Content uploaded by Leigh Anne Liu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leigh Anne Liu on Nov 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dynamic transformation of
communal and exchange schemata
in multicultural relationships
Leigh Anne Liu
Robinson College of Business, George State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Chi-Yue Chiu
Faculty of Social Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, and
Zhi-Xue Zhang
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to conceptually distinguish between communal and exchange
relationship schemata and analyze their dynamic interactions and transformations in multicultural contexts.
Design/methodology/approach –Drawing on theories of social capital, social exchange, networks and
relational models, the authors propose a framework to conceptualize how the communal and exchange
relationship schemata can be transformed, integrated and multiplied under contextual influences, especially in
culturally complex settings faced by multinational organizations.
Findings –The authors elucidate the dynamic processes of schemata interactions and transformations in
relationship management at interpersonal, interorganizational and national levels in a variety of intercultural
contexts, including interactions between monoculturals from different cultures and interplay of cultures within
biculturals and among multiculturals. The authors explain how schemata integration and fusion can provide
competitive advantages in navigating multicultural relationships.
Research limitations/implications –Systematic qualitative and quantitative studies are recommended to
further test and refine the proposed ideas regarding the dynamic interactions and transformations of
relationship schemata.
Practical implications –This paper presents implications for individuals, country managers and leaders
who need to initiate and maintain relationships with culturally different others. The authors highlight the
desirability of being aware of one’s own relational schema, understanding others’schema, bridging the two
schemata as well as fostering integration and fusion of the schemata.
Social implications –The 2020 global pandemic and various social upheavals around the world highlight
the urgency of finding effective mental models to manage relationships. The inclusive and adaptive ways of
thinking about relationships can potentially facilitate harmonious connections and conflict resolution.
Originality/value –The authors conceptually disentangle two established relationship schemata and offer a
model of their dynamic synergetic transformations.
Keywords Culture, Relationship, Network, Communal relationship, Exchange relationship, Schema,
Multicultural contexts, Interpersonal, Interfirm
Paper type Conceptual paper
In the increasingly competitive global marketplace, having the capability to manage
relationships between and among geographically dispersed organizations and culturally
diverse individuals can confer a major competitive advantage. At the individual level, the
impact of expatriates’relationship with key stakeholders in both host country and home
country on the effectiveness of international teams and organizations cannot be overstated
(Sullivan, 2013). At the organizational and country levels, examples abound for the critical
importance of managing relationships with local customers and regulators to success in
international business, even for companies that have been successful at home (Liu et al., 2014).
Communal and
exchange
schemata
Funding: This research was partially supported by a grant funded by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China, awarded to Zhi-Xue Zhang (Grant No. 71632002).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2059-5794.htm
Received 30 August 2019
Revised 30 December 2019
29 July 2020
Accepted 2 August 2020
Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
DOI 10.1108/CCSM-08-2019-0162
Partly because of their unsatisfactory relationships with customers, the Home Depot pulled
out of the Chinese market in 2011 and Best Buy had to change its business model in China
(Kurtenbach, 2011). Huawei was blacklisted by the US in May 2019 after having recurrent
disputes with US politicians over security issues (e.g. Koh, 2020). In Hungary, a well-intended
government policy to encourage employers to offer food vouchers as an employee benefit,
when interpreted as a strategy to exclude other European Union companies in the business,
had fueled legal conflicts between the country and the EU (Feher, 2013). In contrast, AIG
gained market access advantages in China in the 2000s, after its former CEO Hank Greenberg
had established a long-term relationship with the Chinese government by buying and
donating back Chinese ancient treasures since the 1970s (Hout and Ghemawat, 2010).
Admittedly, many factors are involved in the above phenomena, ranging from business
operations, market strategies, institutions and cultural differences. We propose that a
multilevel relationship schemata perspective may help to complete our understanding of
these phenomena by illuminating some of the underlying cultural dynamics at the individual
and collective levels. This perspective underscores the theoretical and practical importance of
relationship managements in multicultural contexts and adds to the current literature, which
has studied extensively the effects of static relational models entrenched in a certain culture.
Our perspective is particularly relevant to understanding business relationships in the
contemporary contexts of individuals with multicultural identities and organizations with
fusion cultures. The objective of the present article is twofold: first, we synthesize past
research findings to conceptually distinguish between communal and exchange relationship
schemata; second, we illustrate the analytical heuristics of understanding the dynamic
transformations of relationship schemata in different multicultural contexts.
Individuals and organizations constantly engage in social interactions. Naturally, a
relationship has been an object of academic interest around the globe. In the Western world,
relationship has been studied as “social capital”in multiple literature studies (e.g. Coleman,
1988;Bouty, 2000;Gulati et al., 2000;Koka and Prescott, 2002;Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998;Adler
and Koon, 2002). Social capital has been defined as the social channels and mutual
understanding that expedite or hamper action through organizational features such as trust
and networks (Jones et al., 2007;Putnam, 1995) or as the actual and potential resources
embedded within a network of relationships (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). In nonWestern
contexts, relationship has been studied as guanxi in Chinese culture and jeitinho in Brazilian
culture (Alston, 1989;Duarte, 2006;Hwang, 1987;Luo, 1997). Guanxi refers to personal
relationships and the social practice of building such relationships in pursuit of certain
purposes of life and work (e.g. Chen et al., 2004;Guthrie, 1998;Zhang, 1999). Guanxi engenders
trust and thereby serves as a form of insurance in otherwise the risky environment (Hsee and
Weber, 1999). Jeitinho refers to the relational mechanism used to navigate bureaucracy
through social connections (Duarte, 2006). Other relationship-related concepts include waste
in the Middle East, jugaad in India and palanta in Mexico.
All these cultural constructions of relationship deal with human connections, trust and
social networks and are sometimes used interchangeably in the study of international
business relationships. In the present article, we place these cultural constructions in the
context of multicultural business. We propose that two schemata –the communal schema
and the exchange schema –are implicated in all of these relationship constructs. We further
submit that culture-specific and situation-specific factors can moderate the dynamic
transformation of the two schemata. Relationship schemata can determine how individuals
will behave in various situations (Fischer, 2012). According to Clark and Mills (1979),
communal and exchange schemata have different effects on interpersonal attraction,
commission of social errors (Fiske et al., 1991;Fiske, 1993;Mills and Clark, 1982), intentional
social choices and social memory (Fiske, 1992). We propose that relationship schema as a
culture psychological concept can operate at both the individual and collective levels.
CCSM
Employees and leaders nested in organizations holding a certain relationship schema may
use the schema to guide their decision-making and behaviors. Hence, we can also apply
relationship schemata to organizational level analysis when key decision-makers with such
schemata take actions on behalf of their organizations or when members in the organizations
behave as a collective (Barr et al., 1992;Huff, 1990).
We propose that these schemata are malleable rather than static. That is, a schema will be
transformed into a different one under certain circumstances. The dynamic transformation of
the exchange and communal schemata, which we will discuss in detail, makes a theoretical
contribution by explicating the distinctive psychological characteristics that mediate the
schemata’s operations in multinational business environments. Our analysis will illustrate the
theoretical and practical implications of these transformations for navigating complex
relationships in the globaleconomic and political systems. In the following sections, we will first
review several cultural constructions of relationship to anchor our analysis of the differences
between the communal and exchange relationship schemata and their attendant network
characteristics. Next, we will discuss how these two relationship schemata transform in
multicultural contexts. We will close by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of
our framework for understanding and managing complex intercultural relationships.
Theoretical background and conceptual development
Multicultural and multilevel relationships
Cross-cultural research has been attempted to understand cultural differences by comparing
cultures on common dimensions such as collectivism–individualism (e.g. Hofstede, 2001;House
et al., 2004). The global view of cultures afforded by such cross-cultural research can be
supplemented and enriched with a nuanced indigenous analysis of local cultural meanings (Au,
1999;Osland et al., 2000;Chiu and Hong, 2006), as pointed out by some psychologists (Berry,
1989;Pike, 1971,1990) and management scholars (Jack et al.,2013;Morris, et al., 1999;Tsui,
2004). For example, Malinowski’s(1922)indigenous accounts of relationship in the West Pacific
region and Fei’s (1948, 1992) guanxi in rural China have significantly advanced knowledge in
relationship formation and functions. In the present article, we will combine cross-cultural and
indigenous analyses to reveal the nuances of cultural differences in social network structures
and interactions of social networks across cultures.
The interactions that occur between and among individuals, organizations and nations in
today’s increasingly intertwined global community offer opportunities to study relationship
management at multiple levels by combining cross-cultural and indigenous analyses. At the
national level, countries negotiate trade agreements and form alliances based on interests and
regional affiliations. At the organizational level, companies and nongovernmental
organizations reach out to clients across borders and regions. At the same time,
individuals represent their organizations and countries and collaborate across borders by
expanding their friendship and professional networks. As managers of multinational
companies or diplomats accumulate experiences in managing relationships with people and
organizations from different cultural backgrounds, they develop global competency, global
identity and cultural intelligence (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008;Bird et al., 2010;Erez and Gati,
2004). As their intercultural experiences expand, these individuals update their indigenous
cultural knowledge, setting the stage for integration and fusion of the relationship schemata
that are differentially prevalent across cultures. We propose that the communal and
exchange relationship schemata can be found in all individuals, organizations and nations.
However, the conditions that prompt their transformation may differ across cultures.
Schemata of communal and exchange relationships
Based on Goffman’s (1961) analysis of the variations between social and economic exchanges,
Clark and Mills (1979) established empirically the differences between communal and
Communal and
exchange
schemata
exchange relationship schemata. The communal relationship schema approves giving favor
unconditionally to the needy, while the exchange relationship schema prescribes giving a
favor in return for a favor (Clark and Mills, 1979). The key difference between the two
relationship schemata is the motivation for social transaction. For individuals practicing an
exchange relationship schema, the act of receiving benefits would create a specific debt or
obligation to reciprocate a comparable benefit. In contrast, for individuals practicing a
communal relationship schema, an act of receiving benefits will not alter the general
obligation to provide aid to the needy.
People in a communal relationship tend to use the communal schema to guide social
interaction, whereas people in an exchange relationship tend to rely on the exchange schema.
Those practicing transformational (transactional) leadership are also more likely to use the
communal (exchange) schema. According to Bass (1985,1998), transformational leadership has
the following expressions that resemble the characteristics of the communal schema: (1)
idealized influence that instills sense of mission, respect and trust; (2) inspirational motivation
that communicates sense of purpose and expectations; (3) intellectual stimulation that
encourages problem solving and (4) individualized attention with personal mentoring and
concern. In contrast, transactional leadership has expressions that resemble the characteristics
of the exchange schema: (1) contingent reward based on contractual trade of effort and
performance; (2) correctivemanagement and interventionby searching for deviations from rules
and standards and (3) Lassie-Faire leadership except codified roles (Bass, 1985,1998).
Communal and exchange schemata prevail in all cultures and are included in major
constructions of relationship. For example, although the exchange relationship and its
associated schema are prioritized in the US business context, there are closely knitted
communal networks in family contexts or old fashion country clubs where the communal
schema is preferred. Although social capital, a dominant construction of relationship in
Western capitalist countries, seems to prioritize the exchange relationship schema, while
guanxi and jeitinho, dominant constructions of relationship in non-Western countries, seem
to privilege the communal relationship schema, both relationship schemata are entailed in the
operations of social capital (e.g. Kostova and Roth, 2003), Guanxi (e.g. Hwang, 1987) as well as
Jeitinho (e.g. Duarte, 2006).
Likewise, the characteristic ideas associated with the two relationship schemata are present
in both forms of relationship.For example, in the discussion of exchange relationship, based on
Malinowski’s (1922) anthropological work in the Western Pacific, Blau (1964) distinguishes
between social and economic exchanges: while social exchanges entail diffuse, unspecified
obligations (a characteristic idea in the communal relationship schema), economic exchanges
entail specifically stipulated obligations (a characteristic idea in the exchange relationship
schema). Similarly, in their research on psychological contract, Robinson et al. (1994) have
distinguished between relational and exchange contracts based on nonspecific nonmonetary
(a characteristicidea in the communal relationship schema)vs specific monetaryexpectations in
employment relationships (a characteristic idea in the exchange relationship schema).
Sociological perspectives of social exchange have also distinguished negotiated and
reciprocal exchanges from generalized exchanges: negotiated and reciprocal exchanges have
cognitive characteristics that are similar to those of exchange schema, and the generalized
exchanges have cognitive characteristics that are similar to those of communal schema (Baker
and Bulkley, 2014;Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;Molm, 2003;Molm et al., 2007;Yoshikawa
et al., 2020).
In the discussion on guanxi, as a largely communal relationship, scholars have considered
the interplay of affective considerations (a characteristic base of resource allocation in the
communal relationship schema) and instrumental considerations (a characteristic base of
resource allocation in the exchange relationship schema) in resource distribution (Hwang,
1987;Yang, 1999;Zhang and Yang, 1998).
CCSM
To summarize, communal and exchange relationship schemata prevail in all cultures,
their relative levels of prevalence may differ cross culturally. In the next sections, we will
elaborate how individuals and organizations holding the two schemata differ in their basic
assumptions, management, maintenance and renewal of social networks and the dynamic
interplay of the two schemata.
Differences in management and renewal of social networks
Figure 1 illustrates the characteristic networks conceptualized in the exchange and
communal schemata. The network conceived of in the exchange schema is relatively open
and horizontal without clear boundaries. In contrast, the network conceived of in the
communal network, as described in Chen (2001), has a family-type mentality, is hierarchical,
is largely need-based and has clear ingroup–outgroup boundaries. Table 1 depicts the
distinctions in the network characteristics as conceived in the communal and exchange
schemata.
Motives for networking. Individuals with the communal and exchange schemata hold
different assumptions about social relations. In exchange-schematic conception of social
network, individuals are motivated by individual mobility and ambition to construct and
update their networks. Accordingly, their continuous network construction effort is driven
by individual needs and utility. Consequently, individuals using an exchange schema would
value being successful, tend to offer benefits to others to obtain personal gains and be
Figure 1.
Two kinds of networks
Communal and
exchange
schemata
detached from feelings (VanYperen and Buunk, 1991). In a communal-schematic conception
of social network, people are motivated to maintain social stability. They want to join
preexisting social networks, navigate and fit in to the networks.
Nature of relationship. The exchange schema instills an obligation to reciprocate a benefit
or favor in specific terms that is timely and equivalent in value (Blau, 1964;Clark and Mills,
1979,1993;Robinson et al., 1994) and measurable in contractual and monetary transactions
(Bass, 1985,1998;Hwang, 1987;Yang, 1999). The communal schema, in contrast, promotes
obligations in social interactions around psychological security (Clark and Mills, 1979),
feelings of affinity (VanYperen and Buunk, 1991) and inspirational sentiments such as
commitment, loyalty, respect and trust (Bass, 1985,1998;Robinson et al., 1994;Hwang, 1987;
Yang, 1999). For example, when a Chinese applies the communal schema embedded in a
guanxi network, he or she would follow the norms of “You honor me with a foot, I honor you
with a yard”or “Receive a droplet of generosity, repay like a gushing spring”(Chen, 2001,
p. 50). These norms emphasize that debts can be repaid with a larger amount in the future.
Indeed, whereas the exchange schema prescribes symmetrical exchanges, the communal
schema allows flexibility in the symmetry of the exchanges depending on the type of
relationship (e.g. with greater symmetry in friendship or romantic relationships and greater
asymmetry in parent–child relationships). Additionally, individuals practicing an exchange
schema expect economic-like transactions as well as short-term favor giving and returning in
terms of social accounting with a social ledger (Labianca and Brass, 2006). Conversely, those
practicing a communal relationship schema expect longer-term psychological commitment
and responsibilities (Graham and Lam, 2003;Wyer and Scrull, 1994).
Links. Users of the two schemata also differ in their views about interpersonal
connections. Because of the emphasis on obligation for near-term reciprocation in the
exchange schema, its practitioners tend to prefer dyadic interpersonal connections, which
facilitate specific give-and-receive transactions. Practitioners of a communal schema, in
contrast, prefer complex interpersonal connections that enable members to have exchanges
with the targets they have direct connections (T) as well as T’s networks. Clark and Mills
(1979) liken a communal relationship to the relationship between family members. In
communal networks, marriage to one family member provides access to the benefits and
obligations for networks of the whole family.
Exchange Communal
Relational contracts Explicit Implicit
Network mobility Individual can easily build and
change social networks
Social networks already exist, individuals
need to fit in
Nature Economic, symmetrical, short-
term
Psychological, both symmetrical and
asymmetrical, long-term
Links Clear person-organization
distinction
Ambivalent person-organization distinction;
one to a collective
Benefits Access to resources and
opportunities
Psychological security, affiliation, assurance
of help when needed
Costs Economic obligation, intentional
maintenance, contingency
Emotional burden related to stability and
membership, long-term obligation,
unconditional
Monitoring and network
maintenance
Loose outside of contracts;
cognitive trust
Compliance and gatekeepers; affective trust
Network expansion Build own network before
coming back
Internal breed
Consequences of
withdrawal
Minimum Spillover effects and expensive re-entry
Table 1.
Distinctions between
exchange and
communal schemata
CCSM
Benefits and costs. Individuals holding the two schemata also anticipate different benefits
and costs from their respective social networks. Those holding an exchange schema expect
that they would benefit from access to resources and opportunities for short- or near-term
payoffs. The obligation is mostly transactional. For example, they may feel obligated to
engage in some intentional relationship maintenance practices such as sending holiday cards
to business partners. Since the relationship is dyadic, the consequences of dropping off from
an exchange-oriented social network are expected to be minimal. Moreover, it should not be
costly to reestablish a long-lost connection when it becomes necessary for another give-and-
receive transaction. In contrast, a communal network is expected to offer the benefit of
psychological security and sense of affiliation, stability and assurance of help and resources
when needed (Clark and Mills, 1979;Hwang, 1987). The felt obligations to stay in the network
may involve emotional burden, anxiety associated with sense of security and stability, guilt
and shame related to membership performance as well as commitment to repay favor at
critical moments, even when it is not beneficial or convenient for the self.
Monitoring and network expansion. Holders of the two schemata also anticipate different
mechanisms for the monitoring and expansion of their social networks. An exchange
network is expected to be relatively loose and have few gatekeepers for membership.
A communal network, however, is perceived to require strict compliance with norms and to
accept collective culpability as a means to watch out for deviance (Chao et al., 2008). These
differences do not imply that the exchange (communal) network is expected to be loose
(tight). This is because people may expect more hierarchies in a communal network. They
may also anticipate that the presence of structural holes may not necessarily add density to
the communal network. Consequently, when adding new members to the network, those
applying the exchange schema would verify and validate the credentials of new members
above or regardless of their previous relationship with the network. In contrast, those
applying the communal schema would require that newcomers to their network be trusted
and introduced by an existing member. Examples of such communal-schematic practices
can be found in an ancient arranged marriage between cousins and in university
recruitment of their own graduates to faculty positions. Although universities practicing
the exchange schema may also hire their own graduates, those are often encouraged to
leave the network, prove themselves in the profession and then return to the network with
externally verified credentials. In other words, the exchange network relies more on
cognitive trust while the communal network relies more on affective trust (e.g. McAllister,
1995;Zhang et al., 2015).
Consequences of withdrawal. Because relatively short-term reciprocity is expected in an
exchange network, individuals practicing the exchange schema have little obligation to stay
in the network. To these individuals, leaving the network will have few consequences. Indeed,
these individuals may not anticipate leaving or reentering the network to be noticeable to
others in the network. On the contrary, a communal network is perceived to operate like a
group (Triandis, 1995;Triandis et al., 1990): A newcomer needs an introduction to join the
network; withdrawal from the network is consequential and reentering the network could be
socially expensive. For example, in a society where the communal schema is popular, when
the children of a family business owner leave the family network to become artists, they may
regret having underestimated the hefty price they need to pay when a family crisis requires
them to return to take care of the family business.
In sum, the exchange and communal schemata differ markedly in their assumptions about
the features of social networks. Some organizations consistently practice the communal
schema. For example, HSN.com’s Trick-or-Treat for the UNICEF store not only features an
impressive assortment of Halloween-themed products but also compelling videos with
additional insight into how the UNICEF inspires children to help other children (Wall Street
Journal, 2013a). These communal relationships with their clients do not change much over
Communal and
exchange
schemata
time. Other organizations consistently practice the exchange schema. An example would be
the contractual relationship between Ukraine and Shell Oil, with explicit terms and trade-offs
between the two parties, giving Shell access to resources and Ukraine opportunities of
weaning off dependence on Russia (Gorchinskaya and Marson, 2013).
However, not all organizations adopt the same schema consistently; their schema use may
change in response to internal and external factors. To fully explore the implications of
relationship schemata in individual, organizational or country level interactions in
multicultural contexts, we need to consider the dynamic transformation of the two
relationship schemata. In the next section, we will discuss how the two relationship schemata
can change and expand in monocultural contexts, be integrated in bicultural contexts and
grow in complexity in multicultural contexts.
Dynamic transformation of relationship schemata
Although it is parsimonious to treat the exchange and communal schemata as stable
characteristics of individuals and organizations, human and organizational behaviors are
dynamic and embedded in complex social contexts. Therefore, individuals and organizations
may switch their relationship schemata in response to changing circumstances. Mills and
colleagues (Mills et al., 2004;Mills and Clark, 1982) argue that communal relationships vary in
strength across situations, weaker among strangers and stronger among family and friends
(Mills and Clark, 1982). In addition, the exchange schema tends to be popular in short-term
relationships, whereas the communal schema tends to prevail in relatively enduring
relationship. Nonetheless, Clark and Mills (1993) acknowledge that the two schemata can be
practiced together in the same relationship. For example, although parent–child relationships
are typically communal in nature, parents can still pay their children for housework.
Similarly, when a stranger is in dire need of help, even those holding an exchange schema
would call for an ambulance or provide assistance (Clark and Mills, 1993). Moreover, an
exchange relationship can develop into a communal one over time (Ledingham et al., 1999).
Although the two relationship schemata seem to have markedly different characteristics
(Clark and Mills, 1993;Mills and Clark, 1982), we contend that they are malleable and can be
integrated. Arguably, all business transactions engage in exchange relationships because
each party “gives up”something to other parties in return for certain benefits. However, when
a service provider “goes beyond”the normal or expected provision of benefits (e.g. spending
extra time with a client, engaging the customer on a personal level, adding in additional
services for free, etc.), the relationship also carries a communal flavor. In the next subsections,
we propose how relationship schemata may transform and alchemize in different cultural and
situational contexts.
Schema switch and expansion between monocultural contexts
Although the exchange and communal schemata are present in all cultures and organizations,
the relativeprevalence of the two schemata differ acrossorganizations and cultures. In Figure 2,
we use yin and yang symbolisms to illustrate the dynamic transformation and alchemy of these
schemata. We use the white symbol (yang) to represent the exchange schema and the black
symbol (yin) to represent the communal schema. In Figure 2(a), the addition of a black dot in the
white symbol and a white dot in the black symbol represents schema expansion. When a
company in a culture dominated by one relationship schema expands its business to a culture
dominated by a different relationship schema, its dominant relationship schema may expand.
For example, when an exchange schema-dominated American firm expands to the Chinese
market, it needs to adapt to the dominant relationship schema in China (e.g. communal schema
embedded in guanxi practices; Chen, 2001;Guthrie, 1998). Likewise, when a communal schema-
dominated Chinese firm enters the US market, it also needs to adapt to the more exchange
CCSM
Schema Switch and Expansions
Schema Integration
Schema Fusion
(a)
(b)
(c)
Exchange Communal
Exchange-Dominated Communal-Dominate
d
Figure 2.
Dynamic
transformations of
relationship schemata
Communal and
exchange
schemata
schema-dominated business requirements or practices in the US (e.g. accounting or tax
standards and employee compensation packages).
A communal schema-dominated firm may switch to the exchange schema when the
communal schema becomes less applicable for managing the new business networks, when
members of the organization gain accessto new networks, when powerful playersdo not see the
necessity of the old network or when the old network cannot be adequately maintained. Most
importantly, because the basic premise of the communal schema is that fellow members are
obligated to help those in need,violation of this premise in the relationship would cause a drastic
switch from the communal schema to the exchange schema. For example, in 2001, Bridgestone/
Firestone Inc. terminated its nearly 100-years practice of supplying tires to Ford Motor Co.
because of a breakdown in trust and mutual respect caused by the Ford Explorers rollover
incidents (Ansberry and White, 2001). Bridgestone/Firestone’s chairman promised to honor
existing sales contracts but announced that the kind of trust and respect established through
long history had clearly ended. This announcement signaled a switch to the exchange schema.
Similarly, during the Asian financial crisis, a Thai affiliate of Chrysler Corp. announced their
change of relationship (and schemata) with Chrysler because Chrysler did not provide the
needed financial aid (McDermott, 1998). Another example is the change in the communal
relationship between Toyota and the nonprofit organizations it supports. The communal
relationship grew from Toyota’s donations to these organizations. “From banks to restaurants
to airlines, people give money and time and we’re grateful,”Ms. Purvis said. “Later on, Toyota
introduces some of its business models tothe nonprofit organizations for a small fee.”This move
motivated the replacement of the communal relationship with an exchange-based one
(El-Nagger, 2013).
A company may replace the exchange schema with the communal schema when the
importance of the social network increases for its members, when the membership becomes
stable and when the network becomes highly selective, as in the case of sororities, fraternities
and country clubs. In the US, the communal schema is practiced more often in a family than in
a business. When a business relationship is connected with family relationships, network
members with an exchange schema may switch to a communal schema. Also, when members
in the same network hold different schemata, exposure to one another’s schemata may
improve mutual understanding and confer opportunity of mutual support, setting the stage
for a schema switch. For example, the Wall Street Journal (2013b) reports that its relationship
between China Cache and Windows Azure China started as an exchange-based relationship.
With the establishment of strategic partnership, both parties offer their respective fortes
when the other is in need, forming a communal relationship.
In sum, when individuals or organizations with different relationship schemata interact
with one another, they gain an opportunity to expand their schemata by incorporating into
their own schema elements from a different schema. Additionally, external factors such as a
crisis and internal factors such as change of membership may trigger a switch in the
relationship schema.
Schemata integration in bicultural contexts
Figure 2(b) illustrates the integration of the two relationship schemata. Multinational
companies and organizations often develop sophisticated relationship management
strategies by practicing both two schemata. Depending on the context and situation, these
companies may use one or the other schema or a combination of the two in their relationship
management. For example, many corporate social responsibility activities exemplify the use
of exchange and communal schemata at the same time. The company, while applying the
exchange schema to make profit, may engage in communal activities to fulfill the needs of the
activities’beneficiaries (expression of the communal schema). Once corporate social
responsibility activities become an integral part of the company’s routine operation, the
CCSM
for-profit exchange schema and for-welfare communal schema would be synchronized in the
organization’s operation.
At the individual level, those holding bicultural identities are capable of switching their
relationship schema in response to situational cues or when they are motivated to
accommodate to the dominant schema in the situation (Benet-Martinez et al., 2006;Benet-
Martinez and Haritatos, 2005;Cheng et al., 2006). Such integration of relationship schemata
increases versatility in decision-making in complex situations.
Schema alchemy in multicultural contexts
Truly global or transnational organizations (Adler, 1997) operating in multicultural contexts
may develop hybrid relationship schemata by fusing or synthesizing the exchange and
communal schemata, as illustrated in Figure 2(c). Practitioners in these environments
understand the complexities of relational contexts and can masterfully switch (Molinsky,
2007), integrate and synthesize relationship schemata to optimize relationship management.
For example, a multinational social enterprise is well positioned to synthesize the exchange
and communal schemata. At the individual level, the possession of a rich repertoire of
relationship management skills is a hallmark of global competency (Bird et al., 2010), global
identity (Erez and Gati, 2004) and cultural intelligence (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008).
The schema the EU uses to manage its relationships with the constituent nations is a fused
schema. For example, Greece continues to trade with other EUnations while accepting aid from
the European Union. Ziotis and Bensasson (2013) report that “Greece has received two bailouts
from the euro area and International Monetary Fund worth 240bn euros ($318bn) and
conducted the world’s biggest sovereign debt restructuring since it triggered the region’sdebt
crisis in 2009. The aid has been tied to measures to cut the country’s deficit and reform its
economy.”This exemplifies an exchange relationship. Meanwhile, Coy (2013) also mentions
that “...as Europe lurches from crisis to crisis, ties are fraying. Trade and investment between
euro-zone nations has diminished –which means the euro zone is slowly losing its main reason
for being, regardless of whether it remains intact on paper. As T.S. Eliot almost said the
following: This is how the euro ends not with a bang but a whimper....”This quote signals the
use of a communal schema to guide the interpretation of Greece’s financial crisis; this
interpretation highlights the concern over the erosion of the communal bondage among the
European nations.
Boeing’s relationship with its suppliers exemplifies the use of a fused schema. As Jensen
(2012) puts it, “According to Beverly Wyse, who oversees production of the 737, Boeing’s
attitude toward suppliers in the past was ‘we’ll set the requirements and you have to go do
your job.’” This exemplifies the application of an exchange schema. Jensen continues “But, in
the face of missed production deadlines, faulty parts, and billions of dollars in fees, Boeing
needed to use a SMARTnership strategy, so they leveraged opportunities for mutual benefits
working with their vendor partners.”“Under its more vigilant approach, Boeing is
communicating more often with suppliers and sharing more information about its own
forecasts and production plans... Boeing has shifted their business culture by increasing
their communication, becoming more transparent in the flow of information, and increasing
the levels of trust.”These practices exemplify the use of the communal schema. More
important, the Boeing example illustrates seamless integration of the two relationship
schemata in a set of unified practices and their underlying organizational culture.
Discussion
Significance of relationship management in multinational settings
The communal and exchange schemata about relationship networks are both present in and
relevant to multicultural business relationships at the interpersonal, organizational and
Communal and
exchange
schemata
country levels. In the global arena, powerful leaders or key players of an organization and
country can, through applying the communal or exchange relationship schema, set the tone
for the whole organization or nation when negotiating with other parties. In cultures with
tightly knitted networks, such as Japan, it will be difficult for outsiders to break into a fixed
network. Organizations of certain industries, such as restaurants, banks or universities, or
certain clusters of countries, such as the G7, have different norms and expectations on
relationships both inside and outside their own networks. Global managers who aspire to
conduct constructive business negotiations need to understand the major types of
relationship schemata, their differences and their potentials for change and fusion or
alchemy to navigate the dynamic and complex relationship networks.
The objectives of the present article are (1) to distinguish between two relationship
schemata –communal schema and exchange schemata –originally proposed by Clark and
Mills (1979) and (2) to discuss their dynamic transformations in the complex multinational
business relationships. We offer three contributions to the literature of relationship cognition
and management. First, we clarify the conceptual meanings of these two relationship
schemata by linking them to major cultural constructions of relationship (e.g. social capital,
guanxi and jeitinho) and to the literature studies of leadership and social network. Second, we
discuss several possible dynamic transformations of the two schemata and identify some
social and cultural conditions that would lead to such transformations. Third, we offer a
contextualized view of how the two schemata would operate in complex multinational
relationships across different levels of analysis.
Empirical testing of the proposed effects of the two schemata should include multiple
sources of data at the interpersonal, organizational and national levels. Exploratory studies
such as interviews and observations of business meetings will suggest ideas for constructing
initial measurements of the two schemata in different cultural contexts. Confirmatory studies
in the lab can help to establish the causal effects of the hypothesized conditions of schema
transformations and to refine the measurement of the schemata. Multiple qualitative and
quantitative data sets can be used to verify the antecedents, consequences, moderators and
mediators of the two schemata in business relationships in situ.
Our relational schemata framework can be applied to inform multicultural business
relationship management for business leaders and managers. The new age global managers
not only need to have excellent analytical skills but also need cultural, networking and
diplomacy skills, including the ability to establish and maintain relationships with key
foreign partners and government officials. Such skills are valuable not only to global
organization managers but to policy makers, diplomats and many others as well.
References
Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed., South-Western
Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”,Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 17-40.
Alston, J.P. (1989), “Wa, guanxi, and inwha: managerial principles in Japan, China, and Korea”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 32, pp. 26-31.
Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (2008), “Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: definition, distinctiveness,
and nomological network”, in Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (Eds), Handbook on Cultural
Intelligence: Theory, Measurement and Applications, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 3-15.
Ansberry, C. and White, J.B. (2001), “Firestone to stop supplying tires to Ford, citing breakdown in
trust over explorer”,Wall Street Journal, May 21.
Au, K. (1999), “Intra-cultural variation: evidence and implications for international business”,Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 799-812.
CCSM
Baker, W.E. and Bulkley, N. (2014), “Paying it forward vs. rewarding reputation: mechanisms of
generalized reciprocity”,Organization Science, Vol. 25, pp. 1493-1510.
Barr, P.S., Stimpert, J.L. and Huff, A.S. (1992), “Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational
renewal”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. S1, pp. 15-36.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, The Free Press, New York.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Benet-Mart
ınez, V. and Haritatos, J. (2005), “Bicultural identity integration (BII): components and
socio-personality antecedents”,Journal of Personality, Vol. 73, pp. 1015-1049.
Benet-Mart
ınez, V., Lee, F. and Leu, J. (2006), “Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: expertise in
cultural representations”,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 386-407.
Berry, J.W. (1989), “Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: the operationalization of a compelling idea”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 735-742.
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M.E., Stevens, M.J. and Oddou, G. (2010), “Defining the domain of intercultural
competence for global leaders”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 810-828.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bouty, I. (2000), “Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between
R&D researches across organizational boundaries”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43,
pp. 50-65.
Chao, M.M., Zhang, Z.-X. and Chiu, C.-Y. (2008), “Personal and collective culpability judgment: a
function analysis of East Asian-North American differences”,Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 730-744.
Chen, M.-J. (2001), Inside Chinese Business: A Guide for Managers Worldwide, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
Chen, C.C., Chen, Y.-R. and Xin, K. (2004), “Guanxi practices and trust in management: a procedural
justice perspective”,Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 200-209.
Cheng, C.Y., Lee, F. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2006), “Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame
switching: bicultural identity integration and valence of cultural cues”,Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 742-760.
Chiu, C. and Hong, Y. (2006), The Social Psychology of Culture, Psychology Press, New York.
Clark, M.S. and Mills, J. (1979), “Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 12-24.
Clark, M.S. and Mills, J. (1993), “The difference between communal and exchange relationships: what it
is and is not”,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 684-691.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”,American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 94 No. Supplement, pp. S95-S120.
Coy, P. (2013), “How Europe’s trade and investment ties frayed”, Bloomberg Business Week, April 4,
available at: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/how-europes-trade-and-
investment-ties-have-frayed.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Duarte, F. (2006), “Exploring the interpersonal transaction of the Brazilian Jeitinho in bureaucratic
contexts”,Organization, Vol. 13, pp. 509-527.
El-Nagger, M. (2013), “In lieu of money, Toyota donates efficiency to New York charity”,The New
York Times, July 26, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/nyregion/in-lieu-of-
money-toyota-donates-efficiency-to-new-york-charity.html?pagewanted5all&_r51&.
Erez, M. and Gati, E. (2004), “A Dynamic multi-level model of culture: from the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture”,Applied Psychology: International Review,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 583-598.
Communal and
exchange
schemata
Feher, M. (2013), “Brussels challenge legality of Hungary’s lunch voucher monopoly”,Wall Street
Journal, June 20, available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/06/20/ec-challenges-
legality-of-hungarys-luncheon-voucher-monopoly/?KEYWORDS5relationship.
Fei, S.-T. (1948, 1992), From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Fischer, R. (2012), “Locating Chinese work behavior in a global perspective”, in Huang, X. and Bond,
M.H. (Eds), The Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior: Integrating Theory, Research,
and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 48-62.
Fiske, A.P. (1992), “The four elementary forms of sociality: frameworks for a unified theory of social
relations”,Psychological Review, Vol. 99, pp. 689-723.
Fiske, A.P. (1993), “Social errors in four cultures: evidence about universal forms of social relations”,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 463-494.
Fiske, A.P., Haslam, N. and Fiske, S.T. (1991), “Confusing one person with another: what errors review
about the elementary forms of social relations”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 60, pp. 656-674.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction –Fun in Games & Role
Distance, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
Gorchinskaya, K. and Marson, J. (2013), “Ukraine signs gas deal with Shell”,Wall Street Journal, January 24,
available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324039504578262030452758440.
Graham, J.L. and Lam, N.M. (2003), “The Chinese negotiation”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, pp. 82-91.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A. (2000), “Strategic networks”,Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 21, pp. 203-215.
Guthrie, D. (1998), “The declining significance of guanxi in China’s economic transition”,China
Quarterly, Vol. 154, pp. 254-282.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 9-28.
Hout, T.M. and Ghemawat, P. (2010), “China vs. the World: whose technology is it?”,Harvard Business
Review, December 1, available at: http://hbr.org/2010/12/china-vs-the-world-whose-technology-
is-it/ar/1 or http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ETList/conversations/topics/10413.
Hsee, C.K. and Weber, E.U. (1999), “Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions”,
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 165-179.
Huff, A.S. (1990), Mapping Strategic Thought, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Hwang, K.K. (1987), “Face and favor: the Chinese power game”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92
No. 4, pp. 945-974.
Jack, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M.Y., Prichard, C., Singh, K. and Whetten, D. (2013), “Refining,
reinforcing and reimagining universal and indigenous theory development in international
management”,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 148-164.
Jensen, K. (2012), “Boeing flying high with supplier SMARTnerships”,Forbes, February 9, available
at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/02/09/boeing-flying-high-with-supplier-
smartnerships/.
Jones, I.W., Pollitt, M.G. and Bek, D. (2007), Multinationals in Their Communities: A Social Capital
Approach to Corporate Citizenship Projects, Palgrave Macmillian, London.
Koh, E. (2020), “Samsung primed for 5G foray as U.S., China brawl over Huawei”,Wall Street Journal,
July 27, available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-primed-for-5g-foray-as-u-s-china-
brawl-over-huawei-11595847604?mod5searchresults&page51&pos58.
Koka, B.R. and Prescott, J.E. (2002), “Strategic alliances as social capital: a multidimensional view”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 795-816.
CCSM
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2003), “Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model
of its formation”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 297-317.
Kurtenbach, E. (2011), “Best Buy, home Depot find tough times in China”,Washington Post, February
25, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/
AR2011022500603.html.
Labianca, G. and Brass, D.J. (2006), “Exploring the social ledger: negative relationships and negative
asymmetry in social networks in organizations”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31,
pp. 596-614.
Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D. and Wilson, L.J. (1999), “Time as an indicator of the perceptions and
behavior of members of a key public: monitoring and predicting organization-public
relationships”,Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 167-183.
Liu, L.A., Loch, K.D. and Bruce, D.C. (2014), “Cultivating political wisdom like consiglieri in China and
beyond”, in Miles, J. (Ed.), New Directions in Management and Organization Theory, Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 339-352.
Luo, Y. (1997), “Guanxi and performance of foreign-invested enterprises in China: an empirical
inquiry”,Management International Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 51-70.
Malinowski, B. (1922), Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McDermott, D. (1998), “Risky business: Chrysler stays on the sidelines as Thai Affiliate faces music”,
Wall Street Journal, July 7.
Mills, J. and Clark, M.S. (1982), “Exchange and communal relationships”, in Wheeler, L. (Ed.), Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, Vol. 3, pp. 121-144.
Mills, J., Clark, M.S., Ford, T.E. and Johnson, M. (2004), “Measurement of communal strength”,
Personal Relationships, Vol. 11, pp. 213-230.
Molinsky, A. (2007), “Cross-cultural code-switching: the psychological challenges of adapting behavior
in foreign cultural interactions”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 622-640.
Molm, L.D. (2003), “Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange”,Sociological Theory, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Molm, L.D., Collett, J.L. and Schaefer, D.R. (2007), “Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a
theory of reciprocity”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 113, pp. 205-242.
Morris, M.W., Leung, K., Ames, D. and Lickel, B. (1999), “Views from inside and outside: integrating
emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment”,Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 781-796.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational
advantage”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 242-266.
Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Delano, J. and Matthew, J. (2000), “Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: cultural
sensemaking in context”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 65-77.
Pike, K.L. (1971), Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour,
Mouton, The Hague.
Pike, K.L. (1990), Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Putnam, R.D. (1995), “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital”,Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Changing obligations and the psychological
contract: a longitudinal study”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 137-152.
Sullivan, B. (2013), “International teams must also be local”,Financial Times, July 3, available at:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8c01d9e4-ac2d-11e2-9e7f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YSy2rlSJ.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism: New Directions in Social Psychology, Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Communal and
exchange
schemata
Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C. and Hui, C.H. (1990), “Multimethod probes of individualism and
collectivism”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1006-1020.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 464-478.
Tsui, A.S. (2004), “Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous
research”,Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 491-513.
Van Yperen, N.W. and Buunk, A.P. (1991), “Equity theory and exchange and communal orientation
from a cross-national perspective”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 131, pp. 5-20.
Wall Street Journal (2013a), “HSNi cares partners with U.S. Fund for UNICEF to support annual trick-
or-treat for UNICEF campaign”, September 9, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-
20130909-906637.html.
Wall Street Journal (2013b), “China Cache and Microsoft establish strategic partnership”, available at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130813-905205.html.
Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (1994), Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Yang, C.-F. (1999), “Conceptualization of interpersonal guanxi and interpersonal affect”,Indigenous
Psychological Research, Vol. 12, pp. 105-179, (in Chinese).
Yoshikawa, K., Wu, C.-H. and Lee, H.-J. (2020), “Generalized exchange orientation: conceptualization
and scale development”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Zhang, Z.-X. (1999), “Chinese guanxi perception: a multi-dimensional study”,Indigenous Psychological
Research, Vol. 12, pp. 261-288, (in Chinese).
Zhang, Z.-X. and Yang, C.F. (1998), “Beyond distributive justice: the reasonableness norm in Chinese
reward allocation”,Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 253-269.
Zhang, J.-D., Liu, L.A. and Liu, W. (2015), “Trust and deception in negotiation: culturally divergent
effects”,Management and Organization Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 123-144.
Ziotis, C. and Bensasson, M. (2013), “Greece gradually emerging from crisis, ECB’s Provopolous says”,
Bloomberg Business Week, February 25, available at: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-
02-25/greece-gradually-emerging-from-crisis-ecb-s-provopoulos-says.
Further reading
Chen, H., Parsley, D.C. and Yang, Y.-W. (2008), “Corporate lobbying and financial performance”,
Working Paper, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract51014264.
Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L. and Raver, J. (2006), “On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-
looseness”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 1225-1244.
House, R.J. (1995), Leadership in 21st Century: A Speculative Inquiry, the Changing Nature of Work,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Saner, R., Yiu, L. and Sondergaard, M. (2000), “Business diplomacy management: a core competency
for global companies”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 80-92.
Takahashi, N. (2000), “The emergence of generalized exchange”,American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 1105-1134.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Corresponding author
Leigh Anne Liu can be contacted at: laliu@gsu.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
CCSM
