Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective: Patterns and implications

Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective:Patterns and implications

Gundula Lücke1, TatianaKostova2 and Kendall Roth2

1Department of Business Studies, UppsalaUniversity, Uppsala, Sweden; 2SonocoInternational Business Department, MooreSchool of Business, University of South Carolina,Columbia, USA

Correspondence:G Lücke, Department of Business Studies,Uppsala University, Box 513, 75120 Uppsala,Sweden.Tel: +46 18 471 1358;email: [email protected]

Received: 12 January 2011Revised: 11 July 2013Accepted: 16 July 2013Online publication date: 21 November 2013

AbstractMulticulturalism, the internal representation of multiple cultural meaningsystems, has critical implications for global managers and multinational corpo-rations (MNCs). Understanding multiculturalism is becoming increasinglyimportant, given that the locations within which MNC activity resides, and thecomposition of the workforce even within a given location, are more diverse.Building on the connectionism perspective, we offer a novel cognitive concep-tualization of multiculturalism that incorporates the individual’s multiculturalcognitive content and structure. Based on that, we explain how specific socio-cultural experiences interact with existing individual cognitions to form differentpatterns of multiculturalism. Specifically, we propose five stylized patterns –

compartmentalization, integration, inclusion, convergence, and generalization –

and explain how they are developed through specific sociocultural experiences.We discuss how different patterns of multiculturalism influence specific capabil-ities of multicultural MNC managers and their effectiveness in a variety of criticalMNC tasks. We believe the cognitive connectionist perspective, which has notbeen brought before into international business discussions of culture andcultural capabilities, holds great promise for better understanding globalmanagers’ capabilities and development.Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 169–190. doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.53

Keywords: culture; social cognition; impact of culture on MNC performancemanagement; multiculturalism; cultural cognitions

INTRODUCTIONOperating in multiple meaning systems across cultural borders isincreasingly common in everyday life. Understanding how to dealwith cultural multiplicity is particularly important for multinationalcorporations (MNCs), as it affects their ability to conduct criticaltasks such as global integration of dispersed operations, cross-bordertransfer of management practices, and learning across differentenvironments (e.g., Brannen, 2004; Fiss & Zajac, 2004; Kostova &Roth, 2002; Strang & Soule, 1998). Such tasks require significantcultural interpretive work and meaning construction, which can behandled only with an adequate understanding of multiple culturalsystems (e.g., Brannen, 2004). A number of approaches have beensuggested to deal effectively with these challenges, including theuse of cross-cultural teams and cross-border structural units. In thispaper, we focus on another mechanism that can play a critical rolein such integration tasks – multicultural individuals. Multiculturals

Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 169–190© 2014 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506

www.jibs.net

are individuals who have an understanding of morethan one societal culture, which allows them tomake informed cultural interpretations in multiplecontexts. Our objective in this paper is to develop acognition-based explanation of multiculturalism, itsvarious patterns, and the related implications in thecontext of MNCs, based on recent conceptualiza-tions of culture.We draw from contemporary cognitive work on

culture (Oyserman & Sorensen, 2009; Strauss &Quinn, 1997), which provides a sophisticatedexplanation of how a culture can be cognitivelyrepresented in an individual. This allows a moreexplicit focus on the individual than is typicalfor culture research in the management literature.From a cognitive perspective, culture is understoodas internalized mental representations fundamentalto everyday interpretation, understanding, com-munication, and overall functioning in society.Individuals differ in how they internally organizedifferent cultural views, ideas, and perspectives(Strauss, 2005). In particular, we take a connection-ism perspective, which conceptualizes cognition interms of interrelated, distributed cognitive elements,explaining how these emerge, how they are acce-ssed, and how they shape understanding and sense-making in a dynamic and flexible way (Dawson,2004; Garson, 2012; Houghton, 2005; Shanks,2005; Smith, 1996; Strauss & Quinn, 1997). Theconnectionist approach helps us understand bothindividuals’ cultural cognitions – the content, orwhat they know – and the links between the differ-ent cognitive elements – the structure, or how theyaccess or use cultures when making sense of theenvironment. It moves the imagery from one ofa set of distinct, culture-specific cognitions to oneof complex interpretations based on interlinked,multicultural cognitions. This theoretical founda-tion allows us to specify several patterns of multi-culturalism based on different combinations of cul-tural content and structure – compartmentalization,integration, inclusion, convergence, and generali-zation. It also provides a basis to suggest a linkbetween these patterns and certain managementcapabilities critical for important MNC tasks, suchas cross-border integration, cultural interpretation,sense-making, translation, and recontextualization.The cognitive perspective we employ extends

the work on biculturalism, which also examineshow individuals develop an understanding andcompetency in more than one culture (Brannen &Thomas, 2010; Fitzsimmons, Miska, & Stahl, 2011;Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010; Tadmor, Hong,

Chiu, & No, 2010). The existing biculturalism lite-rature is based on two key processes – identificationand socialization. The central proposition is thatindividuals who have grown up under the influenceof two cultures may develop a bicultural identity,which allows them to hold two different culturesthat can be accessed based on the activation ofeach cultural identity. Given that both culturesare internalized through early socialization, thesevalue structures and beliefs are stable over time. Weemphasize instead multicultural cognition, whichdoes not necessarily imply identification or earlysocialization, as cultural understandings can be lear-ned through experiences later in life. We wish tounderstand key processes and patterns associatedwith multicultural exposure in adults. This is not tosay that multiculturalism cannot develop separa-tely through childhood socialization, but ratherthat it can occur in adults, and that such a contextallows us to theorize on systematic differences inmulticulturalism due to varying cultural expo-sures. Furthermore, multiculturalism as conceptua-lized here focuses on the cognitive level, and therebydoes not necessarily imply changes in individuals’value systems. It also allows a more conscious,agency-like reaction to cultural situations, unlikethe automaticity generally implied in the switch-ing between cultural identities. Thus, the cognitivemulticulturalism perspective presented here canbe viewed as complementing the dominant view onbicultural identity. Specifically, our approach add-resses issues of the multicultural mind invol-ving cognitive development, which complementaspects of the multicultural self – that is, culturalidentities (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010; Tadmoret al., 2010). Existing research commonly fails todifferentiate these distinct aspects of knowing/understanding and identifying, whereby it isargued that the former is a prerequisite of the latter(Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010; Tadmor et al.,2010).Our approach is particularly useful for MNC man-

agers who may acquire their cultural cognitionsthrough professional experiences. Specifically, weexplore individual variation in multicultural cogni-tions, offering some ideas on how different socialexperiences lead to differences in both the contentof individuals’ cultural cognitions and the struc-ture in which they are organized – that is, in theirpattern of multiculturalism. Thus, access to differentcultural meanings varies not only as a function ofthe situation, as previously recognized, but also asa function of the particular cognitive architecture

Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective Gundula Lücke et al170

Journal of International Business Studies

an individual holds. In other words, rather thansuggest that cultural differences in cognitions aremade salient at different times (e.g., Hong, Morris,Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000), we propose thatin the multicultural mind both conscious andunconscious cognitive processes may be the resultof a more pervasive culture-cognitive developmentpermeating the manager’s daily activities (see alsoThomas, 2006, 2010). In fact, cultural understand-ings themselves may change when multiple culturesmeet and mix in an individual’s mind. Based onthis conceptualization, we discuss how differentmulticultural patterns are associated with importantmulticultural skills that make individuals more orless effective in critical management tasks withinthe MNC. Understanding how such multiculturalcapabilities are formed, and how they impact indivi-dual skills and task performance, provides usefulinsights for companies in their efforts to developeffective international managers.The paper is organized as follows. We first pro-

vide a connectionism-based conceptualization ofmulticulturalism. Second, we build on this to pro-pose five distinct patterns of multiculturalism.Third, we offer propositions on the link betweenmulticulturalism patterns and effectiveness incritical managerial tasks in MNCs. We concludewith a discussion of the paper’s contributions, andof directions for future research on multicultural-ism and MNCs.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS:CONNECTIONISM AND MULTICULTURALISM

Connectionism has been used across a number ofdisciplines, including cognitive science (Bechtel &Abrahamsen, 1991; Dawson, 2004), cognitive psycho-logy (Houghton, 2005; Shanks, 2005), culturalanthropology (D’Andrade, 1995; Strauss & Quinn,1997), social psychology (Smith, 1996), and man-agement (Hanges, Dorfman, Shteynberg, & Bates,2006; Hanges, Lord, & Dickson, 2000; Peterson &Wood, 2008). Like other cognitive theories of cul-ture, a connectionist perspective aims at explaininghow culture shapes the way people think, howthey make sense of their environment and who theyare, and how this is represented in their minds.Unlike other theories, however, here the emphasisis on mental representations organized in an inter-connected architecture of cultural cognitions. Thisis fundamental to understanding how culture worksin the brain, shaping thought and action (Hangeset al., 2000, 2006; Smith, 1996; Strauss & Quinn,1997). In the next few paragraphs we introduce

the main elements of the connectionist cognitiveapproach as applied to culture, including culturalinterpretation and cognitions, cultural schemas, andmulticultural content and structure.Meaning systems have long been considered

a critical aspect of culture, if not the essence of it.Understanding how people internalize meaningsystems that help them interpret multiple culturalenvironments is essential for explaining multi-culturalism. The predominant research on cultureemphasizes the sharedness of meaning systemsamong the members of a cultural group, owing tothe similarity of their social experiences (Strauss &Quinn, 1997): thus the way members of a cultureinterpret a concept or activity tends to be similarwithin national contexts (Geppert, Williams, &Matten, 2003; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001).While acknowledging the societal level, cognitivetheories of culture also emphasize the importance ofthe individual by looking at mental representationsof culture – cultural cognitions – and how they shapeinterpretation and action. This results from mean-ings that are evoked through the interactionbetween cognitions and social experiences.A person’s mental representation of situations

comprises base cognitive units that are distributedand networked, and which function through parallelprocessing mechanisms (Garson, 2012; Houghton,2005; Peterson & Wood, 2008; Smith, 1996). Thesebase units can be imagined as interconnected neu-rons, which evoke meaningful interpretations onlywhen activated in a pattern distributed across manyunits. Cultural knowledge is thus inherent in andevoked holistically through interlinked cognitivepathways (Strauss & Quinn, 1997). Mental represen-tations emerge when cognitive links strengthen,based on repeated exposure to social environments.When they become relatively stable and shared, theyconstitute cultural schemas (Bechtel & Abrahamsen,1991; Hanges et al., 2000; Strauss & Quinn, 1997).Schemas increase perceptual readiness, memoryretrieval, and perception of social contexts, and areused for evaluation, judgment, problem solving, andother tasks (Förster & Liberman, 2007). Stronglyinterconnected schemas are activated together thro-ugh parallel processing. Similar or related conceptsoverlap, and are therefore more likely to be accessedtogether. In contrast, unrelated concepts, for exam-ple political and religious leaders, are not linked,and hence tend to be used/evoked separately(Hanges et al., 2000). From a connectionist perspec-tive, therefore, culture is viewed as “interpretationswith such and such degree of schematicity” inherent



in the connectivity and strength of cognitive path-ways, rather than as a collection of fixed and fullyshared units of cultural meanings (D’Andrade, 1992;Norman, 1982: 290). Cultural interpretation is theoutcome of the propagation of activations throughthe strongest connections. In a given situation,thoughts and actions depend on the parallel proces-sing of connected concepts, selves, motivations, andother internalized aspects. Interpretations based onstrongly schematized cognitions may become moreautomatic and subconscious.Applying the connectionist framework to multi-

culturalism, we distinguish between multiculturalcognitive content and structure, which are bothcritical for understanding cultural interpretations(Hanges et al., 2006). Simply put, content is whata person knows, and structure is how this is accessed.Multicultural content consists of a person’s differentcultural schemas – that is, what he/she knows aboutvarious cultures – and represents the availability ofmulticultural knowledge. Multicultural structurerepresents the interconnectedness and the relativetie strength between different cultural schemas in anindividual’s cognition. It explains how differentcultures can be activated together once they havebecome interconnected; to the extent that certainconcepts are cognitively linked, the activation of oneis likely to result in the parallel processing of theothers. Accordingly, we define multiculturals asindividuals who have internalized multiple culturalmeanings held in mental representations of inter-connected cultural schemas facilitating interpreta-tions within multiple cultures.Understanding multiculturalism also requires an

explanation of how these cultural cognitions deve-lop. We follow a sociocultural perspective thatemphasizes the mutual constitution of mind andsocial experiences (Markus & Hamedani, 2007;Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Meyer & Höllerer, 2010;Nisbett, 2003; Peterson & Søndergaard, 2011), andsuggest that cultural cognitions are formed as areflection of social phenomena, and are situatedin or intertwined with the social context (Cerulo,2002; DiMaggio, 1997; Peterson & Wood, 2008;Sewell, 1992; Smith & Collins, 2009; Vaughan,2002; Wilson & Clark, 2009). Therefore both con-tent and structure emerge from sociocultural expe-riences, and through cultural learning embeddedin relationships and activities (e.g., Bourdieu, [1977]2006; Brown & Duguid, 1991; DeFillippi & Ornstein,2003; Elkjaer, 2003; Levinthal & March, 1993;Orr, 1990; Peterson & Wood, 2008; Powell, Koput,& Smith-Doerr, 1996; Shanks, 2005; Smith &

Collins, 2009; Strauss & Quinn, 1997; Wenger,1998). Although cognitive content and structure arerelatively stable, they can change as a result ofcultural learning, whereby people acquire schemaspertaining to different cultures (i.e., multiculturalcontent), and develop cognitive structures that linkand merge them. Specifically, social processes suchas modeling, direct and indirect experience, rewardsfor culturally appropriate behaviors, and instructionare critical for cultural learning (Gherardi, Nicolini,& Odella, 1998; Markus & Hamedani, 2007; Peterson& Wood, 2008; Wood & Bandura, 1989).Managers vary considerably with respect to their

cultural experiences – for example, length of stayin a foreign culture, number of cultures to whichthey have been exposed, and intensity or nature ofthe experience –which affects changes in cognitions(Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura, & Larsen, 2003). Thisresults in distinct content and structure of multi-cultural cognitions, so that individuals differ in howwell they understand other cultures, how manycultures they comprehend, and how they internallyorganize cultural cognitions, which leads to differ-ences in thinking, sense-making, evaluations, andresponses. To capture this variation, in the nextsection we propose stylized patterns of multicultur-alism, each understood as a distinct, relatively stablecognitive architecture shaped by different culturalexperiences.

DEVELOPMENT OF PATTERNS OFMULTICULTURALISM

“Whenever I board a plane to go home, I become a differentperson, and on the flight back it is the other way around.”

Why is it that some multiculturals feel this way,while others have a different experience … beingalways aware of their other cultures, constantlypondering different meanings of the same wordor event, considering multiple alternatives, and inte-grating tidbits of various cultural views into theirwork? To explain such variation, we introduce fivepatterns of multiculturalism – compartmentali-zation, integration, inclusion, convergence, andgeneralization (see Figure 1).We derive the patterns from a connectionist

perspective, based on a series of conditions relatedto multicultural content and structure of cogni-tions. We specifically consider what happens whenindividuals are exposed to multiple cultures. Cogni-tions can be either based on the original contentsof the various cultures or represent some type of



hybrid content that emerges. If original contentsare retained, they can be used either separately orin an interlinked manner; if a hybrid emerges,at the theoretical extreme it will be an essentiallynew set of cognitions substantially different fromthe originals. In the general case, a hybrid repre-sents some kind of recombination of the originalcognitions, and can be formed though expandingthe base culture with elements from other cultures,or through reducing the cultural content to acommon core. Based on all of these conditions,we propose five patterns of multiculturalism: twothat retain the original cultural knowledge but

differ in the way original cultures are connected –

compartmentalization and integration; two thatrepresent recombined original sets (expanded andreduced) – inclusion and convergence; and onereflecting the emergence of new cultural cognitions– generalization. Below, we elaborate further oneach pattern and explain how their distinct contentand structure emerge as a result of different socialexperiences.

CompartmentalizationWe define compartmentalization as a cognitivepattern in which an individual has internalized

CompartmentalizationSeparate cultural cognitions BA C

GeneralizationNew culturalcognitions of meta-cultural schemas

D

A

B

C

ConvergenceMerged culturalcognitions consistingof overlappingschemas

B

IntegrationInterconnected cultural cognitions

A

B C

InclusionEnhanced home culturalcognitions (A) withadded foreign cultureelements

A+

B

C

A

A

C

Figure 1 Patterns of multiculturalism.



meanings from multiple cultures, whereby the cul-tures are held separately, and are not linked inan integrated cognitive structure. The mental repre-sentation of compartmentalized multiculturals con-sists of multiple sets of cultural schemas, reflectingdeep knowledge of each culture, which are thenused for interpretation, communication, and beha-viors in different cultural contexts. By depth ofcultural knowledge we mean knowledge that is notsuperficial, in that the individual not only knowsthe typical patterns of behavior in a given culture,but also understands their underlying logics andmotivations. The cultural schemas allow efficientinterpretation, because it is based on processingof culture-congruent cognitive pathways that havegained stability over time, and thusmay have becomeunconscious and automatic (Ericsson & Towne,2010). Here, the different sets of cultural schemasare held separately, and interpretation at any giventime is guided by just one culture, activated by thespecific cultural cues (O’Reilly, 2005). As a result ofthe disconnected structure, compartmentalizationmulticulturals can alternate back and forth betweensometimes logically contradictory meaning systems,as they are not concerned with and aware of con-flicts between these meanings (Strauss, 2005). Thisis consistent with Berger and Luckmann’s (1966:156–157) idea that individuals can switch worlds –

that is, change their social reality, including theirsocial and cultural self. By analogy, one could thinkabout switching between languages in different con-texts. Different cultural cognitions have been foundin attribution styles (Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997;Hong et al., 2000), reasoning and decision-makingstyles (Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2000), and self-evaluations, attitudes, and value endorsement(Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002; Verkuyten & Pouliasi,2006), where there is a sense of belonging in theactive culture (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton,1993). Therefore, a compartmentalization manager,who travels from one country to another, switchesto a different set of schemas reflecting different waysof thinking and understanding.We propose that this pattern of multiculturalism

develops when individuals have multiple foreigncountry experiences, each of which is confinedwithin one particular setting and is relatively inde-pendent from the others. Each experience adds newcultural content, but does not require or involvea simultaneous dealing with multiple cultures. Asa result, individuals do not form structural linksbetween the newly acquired cultural schemas andthe existing cognition. This pattern can be expected

when learning occurs in different contexts and/or atdifferent times of one’s life, whereby individualsmay compartmentalize interpretations associatedwith different social spheres and discourses (Roskos& Christie, 2011; Strauss & Quinn, 1997). The like-lihood of this pattern depends on the nature ofthe experience – for example, its uniqueness, length,and intensity of interaction. It will develop whenthe individual is deeply immersed in a foreignculture without concurrent interactions with othercultural groupings, or when the new cultural contextis significantly distinct from what is known, andis therefore hard to link in any meaningful way(Strauss, 2005). It is also possible that in highlydiverse environments with clashing cultures (e.g.,world cosmopolitan cities), individuals might delib-erately choose to focus on one culture at a time,as opposed to seeking linkages between them. Anexample of this type is a manager who works abroadin a host-country-focused job, and who maintainspredominantly host-country social interactions. Theinteractions with the home contacts are limited,rare, and not intense, and do not occur at the sametime as the ones in the host country. Compartmen-talizing the different cultural cognitions (i.e., keep-ing them separate, yet available) is a very naturalmechanism through which people handle multi-plicity and deal with contradictions. However, com-partmentalization multiculturals are not the sameas monoculturals. They have at their disposal multi-ple cultural cognitions, which they can activateunder particular circumstances. They can even co-activate unconnected schemas and blend interpre-tations into a reasonable synthesis (D’Andrade,1995), although they will not do so routinely. Tosummarize, we propose:

Proposition 1: Compartmentalization multicul-turalism results from separate learning of distinctcultural meaning systems without building cogni-tive links between them. Individuals switch bet-ween the cultures based on activation in distinctcultural settings. They may access schemas fromtwo or more cultures simultaneously, although thisrequires an additional cognitive effort, and does nothappen automatically.

IntegrationIntegration multiculturalism is a pattern in whichan individual has internalized multiple meaningsystems that are interlinked within one coherentset of cultural schemas. Similar to compartmen-talization, it allows a deep understanding of cultural



contexts, as it retains the different culture-specificcognitions. In contrast, though, here the multi-cultural cognitions are interlinked, and as such arefrequently and even routinely activated together(Förster & Liberman, 2007; Higgins, 1990; Strauss &Quinn, 1997). The stronger the intercultural cogni-tive linking, the more likely will the interpretations,ways of thinking, and actions be simultaneouslyshaped by the different cultures. Therefore, integra-ted multiculturals do not necessarily switch betweenlargely distinct worlds, but combine aspects of eachin their thoughts and actions. Even if a compartmen-talized and an integrated multicultural had similarculture-cognitive content (i.e., both have internalizedmultiple meaning systems, and both can understandsituations in their local context, their nuances, andmatters of appropriateness and evaluations), theywould be very different multiculturals, because inter-pretations are evoked within different cognitivearchitectures, involving only one or multiple cul-tures, respectively. In addition to the strength of theintegration, the cognitive capacity in a given situa-tion also affects activation. For example, in restrictedsituations, when under time pressure, individualsmay not use multicultural interpretations (Decoster& Claypool, 2004; Förster & Liberman, 2007). Simi-larly, other factors such as salient motivation, mood,and identity also affect which schemas are activated(Förster & Liberman, 2007).We suggest that integration multiculturalism

results from the combination of the following learn-ing experiences. First, as for compartmentalizationmulticulturals, extensive exposure to in-depth learn-ing opportunities in multiple host cultures is funda-mental. The individual learns through strong socialembeddedness with host culturals and diverse expe-riences such as participating in different activitiesand events (Lücke & Roth, 2008). Second, in contrastto compartmentalization, often the different cultu-res are experienced together. These are situations inwhich influences of multiple cultures are coincidingin one setting or following in rapid succession: forexample, an individual has multicultural meetings,or regularly socializes with friends from differentcultures. This creates a social space with cultural cuesactivating multicultural cognitions and strengthen-ing the structural links between them. Such linkingrequires certain meaning-making processes thatconnect separate and even contradictory views andideas. In order to result in stable structure, the multi-cultural exposure has to be frequent and repetitive,and it has to be based not only on observation butalso on active participation and enactment of the

cultures. Discussions or explanations of culturalmeanings and differences can also facilitate reflec-tive thinking processes, leading to more consciousstructural integration. Not all intercultural cognitivelinks will be the same, however; depending on theexperiences, some will be stronger than others.Highly integrated schemas can lead to automatic,unconscious thought and actions. In summary, wepropose:

Proposition 2: Integrated multiculturalism deve-lops from interconnected learning of distinct cul-tural meaning systems whereby strong cognitivelinks are established between them. Such integra-tion is enhanced through parallel, repeated, deep,and intense multicultural experiences. Multiplecultural cognitions are activated concurrently forinterpretation.

InclusionInclusion multiculturalism is where an expandedand modified cultural content emerges that incor-porates elements of multiple cultural cognitionsinto a dominant, pre-existing culture. In this case,individuals do not internalize the complete culturalmeaning system from the foreign cultures, nor linkthem in their entirety with their dominant culturalcognition. Instead, they bring only select culturalelements into their primary cultural cognition. Thisoccurs through matching new cultural informationbased on its resonance with salient and accessi-ble cognitions (O’Reilly, 2005; Smith, 1996). Suchmatching depends on the level of similarity betweenthe new and the existing content. Similar interpreta-tions are matched onto existing categories, becausecognitive pathways of related constructs overlap,thus not changing the dominant cognitive structure.New interpretations are likely to be added to, andtherefore expand, the dominant cognition. That iswhy inclusion individuals develop modified cul-tural views of situations, leading to alternative inter-pretations (Smith, 1996). The changed cognitivecontent provides more differentiated and complexunderstandings of specific settings. Finally, drasti-cally different meanings or strongly conflictingviews that do not resonate with existing cognitionmay not be learned or integrated at all.Inclusion multiculturalism develops as a result of

less intense exposure to multiple foreign cultures,which nevertheless constitutes a cultural experience,especially when it occurs frequently and repeatedly.This may involve, for example, contact with aforeigner within the home setting, or short travel or



stay abroad with few cultural interactions. Suchexperiences allow only limited access to modelingbehaviors in the foreign culture. A typical example isthe learning that takes place in a closed expatriatecommunity, where interactions are based largelyon the home culture, and in relative isolation fromthe host. In such conditions, internalization ofthe complete host cultural meaning system – or evenextensive parts of it – is unlikely. However, themulticultural exposure may still be extensive, forexample in regularly held cross-cultural meetings,or interactions with colleagues from diverse back-grounds. Such learning is supported through narra-tives and stories, communication, reports, speeches,or books. Cross-cultural training also facilitatesthis learning, as it increases the ability to imitateothers in actual situations, and to recognize modelbehavior in host culturals (Black & Mendenhall,1990). To summarize:

Proposition 3: Inclusion multiculturalism deve-lops from limited cultural exposure to new cul-tures, whereby discrete cognitive elements fromother cultures are added into the dominant cul-tural cognition held by the individual. This resultsin a singular – albeit modified – cognitive struc-ture. Interpretations continue to be strongly influ-enced by the dominant cognitions, but can alsoaccommodate alternative understandings, owingto the new cognitive elements added to it.

ConvergenceConvergencemulticulturalism is defined as the inter-nalization of select meanings from multiple culturesbased on overlapping similarities. In essence, thispattern constitutes a simplified and reduced contentbased on a common subset of cultural cognitionsthat are shared between the cultures. The selectionof the common subset occurs through a cognitivematching mechanism. The emerging views oftenignore details while preserving common charac-teristics (Smith, 1996); cultural idiosyncrasies arereduced and details and variations discarded, andonly the shared and overlapping cognitions areretained. The overlapping cognitive configurationsevoke similar interpretations across contexts. Thecommon cognitions, while simplified and ignoringdetails, are an essential part of, and therefore stillsituated in, each of the cultures involved. Conver-gence multiculturalism varies with regard to the sizeof the overlap of content (from limited to extensive)as well with regard to symmetry of the represen-tation of different cultures, with some cultures more

heavily weighted, and others only marginallyrepresented.Convergence occurs when individuals are exposed

to a larger number of cultures, and their exposureis moderate or low in terms of time spent, intensity,and breadth. Under such conditions, individualslook for simplification in order to deal with themultiple contexts, and at the same time are notengaged in in-depth cultural learning, which wouldimply a more complete internalization of a givenculture, rather than a selection of a subset of cogni-tive elements that are compatible with the onesalready held. Actual participation in host culturalsettings, though, allows learning of meanings insocial contexts, recognition of the situated natureof cultural meanings, and their activation based oncues. This makes convergence different from inclu-sion, where the linking of interpretations to theircontextual origins is tenuous. Convergence multi-culturals do learn local host culture, albeit a reducedversion of it. Through matching cognitive path-ways of similar concepts, common meanings can befound (Garson, 2012; Houghton, 2005; Shanks,2005). We suggest that such cognitive processesare highly efficient ways to achieve some degreeof understanding and adjustment without furtherimmersion in the culture, avoiding the dissonanceassociated with contrasting meanings. Individualsdo not start out in this pattern, but arrive at it asthey are exposed to an increasing number of cul-tures. Therefore we propose:

Proposition 4: Convergence multiculturalismdevelops as a simplification solution, when indi-viduals have been exposed to a large number ofcountries but have not developed very deepunderstandings of any of them. It is reflected ina reduced subset of cultural cognitions, that isshared among all the cultures, but continue to besituated in each culture. This ensures a basic andnon-conflictual cultural understanding acrossmultiple contexts.

GeneralizationGeneralization multiculturalism is defined as inter-nalization of cultural meanings and emergence ofcultural cognitions that are based on, but are not thesame as, the original cultures. These new cognitionsreflect abstraction of regularities and generationof higher-order principles across multiple meaningsystems. Generalization is conceptually distinct fromthe previous patterns, as they all incorporate variouselements of the multiple original cultures that have



been recombined or selected into a coherent set. Incontrast, generalization, while based on learningfrom many cultures, involves the generation of newcultural content that is less contextual, more wideranging, and universally applicable than what otherpatterns can achieve. This is similar to aspects ofcultural intelligence when interacting knowledgeis linked by an individual’s cultural metacogni-tion at a higher level, involving abstraction fromcultural specifics and focusing of cognitive resources(Thomas, 2006, 2010). The resulting understandingsdo not exist in any culture as part of the originalcultural meaning system, but they resonate withthe various cultures. This resonance is inherent inhow cognitions function with pattern recognitionmechanisms in terms of similarity or resonance ofcognitions (i.e., interpretations, ways of thinking,affect involvement) in order to find underlyingregularities (D’Andrade, 1995; Smith, 1996). Whengeneralizing, details of cultures are ignored, andcommon patterns and overarching understandingsare extracted instead (Houghton, 2005). Here, theresonance-matching cognitive process occurs cross-culturally, so that insights can be gained thatwould not be possible without bringing severalcultures together. The underlying cognitive structureis therefore based on strong intercultural linking,and the more stable these links become, the morelikely it is that they will guide decisions andbehaviors.Generalization develops when the multiplicity of

cultural experiences itself become the learningground. It is likely to emerge when individualshave been exposed to many cultures, which createsinconsistencies and thus necessitates some kindof cognitive simplification in meaning-making.Resonance-based generalization is a natural propertyof connectionist models that arises when diffe-rent cultural perspectives can be matched, basedon similarities deriving from parallel cultural worlds(Houghton, 2005; McClelland & Rogers, 2003; Rogers& McClelland, 2004). Park (2010), for example,suggests that such processes occur during stressfullife events, owing to discrepancies of appraised andexisting meaning. Exposure to multiple culturesmay also be associated with high levels of stress,and thus lead individuals to search for compre-hensibility across contexts, and to engage in proce-sses of reflective abstraction by considering com-monalities and inconsistencies (Linn & Songer,1991), resulting in significant cognitive changes(Wenger, 1998; Wertsch, Tulviste, & Daniels, 2005).As a result, a non-culture-specific metacognition

is created that allows operation across contexts.Examples include serial expatriates habitually livingand traveling in various cultural contexts, or man-agers with extensive and diverse exposure. Tosummarize:

Proposition 5: Generalization multiculturalismdevelops as a simplification solution, when indivi-duals face substantial cultural multiplicity and inresponse develop new meta-cultural cognitionsgeneralizable across cultures. The original culturalcognitions are no longer retained regularly or usedfor interpretations. The generalized cultural cogni-tions allow cultural understanding and interpreta-tion in many, even unfamiliar, cultural contexts.

MULTICULTURAL ABILITIES AND MNC TASKEFFECTIVENESS

Past research has already proposed a number ofpositive outcomes of bi- and multiculturalism andtheir various patterns. For example, Fitzsimmonset al. (2011) argue that multicultural identity posi-tively impacts the work of teams, intercultural nego-tiations, ethics and leadership, and cross-borderalliances and acquisitions. Hong (2010) proposesinfluences on team effectiveness, and Brannen,Garcia, and Thomas (2009) suggest an impact onhigher cultural metacognition, which facilitatesadjustment and learning. Multicultural experienceshave also been found to enhance creativity (Leung,Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Maddux, Adam, &Galinsky, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). We seekto add to this literature in two ways.First, we direct our discussion to the MNC con-

text, which is both practically significant and theo-retically appropriate for these questions. The veryexistence of the MNC depends on a firm-specificadvantage – typically knowledge, innovation, orpractice – which must be transferred across unitsand borders to leverage global presence and accu-mulate rents (Buckley & Casson, 1976, 2003, 2009).The most critical tasks in the MNC thus revolvearound cross-border knowledge transfer (Birkinshaw,Bresman, & Nobel, 2010; Bresman, Birkinshaw, &Nobel, 1999; Fransson, Håkanson, & Liesch, 2011;Gupta &Govindarajan, 1991, 2000; Kogut & Zander,1993, 2003) and integration across the naturallyfragmented and dispersed operations (Foss &Pedersen, 2004; Noorderhaven & Harzing, 2009;Tippmann, Scott, & Mangematin, 2012), so thatthe distributed capabilities of the company are leve-raged on a global basis, an idea captured by the term“transnational company” (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1991;



Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Such a model is not easy toachieve, however. Many of the associated difficultiesstem from the diversity of meanings in the cross-cultural context. When organizational concepts,ideas, or practices cross cultural boundaries, they aresubject to new sets of interpretations and changesin meaning, which causes disruptions and misinter-pretations (Brannen, 1992, 2004; Brannen, Liker, &Fruin, 1999; Brannen & Wilson, 1996; Gertsen &Zølner, 2012; Hung, Li, & Belk, 2007). For example,the adoption of a practice developed in a foreigncultural context is often inhibited because of itsdifferent cultural meaning, which may be inconsis-tent with the existing cultural interpretations andmay lead to lack of comprehension and acceptance(Fiss & Zajac, 2004; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001;Hanges et al., 2006). Such differences in meaningcan seriously undermine the legitimacy and even thefundamental understanding of a transferred concept(Buck & Shahrim, 2005; Jensen & Szulanski, 2004;Meyer & Höllerer, 2010). Similarly, it will be difficultto capture unique indigenous capabilities arisingin specific countries and to develop practice inno-vations based on that – a phenomenon Hart (2007)explained as co-inventing contextual knowledgeand solutions. Finally, differences in cultural under-standings inhibit intercultural interactions, rangingfrom building relationships with external players tothe effectiveness of diverse teams (Earley & Gibson,2002); they challenge the creation of culturallydiverse knowledge networks and the building ofsocial capital (Kostova & Roth, 2002).Second, the connectionist perspective and the

patterns of multiculturalism that we derive basedon it help in understanding the development ofrespective capabilities, and also highlight additionalcapabilities not addressed in previous research. Fun-damentally, depending on the pattern of multicul-turalism, managers will develop certain capabilitiesand competences, and as a result will be more or lesseffective in the critical MNC tasks discussed above.Specifically, the varying cultural content and struc-ture in the different patterns impact cultural differ-ently on understanding, sense-making and ways ofthinking, social interaction and communication,being insider and/or outsider to a culture, andcreativity, among others. There are several key cap-abilities affected by the pattern of multiculturalism.First is the ability to make sense of foreign MNCcontexts. Culture-cognitive aspects of foreign cultu-res are difficult to observe and interpret correctly,because they are tacit and often unstated (Scott,2001; Zucker, 1983). Thus, understanding requires

the manager to have sufficient cultural cognitionsand expertise. Second, managers need to be ableto interpret or make sense of situations in a multi-cultural manner, for which they need to hold andevoke related cognitive structures that allow them tocompare and contrast the different understandings.Third is the ability to translate a particular situa-tion into one that is meaningful in a differentcontext, involving understanding, reinterpretation,active transformation, and re-embedding (Brown &Duguid, 1991; Buck & Shahrim, 2005; Czarniawska,2012; Czarniawska & Sevón, 1996; Giddens, 1984;Gould & Grein, 2009; Morris & Lancaster, 2006;Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Zilber, 2006). For that, theyalso need to be capable of modifying, recombi-ning, or integrating related meanings, and maybeeven creating new ones if necessary. For example,a manager can frame a message in host culturalterms while retaining the essence of it. In fact, it isoften necessary to recontextualize knowledge or aspecific practice to fit the new cultural settings towhich it is being exported (Brannen, 2004; Buck &Shahrim, 2005; Gertsen & Zølner, 2012; Peltokorpi& Vaara, 2012). Fourth is the ability to generatenew ideas through processes of juxtaposition andrecombination.Below we will explain how the different patterns

of multiculturalism induce cognitive processes thatare associated with different cultural capabilitiesand competences, and thus impact the effectivenessof individuals in various strategically importanttasks in MNCs. Table 1 summarizes this discussion.

CompartmentalizationThe content and structure of compartmentalizationmulticulturalism implies a plurality of cultural inter-pretations available to the manager, whereby inter-pretations are evoked based on only one culture at atime. Peterson and Wood (2008) refer to the out-come of the cultural learning process as gainingcultural expertise. Accordingly, a compartmentaliza-tion multicultural is a cultural expert in two or morecultures. Such managers have deep, broad, anddifferentiated understandings in each culture, anddo not perceive, or are not disturbed by, discrepan-cies and competing explanations. They can fill inmissing information in a culture-congruent way,make sense out of new information, and makepredictions about what is going to happen in cul-ture-typical settings. Motivations, rewards, andappropriate behavior are not only understood butalso accepted as normal within a given context. Theysuccessfully interact and communicate with others



(Tadmor, et al., 2010), and are capable of developingmeaningful relationships in each context. For exam-ple, Li and Hong (2001) found that more accurateknowledge of the host culture results in more satis-factory interactions with locals. Thoughts, goals, andbehaviors can be expressed in a way that is alignedwith the respective culture, and so are more likely tobe perceived as acceptable or even desirable. This iscritical for motivating and persuading others.Compartmentalized multiculturals do not typi-

cally combine interpretations rooted in diffe-rent cultures. These managers therefore lack themediating capabilities necessary for cross-culturalinterpretation, in that they can understand ideasand practices within a culture, but will be unableto do this beyond the specific cultural context. They

do not consider multiple cultural perspectives of anidea, which prevents a more complex understandingthereof and the recognition of its potential for cross-cultural dissemination. These managers also lackcapabilities for cross-cultural translation.Considering the task of transferring organizational

practices and knowledge, the effectiveness of thesemanagers will depend on the type of practice andknowledge that is being transferred. If the knowl-edge is codifiable and easily articulated, they wouldlikely be rather successful, given their understandingof the recipient environment. They can adapt thepractice to the local context; however, they will notengage in cultural or practice innovation, becausethis requires the availability of multiple views forrecombinative and innovative processes to occur

Table 1 Patterns of multiculturalism and critical tasks in MNCs

Pattern of multiculturalism Description Multicultural capabilities Task effectiveness

Compartmentalization Individuals internalize multiplemeaning systems, which areretained and invoked separately

Understanding multiple culturesEnriched interpretation withineach cultureNegligent cross-culturaltranslation

Transfer of codified knowledgeNo cultural or practice innovationIntra-cultural relationships andacceptance by locals

Integration Individuals internalize multiple butinterconnected meaning systems,which are used simultaneously forinterpretation

Understanding multipleconnected culturesComplex interpretation acrosscultural contextsTranslation across culturalcontextsCreativity across culturalcontexts

Comprehensive cross-culturaltransfers and organizational changeCulture and practice innovationCross-border boundary-spanningCross-cultural social networks

Inclusion Individuals incorporate elements offoreign cultural meaning systemsinto their dominant culturalcognition. This expanded cognitionis used for interpretation acrosscultures

Sophisticated understanding ofthe home cultureInterpretation by drawing onhome-cultural cognitionsLimited translation acrosscultural contexts

Transfer of MNC core beliefs intodifferent cultural contextsSome ability to transfer knowledgeand practices to home-culturalcontextIncremental innovation

Convergence Individuals develop a coherentcultural cognition based on theoverlapping content and structureacross cultures. This common corecognition is used for interpretationacross cultures

Understanding of overlap ofmultiple culturesInterpretation of multipleconnected cultures in overlapareaLimited translation andrecontextualization

Transfer of cross-culturally similarknowledge and practicesGlobal integration andstandardizationCross-cultural social networks

Generalization Individuals develop a new meta-cultural cognition based ongeneralizations and abstractions ofmultiple cultures. Thismetacognition is used forinterpretation across contexts

Little in-depth understanding ofparticular cultural contexts;limited cross-culturalinterpretation and translationUnderstanding and interpretingmeta-environmentNovel meta-cultural insights andunderstandings

Transfer of supra-national practicesand knowledgeMeta-cultural networksMeta-cultural innovationEnhancing global organizationalimage and legitimacy



(Clemens & Cook, 1999; Friedland & Alford, 1991;Seo & Creed, 2002; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury,2012). The success of these managers in practicetransfer is also related to their unique ability tounderstand, engage, and motivate the recipients, asthey are viewed essentially as locals. The effective-ness of these managers diminishes, however, forpractices where knowledge becomes more tacit, orhas a higher social embeddedness component. Thenthe lack of cognitive links between the differentcultures makes it harder for them to reinterpret andtranslate the practice across meaning systems. There-fore we suggest:

Proposition 6a: Managers with compartmen-talization multiculturalism are cultural experts inmultiple cultures, which gives them the abilityto communicate, interact, function successfully,and be an insider in these cultures. They are notexperts in a cross-cultural sense.

Proposition 6b: Managers with compartmenta-lization multiculturalism will be effective in trans-ferring practices and sharing knowledge to theextent that these practices and knowledge are notstrongly embedded in culture, and thereforerequire little sense-making or translation to fit thelocal culture. Such managers are perceived by localemployees as credible agents for implementingforeign practices, because they are viewed as cul-ture sensitive and knowledgeable.

IntegrationThe culture-cognitive content and structure of inte-gration multiculturalism imply plurality and depthof cultural understanding. For integrated multi-culturals the world is inherently interconnected,and a plurality of viewpoints is natural. Similar tocompartmentalized multiculturals, integration multi-culturals have a broad and detailed set of culturaltools, and are cultural experts in more than oneculture. This gives them similar abilities of culturalunderstanding, communication, interaction, andjudgment in each of these cultures. These managersare alsomulticultural experts, in that their integratedcognitive structure evokes simultaneous interpre-tations from multiple cultures. The integration ofdifferent cultural cognitions makes the plurality inmeanings available to the manager relatively inde-pendent of the context in which they are. Conse-quently, we expect these managers to have greatervariety in cultural competence, in that they arecapable of understanding each context and making

sophisticated interpretations in light of their overallmulticultural cognitions. Their understanding ofsituations is enhanced, and these managers willbe capable of recontextualization and translationacross contexts. Specifically, inherent in the addi-tional cognitive linking is an ability to develop moredifferentiated insights, and to consider more distinctaspects. This is consistent with the observationsof Benet-Martínez, Lee, and Leu (2006: 386) that“exposure to more than one culture may increaseindividuals’ ability to detect, process, and organizeeveryday cultural meaning, highlighting the poten-tial benefits of biculturalism” and findings ofincreased cognitive complexity (e.g., Tadmor et al.,2010; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). Furthermore, themultiplicity of meanings allows some of the taken-for-granted assumptions to be overcome as theycome to light in contrasting views. Consistent withconnectionism, such views can change or weakenexisting cognitive pathways, reducing the automati-city of processing and increasing the likelihood thatassumptions can be considered more consciously.These managers will be effective in a number of

tasks critical to the transnational MNC. With regardto practice transfer, they will have strong capabilitiesfor correctly understanding, interpreting, and trans-lating practices and knowledge across meaning sys-tems, even when the practices are tacit, and differwidely in their cultural meanings. Since their under-standing is deep and complex, such managers candraw and utilize knowledge from all contexts in effec-tive ways, and can discover the taken-for-grantedand unstated value judgments and reasoning. Com-prehension of cultural assumptions and taken-for-granted aspects in the receiving environment isessential for transfers, because such comprehensionallows the knowledge or practice to be assessed,explained, and justified to the given environment(Green, 2004). As insiders and outsiders to multiplecultures, integrated managers can effectively fulfillthis function. The transfers that they conduct will bemeaningful, and will resonate with the local under-standings, in that they are able to translate the prac-tice and recontextualize its social and cultural mean-ing to make it acceptable and even desirable for therecipients. Such interpretation and in-depth com-prehension of meanings are also critical for selectingpractices for adoption in a different environment(Strang & Soule, 1998). They will also have capabi-lities of better identification, interpretation, andtranslation of indigenous ideas and practices.Furthermore, owing to the sophisticated and

interrelated cognitive structures they possess, these



managers will be able to recombine and reformulateknowledge. Such complex cognitive structures areconsistent with recombinative processes supportinginnovation. Based on the multiplicity and contra-diction inherent in their integrated multiculturalstructure, they can develop the awareness necessaryto identify patterns and break with deeply ingrainedviews. Several studies have indicated that multi-cultural experience facilitates creativity (Chiu &Hong, 2006; Galinsky, Maddux, & Ku, 2006; Leung& Chiu, 2010; Leung et al., 2008). Multiple inter-pretations enable creative expansion and recombi-nation processes (e.g., Abraham, Windmann, Daum,&Güntürkün, 2005; Leung et al., 2008; Ward, 1994).By becoming aware of the relativity of meaningsacross cultures, integrated multiculturals may deve-lop what has been called a paradoxical frame – thatis, mental templates that allow individuals to recog-nize and embrace contradictions, and which gene-rate new, creative insights (Chiu & Hong, 2005;Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011; Smith &Tushman, 2005). As individuals who are culturallydiverse in their thoughts, integrated multiculturalscan use their multicultural schemas flexibly as a gene-rator for innovative views (e.g., Clemens & Cook,1999; Lévi-Strauss, 1966; McAdam, 1982; Mutch,2007). Thus, they have a greater capability to suc-ceed with the task of practice innovation.In addition, integrated multiculturals will be effec-

tive in bridging cultures for themselves and forothers, based on the cognitive flexibility inherentin drawing on different cultural perspectives, andthe ability to maintain shared understandings withculturally diverse others. Thus they can successfullycreate social networks across cultural divides. Theyare also able to build cross-border trust, because,although foreign, they are perceived as culturallycompetent, and as respecting and appreciating allcultures involved. They can be very good in bound-ary-spanning roles and in building social networkswithin the MNC (Kostova & Roth, 2002; Zander,Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012).Finally, owing to their deep and sophisticated view

of the entire portfolio of contexts of the MNC, andthe complex multicultural interlinking, they havethe highest potential capability of leading organiza-tional change, especially when the particular changeeffort is related to changing cultural understand-ings. They can understand what kind of change isnecessary and possible, they know how to challengewhat would appear to be cultural taboo, they cananticipate the ramifications of a change initiative,and finally they can reengineer the organization in

logical and internally consistent ways that do notcontradict the multiple cultural contexts. On thedownside, such managers may be unable to simplifycultural situations when this is in fact possible.Because of the overly complex cognitive represen-tations and processes, they may compromise effi-ciency in certain tasks. Psychological effects areunclear. On the one hand, they face much contra-diction in meaning, which can cause distress inaddition to the positive effects; on the other hand,the integrated nature of their cultural cognitions alsoawards them the chance to better integrate theirmultiple selves or possibly develop a new self. Insummary:

Proposition 7a: Managers with integrated multi-culturalism are both cultural experts in multiplecultures and multicultural experts having sophi-sticated and comprehensive cultural understand-ings within and across cultural contexts. Theyhave increased cognitive complexity and creati-vity, are capable of conscious processing of cul-tural cognitions, and can mediate and influence(or shape) multicultural meanings.

Proposition 7b: Managers with integrated multi-culturalism will be effective in transferring sociallyembedded and complex practices, and in sharingtacit knowledge that requires significant sense-making, interpretation, and translation to fit thelocal culture. This pattern of multiculturalism iseffective in creating cultural and practice innova-tions, as well as in serving in cross-border bound-ary-spanning roles and building cross-culturalsocial networks. Integrated multiculturals havethe multicultural expertise vital for large-scaleorganizational transformations.

InclusionThe content and structure of inclusion multicultural-ism imply limited pluralism of cultural meanings,manifesting only within the home-cultural cogni-tions. We suggest that inclusion managers are home-cultural experts, possessing excellent abilities tounderstand and interpret ideas and practices withintheir home culture. However, they have structurallyincorporated insights from multiple cultures thatexpand their understandings. Their internalized alter-native cultural interpretations provide weak links tothe respective cultures; what has been cognitivelyincorporated might not even be recognized as foreignmeaning when it has firmly become part of existingcognitions.



Understanding and interpretation are excellentin the home culture, but limited everywhere else.Inclusion multiculturals do not view other culturesin their own terms, but as extending their ownunderstanding and knowledge. Like monoculturals,they have in-depth home-cultural knowledge, butat the same time they are likely to have more com-plex representations, as they have broader and morediverse perspectives available. In contrast to inte-grated multiculturals, the foreign cultural interpreta-tions that they have included in their cognitionsonly incompletely (and possibly falsely) representactual foreign meanings. Their ability to assess andadjust to foreign cultures is restricted to understand-ings that guide behavior in simple but not in com-plex settings and tasks. Nevertheless, facing andincorporating contrasting views will weaken exist-ing cognitive interconnections, so that automaticresponses may be overridden, and managers can bemore conscious and reflexive when making sense ofpractices.Managers who have such enriched views are better

able to recognize all aspects of their home culture, possibly even the taken-for-granted subtleties.This distinguishes them from monoculturals, who,while similarly embedded in the home culture, lackthe enhanced and deepened views. Translation ofa situation into one that is meaningful in a foreigncontext is problematic, owing to the limited knowl-edge of other cultures and the absence of strongcognitive links with them. Although they are betterthan monoculturals, the lack of true multiculturalunderstanding of practices or ideas limits their effec-tiveness in cross-cultural transfer tasks. However,inclusion multiculturals will ensure the integrity ofpractices that are being exported from their primaryor home culture, as they have deep understandingof such practices and their meaning. Thus they willbe strong carriers of the core beliefs of the organi-zation if their home culture is from the homecountry of the MNC.In addition, we suggest that such managers might

be effective in identifying valuable ideas and prac-tices indigenous to the other cultural contexts, andin importing such knowledge into their home cul-ture. Their enriched cultural content and positionas outsiders allow them to detect these ideas in theforeign contexts in the first place. Furthermore, thecognitive links between their original schemasand those borrowed from foreign contexts allowthese managers to make more sophisticated inter-pretations and translations of the foreign know-ledge for the purposes of implementation in the

home-cultural context. Inclusion managers wouldbe also able to actually recontextualize and imple-ment this knowledge in their cultural context, andthus engage in some forms of import innovation.These capabilities are enhanced when inclusion

of contrasting views has weakened home-culturalschemas and increased their capability to assess theirown cultural assumptions more consciously. Inclu-sion multiculturals can become aware of new waysof looking at existing problems, see new aspects, andknow when to challenge existing notions with novelideas. We would note, though, that such innova-tions will be only incremental, because themanagersare limited in their ability to process the contra-dictions and multiplicity necessary for more signifi-cant innovations. Another negative is that inclusionmanagers will have limited capabilities of socialbridging, and in fact may be ineffective in dealingwith individuals from other cultures, especiallybecause they will likely be viewed as ethnocentric.

Proposition 8a: Inclusion multiculturals arehome-cultural experts with increased complexityand awareness of home-cultural schemas, owingto the incorporation of elements of foreign cul-tures. They have limited host cultural and multi-cultural interpretation capabilities.

Proposition 8b: Managers with inclusion multi-culturalism are effective in preserving practices inthe process of cross-cultural transfers, which isparticularly important for practices tightly linkedto the core belief systems of the organization. Theycan be trusted with representing the organization’sstrategic vision, goals, and policies, as well as withimplementation for activities originating fromtheir home culture. Inclusion managers are likelyto engage in incremental cultural innovations asthey import ideas from foreign cultures into their(home) cultural cognitions.

ConvergenceThe culture-cognitive content and structure of con-vergence multiculturalism implies the extraction ofculturally simplifying prototypes based on similar-ity. Convergence managers view the world as essen-tially overlapping and compatible, in which culturalpluralism can effectively be managed by focusing onwhat is common between cultures rather than onwhat distinguishes them. They believe that there is aset of cultural understandings that allow them tointeract with various cultural contexts in a mean-ingful way. They have a limited ability to interpretlocal contexts in cross-cultural communication and



interaction. The characteristics of the overlap, itsbreadth and depth, and its symmetry in culturalrepresentations, will determine the degree to whichconvergence managers develop a capability forboth understanding and interpretation. When theoverlap is significant, they will be more culturallycompetent, especially with regard to cultures thathave greater overlap in activation patters. Thereforeinterpretations will be more complete. Becauseof the focus on similarities, these managers willhave limited ability for translation and recon-textualization.Instead, their expertise rests in the ability to

recognize similarities where others see differences,harmony rather than conflict, cross-cultural rele-vance and integration rather than isolation. Thestrength of this pattern is thus intercultural ratherthan local. Convergent managers will be effective inidentifying practices consistent with their set ofcommon schemas, as well as in transferring suchpractices across cultures. In addition, they will becapable of designing global practices that wouldbe more readily implementable in many culturalcontexts, inasmuch as they are built around theshared cognitions between the cultures. Thus, themanagers can facilitate global integration and stan-dardization in MNCs. We would also note that asconvergent managers remain relatively cogniti-vely embedded in all cultures, they will have somecapabilities of transmitting and adapting practicesand knowledge to diverse cultural contexts whenpractices and knowledge hold similar meaningsacross cultures. Finally, another distinctive compe-tency of these managers is their potential ability tofoster cross-border personal relationships based onshared cognitions. Similar to integration multicul-turals, and much more so than the other patterns ofmulticulturalism, they can successfully play the roleof cross-cultural liaison. Convergent managersshould be effective in boundary-spanning tasks andin building cross-border social networks in organiza-tions. To summarize, we propose:

Proposition 9a: Convergence multiculturalshave host cultural understandings that are limitedby the multicultural similarities. They have increa-sed capabilities of recognizing commonalitiesacross cultures or sets of cultures, but lack in-depthcultural knowledge in the multiple contexts.

Proposition 9b: Managers with convergencemulticulturalism will be effective in bridging cul-tural contexts and bringing cultures together,because they understand and share essential parts

of each culture and as a result are accepted inall cultures. These managers are also effective inbuilding integrated social networks linking peopleand units across borders – that is, they are good inbuilding cross-border social networks. They can beparticularly effective at disseminating processesand practices that have a common universal corebut allow for some local adaptation.

GeneralizationThe content and structure of generalization multi-culturalism constitutes an integrated, inherentlymulticultural level of interpretation, where schemasare extracted from but not immediately situated inany of the multiple cultural contexts. The general-ized but resonating views are activated in variouscultural contexts. A generalization multiculturalviews the world as a diverse place that is nonethelessstructured by overarching principles that can beapplied to different cultural settings. Such an indivi-dual has a “bird’s eye view” of processes in differentcultures, and can find broad regularities amongthem. This pattern presents a trade-off betweendepth and complexity of cultural understanding, onthe one hand, and efficiency and insights in dealingwith multiple contexts, on the other. However, thesalience of general views means that specific con-texts are interpreted with these views in mind,lacking cultural details and the situated nature ofspecific meanings. Such managers are multiculturalexperts rather than experts in multiple cultures,evoking broad insights over deep, extensive culturalknowledge of any one setting. This does not meanthat these managers do not employ culture-consis-tent thoughts and actions, particularly in routinesituations; they might. However, in many situationsthat require making sense of concepts and ideas,their cognitions evoke broader interpretations; asa result, problems will be solved based on insightsderived through multicultural generalization.The true strength of this pattern is the formation

of cultural cognitions that are removed from theoriginal culture while not being culture-free. In fact,generalization multiculturals are quite aware of cul-tural relevance, and their goals are not to overcomeculture but to gain and apply broader interpreta-tions, thought processes, and solutions. These man-agers might identify, for example, that certain socialaspects tend to be particularly influential in a certainpractice in different cultural contexts. They do notdevelop a catalog of general truths, but rather dyna-mically generate and apply generalized ideas from



sets of resonating cultures. They can be seen asmulticulturally fluent, flexibly interpreting andreinterpreting the world(s) around.Multicultural expertise in this type lies in recogni-

zing and generating overarching principles, havinga more general outlook, and applying broader theo-ries to dealing with cultures. Such cultural cogni-tions allow somewhat successful interactions withforeigners, but this is born out of an awarenessof cultural multiplicity and an understanding andcapability of simple resonance and alignment withsituated cultural meanings. Adaptation to foreignsettings is thus limited, as are their capabilities forconcrete recontextualization tasks. These managerswill be low on all key cultural and cross-culturalcognitive processes – understanding, interpretation,and translation with regard to particular contexts.However, we suggest that, inasmuch as they con-struct inductive theories, they will develop an under-standing and interpretation of the meta-culturalcontext, and on that level can translate to othercontexts, operating effectively across borders. Thesemanagers do not disregard culture, but culturalmultiplicity is their métier, and they can be viewedas globe-trotters.Managers with generalization multiculturalism

will be particularly effective in world-scope activitiesthat are not tied to any specific context. A meta-understanding of situations helps in formulatingglobal strategies that resonate with various cultures.A practice, rather than being identified in one con-text and transferred to another, is conceived of ashaving inherent patterns that align with variouscultures. Managers will tend to focus on ideas andpractices with a similar global appeal. We refer tothese practices (e.g., environmental practices, safety)as meta- or supra-national (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin,2008). They usually do not need much translationor recontextualization, as they innately resonatewith multiple contexts, and therefore generalizationmulticulturals can be effective with them. However,they do not excel in the concrete implementationtasks. The process of establishing innately multi-cultural cognitive content and structure is also oneof recombination, and the generalization away fromspecifics can also invoke novel insights (O’Reilly,2005). We therefore expect that these managers willshow increased creativity, born out of creativeexpansion and recombination processes (e.g., Chiu& Hong, 2006; Galinsky et al., 2006; Leung & Chiu,2010; Leung et al., 2008). Through this they areeffective in cultural innovation tasks, especially forinnovations that pertain to the meta-environment,

and concern for instance novel strategies and neworganizational approaches.We expect these managers also to be effective

in building global networks with similar people fromother companies with whom they share similarglobal universal cognitions. Belonging to such glo-bal managers’ networks will in turn impact thevisibility and the reputation of their companies asbeing plugged into the community of truly globalorganizations. Generalization managers contributefurther to the legitimacy of MNCs because of theiremphasis on, and effectiveness in, implementingmeta-practices, as discussed above. On the down-side, generalization multiculturals will not beparticularly suitable for tasks that require a deepunderstanding of any particular local context (e.g.,local adaptation), or sophisticated interpretationand translation of organizational issues across borders.As a result of their limited ability to get deep into themindset of multiple cultural groups, generalizationmanagers may be viewed somewhat unfavorably byemployees in different locations.

Proposition 10a: Generalization multiculturalsdo not have sophisticated and comprehen-sive cultural understanding within and acrosscultural contexts. However, they have a potentialfor novel insights, and can identify multicul-turally resonating ideas and practices. They havea bird’s eye view of cultural differences andcommonalities.

Proposition 10b: Managers with generalizationmulticulturalism will be effective in identifying,appreciating, and disseminating meta-practicesand knowledge globally, because of their abilityto separate cognitively from any specific cultureand to operate at the meta-cultural level instead.These managers are particularly skilled in buildingmeta-cultural networks of like cosmopolitanexecutives. As a result, they are able to enhancethe image and legitimacy of their organizations.They can engage in innovation in the meta-environment.

DISCUSSIONThe objective of this paper was to offer a discussionon multiculturalism informed by recent conceptua-lization of culture in cognitive connectionist terms.This perspective allowed us to focus on the indivi-dual in more detail than is typical for cultureresearch in the management field. Furthermore,unlike previous research in this area, which has



typically emphasized particular types of individual(e.g., immigrants, ethnic minorities, expatriates),and has used a different perspective to study eachof them, this approach addresses the conceptual coreof multiculturalism – culture-cognitive content andstructure – which should be valid across differenttypes of individual. The connectionist lens alsoallowed us to theorize on the various patterns ofmulticulturalism, and helped us explain why globalmanagers holding different patterns of multicultur-alism will be more or less effective in certain tasks inmodern MNCs.We suggest several contributions to the literature

on multiculturalism. To start with, our cognitiveperspective allows a different way of thinking aboutmanagement development in a global context. Itconsiders managers’ multicultural development inlight of the cognitive effects that different culturalexperiences have on their ways of thinking, under-standing, and acting. This provides a foundation fora more differentiated approach to the design ofspecific sociocultural experiences that facilitate par-ticular patterns of multiculturalism, and thusimprove managers’ effectiveness in different tasks.The focus on cognition also adds specificity to themore general notion of individual worldviews, suchas cosmopolitanism and global mindset, and has thepotential to enrich the literature on biculturalism.We offer a cognitive connectionist view on multi-

culturalism based on internalized meanings andways of thinking without requiring identification orearly socialization. Our thesis is that managers canfunction effectively in multiple cultural contextswithout having to identify with them or changetheir value system – that is, without developingstrong affect to the cultures involved, or expressing“an attachment with and loyalty to these cultures”(Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010). This is parti-cularly important when identity and identificationdo not correspond to cognitions that determineindividuals’ cultural capabilities. For example, anItalian American can identify with both countries,and yet lack critical knowledge to function effec-tively in Italy. Furthermore, we suggest that inter-nalizing more, or multiple, cultures is not necessarilya simple extension of what can be called bicultural-ism, but may lead to newmulticultural patterns suchas generalization and convergence, and associatedcapabilities and task effectiveness.There are interesting opportunities for further

linking of the multicultural cognition and biculturalidentity streams of research, as they represent thedistinct but related constructs of multicultural mind

and multicultural self (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez,2010; Tadmor et al., 2010). Understanding howcognition influences identification and sociali-zation, and vice versa, and how identificationimpacts the development of particular patterns ofmulticultural cognitions later in life would be aninteresting contribution on both sides. We believeconnectionism provides the theoretical basis forstudying the interplay between identity-related acti-vation of self and cultural schemas, but furtherintegrative work is necessary. It could be suggested,for example, that priming cultural identities influ-ences the accessibility of certain cultural schemas,which results in a push away from or pull towarda particular culture. Integrating cognition-basedideas could also shed light on some fascinatingsituations in which individuals behave in culturallyincongruent ways (e.g., Asian Americans behavingmore like Asians when exposed to American cues)(Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Mok &Morris, 2009). Furthermore, it is important to con-sider in which situations cultural identities matterfor thought and action, and in which situationsother parts of self are more salient. This may affectmanagers’ individual performance, as well as theirroles in multicultural teams.A central contribution of the paper is the discus-

sion of the development of different patterns ofmulticulturalism. We note that our suggested pro-totypes show similarities to previously advancedcategorizations of forms of biculturalism (e.g., Berry,1997; Birman, 1994; LaFromboise et al., 1993;Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). Our objectivewas to provide a theory-based description, one thatallows us to understand how cultures come togetherin a person’s mind, with an emphasis on his or hercultural understandings, thoughts, and capabilities.We view this as the first step in a bigger researchagenda on this topic, which can be extended invarious ways. For example, it would be important tostudy in depth the antecedents of the differentpatterns. While we offered a brief description of howthey might develop, this was primarily for the pur-pose of providing conceptual clarity to the definitionof patterns. A further examination of antecedentscould include, for example, individual cognitiveabilities, personality predispositions, organizationaland cultural contexts, and others. Another directionfor future research could be to study the depth ofcultural understanding as it relates to patterns ofmulticulturalism. Based on our theorizing, it couldbe suggested that compartmentalization and inte-gration imply both broad and deep knowledge of



the multiple cultures, whereas convergence andgeneralization may reduce breadth but maintainsome depth by retaining only critical shared elementsof the multiple cultures. Further conceptual andempirical work is needed to understand this topic,which could have important normative implica-tions. Finally, the concept of cultural intelligencethat suggests the existence of both general cognitivestructures and processes in addition to culture-specific cognitions (Thomas, 2006, 2010; Thomas etal., 2008; Thomas & Inkson, 2005) is highly relevantto the different patterns of multiculturalism weproposed. In particular, the connectionist perspec-tive can help explain how culture specifics canbecome interlinked and changed in an individual’smind. Through the different patterns of multi-culturalism, cultural intelligence can be linked tomanagers’ multicultural skills and interculturaleffectiveness.We also see a big theoretical opportunity in study-

ing the stability and evolution of patterns of multi-culturalism over time. We expect the patterns tobe fairly stable, since the cognitive interconnectionsin which cultural understanding is embeddedemerge and change only over time with new expe-riences. It would be instructive to study the condi-tions for stability and change. For example, we couldaddress questions such as: How does the number ofcultures affect the pattern of multiculturalism? Isthere a limit to the number of cultures that could fitinto any one particular pattern – that is, when mightthe addition of another culture trigger a shift toanother pattern? Could it be, for example, thatowing to its complexity, the integration pattern willhave a limit, so that after including a certain numberof cultures, the individual may switch to otherpatterns that simplify the cultural situation, suchas generalization? Similarly, the convergence maybecome more and more difficult to achieve with thelearning of additional cultures, and at some pointthe individual may switch (consciously or sub-consciously) to another pattern – generalization, forexample. There is also the question of how theparticular cultures involved in the portfolio affectthe pattern of multiculturalism. Does it matter, forexample, if the cultures are more or less similar toone another? Relatedly, how does the original cul-ture of an individual influence the consequentexpansion of their cultural cognition, and theircapacity to develop different patterns of multicul-turalism? What additional conditions might comeinto play in these dynamics – for example, degreeof internalization of the home culture, and its

particular values and openness? Finally, a fascinat-ing question to explore would concern the possiblesimultaneous existence of more than one pattern ofmulticultural cognition for the same individual.It could be that individuals follows convergencewith some cultures in which they operate (e.g.,European culture), but maintain compartmentaliza-tion or generalization with regard to other culturesin their portfolios.An important contribution of our paper is that

we place multiculturalism within the organizationalcontext. The second set of propositions that weoffered contributes directly to understanding theeffectiveness of global managers in MNCs. Whilerecognizing the importance of this issue, currentliterature tends to be more descriptive than theore-tical, viewing the global manager as a “black box,”without in-depth explanation of what drives theircapabilities in certain roles. We have tried to openthis black box to explain why different managershave different cultural cognitions and thereforedifferent capabilities. We recognize that this discus-sion needs to be taken further. For example, here wefocused selectively on a few cross-border tasks, suchas practice transfer, innovation, and social capitalcreation. We argued that these are critical tasks forthe existence and success of MNCs, but it might beinstructive to expand this list of potential outcomesto include other functions of global managers, suchas strategic decision-making, team management,and global leadership and motivation. The state ofmulticulturalism might also affect the individualwith regard to their sense of self-efficacy, psychiccomfort, ability to adapt to many contexts, careerand growth opportunities, and other interpersonaland personal outcomes. Finally, it could be interest-ing to explore possible negative effects of patterns ofmulticulturalism in organizations.Although this is a conceptual paper, it can be

used as a basis for empirical multiculturalismresearch. This is facilitated by the emergence of newmethods for studying culture and cultural schemasfrom a cognitive perspective, including frame analy-sis (Benford, 1993; Creed, Langstraat, & Scully, 2002;Fisher, 1997; Fiss & Hirsch, 2005; Johnston, 2002,2005; Johnston & Klandermans, 1995; McLean,1998; Mohr, 1998), analysis of widely shared sche-mata (D’Andrade, 2005; Quinn, 2005; Strauss, 2005),and meaning in organizational research (Gephart,1993; Geppert, 2003; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn,2001). These techniques use interviews, public andprivate texts, and ethnographic accounts as the datasource for cultural analysis. In this, they bear



similarity to discourse analysis. However, they focusspecifically on culture-laden elements such as meta-phors, cultural keywords, reasoning, and other ideaelements like catchphrases. In addition to analyzingcontent, these methods allow the analysis of struc-ture, and provide tools for graphical representationof the hierarchical nature of schemata (Johnston,2002; Johnston & Klandermans, 1995). Bringingsuch techniques into international business research

holds promise for enriching the field’s approach tostudying and understanding culture in general.In conclusion, we believe that this paper adds to

the cognitive work on culture and multiculturalism,and hope that it will foster further inquiry in thisimportant area of research. It is a response to callsstressing the importance of culture-cognitive repre-sentations of organizational situations in cross-cul-tural management (Peterson & Wood, 2008).

REFERENCESAbraham, A., Windmann, S., Daum, I., & Güntürkün, O. 2005.Conceptual expansion and creative imagery as a function ofpsychoticism. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(3): 520–534.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1991. Managing across borders: Thetransnational solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. A. 1991. Connectionism and themind: An introduction to parallel processing in networks. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. X. 2006. Biculturalism andcognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4): 386–407.

Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. 2002.Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in bicul-turals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5): 492–516.

Benford, R. D. 1993. Frame disputes within the nuclear disarma-ment movement. Social Forces, 71(3): 677–701.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction ofreality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY:Doubleday.

Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation.Applied Psychology, 46(1): 5–34.

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Nobel, R. 2010. Knowledgetransfer in international acquisitions: A retrospective. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 41(1): 21–26.

Birman, D. 1994. Acculturation and human diversity in a multi-cultural society. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds),Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. 1990. Cross-cultural trainingeffectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for futureresearch. Academy of Management Review, 15(1): 113–136.

Bourdieu, P. [1977] 2006. Outline of a theory of practice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brannen, M. Y. 1992. “Bwana Mickey”: Constructing culturalconsumption at Tokyo Disneyland. In J. J. Tobin (Ed.), Re-madein Japan 216–234. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextuali-zation, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academyof Management Review, 29(4): 593–616.

Brannen, M. Y., Garcia, D., & Thomas, D. C. 2009. Biculturals asnatural bridges for intercultural communication and collaboration.Paper presented at International Workshop on InterculturalCollaboration, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Brannen, M. Y., Liker, J. K., & Fruin, W. M. 1999. Recontextuali-zation and factory-to-factory knowledge transfer from Japan to theUnited States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. 2010. Bicultural individualsin organizations: Implications and opportunity. InternationalJournal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 5–16.

Brannen, M. Y., & Wilson, III., J. M. 1996. Recontextualizationand internationalization: Lessons in transcultural materialismfrom the Walt Disney Company. CEMS Business Review, 1(1):97–110.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. 1999. Knowledge trans-fer in international acquisitions. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 30(3): 439–462.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. 2000. Reasons ascarriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models ofcultural influence on decision making. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 27(2): 157–178.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working,learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1): 40–57.

Buck, T., & Shahrim, A. 2005. The translation of corporategovernance changes across national cultures: The case ofGermany. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 42–61.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinationalenterprise. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 2003. The future of the multinationalenterprise in retrospect and in prospect. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 34(2): 219–222.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 2009. The internalisation theoryof the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress ofa research agenda after 30 years. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 40(9): 1563–1580.

Cerulo, K. A. (Ed) 2002. Establishing a sociology of culture andcognition. In, Culture in mind: Toward a sociology of culture andcognition. New York: Routledge.

Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. 2005. Cultural competence: Dynamicprocesses. In A. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds), Handbook ofmotivation and competence. New York: Guilford.

Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. 2006. The social psychology of culture. NewYork: Psychology Press.

Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. 1999. Politics and institutionalism:Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology,25(1): 441–466.

Creed, W. E. D., Langstraat, J. A., & Scully, M. A. 2002. A pictureof the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics.Organizational Research Methods, 5(1): 34–55.

Czarniawska, B. 2012. Operational risk, translation, and globali-zation. Contemporary Economics, 6(2): 26–39.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (Eds) 1996. Introduction to translat-ing organizational change. In, Translating organizationalchange. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

D’Andrade, R. 1992. Schemas and motivation. In R. D’Andrade,& C. Strauss (Eds), Human motives and cultural models.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’Andrade, R. G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’Andrade, R. 2005. Some methods for studying cultural cogni-tive structures. In N. Quinn (Ed), Finding culture in talk. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dawson, M. R. W. 2004. Minds and machines: Connectionism andpsychological modeling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Decoster, J., & Claypool, H. M. 2004. A meta-analysis of primingeffects on impression formation supporting a general model ofinformational biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review,8(1): 2–27.



DeFillippi, R., & Ornstein, S. 2003. Psychological perspectivesunderlying theories of organizational learning. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M.A. Lyles (Eds), The Blackwell handbook of organiza-tional learning and knowledge management. Oxford: Blackwell.

DiMaggio, P. J. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review ofSociology, 23(1): 263–287.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. 2002. Multinational teams: Newperspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Elkjaer, B. 2003. Social learning theory: Learning as participationin social processes. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds),The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledgemanagement. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ericsson, K. A., & Towne, T. J. 2010. Expertise. Wiley Interdisciplin-ary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4): 404–416.

Fisher, K. D. 1997. Locating frames in the discursive universe.Sociological Research Online, 2(3): http://socresonline.org.uk/2/3/4.html.

Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. 2005. The discourse of globalization:Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. AmericanSociological Review, 70(1): 29–52.

Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas overcontested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder valueorientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 49(4): 501–534.

Fitzsimmons, S. R., Miska, C., & Stahl, G. K. 2011. Multiculturalemployees: Global business’ untapped resource. OrganizationalDynamics, 40(3): 199–206.

Förster, J., & Liberman, N. 2007. Knowledge activation. InE. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds), Social psychology: Handbookof basic principles. New York: Guilford.

Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2004. Organizing knowledge processesin the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 35(5): 340–349.

Fransson, A., Håkanson, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2011. The under-determined knowledge-based theory of the MNC. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 42(3): 427–435.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in:Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. InW. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds), The new institutionalismin organizational analysis. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., & Ku, G. 2006. The view fromthe other side of the table: Getting inside your counterpart’shead can increase the value of the deal you walk away with.Here’s how to do it. Negotiation, 9(3): 1–5.

Garson, J. 2012. Connectionism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed), The Stanfordencyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/connectionism/ (Winter 2012 Edition).

Gephart, Jr., R. P. 1993. The textual approach: Risk and blame indisaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6):1465–1515.

Geppert, M. 2003. Sensemaking and politics in MNCs: A com-parative analysis of vocabularies within the global manufactur-ing discourse in one industrial sector. Journal of ManagementInquiry, 12(4): 312–329.

Geppert, M., Williams, K., & Matten, D. 2003. The social con-struction of contextual rationalities in MNCs: An Anglo-Germancomparison of subsidiary choice. The Journal of ManagementStudies, 40(3): 617–641.

Gertsen, M. C., & Zølner, M. 2012. Recontextualization of thecorporate values of a Danish MNC in a subsidiary in Bangalore.Group & Organization Management, 37(1): 101–132.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. 1998. Toward a socialunderstanding of how people learn in organizations: Thenotion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3):273–297.

Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2001. Metaphors andmeaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 274–303.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theoryof structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gould, S. J., & Grein, A. F. 2009. Think glocally, act glocally: Aculture-centric comment on Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez andGibson (2005). Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2):237–254.

Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy ofManagement Review, 29(4): 653–669.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and thestructure of control within multinational corporations. Academyof Management Review, 16(4): 768–792.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows withinmultinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal,21(4): 473–496.

Hanges, P. J., Dorfman, P. W., Shteynberg, G., & Bates, A. L. 2006.Culture and leadership: A connectionist information-processingmodel. In W. H. Mobley, & E. Weldon (Eds), Advances in globalleadership, Vol. 4: 7–37. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Hanges, P. J., Lord, R., & Dickson, M. 2000. An information-processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case forconnectionist architecture. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 49(1): 133–161.

Hart, S. L. 2007. Capitalism at the crossroads: Aligning business,earth, and humanity, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: WhartonSchool Publishing.

Higgins, E. T. 1990. Personality, social psychology, and person-situation relations: Standards and knowledge activation as acommon language. In L. A. Pervin (Ed), Handbook of personality:Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

Hong, H. J. 2010. Bicultural competence and its impact on teameffectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-ment, 10(1): 93–120.

Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., & Kung, M. 1997. Bringing culture outin front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on socialcognition. In K. Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim, & S. Yamaguchi(Eds), Progress in Asian social psychology, Vol. 1, Singapore:Wiley.

Hong, Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. 2000.Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach toculture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7): 709–720.

Houghton, G. 2005. Connectionist models in cognitive psychology.Hove: Psychology Press.

Hung, K. H., Li, S. Y., & Belk, R. W. 2007. Glocal understandings:Female readers’ perceptions of the new woman in Chineseadvertising. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6):1034–1051.

Jensen, R., & Szulanski, G. 2004. Stickiness and the adapta-tion of organizational practices in cross-border knowledgetransfers. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6):508–523.

Johnston, H. 2002. Verification and proof in frame and discourseanalysis. In B. Klandermans, & S. Staggenborg (Eds), Methodsof social movement research. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

Johnston, H. 2005. Comparative frame analysis. In H. Johnston, &J. A. Noakes (Eds), Frames of protest: Social movements and theframing perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Johnston, H., & Klandermans, B. (Eds) 1995. The cultural ana-lysis of social movements. In, Social movements and culture.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. T. 2003.Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures.Psychological Science, 14(3): 201–206.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and theevolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 24(4): 625–645.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 2003. Knowledge of the firm and theevolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 34(6): 516–529.

Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizationalpractice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institu-tional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal,45(1): 215–233.



Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theoryin the study of multinational corporations: A critique and newdirections. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 994–1006.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. 1993. Psycholo-gical impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 114(3): 395–412.

Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. 2010. Multicultural experience, ideareceptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 41(5–6): 723–741.

Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y.2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The whenand how. American Psychologist, 63(3): 169–181.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966. The savage mind. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Levinthal, D., & March, J. 1993. The myopia of learning. StrategicManagement Journal, 14(8): 95–112.

Li, Q., & Hong, Y. Y. 2001. Intergroup perceptual accuracypredicts real-life intergroup interactions. Group Processes andIntergroup Relations, 4(4): 341–354.

Linn,M. C., & Songer, N. B. 1991. Cognitive and conceptual changein adolescence. American Journal of Education, 99(4): 379–417.

Lücke, G., & Roth, K. 2008. An embeddedness view of biculturalism.Working Paper D-08-07, South Carolina CIBER Working PaperSeries.

Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. 2009. Cultural borders andmental barriers: The relationship between living abroad andcreativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5):1047–1061.

Maddux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. 2010. When inRome… learn why the Romans do what they do: How multi-cultural learning experiences facilitate creativity. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 36(6): 731–741.

Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. 2007. Sociocultural psychol-ogy: The dynamic interdependence among self systems andsocial systems. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds), Handbook ofcultural psychology. New York: Guilford.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 2010. Cultures and selves: A cycleof mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science,5(4): 420–430.

McAdam, D. 1982. Political process and the development of blackinsurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McClelland, J. L., & Rogers, T. T. 2003. The parallel distributedprocessing approach to semantic cognition. Nature ReviewsNeuroscience, 4(4): 310–322.

McLean, P. D. 1998. A frame analysis of favor seeking in therenaissance: Agency, networks, and political culture. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 104(1): 51–91.

Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. 2010. Meaning structures in acontested issue field: A topographic map of shareholder valuein Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1241–1262.

Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical framesand creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity throughconflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 116(2): 220–240.

Mohr, J. W. 1998. Measuring meaning structures. Annual Reviewof Sociology, 24(1): 345–370.

Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. 2009. Cultural chameleons andiconoclasts: Assimilation and reactance to cultural cues inbiculturals’ expressed personalities as a function of identityconflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4): 884–889.

Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. 2006. Translating management ideas.Organization Studies, 27(2): 207–233.

Mutch, A. 2007. Reflexivity and the institutional entrepreneur: Ahistorical exploration. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1123–1140.

Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. 2010. Multiculturalidentity: What it is and why it matters. In R. J. Crisp (Ed), Thepsychology of social and cultural diversity: Social issues andinterventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians andWesterners think differently, and why. New York: Free Press.

Noorderhaven, N., & Harzing, A. W. 2009. Knowledge-sharingand social interaction within MNEs. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 40(5): 719–741.

Norman, D. A. 1982. Learning and memory. San Francisco: Freeman.O’Reilly, R. 2005. The division of labor between the neocortexand hippocampus. In G. Houghton (Ed), Connectionist models incognitive psychology. Hove & New York: Psychology Press.

Orr, J. E. 1990. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Com-munity memory in a service culture. In D. Middleton, &D. Edwards (Eds), Collective remembering: Memory in society.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Oyserman, D., & Sorensen, N. 2009. Understanding culturalsyndrome effects on what and how we think: A situatedcognition model. In R. Wyer, Y. Y. Hong, & C. Y. Chiu (Eds),Understanding culture: Theory, research and application. NewYork: Psychology Press.

Park, C. L. 2010. Making sense of the meaning literature:An integrative review of meaning making and its effects onadjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2):257–301.

Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. 2012. Language policies and practicesin wholly owned foreign subsidiaries: A recontextualizationperspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9):808–833.

Peterson, M. F., & Søndergaard, M. 2011. Traditions and transi-tions in quantitative societal culture research in organizationstudies. Organization Studies, 32(11): 1539–1558.

Peterson, M. F., & Wood, R. E. 2008. Cognitive structuresand processes in cross-cultural management. In P. B. Smith,M. F. Peterson, & D. C. Thomas (Eds), Handbook of cross-culturalmanagement research 15–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. 1997. Variations in biculturalidentification among African American and Mexican Americanadolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(1): 3–32.

Powell, W., & Colyvas, J. A. 2008. Microfoundations of institu-tional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, &K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds), The Sage handbook of organizationalinstitutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorga-nizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networksof learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(1): 116–145.

Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission:Balancing global integration with local responsiveness. New York:Free Press.

Quinn, N. (Eds) 2005. How to reconstruct schemas people share,from what they say. In, Finding culture in talk. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

Rogers, T. T., &McClelland, J. L. 2004. Semantic cognition: A paralleldistributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Roskos, K. A., & Christie, J. F. 2011. Mindbrain and play-literacyconnections. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(1): 73–94.

Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. 2002. Language and thebicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8):1040–1050.

Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. 2nd edn,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions,praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective.Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222–247.

Sewell, Jr., W. H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, andtransformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1): 1–29.

Shanks, D. R. 2005. Connectionist models of basic humanlearning processes. In G. Houghton (Ed), Connectionist modelsin cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.

Smith, E. R. 1996. What do connectionism and social psychologyoffer each other? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5): 893–912.

Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. 2009. Contextualizing personperception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review,116(2): 343–364.



Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategiccontradictions: A top management model for managing inno-vation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–536.

Strang, D., & Soule, S. 1998. Diffusion in organizations and socialmovements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review ofSociology, 24(1): 265–290.

Strauss, C. 2005. Analyzing discourse for cultural complexity. InN. Quinn (Ed), Finding culture in talk. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. 1997. A cognitive theory of culturalmeaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., & No, S. 2010. WhatI know in my mind and where my heart belongs. In R. Crisp(Ed), The psychology of social and cultural diversity. West Sussex:Wiley-Blackwell.

Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. 2006. Biculturalism: A model ofthe effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation andintegrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2): 173–190.

Thomas, D. C. 2006. Domain and development of culturalintelligence: The importance of mindfulness. Group & Organi-zation Management, 31(1): 78–99.

Thomas, D. C. 2010. Cultural intelligence and all that jazz:A cognitive revolution in international management research?In T. Devinney, T. Pedersen, & L. Tihanyi (Eds), The past, presentand future of international business & management. Bingley:Emerald.

Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. 2005. Cultural intelligence. Consult-ing to Management – C2M, 16(1): 5–9.

Thomas, D. C. et al. 2008. Cultural intelligence: Domain andassessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,8(2): 123–143.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institu-tional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, andprocess. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tippmann, E., Scott, P., & Mangematin, V. 2012. Problemsolving in MNCs: How local and global solutions are (and arenot) created. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(8):746–771.

Vaughan, D. 2002. Signals and interpretive work: The role ofculture in a theory of practical action. In K. Cerulo (Ed), Culturein mind: Toward a sociology of culture and cognition. New York:Routledge.

Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. 2006. Biculturalism and groupidentification: The mediating role of identification in culturalframe switching. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3):312–326.

Ward, T. B. 1994. Structured imagination: The role of conceptualstructure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1):1–40.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, andidentity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Daniels, H. 2005. L.S. Vygotsky andcontemporary developmental psychology. London: Routledge.

Wilson, R. A., & Clark, A. 2009. How to situate cognition: Lettingnature take its course. In M. Aydede, & P. Robbins (Eds),The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory oforganizational management. Academy of Management Review,14(3): 361–384.

Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. 2012. Leading globalteams. Journal of World Business, 47(4): 592–603.

Zilber, T. 2006. The work of the symbolic in institutionalprocesses: Translations of rational myths in Israeli high tech.Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 281–303.

Zucker, L. G. 1983. Organizations as institutions. In S. B. Bacharach(Ed), Research in the sociology of organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSGundula Lücke, PhD, received her PhD in interna-tional business from Moore School of Business at theUniversity of South Carolina and currently holdsa post-doctoral position in international business atUppsala University, Sweden. Her research focuses onsociocultural and institutional approaches to under-standing organizational and individual processesin multinational corporations, including topics suchas multiculturalism, institutional multiplicity, andMNC innovation ([email protected]).

Tatiana Kostova, PhD, is the Buck Mickel Chair andProfessor of International Business at the MooreSchool of Business, University of South Carolina.Her research focuses on MNC management andincludes topics such as knowledge transfer, organi-zational legitimacy, intra-organizational socialcapital, multiculturalism, dual identification, andpsychological ownership. She is an AIB Fellow andhas served as Vice President of the AIB and Chair ofthe IM Division of AOM.

Kendall Roth is Senior Associate Dean for Interna-tional Programs and Partnerships at the Darla MooreSchool of Business, University of South Carolina. Heholds the J. Willis Cantey Chair of InternationalBusiness and Economics, and is a Fellow of theAcademy of International Business. He received hisPhD in international business from the University ofSouth Carolina in 1986, and has been on the facultyof the Darla Moore School of Business since that time.

Accepted by David C Thomas, Area Editor, 16 July 2013. This paper has been with the authors for four revisions.



Date post:	27-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kendall
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective: Patterns and implications

Documents