Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department of Business
COMMUNICATING WITH FINNISH COLLEAGUES:
Narrative accounts of foreign workers in Finland
Master’s Thesis, Service Management
Alexandre Flores Figueiredo (268322)
11 December 2017
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Background of the study....................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Aims of the research ............................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Approach and limitations of the research ........................................................................... 6
1.4 Key concepts .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Structure of the research ...................................................................................................... 7
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Defining culture ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Intercultural communication ..................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Dimensions of National Culture............................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Seven Dimensions of Culture ............................. 11
2.3.2 Schwartz Seven Cultural Value Orientations .................................................................. 12
2.3.3 GLOBE ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.4 Hall’s high and low context cultures ................................................................................ 15
2.3.5 Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions ............................................................................ 17
2.4 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................. 17
3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Qualitative research .................................................................................................................. 22
3.3 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 23
4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 The Silent Finn .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 The Uncomfortable Silence ...................................................................................................... 27
4.3 Finnish Barrier .......................................................................................................................... 27
4.4 Language barrier ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.5 The Direct Finn ......................................................................................................................... 31
4.6 Hierarchy ................................................................................................................................... 32
4.7 Gossiping .................................................................................................................................... 34
5 DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 35
6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 38
7 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................. 40
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 41
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A model of culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 2000, 22)……………….....9
Figure 2. Schwartz seven cultural value orientations (Schwartz, 2006, 142)………………..15
Figure 3. High-low context by culture (Hall, 1990)………………………………………….17
Figure 4. Hofstede’s cultural values for selected countries…………………………………..19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Globe’s nine cultural dimensions (House et al. 2004, 30) ………………………....16
Table 2. Demographic information of the participants………………………………………24
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Themes and potential questions to support the interview
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Globalization has been for a while the driving force influencing organizations to operate
internationally. These organizations have been motivated by different needs such as finding
new markets or different supply alternatives (Wood & Wilberger, 2015). However, this recent
trend has its roots in the slower economic growth of the so-called first world countries. (Sheth
& Sisodia, 2006).
The emergence of new global players such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China has shifted the
business focus from these saturated markets. (O’Neill, 2001; Scott‐Kennel & Salmi, 2008) The
current global environment offers a large number of diversified opportunities that are suitable
for all business sectors. (Christiansen, 2012)
This change has brought new challenges to managers willing to negotiate effectively with such
distinct cultures. The efficient communication between international organizations has become
crucial for successful negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010).
The need for professionals equipped with intercultural communication skills has led to many
managers being sent abroad in order to gain international experience (Suutari & Burch, 2001).
Nonetheless, cross-cultural training and international experience do not necessarily lead to
cross-cultural adaptation (Harrison & Michailova, 2012).
Some companies that have realized the shortage of skilled workers in the field of cross-cultural
communication have opted to hire foreign employees to establish a channel of communication
and fill the gap. According to Møller et al. (2011), the hiring of a foreign expert increases the
export activities of organizations and has a deep impact on the productivity and profitability of
the firm. This might explain why some countries even subsidies immigrants with high
qualifications, as is the case of Denmark, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands (Møller et
al, 2011).
Within this landscape, the workplace at some companies became more international with
workers who speak different languages and have distinct cultures. It is right to assume that in
such environment people from different cultures will inevitably face difficulties in
communication, collaboration and developing relationships. According to Spencer-Rodgers
and McGovern (2002, 610), “effective intercultural communication is critical to the
5
establishment and maintenance of favorable intergroup relations”. Furthermore, many
researchers have observed that conflicts and misunderstandings between people from different
cultures do not occur due to insufficient knowledge of the lingua franca they utilize for
communication. The core of their differences lies in their lack of intercultural competence.
Acioly-Régnier et al. (2014, 204) explained that “Knowing the language gives an appearance
of understanding people of different cultures but does not give a sufficient knowledge about
the foreign culture.”
For this reason, it is beneficial for companies to become aware of the obstacles it may occur
when interacting with workers from different cultural backgrounds and try to find ways to
overcome these challenges.
In addition, no previous study has been made to determine what kind of intercultural
communication difficulties are present to foreign employees working in Finland.
1.2 Aims of the research
The purpose of the present study is to contribute to the understanding of intercultural
communication among employees. The aim of the research is to explore the differences and
challenges in communication perceived by foreign employees working in Finland.
An analysis will be made from the perspective of foreign employees on the obstacles of their
communication with Finnish colleagues and how it affects their relationship. The focus will be
given to the cross-cultural barriers present in their daily activities.
The main research question of this study is:
How employees from different cultural backgrounds perceive the communication with
Finnish colleagues?
The sub-research questions are the following:
What are the main communication challenges faced by foreign employees when dealing with
Finnish colleagues?
Are there any obstacles to developing relationships with Finnish colleagues?
6
1.3 Approach and limitations of the research
The research was performed utilizing data from interviews of foreign employees from different
cultural backgrounds working for different Finnish companies. Only foreign employees that
were characterized as highly skilled (university degree or extensive experience in a given field)
and lived a minimum of one year in Finland were selected for this study. The data was collected
utilizing qualitative methods in the city of Joensuu, Finland. The choice of a qualitative
approach to be applied in this research is because no previous studies in Finland of this
phenomenon were found in the academic literature. Furthermore, this study is interested to gain
a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that occurs in the relationship between foreign
employees and their Finnish colleagues.
1.4 Key concepts
Culture
“Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted
mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their
embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically
derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values.” (Kluckhohn, 1951, 86)
Intercultural Communication
“Intercultural communication is defined as the symbolic exchange process whereby individuals
from two (or more) different cultural communities negotiate shared meanings in an interactive
situation.” (Stella Ting-Toomey, 1999, 16-17)
Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions
Geert Hofstede developed its Cultural Value Dimensions from a research made (between 1967
and 1973) with data gathered from 88,000 employees working for a multinational corporation
in 40 countries. The results showed that all surveyed countries could be classified into four
dimensions of national culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-
collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. (Hofstede, 1980a)
7
1.5 Structure of the research
This study consist of seven chapters. The first chapter introduces the reader to the topic by
presenting the background, aims and key concepts of the research. In the same chapter, a brief
view of the approach and limitations of the study are also presented. The second chapter
comprises the main theories in the field of intercultural communication. It also provides the
reader with the theoretical framework. The third chapter explains the methodological choice
for this study. It explains the process of primary data collection and the data analysis method
utilized in this research. The fourth chapter consists of the findings and related analysis of the
interviews. The fifth chapter presents the discussion of the results and its importance for
scholars and practitioners. The final chapter brings the conclusions, limitations of the study and
future research propositions.
8
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Defining culture
Until now, there is no commonly accepted definition of the word culture. However, Taras et
al. (2009) identified four common elements that are present in practically all existing
definitions. First, all current definitions agree that culture is a complex multi-level construct.
The authors explained that culture is often depicted using an “onion” diagram with basic
assumptions and values at its core while practices, symbols, and artifacts on its outer layers
(Figure 1). Second, “culture is shared among individuals belonging to a group or society”.
(Taras et al, 2009, 358) Third, culture is cumulative and develops through generations. Finally,
culture is relatively stable. Thus, culture could be explained as a community of individuals who
see the world in a distinct way, sharing their own interpretations, which are meaningful to their
lives and actions. (Howard, 1991)
Figure 1. A model of culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997, 22)
ARTIFACT
S NORMS
PRODUCTS VALUES
BASIC
ASSUMPTIONS
Explicit
Culture
Implicit
Culture
9
Culture was traditionally in the domain of anthropology and archaeology. These studies were
performed qualitatively and focused mainly on the artifacts, languages, and traditions of
different cultures. The increasing immigration and internationalization of companies due to
globalization has placed cultural issues to the field of management. Early studies of culture
were qualitative and were aimed at the study of protocols, customs and the way business were
done in certain societies. (Taras et al. 2009)
The introduction of quantitative models of culture shifted the focus from the outer layers
(artifacts, languages, and traditions) to the inner ones (cultural values and attitudes). Despite
the relevance of cultural artifacts as an important aspect of culture, its qualitative nature limits
its use to current scientific journals that tends to favor quantitative approaches. Thus, the cross-
cultural literature focuses mostly on the study of values. The work of Hofstede (1980a)
"Culture's Consequences" influenced the field of management to interchangeably use the terms
"culture" and "cultural values". (Taras et al. 2009) Although the large number of values and
attitudes that constitute culture, we will focus mainly in the management field, as the aim of
this study is to understand cultural values under the sphere of work-related interactions.
2.2 Intercultural communication
Despite the long history of research in the fields of culture and communication, the link
between the two is relatively new, about 50 years. (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005) Edward T.
Hall is widely recognized as the founder of the scholarly field of intercultural communication.
(Rogers et al. 2002) His book The Silent Language (1959) is considered the “founding
document” of intercultural communication.
There are many definitions for the term "intercultural communication". Chiang (1993, 5)
defined it as the “communication that allows one to approximate another’s meanings”. Gessner
& Schade (1990, 257) added the non-verbal communication concept to its definition as stating
that intercultural communication is the “communication process occurring – whether verbally
or non-verbally – between members of different cultural groups in different situational
contexts.” Kielbasiewicz-Drozdowska & Radko (2006, 76) explained that this interaction
“takes place at the interpersonal level, either in a culturally alien area or in a situation when
someone deals with representatives of different cultures in one’s own cultural area”. They also
suggested that this interaction occurs with the use of different ways of transmission. However,
10
Gudykunst (2002) noted that for many scholars this interaction is limited to face-to-face
communication.
According to Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern (2002), intergroup interaction is positively
achieved when its members possess abilities such as cultural knowledge and awareness,
communication skills and tolerance for ambiguity, which are essential to intercultural
competence.
On the one hand, intercultural communication barriers appear when the group has divergence
in cognition (values, norms), affect (types and levels of emotional expressivity), and patterns
of behavior (language, customs, communication styles). On the other hand, bridges are built
when individuals during an intergroup encounter utilize cognitive, affective, and behavioral
adaptations.
Intercultural understanding is achieved when individuals overcome “the challenges of language
barriers, unfamiliar customs and practices, and cultural variations in verbal and non-verbal
communication styles”. (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002, 610) The interaction of
individuals from different cultures is associated with adverse emotional responses such as
anxiety and awkwardness, in part, because of communication restrictions.
Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern (2002, 610) also observe that “members of a dominant
ethnolinguistic group may experience feelings of impatience and frustration when
communicating with non-native speakers of a language.” These feelings will negatively
influence the perception of non-native speakers as less competent and less trustable.
Among the challenges of interaction with members of different cultures, there are the
differences in emotional expressivity, non-verbal communication styles, cultural variation in
values, norms, and customs. These differences are responsible for cultural misunderstandings
and communication breakdown. The continuous failure of communication and repeated
cultural misunderstandings will likely have a negative effect against the culturally different.
Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern (2002).
Moreover, it was empirically demonstrated that prejudice and discrimination against
ethnolinguistic outgroups occurred due to intercultural communication barriers. (McCroskey,
1998)
11
2.3 Dimensions of National Culture
There are many studies dedicated to examining national culture, among them a number of
authors managed to successfully conceptualize values that are important for the understanding
of cultural differences. Influential authors such as Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hampden-
Turner, Schwartz, House, and Hall outlined different frameworks; however, Hofstede’s
Cultural Value Dimensions is one of the best-known and widely used model to analyze
different cultures. (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994)
2.3.1 Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Seven Dimensions of Culture
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) developed the Seven Dimensions of Culture model.
The model was based on the study of 30 companies in 50 different countries. The authors
identified and described seven dimensions of culture: universalism/particularism,
individualism/collectivism, affective/neutral, specific/diffuse, ascription/performance,
sequential/synchronous time, and control/success.
Individualism/collectivism
Describes the extent to which members of society see themselves: as integrated to the group to
which they belong or as individuals placing their interests before the group.
Universalism/Particularism
Defines the degree of importance a culture assigns either to personal relationships or to follow
the standards which are universally agreed. “What is more important: rules or relationships?”
Affective/Neutral
The degree to which individuals express their emotions. In cultures with high affectivity,
people display their emotions without the need to hide their feelings whereas in neutrally
cultures people are taught not to express their emotions.
Specific/Diffuse
This dimension concerns how individuals perceive their professional and personal lives. In
specific oriented cultures, people believe that their lives are comprised of different segments,
which are part of the whole. In diffuse oriented cultures, people tend to be more holistic by
12
viewing the whole aspects of their lives related to one another. There are no clear boundaries
between social and professional relations.
Ascription/Performance
In a culture with ascribed status, individuals are evaluated by their age, gender, social status,
education or wealth. In a performance-oriented culture, individuals are valued by their
performances and what they have accomplished.
Sequential/Synchronous
In a sequential culture, time is seen sequentially structured in a straight line of events.
Individuals tend to do things one at a time and value punctuality, planning and adhering to
schedules. In synchronous cultures, people tend to work on several activities at once. For them,
past, present, and future are interconnected. Plans and commitments are flexible and can be
easily changed.
Inner/Outer
This dimension explains the degree to which a culture believe the environment can be
controlled or not. In an inner-directed culture, individuals see nature as a complex mechanism
but that can be controlled with the right knowledge. In an outer-directed culture, individuals
see mankind as only one of the nature's forces and should, therefore, adapt themselves to the
external environment. Thus, an inner-directed culture believes that the work environment can
be controlled whereas an outer-directed culture places its focus on avoiding conflicts and
working for the benefit of the current situation and in pro of other colleagues.
2.3.2 Schwartz Seven Cultural Value Orientations
Shalom H. Schwartz’s Seven Cultural Value Orientations was developed through the
distribution of 56 value items to 87 teacher and student samples from 41 cultural groups in 38
nations between 1988 and 1992. According to Schwartz (1994, 88), the set of items utilized
were “developed to measure the content of individual values recognized across cultures”.
Schwartz’s Seven Cultural Value Orientations were namely: Conservatism, Intellectual
Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Mastery, Egalitarian Commitment and Harmony
(Figure 2)
13
Conservatism – Conservatism describes a society that places emphasis on the maintenance of
the status quo and avoids actions that might disrupt the harmonious relations or the traditional
order. It is characterized by social order, respect for tradition, family security and conformity.
Intellectual Autonomy – Characterizes a society that promotes its individuals to seek their own
intellectual interests and ideas. It is characterized by broadmindedness, creativity, and
curiosity.
Affective Autonomy – A society that places emphasis on the individual pursue of pleasure
through an exciting and varied life. It is characterized by hedonism, stimulation, and desires.
Hierarchy – Reflects a society that emphasizes hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to ensure
socially responsible behavior. Individuals have to comply with the obligations and rules
attached to their roles. Authority, social power, humility and wealth characterize it.
Mastery – Mastery-oriented cultures encourage active efforts to modify the social and natural
environment to achieve personal or group goals. It is characterized by ambition, success, self-
assertion, daring, and competence.
Egalitarian Commitment – A society that emphasizes voluntary commitment among equals
and promotes the welfare's progress of others. Selfless interests, equality, social justice,
freedom, responsibility, and honesty characterize it.
Harmony – This cultural orientation encourages the harmony with nature, to fit harmoniously
in the environment. Is to accept the world as it is without the need to change, direct or exploit
it. It is characterized by unity with nature, protection of the environment and world at peace.
Schwartz later grouped its seven culture value types into three correlated bipolar dimensions:
Embeddedness/Autonomy, Hierarchy/Egalitarianism, and Mastery/Harmony.
14
Figure 2. Schwartz seven cultural value orientations (Schwartz, 2006, 142)
2.3.3 GLOBE
The "Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness" (GLOBE) research
program were conceived in 1991 by Robert J. House. The study was developed as a worldwide,
multiphase, multi-method project. Data were gathered between 1994 and 1997 from over
17,000 managers in 62 cultures representing all major regions of the world. In 2004, the book
“Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies” was published.
In the book, GLOBE has empirically established nine cultural dimensions (Table 1) based on
previous work of Hofstede (1980a), Schwartz (1994), and others. (House et al, 2004)
HARMONYUnity with Nature,World at Peace
EMBEDDEDNESSSocial Order, Obedience,Respect for Tradition
EGALITARIANISMSocial Justice,Equality
HIERARCHYAuthority,Humble
MASTERYAmbition,Daring
INTELECTUAL AUTONOMYBroad-mindedness,Curiosity
AFFECTIVE AUTONOMYPleasure,Exciting Life
15
Table 1. Globe’s nine cultural dimensions (House et al. 2004, 30)
Power
Distance
It is the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree
that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization
or government.
Uncertainty
Avoidance
It is defined as the extent to which members of an organization or society relies
on social norms, rituals, rules, and procedures to avoid the uncertainty of future
events.
Humane
Orientation
It is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and
reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to
others.
Collectivism I Societal Collectivism reflects the degree to which organizational and societal
institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and
collective action.
Collectivism II In-Group Collectivism is a degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
cohesiveness in their organizations or families.
Assertiveness The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive,
confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships.
Gender
Egalitarianism
It is the extent to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role
differences and gender discrimination.
Future
Orientation
The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as
delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future.
Performance
Orientation
The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for
performance improvement and excellence.
2.3.4 Hall’s high and low context cultures
In 1977, Edward T. Hall published the book Beyond Culture that brought out the concept of
high and low context cultures. According to Hall, a high context culture is present in countries
where individuals are more involved with each other, resulting in a structure of social
hierarchy, inner feelings under control and spread of simple messages with deep meaning. In a
low context culture, there is more individualism, people are more alienated and fragmented,
resulting in little involvement among the individuals. The individualism of such societies
16
favors individuals to be less influenced by social hierarchy. Their communication is, in general,
more explicit and impersonal. (Kim et al. 1998)
However, different cultures cannot be exclusively categorized as high context or low context.
Nevertheless, there is a parameter that places different cultures along a dimension, which
extends from high-context to low-context. (Figure 3) Some cultures tend to be at either end of
this continuum. (Richardson & Smith, 2007)
High-context communication is based on indirect verbal expression and meaning inserted in
nonverbal communication. Low-context communication is direct and explicit. (Gudykunst &
Nishida, 1986) Gudykunst et al. (1996) characterized high-context communication as indirect,
ambiguous, maintaining of harmony, reserved and understated. Low-context communication
as direct, precise, dramatic, open, and based on feelings or true intentions. Nonetheless, “high-
context/low-context communication are used in every culture, but one tends to predominate”.
(Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986, 542)
For example, according to Hall, Scandinavians, Germans and the Swiss would communicate
mainly through explicit statements, thus being categorized as low-context cultures. Japanese
and Chinese would be categorized as high-context cultures due to their use of body language
and silence for communication. (Würtz, 2006)
High-Context Low-Context
Cultures Cultures
Japan Greece Italy France Scandinavian
Arab countries Spain England North America German-speaking
Figure 3. High-low context by culture (Hall, 1990)
17
2.3.5 Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions
Hofstede created initially four cultural dimensions. These dimensions were found through the
comparison of values in a sample. According to Hofstede, these values were defined as "broad
tendencies to prefer a certain state of affairs over others". The sample was comprised of
employees and managers, which were similar in all respects except nationality. (Chen &
Partington, 2004) All other characteristics such as occupational status, gender, and age,
matched fairly well. (Arrindell et al. 1997)
The inter-country variation found in the responses from this sample conceived the four basic
cultural dimensions. (Ayoun & Moreo, 2008) Hofstede found that this variation accounted for
approximately 50% of the variation in mean value scores across the nations studied. (Arrindell
et al. 1997) The dimensions were associated with demographic, geographic, economic, and
political aspects of different nations. (Soares et al. 2007) Hofstede classified these four
dimensions as: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism-Collectivism, and
Masculinity-Femininity.
2.4 Theoretical framework
Hofstede's Cultural Value Dimensions theory was important for this study because it gave
guidance in the process of data collection, analysis and interpretation. It is possible to affirm
that his theory influenced this research as a whole since the author's interest in the field of
intercultural communication began through the readings of Hofstede’s works prior to the start
of this study. Other theories in the field of intercultural communication were studied during the
process of finding a theoretical framework. Although they presented valuable information
relevant to this study, Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions involves a set of work-related
values (e.g. power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity) which are
relevant to the understanding of intercultural communication at the workplace. Thus, it was
possible to apply these values to the selected cultures that participated in this study. (Figure 4)
18
Figure 4. Hofstede’s cultural values for selected countries.
Furthermore, Hofstede’s framework is the most widely used in the fields of psychology,
sociology, marketing, and management. (Sondergaard, 1994; Steenkamp, 2001) According to
Soares et al. (2007, 280), Hofstede’s framework is “useful in formulating hypotheses for
comparative cross-cultural studies”. It has been cited more than 1900 times in Business Source
Premier, which exceeds the combined citations of alternative theories of Schwartz (1994,
2006), Inglehart and Baker (2000), and Steenkamp (2001). (Mazanec et al. 2015)
Moreover, the validity of these dimensions has been confirmed by many previous studies
(Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Ng et al. 1982). Thus, Hofstede’s
model can be applied with reliability for the classification of countries according to their
particular cultures and determine cultural differences. (Ayoun & Moreo, 2008)
There are no comparative cultural dimensions measured for Moldova. However, a number of
studies have used Hofstede's cultural dimensions for Romania when measuring Moldova's
19
culture (Ghedrovici & Ostapenko, 2016; Cozma, 2011). This is explained by the fact that both
Romania and Moldova share the same historical past and are connected ethnically by the same
identity and language. (Marcu, 2009)
This study has also been influenced by Hall’s high and low context cultures due to his focus
on the relationship between culture and communication. However, Hall’s concept does not
have enough evidence concerning the studied cultures. For instance, Kittler et al. (2011) argue
that an increase in the countries classification’s list has been built without rigorous and
substantiated findings. In addition, Hall’s concept of high and low context communication has
been criticized by its overgeneralization and lack of empirical foundation.
Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions
Power distance
Power distance is defined by Hofstede (2001, 98) as “the extent to which the less powerful
members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally.” In large power distance countries, superior and subordinates consider
each other unequal, thus establishing their hierarchy based on this inequality. Power is
centralized and subordinates expect to receive orders for their actions. There are many layers
of supervisory personnel and the salary differs significantly from top to bottom in the
organizations. In general, workers are relatively uneducated. Office work has a higher status
than manual labor and superiors are entitled to privileges. In large power distance
organizations, only superiors are expected to initiate contacts with subordinates. The ideal boss
is a benevolent autocrat, or “good father”.
In small power distance countries, superior and subordinates consider each other equal.
Hierarchical differences are seen as a mere diversity of roles, which can be changed in the
future, “someone who today is my subordinate may tomorrow be my boss” (Hofstede, 2001,
102). Power is decentralized with flat hierarchical pyramids and low numbers of supervisory
personnel. The salary variance between the top and bottom workers is more balanced. Workers
are highly qualified, for instance, a high-skill manual work has a higher status than low-skill
office jobs. Superiors have no privileges, as all employees should share the same facilities such
as parking lot, toilets, and cafeteria. Subordinates have easy access to superiors and the ideal
boss is a resourceful democrat. (Hofstede, 1991)
20
For example, in high power distance countries like Japan, there is stronger respect for the
opinions of superiors than in low power distance countries like Sweden. Japanese employees
will have a stronger tendency to request guidance from superiors while Swedish employees
would more likely search for guidance independently or through their peers. (Thorne &
Saunders, 2002)
Uncertainty Avoidance
Hofstede defines uncertainty avoidance as "the extent to which people within a culture are
made nervous by situations which they perceive as unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable,
situations which they, therefore, try to avoid by maintaining strict codes of behavior and a
belief in absolute truths”. (Hofstede 1986, 308) Cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance are
active, aggressive, emotional, compulsive, security seeking, and intolerant. Cultures with low
uncertainty avoidance are contemplative, less aggressive, unemotional, relaxed, accepting
personal risks, and relatively tolerant. (Arrindell et al. 1997)
According to Arrindell et al. (1997), different individuals, organizations, and societies will deal
with inevitable uncertainties in different ways. It is a non-rational process in which individuals
will perceive the threats of a specific situation differently. For instance, while some individuals
will feel the need to adopt strict codes of conduct to avoid unpredictable situations, others will
take no preventive action at all. It is a characteristic of high uncertainty avoidance cultures to
establish formal rules, to oppose deviant ideas and behaviors, and to believe in absolute truths.
Individualism-Collectivism
According to Hofstede, in an individualist society, the ties between individuals are loose.
Everyone is expected to look after her/his immediate family only. In a collectivist society,
people are integrated from birth onwards to “strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout
people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”. (Hofstede,
2001, 225)
According to Hofstede, these contrary views of the world may lead people from individualist
societies to perceive collectivists’ way of life as inefficient, and vice-versa. He exemplified this
21
by describing the feeling of North Americans stating that individualism is good and
collectivism is bad. (Hofstede, 1980a)
Additionally, workers in individualist and collectivist societies will make different decisions
in the workplace. For example, in collectivist society employees are less independent. They are
more concerned with the need to maintain face whereas in individualistic societies the workers
are encouraged to have individual initiative and make their own decisions. (Bochner &
Hesketh, 1994)
Masculinity-Femininity
The Masculinity-Femininity dimension refers to which dominant value is present in a society,
masculine or feminine. A masculine society emphasizes “assertiveness, the desire to acquire
money and things; and a lack of care for others, the quality of life or people”. (Hofstede, 1980b,
230)
In a feminine society, the dominant values include warm social relationships, respect, and care
for the quality of life of all people and care for the weaker members of the society. (Hofstede,
2011) Countries that score high on feminine values present low social role differentiation
between genders (e.g. Sweden) while countries scoring high on masculine values will present
high differentiation between genders (e.g. the United States). (Vitell et al. 1993)
According to the Masculinity versus Femininity Index (Hofstede, 2011, 13), “Masculinity is
high in Japan, in German-speaking countries, and in some Latin countries like Italy and
Mexico; it is moderately high in English speaking Western countries; it is low in Nordic
countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like
France, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Korea and Thailand”.
22
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Qualitative research
This is a qualitative research due to the exploratory nature of the study. The present paper does
not aim to produce statistical information; on the contrary, it intends to make sense of the
phenomena. A qualitative research supports the researcher to understand the social and cultural
environment in which people live. (Myers, 2013) Qualitative research tries “to understand
reality as socially constructed: produced and interpreted through cultural meanings”. (Eriksson
& Kovalainen, 2008, 4) The focus is on the interpretation and understanding of the object being
study. The researcher interprets the data in an open and flexible manner, which so much differs
from the methods utilized in quantitative research. (Corbin et al. 2014) It is mainly applied
when there is lack of previous studies about a specific phenomenon. (Eriksson & Kovalainen
2008) For these reasons, the choice of a qualitative method was seen as the most appropriate
for this study. Foreign employees would be able to share their experiences and express their
feelings concerning their communication at the Finnish workplace.
This study follows an abductive approach (Peirce, 1958). It is inspired by different theories in
the field of intercultural communication. Although the abductive approach starts from the
empirical evidence, theoretical studies were performed prior to the data collection. Intercultural
studies from Schwartz, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, House, Hall, and Hofstede inspired
the design of the research questions, analysis and interpretation of the data. However, none of
these theories were tested due to the qualitative nature of this research. They were only
employed as guidance and support throughout the entire process. The choice for the theoretical
framework to be applied in this study was based on the findings that indicated Hofstede’s
theory as the most relevant.
3.2 Data collection
The study was conducted in the city of Joensuu, Finland. Participants (Table 2) for the study
were recruited through e-mail solicitation. Initially, seven potential interviewees agreed to
participate but later one participant refused to take part when he realized the interview was
23
going to be recorded on tape. To ensure validity, sampled participants were working in Finland
for a period longer than a year, were office workers, and possessed high education.
Table 2. Demographic information of the participants
Name Nationality Age Gender Profession Years in Finland
Andris Latvia 28 Male Sales Manager 9 Helga Germany 40 Female Technical Manager 10
Jimmy United States 39 Male Language Teacher 12 Paul United Kingdom 31 Male Exports Supervisor 21 Sergey Russia 42 Male Programme Developer 8 Timur Moldova 44 Male Marketing Teacher 23
When an individual expressed interest, a meeting was set up according to the desire or
convenience of the participant through phone calls and e-mail exchanges. Interviews took place
in participants’ offices and at cafes.
All the participants were informed that their identities would remain anonymous and that
confidentiality would be ensured. All the names present in this study are fictional. Consent was
obtained from all participants before interviews began. The average time for the interviews
ranged from 40 minutes to one hour.
The participant's age ranged from 28 to 45. Two participants were teachers at public higher
education institutions and four others worked with international sales for private companies.
The participants were highly educated; two had Ph.D., two had MSc and two B.S. Only one of
the participants moved to Finland at an early age. All the other participants came to Finland
when they were already adults. One participant possessed excellent Finnish skills, two other
could communicate at an intermediate level and three others had only basic skills. Three of the
participants were single; one was married to a Finn while two others had spouses of other
nationalities.
3.3 Data analysis
The chosen method for the analysis of data in this study was content analysis. Content analysis
is a method for analyzing and interpreting data that has been used in different fields such as
communication, business, journalism, sociology, and psychology. (Neuendorf, 2017) It has
24
also been used to conduct worldwide comparisons of cultural commonalities and differences.
It is a systematic and objective way of describing and quantifying phenomena. This method
analyzes written or verbal communication by classifying words into fewer content-related
categories. Content analysis has been used as a method to answer open-ended interview
questions. (Krippendorff, 2012) By classifying words and phrases into distinct categories, they
will share the same meaning. (Cavanagh, 1997)
The method utilized in the present study for collection of data was a semi-structured interview.
According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008), a semi-structured interview is used for both
"what" and "how" questions. In this study, a guide (Appendix 1) of themes and potential
questions was designed to support the interview. There was not much of a fixed structure that
participants should follow. They were free to make observations in the direction they felt was
relevant.
The unit of analysis in the current study was recorded interviews. Each recording has been
listened repeatedly many times. In addition to that, each interview was transcribed and
subsequently read several times. Thus, it was possible to obtain an extensive understanding of
the data. Impressions from each interview were written down in order to help with the
identification and analysis of data that was relevant to this study. The transcribed interviews
were then analyzed, and parts of the text were categorized by codes according to the identified
themes found in the form of words, sentences or paragraphs. A table was designed containing
the names of the respondents and the codes identified for each interview. The codes that
presented relationship concerning their meanings were grouped together into categories. Each
category received a different label. During this process, subcategories emerged from main
categories based on the similarity of their theme. Some labels had to be renamed and rearranged
during the process of categorization. The creation of categories was also based on the frequency
they appeared through different interviews.
25
4 RESULTS
Seven main themes were identified from the interviews with foreign workers in relation to their
communication with Finnish colleagues. The first was The Silent Finn, the second was The
Uncomfortable Silence, the third was The Finnish Barrier, the fourth was The Language
Barrier, the fifth was The Direct Finn, the sixth was Hierarchy and the seventh was Gossiping.
4.1 The Silent Finn
A critical element in the narratives of the interviewees was that their communication with Finns
was affected by the fact that Finnish people are too quiet. Terms such as silent ones and stone
face where quoted when describing their perception of the Silent Finn. Helga defined her
difficulties in guessing what message some of her Finnish colleagues want to communicate:
“Communication in Finland is difficult due to the stone face. Not everybody has it, but I call
it stone face. Not to see the reaction so easily. You have to read between the lines what they
mean and don't see the mimic.” Helga
Paul expressed his frustration to communicate with other departments at his company due to
the lack of information from his Finnish colleagues:
“The Marketing Department or Finance Department, they are all the kind of silent ones.” Paul
In another instance, Paul mentions that even at the work brakes there is a lack of
communication:
“I mean, they don't talk a lot. I have seen this silence already in school but also in the
workplace, the coffee breaks or lunch breaks, I mean, if I do not talk, literally, nobody talks.
So, it would just be like people sitting around, drinking their coffee” Paul
Culture shock was also a theme brought up by Timur when explaining that natives of the so-
called talkative nations would have when working in Finland.
“It can be a challenge in the beginning when you arrive in Finland, especially if you are Italian.
You will probably have a shock at the beginning because people are really quiet.” Timur
26
Some of the respondents have perceived the quietness of the Finns as a sign of modesty. Paul
explains that even though Finns have something to say, they will abstain to express their ideas
due to their modesty.
"Especially with business where they need new ideas. A Finn might have a perfect idea but
because they are very modest they will remain silent because they think their idea is not good."
Paul
According to Jimmy, modesty could be the reason for Finns not being so communicative when
interacting with foreigners. He believes Finns feel uncomfortable speaking another language,
even if they have good skills in that language.
I believe the reason why the meetings are still held in Finnish is because of a self-perceived
lack of English skills by a lot of the teachers there. The coordinator of the international
programme is perfectly capable, as I should say, are most of the teachers in English, perfectly
fluent. Jimmy
It was also pointed out that the quietness of the Finns could be interpreted as a lack of interest
in the conversation. According to some respondents, the lack of a “two-way” communication
makes it harder for foreigners to build relationships with Finns.
In England, you will always get responsive conversations. Like the person you're talking to is
giving you something back, so you're having its communication. There is two-way
communication; it is not just one-way. Sometimes, with some Finns, they are so reserved that
you might think that they are not interested at all. Paul
However, in two instances, respondents have noted that there are some exceptions concerning
the quiet Finns. Not all the Finns are quiet and in some instances, can be extremely
communicative.
“I’m not going to say names, but in our department, there is one of the rare Finns who won’t
shut up. She is very talkative.” Paul
“The president of our company is an exception. He is completely different, and he is talking all
the time. You don’t have time to talk because he talks nonstop and he is super social.” Helga
27
4.2 The Uncomfortable Silence
For some of the respondents, the long periods of silence of the Finns create uncomfortable
feelings. Long pauses or lack of active communication is difficult to be managed. Helga
explains that silence generates confusion from her perspective of the situation.
When the Finns are suddenly silent, I think: Are they pissed off about me? Did I say something
wrong? What is wrong? Did I waste their time today or is that their way of saying: It’s ok, let’s
go? I was thinking: They don’t like to be with me here, they stopped talking. They want to get
out of this. Helga
Jimmy gives an example of how silent is perceived in other countries when describing that
silent in the United States is seen in a negative perspective.
But there is definitely a difference in how the silence is perceived. In Finland, it's not
uncomfortable but definitely, in my home culture, longer silence is not generally thought to be
ok. In the United States, it would be perceived probably quite negatively. In Finland, if you
have a meeting where there are thirty or forty people and you have one chairperson, and the
chairperson asks for comments and opens the floor, and it's just crickets, nothing. I look around
and I get a little bit uncomfortable. Jimmy
The uneasy feeling at silent working places can even lead to the desire of leaving the job. Paul
expressed his dissatisfaction at working in a place where his colleagues would not make any
effort to communicate.
At that job, for example, there was no small talk ever. I was younger, so I wasn't that confident
in being the one to start the chatting because I was the trainee. I was at the lowest level, so I
didn't dare be the one to talk. So, during the coffee breaks and lunch break, it was just silence.
Nobody talks to anybody. It was just… always, just silence. The exception was, of course, when
they were teaching. They have to talk, but even then, it was like they didn't want to say anything,
but they had to. I didn't like working there. Paul
4.3 Finnish Barrier
Apart from Sergey, all the other respondents agreed that the quietness of the Finns becomes
like a barrier that cannot be broken. According to them, this barrier can last very long periods
28
of time or even last forever. This issue restrains foreign employees to build a friendship with
Finns.
When it comes to Finland, you’ll never really get to the point that you can freely hang out and
trust someone else. Because you have all the time the feeling that Finnish people don’t let you
get closer. I feel I cannot break this wall. It’s hard for me to rely on them because I don’t know
if they are willing to rely on me. Andris
Andris created an analogy to his difficulties in establishing a close relationship with Finnish
colleagues. For him, there is a long lasting iceberg that blocks any further development of the
relationship.
So it's like you are having this iceberg and then it's like you can talk with them about work
matters. Already after many years in the company, you still understand that there is this wall.
Here is just mostly kind of small talk but it never gets very personal. It’s just like general, just
for the goodwill. Andris
On the same line, Paul depicts his difficulties as a wall. It is interesting to note that, in both
cases (Andris/Paul), it is mentioned that even after long periods of time, the barrier would still
be present/standing between them.
Even though I know my colleagues quite well now, even now, I still feel a bit of this barrier. I
know that they don't like talking so I shouldn’t go to ask this or something. So, there is kind of
like… “Do not disturb” sign always there. Paul
Jimmy explains in detail the consequences of not knowing well your colleagues. Although he
does not explicitly indicates the existence of an “iceberg” or “wall”, he implies the existence
of a barrier by expressing the difficulties to know his colleagues.
In Finland, I have found, and I still find, that it can take a very long time to get to know some
of your colleagues. You don’t really know that much about the people that you are trying to
solve maybe a problem with or you are working on the same project. You don't know really
anything about that person. You don't know why this person is so short-tempered, you don't
know the situation at home, you don't know this and that, and that's okay, that's maybe how is
done in Finland. If they want to share that information with you they will, but they don’t
necessarily have to, it is not expected. So, you don’t really know a lot about the backgrounds
of people. Jimmy
29
It clearly emerged from the interviews that foreign employees felt incapable to penetrate the
perceived barrier of their Finnish colleagues. It was observed that there is a need to establish
communication with Finns, but it seems that Finns are comfortable on their own.
Because, if you go talk to a Finn, it feels you are disturbing them. Especially at the coffee table
or dinner table. If someone is sitting on their own, the wall to go and sit next to them and start
talking is massive. I mean, you really have to know that person very well and have something
specific to say to them. Otherwise, you're just being a crazy man who's disturbing them. So, I
think there's a massive barrier to go to disturb. Paul
However, Sergey explained that for him there is no barrier to building relationships with Finns.
He mentioned that there is a gathering of Russian and Finns on a regular basis for sauna outside
the working hours.
There is a sauna evening that is organized by one of the managers. The company it’s not
involved. The manager organizes it to anyone who wants to come there. So, there are Russians
and Finns. We just sit and discuss some things. It’s pretty easy here. Sergey
4.4 Language barrier
It is quite evident that people from different countries would find obstacles in communication
due to the language barrier. All respondents have mentioned that the communication became
compromised as a result of their interaction with Finns by utilizing a foreign language for
communication. Apart from Paul, who is able to speak Finnish, all other respondents make use
of the English language to communicate with their Finnish colleagues. Jimmy and Andris
pointed out that the language barrier makes it challenging for them to get to know better their
colleagues.
So, you don’t really know a lot about the backgrounds of people and that might have been
connected to maybe using English primarily in the beginning as a means of communication.
Jimmy
The lack of fluency in a lingua franca adopted for communication aggravates the obstacles to
mutual understanding.
30
I personally think it’s because I don’t speak neither perfect Finnish and they don’t speak
neither perfect English. So, I think it’s mostly because of the language barrier. Andris
The language barrier can also bring psychological distress to foreigners who are living for
many years in Finland and were still not able to learn the language. Negative feelings such as
guilt can arise from this inability. It was explained that the reasons for not being able to speak
Finnish were that the language is too difficult and that most Finns are able to communicate in
English.
For twelve years that I have the feeling they might think I don’t want to integrate just because
I don’t speak the language. Nobody ever blamed me but it’s on my side this bad conscious all
the time. I feel ashamed sometimes to say: Let’s have the meeting in English because it feels
like: Ah! This bad conscious is there again! It’s constantly this feeling of bad conscious
concerning the language. Helga
In the case of an international workplace where half of the workers are Finns and the other half
is comprised of individuals from other countries, there will be a division among workers.
During breaks, they will split up into groups according to the native language they speak. Those
who are a minority would get together to form an international group.
Yeah, the Finnish and the Russians set the kitchen. It's the Russian section and the Finnish
section. All the other foreigners get together at another table. So, we have the other foreigners,
the Russians, and the Finns. So, then we are together speaking in English, the Russians in
Russian and the Finns in Finnish. Helga
The language barrier difficulties complicate even more when Finns do not bother in switching
their conversation to English when in the presence of foreign colleagues.
I find sometimes impolite when a group of Finns comes to the room and they start talking to
each other in Finnish. Soon the conversation is addressed to everybody, but they keep chatting
in Finnish, even they know I’m there. They don’t make the effort to try to include me in the
conversation by switching to English. Helga
It was noted that the language barrier could also affect the performance of foreign workers. In
some instances, meetings would be held in Finnish and foreign workers will not be able to
understand the objective of the meeting. That can lead to misunderstandings and failure to
accomplish tasks.
31
There are also some work meetings that are held in Finnish because they think I understand it.
In the beginning, I have agreed we could have meetings in Finnish because I want to learn the
language. But if I'm really honest, I don't get much out of the meetings, especially the
professional terms. So, I understand the topic but not all the details and not at all the jokes and
the actual problem. I know there is a problem somehow with the topic, but I don't understand
what exactly the problem is. I also feel ashamed to say it. To be honest, the last five meetings I
didn't understand much. Helga
4.5 The Direct Finn
For all the participants, Finns were seen as very direct in their way of communication. In some
occasions, harsh or even rude because of their lack of “gibberish” or “talking in circles”.
Although the directness of Finns was perceived in a negative light, it was generally accepted
that such behavior was not intentionally harmful. All participants considered as a culture trait
that should be tolerated.
Because I got the history, I know quite a bit about Finns, so I haven't been insulted by it in a
way, but sometimes the way Finns speak can be very like… It can sound like they're being evil,
you know, it can be very direct. So, especially at work, if they are saying to do this and this,
and that and so forth, and you did it wrong, they will literally just say: “You did it wrong.” So,
they can be quite direct, and I think that if I hadn’t known that from like my past or history with
the Finns, I could have been quite like… even upset in the beginning. I noticed that it could
have been quite bad, but I always have to take it with a “pinch of salt” … Very rarely you will
have a Finnish person saying it like in an evil way. It'll just be a very “matter-of-fact”. Paul
Like Paul, Helga also understands that the directness of the Finns is not intentionally rude.
However, she observed that this way of communication would not be tolerated in her home
country.
I think Finns can be very direct sometimes to the level that you might feel it's impolite. But I
got used to this. I know it's normal in the Finnish environment. At home, I could never talk to
a person like this. So, the way to formulate things might sound rude but that's just straight to
the point. Helga
32
It was pointed out that the Finnish direct way of communication can work well among Finns
but would not be successful outside Finland. Paul explained that although the message carries
the same meaning, the way in which it is said would affect how people would perceive it.
I’m actually like an unofficial translator also. So, when we have like bigger statements or
information letters that are going out to all the export countries they’ll ask me to read it. And
quite often, it is like the one thing I'll do is I'll just soften it a bit. The wording might be very in
the like of: “We have a new product, it is good. You will enjoy it.” True, true...maybe we need
a little bit more work, you know... The thing is, the way they talk in Finnish is the same. But in
Finnish it doesn’t sound as bad. In Finnish, it just sounds normal, it just sounds like Finnish,
so it is just a perception. Paul
Interestingly, it was also acknowledged that Finns might not understand the message meaning
if not conveyed in a direct way. Jimmy described that he had adapted his way of communication
in order to be understood by his Finnish colleagues.
Yeah, in the workplace there is not a whole lot of reading between the lines with the question
or comment if you want to get a point across to a colleague. Maybe I have found that you
should just say it directly, instead of maybe making a kind of tongue-in-cheek comment or
something where you would play around with the words. You should probably just say it a bit
more directly. Jimmy
4.6 Hierarchy
The respondents have seen the Finnish flat or non-hierarchical organization style positively.
According to them, communication flows easier through an informal environment. Helga
explains that by excluding formalities, she feels equal when communicating with her Finnish
superiors.
The first thing that I found super different here is the low hierarchy. In Germany, we have a
strong hierarchy. When talking to your boss you have to be super polite. You need to use the
official "you" (in German there is the formal "Sie" and the informal "Du" for the pronoun
"You") and to call them "Mr. Surname". Here I can call people by their first name, even the
president of the company. Everybody is quite on a similar level. They don't make you feel you
33
are just a trainee or at an inferior level… I got very used to this here. It's an easier
communication, it's easier relating to people. That was the biggest difference for me and I'm
enjoying very much. Helga
The easiness of communication through different positions inside a company gives freedom to
employees to express their opinions and criticisms straight to their bosses. There are no
intermediaries and the tone of the conversation is very informal.
The most frequent meetings that I attend you have a supervisor who is the supervisor to forty
people and those forty people are there at the meeting. So, you have basically forty-one people,
all of them are basically at the same level except for the chairperson. There is not a whole of
hierarchy in Finland. You can always approach your boss and you can tell him: I don’t like
how this worked out or I don’t like how this is set up. You can very openly approach your boss
and tends to be very informal. Jimmy
Nevertheless, an open channel with higher ranks does not guarantee to employees that their
voices will be listened. Some of the respondents indicated the existence of a false democracy
in their companies. Although employees are free to express their opinions and ideas, it will be
their boss who will have the final word.
In Finland, there is going to be a meeting where employees are invited. And people will have
expressed their opinion, and your opinion is going to be considered. But that doesn't mean that
the case is going to be solved by the employees who have been invited. It can still be that the
head of the company will be the one to decide. Andris
Jimmy explains that most of the meetings he attended were staged. In other words, that the
decision has already been made before the start of the meeting. Employees would be invited to
a meeting to discuss a specific issue but that would have no effect on the final decision.
In Finland for example when you have a meeting there's not really much in the way of decision-
making that actually occurs at a meeting. Very rarely have I been at a meeting where people
have actually voted on an issue and workers have, for example, decided something. What
happens is that the chairperson of the meeting, who is usually also the supervisor, will explain
his or her proposal and open the floor for discussion and listen if there are comments. He will
listen to people who disagree or agree with the ideas and take them all into consideration, at
least superficially, but then the decision is made and that's it... Dissent is ok, you can express
34
your disagreement with something and the chairperson will take that and say ok, but he will
not do anything...Your boss has already made the decision, he is not going to change it. Jimmy
4.7 Gossiping
Although the quietness of the Finns, some respondents explained that by starting a
conversation, Finns might be willing to engage in a dialogue. It was said however that due to
their shyness, they might need someone to “break the ice”.
When I start talking, then they will start talking. So, they will talk but it's just like nobody wants
to be the first to talk and then if there's a silence, it won't break ever it's just like forever.
Because I think the main thing is that the Finns don't want to be the first to break the silence. I
think breaking the silence is kind of like: "Oh! I don't want to do that!" And I'm there breaking
the silence, or in English, we say: "Breaking the ice" I'm easily the one who breaks the ice,
which means that there is more talking and so on. Paul
By having no one to break the ice, Finns are not able to express their opinions explicitly. Jimmy
describes that at the end of meetings people would have a chance to express their views
regarding a specific issue. However, because no one would start a conversation, there would
be only silence. This attitude will lead to the creation of gossips.
There's kind of "I'm not going to say anything at the meeting but I'm going to complain about
it behind the supervisors back". We have a very nice work environment but that still goes on.
And that goes on at other workplaces that I have experienced in Finland. So, there is a silence
and in the end, somebody actually really had something to say but didn't say. Jimmy
Finns would rather prefer to make complaints in the background than publicly. In the same
manner, questions will not be made. Finns would bet their guesses concerning an issue but will
not come up and ask. There will be a waiting for someone to come with the answer.
I'm not sure if it's in every company or it is just mine or is it the department or anything, but
there seems to be like a lot of this kind of guessing going on. And I don't understand why
because if we have the Monday meeting, a week is not a long time. You can wait until Monday
and then ask. But sometimes the meeting on Monday will go and nobody will mention it there,
waiting for the information to come.... So what would happen is, when the meeting is over,
people will go whispering, like: "Oh! This is a stupid idea. I had a much better idea". Paul
35
5 DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
This study pursued a deeper understanding of the communication between foreign employees
and their Finnish colleagues at the workplace. There is no previous research in the intercultural
communication occurring at the Finnish workplace. This research has attempted to address this
gap by identifying seven different themes that will help scholars in the understanding of the
phenomena. In addition, it provides Finnish managers guidance on the way to communicate
with its foreign workforce. Data obtained from the participants of this study revealed some
challenges and benefits of the communication at the Finnish workplace. It was found that the
Finnish silence was the main factor affecting communication.
Altogether seven different themes were found. Six of these themes refers to the challenges in
communication and relationship; and only one refers to the benefit of communication with
Finns. It is interesting that five of the challenge themes share the same root problem: the silence.
This means that the Finnish silence affects negatively the perception of communication of
foreign individuals that do not share the same cultural background. This specific finding
supports the studies of Lehtonen & Sajavaara (1985), Sajavaara & Lethonen (1997) and Lewis
(2005) that present the Finnish silence as incomprehensible to other cultures with the exception
of few Asian nations.
This lack of understanding of the Finnish silence leads foreigners to feel uncomfortable when
communicating with Finns. They would perceive silence negatively, even assuming that Finns
are not interested in communicating with them. This finding supports Hall's (1990) high/low
context concept that describes high-context individuals at a loss when low-context people do
not provide enough information. The discomfort to interact with Finns may lead to the desire
to leave the job as it was stated by one of the participants. This shows that is important for
Finnish companies to pay attention to the way it communicates with its foreign employees.
One of the participants suggested that foreign employees should have talkative Finns or other
foreigners to communicate at their department. That would reduce the discomfort and stimulate
the building of relationships.
Many previous studies in cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1999; and GLOBE,
2002) placed Finland high in both equality and democracy. However, the findings in this study
suggest the existence of a false democracy where individuals are free to talk but would not be
heard. Some participants felt disappointed and surprised because they had a perception of
36
Finland as being a democratic nation where their personal opinions would be taken into
consideration. Nevertheless, they were pleased by the fact that they could approach any
managerial staff informally. All participants in this study come from cultures where formal
rules of communication have to be followed at the workplace. The results indicate that the
freedom to approach their leader informally minimizes the loss of democracy.
It is important for Finnish companies to understand that foreign employees have this
perspective on democracy. Their dissatisfaction with not having the power to decide may lead
to the loss of interest in bringing new ideas. If their ideas and suggestions are not taking into
consideration they will likely conform to the current state of affairs and become less
participative.
The results also indicated a resistance from Finns to communicate in English. Participants
informed that even though Finns were perfectly capable of communicating in English, they
would refrain from doing so due to modesty. One participant mentioned Finns to have a self-
perceived lack of English skills. This finding supports Sajavaara & Lehtonen (1997)
observation that Finns believe they are not good at learning foreign languages as people from
other nations. This characteristic of the Finns was also present in the work of Hofstede (2010)
who placed Finland as one of the most feminine societies. In a feminine society, both men and
women should be modest.
Findings in this study support this perception. Even though Finns from an English language
department were perfectly capable of holding meetings with foreign teachers in English, they
would opt to do it in Finnish because of a lack of confidence in their skills. Numerous studies
(e.g. Cutrone, 2009, Woodrow, 2006, and Mak 2011) have examined the anxiety effects of
Asians to speak English. In one of these studies (Woodrow, 2006) it was mentioned that
shyness is an admirable trait in Japanese society and that would be one of the reasons they
struggle to communicate in English. Thus, it would be interesting if future studies could
confirm if there is a correlation between the Finnish modesty and their ability to speak English.
It has to be also noted that Finns expect long-term foreign employees to learn the Finnish
language. Hence, it seems there is a struggle between the two parts in establishing a lingua
franca. Finns unable to freely express themselves in English and foreigners unable to
communicate in Finnish.
The Finnish economy of words when communicating with foreigners make them to be
perceived as impolite or even rude. Participants agreed that this way of communication could
37
not be transferred to another language for being too direct. According to them, different
messages can carry the same meaning but the way in which it is said would affect how it is
perceived. This finding is in accordance with Hofstede's (2010) characteristics of individual
societies. Among the characteristics, speaking one’s mind is a characteristic of an honest
person. Hall (1977) explains that individuals in low-context cultures would communicate more
explicitly and with a minimum degree of non-verbal context. Sajavaara & Lehtonen (1997)
indicated that Finnish honesty is a result of a straightforward impoliteness or a lack of skill in
the use of expressions such as downtoners, apologies, or polite requests. In this study, findings
suggest that the perceived direct way of communication is a combination of bluntness and an
inability to convey the message through the unspoken rules of a foreign culture.
The findings also pointed to an invisible barrier around Finns. This invisible barrier surrounds
Finns like a "do not disturb" sign that prevent foreign employees to approach them. As Hall
(1990) noted, northern Europeans have large bubbles of space around them. These bubbles
keep people at distance, as northern Europeans do not like closeness and touch. According to
some participants, the invisible barrier keeps them at bay of building relationships with Finns.
By being unable to build relationships at work, they will lose both trust and motivation. In the
study of Eskildsen et al. (2010), the relationship among co-workers is an important construct
in the job satisfaction of employees in an organization. If the job satisfaction were low,
employees would not be capable of unleashing their full potential.
An interesting finding in this study concerns the advent of the gossiping theme from the
interviews. This finding indicates that Finns have the freedom to express their dissatisfaction
openly to their superiors but would instead choose to disclose it secretly with their peers. That
could be an indication that the existence of a false democracy at the workplace would
discourage Finns to verbalize their dissatisfactions upwards. In the study of Ellwardt et al.
(2012), it was found that the level of trust in the manager influences the tone of gossip. The
more the management presents itself as untrustworthy, the more likely negative feedback and
negative gossip would occur. Based on these findings, it could be hypothesized that gossip at
the Finnish workplace might be associated with the level of employees' trust on their superiors.
Thus, managers need to consider the importance of these finding when aiming to gain trust
from their employees. An effective democratic participation of employees in the decision-
making process might reduce negative gossiping at the workplace and boost trust. In light of
this finding, future studies should explore whether and how gossip is related to the existence
of a false democracy at Finnish companies.
38
6 CONCLUSIONS
Findings in the present study points to some of the difficulties that may be experienced by
foreign workers when trying to communicate with their Finnish colleagues at the workplace.
Participants described a series of challenges, especially concerning the quietness of their
Finnish colleagues. This finding supports the work of Lehtonen & Sajavaara (1985) when
portraying The Silent Finn. The narratives indicated that foreign workers feel confused with
the quietness of the Finns and do not know how to overcome the barrier to communication.
However, they did accept the fact that silence is a characteristic of the Finnish culture and tried
to adapt to an environment where communication does not flow so smoothly as in their home
countries. The adaptation process can take many years and it is not easy. Silence is not
perceived positively by the respondents who, in most cases, feel uncomfortable with long
pauses during a conversation as it was observed also in the work of Lewis (2005) This
corroborates with previous studies suggesting that Finns tolerate longer pauses during a
conversation better than Americans or Central Europeans (Lehtonen & Sajavaara, 1985).
Nevertheless, as Lewis (2005) noted it, the quietness of the Finns can be aggravated by the fact
that, by communicating in English, they will be worried about their accuracy in a foreign
language. That would make Finns to opt for saying less rather than risk the chance of making
a grammatical mistake. Thus, the language barrier could be a major obstacle for both sides.
Nevertheless, it was interesting that two interviewees informed that they also have
communicative Finnish colleagues. These talkative Finns demonstrate that there are exceptions
to the general idea that Finns are quiet.
The study also indicates what the implications of these silent moments might be for the building
of friendship at the Finnish workplace. The feeling of a "Finnish barrier" deter foreign workers
to invest their time and effort to build relationships with Finns. The lack of feedback from the
Finns during a conversation made some respondents feel that Finns are not interested in
building a friendship with them. Besides that, the directness of the Finns is misinterpreted as
rudeness. That would produce a general feeling of exclusion that some participants expressed
during the interviews. Thus, it is no surprise that some foreigners would create separate groups
in the workplace (e.g. foreigners and Finns eating at different tables) or have an absence of
social activities with Finnish colleagues after working hours.
All respondents praised the horizontal organization style of Finnish companies. More notably,
was that respondents from highly hierarchical cultures were the ones that were more satisfied
39
with this style of organization. Research conducted by Malone (1997) indicates that job
satisfaction is related to higher level of empowerment of employees. Hence, the satisfaction
perceived in individuals from highly hierarchical cultures could be explained because in flat
organizations they would benefit from higher levels of empowerment. Communication is also
easier and faster through fewer layers of horizontal organizations. Still, it does not guarantee
that opinions and suggestions are going to be considered by executive managers. This finding
concurs with Lämsä (2010) showing that although employees can openly disagree with their
senior management, it is the leader who will make the final decision. It is however
contradictory to Hofstede’s views of democratic Finnish companies. Furthermore, it could be
argued that Finnish employees would not express their ideas or opinions during meetings due
to their understanding of this false democracy.
The data presented in this study highlights the challenges faced by foreign employees to
communicate and build relationships with Finns at the workplace. The implication for business
practice is that Finnish managers should be aware of the difficulties foreign employees find to
integrate into their workplaces. If Finnish companies neglect to deal with these challenges the
consequences will be harmful in the long run. Dissatisfied foreign workers will eventually
leave the company or even the country resulting in a loss of foreign skilled workforce. This
can cause a negative impact on the process of internationalization of Finnish companies.
Finnish managers should also be aware of the dissatisfaction they cause on their Finnish
employees by not considering their opinions. It will result in a lack of ideas and creativity from
these employees who would opt to organize dissident groups to verbalize their resentment.
Likewise, foreign employees who come to work in Finland should be aware of the Finnish
culture and try to minimize their stress during the adaptation process. For instance, by learning
the Finnish language, many of these obstacles could be minimized. Communication can be also
improved if Finnish companies could organize regular training and meetings of its Finnish and
foreign employees to find ways to facilitate their interactions. There are many studies
concerning intercultural communication at work (e.g. Clyne, Ball & Neil, 1991; Froese,
Peltokorpi & Ko, 2012) but no previous study has been performed in Finland. Hence, more
research is necessary in this field in order to promote further understanding of Finnish
companies in the development of tools to overcome these challenges.
40
7 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study should be seen in the light of limitations that need to be addressed. It was
limited to a small number of foreign highly educated employees working for Finnish companies
in the city of Joensuu. The small sample size was explained by the difficulty to get access to
foreign employees willing to participate in the study. If the same research were conducted in
the capital of Helsinki, it would be easier to find a larger number of participants consequently
widening the variation of responses. However, we cannot undervalue the number of new
insights found in this study. As it was noted by Crouch & McKenzie (2006, 493), just one
“case” can lead to new insights.
Gender and age were not distinguished in the analyses of this study. It would be important that
in future research these two variables be addressed as they might affect the results. Some
respondents also possessed limited skills of the English language. That might have restricted
them to fully express their views and feelings about the topic.
The present research was probably biased by the fact that the author is a foreigner living in
Finland for ten years. The author has built his personal views on the Finnish culture and might
have focused on themes he regarded as relevant according to his own experiences.
Significant findings have emerged in this study and should be addressed in future researches.
For instance, the author was not expecting the theme "Gossiping" to come up from the
responses. It would be interesting if further studies address this theme in order to verify if there
is a correlation between the False Democracy and the development of gossips at the workplace.
41
REFERENCES
Acioly-Régnier, N. M., Koroleva, D. B. & Mikhaleva, L. V. 2014. Problems and Discrepancies
of Intercultural Communication in Russian and Foreign Science. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 154, 204 – 208.
Ahrens, T. 1997. Talking accounting: An ethnography of management knowledge in British
and German brewers. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22(7), 617-637.
Arasaratnam, L. A. & Doerfel, M. L. 2005. Intercultural communication competence:
Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 29(2), 137-163.
Arrindell, W.A., Hatzichristou, C., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., Van Twillert, B., Stedema, J.
& Meijer, D. 1997. Dimensions of national culture as predictors of cross-national differences
in subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 23(1), 37-53.
Ayoun, B. M., & Moreo, P. J. 2008. The influence of the cultural dimension of uncertainty
avoidance on business strategy development: A cross-national study of hotel managers.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(1), 65-75.
Bochner, S. & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, and Job-Related
Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25(2),
233-257.
Boje, D. M. 2001. Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research.
London: SAGE
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice:
Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organizational Science 2(1),
40-57.
Bryan, C. (ed.) 2012. Cultural Variations and Business Performance: Contemporary
Globalism. Hershey: IGI Global.
Cavanagh S. 1997. Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher
(4), 5–16.
42
Chen, P. & Partington, D. 2004. An interpretive comparison of Chinese and Western
conceptions of relationships in construction project management work. International Journal
of Project Management 22(5), 397-406.
Chiang, L. H. 1993. Beyond the Language: Native Americans’ Nonverbal Communication.
Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Association of Teachers of
Educational Psychology, 1-2 October 1993, Anderson, United States.
Cozma, Irina. 2015. Organizational Justice Model across Seven Countries. Psihologia
Resurselor Umane, 9(2), 18-35.
Corbin, J. Strauss, A., & Strauss A.L. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE 4th Edition
Crouch, M. & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview based qualitative
research. Social Science Information, 34(4), 483-499.
Cutrone, P. 2009. Overcoming Japanese EFL Learner’s Fear of Speaking. Language Studies
Working Papers, 1, 55-63.
Czarniawska, B. 1998. A Narrative Approach to Organizational Studies. Qualitative Research
Methods 43. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Edelweiss, C. H. & Michailova, S. 2012. Working in the Middle East: Western female
expatriates’ experiences in the United Arab Emirates. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 23(4), 625-644.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R. & Wielers, R. 2012. Talking About the Boss: Effects of Generalized
and Interpersonal Trust on Workplace Gossip. Group & Organization Management 37(4), 521-
549.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London:
SAGE.
Eskildsen, J., Kristensen, K. & Antvor, H.G. 2010. The relationship between job satisfaction
and national culture. The TQM Journal 22(4), 369-378.
Featherstone, M. 1990. Global culture: nationalism, globalization and modernity: a theory,
culture & society special issue. London: SAGE.
43
Funk, N. C. & Said, A. A. 2004. Islam and the West: Narratives of conflict and conflict
transformation. International Journal of Peace Studies 9(1), 1-28.
Gabriel, Yiannis. 2000. Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, fantasies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Gertsen, M. C. & Søderberg, A. M. 2000. Tales of trial and triumph a narratological perspective
on international acquisition. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions 1, 239-272.
Gertsen, M. C. & Søderberg, A. M. 2010. Expatriate stories about cultural encounters – A
narrative approach to cultural learning processes in multinational companies. Scandinavian
Journal of Management 26(3), 248-257.
Gertsen, M. C. & Søderberg, A. M. 2011. Intercultural collaboration stories: On narrative
inquiry and analysis as tools for research in international business. Journal of International
Business Studies 42(6), 787-804.
Gessner, V. & Schade, A. 1990. Conflicts of Culture in Cross-Border Legal Relations: The
Conception of a Research Topic in the Sociology of Law. Theory, Culture & Society 2(3), 253-
277.
Ghedrovici, O. & Ostapenko, N. 2016. Business Ethics in Post-Soviet Economies: The Case
of Moldova. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 6(3), 85-106.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Nishida, T. 1986. Attributional Confidence in Low-and High-context
Cultures. Human Communication Research 12(4), 525-549.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S.
1996. The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self Construals, and Individual
Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures. Human Communication Research 22, 510-
543.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Mody B. 2002. Handbook of international and intercultural
communication. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hall, E.T. 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.
Hall, E.T. 1977. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books Editions.
Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. 1990. Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and
Americans. Boston: Intercultural Press.
44
Harrison, E.C. & Michailova, S. 2012. Working in the Middle East:
Western female expatriates' experiences in the United Arab Emirates. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 23(4), 625-644
Hofstede, G. 1980a. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
London: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. 1980b. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply
abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9(1), 42-63.
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M.H.1984. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent validation
using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15(4), 417–433.
Hofstede, G. 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 10(3), 301-320.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. London: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede G. J. & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and organizations: software of
the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Third Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1).
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Howard, G. S. 1991. Culture Tales: A Narrative Approach to Thinking, Cross-Cultural
Psychology, and Psychotherapy. American Psychologist 46(3), 187-197.
Imai, L. & Gelfand, M. J. 2010. The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural
intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 112(2), 83-98.
Inglehart, R. & W. Baker. 2000. Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of
Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19-51.
45
Jameson, D. A. 2001. Narrative Discourse and Management Action. The Journal of Business
Communication 38(4), 476-511.
Kielbasiewicz-Drozdowska, I. & Radko, S. 2006. The role of intercultural communication in
tourism and recreation. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism 13(2), 75-85.
Kim, D., Pan, Y. & Park, H. S. 1998. High-versus low-context culture: A comparison of
Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing 15(6), 507-521.
Kittler M., Rygl, D. & Mackinnon A. 2011. Special Review Article: Beyond Culture or Beyond
Control? Reviewing the use of Hall's high-/low-context concept. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 11 (1), 63-82
Kluckhohn, C. 1951. The study of culture. Stanford: University Press.
Kostera, M. 2002. Control: accounting for the Lost Innocence. In Kelemen, M. & Kostera M.
(eds) Managing the Transition: Critical Management Research in Eastern Europe.
Basingstoke: Palgrave, 111-127.
Krippendorff, K. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. (3rd Edition)
Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Lehtonen, J. & Sajavaara, K. 1985. The Silent Finn. In Tannen, D. & Saville-Troike, M. (eds.)
Perspectives on Silence. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lewis, R. D. 2005. Finland, cultural lone wolf. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Mak, B. 2011. An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System
39(2), 202-214.
Marcu, S. 2009. The Geopolitics of the Eastern Border of the European Union: The Case of
Romania-Moldova-Ukraine. Geopolitics, 14(3), 409-432.
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D. & Lu, L. 2015. Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of
cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management 48, 299-304.
McCroskey, L. L. 1998. An Examination of Factors Influencing U.S. Student Perceptions of
Native and Non-Native U.S. Teacher Effectiveness. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting
of the National Communication Association, 21-24 November 1998, New York, United States.
46
Møller-Malchow, N., Munch, J. R. & Skaksen, J. R. 2011. Do Foreign Experts Increase the
Productivity of Domestic Firms? Norface Migration Discussion Paper, 2011(14).
Myers, M.D. 2013. Qualitative Research in Business & Management. 2nd Edition, London:
SAGE
Neuendorf, K. 2017. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Ng, Sik., Hossain, A., Ball, P., Bond, Michael., Hayaski, K., Lim, S.P., O'Driscoll, M.P., Sinha,
D., & Yang, K.S. 1982. Human values in nine countries. Diversity and Unity in Cross-cultural
Psychology, 196-205.
O’Neill, J. 2001. Building Better Global Economic BRICs. Global Economics Paper 66,
Goldman Sachs.
Osland, J. S. The journey inward: Expatriate hero tales and paradoxes. Human Resource
Management 39(2-3), 227-238.
Peirce, C. S. 1958. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–6). In C. Hartshorne
& P. Weiss (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, C. & Brown, A. D. 2005. Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal
of Management Reviews 7(3), 167-188.
Richardson, R. M. & Smith, S.W. 2007. The influence of high/low-context culture and power
distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with
Professors in Japan and America. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31(4), 479-
501
Ricoeur, P. 1983. Time and narrative. (Volume 1) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B. & Miike, Y. 2002. Edward T. Hall and the History of Intercultural
Communication: The United States and Japan. Keio Communication Review 24, 3-26.
Sajavaara, K. & Lehtonen, J. 1997. The silent Finn revisited. In Jaworsky, A. (ed.) Silence:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 263–283.
Scheytt, T., Soin, K. & Metz, T. Exploring notions of control across cultures: a narrative
approach. European Accounting Review 12(3), 515-547.
47
Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of
Values. In U. Kim et al. (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and
Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of
Values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (eds.)
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE,
85-119.
Schwartz, S.H. 1999. A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review 48(1), 23-47.
Schwartz, S. 2006. A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications.
Comparative Sociology, 5 (2/3), 137-82.
Scott, J. V., Saviour, L. N. & Barnes, J. H. 1993. The effects of culture on ethical decision-
making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics 12(10), 753-760.
Scott-Kennel, J. & Salmi, A. 2008. The Rise of the Big Emerging Markets of Brazil, Russia,
India, and China: Implications for International Business Teaching in the Next Decade. Journal
of Teaching in International Business 19(2), 142-166.
Sheth, J. N. & Sisodia, R. 2006. Tectonic Shift: The Geoeconomic Realignment of Globalizing
Markets. New Delhi: SAGE.
Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M. & Shoham, A. 2007. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in
international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research 60(3), 277-284.
Søderberg, A. M. 2006. Narrative interviewing and narrative analysis in a study of a cross-
border merger. Management International Review 46(4), 397-416.
Søndergaard, M. 1994. Research Note: Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews,
Citations and Replications. Organization Studies, 15(3), 447-456.
Soin, K. & Scheytt, T. 2006. Making the Case for Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural
Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 9(1), 55-77.
Spencer-Rodgers, J. & McGovern, T. 2002. Attitudes toward the culturally different: the role
of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and
perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26(6), 609-631.
48
Stern, B. B., Thompson, C. J. & Arnould, E. J. 1998. Narrative analysis of a marketing
relationship: The consumer’s perspective. Psychology & Marketing 15(3), 195-214.
Steenkamp, J. 2001. The Role of National Culture in International Marketing Research.
International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30-44.
Suutari, V. & Burch, D. 2001. The role of on-site training and support in expatriation: existing
and necessary host-company practices. Career Development International 6(6), 298-311.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L. & Steel, P. 2010. Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences:
A Three Decade, Multi-Level, Meta-Analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value
Dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(3), 405-439.
Taras, V., Rowney, J. & Steel, P. 2009. Half a century of measuring culture: Review of
approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for
quantifying culture. Journal of International Management 15(4), 357-373.
The Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for culture-free
dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.
Thorne, L. & Saunders, S. B. 2002. The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals’ Ethical
Reasoning in Organizations (Cross-cultural Ethics). Journal of Business Ethics 35(1), 1-14.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas
Brealey Publishing
Tussyadiah, L., Park, S. & Fesenmaier, D. R. 2011. Assessing the Effectiveness of Consumer
Narratives for Destination Marketing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 35(1), 64-
78.
Vitell, S., Nwachukwu, S.L., & Barnes, J.J., 1993. The effects of culture on ethical decision-
making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics 12(10), 753-860.
Watson, T. J. 2009. Narrative, life story and manager identity: A case study in autobiographical
identity work. Human Relations 62(3), 425-452.
Wood, V. R. & Wilberger, J. S. 2015. Globalization, Cultural Diversity and Organizational
Commitment: Theoretical Underpinnings. World Journal of Management 6(2), 154-171.
49
Woodrow, L. 2006. Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language. Regional Language
Centre Journal 37(3), 308-328.
Würtz, E. 2005. Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web
sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 274–299.
50
APPENDIX 1
Themes and potential questions to support the interview
Communication with Finns
Talk about the communication with your Finnish colleagues.
Is the communication here different from your country? What are the differences?
Challenges
Are there any challenges to communicate with your Finnish colleagues? What are those
challenges?
Talk about the Finnish culture. Any challenge concerning their culture?
What are the challenges to communicate in a foreign language at work?
Relationships
Do you have Finnish friends at your workplace? How easy is to build a relationship?
Do you have any social activity with your Finnish colleagues after work?
