Cultural adaptation: The influence of cultural differences on buyer-supplier relationships A buyer’s perspective

(1)

1

Cultural adaptation: The influence of cultural

differences on buyer-supplier relationships

A buyer’s perspective

Master’s Thesis, MSc, Supply Chain Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Author: Kerstin Köhler Student number: S3800539

Email: k.s.kohler.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Thomas Bortolotti Co-assessor: Dr. Ir. Niels Pulles Date: 27.01.2020

(2)

2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how buyers adapt to cultural differences in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships. Thereby, this study explores the buyer’s perspective from three different cultural groups’ perspectives, namely linear-active, multi-active and reactive.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This case study follows an inductive research approach. It was conducted by carrying out multiple semi-structured interviews with a selection of culturally diverse sourcing managers operating in the manufacturing sector.

Findings: The main finding of this study is that regardless of the cultural origin, buyers adapt to the culture of their suppliers. However, the motivation of doing so differs depending on their cultural background. Reactive cultures are highly likely to adapt culturally because of, inter alia, their communitarian values. Linear-active and multi-active cultures also adapt culturally, but rather if they perceive the effect of the cultural adaptation to be greater than the energy they need to put in.

Practical Implications: This study increases the awareness of the existence of cultural differences in intercultural business relationships and highlights the importance of cultural adaptation in order to ensure smooth business interactions. Thereby, adaptation does not mean to entirely imitate another’s culture but to reconcile differences by adapting at a moderate level. Ultimately, it motivates companies to adapt culturally and thus helps them to better manage and tackle cultural diversity.

Originality/contributions: Previous research showed that cultural adaptation is a possible approach to manage cultural diversity. This study contributes to the literature by examining cultural adaptation in a novel way through the lens of three distinct cultural perspectives, and hence offers useful insights of what kind of adaptation behaviour to expect from the specific cultures. In addition, it reveals further possible actions, such as cross-cultural trainings or the use of culturally specific contact persons, that can be applied by companies when facing difficulties in business relationships due to cultural diversity.

(3)

3

1 Introduction

Culture plays an essential and growing role in today’s corporate world (Matei & Abrudan, 2018). Due to globalization, business relationships have become increasingly international (Carnovale, Rogers, & Yeniyurt, 2016; Pemer, Sieweke, & Werr, 2018) which implies that business partners have different cultural backgrounds. When cultures collide, companies can either benefit from cultural diversity or not. On one side, cultural diversity can drive, among others, creativity and innovation due to various different perspectives (Cox & Blake, 1991). However, on the other side, in cross-cultural business relationships cultural diversity can also lead to increased complexity and problems due to differences in values and behaviour, and if not solved in time, can result in deteriorated relationships (Pagell, Katz, & Sheu, 2005; Trent & Monczka, 2003).

In single national buyer-supplier relationships, business partners usually only need to adapt technically towards each other; whereas in international buyer-supplier relationships, business partners must also adapt culturally towards each other (Levinson & Asahi, 1995). This is because national culture influences people’s values and behaviour (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, the way of thinking, communicating and working varies from culture to culture. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) developed several cultural dimensions that can explain cultural differences. Additionally, Lewis (2006) categorizes cultures on the basis of their cultural backgrounds into three cultural groups, namely linear-active, multi-active and reactive.

In order to minimize cultural distance and to cope with difficulties due to cultural diversity, cultural adaptation is viewed as a successful approach (Lin & Malhotra, 2012). Thereby, cultural adaptation focusses on the business partner’s national cultural background and not on the business culture, which makes it difficult as values and norms are deep-rooted (Lin, 2004). Cultural adaptation involves understanding the partner’s culture and adjusting to it, as well as learning from it in order to ensure successful intercultural buyer-supplier relationships (Lin, 2004). As the adaptation extent can vary depending on the specific relationship stage (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987), Jia and Lamming (2013) developed a model linking the varying adaptation extents by Lin (2004) with different relationship stages. Hence, it displays how one engages in cultural adaptation at each relationship stage.

(5)

5 research has given explicit advice on how managers can cope with cultural diversity (Boscari, Bortolotti, Netland, & Rich, 2018). Moreover, if at all, existing literature has mainly focused on other business relationships, such as exporter and importer relationships, expatriate experience or joint ventures, but only to a small extent on cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships. Ribbink and Grimm (2014, p. 114) confirmed that “there is both a business and an academic need for a better understanding of the impact of cultural differences arising when buyers and sellers differ in nationality.” Hence, questions remain about how to handle cultural differences in intercultural buyer-supplier relationships. Because of this, it is interesting to adopt the buyers’ perspective as buyers usually have the power in the relationship, thus supplier dependence and power becomes less of an issue, and therefore if cultural adaptation takes place, it is not for this reason (Mukherji & Francis, 2008). Moreover, it is still unclear in which relationship stage and to which extent, namely understanding, adjusting or learning, buyers adapt culturally. Consequently, this leads to the following research question: How do buyers

adapt to cultural differences in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships? Furthermore, this

study aims to answer the sub-question: In which stages of the relationship and to which extent

does cultural adaptation take place?

The aim of the study is to contribute theoretically by exploring the mechanisms of cultural adaptation in different cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationship constellations by investigating it from different cultural perspectives. It also aims to practically contribute by increasing the awareness of the existence of cultural differences as well as the importance of managing those by applying cultural adaptation, and thus supporting companies to ensure successful smoothly running intercultural business relationships in the future. Thereby, this study builds on the cultural group model by Lewis (2006) and the frameworks about the cultural adaptation process by Lin (2004) as well as Jia and Lamming (2013).

(6)

6

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 National Culture

Culture has several layers. In the inner layer, the values and norms of one are located. Those are invisible and have been taught over generations. The outer layer represents the practices or behavioural actions of one. Those actions are visible and easy to change. Hence, because values and norms are deep-rooted, they are less easy to change compared to new practices which can be learned easily throughout life. (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010)

According to Schwartz (2014), people of the same cultural group share the same values and beliefs, and thus differentiate themselves from other cultural groups having different values and beliefs. Hence, national culture means that people coming from the same country share the same values and beliefs (Hofstede, 1980; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2017).

Thereby, cultural values and beliefs have a strong influence on people’s perceptions and behaviours (Hall, 1977). National culture impacts people’s individual behaviour (Schwartz, 2014), which varies from culture to culture due to different values. Accordingly, people who belong to different cultures feel, think and act differently (Hofstede et al., 2010). This causes cultural differences in cross-cultural business relationships which are further discussed in the following subsection.

2.2 Cultural Differences

(7)

7 experience (Cox & Blake, 1991). Third, working together with people from other cultures can also lead to an increased variety of skills (Bodla, Tang, Jiang, & Tian, 2018).

However, on the other side, cultural diversity can negatively impact cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships (Jia & Lamming, 2013). Cultural differences can lead to increased complexity, confusion and problems (Kundu, 2001). Moreover, “cultural differences in beliefs, attitudes, and behavioural patterns often lead to misunderstanding, misconception, and miscommunications” (Lin, 2004, p. 37) and, at worst, to failed business relationships.

Table 2.1 provides an overview of the abovementioned advantages and disadvantages which are caused by cultural diversity.

Advantages of cultural diversity Reason

Increased creativity and innovation Due to many different perspectives

Improved problem solving and quality solutions Due to broader views and more experience

Increased variety of skills Due to different educational backgrounds

Disadvantages of cultural diversity Reason

Increased complexity and problems Due to differences in behaviour and values Increased misunderstandings and miscommunication Due to different communication patterns

Table 2.1: Advantages and disadvantages of cultural diversity

To ensure successful cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships, one does not only need to know that cultural differences exist, but also needs to be aware which dimensions are involved and understand how those dimensions impact the relationship in order to manage issues arising from these differences more effectively (Pagell et al., 2005; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). It does not necessarily mean that intercultural buyer-supplier relationships harbour risks but paying attention and being willing to understand and manage cultural diversity will help companies to have smooth running interactions with their business partner. Hence, from the management perspective, it is beneficial to examine the cultural diversity between nations in order to discover opportunities as well as challenges when conducting business worldwide (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2017).

2.3 Cultural Groups and Dimensions

(8)

8

Figure 2.1: Lewis’ cultural framework (Jaakkola & Thalheim, 2014)

Thereby, people having a linear-active cultural background are characterized as being organized, task-oriented and punctual. Multi-active cultures, by contrast, are people-oriented, prefer face-to-face contact and carry out multiple tasks simultaneously. Reactive cultures are respect-oriented, introverted and good listeners. For them silence, has a different value than for linear-active and multi-active cultures. (Lewis, 2006)

Table 2.2 lists more cultural differences between the three cultural groups in relation to communication, time, commitment and their perceptions of contracts (Lewis, 1996, 2006).

Linear-active cultures Multi-active cultures Reactive cultures

Communication

Introvert Extrovert Introvert

Quiet Talkative Silent

Brief on telephone Talks for hours Summarizes well

Confronts with logic Confronts emotionally Avoids confrontation

Rarely interrupts Interrupts frequently Does not interrupt

Time

Plans ahead methodically Plans grand outline only Looks at general principles Does one thing at a time Does several things at once Reacts

Works fixed hours Works any hours Flexible hours

Punctual Unpunctual Punctual

Dominated by schedules Timetable unpredictable Reacts to partner’s timetable

Commitment

Job-oriented People-oriented People-oriented

Unemotional Emotional Quietly caring

Separates social and professional life

Interweaves social and professional life

Connects social and professional life

Contracts

Not changeable agreement which needs to be signed

Ideal which is unlikely to be fulfilled but signed anyway to

avoid arguments

Starting document which will be rewritten and modified as

circumstances require

(9)

9 To further explain cultural differences, and thus distinct behaviours of cultures, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) developed several cultural dimensions:

▪ Universalism vs. particularism:

Whereas universalist cultures are contract-oriented, particularistic ones are relationship-oriented. Particularism means that relationships are more important than contracts, and thus taking time to build a strong relationship is valued more. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)

▪ Individualism vs. communitarianism:

The second dimension is very closely related to the first. Communistic cultures follow the principles of particularistic cultures and individualistic cultures follow the principles of universalistic cultures. Whereas communistic cultures are relationship-oriented, individualistic cultures stand for thinking only of oneself. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)

▪ Neutral vs. emotional:

Neutral cultures do not show emotions, avoid physical contact and appreciate business meetings being factual, whereas emotional cultures are known to behave extroverted, with distinctive body language and voice loudness (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).

▪ Specific vs. diffuse:

This dimension is about the extent of relationship involvement. Specific cultures separate their areas of life, which means that work life and personal life are rarely mixed. Hence, it is all about doing business. In contrast, diffuse cultures also mix their work relationships with their private relationships. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998) ▪ Achievement vs. ascription:

In achievement-oriented cultures, one needs to work hard for reaching status and prestige. In ascriptive-oriented cultures, status is attributed regarding, inter alia, connections. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)

▪ Attitudes to time:

(10)

10 appointments and obligations, and thus meeting fixed schedules is less important. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)

▪ Attitudes to the environment:

This dimension deals about how people feel about affecting or being affected by their environment. Mostly eastern countries do not want to disturb others, whereas western countries do not want to be disturbed by their environment. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998)

Hence, in order to cope with cultural differences, one possible approach for buyers and suppliers is to adapt culturally to each other. This leads to the following subsection which describes cultural adaptation in more detail.

2.4 Cultural Adaptation

Adaptation is a key approach when linking different cultures (Francis, 1991) and managing diversities in relationships (Parkhe, 1991). Cultural adaptation can be described as “an attempt to elicit approval from members of a foreign culture by attempting to become behaviorally more similar to members of that culture” (Francis, 1991, p. 406). Accordingly, adaptation is a behavioural-related change (Brennan & Turnbull, 1999). The extent of the necessary adjustments thereby depends on the values of the individual participating entities (Hagberg-Andersson, 2006). Overall, cultural adaptation can decrease cultural gaps between intercultural business partners. Therefore, cultural adaptation can tighten the relationship and thus protects it from termination (Hallén, Johanson, & Seyed-Mohamed, 1991).

(11)

11 Cultural adaptation can be seen as a certain type of cross-border “inter-firm learning” (Jia & Lamming, 2013). Additionally, it can also be named as “cross-border learning” (Li, 2010) or “relationship learning” (Cheung, Myers, & Mentzer, 2010). Thereby, cultural adaptation does not simply mean to adapt to a specific business practice, but rather implies to first understand the business partner’s culture, then to adjust one’s behaviour to the cultural differences, and finally to learn from it by integrating elements of the other one's culture into one’s own (Lin, 2004).

Cultural Adaptation Process

(Lin, 2004) 1. Understand the other one's culture 2. Adjust behaviour

3. Learn by integrating elements of the other one's culture into one’s own

Table 2.3: Adapted from Jia and Lamming (2013, p. 532)

In the following, the three extents of cultural adaptation (see Table 2.3) are explained in more detail. In addition, the possibility of not adapting to cultural differences is described.

▪ No adaptation essentially means that cultural differences are not recognized or understood. An indicator for no adaptation is that one feels there is only one way to behave correctly and that anything else is incorrect (Bennett, 1993).

▪ Understanding is when one understands the opposite culture (Lin, 2004) as well as accepts (Bennett, 1993) cultural differences. Usually, one is open-minded towards the other culture and tries to be more sensitive to differences, but does not actively adapt (Bennett, 1993).

▪ Adjusting implies that one adjusts to the other culture’s behaviour in order to ensure seamless interaction (Jia & Lamming, 2013). An exemplification of adjusting is to alter one’s behaviour for a better fit, even though one feels still unpleasant in the situation (Earley & Peterson, 2004).

▪ Learning means that one endeavours to include aspects of the opposite culture into one’s own (Jia & Lamming, 2013). Moreover, one consciously uses the other culture’s practices (Lin, 2004). The interaction is frequent, and one shows interest and respect by monitoring and learning from the other culture (Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004).

(12)

12 adaptation process model of Lin (2004). In this way, they linked the different adaptation extents to the three different relationship stages, and thereby found that cultural adaptation can occur in every stage of a relationship, but varies in its extent (Jia & Lamming, 2013).

Considering all of this, the theoretical background section stresses the relevance of the research question and its sub-question: How do buyers adapt to cultural differences in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships? In which stages of the relationship and to which extent does cultural adaptation take place? Figure 2.2 represents the conceptual framework of this study. Thereby, the study builds on the models of Lewis (2006) and Lin (2004) as well as adopts Jia's and Lamming's (2013) model, however, in a more simplified way by only differentiating between two relationship stages, namely early and mature.

(13)

13

3 Methodology

3.1 Research Design

The purpose of this study is to explore how buyers adapt to cultural differences in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships. Since adaptation in an intercultural context has been poorly researched so far, an inductive multiple case study is the most suitable approach to answer the research question (Karlsson, 2016). Furthermore, a qualitative research approach is appropriate when studying a rather unexplored issue, which applies to this study (Karlsson, 2016). According to Yin (1993), in order to answer how and why questions and developing new knowledge, one should choose the case study approach as a research design. Additionally, case studies are context-rich approaches as they provide extensive primary data (Karlsson, 2016) and thus are more suitable than surveys “for suggesting actions to manage culture-practice fit or misfit” (Boscari et al., 2018, p. 6326).

3.2 Case Selection

The case study’s unit of analysis is the buyer-supplier relationship. The research setting were large multinational companies in the manufacturing sector, more specifically for consumer and capital goods. This choice was made because buyer-supplier relationships in this sector are predominantly global and thus meet the requirement of a multiplicity of cultures. Moreover, in this sector it is common that the buyer has the power in the relationship or that the power is at least equally balanced between the buyer and supplier, which was another requirement for the case selection, as this prevents the chance that a buyer adapts culturally because of the supplier’s power.

(14)

14 3.3 Data Collection

The collection of data was done by conducting multiple semi-structured interviews which provides the possibility of collecting additional information, which is relevant for the research, but might have been missed otherwise. Thereby, the interviews investigated the adaptation behaviour of the buyers, more precisely to which extent and in which relationship stage they adapted culturally. Moreover, they took a broad perspective on identifying cultural differences, thus not specialising on a certain one.

The criteria for selecting the interviewees was that they must be buyers and have multiple cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships. Furthermore, their cross-cultural background was of great importance in order to ensure the differing cultural views in relation to the three cultural groups. All interviews were conducted in English, except for one which was conducted in German and later, before analysing the data, translated into English. The interviews were carried out either face-to-face or via Skype in November 2019. In order to familiarize themselves with the interview questions, the interview protocol, which can be found in Appendix A, was sent to the interviewees upfront, and therefore ensuring the study’s reliability. If the interviewee gave permission, the interview was recorded. The length of the interviews ranged from 40 minutes to one hour. Table 3.1 provides an overview of the interviewees’ codes and job functions. For reasons of confidentiality, the interviewees names and companies remain anonymous.

Cultural Group Interviewee Code Job Position Interview Duration

Linear-Active

LA1 Director Procurement 01:00:00

LA2 Head of Global Procurement 00:45:00

LA3 Senior Procurement Manager 00:50:00

LA4 Operational Buyer 00:40:00

Multi-Active

MA1 Global Procurement Manager 01:00:00

MA2 Director Global Procurement 00:45:00

MA3 Director Global Procurement 00:55:00

Reactive

R1 Global Procurement Manager 01:00:00

R2 Global Procurement Manager 00:40:00

R3 Supplier Quality Manager 01:00:00

Table 3.1: Overview of interviewees

(15)

15 3.4 Data Analysis

As soon as the interviews had been conducted, they were transcribed and anonymized. Additionally, observations, which had been made during the interview, were added. After the data collection period was over, the data was analysed using an inductive approach. As an inductive approach lacks the identification of first order codes (Karlsson, 2016), initial codes were determined after reviewing all interview transcripts.

Therefore, the data analysis was compromised of two steps. First, cases were identified where cultural adaptation took place and clustered by the buyers’ cultural background. In this way, the within-case description links the specific cultural adaptation extents to the corresponding relationship stages and presents internal patterns of cultural adaptation of each cultural group’s perspective separately. Additionally, cases where no cultural adaptation took place were identified and analysed. Second, the cross-case analysis searched for recurring patterns and overarching themes between the cultural group’s perspectives, the adaptation extent and stage as well as the effects of cultural differences and adaptation. Hence, the study’s internal validity is ensured by pattern matching and explanation building.

Moreover, the study’s reliability is provided by the coding tree which can be found in Appendix B. For the purpose of consistency, the coding tree was created by using Microsoft Excel.

4 Findings

4.1 Within-Case Description

In the following, several cases are presented. A distinction was made between cases where cultural differences were recognized in time and cultural adaptation took place (case 1 – 14), and cases where cultural differences were not recognized in time and no cultural adaptation took place (case 15-17). Thus, the identified cultural differences were the ones perceived by the buyers, which are also in alignment with the cultural differences introduced in the models of Lewis (2006) and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998).

(16)

16 Cultural adaptation

LA perspective

LA buyer & LA supplier LA buyer & MA supplier LA buyer & R supplier

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Dutch buyer German supplier Dutch buyer Portuguese supplier German buyer Brazilian supplier Dutch buyer Japanese supplier German buyer Japanese supplier Cultural difference Hierarchy Time management and planning Time management and planning Information sharing; communication Hierarchy

Early stage adjust understand understand no adaptation understand understand understand understand understand understand

Mature stage adjust & learn adjust & learn adjust & learn no adaptation adjust & learn adjust & learn adjust understand adjust adjust

Type Bilateral Unilateral Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral

Power Balanced Buyer Buyer Balanced Balanced

MA perspective

MA buyer & MA supplier MA buyer & LA supplier MA buyer & R supplier

Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

Mexican buyer Italian supplier Turkish buyer Italian supplier Mexican buyer Swedish supplier Turkish buyer Chinese supplier Maltese buyer Chinese supplier Cultural

difference Expressing feelings Expressing feelings

Time management and planning

Communication (“what is said is not what is meant”)

Information sharing; communication; contracts

Early stage understand no adaptation - - understand understand understand understand adjust no adaptation

needed Mature

stage understand understand

understand & adjust

understand &

adjust & learn adjust / force adjust adjust adjust & learn adjust

no adaptation needed

Type Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral Unilateral

Power Buyer Buyer Buyer Buyer Balanced

R perspective

R buyer & R supplier R buyer & LA supplier R buyer & MA supplier

Case 11 Case 12 Case 13 Case 14

Indian buyer Chinese supplier Chinese buyer American supplier Indian buyer German supplier Indian buyer Brazilian supplier Cultural difference Communication (“what is said is not what is meant”)

Contracts;

relationship building Contracts; attitude Expressing feelings

Early stage understand understand understand &

adjust no adaptation understand no adaptation understand understand

Mature stage adjust adjust learn no adaptation adjust no adaptation adjust / force adjust

Type Bilateral Unilateral Unilateral Bilateral

Power Buyer Balanced Supplier Buyer

(17)

17

Case Detailed information

1

The Dutch buyer (LA3) stated that his German supplier behaves very formal and hierarchical whereby in LA3’s culture it is the opposite. However, as LA3 had previous business relationships with other German suppliers, he already knew about this cultural difference and adjusted to it in the early stage of the relationship. In the mature stage, he still adjusted and even learned from the supplier's culture. The supplier also understood the cultural difference in the early stage, and adjusted as well as learned from it by accepting the more direct and less formal way of Dutch communication in the mature stage of the relationship.

2

The Dutch buyer (LA3) said that compared to his rather strict time management his Portuguese supplier is very flexible on deadlines. LA3 understood the difference in the early stage and adjusted and learned from it by incorporating a buffer week in the mature stage of the relationship. However, the supplier did not adapt culturally at all.

3

The German buyer (LA2) said that his time management is less flexible than that of his Brazilian supplier. However, both understood the cultural difference in the early stage and shifted to the extent “adjust and learn” in the mature stage of the relationship. Thereby, LA2 adjusted by slowing down the expectation on speed, formulated expectations more clearly, also in writing, and emphasized people orientation. The supplier adjusted by accepting the difference and showed more of his own initiative and adherence to agreed timelines, as well as changed the contact partner to someone better suited.

4

The Dutch buyer (LA3) explained that his Japanese supplier is very polite and does not say if they did not understand something. Thereby, in LA3’s culture it is the opposite. However, LA3 understood the cultural difference in the early stage and adjusted in mature stage by always checking, if the supplier really understood what was said and by not letting it only be confirmed. Moreover, because the supplier requires more time to responding meetings take longer which is accepted by LA3. In both stages, the supplier only understood the cultural differences.

5

The German buyer (LA2) stated that with his Japanese supplier hierarchy is a cultural difference. LA2 addressed it by respecting the supplier’s behaviour rules towards senior executives and connected senior executives to senior executives. The supplier adjusted to LA2 by picking a rather westernized contact person and making themselves available on executive level. Thus, both parties understood the cultural difference in the early stage and adjusted culturally to each other in the mature stage of the relationship.

6

The Mexican buyer (MA1) stated that his Italian supplier behaves very impulsively. However, MA1 understood the cultural difference but did not adjust to it. The same holds true for the supplier who also understood that MA1 behaves more calmly. Hence, the extent of adaptation did not exceed the level of understanding.

7

The Turkish buyer (MA3) described the behaviour of his Italian supplier as impulsive. However, this cultural difference first appeared in a meeting in the mature stage of the relationship. Therefore, no cultural adaptation took place in the early stage of the relationship. MA3 explained that he understood that any big reaction by the supplier is not a big reaction and adjusted by pausing the meeting once the big reaction occurred and continued as soon as the situation had cooled down. The supplier also understood the cultural difference as well and adjusted by explaining the background of his concerns and sharing his thoughts rather than his emotions.

8

The Mexican buyer (MA1) stated that whereas his Swedish supplier is more about long term planning, MA1 rather plans in short term and thus is more flexible. The cultural difference occurred by setting up meetings and receiving answers via email. Both, MA1 and the supplier, understood the cultural difference in the early stage and adjusted in the mature stage of the relationship. Whereas MA1 adjusted by planning more in advance, the supplier adjusted to MA1 by replying more quickly.

9

(18)

18

10

The Maltese buyer (MA2) stated that the communication is less open and transparent with his Chinese supplier. MA2 perceived the supplier to not immediately sharing information concerning issues and thus it is requiring a lot of time to get the information. Because the buyer already had previous experience with Chinese suppliers and thus knew about the cultural differences, the buyer adjusted in early stage of the relationship. Thereby, MA2 addressed the cultural differences by keep watching out for issues and continuously asking the supplier many questions to back up the situation. Moreover, MA2’s company uses a Chinese supplier account manager as the main contact point for the supplier. For this reason, the supplier did not need to adapt culturally, because he is mainly in contact with the Chinese supplier account manager who has the same cultural background.

11

The Indian buyer (R2) said that when communicating with his Chinese supplier, communication was hard and the meaning of what is said by the supplier is not always what is meant. However, R2 understood that there was a cultural difference and adjusted to the supplier by having video calls instead of telephone calls, talking slower as well as trying to meet in person. Moreover, R2 stated that writing summaries of what was agreed on in meetings or phone calls, prevented things from getting lost in understanding and translation. Additionally, R2 reached out to a Chinese colleague of his who helped facilitating the communication with the supplier. Hence, R2 understood the cultural difference in the early stage of the relationship and adjusted in the mature stage. The supplier also adapted by summarizing what was said and sending it via email to R2.

12

The Chinese buyer (R3) said when doing business with his American supplier, the contracts are very serious and strict. Moreover, the supplier behaves very professional and does not spend too much time to build up a personal relationship with R3. However, in R3’s culture relationship building is important, and contracts are usually flexible. Hence, R3 understood and adjusted to those cultural differences in the early stage of the relationship and even learned from the other culture in the mature stage. Neither in the early stage nor in the mature stage of the relationship did the supplier adapt culturally.

13

The Indian buyer (R1) perceived the attitude of the German supplier as very harsh in contrast to his own soft-spoken communication style. R1 also perceived the supplier to be very strict when negotiating the contract. In contrast, in R1’s culture contracts are more flexible. R1 understood the cultural differences in the early stage and adjusted to them in the mature stage of the relationship. The supplier, however, did not adapt culturally at all.

14

The Indian buyer (R2) described his Brazilian supplier to be very talkative and emotional. Hence, it takes the supplier a lot more time to get to the point. Thereby, R2 adjusted by accepting the cultural difference and providing time for non-business-related conversations. However, R2 also stated to force the supplier to cut it from now and then. Nevertheless, R2 perceived the cultural difference as an advantage because it was easier to build up a relationship and to receive more information of the supplier’s perspective in negotiations. Both, the buyer and the supplier, understood the cultural difference in the early stage and adjusted in the mature stage of the relationship.

No cultural adaptation

The following three cases illustrate what can happen when cultural differences are noticed too late or when neither the buyer nor the supplier adapt culturally.

(19)

19 supplier owner and a Dutch colleague took over his position. This constellation only lasted for one year as it was then noticed that the relationship between the buyer and supplier was almost destroyed because they could not work well together. Fortunately, the buyer recognized that cultural differences were the trigger for the deterioration, and thus reactivated the old partners in time in order to recover the relationship. From this occurrence, LA2 took away that if two very dissimilar cultures meet, cultural adaptation is necessary. LA2 concluded: “So, you could

really see that it did not work between my Dutch colleague and the Chinese supplier. So, it was very much from the one extreme to the other extreme. […] But you really notice that it is much easier when both have the same cultural background.”

Case 16: This case represents the relationship of the Dutch buyer (LA3) and his Belgium (LA) supplier which deteriorated due to cultural differences. LA3 stated that even though the buyer and the supplier spoke the same language and both countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, are culturally as well as geographically seen very close, they had issues regarding communication and understanding the behaviour of one another. For instance, when LA3 received emails from the supplier after meetings he often felt like they could “not have been in the same meeting”. Thus, due to different cultural values and norms many mutual misinterpretations occurred. LA3 said that he as well as the supplier became aware of their cultural imbalance too late so neither of them adapted culturally. LA3 concluded that it is hard to adapt culturally when cultural differences are not expected or obvious.

(20)

20 4.2 Cross-Case Analysis

First, the cross-case analysis will analyse the individual cultural groups’ perspectives. Afterwards, the analysis will go into detail about the adaptation extents as well as further findings regarding cultural adaptation.

Cultural groups

First, the linear-active, then the multi-active and finally the reactive buyers’ perspective will be analysed.

Linear-active buyers’ perspective

The within-case analysis demonstrated that even though the linear-active buyers were the ones who had the power in the buyer-supplier relationship or where the power was at least equally balanced between them and the supplier, the linear-active buyers did adapt culturally to their suppliers (see case 1-5). This shows that the linear-active buyers did not adapt culturally due to any pressure by their suppliers. LA3 explained: “I think that both adapt. When the relationship

evolves, you build up a relationship.” Regarding the adaptation behaviour of the linear-active

buyers, all buyers did understand the cultural difference in the early stage of the relationship (see case 2-5) and adjusted to it in the mature stage (see case 1-5). In case 1-3, the cultural extent of adjusting even evolved to learning. One exception is that in case 1 the buyer already adjusted to the cultural difference in the early stage, because he already knew about the cultural difference. Another exception is that the cultural adaptation was unilateral in case 2; thus, only the buyer adapted culturally. In all other cases, the buyers as well as suppliers adapted.

However, when analysing the data of the linear-active buyers, it also came to light that their motivation to adapt culturally might be conditioned by the gain they receive out of it. This becomes clear by the statement of LA1 saying: “You accept things because you do not meet

them every week. So, it is also linked to how much energy you want to put in and what the effect is. If the effect is that you only have to wait five minutes in a month and not more often, then you accept it.” Hence, linear-active buyers adapt culturally if they feel that it gives them a

benefit. Moreover, when asking linear-active buyers about suppliers adapting to them, they stated that they perceive themselves as the customers in the buyer-supplier relationship, and thus claimed that mainly the suppliers are the ones who need to adapt. LA2 outlined it as follows: “I think, most of the time the supplier confirms with the customer. […] In general, in

(21)

21

Multi-active buyers’ perspective

By looking at case 6-10, it becomes clear that multi-active buyers adapted to the recognized cultural differences in their cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships even though the power was with them (see case 6-9) or was equally balanced between them and the supplier (see case 10). Regarding their cultural adaptation behaviour, the buyers either understood or adjusted to the cultural differences. In case 6, the buyer only understood the cultural differences in both stages but did not adjust to it. In contrast, in case 10, the buyer adjusted already in the early stage because he was already aware of the cultural difference.

Similar to the linear-active perspective, statements such as “I only adjust my behaviour if I want

to gain something out of it” by MA1 strengthen the view that multi-active buyers also adapt

culturally but that the motivation for doing so is also dependent on the resulting effect and benefit of it. Besides, comparable statements to the linear-active perspective regarding the customer-supplier relation emerged. Therefore, multi-active buyers also perceived themselves as the customer in the relationship. Accordingly, MA3 claimed: “Generally, suppliers try to

adapt to yourself. I think in 30% of the cases we adapt but we are the customers… I am not saying that we are the king but normally you need to understand more your customer.”

Reactive buyers’ perspective

Just as linear-active and multi-active buyers, reactive buyers adapted culturally to their supplier (see case 11-14). Whereas the power was with the buyer in case 11 and 14, in case 12 the power was balanced between the buyer, and supplier and in case 13 the supplier had the power. Regarding their adaptation behaviour, in all cases the reactive buyers understood the cultural difference in the early stage of the relationship (see case 11-14). Except for case 12, where the buyer already adjusted in the early stage, the buyers of the remaining cases adjusted in the mature stage. One exception is that in case 12 and 13 the cultural adaptation was unilateral, thus only the reactive buyers adapted culturally to the linear-active suppliers. Thereby, the reasoning behind this is twofold. In case 13, the supplier had the power in the relationship and thus could pressure the buyer to adjust to their way of working. However, in both cases the buyer perceived the supplier as a mature player in the business world, and thus wanted to learn as well as gain advanced know-how from them.

Nevertheless, it appeared that power is not very important for reactive suppliers whether or not to adapt culturally. This is supported by the following statement of R2: “I think you should

(22)

22

about it and to say: I have the power, so I do not need to adjust myself at all.” This view is

even more underpinned by the multi-active buyer MA3 who stated that: “Their [reactive]

culture seems to be more supportive when you have big problems. And even if it is a seller’s market, they do not really want to dictate something to you. That is the difference of this East culture. They do not feel like a dominant European supplier.”

Similar and dissimilar cultures

The within-case description showed that cultural adaptation also took place in buyer-supplier relationships where both partners belong to the same cultural group (see case 1, 6, 7 and 11), thus buyers and suppliers sharing very similar cultural values and norms. LA3 reasoned this by saying: “First of all, every country has its own culture. Even though countries seem similar to

each other, there are still differences. Those cultural differences are not big but still exist.”

Thereby, LA2 raised the issue that “sometimes you have very big misunderstandings because

you expect that they are similar to you… like that they act the same as you… but this is not the case.” However, having very different cultural backgrounds, can also be seen positively. R1

explained it as follows: “Sometimes two different cultures do not mean that the relationship

will be bad. If you ask me, two different countries, two different cultures, the relationship will be much better because you do not know each other and you will try to be more polite, softer and better to each other.”

Adaptation extent and relationship stage

As already analysed separately for each cultural group, from the buyers’ perspective in most of the cases cultural adaptation included “understand” and “adjust” to the business partner’s culture. In some cases, the cultural adaptation’s extent even evolved to “learn”. In general, in the early stage of the relationship the adaptation’s extent was to “understand” and in the mature stage to “adjust” or “learn”, except for case 1, 10 and 12. In those cases, the buyers adjusted to the suppliers’ culture as they had already gained cultural experiences with the specific culture from business relationships in the past. Therefore, they knew what cultural differences to expect

and how to deal with it. Only in case 6 the buyer remained at the level of understanding but did

(23)

23 Regardless of the cultural background, all cases showed that no one would change oneself entirely. In none of the cases did the level of adaptation exceed the level of adjustment or learning. Hence, no interviewee stated imitating another’s culture completely. LA2 outlined this by saying: “But you will never completely adapt to the other culture… neither from the

supplier nor the buyer side. You have to respect the cultural difference. So, that does not mean that you cannot do business together… if both understand it and respect it.” Overall, cultural

differences were perceived to be stronger in the beginning of the relationship and to lose intensity over time. This can be explained by the use of cultural adaptation and because both sides get to know each other better throughout the relationship, and thus have a better mutual understanding and know how to interpret certain things, which was even referred to as a

learning process by LA4. Moreover, it was stated that cultural differences can exist well in the relationship, if they are respected from both sides. Hence, it is of high importance to be aware

and to respect cultural differences. Relationship improvement

By analysing the data, it became clear that every interviewee experienced an improvement of the relationship when the cultural adaptation was either bilateral or unilateral (see case 1-14). For instance, MA1 observed increased empathy and R2 greater trust within the relationship. Moreover, an improved mutual understanding and a greater cooperativeness were noticed by MA3 and explained as follows: “If you adapt without compromising a lot or without

compromising, first of all, they do believe you more and respect you more, and the worst-case scenarios, which are the biggest discussions, become more in an understanding way. So, they turn to be a solution maker instead of a problem maker.”

Relationship failure

After reviewing all cases, it became apparent that it is less likely that a cross-cultural relationship fails due to cultural differences. However, there have been cases identified (see case 15-17) where the relationship was damaged, almost failed or failed. Thereby, the reasons were to not be aware of the existence of cultural differences and misunderstanding or misinterpreting one another, because of one’s cultural values and norms. Nevertheless, the number of identified cases was low, and R2 confirmed: “It can happen, but no I have not seen

it. I think the companies are too big. I think those relationships are very difficult to fail because of something like that. […] But I just have not come across it.” MA2 further reasoned that there

(24)

24

company, so we are also able to deal with global accounts, and we are big enough to be able to have a person having the same cultural background to deal with a supplier.”

Additional actions

Next to cultural adaptation, the study found several additional actions that can be applied when coping with cultural diversity. Thereby, the actions can be on a personal or business level.

Personal level: First, it is essential to have an open attitude towards new cultures and cultural

differences. LA3 stated to “never underestimate cultural differences! […] Be open, try to

understand cultural differences and also be honest when you do not understand the cultural difference.” Second, it is advisable to prepare oneself by reading a book about the culture one

will be dealing with. Moreover, it might also be helpful to know people from other cultures in order to gather cultural experiences and thus to learn how to deal with cultural diversity. Thereby, the same goes for business trips to other countries. Hence, one will learn the best how to deal with cultural diversity by experiencing it and thus learning by doing.

Business level: Third, most companies offer trainings and seminars as well as guidelines

regarding cultural differences. MA3 explained: “We have some trainings in order to emphasize

more with the company and to be able to see and be aware of cultural differences and how to manage them.” Fourth, when having communication issues in the cross-cultural buyer-supplier

relationship, switching the contact persons can be a possible action in order to facilitate and solve the problem as communication is always down to people. Fifth, a company can ensure smooth interactions by having international teams, so that one can ask an internal colleague, who has the same or a more similar cultural background as the business partner, and thus can help if cultural differences appear. For instance, MA3 described it as follows: “When I go and

discuss with a Japanese supplier, I always take my Japanese colleague with me or I even ask him to start the discussion about one topic, and after a level of understanding I try to join.”

Sixth, companies can also make use of culturally specific account managers who function as a cultural connection between the buyer and supplier. MA2 explained: “I think we would have

less success, if we do not have people who can understand the culture of the supplier. Our strategy of locating account managers within the same region, and therefore having the same cultural background as the supplier, is not by chance. It facilitates business from many ways.”

(25)

25

5 Discussion

In the following, the previous findings will be discussed in relation to the existing literature. Thereby, the discussion follows the structure of the cross-case analysis.

5.1 Cultural Groups

The cultural background of a buyer as well as a supplier is an indication of their tendency to adapt culturally (Lin & Malhotra, 2012). Thereby, the cross-case analysis showed that reactive buyers adapted culturally to their suppliers. This is in line with the literature by saying that reactive cultures are perceived to be willing to learn from partnerships with western cultures (Lin & Malhotra, 2012), which is further underlined by the fact that due to cultural traits Asian cultures prefer to be the student in a relationship (Hamel, 1991). Additionally, reactive cultures are good listeners (Lewis, 2006). They seek harmony (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Lewis, 2006) and are known to be humble (Hamel, 1991) as well as courteous (Fang, 2001). Moreover, reactive cultures are communitarian by nature and thus perceive themselves as part of a group (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Thereby, communitarianism entails being sensitive to interpersonal relations and the willingness to be shaped by others (Triandis, 1988). All the aforementioned characteristics are supported by MA3 who viewed reactive cultures, due to their cultural traits, as supportive and not dictating even though they would have the power in the relationship. Besides, the reactive buyer R3 confirmed: “I think whatever country we do

business with we just want to do the job smoothly. So, we do some adaptations.”

Another supportive argument, however not due to their cultural background, is that reactive cultures are willing to adapt culturally because western cultures are seen to be more advanced when it comes to technical and managerial know how, and therefore reactive cultures are motivated to learn from them (Lin, 2005).

Proposition 1.1: Buyers, who have a reactive cultural background, are highly likely to adapt culturally to their suppliers.

(26)

26 “undesirable”, but in order to gain reciprocal benefits in the relationship, they are willing to adapt culturally to their business partners (Lin & Malhotra, 2012). Beyond that, linear-active and multi-active cultures are characterized as individualists, which means seeing oneself individually and not as a group (Luthans & Doh, 2012). Moreover, individual cultures are recognised as having a lack of concern for others (Hui & Triandis, 1986) and behave purely based on their own perspective (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Statements such as “time is money” are typical for linear-active cultures, which further indicates their profit-orientation (Lewis, 2006). This all supports the proposition that they are more motivated to adapt culturally, if they see it as profitable for themselves. The following two quotes by one linear-active and one multi-active buyer summarize the view well:

“You accept things because you do not meet them every week. So, it is also linked to how much energy you want to put in and what the effect is.” [LA1]

“You can say that I adjusted my behaviour when it makes sense. When it does not, then I do not. And I expect them to adjust to mine.” [MA1]

Proposition 1.2: Buyers, who have a linear-active or multi-active cultural background, are more likely to adapt culturally to their suppliers, if they perceive the effect of the cultural adaptation to be greater than the energy they need to put in.

Business partners belonging to the same cultural group share similar beliefs and values; nevertheless, cultural differences do exist between similar cultures (Lewis, 2006). In buyer-supplier relationships, if the buyer and buyer-supplier have dissimilar cultural backgrounds, it is easier to detect cultural differences as they are obvious and expected; in contrast, if both parties belong to the same cultural group, which means that they have similar cultural backgrounds, it is more difficult to determine cultural differences as they are not expected and less obvious (Selmer, 2007).

This view is consistent with this study’s finding regarding case 16, where the relationship of the Dutch buyer and the Belgian supplier was damaged because cultural differences were recognized too late. LA3 described this phenomenon as follows: “It is surprising because you

think that you are on the same level and therefore do not pay too much attention to cultural differences. You rather expect this to happen more with suppliers having a far more different cultural background.” Moreover, if one experiences humans to be rather similar instead of

(27)

27 suppliers might make the mistake of not looking for cultural differences in relationships where the cultures seem to be very similar, and risk not identifying cultural differences and the need for cultural adaptation. Beyond that, Selmer and Lauring (2009) claimed that it is equally difficult to adapt culturally to a similar or dissimilar culture.

Proposition 1.3: Cultural differences are less visible and expected in relationships where the cultural background of the buyer and supplier is similar.

5.2 Adaptation Extent and Relationship Stage

To ensure smooth running relationships, continuous adaptation is required (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). Depending on the specific relationship, the extent of adaptation differs (Han, Wilson, & Dant, 1993). Moreover, the extent varies depending on the specific relationship stage (Dwyer et al., 1987). Similar to the findings of Jia and Lamming (2013), this study’s findings showed that most of the time cultural differences were recognized and understood in the early stage of the relationship (see case 1-14). Later, in the mature stage, adjustments were made and sometimes a learning effect could be determined. Therefore, generalizing the findings leads to the following proposition.

Proposition 2.1: Buyers mainly “understand” cultural differences in the early stage, and “adjust” or even “learn” from it in the mature stage as the relationship develops over time.

However, cases 1, 10 and 12 also showed that adjustments could already be made in the early stage of the relationship. That was because one had acquired cultural knowledge about a specific national culture in a previous relationship and applied it in the following. For instance, LA3 described it as follows: “As we are working frequently with a large supply base in

Germany, we do know and understand the cultural differences. For this reason, we already knew how Germans are and could already adjust in the early stage of the relationship.” By

looking at the existing literature, Weck and Ivanova (2013) also stated the possibility to use “second-hand knowledge” about a specific culture in order to adapt culturally already in the early stage of a relationship. However, they also emphasized that this should be handled with great caution as it might be based on “biased stereotypes” and thus, if interpreted wrongly, might affect the relationship negatively (Weck & Ivanova, 2013). Therefore, this leads to the following proposition.

(28)

28 In the cross-case analysis, it was stated that the adaptation level would not exceed the level of adjustment or learning. In the literature, on one hand, it is said that cultural differences should converge in cross-cultural business relationships; on the other hand, absolute conformity is not vital (Luthans & Doh, 2012). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) stressed that cultural differences should be reconciled to a certain point. They further stated that cultural differences can make a relationship favourable and therefore it is essential to adjust to one another but to still remain true to oneself (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Francis (1991) differentiated between moderate and substantial cultural adaptation. Whereas moderated adaptation implies to adapt only partly and thus maintaining one’s own culture, substantial adaptation implies to copy the other’s culture significantly. Thereby, Weck and Ivanova (2013) found that a “moderate” level of cultural adaptation is the most suitable approach. This is consistent with the cultural adaptation process, where the highest level of adaptation is to learn from another culture and only integrate elements of a different culture, but to not fully imitate it (Lin, 2004). This was supported by LA2: “But on the other side, you can also not completely

change yourself because from my experience I know that relationships where the cultures fit, working together is not a problem and you can work well together.”

Proposition 2.3: No cultural group will entirely imitate the business partner’s culture and will only adapt culturally at a moderate level.

5.3 Effects of Cultural Adaptation and Differences

Furthermore, the cross-case analysis revealed that every interviewee perceived that cultural adaptation is enhancing the buyer-supplier relationship. In the existing literature this phenomenon has also been observed. Especially better mutual understanding and communication were named as improvements (Alteren & Tudoran, 2019; Parkhe, 1991). Lin (2004, p. 37) stressed that cultural adaptation leads to “improved interpersonal relationship and enhanced ongoing reactions”. Moreover, Voldnes and Grønhaug (2015) found out that whether cultural adaptation is bilateral or unilateral, it will lead to a successful relationship. Overall, this is supported by MA3: “If you adapt […] you have a better relationship and a better

(29)

29 Proposition 3.1: Cultural adaptation can be expected to lead to relationship improvement regardless of the adaptation’s extent and whether it is bilateral or unilateral.

The cross-case analysis revealed that in the past buyer-supplier relationships was damaged, almost failed or failed due to the lack of understanding the business partner’s culture or not being aware of the cultural differences’ existence. This finding is supported by Tung (1987) who claimed that misunderstanding cultural values and the way of working can be a reason for relationship deterioration and failure. However, previous research indicated that if a business relationship fails, several issues need to come together which was also emphasized by MA2:

“At the end it would be a shame to say we left the relationship because of a cultural difference. It can happen of course, but I would say that there are then more reasons than that.”

Beyond that, Luthans and Doh (2012) argued that managers, even though they have diverse cultural backgrounds, share equivalent beliefs and values towards the aspiration for success. This was also emphasized by LA1: “No, [I have not seen a relationship failing due to cultural

differences] because you both have the same interest. So, you have a common goal. Then you always find a way to create a win-win.”

Overall, the number of cases concerning failed relationships due to cultural differences was very low. This indicates that the possibility of a failure cannot be fully excluded but leads to the following proposition.

Proposition 3.2: It is unlikely that buyer-supplier relationships fail only because of cultural differences.

5.4 Managerial Implications

Not only did this study provide theoretical implications but also managerial implications. Firstly, the study raised the awareness of the existence of cultural differences and stressed the need for cultural adaptation in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships. LA3 underlined this by saying that “cultural differences cause small details [differences] and sometimes you are

not aware of it. This means that sometimes you are not aware or do not notice or see that there is a cultural difference and then it is challenging to accept and understand the difference.”

(30)

30 briefly listed in Table 5.1. Thereby, a distinction was made between actions that can be taken on a personal or business level.

Additional actions

Personal level Business level

▪ Open-mindedness ▪ Cross-cultural trainings / seminars / guidelines

▪ Own education

(read about the other culture, take a course, learn by doing, be in contact with people from other cultures)

▪ International colleagues / teams ▪ Culturally specific contact persons / well-connected regional and central teams ▪ Switch contact person

Table 5.1: Additional actions

One additional recommendation regarding cross-cultural trainings was made by Stening and Hammer (1992), who claimed that it might be essential to not have standardized trainings for a specific culture, but also to take the cultural background of the person who receives the training into account. Thus, cross-cultural trainings should be tailored to both cultures.

Beyond that, cultural adaptation should not be seen as an one-time effort, but should rather be continuously. It can be challenging from now and then, but as R2 stated: “The more you do it

(31)

31

6 Conclusion

As globalization continues, buyer-supplier relationships will continue to be international and thus cross-cultural. Therefore, working together with business partners of a similar or dissimilar culture will not end, and companies need to acquire and apply skills and knowledge to actively deal with reconciling cultural differences.

The study aimed to investigate how buyers cope with cultural diversity in intercultural buyer-supplier relationships, more precisely by means of cultural adaptation. Thereby, the study offered a novel way to investigate cultural adaptation, namely through the lens of the three different cultural groups. Hence, the main finding was that if cultural differences are recognized in time, buyers, regardless of their cultural origin, adapt culturally. However, it appeared that the motivation in doing so is culturally conditioned. Whereas reactive buyers are highly likely to adapt culturally due to, among others, their communitarian values, linear-active and multi-active buyers also adapt culturally but might also consider the effort in comparison to the thereof resulting effect of cultural adaptation. Furthermore, the study determined that the extent of cultural adaptation does not exceed the adjusting or learning level, which means that buyers do not imitate the supplier’s culture completely, and thus do not lose their own culture but rather open themselves to the supplier’s culture. Therefore, positive effects of cultural differences, such as creativity, are also not lost.

Hence, the study discovered new insights about cultural adaptation as well as confirmed previous ones, and thus broadened the academic knowledge. Additionally, this study did not only discuss cultural adaptation as the sole action companies can undertake when conducting business with global business partners, but it also identified various other actions, such as cultural awareness trainings or the use of culturally specific contact persons, that companies can implement in the future.

6.1 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

(32)

(33)

33

References

Alteren, G., & Tudoran, A. A. (2019). Open-Mindedness and Adaptive Business Style: Competences that Contribute to Building Relationships in Dissimilar Export Markets.

International Marketing Review, 36(3), 365–390.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-08-2017-0142

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: International Press.

Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2017). An Overview of Hofstede-Inspired Country-Level Culture Research in International Business Since 2006. Journal of International

Business Studies, 48(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8

Bodla, A. A., Tang, N., Jiang, W., & Tian, L. (2018). Diversity and Creativity in Cross-National Teams: The Role of Team Knowledge Sharing and Inclusive Climate. Journal of

Management and Organization, 24(5), 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.34

Boscari, S., Bortolotti, T., Netland, T. H., & Rich, N. (2018). National Culture and Operations Management: A Structured Literature Review. International Journal of Production

Research, 56(18), 6314–6331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1461275

Brennan, D. R., & Turnbull, P. W. (1999). Adaptive Behavior in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.

Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 481–495.

Carnovale, S., Rogers, D. S., & Yeniyurt, S. (2016). Bridging Structural Holes in Global Manufacturing Equity Based Partnerships: A Network Analysis of Domestic vs. International Joint Venture Formations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,

22(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015.08.002

Cheung, M. S., Myers, M. B., & Mentzer, J. T. (2010). Does Relationship Learning Lead to Relationship Value? A Cross-National Supply Chain Investigation. Journal of Operations

Management, 28(6), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.01.003

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal

Cultural adaptation: The influence of cultural differences on buyer-supplier relationships A buyer’s perspective