英语论文网

l paradoxes they encounter that do notaccord with famous cross-cultural manuals (Osland and Bird 2000). The
borderless globalization of industries, technology, capital, human resources,and information is fostering unprecedented changes in most societies. Suchchanges have significant implications for theory rebuilding.
On the academic side, the cross-cultural research front has witnessed growingcritiques of the Hofstede paradigm (e.g., Fang 2003; McSweeney 2002). A moredynamic vision of national culture seems overdue. Some important advances have
been made in developing a dynamic view of culture, such as new culture negotiation/formation through interculturalinteractions (e.g., Brannen and Salk 2000),
multiple cultures perspective (Sackmann and Phillips 2004), and multilevel culturaldynamics (Leung et al. 2005). But in the current modeling of cultural dynamics, themain focus is more on organizational culture change (e.g., Hatch 1993) and newculture creation in organization and team settings (e.g., Brannen and Salk 2000;Sackmann and Phillips 2004) than on national culture change. Recently, Leung etal. provided a comprehensive review of culture research and found that “althoughorganizational changes as a reaction to environmental changes have been subjectedto considerable conceptual analyses, the issue of cultural change at the nationallevel has rarely been addressed” (2005, 362). It is against the above backgroundthat this study has been conducted.Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative approach to the study ofnational cultures and international cross-cultural management in the era of globalization.Differing from the dominant bipolar paradigm, championed in thisFROM “ONION” TO “OCEAN” 73paper is a dialectical approach that sees each national culture as having a life of itsown full of dynamics and paradoxes. The aim is to explore three underresearchedquestions: (1) How can we understand intracultural value variations within anational culture? (2) How can we understand the meaning of national cultures
from contextual and time points of view? and (3) How can we understand the
new identity of national cultures in the age of globalization? These questions arelinked, respectively, to the three themes discussed later in this paper.
Boyacigiller et al. have identified two different assumptions of culture. Inthe cross-national comparison school (referred to as the bipolar paradigm inthis paper), culture is assumed to be “a coherent and enduring set of values
that members of the nation-state carry and invariably act upon” (2003, 140).In the interactions and multiple cultures schools, culture is seen not just ascarried but as the shared understandings through which culture is actively created
(i.e., negotiated) by means of social interaction. Culture is “learned andpassed on to new members of the group through social interaction; culture isdynamic—it changes over time” (ibid., 100–101). On the one hand, this paperis grounded in the current analysis of these two contrasting views of culture,and it shares the vision to move toward a dynamic view of culture.At the same time, this paper intends to enrich the current research on culturaldynamics (e.g., Brannen and Salk 2000; Leung et al. 2005; Sackmann and
Phillips 2004) in two main aspects. First, whereas most current studies look atcultural change at the organizational culture level, this study addresses culturalchange at the national level. Next,本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。