14 IPMA Projectie Magazine | 04-2015

Managingculturaldifferencesinprojects:

THE CASE OF DUTCH – INDIAN IT PROJECTS1

Cross-cultural cooperation is a major theme in project management (PM) studies (Zwikael et.al., 2005;

Smits, 2013). Increasingly, employees of partners with divers national cultural background have to work

together to realize project goals (Chevrier, 2003). This is especially the case in global IT projects in which

employees work in geographically-distributed teams (Dafoulas & Macaulay, 2001). It is now widely recogni-

sed that national cultures influence the success of such projects (Carmel, 1999; Staples & Zhao, 2006;

Krishna, Sahay & Walsham, 2004). Differences in language, work attitude, values and management styles

are held responsible for cost overruns, time delays and the failure of many projects (Orr & Scott, 2008).

AUTHOR ALFONSVANMARREWIJK

OrganizationSciences

FacultyofSocialSciences

DeBoelelaan1081

1081HVAmsterdam

VUUniversityAmsterdam

Tel:0205986740

Email:a.van.marrewijk@vu.nl

ABSTRACT Cultural differences between project partners is an important issue in the success of an international project. Unfortunately, the debate on cultural differences in

project management is dominated by multi-value models such as Hofstede and Trompenaars. These models assume national cultural differences to be coherent

and stable and are criticized for the absence of power issues. This paper studies the use of cultural differences in international projects in four Multinational IT

Service Providers (MITSP). The four cases studied are Dutch front offices and Indian back offices of the world’s largest MITSP’s: IBM, Accenture, ATOS Origin and

Philips. The findings illustrate the strategic use of cultural differences of both Indian and Dutch project employees to attain specific goals. Therefore, project

managers have to understood cultural differences as shifting social constructs that are contextually dependent on the specific interests at stake.

Key words: cultural differences, global projects, IT, India, Netherlands

Moreover, cross-cultural cooperation in global IT projects does not take place in a power-free context. Asymmetric power relations between

project partners can be expected (Byun, & Ybema, 2005). Nicholson and Sahay (2001), for example, studied cross-cultural cooperation in a British-Indian software outsour-cing alliance and found that British managers enforced narrow economic issues at the cost of the loyalty, emotions and aspirations held by the Indian employees. The control over software outsourcing remained firmly rooted in the British organisation. Looking at such dynamics led Ybema and Byun (2009) to underline the context-dependent and constructed nature of cultural differences in intercultural interactions. They draw attention to the particular relevance of a power-sensitive understanding of claims concerning cultural differences. A number of other studies on cross-cultural cooperation has emphasised the use of cultural differences as a strategic resource of power in cooperation practices (Brannen & Salk, 2000; Ailon-Souday & Kunda, 2003; Van Marrewijk, 2004). This paper aims to determine the salient cultural differen-ces in global IT projects and how these differences are used as strategic resources in collaborative practices. To answer these questions, a research team of six people carried out an

04-2015 | IPMA Projectie Magazine 15

in-depth qualitative study of four Multinational IT Service Providers (MITSP) with Dutch front offices and Indian back offices. The four cases studied are among the world’s largest MITSP’s: IBM, Accenture, ATOS Origin and Philips. In-depth case studies using qualitative ethnographic methods provide a good understanding of daily work floor practices and ensure the greater depth that cross-cultural analysis requires (Peterson, 2007). The paper contributes to the debate on human factors in project management by illustrating that cultural differences are not entirely fixed and static but can be constructed and used as a strategic resource to attain specific goals connected to specific power constellations in an organisational setting.

CONSTRUCTION OF CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN GLOBAL PROJECTSUnfortunately, studies on cross-cultural cooperation in PM studies are dominated by cultural value models, such as those described by Hofstede (1980), Adler (1986), Hall (1976) and Trompenaars (1993). These models have narrowed the debate on cross-cultural management as they claim to prescribe which cultural differences will dominate in cross-cultural relationships. Consequently, a large group of scholars has come to criticise the cultural values

perspective for its singular focus on nation-state cultures as well as for the absence of power issues, sub-cultures, regional differences, ambiguity and situational behaviour (e.g. Söderberg & Holden, 2002; Jacob, 2005; Jackson & Aycan, 2006). Moreover, to perceive organisations and nation-states as singular cultures is out of touch with daily practices in a globalising world (Söderberg & Holden, 2002). In the case of India, for instance, it is quite clear that the nation-state cannot be perceived as a homogeneous culture (Singh, 1990; Anisya & Annamma, 1994; Chatterjee & Pearson, 2001; Fusilier & Durlabhji, 2001). India is a complex mosaic of many languages, cultures and religions (Gopinath, 1998). Furthermore, ‘traditional’ Indian values are changing in interaction with Western values (Sinha & Sinha, 1990; Anisya & Annamma, 1994; Gopalan & Rivera, 1997; Sahay & Walsham, 1997; Sahay et al., 2003). It is therefore difficult for project managers to predict which Indian values will determine cooperation in their projects. Furthermore, the general preference of project managers to combine the best of both Indian and Dutch cultures is problematic. Many Western companies wish to legitimise the unequal power relations in their collaboration with Indian companies and therefore propagate this ‘best of both

Cultural themes Perceptions of Indonesians Perceptions of Dutch

Project definition When (inter)national funding partner is involved Projects are aggregations of employees temporarily

enacting on a common cause

Project start Starts when the University community is involved Starts immediately after the donor granted the

project

Target group Broad university community Project members

Project approach Top down regulated Bottom up capacity building

Success of project ‘Success’ according to beneficiary institutions Targeted objects in time, scope and budget in

combination with ‘success’ according to beneficiary

institutions

Project language English excludes university community Bahasa excludes Dutch project manager

Competences PM Able to manage relationships, organizing

participation, strong position, commitment to

project

Result oriented, decidedness, liability, social and

communicative skills and skills in planning and

financial management.

Role PM Temporary position in addition to formal role as

lecturer in a hierarchical organization

Specific profession with high level of independency in

a matrix organization

Power Power limited due to lack of formal position as

project manager

Formal position with power

Table 1. Different perceptions of Indonesian and Dutch project participants (Van Marrewijk and Den Hertog 2013: p 13)

16 IPMA Projectie Magazine | 04-2015

and spontaneity (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). The interview questions focused on time, communication and superior-subordinate relationships in global project teams. Apart from interviews, all researchers were physically present on the work floor for an extended period, ranging from three to six months. They attended face-to-face meetings held by Dutch and Indian managers as well as employees; they listened in on conference calls and telephone conversations, ate lunches and participated in dinners, parties and informal weekend activities. Conse-quently, social relations were established that revealed detailed insights into cultural practices, which generated valuable information about cultural issues, such as the caste system, that had not been addressed in formal interviews.

UNEQUAL POWER RELATIONS IN GLOBAL IT PROJECTS To all those interviewed, it was obvious that the Dutch front offices were the dominant partners. In the asymmetric power relations, the Dutch front offices have direct contacts with clients. They also plan projects, retain specialist software knowledge and write the specifications for outsourcing. Furthermore, in all four cases the Dutch front offices developed corporate synergy strategies to manage cultural differences within the global IT projects. In contrast to the corporate strategies, Dutch front office employees mainly used ethnocentric strategies to manage cultural themes. These strategies support Dutch cultural practices, values and management models and are related to the asymmetric power relation between front and back offices. Employees of the Indian back offices at IBM, Accenture, Phi-lips and Atos Origin feared that ‘Indian culture’ would be dominated by Western culture.

Tensions between front and back offices over project control, client contact and high-end jobs were found in all four cases studied. The tensions concerned the distribution of work as large clients have increasingly direct contacts with Indian back offices or open up Indian subsidiaries. Indian back offices increasingly often wish to become independent IT service providers who do not need front offices for customer contact. According to Indian respondents ‘front offices keep the core competences too much for themselves. It would be better to share those tasks; it would benefit the results too’ (Philips employee, Bangalore). Their Dutch colleagues do not support this view. A surprisingly large portion of 75% of the Philips front office employees thought that outsourcing to PBAS was not a good idea, as they had no confidence in the quality and capabilities of their Indian counterparts and the cost savings of outsourcing. The discussed unequal power relation of the front and back offices in the studied global IT projects has stimulated the use of cultural differences for strategic purposes. In their daily cooperation, employees tried to legitimise or de-legiti-mise the existing distribution of power. The following sections describe how three salient cultural differences - time, communication and the superior-subordinate relationship - were constructed in the cooperation between Dutch front offices and Indian back offices.

worlds’ strategy (Van Marrewijk, 2004). This strategy is based upon an ideal perspective in which cultural differences can be overcome or lead to competitive advantage (Holden, 2002). However, cultural differences in global projects are not entirely fixed and determined but are also negotiated by project managers (Brannen & Salk, 2000). In their study on cultural differences between Dutch and Indonesian project managers in a University transformation project, Van Marrewijk and Den Hertog (2013) found different percep-tions of Indonesian and Dutch project participants on major project themes (see Table 1).

These findings show how Dutch and Indonesian project participants distinguish themselves from each other by claiming their own ‘unique’ view on project management. In this way, groups construct cultural differences with others (Barth 1969). In line with these findings, Ybema and Byun (2009) found that Japanese and Dutch employees draw on their respective cultures as a rich symbolic resource and strategic weapon to gain more power in their power relations. Indeed, groups can emphasize shared cultural elements for social or political purposes (Royce, 1982). Ybema and Buyn (2009) looked at discourses on cultural differences by Japanese managers in Dutch organisations and Dutch managers in Japanese organisations. They discovered that specific instances of cultural discourse were connected to specific power constellations in an organisa-tional setting. In other words, and in contrast with Hof-stede’s work and other such studies, cultural differences should be understood not as coherent and stable, but as social constructs that are contextually dependent on the specific interests at stake. This brief review of academic literature shows the impor-tance of adopting a perspective on cross-cultural coopera-tion in global IT projects that includes a more dynamic nature of cultural differences. The empirical study present-ed in this paper can help project managers better under-stand the cross-cultural collaboration in their projects.

METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONSIn this study an in-depth research method has been chosen (Bate, 1997). Four Multinational IT Service Providers were selected: IBM, ATOS Origin, Accenture, and Philips. Appropriate case selection is crucial for the comparison of the cases. To allow for systematic research a research team consisting of four Master’s students under the author’s supervision, studied the selected organisations. In total, the research team conducted 39 interviews with Dutch front office managers and employees in the Netherlands and 51 interviews with Indian back office managers and employees. Almost all of the interviewed respondents were male, and 90% of respondents had previous international experience in other global projects. Typically, respondents were encouraged to talk about daily life on the work floor to obtain an insider’s perspective in a given situation while following a certain topic format. Topic interviews benefit the systematic collection of data without losing flexibility

04-2015 | IPMA Projectie Magazine 17

TIME The first difference constructed by Dutch front office and Indian back office employees is related to the topic of time. Perceptions of cultural differences related to the planning of work activities within the projects and achieving the deadlines were a major resource of irritation and tension to front and back office employees. Dutch project employees perceived themselves as highly structured and in control, and they considered their Indian colleagues to be less structured in their time planning. This can be seen in various aspects of the work relationship.Dutch project workers very much appreciated the Indian flexibility in extending their working hours and admitted to using this time window strategically by stressing, in the Dutch afternoon, the importance of work still to be finished that day. “In Indian culture, flexibility of working hours is very normal,” a Dutch front office worker explained. Most Dutch employees do not want to work earlier in the morning or during weekends, and they are not forced to do so. In contrast, their Indian colleagues are regularly asked by their managers to work on Saturdays. Dutch respondents justify this asymmetry is justified by claiming their own efficiency over the inefficiency of Indian back office employees.Our findings suggest that perceptions of working flexibility are constructed to legitimise Dutch front office dominance over Indian back office. The flexibility of Indian back office employees is emphasised by the Dutch front office while back office employees stress the involuntary pressure to work long hours and be flexible. In turn, Indian respondents claim that long working hours do not form part of ‘traditio-nal’ Indian culture but have become a consequence of the recent introduction of Indian employees into the global labour market. Findings also indicate that Dutch and Indian project employees constructed cultural differences regarding planning and deadlines. Irritation arose especially when Indian back office employees did not inform their Dutch colleagues about time delays. In such a case, the customer would be informed about a time delay by the Dutch front office, and it would be attributed to cultural differences. In the perception of Dutch interviewees, the reason why they were not informed about delays was because back office employees tended to avoid conflict and always said ‘yes’ to Dutch project planning. According to front office employ-ees, this very much supported their claim to keep control over the global projects. In contrast, Indian back offices de-legitimised this claim. They downplayed perceived differences by stressing the success of their quality system, as all of the Indian back offices studied demonstrated the highest CMMI level (5).

COMMUNICATION: THE ‘LANGUAGE PARADOX’ The second construction of cultural difference between Dutch and Indian project employees is related to percepti-ons of communication and language. Dutch as well as Indian employees viewed themselves as good speakers of English. However, our findings showed that understanding

each other’s English is in fact one of the largest problems. This was noted by both Dutch and Indian project employ-ees. This illustrates what we have called the language paradox in global sourcing. According to the Dutch project employees, the speed at which their Indian back office colleagues speak, their pronunciation and the mix of Hindi and English, called ‘Hinglish’, hinder fluent communication. In many of the cases studied, the back office employees were trained to speak with an English accent. In order to understand emails in the Dutch language, some Indian project members learned Dutch and used Dutch vocabulary in their e-mails. Some even had a list on their desks of typically Dutch words and their meaning. In contrast, Dutch project employees were neither trained in English nor in Hindi. In line with their own perceptions, Dutch front office employees not only claimed to speak fluent English, but also other languages - such as German, French and Spanish. As a result, front office staff claimed direct client contacts as their prerogative, because these multi-language skills are needed to serve clients in different European countries. On the other hand, according to the English-trained Indian professionals, the English vocabulary as used by Dutch employees is very limited and their pronunciation is poor. What may be perfectly clear to a Dutchman when he writes down certain software specifications is difficult to under-stand for his Indian colleagues:

‘Their English is not very fluent, not very articulated and not good. This affected cooperation in the sense that there was some delay in the processing, because sometimes, most of the times, I was not able to get the language…it actually impacted the work in terms of delay’. (interview with IBM employee, Bangalore)

Therefore, back office respondents claimed direct contacts with clients, especially British and American, in order to avoid language misunderstandings and time delays. Differences were constructed related to what ‘good’ communication was felt to be. Dutch front office employees qualified communication as ‘good’ when it is direct with relatively free expression of dissatisfaction and anger. In contrast, Indian back office employees perceived communi-cation as ‘good’ when it is polite and avoids conflicts and disharmony. In fact and more in particular, different perceptions on giving and receiving feedback were a point of struggle between front and back offices. In the percep-tion of Dutch respondents, criticising one’s work does not imply criticising the person - as personal and work-related issues are strictly separated. The majority of Dutch project employees stressed that directness is needed to uncover

18 IPMA Projectie Magazine | 04-2015

importance of loyalty and obedience, and perceive this as good qualities for the management of global projects. Dutch front office employees used their knowledge of the Indian paternalistic management style and the sensitivity to hierarchy exhibited by Indian project employees as a strategic resource. They believed that an impasse could be solved by being connected to the right Indian manager at the right level who could help in getting things done. Dutch front office employees knew that their back office col-leagues were sensitive to hierarchical differences. Therefore, to get things done, Dutch front office employees pressed Indian managers to urge the Indian project employees to meet the demands. However, this assertive behaviour on the part of Dutch front office employees was interpreted as impolite and rude by Indian back office employees. They stressed their obedience and loyalty to the manager. Interestingly, Indian back office employees perceived the cultural assertiveness of their Dutch colleagues as positive when this involved being straightforward with one’s manager. Being straightforward in asking one’s manager to set priorities was positively valued by Indian back office employees. In sum, the above discussion of the three salient cultural themes - time, communication and superior-subordinate relationships - has demonstrated their different interpreta-tions as held by Dutch front office staff and Indian back office employees.

CONCLUSIONS This paper focused on the importance of understanding the dynamics of cultural differences in the collaboration of Dutch front office staff and Indian back office employees in MITSPs. Project managers should be aware that cultural differences are not entirely fixed and static but instead constructed and used as a strategic resource to attain specific goals. This construction of cultural differences is stimulated by an unbalanced power relation. Project employees can use cultural differences as a resource to rebalance this power relation. The most important findings to emerge from this study include the construction of cultural differences related to planning capability, quality of work, client contact, language, conflict handling and project success. Our first major finding concerns the social construction of cultural differences related to the ability of planning and reaching deadlines. Dutch front office employees claimed that their Indian back office colleagues were bad at planning and generally unable to reach deadlines, a claim that is supported by studies conducted by Anisya & Annamma (1994) and Gopalan & Nelson (2003). Simultaneously, Dutch front office employees constructed the image of Dutch punctuality and planning capacity to legitimise control over global projects. Our second discovery concerns the difference in perceived ability to have direct contact with clients. Triggered by growing self-confidence levels, Indian back office managers increasingly often (wish to) operate as independent suppliers maintaining direct contact with (Dutch) clients. The final discovery deals with

problems and delays in the project, and thus to keep control over the global project as a whole. Dutch front office staff stressed what they termed the ‘vagueness’ in communication on the part of their Indian colleagues. Dutch project employees and managers found it difficult to fully rely on the judgements made by their Indian colleagues. The Indian answer ‘yes’ was especially perceived as a subject of ambiguity: for them, it remained unclear how to take it. According to Dutch front office employees, their Indian colleagues found it hard to say ‘no’ or to be direct. This construction was used to describe what they felt to be the unprofessional attitude of their Indian back office colleagues and consequently the need to keep professional high-end jobs in front office hands. However, not responding with a clear ’yes’ or ‘no’ gave the Indian employees some room for manoeuvre in project planning. In turn, Indian respondents claimed that the subtle, indirect way of communication is effective in softening the power position of Dutch front office.

SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPSIssues related to superior-subordinate relationships are the third cultural difference evoked by Dutch and Indian employees in the four global IT projects studied. Dutch and Indian respondents indicate that Indian managers are like a ‘father’ who looks after the well-being of the ‘family’ and in return expects obedience and conformity from his people. According to our respondents, Indian managers are not only responsible for managing the project but also for the contentment felt by project members. Indian managers refer to what Argawal (1999) called a nurturant-task leader: someone who looks after employees, who shows his feelings and personal interest, and who is committed to the development of staff talents. In contrast, according to Indian respondents Dutch managers only manage projects and care less about their employees. Indian back office managers constructed these differences to legitimise their claim for the management of global projects. Indian back office managers had to balance their relations with Dutch front office managers and at the same time show cultural empathy to their subordinates in order to maintain team cohesion in the global project. Different perceptions of the Indian caste system were constructed in the superior-subordinate relations. Indian back office managers and employees stated that one’s caste is no longer significant, and at least far less important in commercial organisations than in public offices. Indian managers noted the difficulty in combining the require-ments set by Dutch culture with requirements set by the traditional Indian family and the community’s social system. Dutch respondents emphasised the responsibility of front office project managers concerning the well-being of employees, but stressed that they have a different interpre-tation of employees’ contentment. According to these managers, Dutch employees want to be able to ask questi-ons, or at least share and debate ideas with them. Dutch managers expect ‘good’ employees to take initiatives and to be assertive. In contrast, Indian managers stress the

04-2015 | IPMA Projectie Magazine 19

the so-called paradox of success in global projects, which means that successful global projects will stimulate a power shift to the Indian back offices as more high-end jobs will subsequently be outsourced. The strategic goal envisaged by Dutch front offices was to legitimise and maintain the unequal power relations as they feared losing power to the Indian back offices over project management control, direct access to clients and interesting high-end IT jobs. This phenomenon is also discussed in a study by Oza and Hall (2005), who named the loss of project control and the loss of jobs, two issues mentioned by MITSP’s employees, as elements in the top–five list of difficulties in outsourcing. Similarly in our study, Indian back office employees experienced resistance in their cooperation efforts as front office staff stood to gain the most by a failure of global projects. In other words, project failures may thus in fact strengthen the position of Dutch front offices.On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that cultural differences are used as a strategic resource to reach specific goals in geographically-dispersed projects. The findings in our study can be seen as a confirmation that the different perceptions and presentations related to the three cultural themes mentioned above (time, communication and superior-subordinate relationships) are deeply rooted in Dutch and Indian national cultures, as is also suggested in multi-value studies (e.g. Zwikael et.al., 2005). However, at the same time team employees emphasised, claimed, underplayed and denied subtle cultural issues in their cooperation with other teams within particular social contexts. The empirical findings in this study provide an important new understanding of how different perceptions of time, communication and superior-subordinate relation-ships can be used as a symbolic resource for action in a power struggle between project teams over project control, direct access to clients and high-end IT jobs (see Table 2).

The study suggests that traditional project management approaches of cultural differences in projects have so far failed to provide sufficient insight into the dynamics in global IT projects. Salient cultural issues in global projects may differ surprisingly from the cultural issues that multi-value models would lead us to expect. Managing global IT projects demands cultural sensitivity from project managers. Furthermore, managers need knowledge on social processes and cultural arrangements to successfully manage

global projects. Managers and employees in global projects need to learn not only about the ‘other’ but, foremost, to become more culturally and politically sensitive. A one day training on ‘doing business with Indians’ might not be sufficient to understand the construction of cultural differences. Rather, they should learn to understand how their own behaviour is interpreted by the ‘other’, given (a)symmetric power relations. How is your behaviour interpret-ed and what meaning is given to your management style? These are important questions to be asked by managers of global IT projects. Managers and employees will thus be better equipped to successfully handle difficulties and promises of cooperation in global IT projects.

1 Parts of this paper has been published earlier in Van Marrewijk, A.H. (2010). Situational Construction of Dutch – Indian Cultural Differences in Global IT Projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 26(4), 368-381.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAdler, N. (1986). International dimensions of organisational

behaviour. Boston: Kent Publishers.Ailon-Souday, G., & Kunda, G. (2003). The Local Selves of

Global Workers: The Social Construction of National Identity in the Face of Organizational Globalization, Organization Studies, 24(7), 1073-1096.

Anisya, T. S., & Annamma, P. (1994). India; Management in an ancient and modern civilization, International Studies of Management and Organization, 24(1), 91-105.

Argawal, S. (1999). Leadership behavior and organizational commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian salespersons, Journal of International Business studies, 30(4), 727-743.

Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organisation of cultural difference. London: Allen and Unwin.

Time Communication Superior-subordination

Client

contact

Deadlines vs quality English vs multiple languages

Bluntness vs politeness

Hierarchical vs egalitarian

High end

jobs

Flexibility vs efficiency Bluntness vs politeness People vs project manager

Project

control

Flexibility vs efficiency

Punctuality vs process

Vagueness vs directness Assertiveness vs loyalty

Table 2. Construction of cultural differences in the struggle for power

20 IPMA Projectie Magazine | 04-2015

Bate, P. (1997). Whatever Happened to Organizational Anthropology? A Review of the Field of Organizational Ethnography and Anthropological Studies, Human Relations, 50(9), 1147-1171.

Brannen, J. V., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japan joint venture, Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.

Byun, H., & Ybema, S. (2005). Japanese Business in the Dutch Polder: The Experience of Cultural Differences in Asymme-tric Power Relations, Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(4), 535-552.

Carmel, E. (1999). Global Software teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Chatterjee, S. R., & Pearson, C. A. L. (2001). Perceived societal values of Indian managers; some empirical evidence of responses to economic reform, International Journal of Social Economics, 28(4), 368-379.

Chevrier, S. (2003). Cross-cultural management in multina-tional project groups, Journal of World Business, 38, 141-149.

Dafoulas, G., & Macaulay, L. (2001). Investigating Cultural Differences in Virtual Software Teams, The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 7(4), 1-14.

Desouze, K. C., & Evaristo, J. R. (2004). Managing knowledge in distributed projects, Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 87-91.

Fusilier, M., & Durlabhji, S. (2001). Cultural values of Indian managers: An exploration through unstructured interviews, International Journal of Value-based Management, 14(3), 223-236.

Gopalan, S., & Rivera, J. B. (1997). Gaining a perspective on Indian value orientations: implications for expatriate manager, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 156-179.

Gopinath, C. (1998). Alternative approaches to indigenous management in India, Management International Review, 38(3), 257-275.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International

Differences in Work-Related Values. London: Sage Publications.

Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management. A knowledge management Perspective. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Jackson, T., & Aycan, Z. (2006). Editorial: From cultural values to cross cultural interfaces, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(1), 5-13.

Jacob, N. (2005). Cross-cultural investigations: emerging con-cepts, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 18(5), 514-528.

Krishna, S., Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (2004). Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing, Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 62-66.

Nicholson, B., & Sahay, S. (2001). Some political and cultural issues in the globalisation of software development: case experience from Britain and India, Information and Organization, 11(1), 25-43.

Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model, Journal of International

Business studies, 39(4), 562-588.Oza, N., & Hall, T. (2005). Difficulties in managing offshore

software outsourcing relationships: An empirical analysis of 18 high maturity Indian Software companies, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Application Research, 7(3), 25-41.

Peterson, M. F. (2007). The Heritage of Cross Cultural Management Research: Implications for the Hofstede Chair in Cultural Diversity, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3), 359-377.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage.

Royce, A. P. (1982). Ethnic Identity; Strategies of Diversity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sahay, S., Nicholson, B., & Krishna, S. (2003). Global IT Outsourcing: Software Development Across Borders. Cambridge: University Press.

Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (1997). Social Structure and managerial agency in India, Organization Studies, 18(3), 415-444.

Singh, J. P. (1990). Managerial culture and work related values in India, Organization Studies, 11(1), 75-106.

Sinha, J. B. P., & Sinha, D. (1990). Role of social values in Indian organizations, International Journal of Psychology, 25(5-6), 705-714.

Smits, K. (2013). Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collabora-tion in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Phd thesis. VU University Amsterdam.

Söderberg, A., & Holden, N. (2002). Rethinking Cross Cultural Management in a Globalizing Business World, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(1), 103-121.

Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams, Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389-406.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of Culture. Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: The Economist Books Ltd.

Van Marrewijk, A. H. (2004). The Management of Strategic Alliances: Cultural Resistance. Comparing the Cases of a Dutch Telecom Operator in the Netherlands Antilles and Indonesia, Culture and Organization, 10(4), 303-314.

Van Marrewijk, A.H. and E. den Hertog (2013). Dutch and Indonesian Perceptions on Project Management in a University Transformation Project. Asia Matters, 1(1), 1-15

Ybema, S., & Byun, H. (2009). The Discursive Construction of Cultural Differences in Asymmetric Power Relations: Japanese – Dutch Encounters, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(3), 339-358.

Zwikael, O., Shimuzu, K., & Globerson, S. (2005). Cultural differences in project management capabilities: A field study, International Journal of Project Management, 23(6), 454-462.