crc

0 cn
c 0 u _^ 0 C cn "
0 — tJ}
c
0
CQ •D
f—1 5 cl 5 CJ
0 cn c
0 •n "rt 3 cn --
omin nic

>.
b rt cn
-a _^
a
: ^ •a rt
c^ d cn <u cn
"rt cn
pro'

3
noti

1—1 f .
zatioi
onalil
ees 0

rood f

iimila
.alion

other

^1
0 CJ
3
111:

0
0 5 CJ GJ

.£* 0 CJ ••-1
cn --• rt
> .

c :::; rt c: •c d a 0
—
3
tn c
^y
rt d c "^ CJ CJ 0
s" u rt rt u g. LH
0 c
0 d 0
u 0
Zl CJ
Si 0
r- o" r
I-"
1 I 1
3
rt 0 *i * j
0 tb
1 1 1 cn ..^ rt u CJ
c 0
u
30 Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

leading to future benefits. With regard to present benefits, the

central questions being asked seem to be: How can one mini-
n:ii2e the impact of culture on the organization? and How can
one use a single, universal approach to manage the traditional
organizational functions throughout an international organiza-
tion's worldwide operations? In direct contrast, the central
question for understanding future benefits seems to be: How
can organizations recognize the culturally specific behavior
patterns of individuals within the firm and coordinate them in
such a way as to increase the effectiveness of the entire firm?
The benefit seen as potentially Increasing the most in the fu-
ture from its current level was "creating a unifying organiza-
tional culture based on the best of all members' national cul-
tures." This benefit might be labeled cultural synergy — con- *
sidering cultural diversity a resource for the organization
rather than a disadvantage to be minimized by the organization.
The important shift from a universal approach to integrated,
culturally specific approaches was also reflected in many of
the other responses to the Delphi study.

Disadvantages of Multiculturalism to the Organization

As in the case of benefits, the DELPHI panel was asked to

identify the problems and disadvantages caused by multicul-
turalism that were currently hindering organizations and those
that were projected to hinder organizations in the future.
Table 6 lists the current disadvantages of multiculturalism.
As shown in Table 7, the most important future problems fore-
seen by the experts were:
— difficulties in coordinating policies and practices across
cultures (79.2 percent);
— difficulties in integrating people from different cultures
(75 percent);
— host-country resentment of multinational organizations
(75 percent);
— cultural dominance or ethnocentrism — use of one cul-
ture's perspective in managing the entire organization (87.5
percent).
Issues to Be Faced 31

As can be seen in Tables 5 and 8, the experts did not see

nearly as great a difference between current and future prob-
lems as they did between current and future benefits. Seven
benefits changed in importance (either increasing or decreas-
ing) by more than 25 percent, whereas the importance of only
three problems changed by this amount. Furthermore, the
changes in importance in all three problems were decreases,
whereas the changes in five of the seven benefits were in-
creases. As shown inTable 8, the present problems, which were
seen by at least 25 percent of the DELPHI panel as decreasing in
importance in the future, were: (1) the projection of greater
similarity among cultures than will actually be the case ( (33.3
percent), (2) career management problems caused by creating
culturally second-class employees ( 129.2 percent), and (3) high
communication costs due to language training and translation
( t29.2 percent).
This pattern of relative stability in the ranked importance
of the major problems but relatively large changes in the im-
portance of the major benefits suggests that multicultural prob-
lems may currently be better understood than multicultural
benefits, that the greatest payback to the organization may come
from understanding and enhancing the benefits of multicultural-
ism rather than from attempting to further reduce or eliminate
the problems. The fact that "cultural dominance" — using one
culture's approach to management — is listed both as a major
current problem and as a major future problem suggests that
the experts associate minimizing recognition of cultural diver-
sity within the organization with disadvantages, not with advan-
tages. Minimizing recognition of cultural diversit;' is seen as
hampering — not enhancing — the realization of advantages by
the organization. These DELPHI results, if applied to manage-
ment practice, could signal a major change in the ^proach to
managing cultural diversity.
Rec ommendations
The Most Important Human-Resources Issues Facing Multi-
cultural Organizations
Human-resources issues facing multicultural organizations
32 • Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

were seen as being a function of either cultural diversity or

geographic dispersion or as being endemic to organizations in
general. They involve the organization's relationship to its
environment and the individual's relationship to the organiza-
tion.

Organization level

As shown in Table 9, more than 50 percent of the DELPHI

panel identified the following organization-level issues as b e -
ing of major importance:
— determining the applicability of the parent company's
structures and strategies to various host-country operations
(83.3 percent);
— coordinating management values and ethical standards
across cultures (75 percent);
— managing the relationship between MNCs and host-coun-
try government and political systems (75 percent);
— increasing respect for the sociocultural aspects of enter-
prise (70.8 percent);
— determining the locus of control between headquarters
and foreign subsidiaries (66.7 percent).
The question underlying these organization-level issues ap-
pears to be the extent to which universal policies (usually
those of the home organization) are applicable abroad versus
the extent to which culturally specific ways of managing must
be implemented within each country. Furthermore, given that
organizations are seen as needing to implement many cul-
turally specific ways of managing, the experts saw a major
need to coordinate diverse and often divergent operations
within the same organization.

Individual level

As shown in Table 9, 50 percent or more of the DELPHI

panel identified the following issues concerning the individual's
relationship to the organization as being of major importance:
Issues to Be Faced 33

— training managers to be sensitive to cultural considera-

tions (83.3 percent);
— locating (58.3 percent) and selecting (66.7 percent) pro-
fessionally and culturally competent job candidates;
— developing equitable, worldwide, compensation packages
(62.5 percent) and assessment systems (54.2 percent);
— managing the international transfer of spouse and family
(62.5 percent) as well as of the employee (50 percent);
— creating clear career paths for international managers
(50 percent).
When viewed in light of the literature on international man-
agers, a number of aspects of this list become quite important.
First, it is interesting to note that "training managers t9 be
sensitive to cultural considerations" was seen as being more
important than either locating or selecting competent job candi-
dates. From the perspective of the DELPHI experts, the ma-
jor issue was training — i.e., creating cross-culturally skilled
managers — not selection, not finding appropriately skilled
managers. This is the reverse of what appears to be a com-
mon perception of many managers and researchers: that selec-
tion is the primary. If not the only, issue. (4)
A second important aspect of the experts' rankings is that
successfully transferring the spouse and family was seen as
more important than managing the employee's own transfer.
This is consistent with the now-growing body of research on
international transfers (Miller, 1972, 1973; Tung, 1979) indi-
cating that lack of adaptability of the spouse is one of the most
important reasons for foreign-assignment failure and early
return.
A third important aspect of the experts' rankings is their
focus on "creating clear career paths for international man-
agers." Traditionally, the most common reason for interna-
tional transfers has been to fill specific positions (Erdstrom
and Galbraith, 1977). The career aspect of international trans-
fers has frequently been neglected by organizations. On the
other hand, many employees accept overseas transfers with
the expectation of advancing their careers. When employees
34

C
a; o CO
QJ CD in to o to
CO CO
CD

C
rt
be

o QJ
tn
c
"d o
u a.
cn
QJ

G. ^to "O
d >i J
I- p o ^ 0)
QJ " rt
CJ CJ
-S g. cn d o
QJ P

O it
fc-
3
O
O
o
CJ QJ TJ P P
^ QJ
d P "0
"rt '-< O Q-

QJ *J £
o 53
•§ o £ tn S,
3" CJ t>. p £ «-,

"3 3 a, o
d
-^ ow QJ ^
o
r^ •-' o rt 6 OJ
i= •a.
^ ." 2 ^
tL
P
•u tn
0) O C P u 3 t4
> QJ 3 O r% CJ
•;: P o d O o
= " CJ
3
-.
QJ I _5
bD jJ
I
O CJ
a>
^
tn _>,
£ rt tn o rt q O rt
£ -a 2 P o rt
S m En
-a
^ d oI
o
tc x: CL tJT
bD <^
o cn -^
d ^ '3 tn
tn aj —
o ^; rt
x:
Q Q
 35

c- in in CO CO in CO CO
to CQ CQ CO o in
CO CO CO in in in CO CO

CO CO CO

cn
QJ CJ
be •-*
c: '^
•^ B V CJ
S '^ tA
dJ
0 rt 3 d
o •c bD
CJ '-' rt ? ,^ I QJ
tu CJ CJ
— OJ
o cn
CJ

OJ
1 2 d. CJ
2 CJ
OJ tj
a "d
bj
£ CO*
a^ — o 3 2. TJ
c;
CJ
S3
rt
= 2 ^
CO
o
CJ
w
o
tn
rt
CJ
CJ
d
rt >,
tn
I-
o bp
a
cn
d
O
"rt
£
= o CU ^ J3
u
c
j ^
tD
•^ rt
.2 "3. o "rt o rt
CJ CJ
u
C QJ
rt 3 O
5 S P
QJ CL —' Si .S
0) C ;2 ta .._ •a >,
"m c tD
g ° rt c tn
13 to
111 QJ y ^
CJ '•—
"rt P •3 rt i4 y 5
OJ C CJ CJ c : , £
•;: rt t. CJ p _^
Ul d .. CO -n
rt Si o CJ rt QJ O
.S cn 13 O .5 y c 5 :^
a «* S^ tp
t£
CO E
tD
CO .2 — c
t0 o GJ
g

(H "OJ
d d
OJ
CO rt .iJ "co ^ o " rt
S CO ^ tD rt o
o 5 dJ> CJ d > > i
—
d
'—I
-^
— o J3 OJc
T3 cn CJ •~; rt ^ d i^ rt rt o ;H >
o CJ
Q —' tj S S a
36

CO CO
CO CO en 03
CO eg

3
2,

CM ro
3 O eg eg
o
OJ

"a
CO

o
4-)
13
V
cn
c CJ
o
o XI
XJ rt
•—1 en
c o
o cn
u
Ol "S
rt
U
2

3 w

S E5
.s ^ I .2 Q
CO
CU a OJ
3
en
en
cn r- cn o w
= c c .=! c
c cu o c: o en = o CM
o '—I
^ 5 OJ O
tD —' -2
->
QJ y o
QJ t i Si - ^ cu B- 2 o
^ CJ ^ 3 -= S
•^ Q. -^ GJ -I O
tD ^ to -^ to CJ to
!iC 1= .£ ^ -S ^ cn
rt =;
cu 2 — ^ o ^^
p o t-c "^
o^ tD "^ u -5 'S o
~ :j ~
O 3
cn
Issues to Be Faced • 37

return to their home organization, they often discover that their

domestic colleagues have advan-ced more rapidly than they have,
that they have been left behind (Adler, 1980; Howard, 1974;
Murray, 1973). (^) Creating international career paths is a
way of addressing this major problem.
Fourth, only 25 percent of the experts identified "sending
women overseas as international managers" as a major issue.
Even though most organizations are Just beginning to send
women overseas and fewer than 4 percent of all expatriates
currently sent abroad by North American organizations are
women (Adler, 1983), the majority of the experts did not be-
lieve that gender was, or would become, a major issue in ex-
patriate effectiveness.

Skills and Abilities Most Necessary for

Managing in a Multicultural Organization

In DELPHI I, the experts listed skills and abilities needed

to work successfully in cross-cultural environments. In
DELPHI II, they ranked each skill and ability according to its
importance. Four categories were identified;
(1) Professional and managerial skills; skills a manager
would have to have to work in both a domestic and a multina-
tional environment.
(2) Personal and social skills: skills managers would need
to manage their relationships with other people successfully —
whether in a domestic or an international environment.
(3) Cross-cultural and international skills; skills that are
particularly important for managers working in geographically
dispersed, multicultural environments.
(4) Spouse and family qualities: qualities the spouse and/or
family needs to adapt successfully to living in a culturally dif-
ferent environment.
International managers were seen as needing skills from
each category. As shown in Table 10, 70 percent or more of
the DELPHI panel agreed that the following skills were very
important:
38

c
c CJ
to
cu
CJ o O
a; t- in in
CJ
u —. co
« CJ
CO II

cn c LH
(1)
"a "" XJ
.4-1
rt c •—(
rt
DH
C
C3
IH

sponse
;quency
o

ank of
"ca

of
c
o
CJ
d
C *^

o .S
1
3 rt3 c
o 1
_o o cn bo 1 s

1 legal a

sonal fa'
the abili
)cal lang

id exeha
turity, s

al identi

nowledg

culture!

ate hier
'includin
language

underst
CJ
"rt

parent
o
sful

V] d c c "? a
tc u d
nto fij o c rt o dj c QJ
o OJ m Cl.
c o •5 m
u "rt o c o -a o S
o 2 QJ 3 c m c
, incl

Uteri
cultu;re si

learn
lotior

icludi

irobh
atiorI, inc
COUIntrie

from
a
2: o o
(0 ci rr u f *rt
. lOSi

Is jn
1
£ c rt >.
ired

.—1 CJ Q.
•a
o In ••-1

"rt Tl d /-\
3 c ci tn Q N
o *-* "2
HI
d CJ 3 rt 5 3
cr
cu 3
Q
>.
CJ
CJ
•;-;
c _rt L-
rt TJ ,__ O rt
1
r*4 3 r- •c
•a
erni

abili
;ioci
.thst

letei
3use
vate
ncef

.war

O tD

!cor
tes

m "rt Ly

s •S
o
a c o
n >^ r-C^ u.
CJ CJ •c
OJ —- OJ
>
••-<•

[ i n f o r m nl io
rcliy (fo:r bo
or adapt atio

olitical sysl

late

CO o o "cj
rt C
CQ
OJ
c M rt
i-H
O 1
ility of 1
0 be seU

onipany)
strong s

roven tr
OSS-cull

OW ledge
< _c >i
LH
rt m
"rt Eb O
"o rt
N
tD
o atD
• ^
<
d rt c c rt *^
 39

CO eo t- c- i n CM i n CO
o* o" CD to CO CC3 o ir> i n
t- c- CD CO CO <O i n in in • « <

fl. 5 u 0,
o
p
u c CJ 1
O

">
"o rt
cn QJ

o
s £ CJ
^H
I
c
3 Ss
TI d
3bal, pro:

)cai:
over;seas assi
noce
iltur

pre(

QJ
ints

nd le gal
" ^
"o tD
O m C CJ O
lerio!

jourc
tmos pliert
ivale

o c •3
i
CJ OJ

o o d
tiess '

. alon

skills
if ere

iffere

be
ience

o
enge

CJ
dj
o cn "tic
c cn
tD p
cn P rt QJ
"2 c
o S-I
bal

-a re CJ 'ci
roi

IH
CJ CJ rt *—. XI CJ _aj
OJ QJ 3

t
ctivi

tenii
acci
inch

llg-t

1
rid 1 ron

can

CJ
o C Ii
ccisi ons and

>• d cu u "tD CJ
•o m
iocul tura]
ily's will

of its

iwar enes
edbn
;rent

rt
Lence: and

O 'o u
ecis:ions

OJ
a- "3
m tn • a m o CJ
2 o
aware ne

o
age witli
ratei

S-,
llin gnes

QJ
rt 1—1
o
CJ
IH tc d tL

1 cC
and

1 "5 •g c>.
izii

TI tc w "rt CJ
o > CJ "5 c. CJ
o tp c o o
c
CJ
"n c
f£ rt "E tL
>

o
aj x:
o cn
^
cn
cn
•-
CJ
S)
o —-^ "rt
tj
1 o
o
CJ
'3 i;m
u IH
rt
N

I—
.3
•n 1I o m' _o
CJ Si
LH

tn
o o -i u
t
)ilif
hni

UUI

CU 3 >>
ile
lify

tn -
1^
4—1

:=
rt
a a
rt ,2 cn
1§o "3 a 3 jQ 15 o rj
£ •a
< CO H U <
<
<; Cj
40

QJ eo eo CM O C-
<U
IH
cn i n CD
CO eo CO
bD
O
(0
VI
"a
o
c 3
rt 3 d
z
tu
•3 ^ m
i n t o tr-
c
IH
_w
3 3 g
<1J
eM eM CM CJ j-J

a h iH *. 6 -^
bD O O
3 t- W
2 > I-"
£ E o -J
O
>• "rt !3
II §j;
.- o M rt
^ OJ
•?; tD j 2
"-H t l d
o 3 =; o ^
LH Li C m
rt o 5 rt
Si
rt "
o
to p cn d CO QJ "to m .5
c c m o c c •^ tD
o o o 5 C
JI S CJ 3
CJ
cn
i^ tD x: c
3 •a CM O o
O CJ
m I
Q. cn cn
cn cj m

tD
tD .5 11
>.» *^**- CJ
O
l
3

c d .5
D re = = ::^e "d= "cn •n
tu
jH tn H —. -
..~ d M °o rc
rt .—
.2 "
CJ -"
o ,_^
.^ r? ' .^j /i\ ^^
m T3
5
**^ ^^
o
c
d
CJ
u
QJ
.5 o. -
IH
"CJ CJ >,
ty ° " c " X!
£ § I CJ =
CJ w ^ .-
^
o rt m o c
tD
£
^
CD O 3 ^ CJ —: ^
> i O T3
C C
O C =J O S 3 2 = d S £ ^
rt
—* CJ ^ rt o •2- rt rt "H
;: -a tn O CJ
c t- O I rt
== c) 3^ rt tD ZJ O i -J
T3 CJ - 5 3 C S' O. CJ
rt CJ 'm
x: o = o tH . 2 o o d 3 d rt 0) 2 3
IH e3 > cn XI ft > * o
-- c 3 d ^
a o ^ tn
Issues to Be Faced 41

— a strong self-concept and emotional maturity; the ability

to withstand cultural shock and to maintain a strong personal
identity while living in a foreign culture {87.5 percent);
— ability of the spouse to adapt, to be self-motivated, and to
learn the local language (87.5 percent);
— awareness of such things as the history, sociocultural pat-
terns, and legal and political systems of the countries in which
the organization operates (87.5 percent);
— ability and willingness to relate to people from other cul-
tures, including learning foreign languages (79.2 percent);
— managerial competence and experience, including a proven
track record and demonstrated loyalty to the parent company
(75.0 percent);
— knowledge of the people and power relationships within
the organization (75.0 percent);
— ability to view the world from multiple perspectives
(70.8 percent);
— ability to behave differently in different cultural settings
(70.8 percent).
The list includes cognitive understanding, affective appreci-
ation, and behavioral skills. It recognizes that it is not only
the employee but also the spouse and other fam.ily members
who must function effectively in the foreign culture. The range
of recommended skills and abilities goes beyond those neces-
sary to succeed in a domestic environment. As previously
noted, the consensus was that organizations should generally
choose to train — rather than select — for these skills.

Summary and Conclusions

Cross-cultural management is dominated by one question:

Given increasingly multicultural and multinational work en-
vironments, what must managers do to produce results effec-
tively and efficiently ? Studies in this area continue to be char-
acterized by numerous unrelated results in search of integra-
tion. The DELPHI study was designed to move a step closer
toward integrating knowledge of cross-cultural management
42 Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

into a form that could be applied by managers working in inter-

national settings. A number of significant clarifications and
contributions were produced for both future use and future con-
sideration by researchers and managers.
First, the study clearly defined multiculturalism within an
organizational setting. More importantly, it identified the two
primary dimensions that differentiate multinational from do-
mestic organizations: geographic dispersion and multicul-
turalism. The effect of geographic dispersion and multicul-
turalism on the organization was understood to be complexity,
which must be managed through more sophisticated integrating
mechanisms than are necessary within monocultural domestic
organizations.
Second, both advantages and disadvantages of multicultural-
ism to the organization were identified. Currently recognized
advantages come primarily from worldwide "universal" ap-
proaches; potential advantages, which might be realized in the
future, come primarily from effectively integrating numerous
culturally specific approaches. Until now benefits have tended
to be based on the geographic dispersion aspect of multina-
tionals, whereas future benefits are likely to derive more di-
rectly from the multicultural aspect. This distinction was
highlighted by the fact that cultural synergy — creating a uni-
fying organizational culture based on the best of all members'
national cultures — was considered the advantage in which there
would be the greatest increase in the future.
Third, the differences between current and future advantages
were seen to be much greater than those between current and
future problems. This pattern of relative stability in the im-
portance of major problems and much greater changes in the
importance of major benefits suggests that the academic and
management communities understand the problems of multi-
culturalism better than the advantages. This finding is not
surprising since multiculturalism has generally been viewed
as a problem to be managed rather than as a resource to be
utilized.
Fourth, managers working in multinational work environ-
Issues to Be Faced 43
ments were judged to need: (1) professional and managerial
skills, (2) personal and social skills, (3) cross-cultural and
international skills, and (4) spouses and families who could
adapt to foreign environments. In other words, multinational
managers should have all the skills requisite for domestic
management plus those cross-cultural and international skills
that make for effectiveness in geogra^Dhically dispersed, multi-
cultural, work environments.
The DELPHI study is not definitive. As designed, it inte-
grates existing knowledge of cross-cultural management and
suggests distinct new areas for future research and action.

Notes

1) See the article by A. Laurent in this journal.

2) H. Triandis (1980) "Culture as a Boundary to Organiza-
tional Theories." Paper presented at the American Psycho-
logical Association Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Sep-
tember 1980.
3) For a detailed discussion of the symposium process, see
the previous issue of this journal (Winter 1982-83, Vol. XII,
No. 4, pp. 7-22). Copies of the presymposium materials (ab-
stracts, biographical sketches of the participants, and compre-
hensive bibliographies) are available from; McGill Interna-
tional Symposium on Cross-cultural Management, Faculty of
Management, McGill University, 1001 ouest, rue Sherbrooke,
Montreal,Quebec, Canada H3A 1G5.
4) M. F. Tucker (1974) "Screening and Selection for Over-
seas Assignment: Assessment and Recommendations to the
U.S. Navy," Denver, Colo.: Center for Research and Educa-
tion.
5) N. J. Adler (1980) "Re-entry: A Study of the Dynamic
Coping process Used by Repatriated Employees to Enhance
Effectiveness in the Organization and Personal Learning dur-
ing the Transition Back into the Home Country." Unpublished
dissertation. Los Angeles. Calif.: University' of California at
Los Angeles.
44 Nancy J. Adler (Canada)

References

Adler, N . J . (1983) "Cross-cultural Management Research:

The Ostrich and the Trend." Academy of Management R e -
view. In P r e s s .
Adler, N. J. (1983) "Women in International Management: •
Where Are They?" To be published in California Manage-
ment Review,
Adler, N. J. (1980) "Re-entry: Managing Cross-cultural Transi-
tions." Group and Organization Studies, 6(3), 341-56.
Campbell, R. M. (1968) "The Delphi Technique: Implementa-
tion in the Corporate Environment." Management Services.
Report Number 11, Graduate School of Business Adminis-
tration, University of Southern California, March 1969.
Child, J. D. (1981) "Culture, Contingency and Capitalism in
the Cross-national Study of Organizations." In L. L. Cum-
mings and B, M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Publishers. Vol. Ill,
pp. 303-356.
Dalkey, N. C. (1969) The Delphi Method: An Experimental
Study of Group Opinion. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand
Corporation.
Dalkey, N. C. (1972) Studies in the Quality of Life: Delphi and
Decision-making. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. •
Dalkey, N. C , and Helmer, O. (1963) "An Experimental Ap-
plication of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts."
Management Science, 9, 458-67.
Edstrom, A., and Gaibraith, J. (1977) "Managerial Transfer
as a Coordination and Control Strategy: The Multinational
Case." Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 242-63.
Fusfield, A. R., and Foster, R. N. (1971) "The Delphi Tech-
nique: Survey and Comment." Business Horizons, June,
pp. 63-74.
Hofstede,G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Howard, C. (1974) "The Returning Overseas Executive: Culture
Issues to Be Faced 45

Shock in Reverse." Human Resources Management,

, 22-26.
Linstone, H. A., and Turoff, M. (Eds.) (1975) The Delphi
Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Miller, E. L. (1972) "The Overseas Assignment: How Manag-
ers Determine Who Is to Be Selected." Michigan Business
Review, May, pp. 12-19.
Miller, E. L. (1973) "The International Selection Decision: A
Study of Some Dimensions of Managerial Behavior in the
Selection Decision Process." Academy of Management
Journal, 16(2), 239-52.
Murray, J. A. (1973) "International Personnel Repatriation:
•Cultural Shock in Reverse." MSU Business Topics, Sum-
mer, pp. 59-66.
Renwick, G. (ed.), Adler, N. J., Moran, R. T., and Russell; P.
(1981) The Management of Intercultural Relations in Inter-
national Business. Chicago: Intercultural Press.
Sackman, H. (1975) Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion, Fore-
casting and Group Process. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.
Tung.R. L. (1979) "U.S. Multinationals: A Study of Their
Selection and Training for Overseas Assignments."
Academy of Management Proceedings, 39, 298-301.
Welty, G. (1972) "Problems in Selecting Experts for Delphi
Exercises." Academy of Management Jotirnal, 15(1),
121-24.