Crossing cultural differences: the influence of biculturalism in boundary spanning

(1)

Crossing cultural differences:

the influence of biculturalism in

boundary spanning

Master Thesis

MSc. Supply Chain Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June 22nd_{, 2020}

Author: Daniel A.G. Staal Student number: S2344602

Email: staal.dag@me.com

Supervisor: dr. ir. N.J. Pulles Co-assessor: dr. ir. T. Bortolotti

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This research intends to uncover the mechanisms underlying the impact of

biculturalism of boundary spanners on international collaboration practices, in the context of differences in national culture between companies.

Method: This employs an exploratory multiple case study to analyze this phenomenon. Data

will be collected with semi structured interviews, after which the qualitative data will be analyzed using a coding scheme that is grounded in extant literature. Cases involve experts in international business in varying “level” of biculturalism.

Findings: As predicted, cases show similarity in their implications with respect to the

influence of biculturalism. Biculturalism and the associated bicultural competence are considered significant influences in boundary spanning, although some reservations were found on whether this bicultural influence was culture-specific or universally applicable.

Practical implications: The paper raises awareness on the potential of bicultural individuals

for boundary spanning positions. Furthermore, some actions are identified upon which managers can influence boundary spanning.

Originality/contribution: This research builds upon the existing knowledge base by

employing an in-depth focus on the influence of biculturalism in this matter. As such, this research will contribute to the existing literature by providing new insights into the phenomenon of boundary spanning. Furthermore, it derives a more generally applicable theoretical concept.

Keywords: Boundary spanning; national culture; cultural differences; biculturalism ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I am very grateful for the guidance of my supervisor and co-assessor, dr. ir. N.J. Pulles and dr. ir. T. Bortolotti respectively. More specifically, their patience was required more than once during the last three months. Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere gratitude

(3)

3 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ... 4 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 5 2.1 Definitions ... 5 2.2 Cultural differences ... 6 2.3 Boundary spanning ... 8 2.4 Biculturalism ... 10

2.5 Contribution of this research ... 12

3. METHODOLOGY ... 12

3.1 Research Design ... 12

3.2 Case selection ... 13

3.3 Data collection and instruments ... 15

3.4 Data Analysis ... 16 4. FINDINGS ... 24 4.1 Case: LA ... 24 4.2 Case: NLA ... 28 4.3 Cross-Case Analysis ... 31 5. DISCUSSION ... 33

5.1 Environmental factors – boundary spanning complexity ... 33

5.2 Impact of boundary spanning complexity ... 33

5.3 Bicultural competence – boundary spanning capabilities ... 35

5.4 Concept ... 38

5.5 Managerial implications & research recommendations ... 38

6. CONCLUSION ... 39

REFERENCES ... 40

APPENDIX ... 45

Appendix A: Interview Protocol ... 45

Appendix B: Coding trees case LA ... 53

(4)

4

1. INTRODUCTION

Activities in supply chain management are inherently international. This international nature makes dealing with differences in national culture inevitable. As the trend towards more globalization remains unprecedented in modern supply chains (SCs), relationships with suppliers and customers become vital (Carnovale, Rogers, & Yeniyurt, 2016). Maintaining these relationships has become very complex as boundaries of culture, industry or profession need crossing (Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011). People that can navigate multiple cultures as

boundary spanners could provide an advantage. This research intends to examine the possible contribution of biculturalism in overcoming cultural differences.

When companies operate internationally, collaboration with other SC partners is everywhere and can be performed by supply chain integration (SCI) (Huang, Han, & Macbeth, 2020). The concept of SCI has been defined as the extent of inter- and intra-organizational

collaboration of supply chain partners (Flynn, Huo, & Zhao, 2010). Barner-Rasmussen et al. (2014) defined boundary spanners as the individuals who facilitate this collaboration.

Differences in national culture, or cultural distance, could negatively influence integration practices by introducing more complexity (Huang, Yen, & Liu, 2014). Multiple authors mention the potential of so-called bicultural people in functioning as a bridge between two cultures (e.g.: Abbott, Zheng, Du, & Willcocks, 2013; Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Furusawa & Brewster, 2015).

Brannen and Thomas (2010) suggested that future research should examine the unique skills or abilities that biculturalism may have with respect to boundary spanning. Although recent work by Furusawa & Brewster (2019) has examined the unique capabilities of expats, this examination was done with an intra-organizational perspective and thus not covering the perspective of inter-organizational collaboration.

This research concerns the role of biculturalism of boundary spanners in mitigating potential negative effects of cultural distance. Globalization continuously gives rise to an

ever-increasing entanglement of international interests. In light of these intertwined interests, barriers to international collaboration should be actively removed (Durach & Wiengarten, 2019). Although prior work has presented boundary spanning as a remedy for problems due to cultural misfit, authors often neglect to inform on the complexity of the underlying

(5)

5

boundary spanning practices between firms from nations with different national cultures. Accordingly, this research intends to explore the following questions:

1) How does biculturalism of boundary spanners influence international collaboration between companies in the context of differences in national culture?

2) How do bicultural competences relate to boundary spanning capabilities?

To answer these questions, qualitative data from bicultural individuals who work with these cultural differences daily will be gathered using in-depth interviews. These interviews will provide new insights as to how biculturalism can affect supply chain relations by examining the impact on mitigation of cultural differences. The examination of bicultural boundary spanners as a potential solution for addressing these cultural differences will provide directions for future research.

This research aims at further exploring previous insights that indicated the enormous

potential for employees performing boundary spanning activities. The in-depth focus on the influence of biculturalism in this matter will provide new clues as to how managers can use these traits in practice. This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing new insights into the phenomenon of boundary spanning and provide clues to actions that managers can take to mitigate cultural differences.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This section will discuss extant literature to shed light on prior research development and sketch the environment for the current research. The literature research started with some scoping searches in order to gain a basic understanding on the subject and allowing identification of key issues in the field (Dundar & Fleeman, 2014). The final search of articles was done in multiple searches across multiple databases and with pre-determined keywords, using several inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles found were scanned and filtered for relevance.

2.1 Definitions

(6)

6

Concept Definition National

culture

When we discuss ‘culture’ as a concept in this thesis, then what is meant by culture exclusively is national culture, not organizational culture. National culture has been defined as a “set of shared values among people within a specific nation that distinguishes them from other nationalities” (Hofstede, 1980; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2017) (Boscari, Bortolotti, Netland, & Rich, 2018, p.6314).

Boundary spanners

Barner-Rasmussen et al. (2014, p. 887) provide a general definition for boundary spanners, stating they are “individuals who are perceived by other members of both their own in-group and/or relevant out-groups to engage in and facilitate significant interactions between the two groups (Adams, 1976; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Callister & Wall, 2001; Koveshnikov et al., 2012; Richter et al., 2006)”.

Biculturalism Recent work stated that biculturals are those “who, from birth or experience, are individuals who are capable in more than one culture” (Furusawa & Brewster, 2015, p.133). More specifically, biculturalism refers to individuals that function as a metaphorical bridge between two distinct cultures (Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011).

Table 2.1

2.2 Cultural differences

National culture and more specifically differences in national culture have been identified as crucial for firm operational outcomes in extant literature (Wong, Sancha, & Thomsen, 2017). This section will discuss literature on assessing cultural differences and subsequently the execution of firm operations across cultural boundaries.

2.2.1 Assessment of culture

(7)

7

Another example of a similar, more recent model is the Global Leadership and

Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project (GLOBE) (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). This model is an extension of Hofstede’s work, seven of the nine dimensions are similar to his, the only unique ones are performance orientation and humane orientation. For the purpose of our research, we will use the GLOBE Project approach since this is the latest, most up-to-date model in use. Furthermore, most recent research is based on GLOBE (Boscari et al., 2018), making it the preferred option. Although this research will not employ the specific dimensions to a great extent, they will enable determining whether significant cultural differences are at hand.

2.2.2 Cultural differences and international collaboration

Supply chain integration comes in many different forms, and has been defined in different contextual settings (Durach & Wiengarten, 2019). It is essentially a form of extensive collaboration between companies, potentially extending the scale from a single dyad of two companies, to integrating a complete chain (Huang et al., 2020). Table 2.2 shows two SCI dimensions incorporated in the operations management literature and the implications with respect to differences in national culture.

SCI dimension Implications regarding cultural differences

Width - Relatively high spread results in more information exchange (Wiengarten & Longoni, 2015)

Depth - Cultural conflict could pose problems at all levels (Huang et al., 2020).

- Cultural differences lead to more complexity in collaborative practices (Huang et al., 2020).

Table 2.2

The width, or spread, of integration refers to the portion of a supply chain that is involved in the integration (Wiengarten & Longoni, 2015). Logically, a higher spread would imply that more different companies are involved in the SCI practice. If cultural differences are present, it would imply more impact. SCI depth is commonly seen as the level on which the

(8)

8

Longoni, 2015). Coordinative practices are concerned with coordinating the flow of information, material and cash, whereas collaborative practices are about working

collaboratively in order to improve (van der Vaart, van Donk, Gimenez, & Sierra, 2012). In conclusion, one would expect more impact of culture when there is a higher spread of activities. Furthermore, variations in SCI depth, as reflected in the level on which collaboration takes place, would not imply an expected increase in impact of cultural differences (Huang et al., 2020)

2.3 Boundary spanning

This section will discuss the relevant scientific literature on boundary spanning. It will start by providing an overview of literature on boundary spanning theory, after which the activities in boundary spanning will be discussed. In conclusion, issues with respect to the adopted perspective will be reviewed.

2.3.1 Boundary spanning theory

Boundary spanning theory stems from two theoretical streams of research; open systems theory and role theory (Johnson & Duxbury, 2010). In a nutshell, firms are open systems that need to adapt to their environment and boundary spanners perform the role of necessary “transactions” with external systems. While open systems theory refers to the constant need for adapting to external forces through boundary spanners, role theory refers to the link between micro-level boundary spanning behavior and macro-level organizational boundary spanning outcomes (Johnson & Duxbury, 2010). The latter shows the importance of

individual boundary spanners, as there is a valid theoretical link between individual boundary spanners and firm-level outcomes.

2.3.2 Boundary spanning activities

(9)

9

Function Definition

Exchanging Exchange of information or knowledge of individual employees taking place during the execution of their job in both formal and informal settings (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Johnson & Duxbury, 2010; Mäkelä & Suutari, 2013).

Linking Boundary spanners use their network to establish relationships across boundaries, between groups or individuals (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014).

Facilitating Boundary spanners assist in interaction of others across borders through interpretation or channeling of information (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014).

Intervening Boundary spanners actively influence interactions to create beneficial outcomes (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014).

Table 2.3

While exchanging and linking are relatively straightforward, facilitating and intervening are more sophisticated and complex (Rasmussen et al., 2014). Furthermore, Barner-Rasmussen et al. (2014) have identified cultural and language skills as prerequisites for these functions. Although it is shown that these individual capabilities are associated with

organizational outcomes, this is done for inter-unit boundary spanning within organizations.

2.3.3 Inter- versus intra-organizational

Most prior research considers intra-organizational borders in their boundary spanning research spanning (e.g. Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Furusawa & Brewster, 2019; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011). For instance, Yagi & Kleinberg (2011)

published interesting conclusions on the emergence of hybrid cultures in negotiating across cultural differences. Other work suggested that these negotiated cultures, that arise within and between organizations, are more relevant than differences in national cultures (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). However, their research did not include boundary spanning between organizations.

(10)

inter-10

organizational outcomes with respect to bicultural boundary spanning might be different. Other influential work in boundary spanning literature identified important prerequisites for boundary spanning capabilities in language and culture skills (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014). These properties are context-specific, so it would be interesting to examine whether they are the same in the SCI context, as opposed to the intra-firm context.

There is some research that incorporates the inter-organizational perspective, but it concerns mainly risks (Kane & Levina, 2017; Ramarajan, Bezrukova, Jehn, & Euwema, 2011) or specific relational antecedents such as trust or conflict (Liu, Gould, Rollins, & Gao, 2014; Macduffie & Helper, 2007; Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003). Although work by Hong (2010) does examine inter-organizational boundary spanning in relation to bicultural competences, it focusses on outcomes for teams and not organizations. Other work on inter-organizational boundary spanning capabilities of bicultural individuals has a focus on

leveraging these capabilities into firm outcomes (C. Zhang, Wu, & Henke, 2015). Therefore, there is a need for research on inter-organizational boundary spanning that explores

mechanisms behind specific bicultural traits that mitigate cultural differences.

2.4 Biculturalism

This section will discuss prior research on biculturalism and on bicultural boundary spanners. Although historically it was thought that humans could only adopt a single cultural identity, nowadays research has shown that people can internalize multiple cultures. People who are considered bicultural show great potential for organizations by improving their effectiveness in operating globally (Hong, 2010).

2.4.1 Sources of biculturalism

People are considered bicultural when they possess distinct knowledge on two cultures (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014). This biculturalism can come from three sources:

1) Migration (Furusawa & Brewster, 2015) 2) Expats as a result of assignment

3) Self-initiated expats.

Migration can be for e.g. work opportunities or education; it will lead to a form of bicultural identity in a similar way (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Furthermore, descendants from

(11)

11

bicultural people are becoming the recommended choice for global work (Johnson & Duxbury, 2010). Especially for situations where cross-cultural communication is crucial, bicultural individuals are used because of their boundary spanning capabilities (Abbott et al., 2013; Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011).

2.4.2 Bicultural capabilities

There have been quite some developments in this stream of research. Whereas earlier work by Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu (2006) recognized specific bicultural capabilities, their definitions were specifically aimed at certain cultural contexts. Thus, identified bicultural skills and knowledge were only relevant in specific situations. Later work suggested that flexibility and boundary spanning were two crucial parts of bicultural competence (Friedman & Liu, 2009). Although they introduced a new way of looking at bicultural competence, it was still culture-specific and lacked universal applicability. Later work by Brannen & Thomas (2010) identified so-called culture-general skills. Prior research by Hong (2010) has proposed a definition for the idea of bicultural competence, combining both culture-specific and culture-general factors:

“Bicultural competence is a bicultural’s ability to draw upon cultural knowledge and cross-cultural abilities (such as adapting one’s behavior and communicating across cultures) to effectively switch cultural frames and apply cultural metacognition to disparate cultural contexts in order to work successfully with people from different cultural backgrounds toward a desired organizational outcome.” (p.96)

(12)

12

2.5 Contribution of this research

In conclusion, there has been a lot of research on the potential for bicultural capabilities and its implications in intra-organizational boundary spanning. The following question remains: what are the underlying mechanisms for these unique capabilities in the context of

international collaboration? It remains unclear how bicultural people draw on specific traits or skills to span global boundaries (Kane & Levina, 2017). This research intends to fill that gap and to examine how bicultural competence as defined by Hong (2010) ultimately could lead to improving boundary spanning activities as shown in table 2, in the context of mitigating cultural differences between companies.

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter intends to discuss the methods employed in this research. More specifically, it shows the detailed description of the process and choices that ultimately lead to the scientific method that is employed for this specific research question. As such, this section provides transparency in order to promote the exact, empirical and conceptual replication of this research (Aguinis & Solarino, 2019). Furthermore, a blueprint of the research framework is given, linking the data that this work intends to collect, conclusions that can be drawn based on this data and the initial questions as clarified in the theoretical background (Yin, 1994).

3.1 Research Design

(13)

13

3.2 Case selection

The units of analysis will be boundary spanners with significant experience in dealing with cultural differences. They either have lived abroad long enough to develop bicultural traits or who are descendants of migrants or have experience with people that can be identified as biculturals. The research setting will be companies that work collaboratively with companies from other countries. For building theory with a case study, replication logic should be employed (Voss et al., 2016). The cases are selected for literal replication, so similar results are predicted across the cases. Two cases have been selected for this research. The first includes people who have lived abroad for at least a year, capturing biculturalism in different “strengths”. The second case involves people who have not lived abroad but have experience with working with bicultural individuals. For simplicity, the first case is called LA (lived abroad) and the second NA (not lived abroad). For an overview of the selection criteria for the cases, see table 4. The impact of these different contexts will be thoroughly analyzed. The dissimilarity of contexts adds to the external validity of this research.

Criteria LA NLA

Lived abroad for at least 1 year x -

Experience in boundary spanning position

x x

Experience with bicultural individuals

x x

Table 3.1

(14)

14

Interviewee Case Description

P1 LA The educational background constitutes of a study in mechanical engineering and mining engineering at the Delft University of Technology. P1 has over 30 years of experience in International business in various positions. Most previous positions are managerial positions, mainly in operations management. After working in various industries, such as the oil industry, industrial piping systems and high-quality plastics, the current activities no longer concern with operational involvement.

P2 NLA While educated in Economics and Business at Nyenrode, P2 considers himself more of an operational marketeer. P2 has over 30 years of experience in a wide range of countries all over the world. After starting in the Netherlands at a company that produced professional coffee machines, P2 was involved with various other industrial companies. Current employment is at a company that produces

professional printing presses for industrial use. Responsible for industrial customers in the Benelux, Africa and the Middle East.

P3 NLA Educational background in mechanical engineering. Started his career at a multinational information technology (IT) company in America, after which P3 continued to work in international IT companies. P3 has over 20 years of international experience in business. Furthermore, has experience in the energy sector, after having worked in another multinational software company that produced software for client companies in the oil industry. His last function was chief commercial officer at that software company, for which he frequently worked with companies of a different national culture.

P4 LA Educated in Business & Economics at the University of Groningen and in Lausanne. Extensive international experience in various companies, mostly in the chemical industry. P4 had various positions in management, function titles include managing director, vice president chemicals, commercial manager, all of which in a

commercial and industrial environment in the international context. Most recent position was managing director at a European subsidiary of a worldwide producer of organic pigments.

P5 LA Education includes International Applied Business Administration. Significant international experience, as P5 has lived and worked in various countries. Had an internship position at a leading supplier of plastic systems and solutions in Europe. Furthermore, P5 studied in Asia as part of her curriculum.

(15)

15

Interviewee Case Description

P6 NLA Education started with Economics & Business Economics in Groningen. Pursued Accountancy in Rotterdam, after which P6 started his career at a leading consultancy firm. After some years, P6 started working independently as a financial manager for various companies. Over the years, P6 has worked in a variety of countries and accumulated significant international experience. Current position constitutes the position of financial manager at a firm in Germany.

P7 LA After being born and raised in Russia, P7 moved to the Netherlands. Educational background is in international business and management. Has extensive experience in working internationally in an industrial setting. Currently employed at a company that produces industrial machinery. As a regional sales director, P7 is responsible for sales in Scandinavia, Russia and Ukraine.

P8 LA Educational background in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Business

Administration. Over 30 years of experience in working internationally, whilst living in various countries in Asia. Currently employed as the Managing Director for the Asia/Pacific region. Extensive commercial experience in a commercial setting. Over the years, P8 has had various positions that included responsibility for certain regions or countries. During that time, he has made himself familiar with various local contexts and cultures.

P9 NLA Educational background in Structural Engineering. Over the years, P9 has developed very extensive experience in working internationally, as he has always looked for jobs that include the multinational aspect. Current job title is technical sales

manager, in which P9 combines his specific technical knowledge with his preference for commercial orientation by providing the necessary technical know-how to the sales staff. As such, P9 travels abroad frequently to meet with customers and assess their demands and contextual aspects.

Table 3.2 (continued) 3.3 Data collection and instruments

(16)

16

3.4 Data Analysis

All interview recordings are transcribed. The resulting document together with additional remarks with respect to the case in question provide a case narrative, of which an overview can be found in Appendix B. Transcripts and other documentation will be coded using Atlas.ti software while adhering to the well-established coding scheme, as suggested by Corbin & Strauss (2008). This scheme involves three steps (Saldaña, 2009):

1) Open coding: the process of developing categories based on properties or dimensions, ultimately leading to concepts

2) Axial coding: regroup and link categories logically

3) Selective coding: selecting a fundamental category and relate it to other categories Ultimately, this exploratory research intends to obtain an abstract model of reality, deriving a more generally applicable theoretical concept. The process through which this concept is derived using coding is shown in Figure 1.

(17)

17

Based on this coding process, the within-case and cross-case analysis will involve

systematically creating arrays of the data. More specifically, within-case analysis will provide individual characteristics or unique traits of bicultural boundary spanners, whereas the cross-case analysis will enable identifying recurring patterns that will lead to new insights as to the mechanisms underlying the influence of biculturalism on boundary spanning. In addition, the identification of patterns in the cross-case analysis will enhance the generalizability of the conclusions in this research (Voss et al., 2016).

For coding, this researched employed the coding scheme as depicted in Table 3.3. The first column shows the code groups that are employed, the second shows the subgroups if applicable, the third entails the codes and the last column depicts an example of a quotation that has been labeled by the respective code. The last column shows a reference to literature with which these codes have been determined. Some of the codes have been created during the data collection based on notions by participants. If that is the case, the last column states “added later”. The examples in the coding scheme underpin the descriptions on codes and groups given in the next paragraph, while the references to literature ground them in existing research. Coding trees for case LA are shown in Appendix B and coding trees for case NLA are depicted in Appendix C.

All codes within the group “bicultural competence” refer to some personal skill or competence that has been developed as a (partial) result of biculturalism or has been influenced by it. E.g. the code “cultural frame switching” refers to the ability of people to switch between cultural settings and adapt their behavior accordingly (Hong, 2010). While the code “source of biculturalism” seems to be not a clear-cut skill or competence, the source is found to be having an influence on the motivation of people to adjust to cultural settings, as has been stretched in work by Brannen & Thomas (2010). The codes in “boundary spanning capabilities” refer to more general abilities that are needed in boundary spanning activities. Some of these abilities can be influenced by biculturalism and are thus coded in both “bicultural competence” and “boundary spanning capabilities”.

(18)

18

(2010). Organizational aspects refer to aspects within one of the organizations involved in the boundary spanning activities. An example is the impact of organizational culture on boundary spanning activities, as has been examined by Perrone et al. (2003).

(19)

Code group

Code subgroup

Code Example quote Literature

B icul tu ral com p et en ce Cultural frame switching

P6: “He can easily switch between acting like an Irishman and an American, according to the requirements in a situation.”

(Hong, 2010)

Cultural metacognition

P4: “Recognition of certain situations evolving due to cultural differences is crucial. That is something that comes with experience.”

(Hong, 2010)

Empathy P3: “If you can show empathy for people who endure fasting in Ramadan time, you will gain benefits as they respect you for respecting their religious beliefs.”

(Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Mäkelä & Suutari, 2013)

Language P2: “Local language is very important sometimes. A lot of customers are not proficient in English, so you need an interpreter or agent.”

(Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014)

Local knowledge P6: “He has a lot of knowledge on the way things are done over there.” (Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011)

Openness P8: “If you are not receptive for cultural differences, then it will turn out to be a failure.” Added later

Social skills P1: “His social skills are very good. I think that that is very important, maybe even more important than technical skills.”

Source of biculturalism

P6: “Another example is an Irish man I met in America. He is bicultural as well, has lived in America for a long time.”

(Brannen & Thomas, 2010)

(20)

20 Code group

B ou n d ar y sp an n in g cap a b il it ies

Boldness P6: “There are limits to that though. Sometimes you have to remain oriented towards the objective and be bold in your decision. You do not like it? Fine, then go.”

Added later

Cultural frame switching

P5: “The ability to adjust is essential in intercultural settings. Then you can switch more easily towards the appropriate setting.”

(Hong, 2010)

Cultural metacognition

P7: “After a period of working internationally, you start to pick up elements of culture here and there. You basically accumulate some form of cultural experience, which helps in future endeavors.”

(Hong, 2010)

Empathy P9: “I think it is really important to have a feeling for it, to show empathy for other people.” (Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Mäkelä & Suutari, 2013) Intellect P2: “Some customers also do not understand business improvements by lack of education. Their

education is often limited, so you need to work around that.”

(Hong, 2010)

Language P5: “Language says a lot about culture. Therefore, by learning language, you can obtain important knowledge on local peculiarities.”

Local knowledge P3: “What would be something I would do different now based on experience, is I would contact other European companies who have already worked in that environment, to use their experience and knowledge to prevent mistakes early on! Thus, collaborate with other companies, who have already learned a lot on the local way of doing business.”

(Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011)

(21)

B ou n d ar y sp an n in g cap a b il it ies (c on tin u ed )

Openness P5: “An open mind and positive mindset seem really nice, but if that's really different from the way people behave generally in a country it becomes difficult to find common grounds from which to cooperate.”

Added later

Social skills P3: “And in addition, their ability to connect with a lot of different people.” (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014)

Trust P4: “Trust is very important, even more so in specific industries. Think of the implications of a recall of products for the wrong chemicals used in pigments for food packaging. You would want a trustworthy reputation among your customer companies to secure business.”

(Macduffie & Helper, 2007; Perrone et al., 2003) B ou n d ar y sp an n in g co m p lexit y

Agent quality P2: “And let us put it diplomatically, the quality of agents varies to some extent. In other words, some agents do not understand what they are doing and are in fact traders, while others constitute of serious companies that rival our company even in size.”

(Perrone et al., 2003)

Agent use P3: “For example, in Kuwait we wanted to enter the market with little to no local contacts. If you want to start from scratch, that could take ages. Then, using agents could provide an advantage.”

Communication aspects

P8: “Cultural differences have a great impact on the way people communicate” (Zhang & Cao, 2018)

Level of activities

P4: “I mainly engaged in boundary spanning activities on a tactical and operational level.” (Huang et al., 2020)

Nature of activities

P2: “I am not just exchanging information; I am really collaborating with them. And you need to give them that feeling as well.”

(22)

E n vironm en tal fac tor s Cul tu ral d if fe re n ce s

Cultural parallels P7: “I think being bicultural helps a lot in working internationally, though not everywhere in the world. It depends on the parallels with your known cultures as well. For instance, I would not know where to start in Asia!”

(Hong, 2010)

Differences in norms and values

P1: “A different environment, the norms and values are quite different from all those other countries where I have worked before.”

(Furusawa & Brewster, 2019)

Hierarchy P9: “They would prefer not saying no at all. Especially when superiors are involved. Even if something would be technically impossible.”

(Macduffie & Helper, 2007)

Hybrid culture P3: “I think cultural differences are kind of fading due to globalization. Professionals start speaking the same language, so to speak, and create their own culture.”

(Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011)

Religion P2: “Do not forget about religion, that is also quite important. For instance, you have to consider the Ramadan, which has just passed. You have to keep that in mind when working in e.g. Turkey.”

Added later Organi zat ion al as p ec ts Cultural background employees

P3: “We used people intentionally for their cultural background. Chinese bicultural? Comes in handy for negotiations with Chinese companies. Same goes for other countries. We do this especially when operating in new environments.”

(Abbott et al., 2013)

Decision making P6: “They are very slow in their decision making.” Added later

(23)

E n vironm en tal fac tor s (c on ti n u ed ) Organi zat ion al as p ec ts (c on tin u ed ) Organizational culture

P3: “Corporate culture is also of great influence, which kind of mediates the impact of cultural differences. So, when you are working as an expat for, say Shell, then you will uphold the Shell culture, irrespective of where you are at that moment.”

Organizational structure

P2: “Otherwise you're dependent on people, who can leave the company one day. So, you need to put it into the structure.”

(Barmeyer & Davoine, 2019)

Reward structure P1: “Absolutely, it's about rewarding good work. It is not necessarily just about compensation in the form of salary.”

Added later S tr u ct u ral d if fe re n ce

s Government P1: “The government is also an issue. You have to pay local taxes.” (Ramarajan et al., 2011)

Market structure P6: “You have to account for the circumstances in the market as well. They might change and require action regardless of cultural differences.”

(Furusawa & Brewster, 2018)

(24)

4. FINDINGS

This chapter will discuss all findings. The first section considers the within-case findings for the LA case, while the second section concerns the within-case findings for the NLA case. In the last section, this chapter concludes with a cross-case analysis. For clarity, both the within-case findings and the cross-within-case will follow a similar structure, although the cross-within-case analysis will include the relationships between concepts to examine the underlying relationships.

4.1 Case: LA

In this section, the findings will be discussed with respect to the LA case. The analysis starts with showing the notions of participants with respect to cultural differences. Then, participant experiences in boundary spanning will be discussed. The section concludes with a discussion on their view on biculturalism and boundary spanning capabilities. Coding trees for the LA case can be found in Appendix B, showing groundedness of the used codes and providing an overview of the conceptual background.

4.1.1 Environmental factors

With respect to cultural differences, the codes “hierarchy”, “differences in norms and values” and “cultural parallels” show sufficient grounding within case LA. For organizational

aspects, only the code “decision making” shows sufficient grounding, while within structural differences only the code “market structure” is noted enough.

P1 provides numerous examples of cultural differences. E.g., referring to his experience in Russia, he states “These people need very direct instructions, as they tend to keep looking to

their superiors for guidance”, which is a reflection upon the difference in which people

adhere to hierarchy in different countries. Similarly, as P4 notes, differences in norms and values are persistent between Asian countries and Western countries: “Asian people tend to

always say yes, which makes it hard for Dutch people to work with them, as the Dutch tend to be really direct.”. This indicates a significant impact of differences in norms and values on

boundary spanning, as it could lead to conflicts.

P7, when asked about the universality of the impact of his biculturalism: “I think being

bicultural helps a lot in working internationally, though not everywhere in the world. It depends on the parallels with your known cultures as well. For instance, I would not know where to start in Asia!”. The last quote clearly indicates that P7 believes that biculturalism

(25)

25

Therefore, P7 believes that a form of cultural parallels is required for biculturalism to be effective in the context of boundary spanning.

While the literature shows no relevant reference to decision making as an influential factor in this context, several interviewees have indicated it as a significant input in the boundary spanning process. Some indicate that there is a difference in the speed and precision with which companies make decisions in collaboration, as captured in the following quote from P4: “The Dutch wanted to go too fast, as the Dutch trading mentality clearly did not match to

the German long-term orientation and precise mentality. As a result, it did not work.”. P4

provides an example in which working across boundaries failed as a direct result from a mismatch in decision making processes.

P1 has experienced the consequences of specific market characteristics in the field, as the people he worked with had a similar mindset as a result of market structures over there: “On

the contrary, Sweden has a lot of industry. As a result, people have a sort of business mindset, just like the mindsets in e.g. the Netherlands or Germany, which meant a similar way of communicating.”. In this case, the consequences were positive, as there was a

similarity in their way of working, which in the end contributed towards a successful boundary spanning activitiy as it decreased complexity.

4.1.2 Boundary spanning complexity

Except for quality of agents, all codes in this group were grounded sufficiently within LA. With respect to boundary spanning experience, P1’s activities were often complex and included active participation, and when shown an adapted version of table 2, he identifies his boundary spanning activities as intervening, as reflected upon in more detail in the following quote within “nature of activities”: “Make good agreements. You should even make the

minutes by yourself and send them around. Then, after a month, you visit again and reflect on the progress towards those agreements. Make a new plan of action.”. P1 reflects upon the

effectiveness of more active roles in boundary spanning, such as intervening or facilitating. He believes that this complex nature of activities is best for dealing with cultural differences. Local knowledge is deemed crucial by participants in LA in practice, as shown in the

following example of P4, where he learned about ceremonial requirements in an event: “At

one time, I organized the first three days of a seminar in India. Involving my local agent, he stressed the importance of ceremonial activities e.g. flags and so on.”. This is an interesting

(26)

26

knowledge and without this, P1 would have been unable to organize this seminar properly with respect to the local cultural requirements. However, it seems that there is a downside:

“There is a disadvantage of using agents in that their knowledge and experience stay outside the company”, as P7 notes. As such, the affect of the use of agents on complexity in

boundary spanning activities seems ambiguous, while the impact of local knowledge is not. With respect to communication, quotes were either concerned with the information being communicated or with the way of communicating. An example of an issue with respect to contents is brought to the table by P1: “This may have been partially caused by not involving

the employees in company affairs. They were not informed with respect to the financial situation.”. An example of issues on the way of communicating, as stated by P8: “Now with the corona virus, maintaining relationships has become a bit harder. People here are not used to remote working yet or lack the infrastructure that is needed.”. These are examples in

communication that could lead to more complexity, as it is either hard to transfer the information or problematic in determining the right contents to the correct recipients.

4.1.3 Bicultural competence

All 8 codes within the bicultural competence category are grounded in the interviews within LA. In the analysis for bicultural competence we will focus on mainly cultural metacognition, cultural frame switching, source of biculturalism, language and local knowledge, as literature has identified these as the main determinants of bicultural competence (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Hong, 2010; Yagi & Kleinberg, 2011). Furthermore, the analysis on boundary spanning capabilities later will include other important factors such as empathy, openness and social skills, which are incorporated in both categories.

An example showing the universally applicable skills is a quote from P1: “You can bridge

cultural differences if you are able to move and adjust everywhere easily.”. In this example,

P1 stipulates that flexibility, in other words cultural frame switching in this context, is a crucial capability in crossing cultural boundaries. Others indicate that these skills are more culture-specific, as P7 points out in his quote on cultural parallels in section 4.2.1.

Furthermore, P7 thinks that the impact of biculturalism depends on the “level of

biculturalism” involved, and used a personal example to show that: “It is also dependent on

(27)

27

someone who has no connection there at all.”. Thus, P7 implies that the level of bicultural

competence is dependent on the nature or source of biculturalism.

With respect to language, P1 notes: “There is a problem due to language. You do not speak

the local language, and the locals are not proficient in English, so you always require an interpreter.”. While P1 eleborates on an example in which language is problematic, it

becomes clear that the following logic holds: by developing significant skills in language, one can prevent such a problematic situation. In addition, as P8 points out: “Within language, you

learn a great deal on the local culture as well. So, yeah that is important”. So, P8 indicates

that the impact of language is twofold: not only does it have implications on communication but it also leads to a further increase in local knowledge. Furthermore, P8 thinks that local knowledge can prevent conflicts on culture: “These conflicts tend to be caused by a lack of

understanding the local context.”. In conclusion, language seems a significant predictor for

boundary spanning capabilities.

4.1.4 Boundary spanning capabilities

First, 8 out of 11 codes within boundary spanning capabilities were found sufficiently grounded within LA. P1 states: “In my opinion it is very important to be approachable, that

you listen well, respect people and value them.”. While P1 does not link this explicitly to

biculturalism, he thinks that nonetheless empathy is a crucial competence to possess for collaboration across cultural boundaries.

With respect to a bicultural individual, with whom P1 had extensive professional experience, he notes: “His social skills are very good. I think that that is very important, maybe even

more important than technical skills.”. P5 agrees: “Social skills are really important in advancing towards people”. In addition, as was found during the interviews, it seems that

receptiveness or openness towards other cultures is constitutes the first step in building relationships, trust and even cultural experience. As P8 points out: “Some people will not

accumulate that level of experience. They simply are not open to it, or receptive.”. So, in

conclusion, soft skills, as captured by empathy, openness and social skills, are very important boundary spanning capabilities.

P4 has experience with trust in international business: “Trust is very important, even more so

(28)

28

among your customer companies in order to secure business.”. As ultimately, the objective

of boundary spanning would be to create value, trust is an important factor to keep hold of.

4.2 Case: NLA

In this section, the within-case findings with respect to the NLA case are discussed, following the same structure as the previous section. All associated coding trees for NLA can be found in Appendix C.

Virtually all codes within this category were reviewed by the experts in the NLA case as relevant with respect to boundary spanning. In the first place, in cultural differences all codes were sufficiently grounded. Secondly, in organizational aspects all codes were shown to have enough grounding except for reward structure and organizational structure. Finally, with respect to structural differences, the influence of government did not show grounding at all. Most codes in the subgroup cultural difference link to similar quotations, that all lead to a somewhat more complex environment in which to operate, as P3 notes in this example: “You

also must account for e.g. the Ramadan. This differs a lot from country to country. In Oman, people are quite strict as opposed to Qatari, who are bit less stringent on the rules and regulations.”. As religion provides yet another locality to account for in your behaviour,

boundary spanning activities become more complex to execute. Two clear exceptions on this rule are cultural parallels and hybrid culture. P6 notes on cultural parallels: “You have an

advantage as bicultural, but mostly only for those specific countries.” This implies that if

cultural parallels apply, this creates a less complex environment for boundary spanning activities. Furthermore, when referring to hybrid culture, interviewees tend to view the impact of cultural differences as diminishing, as international business activities tend to show various cultural influences creating a second, hybrid culture. As P3 puts this: “I think cultural

differences are kind of fading due to globalization. Professionals start speaking the same language, so to speak, and create their own culture.”. In other words, this would imply less

impact of cultural aspects on complexity for boundary spanning activities, as the participants move towards eachother in terms of cultural distance.

Most codes within the subgroup of organizational aspects refer to something than can be used to decreasing boundary spanning complexity. An example is given by P3 on the cultural background of employees: “We used people intentionally for their cultural background.

(29)

29

other countries. We do this especially when operating in new environments.”. As such,

making use of the cultural background of employees or e.g. organizational culture could be an effective countermeasure against complexity. On the other hand, decision making was seen in the NLA case as a significant factor increasing complexity. P6 notes that sometimes speed varies: “They are very slow in their decision making.”. Another perspective on decision making is that in some cultures, it is unclear who is actually deciding. P3 states on that matter: “The one you are negotiating with, is not necessarily the one calling the shots.

You must really know who's in front of you.”. In conclusion, both differences in speed and

ambiguity on decision making authority could lead to problems in boundary spanning, thus resulting in more complexity. Furthermore,

P2 reflects upon the impact of the market structure when discussing cultural impact, as this is often influenced by a nation’s culture. He states: “I oversee the native market; the Benelux is

my domain. That is a developed market. However, I am also in charge of some exotic markets, such as Turkey, the Middle East and the whole continent of Africa, although the latter mainly consists of South Africa. Those are completely different worlds in terms of development.”. Therefore, significant differences in the market in which companies operate

will lead to different requirements as to how to engage in boundary spanning activities, e.g. due to differences in development.

All codes in this category showed sufficient grounding in the NLA case. P9 states that the nature of his boundary spanning activities usually was quite complex; “The activeness can be

seen in the activities involving translating both culture-specific and technical information so that other people were able to work with that intelligence.”. However, P3 sees a potential

solution for more support in complex boundary spanning activities: “For example, in Kuwait

we wanted to enter the market with little to no local contacts. If you want to start from

scratch, that could take ages. Then, using local agents could provide an advantage have local agents working for them in foreign countries.”. Although this seems to aid in doing those

complex activities, P2 sees a limit for the use of agents: “You do not want to have agents do

all the work, considering the big investment and stakes that are at play.”. Furthermore, as P2

notes, the quality of agents can vary as well: “And let's put it diplomatically, the quality of

(30)

30

which can partially be mitigate by using agents, depending on the stakes that are at play and the quality of the agent involved.

With respect to the level upon which boundary spanning takes place, P9 notes: “Although the

impact may be there on all levels, the way you deal with them really depends on that level. It is very different to deal with e.g. a mechanic as opposed to with the company CEO.” In other

words, the level impacts the way of performing boundary spanning activities, thus increasing or decreasing complexity dependent on the level. On communication issues with respect to the way of communicating, P6 reflects upon the necessity of physically going to customers:

“For gaining trust, it is important to physically go there, build relationships in person.” This

clearly could increase complexity, as the travel distance could be significant.

All codes within this category showed sufficient grounding within case NLA. This section and the next will follow the same structuring logic as sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, respectively. As such this section discusses cultural metacognition, cultural frame switching, source of biculturalism, language and local knowledge. P2 stipulates that just being bicultural, is not enough for bridging cultures: “Just being bicultural is not enough I think, then you are still

limited. It helps enormously to take part in globalization, to get to know multiple cultures as opposed to just two.”. So, the latter implies the existence of cultural metacognition as a

predictor for boundary spanning capabilities, which is not merely reserved for bicultural individuals.

P3 thinks that bi- or multiculturalism is especially relevant in complex boundary spanning activities due to the need for switching between cultural contexts: “Multicultural people have

an advantage in translating stuff from one cultural context to another. Especially in complex business situations, this could come in handy, when you need to actively influence the

process.”. On the other hand, as noted by P6, the nature of biculturalism may have an impact

on bicultural advantages: “Old fashioned expatriates, they would not see much of the local

culture at all. They would stay indoors behind closed gates in compounds.”. In conclusion,

while bicultural people are likely to be more flexible, one must consider the source of biculturalism, as this may not always be the case.

(31)

31

together with the remaining codes involving boldness and trust. Openness is deemed crucial by P9: “Furthermore, you have to be interested in other people and their cultural

background, be open for it!”. When asked about important capabilities, P3 answers: “And in addition, their ability to connect with a lot of different people.”. In addition, P6 notes on

empathy: “When you work with people, you have to constantly estimate the character of the

people on the other side.”. These three quotes illustrate the important role of soft skills in

boundary spanning, as boundary spanning involves maintaining relationships with other people.

P6 indicates that sometimes, there can be too much adjusting: “You can be too flexible as

well. You do not want to always "blow with all the winds" as they say in Holland. There should be a limit to that upon which people are bolder.”. This means that sometimes,

boundary spanners should not adjust continuously in their efforts to cross cultural boundaries. In the end, companies need results as well.

4.3 Cross-Case Analysis

In this section the two cases are compared, providing directions for discussion in the next chapter. This analysis will employ the same structure as was used the previous sections.

With respect to cultural differences, most findings are similar across the cases. There are two distinctions to be made. First, case LA does not recognize the influence of religion, while NLA does. Second, participants in case NLA include observations on the emergence of hybrid cultures, whereas participants in case LA do not.

Furthermore, on organizational aspects, findings in the LA case show that only decision making is a significant organizational aspect creating boundary spanning complexity. Interestingly, participants in the NLA case show a greater concern for organizational issues, as they consider the following influences relevant issues: cultural background of employees, organizational culture and decision making. As both cases do not include sufficient

grounding for organizational structure and reward structure, these influences can now be considered redundant in this research.

(32)

32

All codes within this category showed sufficient grounding across the cases, except for agent quality, which was not recognized as significant by the participants in case LA. Both cases showed high similarity in their quotations with respect to aspects of boundary spanning complex. Virtually all participants noted that they recognized boundary spanning activities in their experience with an active nature. There were two exceptions, both in case LA. P5 notes that she sometimes prefers to use a more passive role: “Sometimes it is better to not actively

address the issues due to cultural differences. This just leads to confrontation. Just let it go, it will get better with time. In that sense, I took a passive role in boundary spanning sort of.”.

In turn, this implies that active boundary spanning activities could lead to conflicts. In addition, P4 notices that sometimes he needs linking activities, as he states: “International

acquisitions and new representations of our company required lots of linking activities, as building relationships across groups and individuals is very important in this context.”.

Although one could argue that the last example refers to a somewhat active role, but it is significantly less active than intervening or facilitating. On the other hand, as P7 notes, some do not like linking people at all: “I do not like to link other people so to speak. I want to be

involved myself. I like being in control, to prevent errors.”. The latter implies that there is a

link between control, or at least perceived control, and whether or not an activity can be considered as active.

All concepts in this category show sufficient grounding in both cases and show great similarity in terms of implications. However, there is an interesting difference. With respect to the source of biculturalism, there seems to be strong disagreement. While participants P1, P4 and P7 in case LA highlight the potentially positive implications of this source,

participants P3 and P6 indicate potentially negative effects. For example, P4 states:

“Biculturals must adapt in their personal lives as well!”. The latter implies a positive effect,

as having to adapt in your personal live leads to accumulating even more cultural metacognition which in turn is a boundary spanning capability. On the other hand, P6 provides another example, on expatriates: “Old fashioned expatriates, they would not see

much of the local culture at all. They would stay indoors behind closed gates in

compounds.”. Therefore, the influence of the source of biculturalism in boundary spanning

(33)

33

This construct shows a lot of similarity across the two cases. Although LA does not include sufficient participant observations on boldness, NLA does. These indicate that sometimes, people can become too flexible in their attempts to collaborate effectively. This, as P6 stresses, could lead to a hampered progress towards goals. On all other aspects in this

category, participants agree on their relevance with respect to boundary spanning capabilities.

5. DISCUSSION

For clarity, this chapter will follow the same structure as was used in the previous sections, though it includes the relationships between categories as well. Figure 2 at the end of this chapter provides an overview of the proposed relationships. This figure represents the proposed conceptual model. Besides discussing each derived code category considering previous work and expectations, each section will include propositions as well. The last section will present the theoretical model developed in this study, encompassing all the propositions in a conceptual model.

5.1 Environmental factors – boundary spanning complexity

Findings have shown that cultural differences, together with structural differences and organizational aspects, influence the complexity in which the boundary spanning activities take place. Virtually all factors in the subgroup cultural differences were validated across the two cases. Although the findings show insufficient support for some aspects in the subgroup structural differences and in the subgroup organizational aspects, some of them were in fact grounded. An example is the market structure, which is grounded in multiple interviews across the two cases. Furthermore, extant literature provides strong support for this structural aspect (Furusawa & Brewster, 2019). Additionally, within the subgroup organizational aspects, decision making is recognized as a determinant for complexity, resulting out of differences in speed or ambiguity in responsibilities.

Proposition 1: The environmental factors, as captured by organizational aspects, cultural differences and structural differences, can hamper international collaboration by creating a more complex environment for boundary spanning.

5.2 Impact of boundary spanning complexity

Boundary spanning complexity increases the need for specific capabilities. P3 states: “There

(34)

34

get mainly offshore locations on the same page with respect to processes and that all stakeholders agree? Then you must translate that to the software involved. This complex process can take up to a year.” This example clearly illustrates the need for specific

competences involving both metacultural cognition and flexibility. This places an additional increase in boundary spanning capability requirements. This is in line with expectations from the findings in the literature review, as Huang et al. (2020) found that a more collaborative nature of activities implies more complexity.

Although work by Huang et al. (2020) implied that the impact of cultural differences would take place irrespectively of the level on which collaboration occurs, some findings suggest otherwise. It is true that the impact is always there, but usually the level at which the collaboration takes place provides an additional increase in complexity, thus increasing the impact. This is confirmed in the following example from the field, as noted by P9: “Although

the impact may be there on all levels, the way you deal with them really depends on that level. It is very different to deal with e.g. a mechanic as opposed tothe company CEO.”.

Furthermore, more complex processes require more local knowledge, which in turn influences the need for boundary spanning competencies. This local, culture-specific

knowledge is accumulated through experience and through cross-cultural interaction (Hong, 2010). All interviewees reflected upon the accumulation of this cultural experience, stating that it could take years. As such, the extent of boundary spanning complexity is implied to have a serious impact on the need for bicultural competence, as reflected upon in the following proposition.

Proposition 2: The extent of boundary spanning complexity due to the environment influences the relationship between bicultural competence and boundary spanning

capabilities.

(35)

35

become less relevant: “I think cultural differences are kind of fading due to globalization.

Professionals start speaking the same language, so to speak, and create their own culture.”.

Although boundary spanning activities that include facilitating or intervening can be seen as more complex, these practices can enhance building inter-unit trust (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014). Furthermore, participating actively could improve relationship building (Johnson & Duxbury, 2010). Therefore, not all complexity in boundary spanning activities negatively impacts outcomes of collaboration. Moreover, the activities of exchanging or linking could also entail more beneficial outcomes by linking previously disconnected actors or making use of informal networks (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Mäkelä & Suutari, 2013). The latter is clearly visible in the following quote by P3: “She would have like an informal contact at the

other company, who she would send texts while we were in an official negotiation. This gave us a great deal of information on the progress we were making.”. Thus, in some cases, the

nature of boundary spanning activities can provide advantage.

In addition, the literature stated that the level upon which collaborative activities take place should not have an influence on the impact of cultural differences (Huang et al., 2020). As boundary spanning is a collaborative function, it would appear logical to assume the same reasoning holds for boundary spanning.

This leads to the next proposition, derived from both extant literature and confirmed in the findings.

Proposition 3: The nature and level of boundary spanning activities can positively influence the relationship between bicultural competence and boundary spanning capabilities.

5.3 Bicultural competence – boundary spanning capabilities

The findings show that biculturalism has potential in increasing boundary spanning

capabilities. Biculturals tend to be able to show more empathy, possess more social skills and show greater flexibility. The latter are three key properties that are required for successful boundary spanning capabilities, as shown in the codes for boundary spanning capabilities. Furthermore, the findings confirm a part of the model proposed by Hong (2010), who