Abstract
Growing immigration creates linguistically and culturally diverse working environments. National cultural characteristics are common concepts in everyday discourse in culturally heterogeneous workplaces as well as in academic research on work environments and management. By analysing empirical interview data from two arenas of productive activity in Finland, we show how national cultural characteristics are understood differently depending on the structural positioning of the arena in the local–national–transnational–global continuum. The data consists of a total of 53 in-depth interviews of foreign-born and Finnish-born experts working in high tech industries and research organizations, and white-collar and blue-collar workers in metal industries. Results illuminate how national interactive specificity is interpreted differently in global and local–national productive arenas. For instance, depending on the type of work, Finns could be describe as workaholics or as easy-going employees. The most central national cultural stereotypes have different interpretations among employees in the high tech business (global arena) and metal industries (mainly local and national arena).
Highlights
Migration and the globalization of business, media and education are leading to a ubiquitous interculturality in modern societies
Gerhart and Fang (2005) in turn came to the conclusion that factors other than national cultural differences explain the main part of variance in human resource management between countries
These attempts to contextualize national cultural differences and their importance in management and intercultural interaction have left largely unexamined how particular arenas of economic activity differ in their interpretation of national cultural characteristics
Summary
Migration and the globalization of business, media and education are leading to a ubiquitous interculturality in modern societies. In intercultural business and technical communication (IBTC) and management studies, the most influential frameworks for examining intercultural interaction in the workplace have been Geert Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions theory and Edward Hall’s (1976) contexting model. Both of these models, as well as many other developments of them, build on the taken-for-granted idea of national cultures, a notion which has been severely criticized empirically Gerhart and Fang (2005) in turn came to the conclusion that factors other than national cultural differences explain the main part of variance in human resource management between countries They pointed out the importance of organizational cultures and national economic characteristics in affecting such differences. In this study, such arenas refer to the professional or industry level rather than to organizational cultures only
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
