Analyzing the Role of Cultural Differences:
Implications for Cross-Cultural Corporate
Communication on Social Media
Master’s Thesis
Fabienne Schneuwly
12483087
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Program Communication Science
Track Corporate Communication
Dr. James Slevin
Abstract
Nowadays, multinational companies expand and operate in a globalized world with audiences and markets situated in different countries and diverse cultures. Communicating to and with their dispersed stakeholders is crucial for the success of a company. Since Social Media enhance the reach and speed of communication, they have become one of the main communication channels for companies. However, when they use Social Media to talk to their stakeholders, they often seem to be reluctant or unable to acknowledge the power and significance of culture as a factor for the success of their corporate communication.
Culturally different consumer expectations and customer experiences lack attention and consideration. Consequently, firms might find their corporate communication efforts to be fruitless. Using a case study, an analysis of how cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media is being conducted. In particular, the impact of two dimensions of national culture – power distance and uncertainty avoidance – and the impact of two dimensions of corporate culture – orientation and openness – are being researched. Each academic research finding is then translated into a practical guideline for communication practitioners. For example, the research results reveal that the degree of communicated power distance should be adapted to the degree of national power distance.
Keywords: cross-cultural, corporate communication, national culture, corporate culture,
Introduction
Whether it is on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter, business companies appear to be more and more present online, i.e. to maintain Social Media accounts which they use for advertisement and corporate communication. This makes sense in light of the contemporary business context where interconnectivity and interdependence are apparent (Okoro, 2012). Today, with globalization, multinational companies expand and operate in a world with audiences and markets situated in a lot of different countries and diverse cultures (Tian & Borges, 2011). Communicating to and with these dispersed audiences is crucial for the success of a company (Jankovic, 2017). There are multiple reasons why Social Media have become one of the main communication channels for organizations. First, they allow a better and higher reach of the target audience. Second, they enhance the amount of information and the speed of communication. And third, they are considered highly relevant communication instruments because they are said to transcend cultural borders and barriers (Albu & Etter, 2016; Tian & Borges, 2011). Nevertheless, the internet and Social Media remain tools that are being utilized in a local way with people from different cultural backgrounds using them in different manners and ways (De Mooij, 2019).
The problem at hand is that when companies use Social Media such as Twitter to talk to their audiences, they often seem to be reluctant or unable to acknowledge the power and significance of culture as an influential factor for the failure or success of their corporate communication. Firms need to embrace cultural awareness and inclusion to gain trust, respect and loyalty from their audience which consequently leads to an advantage in the global business environment (Demangeot, 2013). If they do not take cultural differences into account, communication practitioners may fall into the traps of ethnocentrism or
self-reference, meaning that they might unconsciously apply their own cultural frameworks when engaging in cross-cultural corporate communication (Tian & Borges, 2011).
This can alienate consumers and customers from other cultural backgrounds (Demangeot et al., 2013). While the business world is becoming more homogenous, cultural differences between nations remain and culture still guides the way people think and perceive (De Moij, 2019). There is a lot of research about cross-cultural business communication which is concerned with internal topics such as cross-cultural etiquette, management culture and workforce diversity (Jankovic, 2017; Khan & Law, 2018). Communication and management scholars consistently and continuously argue that cross-cultural communication matters which is why numerous companies that compete globally “make a conscious effort to hire multi-lingual people from varied cultural backgrounds and nationalities”, while others “conduct in-house language and culture classes and training sessions with all their staff” (Okoro, 2012, p. 131). Yet, corporations do not seem to deem cultural factors in external corporate communication activities as important as in internal corporate communication activities (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010; Okazaki & Rivas, 2002). Culturally different consumer expectations and customer experiences lack attention and consideration (Demangeot et al., 2013). Consequently, organizations might find their communication efforts and marketing strategies to be fruitless. They might not be able to reach their audience at all or they might not get the desired reaction from it. Cross-cultural corporate
communication without cultural awareness might even become counterproductive. In a worst case scenario, firms might get negative reactions from the audience such as the boycott of certain products or services. This mismanagement of marketplace communication is a problem that has to be solved (Demangeot et al., 2013). Despite the fading of cultural distinctions caused by Social Media, companies need to understand the differences in
costumer experiences and consumer expectations that remain across national cultures if they want to provide good cross-cultural corporate communication (De Mooij, 2019; Tian & Borges, 2011).
In order to develop guidelines for cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media, the current relationship between cultural differences and cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media have to be analyzed. Accordingly, the guiding research question is:
RQ: How do cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media?
The insights from the answers to this research question will help in highlighting (1) the important influence of cultural differences and (2) the implications for cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media. Consequently, communication practitioners will be provided with guidelines for cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media. They will gain an understanding of the relevance of cultural awareness and competences. As Okoro (2012) noted, with the globalization of the economy and the growth of digital and electronic communication it has become increasingly important to “develop a level of sensitivity necessary to communicate and negotiate cross-culturally” (p. 131).
To answer the research question and get insights about how cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media, a case study will be conducted because this research approach is the best suited one when analyzing complex and
contemporary phenomena over which a researcher has little or no control (Yin, 2014). The case study will look at three different official Twitter accounts of the Coca-Cola Company, namely the ones for Germany (@CocaCola_De), India (@CocaCola_Ind) and South Africa (@CocaCola_ZA). The microblogging service Twitter is regarded as relevant because it has ushered in “a new era of possibilities for organizations to communicate with and engage their core stakeholders and the general public” (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012, p. 337).
The added value of researching Coca-Cola results from the fact that it is a symbol of
globalization which belongs to a distinguished circle of established and iconic multinational brands (De Mooij, 2019). Additionally, it is an excellent example of a company that actively maintains a multitude of country-specific Twitter accounts.
Theoretical Background Analyzing and Researching Culture
Over the years, multiple theoretical frameworks have been developed to address differences across cultures. Notably, Hall (1976) wrote about key cultural factors such as time and space. His main contribution to research about culture and communication was the differentiation between cultures that tend to use high-context communication (characterized by data, facts and explicit words) and cultures that tend to use low-context communication. The research by Trompenaars (1993) must be mentioned in this context because he argued that cultural differences amongst nations are far greater than acknowledged and that companies which ignore them do so at their peril. He also argued that globalization and internationalization will not create one common, world-wide culture. Most recently, the GLOBE project – an acronym for “Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness” – was completed by House et al. (2004). This cross-cultural study exceeded all previous cross-cultural studies in depth, duration, scope and sophistication (Grove, 2005).
All the above mentioned authors developed theoretical frameworks with similar cultural dimensions but they differed in “the number of countries measured, the level of analysis (individual vs. culture level), the dimension structure (one-poled vs. two-poled categorizations), the number of dimensions, the subjects, and conceptual and methodological differences” (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 87).
An additional theoretical framework – the most used one in communication and marketing research – has not yet been mentioned: the Hofstede model developed by Geert Hofstede (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). This theoretical framework is also called the Cultural Dimensions Theory and distinguishes cultures according to six dimensions which will be explained in the following paragraph (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Hofstede (1991, p. 5) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”. This definition and his
theoretical framework are applied most in research on global corporate communication and marketing for multiple reasons. These reasons also justify why Hofstede’s classification of culture was chosen for this research project. First, the Hofstede model measured the largest number of countries. Second, its cultural dimensions are simple and straightforward. This is appealing to both communication practitioners and researchers. Third, more recent theoretical frameworks such as the above mentioned GLOBE project which is based on the Hofstede model provide only limited advancements in comparison to the original work by Geert Hofstede (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010; Magnusson et al., 2008). In the next paragraph, the development of the Hofstede model, its cultural dimensions as well as critique and limitations of the model will be explained, especially in the context of globalization and the Social Media Age.
The Hofstede Model in the Context of Globalization and the Social Media Age
The Dutch anthropologist and sociologist Geert Hofstede researched national cultures for the first time between 1967 and 1978. His objectives were 1) “to develop a commonly acceptable, well-defined, and empirically based terminology to describe cultures” and 2) “to use systematically collected data about a large number of cultures, rather than just
Hofstede executed a survey study about national value differences amongst almost 117’000 employees of all ranks of the large multinational company International Business Machines (IBM). Through his analysis of the answers of respondents from 50 countries and 3 regions, Hofstede identified the first four “basic issues that society needs to come to term with in order to organize itself” (Hofstede, 2019). He called them cultural dimensions “because they occur in nearly all possible combinations” (Hofstede, 1983, p. 78). The initial cultural dimensions were: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1983). The original IBM survey by Hofstede and the improved version (World Values Survey) were replicated six times with other groups of respondents between 1990 and 2002. One of these studies, conducted by Michael Harris Bond et al. in 1991, led Hofstede to add a fifth cultural dimension to his model: long-term vs. short-term orientation. Two
decades later, in 2001, he expanded and refined his model again, based on research by Misho Minkov, by adding a sixth cultural dimension: indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). All six cultural dimensions of the Hofstede model will now be introduced.
Power distance (high vs. low) concerns “the extent to which the less powerful
members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”. Hofstede argues that without the acceptance of leadership by more powerful members through less powerful members, “none of today’s societies could run” (Hofstede, 2019).
Individualism (vs. collectivism) covers “the extent to which people feel independent,
as opposed to being interdependent as members of larger wholes”. Hofstede specifies that individualism does not mean egoism but that individual choices and decisions are expected (Hofstede, 2019).
Masculinity (vs. femininity) denotes “the extent to which the use of force is endorsed
socially”. In masculine societies, competing and winning are important. Masculine societies are openly gendered and there are clear expected emotional gender roles (Hofstede, 2019)
Uncertainty avoidance (high vs. low) describes the extent to which the members of a
culture feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty (Hofstede Insights, 2019). Uncertainty avoidance does not mean risk avoidance. Rather, “it has to do with anxiety and distrust in the face of the unknown, and conversely, with a wish to have fixed habits and rituals, and to know the truth” (Hofstede, 2019).
Long-term orientation (vs. short-term orientation) means the extent to which the
members of a society deal with the challenges of the present and the future (Hofstede Insights, 2019).
Indulgence (vs. restraint) represents the extent to which people try to control their
desires and impulses (Hofstede Insights, 2019).
Despite it being one of the – if not the most – comprehensive theoretical frameworks for cross-cultural research, the Hofstede model has also encountered criticism and limitations. Ailon (2008, p. 885) argues that the Hofstede model has “a normative viewpoint and political subtext”. Similarly, there is critique about the absence of women’s voices and social
minorities in the IBM survey where the majority of respondents were white males
(Moulettes, 2007; Witte, 2012). Further limitations include an oversimplification of cultural differences and inconsistencies between the cultural dimensions. The biggest criticisms, however, concern the definition of culture as static instead of dynamic and the tendency to equate culture to nationality (Baskerville, 2003; Signorini, Wiesemes & Murphy, 2009). McSweeney (2002), the most cited critic of the Hofstede model, argues that the national level is not the only level that influences culture. He names organizational culture, occupational culture and individual culture as alternative factors that explain actions and behavior.
The fact that culture has a changing and flexible nature and the question whether national cultures still exist today the way they did when the Hofstede model was developed deserve attention. Globalization and technological revolutions such as the internet and Social Media have brought about a socio-cultural change: the emergence of (social) network
societies (Huat & Jung, 2014). In his seminal book The Rise of the Network Society, Manuel Castells argues that “networks are appropriate instruments for a capitalist economy based on innovation, globalization and decentralized concentration” (2010, p. 502). He takes interest in economic and socio-cultural shifts as a result of the fading of barriers and borders that are due in a large part to the exchange and fast flows of information, enabled through
information technologies. Accordingly, he calls the present the information age and frames these transformations within what he names the network society. Perhaps the best example of this network society are Social Media which enable the morphing of cultures (Castells, 2010). However, Castells agrees that Social Media do not determine culture, as technological
determinism suggests (Castells, 2010; Fuchs, 2017). Although he remarks that the networks themselves create distinctive cultures which are largely outside national regulation, he also states: “At the same time, few people in the world feel identified with the global,
cosmopolitan culture that populates the global networks and becomes the worship of the mega-node elites. In contrast, most people feel a strong regional or local identity” (Castells, 2010, preface). Volkmer (2014), who synthesized core insights from Castells, reinforces that the network society is not free-floating in cyberspace but embedded, located and rooted in places (e.g. nation states) vertically and connected horizontally. This is in accordance with theoretical frameworks such as the Hofstede model. Inglehart and Welzel (2005), two scholars who are involved in the World Values Survey and who concentrate on modernization and cultural change, argue that cultural heritage and traditions have a remarkable durability and resilience.
Inglehart and Norris (2009) state that the danger or threats of cosmopolitan communications (e.g. Social Media) for cultural diversity are commonly exaggerated and that there are “firewalls” – economic, social-institutional and social-psychological factors – that moderate the impact of global media on national culture. They write: “Both developing societies and Western societies are changing in ways shaped by broad forces of modernization, while retaining distinctive national cultures” (Inglehart & Norris, 2009, p. 209). According to recent research by Inglehart (2016, p. 38), the cultural differences between societies “were empirically as great in 2014 as they were in 1981”. Conclusively, two reasons justify the appropriateness and legitimacy of the Hofstede model despite its criticisms and limitations. First, cultural barriers and borders are fading but cultural differences evidently still exist among nations. Second, to this day, no theoretical framework has been developed that addresses and rectifies the above highlighted criticisms and limitations. Hence, the Hofstede model with its conceptualization of culture as equal to nationality is valid for cross-cultural research.
National Culture and Corporate Communication on Social Media
One major area of cross-cultural research is the relationship between culture and corporate communication which can be defined as “the set of activities involved in managing and orchestrating all internal and external communications” (van Riel & Fombrun, 2007, p. 25). The focus here lies on external communication on Social Media. As Kennedy &
Sommerfeldt (2015, p. 31) argue, “the ever-increasing penetration and popularity” of Social Media have led many communication scholars to take their value for companies as
unquestionable. Affordances such as association (e.g. through hashtags), editability, persistence (also called recordability or reviewability) and visibility are being highlighted (Treem & Leonardi, 2012).
Additionally, communication scholars see the value of Social Media in the immediacy and interactivity they offer which enable companies to interact with their audiences (Kelleher, 2009). Although other communication scholars are critical about the claim that Social Media offer symmetrical communication and argue that they are nothing more than “another tool for information dissemination”, their relevance cannot be denied (Kennedy & Sommerfeldt, 2015, p. 33). This also holds true for Twitter which a lot of organizations and institutions use for stakeholder communication (Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010). However, Twitter also has its challenges and dangers for companies because it does not only have functional but also performative implications. While the platform is often described as a conduit for
communication, it can also enable actors outside of the company to constitute or criticize the firm through communicative actions (e.g. hijacking a hashtag) (Albu & Etter, 2016). This has to be kept in mind by corporate communication practitioners when using Social Media. Another difficulty for them arises from globalization. In a globalized world, multinational companies are faced with what De Mooij and Hofstede (2010, p. 85) call “the global-local dilemma”. As elaborated, Social Media such as Twitter allow firms to communicate with dispersed audiences. Now they have to decide whether to standardize their corporate communication on a global scale for efficiency reasons or whether to adapt their corporate communication to national cultures for effectiveness reasons. Recent research demonstrates that an adaptation strategy is more successful (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). Accordingly, it can be anticipated that national culture has an important influence on corporate
communication on Social Media. Hence, the first hypothesis is:
H1: The cultural dimensions of national cultures affect the corporate communication on Social Media of a multinational company in these countries directly.
National Culture, Corporate Culture and Corporate Communication on Social Media
According to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010), based on their qualitative findings from exploratory research, national cultures additionally have an important influence on corporate cultures. The authors argue that “in multinational business organizations the values and beliefs of the home culture are taken for granted and serve as a frame of reference at the head office” (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010, p. 402). Analogous to their
definition of national culture, the scholars define corporate culture or organizational culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one
organization from others” (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010, p. 344). They argue that national cultures and corporate cultures are distinctive but related constructs. Similar to his
6-D Model of National Culture, Hofstede developed the Multi-focus Model of Organisational Culture which also has six dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010):
Process oriented vs. results oriented “opposes a concern with means (process
oriented) to a concern with goals (results oriented)” (p. 355).
Employee oriented vs. job oriented “opposes a concern for people (employee
oriented) to a concern for completing the job (job oriented)” (p. 356).
Parochial vs. professional “opposes units whose employees derive their identity
largely from the organization (parochial) to units in which people identify with their type of job (professional)” (p. 356).
Open system vs. closed system differentiates between system units where “members
consider both the organization and its people open to newcomers and outsiders” (p. 357) (open system) and where the organization and its people are closed and secretive (closed system).
Loose control vs. tight control “refers to the amount of internal structuring in the
Normative vs. pragmatic “deals with the popular notion of customer orientation” (p.
358). Normative companies emphasize on correctly following organizational procedures while pragmatic companies emphasize on meeting the customer’s needs.
Concerning the relationships between national culture, corporate culture and corporate communication in today’s context, Castells (2010) writes that the corporate culture of a network company is made of many cultures, projects and values which change at the same pace as the network’s members. Khan and Law (2018, p. 36) state that national culture systems influence corporate culture systems through “the cultural preferences of leaders and employees” which is mirrored in practices such as communication. Dartey-Baah (2015) even claims that the strategic merging of national culture into corporate culture is critical for success.
Accordingly, as previous research suggests, it can be anticipated (1) that the national culture of the country in which a multinational company is located has a direct impact on its corporate culture, (2) that the corporate culture of a multinational company has a direct impact on its corporate communication on Social Media, and (3) that there is a mediation effect between national culture, corporate culture and corporate communication on Social Media (Brown & Starkey, 1994; Hoffmann, Röttger, Innenhof & Hamidati, 2015). Hence, the second, third and fourth hypotheses are:
H2: The cultural dimensions of national cultures affect the cultural dimensions of the corporate culture of a multinational company in these countries directly.
H3: The cultural dimensions of the corporate culture of a multinational company affect the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries directly.
H4: The cultural dimensions of national cultures mediated by the cultural dimensions of the corporate culture of a multinational company affect the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries indirectly.
Conceptual Consequences
The research presented above leads to the assumptions that (1) national culture has a direct influence on corporate communication on Social Media, (2) national culture has a direct influence on corporate culture, (3) corporate culture has a direct influence on corporate communication on Social Media and (4) national culture has an indirect influence on
corporate communication on Social Media which is mediated by corporate culture. Analyzing the effect of all six national culture dimensions and all six corporate culture dimensions is not possible in the realm of this master’s thesis due to restrictions on time and words. Therefore, the decision was made to only analyze the dimensions Power Distance and Uncertainty
Avoidance for national culture and the dimensions process oriented vs. results oriented
(hereafter called orientation) and open system vs. closed system (hereafter called openness) for corporate culture. These particular cultural dimensions were chosen because according to the literature and research by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) they are to an extent associated with each other: high power distance and low power distance correlate with process oriented vs. results oriented respectively while low uncertainty avoidance and high uncertainty avoidance correlate with open system vs. closed system respectively.
H1a: The power distance of national cultures affects the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of a multinational company in these countries directly.
H1b: The uncertainty avoidance of national cultures affects the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of a multinational company in these countries directly.
H2a: The power distance of national cultures affects the orientation of the corporate cultures of a multinational company located in these countries directly.
H2b: The uncertainty avoidance of national cultures affects the openness of the corporate cultures of a multinational company located in these countries directly.
H3a: The orientation of the corporate culture of a multinational company affects the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries directly.
H3b: The openness of the corporate culture of a multinational company affects the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries directly.
H4a: The power distance of national cultures mediated by the orientation of the corporate culture of a multinational company affects the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries indirectly.
H4b: The uncertainty avoidance of national cultures mediated by the openness of the corporate culture of a multinational company affects the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media of this multinational company in these countries indirectly.
The conceptual map that emerges from these hypotheses is presented below. Looking at how cultural differences directly affect aspects of the corporate communication on Social Media of a multinational company and how they indirectly affect them through the mediator corporate culture helps in discovering how these concepts interact and what the relationship between them is. The fact that these processes take place in a world characterized by
globalization and the Social Media Age has to be taken into account. Accordingly, Globalization and the Social Media Age act as interpretative context.
Method Research Design
In order to find answers to the research question, a quantitative content analysis was conducted. This method is suitable because it guarantees the systematic analysis and
comparison of a company’s corporate communication on Social Media while at the same time being non-invasive and unobtrusive. This is an advantage since the aim is not to alter the corporate communication on Social Media but to observe it (Kohlbacher 2006; Krippendorff, 2013; Mayring 2008).
While the research method consists of a quantitative content analysis, the research strategy – for feasibility reasons – is a case study (Stake, 2000). Case study research consists of “a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of time, of phenomena, within their context” (Hartley, 2004, p. 323). According to Yin (2014), the more a research question seeks to explain a present circumstance (in this case, how cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media), the more a case study is a relevant research method. The author states that “the distinctive need for case study research arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena” (Yin, 2014, p. 4). Conclusively, a case study is a distinct advantage here because three criteria are fulfilled: 1) a “how” or “why” question is being asked about 2) a contemporary set of events 3) over which the researcher has little or no control (Yin, 2014).
For the case study, three different official Twitter accounts of Coca-Cola, namely the ones for Germany (@CocaCola_De), India (@CocaCola_Ind) and South Africa
(@CocaCola_ZA) were chosen. Twitter was selected as Social Media platform for the case study because like other Social Media platforms it has created communication opportunities “that are qualitatively different from those offered by traditional websites” (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012, p. 339).
The social networking service, which was launched in 2006, is free and the largest microblogging platform available. This combined with the fact that it allows global and instantaneous communication makes it a standard tool for companies to reach a large number of stakeholders. Additionally, in comparison to other Social Media platforms, Twitter works with brief bits of information – Tweets with a limit of 280 characters – which makes them easily digestible (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Coca-Cola was chosen as company because it is an established iconic multinational brand and a symbol of globalization (De Mooij, 2019). This is particularly relevant as this research project analyzes cross-cultural corporate communication against the backdrop of globalization. In addition, Coca-Cola has a lot of country-specific Twitter accounts which it – in comparison to other multinationals with country-specific Twitter accounts – actively maintains.
The accounts for Germany, India and South Africa were selected for multiple reasons. First, they were actively maintained at the time of the analysis (the data gathering took place on the 31st of November 2019) as becomes apparent from the total number of Tweets sent in
September, October and November 2019 which is 780 for the German account, 48 for the Indian account and 256 for the South African account. Second, they represent cultures which vary in their degree of power distance and uncertainty avoidance which a look at their scores on the Power Distance Index and the Uncertainty Avoidance Index developed by Hofstede shows. The Power Distance Index ranks from 0 (low power distance) to 100 (high power distance). Germany scores 35, India 77 and South Africa 49. The Uncertainty Avoidance Index also ranks from 0 (low uncertainty avoidance) to 100 (high uncertainty avoidance). Germany scores 65, India 40 and South Africa 49. Third, they represent cultures from different continents, namely Europe, Asia and Africa. Fourth, the Tweets of these three Twitter accounts are in either English or German, two languages in which the researcher is fluent.
Data Collection
The data – the Tweets from the country-specific Twitter accounts – was downloaded on the 31st of November 2019 via the Twitter application programming interface (API) using
Python. The available code permitted the collection of the most recent 3,200 Tweets of each account. After the collection, the dataset comprised of 9,600 Tweets. For feasibility reasons, the decision was made to only keep the most recent 500 Tweets of each account and to remove Retweets from the dataset to ensure that only original speech by Coca-Cola (Tweets including mentions and replies) would be analyzed. Accordingly, the final dataset included a total of N = 1,500 Tweets, all in either English or German.
Codebook and Variables
The codebook consists of a total of 8 variables with the following characteristics:
Table 1
Overview of Variables
Name Type Level of Measurement
V1 Identification Number Administrative Variable Categorical
V2 Account Administrative Variable Categorical
V3 Country Power Distance Independent Variable Continuous V4 Country Uncertainty Avoidance Independent Variable Continuous V5 Company Orientation Mediating Variable Continuous V6 Company Openness V7 Power Distance V8 Uncertainty Avoidance Mediating Variable Dependent Variable Dependent Variable Continuous Continuous Continuous
As the coding was done by the researcher alone, reliability of coding was ensured by coding 10% of the dataset, meaning 50 Tweets from each Twitter account (N = 150) twice with a break of one week in between. The two codings were then compared and analyzed using IBM SPPS 26 (also known as “IBM Statistics”) and the macro KALPHA. The lowest reliability coefficient was a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .905 and the highest a Krippendorff’s Alpha of 1.00 (see Apendix B: Reliability Coefficients). In accordance with Hayes and Krippendorff (2007), all variables had a sufficient reliability coefficient (Krippendorff’s Alpha above .667). Accordingly, no further measures had to be taken.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS 26 and the macro PROCESS to examine the direct effects of the independent variables Country Power Distance and Country Uncertainty
Avoidance on the dependent variables Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance as well as
the indirect effects of Country Power Distance and Country Uncertainty Avoidance mediated by Company Orientation and Company Openness on Power Distance and Uncertainty
Avoidance. This systematic analysis generates insights about how national culture and
corporate culture affect corporate communication on Social Media. This in turn enables the formulation of guidelines for communication practitioners.
Results
To test the hypotheses and answer the research question, two simple linear regressions and two mediation regressions were conducted (see Appendix C: Syntax Regression
Analyses). The scatterplots and the histograms of the residuals were checked to ensure normal distribution and homoscedasticity.
For H1a and H1b which hypothesized a direct effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables, a simple linear regression with Country Power Distance as
independent variable and Power Distance as dependent variable as well as a simple linear regression with Country Uncertainty Avoidance as independent variable and Uncertainty
Avoidance as dependent variable were conducted. The results of the first simple linear
regression showed that Country Power Distance, b = 0.02, t = 7.96, p < .001, 95% CI [0.01, 0.02], has a significant positive association with Power Distance. Additionally, the results of the second simple linear regression showed that Country Uncertainty Avoidance, b = -0.05, t = -13.67, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.06, -0.04], has a significant negative association with
Uncertainty Avoidance. Accordingly, H1a and H1b are supported.
H2a and H2b hypothesized an effect of the independent variables on the moderating variables. To test these two and the following hypotheses, a mediation regression with
Country Power Distance as independent variable, Company Orientation as mediating
variable and Power Distance as dependent variable (sample size 853) as well as a mediation regression with Country Uncertainty Avoidance as independent variable, Company Openness as mediating variable and Uncertainty Avoidance as dependent variable (sample size 332) were conducted using bootstrapping (5.000). The results of the first mediation regression showed that Country Power Distance, b = 0.07, t = 55.82, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.08], has a significant positive association with Company Orientation. Additionally, the results of the second mediation regression showed that Country Uncertainty Avoidance, b = 0.08, t = -199.08, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.081, -0.079], has a significant negative association with
H3a and H3b hypothesized an effect of the mediating variables on the dependent variables. The results of the mediation regressions showed that Company Orientation, b = -0.75, t = -16.68, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.66], has a significant negative association with
Power Distance but Company Openness, b = -0.86, t = -1.69, p >.05, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.14],
does not have a significant association with Uncertainty Avoidance. Hence, H3a is supported but H3b is not supported.
Lastly, for H4a and H4b which hypothesized mediation effects, the results of the mediation regressions showed that Country Power Distance, mediated by Company
Orientation has a statistically significant negative influence on Power Distance, b = -0.06,
95% CI [-0.06, -0.05], since the confidence interval does not include 0, but Country
Uncertainty Avoidance, mediated by Company Openness does not have a statistically
significant influence on Uncertainty Avoidance, b = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.16], since the confidence interval includes 0. This was expected because there was no statistically
significant influence of Company Openness (mediating variable) on Uncertainty Avoidance (dependent variable) which makes a mediation effect impossible (see H3b). Therefore, H4a is supported but H4b is not supported. The effect of Country Power Distance on Power
Distance is partially mediated by Company Orientation but the effect of Country Uncertainty Avoidance on Uncertainty Avoidance is not mediated by Company Openness.
Conclusion & Discussion
In today’s globalized business context, multinational companies have audiences and markets dispersed all over the world to and with which they communicate with the help of Social Media. However, when multinational companies use Social Media such as Twitter to talk to their consumers and costumers, they often fail to acknowledge the power and
This is a problem because it can lead to the failure of their corporate communication (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010; Demangeot et al., 2013). To prevent this from happening and to foster trust, respect and loyalty from audiences which are culturally diverse,
communication practitioners need to know how to incorporate cultural awareness and inclusion into their communication efforts. Accordingly, guidelines should be provided to them. Central for the development of guidelines was the question, how cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media.
A look at existing material revealed that a multitude of theoretical frameworks for research about culture exists. The most used one in communication and marketing research – the Hofstede model by Geert Hofstede – has identified six cultural dimensions amongst which national cultures differ. It is one of the most comprehensive theoretical frameworks for cross-cultural research but it has encountered criticism and limitations for its static definition of culture and its tendency to equate culture to nationality (Baskerville, 2003; Signorini, Wiesemes & Murphy, 2009). As the focus lied on cross-cultural corporate communication in a globalized business context ruled by technological revolutions such as the internet and especially Social Media, these points of critique had to be taken into account. Important in this aspect was a look at research by Manuel Castells who writes that globalization and Social Media have given rise to the emergence of (social) network societies which bring about the fading of barriers and borders due in a large part to the exchange and fast flows of
information and which enable the morphing of cultures (Castells, 2010). However, Castells (2010) himself and other scholars such as Volkmer (2014) agree that these network societies are embedded, located and rooted in places such as nation states and that the members of these network societies have regional or local identities. Inglehart and Norris (2009) add that “firewalls” such as economics, social-institutional and social-psychological factors moderate the impact of broad forces of modernization on national culture.
Accordingly, it can be assumed that cultural differences still exist among nations. This is an important insight for multination companies because it affects the success of their cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media. Previous research showed that while the penetration and popularity as well as the immediacy and interactivity of Social Media enable multinational companies to communicate better to their audiences, in a globalized world, they are also faced with “the global-local” dilemma – the decision whether to standardize their corporate communication on a global scale or whether to adapt it to national cultures (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010, p. 85). The insight mentioned before anticipates that an adaptation strategy is more successful. However, previous research additionally suggests that apart from national culture, corporate culture also has an important influence on cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) argue that national cultures and corporate cultures are distinctive but related constructs. This is in accordance with Khan and Law (2018) and Dartey-Baah (2015) who write that national culture systems influence corporate culture systems and that merging them is critical for success.
All of the above mentioned literature led to the assumptions that (1) national culture has a direct influence on corporate communication on Social Media, (2) national culture has a direct influence on corporate culture, (3) corporate culture has a direct influence on corporate communication on Social Media and (4) national culture has an indirect influence on
corporate communication on Social Media which is mediated by corporate culture. Given the limitations on time and words and the fact that Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) had previously found an association between the cultural dimensions of country power distance and company orientation as well as country uncertainty avoidance and company openness, the decision was made to analyze how these specific cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media.
A case study of Coca-Cola on Twitter was conducted. In the following paragraphs, each research result will be coupled to a deliverable in the form of a guideline for cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media.
First, the analysis revealed, in accordance with the findings by De Mooij & Hofstede (2010), that the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media is directly positively affected by the power distance of national cultures while the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media is directly negatively affected by the uncertainty avoidance of national cultures. Accordingly, communication practitioners should adapt the degree of power distance they communicate to the national power distance; they should communicate more power distance when talking to an audience in a country with high power distance and communicate less power distance when talking to an audience in a country with low power distance. However, they should adapt the degree of uncertainty avoidance they communicate reversely to the national uncertainty avoidance; an audience from a country with high uncertainty avoidance should be communicated to with low uncertainty avoidance while an audience from a country with low uncertainty avoidance should be communicated to with high uncertainty avoidance.
Second, the analysis showed, in accordance with the findings by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010), that the degree of national power distance affects the corporate
orientation positively while the degree of national uncertainty avoidance affects the corporate openness negatively. Hence, for multinational companies this means that their corporate orientation tends to be more process oriented when they operate in a country with high power distance and more results oriented when they operate in a country with low power distance.
However, it also means that their corporate culture tends to be more open when they operate in a country with high power distance and less open when they operate in a country with low power distance. These insights should inform their internal decision-making, for example when electing senior staff or hiring new employees.
Third, the analysis revealed that the company orientation has a negative effect on the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media while the
company openness does not have an effect on the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media. Therefore, a process oriented corporate culture seems to lead to less power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media while a results oriented corporate culture seems to lead to more power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media. This is an astonishing insight of which multinational companies should be aware. They should consider adapting the
orientation of their corporate culture if they want to see changes in their cross-cultural
corporate communication on Social Media. As the openness of a company’s corporate culture does not affect the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media it can be ignored.
Fourth and most importantly, the analysis showed that when accounting for the orientation and openness of corporate cultures, there appears to be a partial mediation between the power distance of a national culture and the power distance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media but no mediation between the uncertainty avoidance of a national culture and the uncertainty avoidance exhibited in the corporate communication on Social Media.
More precisely, the power distance of a country influences the communicated power distance directly positively but it influences it indirectly (through company orientation) negatively while the uncertainty avoidance of a country influences the communicated uncertainty avoidance directly negatively and does not influence it indirectly (through company openness). Thus, communication practitioners who are freelancers or are otherwise not affected by a corporate culture should adhere to the guidelines given in the first paragraph about the direct influences of national power distance and national uncertainty avoidance on exhibited power distance and exhibited uncertainty avoidance when communicating to audiences from different cultures. However, communication practitioners who work in a context where a corporate culture exists have to be aware that the orientation of a company’s corporate culture might reverse the effect of national power distance on exhibited power distance. They should assess the corporate culture present and take measures if necessary (e.g. concentrating exclusively on the culture of the audience they are talking to, not focusing on office politics etc.). Astonishingly, the openness of a company’s corporate culture does not affect the effect national uncertainty avoidance has on exhibited uncertainty avoidance. It can be ignored.
Conclusively, regarding the research problem and the research question presented at the beginning, it becomes clear that cultural differences – both on the national and the
corporate level – affect cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media directly and indirectly in almost all cases. Accordingly, the deliverables in the form of guidelines will help communication practitioners with their own cross-cultural corporate communication efforts on Social Media. Nevertheless, a few limitations of this research project and opportunities for future research shall be highlighted.
First of all, the deliverables presented above are considered guidelines and not step-by-step instructions because they might not always be applicable or feasible. For example, as Schein (1990) argues, assessing and changing corporate culture is possible but it may be a difficult thing to do because “within an organization there can be many subcultures” (p. 111). Schneider et al. (2013) even differentiate between corporate culture and corporate climate. They argue that corporate culture consists of intangibles (“basic assumptions about the world and the values that guide life in organizations” (p. 361)) while corporate climate consists of tangibles (“meanings people attach to interrelated bundles of experiences they have at work (p. 361)). Accordingly, they propose that when a change is required, a focus on tangibles is the way to achieve it. Future research should consider this differentiation between corporate culture and corporate climate.
Second, while the results are in line with the theory – cultural differences affect the cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media in almost all cases – it is interesting that certain cultural differences have a positive effect (power distance) while others have a negative effect (uncertainty avoidance). Additionally, only the orientation but not the openness of a corporate culture appears to play a role. Future research should go a step further and not only ask how cultural differences affect cross-cultural corporate
communication but also why they affect it this way. Furthermore, future research should try to measure the success of different strategies for cross-cultural corporate communication on Social Media.
Third, given restrictions on time and words, choices and decisions had to be made for this research project which affect the generalizability of the findings. Hence, to generate broader and more insights, future research should concentrate on other multinational companies and focus on other (potentially new) Social Media platforms.
References
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: “Culture’s Consequences” in a Value Test of Its Own Design. The Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 885-904.
Albu, O. B., & Etter, M. (2016). Hypertextuality and Social Media: A Study of the Constitutive and Paradoxical Implications of Organizational Twitter Use.
Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 5-31.
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 28, 1-14.
Brown, A., D., & Starkey, K. (1994). The Effect of Organizational Culture on
Communication and Information. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 807-828. Castells, M. (2010). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume 1: The Rise
of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Dartey-Baah, K. (2011). The Impact of National Cultures on Corporate Cultures in Organisations. Academic Leadership, 9(1).
De Mooij, M. (2019). Consumer Behavior and Culture. Consequences for Global Marketing
and Advertising. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede Model: Applications to Global Branding and Advertising Strategy and Research. International Journal of Advertising: The
Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 29(1), 85-110.
Demangeot, C., Adkins, N., Mueller, R., Henderson, G., Ferguson, N., Mandiberg, J., Roy, A., Johnson, G., Kipnis, E., Pullig, C., Broderick, A., & Zuniga, M. (2013). Toward Intercultural Competency in Multicultural Marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 32, 156-164.
Fuchs, C. (2017). Social Media. A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612-1621.
Grove, C. N. (2005). Professional Knowledge Center. Retrieved from
http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-dimensions.html Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Hartley, J. (2004). Case Study Research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 323-333). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89. Hoffmann, J., Röttger, U., Innenhof, D., & Hamidati, A. (2015). The Rehabilitation of the
“Nation Variable”. Links between Corporate Communications and the Cultural Context in Five Countries. Corporate Communications. An International Journal,
20(4), 483-499.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK: McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing, Values, Behaviours, Institutions,
and Organizations across Nations. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2019). Culture. Retrieved from https://geerthofstede.com
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 3rd ed.
Hofstede Insights. (2019). The 6 dimensions of national culture. Retrieved from
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., (2004). Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Huat, B. C., & Jung, S. (2014). Social Media and Cross-Border Cultural Transmissions in Asia: States, Industries, Audiences. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(5), 417-422.
Inglehart, R. F. (2016). Modernization, Existential Security and Cultural Change: Reshaping Human Motivations and Society. In M. Gelfand, C. Y. Chiu & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.),
Advances in Culture and Psychology (pp. 1-80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Inglehart, R. F., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The
Human Development Sequence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. (2009). Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a
Globalized World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jankovic, R. (2017). Cross Cultural Business Communication. Sociological and Psychological Aspects. Engineering Management, 3(1), 36-39.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational Voice, Communicated Commitment, and Public Relations Outcomes in Interactive Online Communication. Journal of
Communication, 59, 172–188.
Kennedy, A. K., & Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2015). A Postmodern Turn for Social Media
Research: Theory and Research Directions for Public Relations Scholarship. Atlantic
Khan, M. A., & Law, L.S. (2018). The Role of National Cultures in Shaping the Corporate
Management Cultures: A Three-Country Theoretical Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/organizational-culture/the-role-of-national-cultures-in-shaping-the-corporate-management-cultures-a-three-country-theoretic Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art.
21. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601211
Krippendorff, K. H. (2013). Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, Community, and Action: How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,
17(3), 337‐353.
Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdravkovic, S., Zhou, J.X., & Westjohn, S.A. (2008). Breaking through the Cultural Clutter: A Comparative Assessment of Multiple Cultural and Institutional Frameworks. International Marketing Review, 25(2), pp. 183–201.
Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 10th ed. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their
Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-117.
Moulettes, A. (2007). The Absence of Women’s Voices in Hofstede’s Cultural Consequences: A Postcolonial Reading. Management Review, 22(6), 443-455.
Okazaki, S., & Rivas, J. A. (2002). A Content Analysis of Multinationals’ Web
Communication Strategies: Cross‐Cultural Research Framework and Pre‐testing.
Internet Research, 12(5), 380-390.
Okoro, E. (2012). Cultural Etiquette and Communication in Global Business: Toward a Strategic Framework for Managing Corporate Expansion. International Journal of
Business and Management, 7(16), 130-138.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 49(2), 109–119. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational Climate and Culture.
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388.
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing Alternative Frameworks for Exploring Intercultural Learning: A Critique of Hofstede’s Cultural Difference Model. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 253-264.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tian, K., & Borges, L. (2011). Cross-Cultural Issues in Marketing Communications: An Anthropological Perspective of International Business. International Journal of China
Marketing, 2.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Communication
Yearbook, 36, 143-189.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey.
Twitter. (2019). About Different Types of Tweets. Retrieved from
van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of Corporate Communication:
Implementing Practices for Effective Reputation Management. London, UK:
Routledge.
Volkmer, I. (2014). The Global Public Sphere: Public Communication in the Age of
Reflective Interdependence. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Witte, A. E. (2012). Making the Case for a Postnational Cultural Analysis of Organizations.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(2), 141-159.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Appendix A: Codebook
General Coding Instructions
A. Only code text, do not code audiovisuals, emojis, hashtags or links in a Tweet. B. Code all variables for each Tweet.
C. Code the variables in the order they are listed. D. Each variable can only be answered with one option.
Administrative Variables
V1: Identification Number (ID)
Coder instruction: Give every Tweet an identification number starting with 1.
V2: Account (account)
Which Twitter account is the Tweet from?
1 @CocaCola_De
2 @CocaCola_Ind
3 @CocaCola_ZA
Coder instruction: Code which Twitter account the Tweet is from.
Main Variables I: National Culture
Note: These variables are based on the Hofstede model’s country scores on the power distance index and the uncertainty avoidance index which can be accessed on the author’s website:
V3: Country Power Distance (ConPow)
Coder instruction: Code which score the country has on the Power Distance Index which ranges from 0 (low power distance) to 100 (high power distance).
V4: Country Uncertainty Avoidance (ConUnAv)
Coder instruction: Code which score the country has on the Uncertainty Avoidance Index which ranges from 0 (low uncertainty avoidance) to 100 (high uncertainty avoidance).
Main Variables II: Corporate Culture
Note: These variables are based on Hofstede’s model for corporate cultures as described by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010). They were assessed by looking at how Coca-Cola describes its own orientation and openness on dedicated pages on the websites for Coca-Cola Germany (https://www.coca-cola-deutschland.de/karriere/arbeiten-bei-coca-cola), Coca-Cola India (https://www.coca-colaindia.com/about-us/coca-cola-worldwide-and-in-india) and Coca-Cola Africa (https://www.coca-colaafrica.com/coca-cola-in-africa/careers).
V5: Company Orientation (ComOr)
How process-oriented does the company’s culture appear to be?
1 Definitely not process-oriented
2 Rather not process-oriented
3 Neutral
4 Rather process-oriented
Coder instruction: Code how process-oriented the company’s culture appears to be. In a process-oriented (also called means-oriented) culture, the key feature is the way in which work has to be carried out; people identify with the “how”. Low scores indicate that the company appears to have a rather or definitely results-oriented (also called goal-oriented) culture, where employees are primarily out to achieve specific internal goals or results, even if these involve substantial risks; people identify with the “what”.
V6: Company Openness (ComOp)
How open does the company’s culture appear to be?
1 Definitely open system
2 Rather open system
3 Neutral
4 Rather not open system
5 Definitely not open system
Coder instruction: Code how open a company’s culture appears to be. In a company with a very open system newcomers are made immediately welcome, one is open both to insiders and outsiders, and it is believed that almost anyone would fit in the company. Low scores indicate that the company appears to have a rather or definitely closed culture.
Main Variables III: Corporate Communication
Note: These variables are based on Hofstede’s models for national cultures and corporate cultures as described by Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010).
V7: Power Distance (PowDis) What does the Tweet exhibit?
-99 Not applicable
1 Very low power distance
2 Low power distance
3 Neutral
4 High power distance
5 Very high power distance
Coder instruction: Code what the Tweet exhibits in relation to power distance. The more the Tweet exhibits that unequally distributed power is accepted and expected, the higher the power distance. Does the Tweet communicate about/to low power individuals (low power distance) or high power individuals (high power distance)? Code „Not applicable” if the Tweet exhibits nothing in relation to power distance or “Neutral“ if the Tweet exhibits both – low and high power distance.
V8: Uncertainty Avoidance (UnAv) What does the Tweet exhibit?
-99 Not applicable
1 Very low uncertainty avoidance
2 Low uncertainty avoidance
3 Neutral
4 High uncertainty avoidance
Coder instruction: Code what the Tweet exhibits in relation to uncertainty avoidance. The more the Tweet exhibits anxiety and distrust in the face of ambiguity, the higher the uncertainty avoidance. Does the Tweet communicate a wish to have fixed habits and rituals, and to know the truth (high uncertainty avoidance)? Code „Not applicable” if the Tweet exhibits nothing in relation to uncertainty avoidance or “Neutral“ if the Tweet exhibits both – uncertainty acceptance and uncertainty avoidance.
Appendix B: Reliability Coefficients
Table 1
Overview of Reliability Coefficients
Variable Krippendorff’s Alpha
V1 Identification Number 1.00
V2 Account 1.00
V3 Country Power Distance 1.00
V4 Country Uncertainty Avoidance 1.00
V5 Company Orientation 1.00 V6 Company Openness V7 Power Distance V8 Uncertainty Avoidance 1.00 0.946 0.905
Note. As all reliability coefficients were sufficient (Krippendorff’s Alpha above .667), no
Appendix C: Syntax Regression Analyses
Simple linear regression analysis 1 (H1a) REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N /MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS CI(95) R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT PowDis /METHOD=ENTER ConPowDis /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED) /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID). Simple linear regression analysis 2 (H1b) REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N /MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS CI(95) R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT UnAv /METHOD=ENTER ConUnAv /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED) /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID). HISTOGRAM(ZRESID).
Mediation regression analysis 1 (H2a, H3a, H4a)
PROCESS vars = ConPowDis ComOr PowDis /y= PowDis /x= ConPowDis /m= ComOr /model=4.
Mediation regression analysis 2 (H2b, H3b, H4b)
