Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iirp20

International Review of Psychiatry

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iirp20

Positive intercultural management in the fourthindustrial revolution: managing cultural othernessthrough a paradigm shift

Christoph Barmeyer & Claude-Hélène Mayer

To cite this article: Christoph Barmeyer & Claude-Hélène Mayer (2020) Positive interculturalmanagement in the fourth industrial revolution: managing cultural otherness through a paradigmshift, International Review of Psychiatry, 32:7-8, 638-650, DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2019.1699033

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2019.1699033

Published online: 29 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 112

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Positive intercultural management in the fourth industrial revolution:managing cultural otherness through a paradigm shift

Christoph Barmeyera and Claude-H�el�ene Mayerb,c

aDepartment of Intercultural Communication, University of Passau, Germany; bDepartment of Industrial Psychology and PeopleManagement, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; cInstitut f€ur therapeutische Kommunikation undSprachgebrauch, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

ABSTRACTThe authors argue that a paradigm shift in intercultural management is needed to withdrawfrom a problem-oriented perspective – stressing the differences and difficulties of interculturalinteractions – and foster a solution-oriented, positive psychology perspective, taking PP1.0 andPP2.0, the first and second wave of positive psychology, into account. This Positive InterculturalManagement (PIM) perspective, thereby provides new directions to intercultural managementduring the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The article contributes to filling the void of PIM by dem-onstrating and promoting the positive, complementary and synergistic experiences in intercul-tural management interactions. On the basis of negotiated culture and intercultural synergy, thearticle describes and discusses positive factors contributing to PIM, such as interculturally com-petent actors; organizational structures such as intercultural tandems; and negotiated processesmediated by boundary spanners. It further addresses previously discussed challenging issues,such as cultural othering and awareness in intercultural management. Practical implicationsrelate to key actors in PIM, such as managers or consultants, who need to change the perspec-tive from problem-focused to solution-orientated PIM in international and global managementcontexts, in order to steer intercultural negotiation processes so that they promote complemen-tarity and synergy.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 24 October 2019Accepted 26 November 2019

KEYWORDSBoundary spanning; culturalcomplementarity; intercul-tural management;intercultural synergy;intercultural tandem/dyads;negotiated culture;organizational management;positive psychology (PP1.0and PP2.0)

Introduction

Over several decades, Cross-Cultural and InterculturalManagement (CCM; ICM) research has developedinto a highly relevant field that has spawned import-ant research of a both conceptual and empiricalnature (Phillips & Sackmann, 2015).

Describing the development of the field, Sackmannand Phillips (2004) distinguish three streams ofresearch: Firstly, the Cross-national Comparisonstream assumes an equivalence of nation-state andculture. Culture is here considered as a given andimmutable individual characteristic. Therefore, gener-alizations, clustering as well as cross-national testingof organizational theories, processes and practices arepossible. Secondly, the Intercultural Interaction streamconsiders culture as socially constructed. National,organizational and subcultures, as well as identity,are important contextualized aspects. New culturesare constructed through interaction, emerge and arenegotiated. Thirdly, the Multiple Cultures stream

views culture as a socially constructed collective phe-nomenon that recognizes the complexity of personalidentity in organizational settings, for example, themultiplicity of cultures. The salience of any culturalgroup depends on the particular case, taking culturaldifferences and similarities into account.

Sackmann and Phillips’ classification of researchshows that role concepts and work practices of manag-ers are increasingly shaped through dynamic, multiplecultures, forms of cooperation and work-setting cul-tures which result from hybrid meanings and actions(Brannen & Salk, 2000; Mayer, Boness, & Louw, 2017;Person, May, & Mayer, 2016). These are constructedand negotiated (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009) byrepresentatives from various cultural groups.

In this article, it is argued that the cross-culturaland intercultural management perspective furthershould be anchored in a positive psychology approachwhich most functionally takes the solution-orienta-tion, a strong constructive value base and the positive

CONTACT Claude-H�el�ene Mayer claudemayer@gmx.net Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University ofJohannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa� 2020 Institute of Psychiatry and Johns Hopkins University

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY2020, VOL. 32, NOS. 7–8, 638–650https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2019.1699033

approach to intercultural management into account(Mayer, 2019a; Mayer, Vanderheiden, & Oosthuizen,2019). This seems to be particularly valid in the con-text of the rapid changes within the Fourth IndustrialRevolution. Recently, it has been argued that for thefuture and new workplaces within the context of theFourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), particularly PP1.0and PP2.0 approaches can be very valuable and needto be considered when exploring concepts of digital-ization, artificial intelligence, future workplace skills,smart technologies, as well as abilities of employees,for example, driving innovative and creative manage-ment within international management contexts for-ward (Mayer et al., 2019). This article adopts thispreviously mentioned perspective and builds on itfurther.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is particularlybased on the idea that within the 21st-century work-places, employees and organizations experience a shifttowards the use of technological equipment, increaseddigitalization, growing interconnection of employeesand organizations across the globe, constant informa-tion trade and new systemic approaches to deal withand manage the new complexities of work (Hecklau,Galeitzke, Flachs, & Kohl, 2016). Schwab (2017) haspointed out that the Fourth Industrial revolution doesreshape economic, social, cultural and human inter-action and it is assumed here that CCM and ICM willneed new, in-depth and positive approaches to dealwith the new complexity of automized production,human–machine interaction, increasing diverse work-forces who all aim for smart work solutions (Bloemet al., 2014; Eberhard et al., 2017). The authors fur-ther take note of Nikitina and Lapina (2017) whoargue that in the Fourth Industrial Revolution newmanagerial skills and competencies are needed to pro-ceed forward. It is argued here that a positive CCMand ICM driven actively by employees and managerscontribute positively to managing the FourthIndustrial Revolution and the workplaces successfully.

The problem-orientation in CCM and ICMresearch

Fontaine (2007), in the Anglo–American tradition,differentiates between the concepts cross-cultural(CCM) and inter-cultural management (ICM). InFrench (Chevrier, 2003) and German-speaking(Mahadevan, 2017) scientific contexts; however, theconcept of CCM includes both, comparative andintercultural aspects of culture on organizations andmanagement. Mahadevan (2017, p. 3) underlines this

difference: ‘The term cross-cultural (“across cultures”)implies a cultural comparison [… ]. Conversely, inter-cultural (“between cultures”) refer[s] to interactionsbetween representatives of different cultures and thepossibility of overcoming those differences.’

Building on the insights of social constructivism(Berger & Luckmann, 1966), interculturality is definedas a dynamic process of joint construction and nego-tiation of meaning and action (Brannen & Salk, 2000;Mayer et al., 2019; Romani, Sackmann, & Primecz,2011). Based on this social constructivist perspectiveand as according to Sackmann and Phillips (2004),ICM is here understood in terms of the interactionistCCM perspective which includes actors of differentcultural backgrounds who work together in mutualcommunication, adaptation and learning processes.

Since its inception, research in CCM has beendominated by an interest in differences caused by cul-turally influenced values, norms and practices inwork-relations (Hofstede, 1980; House, Dorfman,Javidan, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2014; House,Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) and bythe difficulties and challenges these differences maycause (French, 2015). This problem-focussed view hasbeen demonstrated most recently (Cameron, 2017;Stahl & Tung, 2015). In a content analysis of articlespublished over a period of almost 20 years in theCross Cultural Management: An International Journal(CCM), Stahl and Tung (2015, 400) find an imbalancein theoretical assumptions between research on thenegative over the positive role of culture. They pre-sent how the problems and disadvantages are high-lighted and their advantages and innovative potentialare largely disregarded.

Numerous approaches understand interculturalityas a dynamic, reciprocal, unforeseeable and contex-tualized process rather than attributing irritations andmisunderstandings solely to national cultural influen-ces (Bjerregaard, Lauring, & Klitmøller, 2009; Treichel& Mayer, 2011). Nevertheless, there is a significantproblem-orientation within ICM research (Stahl,Miska, Lee, & Sully de Luque, 2017) in which inter-culturality is often defined by actors’ cultural differen-ces and thus their diverging perceptions of meaningand interpretation (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009).Intercultural interactions are frequently captured informs of critical incidents (critical incident technique,CIT, Flanagan, 1954) which are per se defined as posi-tive and/or negative/effective and/or ineffective, butare, when collected in empirical studies mainly refer-ring to as problematic and/or even conflictual inter-cultural situations, which derive from diverging

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 639

expectations, norms and interpretations of actors ofdifferent cultural backgrounds. With regard to thisproblem-oriented tradition, the emphasis on differen-ces and problems dominates research in InternationalBusiness (IB), ICM and CCM research (Mayer, 2011)due to the fact that negative experiences are oftenexperienced accompanied by strong emotions andbecause the need for bringing about change and forfinding solutions is emphasized. Stahl and Tung(2015, 395) explain with regard to CCM:

While there are suggestions in the literature thatcultural diversity can offer meaningful positiveopportunities to individuals, groups, and organizations,we argue – and demonstrate empirically – that theproblem-focused view of cultural diversity is by farpredominant in research on culture in InternationalBusiness. In other words, we know much less about thepositive dynamics and outcomes associated withcultural differences than we know about the problems,obstacles, and conflicts caused by them.

Based on 244 articles published in the Journal ofInternational Business Studies (JIBS), Stahl and Tung(2015) categorized the articles related to culture andinterculturality as theoretical papers, empirical paperswith theoretical assumptions and empirical paperswith empirical results with either a negative, neutral/mixed or positive perspective on cultural differences:Only 4% of the theoretical papers, 5% of the empiricalpapers with theoretical assumptions and 7% of empir-ical papers with empirical results consider positiveeffects of cultural diversity (Stahl & Tung, 2015, 397).Additionally, a content analysis of 400 papers from18 years of research in Cross Cultural Management: AnInternational Journal (CCM) showed even to a lesserdegree positive or constructive effects of ICM in total.In empirical studies no positive effects of ICM werefound at all. The studies identified by Stahl and Tung(2015) which identify culture as neutral or positivevariables, are usually quantitatively oriented or meta-studies, but do not include case studies which ratherfocus on the negative aspects of CCM and ICM.Cameron (2008, 2017) highlights that, still, social sci-entists view and analyse negative phenomena ratherthan positive ones, due to the fact that they exert astronger or at least more visible influence on socialsystems and interactions. Negative phenomena andresults, such as those experienced in cross-bordermergers or management interactions, receive increasedattention, because they appear more interesting(Margolis & Walsh, 2003). ICM research is stronglyinfluenced by Western European and North Americanthinking and is therefore based on a rather linear logic

that emphasizes contrasts and polarities (good vs. bad)rather than emphasizing holisticness (Fang, 2012).

For these reasons, constructive and positive aspectsin CCM and ICM are hardly represented in manage-ment books, such as in Peterson and Sondergaard(2008) four-volume Foundations of Cross-CulturalManagement, which includes ‘classics’ from five deca-des of research. It only contains one article on con-structive aspects in CCM, namely Adler’s paper oncultural synergy (1980, 2008). The same is true forthe Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management, editedby Gannon and Newmann (2002). Here, again, it isAdler (1980, 2008) who contributed the chapter onintercultural synergy. In the Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research by Smith, Peterson,and Thomas (2008), there are no contributions men-tioning the positive effects of interculturality, just asthere are none in the Cambridge Handbook Culture,Organizations, and Work by Bhagat and Steers (2009),in Jack and Westwood’s International and Cross-Cultural Management Studies. A Postcolonial Reading(Jack & Westwood, 2009), in Thomas and Peterson’sCross-Cultural Management (Thomas & Peterson,2015) or Holden, Michailova and Tietze’s RoutledgeCompanion to Cross-Cultural Management (Holden,Michailova, & Tietze, 2015).

Constructive and positive aspects in CCM andICM research

A few exceptions which emphasize constructive andpositive aspects in intercultural management, how-ever, do exist: Adler (1980, 2008), Barmeyer andFranklin (2016) and Barmeyer and Davoine (2019),Chevrier (2003), D’Iribarne (2007), Fang (2012),Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2000), Harris(2004) and Moran and Harris (1983) as well asPrimecz, Romani, and Sackmann (2011) deal expli-citly with dynamic, mostly complementary intercul-tural construction and co-construction of meaningand action in CCM and ICM.

The constructive and enriching aspects of culturaldiversity – which may result from the interaction ofdiffering experiences, perspectives and skills of inter-actants – are largely neglected (Stahl et al., 2017).Only a few studies take the importance of diversityand interculturality in management research intoaccount from a positive psychology perspective(Mayer, 2011). Therefore, it has been emphasizedrecently that CCM and ICM approaches focus on thisperspective and explore new and constructive ways todefine the value of cultural differences,

640 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER

interculturality, cultural and diversity to reach a morebalanced and holistic view of culture within the man-agement discipline (Stahl et al., 2017). Cameron(2017) points out that the prioritization of positivefactors in CCM leads to an increasingly positive per-formance, flourishing, growth and achievement whichshould be acknowledged. Stahl et al. (2017) highlightthat a void in research is given and that moreresearch is needed to strengthen this approach, focus-sing on positive aspects in individuals, organizationsand management processes (Luthans, 2002; Mayer,2011; Seligman, 2002). This article aims at taking thisdiscourse further by including aspects promoted byPP1.0 and PP2.0 perspectives.

While in the PP1.0 movement, the focus was pri-marily on measuring and studying the optimal func-tioning of humans (Seligman, 2002), aiming to redressthe imbalances in psychological research and practicefrom the negative bias as well as error, mistake andfailure analysis towards to exploration of the solution-orientation and positive aspects (Mayer et al., 2019;Vanderheiden & Mayer, 2020), Joseph (2015) hasdescribed that positive psychologist have endeavouredto apply the positive psychology perspective in variousworkplaces, management and organizations. This per-spective is growth-orientated, and aims at enhancingrelationships, change views towards specific issues anddescribe positive changes in the life philosophy whichimpacts positively on work. During the past years,however, positive psychology – here named as PP1.0 –has increasingly been criticized to be too uncriticaland too positive. Wong (2011) has therefore developedthe second wave of positive psychology (PP2.0),emphasizing that research and practice must alwaystake the negative and positive into account. Mayeret al. (2019) have therefore mentioned that the PP2.0movement is more nuanced, taking the ambivalentnature of individuals and organizations into sight,exploring the dark and shadow sides to transformtheir constructive potential into positive functioningfor self and others. It is argued in this article that thePP2.0 perspective is highly valuable for research inCCM and ICM, when the core values of PP2.0, suchas virtue, meaning, resilience and well-being (Ivtzan,Lomas, Hefferon, & Worth, 2016; Wong, 2011),become the base for intercultural interaction andcooperation in management and organization.

Positive foundations in cross-cultural andintercultural management

Approaches to PIM emphasize intercultural synergy,diversity management and critical management

studies (Barmeyer & Mayrhofer, 2008; Mahadevan &Mayer, 2017; €Ozbilgin, 2008).

Empirical studies dealing with intercultural syn-ergy, hardly define organizations as a whole, butrather focus on specific situations, such as mergersand acquisitions (Brock, 2005; Harrison, Hitt,Hoskisson, & Ireland, 1991). Further, interculturalsynergy concepts are mainly applied in research onsmall social systems or sub-systems within organiza-tions, such as teams (Adler, 2008; Gabriel & Griffiths,2008; Stahl, M€akel€a, Zander, & Maznevski, 2010).

In diversity management (DM) research, whichhas recently received scant attention in ICM (Cox,1993; €Ozbilgin & Chanlat, 2017, €Ozbilgin, Bartels-Ellis, & Gibbs, 2019), very few contributions increasethe importance and understanding of the featuresand effects of constructive and positive intercultural-ity. DM discourses have rather been restricted,uncritical and slightly simplistic (Mahadevan &Mayer, 2017).

Finally, critical management studies have empha-sized the need for increased research towards thedeconstruction of stereotypic concepts of culture andof ‘the other’ in management theory and practiceand have emphasized the need for the reconstruc-tion of identities, new cultural descriptions in man-agement research, including critical views on culture,cultural difference, minority and majority conceptsand cultural constructs within the context of powerrelations (Mayer & Flotman, 2017). However, herethe perspective is rather drawn to a reconstructionof cultural concepts in general than to a specificpositive or constructive framework of ICM.

In parallel to these perspectives, PositiveOrganizational Scholarship (POS) (Cameron & Caza,2004) has been described as valuable in CCM andICM. POS consciously centres on positive phenomenaof interpersonal and structural dynamics withinorganizations. Thereby, it focuses on positive phe-nomena, which often follow problems and crisis inorganizations. These crises are viewed from a positiveperspective due to the fact that they trigger (organiza-tional) learning and feedback positively into organiza-tions (Cameron, 2008). This perspective supports theadvancement of PIM and can be seen as a pillar ofPIM through highlighting heliotropism (the naturaltendency of living systems towards the positiveenergy – Drexelius, 1627 in Cameron, 2017), thechange in perspective from negative to positive viewsin various cultural contexts and its constructiveimpact regarding performance (Cameron, 2017).Muckelbauer (2016, 39) highlights that often the

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 641

heliotropic paradigm is not easily accepted in culturalsciences, since it is founded in natural sciences andthe image that ‘plants move towards the sun’.However, the author argues that nature and cultureare not that distinguished from each other, and there-fore, it can be easily argued that not only plants turnto the light and the positive, but also humans andthat this is why positive rhetoric can support a posi-tive attitude amongst humans. The authors take thisargument and expand it to the CCM and ICM fieldsto highlight that a paradigm shift towards the positiveis naturally and culturally valid.

According to Kuhn (1962), further paradigm shiftsare continuously taking place in ICM research. Theseparadigm shifts can be assigned to three areas:

� from static towards linear dynamic concepts ofculture (Fang, 2006; Hampden-Turner &Trompenaars, 1997).

� from national cultures towards multiple cultures(Sackmann & Phillips, 2004; Tung, 2008; Zander &Romani, 2004)

� from decontextualized etic research towards con-textualized emic1 research (Bjerregaard et al., 2009;Stahl & Tung, 2015)

Previous research has emphasized that the fourthparadigm shift concerns the change from problematicinterculturality to constructive interculturality (Adler,1980; Barmeyer & Franklin, 2016). In this article, weargue for this fourth shift to become a core aspect incontemporary, future and visionary ICM research andpractice to foster development and learning. Adler’s(1983) perspective – to classifying managementresearch into culture and interculturality whilst intro-ducing a synergistic management form that views allcultural differences and similarities as resources - isthereby promoted. The authors further on supportCameron’s (2017) perspective, emphasizing culturaland interculturality as fundamental constructive con-cepts that need per se recognition in managementresearch and practice and that can be capturedthrough the PP2.0 perspective, taking the negativeand the positive into account, while transforming thenegative towards constructive growth and develop-ment of individuals and organizations.

In the following, we will focus on the discussion oftwo constructive concepts within the context of cul-ture and synergy: negotiated culture (Brannen, 1998),and intercultural synergy (Adler, 1980, 2008) andtheir impact on intercultural management theory andpractice.

Negotiated culture

Brannen (1998) developed a dynamic approach tointerculturality known as negotiated culture, whicheven acquires greater substance in an empirical studywith Salk (Brannen & Salk, 2000): Based on researchwithin a German-Japanese joint venture, includingStrauss’ (Strauss, 1978) concept of ‘negotiated socialorder’, Brannen and Salk (2000) develop the negoti-ated culture approach. In order to perform tasks insocial systems, actors create, stabilize and alter socialstructures through ongoing negotiation processes. Inintercultural situations, people from different culturalbackgrounds interact and thereby create new‘negotiated’ cultures through the recombination andmodification of cultural characteristics and meanings:

‘Negotiate’ is used as a verb to encourage us tothink of organizational phenomena as individualactors navigating through their work experience andorienting themselves to their work settings. Focussingon culture as a negotiation includes examining thecognitions and actions of organizational membersparticularly in situations of conflict, because it is insuch situations that assumptions get inspected.‘Negotiation’ is identified in the construction andreconstruction of divergent meanings and actions byindividual organizational actors (Brannen, 1998, 12).

Negotiated culture is based on an anthropologicallyoriented interpretative and social constructivist con-cept of culture (D’Iribarne, 2009; Geertz, 1973;Romani, 2008): According to this concept, culture isdynamic and constituted by the interactive (re-) pro-duction of patterns of meaning and interpretation,which are defined by a specific group of individuals(Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011). Meaning is not simply‘transmitted’, but is (re-)agreed upon (or co-con-structed). The results and consequences of (intercul-tural) interactions cannot be foreseen and arise as anew jointly negotiated culture in continuous commu-nication, reciprocal learning and knowledge acquisi-tion (Bjerregaard et al., 2009).

In order to deal with interculturality, according toBrannen and Salk (2000, 478) four options exist,which are changing, continuously developing anddynamic:

1. division of labour: each cultural group acts foritself and there is little interaction between thedifferent cultural groups;

2. compromise by one group: one cultural groupadapts to the other and modifies its own workpractices;

642 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER

3. the middle-way between both groups: mutualadaptation and integration processes take placeon both sides through negotiation; and

4. Innovation by both groups: cultural differencesare enriched by intercultural, complementarywork processes and work results.

In addition, the negotiated culture approach takesspecific contextual determinants such as history,power relations as well as culture-specific knowledgeand the complexity of the relationships into account(Bjerregaard et al., 2009; Brannen & Salk, 2000, 458).Various empirical case studies (Brannen & Salk, 2000;Clausen, 2007; Saint-L�eger & Beeler, 2012) illustratehow structurally and contextually influencing factors,together with individual cultural characteristics, arecrucial for the development of constructive organiza-tional and work cultures.

Intercultural synergy

A second constructive concept, which is complemen-tary to that of negotiated culture is intercultural syn-ergy. Whereas negotiated culture focuses on emergingprocesses, intercultural synergy mainly centres on thereinforcement of results.

Intercultural synergy arises through the combin-ation and complementary interaction of different cul-tural elements, for example, individuals, with differentattitudes, values, modes of thought and behaviourwithin a system, which, through mutual purposefulreinforcement, ensure that the achievements of thesystem are of higher quality than the sum of theirindividual elements within the system (Maslow, 1964).The resources and strengths of diversity are used, serv-ing as a basis for multiple perspectives and creativity,as well as facilitating new unexpected solutions andimproved results (Moran & Harris, 1983). These add-itional values are the result of establishing a comple-mentary relationship among ‘cultural others’ and theirrespective viewpoints and advantages. Increased bene-fits are created by permitting and supporting the gen-eration of a synergistic relationship among culturalothernesses. Adler (1980, 172) highlights:

Cultural synergy is [… ] a process in whichorganization policies and practices are formed on thebasis of, but not limited to, the cultural patterns ofindividual organization members and clients.Culturally synergistic organizations create new formsof management. [… ] This approach suggests thatcultural diversity be neither ignored nor minimized,but rather viewed as a resource in the design anddevelopment of organisations.

As Barmeyer and Franklin (2016, 203) show,‘meanings and actions are co-constructed and negoti-ated in social interaction. As a result of the differingculturally influenced perspectives, values and practicesof the interactants, these meanings and actions haveat least the potential to be creative and innovative.’Intercultural synergy then represents the desired‘positive’ and constructive aspect of interculturalitywhich uses cultural diversity as a resource and apotential for constructing creativity and mental healthand well-being (Mayer & Boness, 2013). Synergy isthereby understood as a creative synthesis and as asocial process of human development (Maslow, 1964).

The best-known concept of intercultural synergy isoriginated by Adler (2008, 118). Relating to Thomas’(Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) similarities in conflicthandling orientations, intercultural synergy is depictedas one feature of a matrix of five basic interculturalbehavioural strategies which can also be understoodas action options and results: Cultural Avoidance,Dominance, Accommodation, Compromise, andSynergy.

Generally, the impact of the concept of intercul-tural synergy on management practice seems limited.Thus, there are various options to deal with intercul-turality: avoidance, conflict, adjustment, compensationand constructive development or solution (Adler,2008; Brannen & Salk, 2000). Interculturality can beexpressed across the continuum of problematic,through neutral to complementary-synergistic proc-esses: It is, further on, a constructive resource which,when combined with cultural diversity, can showeffect on organizations and their members, forexample in the form of learning and innovation, mar-ket leadership or employee satisfaction.

The concepts of interculturality and interculturalsynergy are surely not free from the influence ofsocio-cultural and contextual interests and power andare particularly in critical focus in postcolonial studies(Jack & Westwood, 2009), Critical ManagementStudies (Alvesson & Willmott, 2012), and studies oforganizational sociology (Crozier & Friedberg, 1977).The power relations have to be understood in connec-tion to concepts as dominance, micro-politics, or hid-den agendas (Mense-Petermann, 2006) which allimpact on negotiated culture and intercultural syn-ergy. Thereby, three emergent cultural anthropologicalapproaches need to be taken into account(Bjerregaard et al., 2009, 214): firstly, the interrela-tionships between culture and the local context; sec-ondly, the specific motivations and interests of theactors which allow culture to emerge, and, thirdly, the

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 643

communication strategies of the involved actors.Interculturality thus arises through the combinationof culture, the actor and the context ofcommunication.

Both approaches, negotiated culture and intercul-tural synergy, are additionally based on conceptualresearch frameworks and have one fact in common:they aim at perceiving and respecting existing polar-ities and opposites in social systems, such as organiza-tions, while dealing with them in a creative manner(Fang, 2012; Hampden-Turner, 1990, 2000). Equally,they assume that culture and interculturality aredynamically negotiated among actors within theirrespective context. Cultural specifics are therefore notdenied or downplayed, but rather accepted and inte-grated.as showing in the applied perspectives in thefollowing.

Factors enhancing constructive interculturalmanagement

Based on of organizational research (Galbraith, 1995;Miles, Snow, Meyer, & Coleman, 1978) and on a lim-ited number of intercultural case studies of the aero-space company Airbus (Barmeyer & Mayrhofer,2008), the European television broadcaster Arte(Barmeyer, Davoine, & Stokes, 2019), the French-German high-speed train provider (Barmeyer &Davoine, 2019), the French-Japanese automobilemanufacturer Renault-Nissan (Korine, Asakawa, &Gomez, 2002; Stahl & Brannen, 2013) and the Israeli-Arab West Eastern Divan Orchestra (Barenboim &Said, 2002) the French-Canadian Cirque tu Soleil(Riiser, 2010), three positive factors contributing toPIM have been identified (Barmeyer, 2018):

1. interculturally competent actors;2. structures such as intercultural tandems; and3. negotiated processes mediated by intercultural

boundary spanners.

These positive factors will be exposed in thefollowing.

Interculturally competent actors

A first favourable factor of PIM lies in the actorsworking in organizations, especially their resources,that is, skills and competences. Research has shownthat especially intercultural competence plays a majorrole in the success of intercultural interactions(Barmeyer & Davoine, 2012; Bennett, 2015; Dinges &

Baldwin, 1996; Fink & Mayrhofer, 2009; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009), as well as in healthy organi-zations (Mayer, 2011).

Intercultural competence is understood - as definedby Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) – as the ability ofa person to understand values, ways of thinking, com-munication rules and behavioural patterns in variouscultural contexts, in order to communicate their ownpositions transparently in intercultural interactionsand thus to act in a culture-oriented, constructive andeffective way. It enables a person to conduct appro-priate intercultural interactions to achieve personal orprofessional goals. Intercultural competence furtherincludes an awareness of one’s own culturally influ-enced values and behaviour, knowledge of specificcontexts, the understanding and appreciation of thelogic and peculiarities of different cultural systemsand the ability to accept divergent views and stand-points and to integrate them into a complementarysynthesis (Barmeyer & Franklin, 2016).

Ethnorelative views and orientating oneself in dif-ferent cultural contexts requires continuous analysisand rethinking of one’s own situations, that is, a con-stant active observation of one’s own behaviour.Likewise, meta-cognition (Earley & Ang, 2003) ena-bles individuals to ponder which available strategiesare helpful and which are not and thus to learn fromexperience. It is described as ‘knowledge and controlof cognition’ (Ang & van Dyne, 2008, 4) or ‘learningto learn’ (Earley, Ang, & Tan, 2006, 6) and describesthe ability to train and implement cognitive strategiesfor the acquisition and development of coping strat-egies (Ng & Earley, 2006, 7). Thereby, meta-cognitionbecomes am important competence in interculturalcompetence and supports the individuum to managehim-/herself in dynamic social systems whilst activelyparticipating to mindfully create and balance socialsystems.

Especially bi- or multicultural persons, who oftenhave internalized more than just a linguistic and cul-tural reference system (Brannen & Thomas, 2010),can contribute to the realization of PIM. Due to theirinsider/outsider intermediate position, they can putthemselves in different systems of meaning and actionand can better adopt neutral metapositions than peo-ple who have only grown up in a socialization con-text. They are important actors in multinationalcompanies that take new social contexts into account,such as hybridization tendencies and dynamic mul-tiple cultures as intercultural boundary spanners(Fitzsimmons, Miska, & Stahl, 2011). Fitzsimmons,Lee, and Brannen (2013) see these individuals as

644 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER

global leaders who are able to constructively addresschallenges such as diversity, complexity and uncer-tainty. Therefore, they manage and develop complexsystems, such as organizations in the FourthIndustrial Revolution. This requires a high degree ofmutual acceptance and the willingness to accept andvalue differences, that is, different cultural specifics, asstrengths.

Balanced structures: intercultural tandems

A second beneficial factor relates to structures, espe-cially intercultural tandems (e.g. Barmeyer & Davoine,2019). The metaphor of the tandem as a bicycle fortwo people originated from culturally different groupsrepresenting people, who ‘experience’ different lan-guages and cultures during a common journey, forexample at work. The figurative use of the term origi-nates from pedagogy and foreign language research(K€otter, 2003; Little, 2001). Tandems move throughmutual reinforcement of their cyclists’ energy and inmanagement contexts may be concerned with theconstant mutual negotiation and sharing of ideas,strategies, objectives, positions and interests, as wellas with organizational procedures and processes.Intercultural tandems, through their collaboration,combine knowledge from different systems, give eachother advice and can thus be understood as a unit ofintercultural learning.

Tandems are common in leadership positions innon-commercial organizations, such as the health sec-tor (Chreim, 2015), education (Scholz & Stein, 2014),arts (Reid & Karambayya, 2009) or public transporta-tion (Barmeyer & Davoine, 2019). However, they canalso be found in international profit organizations(Barmeyer & Mayrhofer, 2008).

Tandem constellations create advantages for inter-national organizations (Chreim, 2015; Reid &Karambayya, 2009). They enable companies, firstly, toensure a balance of interests and power; secondly, tojoin different perspectives and competencies; andthirdly, to allow actors to make use of both (national)social networks to gain information or to prepare fordecision-making. Double leadership teams lead to anequality of involved departments, societies, countriesetc. and help to mitigate or even avoid one-sidedeffects of dominance and power.

However, tandem structures also come with disad-vantages. Firstly, there is a potential for (manifest)conflict that can arise through divergent objectives,role conflicts, interests and opinions, approaches, aswell as through different personalities (Mayer, 2019b).

Secondly, competition in tandem actors might be inthe context of career development. As with the matrixorganization (Laurent, 1983), dual leadership mightbe experienced as confusing by employees and there-fore needs very clear boundaries of management tasksand roles (Reid & Karambayya, 2016). Finally, thecreation and maintenance of tandem structures inorganizations binds significant financial resources andorganizations need to be willing to invest into thesestructures to experience the long-term effects.

Negotiated processes: intercultural boundaryspanning

A third factor that enhances PIM concerns processes:specialists and managerial staff working at their inter-faces play a key role in international organizations.Interfaces can be understood as units of different sys-tems that lead to interdependencies and the require-ment for continuous reciprocal coordination.Research describes the central function of actors atinterfaces as boundary spanning, that is, the cross-linking of different units or boundaries (Barner-Rasmussen, Ehrnrooth, Koveshnikov, & M€akela, 2014;Schotter, Mudambi, Doz, & Gaur, 2017). Beechler,Sondergaard, Miller, and Bird (2006, 122) defineboundary spanning ‘as the creation of linkages thatintegrate and coordinate across organizationalboundaries.’

Boundary spanning is primarily defined by think-ing and acting within an awareness of interdiscipli-narity in roles as intercultural mediators, to enableintegrative action through exchange and understand-ing between cultural systems: ‘Boundary spanningfacilitates division of work for solving complex organ-izational problems’ (Hsiao, Tsai, & Lee, 2012, 464).

These mediation processes presuppose familiaritywith each other and with several (social) systems,their languages, their inherent cultural meanings,rules and logics (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Yagi& Kleinberg, 2011). Organizational processes andpractices can be improved by means of interculturalmediation, as well as through alternative solutions(Mayer & Louw, 2012). Whereas Beechler et al.(2006) show that in general boundary spanning rolesare embedded in formal organizational positions –e.g. expatriates or subsidiary managers – Barner-Rasmussen et al. (2014) identify highly effectiveboundary spanners across all organizational levels.

Despite the great heterogeneity of internationalorganizations (private-public, economic-artistic,large-small, bicultural-multicultural, etc.) certain

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 645

commonalities that are conducive to PIM can befound across case studies, such as the fact that theyhave succeeded in combining cultural differences in acreative way so that they are successful in their activ-ities, with their products and services (Barmeyer &Franklin, 2016). The following Table 1 summarizesthe three positive factors of PIM and establishes alink with the 4th Industrial Revolution.

As emphasized by Nikitina and Lapina (2017) thatthe 4IR requires new managerial skills and competen-ces, the authors here contribute that PIM couldmeaningfully contribute to the constructive managingof the workplaces in the 4IR changes, as indicated inTable 1.

Conclusion and recommendations

This article is limited to a conceptual approach CCMand ICM concepts, contributing the idea to takePP1.0 and PP2.0 aspects into consideration whendeveloping PIM concepts and applications. Surely, theauthors do consider that the ideas and concepts pre-sented are anchored in Western cultural perspectives.

In conclusion, PIM is based on dynamic develop-ment processes, new impulses and concepts, whichinfluence each other to increase mutually stimulationand intercultural empowerment through a strongpositive value base and a specific paradigm shift inintercultural management research by using a con-structivist concept of culture. This relates to conceptsof negotiated culture and intercultural synergy withinthe frame of enhancing virtues, meaning, resilienceand well-being in individuals and organizations.

The process of PIM firstly takes existing culturaldifferences into account and contrasts them withoutjudgement; secondly, it combines them in a dynamicand processual understanding of interculturality; and

thirdly, it enables the creation of complementary oreven synergistic collaboration, resulting from a PP1.0and PP2.0 focus, exploring the optimal human func-tioning while transforming consciously the challengesand negatively experienced aspects into positive indi-vidual and organizational growth and development.

Future research needs to expand the knowledge oncultural complementarity and intercultural synergy inindividuals and organizations, taking PP1.0 and PP2.0aspects and values into account when conductingempirical research designs – thereby including rathermarginalized cultural perspectives in managementresearch.

In terms of managerial implications, key actors inCCM and ICM, such as managers or consultants,need to adopt to the necessary paradigm shift in 4IRcontexts which will balance their views and expandtheir perspectives in intercultural negotiation proc-esses to promote complementarity and synergy.

HRM structures and processes need to advancePP1.0 and PP2.0 perspectives for organizations to stayagile, meaningful, resilient and well in diverse, global-ized and fast-moving processes. A PIM culture needsto be established to manage the shift in 4IR workpla-ces towards higher degrees of digitalization, smartprocesses, artificial intelligence and remote workplaceswhich live of globalized day and night cooperationand interactions. This calls directly for positiveapproaches towards CCM and ICM to understandand manage these cooperations and make them evenmore meaningful and healthy – not only in theory,but also in practice.

Note

1. Emic describes a methodical, culture-adapted approachto (inter)cultural research in which researchers take a

Table 1. Enhancing PIM factors.Factors Description Realization in organizations 4IR context

Interculturally competentactors

Adopting an open, tolerant andethnorelativist attitude

Development of an appropriateability to act through cognitiveand emotional understanding ofculture and systems

Strengthened ability to adjust to the newworkplaces, remote workplaces, human-machine interaction, and globalized workenvironment

Balanced structures:intercultural tandems

Balancing of asymmetries ininterests, decision-making andpower through the use of dualfunctions

Sharing central resources andknowledge through recourse torespective (national) socialnetworks

Adjusting to the power shifts going alongwith the 4IR or, if necessary, criticalevaluating and contributing to managingpower shifts.

Ability to work in network structures withmultiple actors of various backgrounds

Negotiated processes:intercultural boundaryspanning

Promoting information,communication and cooperationby actors who act as mediatorsacross sectors, languages andcultures

Improvement and establishment ofcommonly accepted processesand working practices

Necessary focus on synergy and PIM throughthe creating of new concepts of meaningand global leadership to address thechallenges of the future

646 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER

stand within the system (Pike 1954, Berry 1989). It isabout a deeper interpretative understanding of acultural system. Due to the specificity of situations andbehaviours (contextualisation), the culturally specificEmic approach in most cases does not permit a cross-cultural comparison. The opposite, the Etic approach,assumes that compared phenomena are universal, i.e.independent of culture, and that researchers thus take astand outside the system. Cultural peculiarities are thuslargely neglected (Headland, Pike, & Harris. 1990).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by theauthors.

References

Adler, N. J. (1980). Cultural synergy: The management ofcross-cultural organizations. In: W. Burke & L.DGoodstein (Eds.), Trends and issues in organizationaldevelopment: Current theory and practice (pp. 163–184).San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.

Adler, N. J. (1983). A typology of management studiesinvolving culture. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 14(2), 29–47. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490517

Adler, N. J. (2008). International dimensions of organiza-tional behavior. South Western: Cincinnati.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Making sense of man-agement. A critical Introduction. London: Sage.

Ang, S., & van Dyne, L. (2008). Handbook of cultural intel-ligence. Theory, measurement, and applications. Armonk,New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Barenboim, D., & Said, E. (2002). Parallels and paradoxes:Explorations in music and society, London: Vintage.

Barmeyer, C. (2018). Konstruktives interkulturellesmanagement.G€ottingen: UTB/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Barmeyer, C., & Davoine, E. (2012). Le d�eveloppement col-lectif de comp�etence interculturelle dans le contexted’une organisation binationale: Le cas ARTE. AnnalesDes Mines - G�erer et Comprendre, 107, 63–73. doi:10.3917/geco.107.0063

Barmeyer, C., & Davoine, E. (2019). Facilitating intercul-tural negotiated practices in joint ventures: The case of aFrench–German railway organization. InternationalBusiness Review, 28(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.06.001

Barmeyer, C., Davoine, E., & Stokes, P. (2019). When the‘well-oiled machine’ meets the ‘pyramid of people’ Roleperceptions and hybrid working practices of middlemanagers in a binational organization – ARTE.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,19(3), 251–272. doi:10.1177/1470595819869729

Barmeyer, C., & Franklin, P. (2016). InterculturalManagement. A case-based approach to achieving comple-mentarity and synergy. London: Palgrave.

Barmeyer, C., & Mayrhofer, U. (2008). The contribution ofintercultural management to the success of internationalmergers and acquisitions: An analysis of the EADSgroup. International Business Review, 17(1), 28–38. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.12.001

Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., &M€akela, K. (2014). Cultural and language skills as resour-ces for boundary spanning within the MNC. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 45(7), 886–905. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.7

Beechler, S., Sondergaard, M., Miller, E. L., & Bird, A.(2006). Boundary Spanning. In: H. W. Lane, M. L.Maznevski, M. E. Mendenhall, & J. McNett (Eds.), TheBlackwell Handbook of global management: A guide tomanaging complexity (pp. 121–133). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bennett, J. M. (2015). The Sage encyclopedia of interculturalcompetence. A Sage reference publication, ThousandOaks, CA, Boston, MA: SAGE Publications, Inc; CredoReference.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construc-tion of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.New York, NY: Doubleday.

Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed Etics-Emics-derived Emics.The operatonalization of a compelling idea. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 24(6), 721–735.

Bhagat, R. S., & Steers, R. M. (2009). Cambridge handbookof culture, organizations, and work, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bjerregaard, T., Lauring, J., & Klitmøller, A. (2009). A crit-ical analysis of intercultural communication research incross-cultural mangament introducing newer develop-ments in Anthropolgy. Critical Perspectives onInternational Business, 5(3), 207–228. doi:10.1108/17422040910974695

Bloem, J., van Doorn, M., Duivenstein, S., Excoffier, S.,Maar, R., & van Ommeren, E. (2014). Groningen: LineUp boek en media bv. Retrieved from https://www.sogeti.com/globalassets/global/special/sogeti-things3en.pdf

Brannen, M. Y. (1998). Negotiated culture in binationalcontexts: A model of culture change based on aJapanese/American organizational experience.Anthropology of Work Review, 18(2–3), 6–17. doi:10.1525/awr.1998.18.2-3.6

Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. (2000). Partnering across bor-ders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 52(4), 451–487.doi:10.1177/0018726700534001

Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. (2010). BiculturalIndividuals in Organizations: Implications andOpportunity. International Journal of Cross CulturalManagement, 10(1), 5–16. doi:10.1177/1470595809359580

Brock, D. M. (2005). Multinational acquisition integration:The role of national culture in creating synergies.International Business Review, 14(3), 269–288. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.02.001

Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizationalchange. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1),7–24. doi:10.1177/0021886308314703

Cameron, K. S. (2017). Cross-cultural research and positiveorganizational scholarship. Cross Cultural & StrategicManagement, 24(1), 13–32. doi:10.1108/CCSM-02-2016-0021

Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to thediscipline of positive organizational scholarship.American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 731–739. doi:10.1177/0002764203260207

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 647

Chevrier, S. (2003). Le Management interculturel. Paris:PUF.

Chreim, S. (2015). The (non)distribution of leadershiproles: Considering leadership practices and configura-tions. Human Relations, 68(4), 517–543. doi:10.1177/0018726714532148

Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate communication challenges: a“negotiated” culture perspective. International Journal ofCross Cultural Management, 7(3), 317–332. doi:10.1177/1470595807083376

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. Theory,research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.

Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L’acteur et le syst�eme.Paris: Le Seuil.

D’Iribarne, P. (2007). Successful companies in the developingworld. Managing in synergy with cultures, Paris: agencefrancaise de d�eveloppement (afd).

D’Iribarne, P. (2009). National cultures and organisationsin search of a theory: An interpretative approach.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,9(3), 309–321. doi:10.1177/1470595809346601

Dinges, N., & Baldwin, K. D. (1996). Intercultural compe-tence. A research perspective. In: D. Landis & R.D.Bhagat (Eds.). Handbook of intercultural training (pp.106–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drexelius, J. (1627). The Heliotropium, or Conformity of theHuman Will to the Divine. (R.N. Shutte Trans.). NewYork, NY: The Devin-Adair Company.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence.Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford BusinessBooks. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J. -S. (2006). CQ. Developingcultural intelligence at work. Stanford, CA: StanfordBusiness Books.

Eberhard, B., Podio, M., P�erez Alonso, A., Radovica, A.,Avotina, L., Peiseniece, L., … Sol�e-Pla, J. (2017). Smartwork: The transformation of the labour market due tothe fourth industrial revolution (I4.0). InternationalJournal of Business and Economic Sciences AppliedResearch, 10(3), 47–66.

Fang, T. (2006). From onion to ocean: Paradox and changein national cultures. International Studies of Management& Organization, 35(4), 71–90. doi:10.1080/00208825.2005.11043743

Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture.Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00221.x

Fink, G., & Mayrhofer, W. (2009). Cross-cultural compe-tence and management – setting the stage. EuropeanJournal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management,1(1), 42–65. doi:10.1504/EJCCM.2009.026733

Fitzsimmons, S. R., Lee, Y.-T., & Brannen, M. Y. (2013).Demystifying the myth about marginals: Implications forglobal leadership. European Journal of InternationalManagement, 7(5), 587–603. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2013.056479

Fitzsimmons, S. R., Miska, C., & Stahl, G. (2011).Multicultural employees: Global business’ untappedresource. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 199–206. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.007

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique.Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. Nodoi:10.1037/h0061470

Fontaine, R. (2007). Cross-cultural management: Six per-spectives. Cross Cultural Management: An InternationalJournal, 14(2), 125–135. doi:10.1108/13527600710745732

French, R. (2015). Cross-cultural management in workorganisations (3rd ed). London: Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development.

Gabriel, Y., & Griffiths, D. S. (2008). International learninggroups: Synergies and dysfunctions. ManagementLearning, 39(5), 503–518. doi:10.1177/1350507608096038

Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing organizations. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gannon, M. J. and Newman, K. (Eds.) (2002). TheBlackwell handbook of cross-cultural management.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. London:Hutchinson.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the corporate mind:Graphic solutions to business conflicts. New York, NY:The Free Press.

Hampden-Turner, C. (2000). What we know about cross-cultural management after thirty years. In: D. Lynch &A. Pilbeam (Eds.), Heritage and progress. From the pastto the future in intercultural understanding (pp. 17–27).Bath: LTS.

Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1997). Responseto Geert Hofstede. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 21(1), 149–159. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(96)00042-9

Hampden-Turner, C. M., & Trompenaars, F. (2000).Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealthfrom conflicting values. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Harris, P. R. (2004). European leadership in cultural syn-ergy. European Business Review, 16(4), 358–380. doi:10.1108/09555340410546991

Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland,R. D. (1991). Synergies and postacquisition performance:Differences versus similarities in resource allocations.Journal of Management, 17(1), 173–190. doi:10.1177/014920639101700111

Headland, T., PIke, K., & Harris, M. (1990). Emic and Etic.The insider/outside-debate. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S., & Kohl, H. (2016).Holistic approach for human resource management inIndustry 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 54, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.102

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Internationaldifferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Holden, N., Michailova, S. and Tietze, S. (Eds.). (2015). TheRoutledge companion to cross-cultural management.London, New York, NY: Routledge.

House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., &Sully de Luque, M. F. (2014). Strategic Leadership acrosscultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations.The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

648 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER

Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. (2012). Collaborativeknowing: The adaptive nature of cross-boundary span-ning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01024.x

Ivtzan, I., Lomas, T., Hefferon, K., & Worth, P. (2016).Second wave positive psychology. London: Routledge.

Jack, G., & Westwood, R. (2009). International and cross-cultural management studies. A postcolonial reading.London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Joseph, S. (Ed.). (2015). Positive psychology in practice:Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education,and everyday life. Hoboken: Wiley.

Korine, H., Asakawa, K., & Gomez, P. Y. (2002). Partneringwith the unfamiliar: Lessons from the case of Renaultand Nissan. Business Strategy Review, 13(2), 41–50. doi:10.1111/1467-8616.00209

K€otter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitch-ing in online tandems. Language Learning andTechnology, 7(2), 145–172.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of western con-ceptions of management. International Studies ofManagement & Organization, 13(1-2), 75–96. Nodoi:10.1080/00208825.1983.11656359

Little, D. (2001). Learner autonomy and the challenge oftandem language learning via the Internet. In: C.Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), Information andCommunications Technologies and Language Learning: AEuropean Perspective, (pp. 29–38). Lisse: Swets andZeltlinger.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positiveorganizational behaviour. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 23(6), 695–706. doi:10.1002/job.165

Mahadevan, J. (2017). A very short, fairly interesting andreasonably cheap book about cross-cultural management.London: Sage.

Mahadevan, J. and Mayer, C.-H. (Eds.). (2017). Muslimminorities, workplace diversity and reflexive HRM.London: Routledge.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves compa-nies. Rethinking social initiatives by business.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. doi:10.2307/3556659

Maslow, A. H. (1964). Synergy in the society and in theindividual. Journal of Individual Psychology, 20(2),153–164.

Mayer, C. H. (2011). The meaning of sense of coherence intranscultural management.Waxmann: M€unster.

Mayer, C. H. (2019a). Key factors of creativity and the artof collaboration in twenty-first-century workpaces. In: M.Coetzee (Ed.), Thriving in digital workplaces: Innovationsin theory, research and practice (pp. 147–166). Cham:Springer Nature.

Mayer, C. H. (2019b). Trainingshandbuch interkulturellemediation und konfliktmanagement. didaktische materia-lien zum konpetenzerweb. M€unster: Waxmann.

Mayer, C. -H., & Boness, C. M. (2013). Creating mentalhealth across cultures. Coaching and training for manag-ers. Lengerich: Pabst Publishers.

Mayer, C. -H., Boness, C. M., & Louw, L. (2017).Perceptions of Chinese and Tanzanian employees

regarding intercultural colloboration. South AfricanJournal of Human Resource Management, 15, 11. pages.doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v15i0.921

Mayer, C. -H., & Flotman, A. -P. (2017). Chapter 4.Constructing identity. Implications for reflexive HRM.In: J. Mahadevan & C.-H. Mayer (Eds), MuslimMinorities, Workplace Diversity and Refelxive HRM(pp. 61–76). London and New York: Routledge, Taylorand Francis Group.

Mayer, C. H., & Louw, L. (2012). Managing cross-culturalconflict in organizations. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 12(1), 3–8. doi:10.1177/1470595811413104

Mayer, C. -H., Vanderheiden, E., & Oosthuizen, R. (2019).Transforming shame, guilt and anxiety through a saluto-genic PP1.0 and PP2.0 counselling framework.Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 436–452. doi:10.1080/09515070.2019.1609421

Mense-Petermann, U. (2006). Micro-political or intercul-tural conflicts? An integrating approach. Journal ofInternational Management, 12(3), 302–317. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2006.07.002

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J.(1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process.Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562. doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755

Moran, R., & Harris, P. R. (1983). Managing cultural syn-ergy. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Muckelbauer, J. (2016). Implicit paradigms of Rhetoric.Aristotelian, Cultural and Heliotropic. In S. Barnett & C.Boyle (Eds.), Rhetoric through everyday things (pp.30–41). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Cultureþ intelligence: oldconstructs, new frontiers. Group and OrganizationManagement, 31(1), 4–19. doi:10.1177/1059601105275251

Nikitina, T., & Lapina, I. (2017). Managerial competenvesdevelopment in the context of the Fourth Industrialrevolution. SCEE Proceedings 2017 (pp. 151–152). http://feem.rtu.lv/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2016/04/SCEE2017-Proceedings.pdf#page=151

€Ozbilgin M., Bartels-Ellis F., and Gibbs P. (Eds.) (2019).Global Diversity Management, Management forProfessionals. Switzerland: Springer.

€Ozbilgin, M. (2008). Global diversity management. In:Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Thomas, D.C. (Eds.), Thehandbook of cross-cultural management research (pp.379–396). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

€Ozbilgin, M., Chanlat J. F. (Eds.). (2017). Management anddiversity: Perspectives from different national contexts.Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Person, K., May, M. S., & Mayer, C. H. (2016). The mean-ing of work for South African women: A phenomeno-logical study. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2),134–140. doi:10.1080/14330237.2016.1163897

Peterson, M. F., & Sondergaard, M. (2008). Foundations ofcross-cultural management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phillips, M., & Sackmann, S. (2015). Cross-Cultural man-agement rising. In: Holden, N., Michailova, S. andTietze, S. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to cross-cul-tural management, (pp. 8–18). London, New York, NY:Routledge.

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY 649

Pike, K. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory ofthe structure of human behaviour. Den Haag: Mouton.

Primecz, H., Romani, L. and Sackmann, S. (Eds.) (2011).Cross-cultural management in practice. culture and nego-tiated meanings. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Reid, W., & Karambayya, R. (2009). Impact of dual execu-tive leadership dynamics in creative organizations.Human Relations, 62(7), 1073–1112. doi:10.1177/0018726709335539

Reid, W., & Karambayya, R. (2016). The shadow of history:Situated dynamics of trust in dual executive leadership.Leadership, 12(5), 609–631. doi:10.1177/1742715015579931

Riiser, S. (2010). National identity and the West-EasternDivan Orchestra. Music and Arts in Action, 2(2), 19–37.

Romani, L. (2008). Relating to the other. Paradigm interplayfor cross-cultural management research. Stockholm:Stockholm School of Economics (Institute forInternational Business).

Romani, L., Sackmann, S., & Primecz, H. (2011). Cultureand negotiated meanings: The value of consideringmeaning systems and power imbalance for cross-culturalmanagement. In: Primecz, H., Romani, L. and Sackmann,S. (Eds.), Cross-cultural management in practice. Cultureand negotiated meanings (pp. 1–18). Northampton:Edward Elgar.

Sackmann, S., & Phillips, M. (2004). Contextual influenceson culture research: shifting assumptions for new work-place realities. International Journal of Cross CulturalManagement, 4(3), 370–390. doi:10.1177/1470595804047820

Saint-L�eger, G., & Beeler, B. (2012). Emergence d’une cul-ture n�egoci�ee dans le cadre des projets ERP.Management & Avenir, 53(3), 54–71. doi:10.3917/mav.053.0054

Scholz, C., & Stein, V. (2014). The dean in the university ofthe future. M€unchen: Mering Hampp.

Schotter, A. P., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A.(2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations.Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403–421. doi:10.1111/joms.12256

Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. NewYork, NY: Crown Business.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive pre-vention and positive therapy. In C.R. Snyder and S.J.Lopez. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp.410–421). New York, NY: Oxford University.

Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Thomas, D.C. (Eds.)(2008). The handbook of cross-cultural managementresearch. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Interculturalinteraction. A multidisciplinary approach to interculturalcommunication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizingintercultural competence. In: Deardorff, D.K. (Ed.), The

SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. (pp. 2–52).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Stahl, G. K., & Brannen, M. Y. (2013). Building cross-cul-tural leadership competence: An interview with CarlosGhosn. Academy of Management Learning & Education,12(3), 519–531. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0246

Stahl, G. K., M€akel€a, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L.(2010). A look at the bright side of multicultural teamdiversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4),439–447. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.009

Stahl, G. K., Miska, C., Lee, H. J., & Sully de Luque, M. F.(2017). The upside of cultural differences: Towards amore balanced treatment of culture in cross-culturalmanagement research. Cross Cultural & StrategicManagement, 24(1), 2–12. doi:10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0191

Stahl, G. K., & Tung, R. L. (2015). Towards a more bal-anced treatment of culture in international business stud-ies: The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship.Journal of International Business Studies, 46(4), 391–414.Nodoi:10.1057/jibs.2014.68

Strauss, A. L. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, proc-esses, and social order. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassInc Pub.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmannconflict mode instrument. Mountain View, CA: Xicom, asubsidiary of CPP.

Thomas, D. C., & Peterson, M. F. (2015). Cross-culturalmanagement. Essential concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Treichel, D., & Mayer, C. -H. (2011). Lehrbuch Kultur.Lehr- und Lernmaterialen zur Vermittlung kulturellerKompetenzen. M€unster: Waxmann.

Tung, R. L. (2008). The cross-cultural research imperative:The need to balance cross-national and intra-nationaldiversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1),41–46. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400331

Vanderheiden, E., & Mayer, C. H. (2020). Mistakes, errorsand failure. Navigating Potentials. Cham, Switzerland:Springer.

Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards abalanced interactive model of the good life. CanadianPsychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52(2), 69–81. doi:10.1037/a0022511

Yagi, N., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Boundary work: An inter-pretive ethnographic perspective on negotiating and lev-eraging cross-cultural identity. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 42(5), 629–653. doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.10

Zander, L., & Romani, L. (2004). When nationality matters.A study of departmental, hierarchical, professional, gen-der and age-based employee groupings’ leadership prefer-ence across 15 countries. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 4(3), 291–315. doi:10.1177/1470595804047811

650 C. BARMEYER AND C.-H. MAYER