National Culture and Management Control:

1

National Culture and Management Control:

A comparative analysis of cross-cultural perception between

expatriates and their local counterparts in the Netherlands and

Russia.

2

Table of content

2 Review of relevant theories ... 9

2.1 Culture ... 9

2.1.1 The concept of Culture ... 9

2.1.2 Value dimensions approach ... 9

2.1.3 Hofstede Framework of National Culture ... 10

2.2 Research Context... 12

2.2.1 Russia ... 12

2.2.2 The Netherlands ... 14

2.3 Management Control ... 16

2.4 Management Control and National Culture ... 18

2.5 Expatriate theory ... 19

2.5.1 Cross-cultural adjustment ... 20

2.5.2 Cross-cultural training ... 22

2.5.3 Expatriate’s selection ... 23

3 Method of research ... 25

3.1 Method of data collection ... 25

3.2 Method of data analysis ... 26

3.3 Reliability and Validity ... 26

4 Empirical findings ... 28

4.1 Cross-cultural perception and management control ... 28

4.1.1 The Dutch context ... 28

4.1.2 The Russian context ... 31

4.2 Expatriate adaptation ... 34

4.2.1 The Dutch context ... 34

4.2.2 The Russian context ... 36

3 5.1 Hofstede framework ... 38 5.2 Expatriate Adaptation ... 40 5.2.1 Expatriate adjustment ... 40 5.2.2 Training ... 41 5.2.3 Selection ... 42

5.3 National Culture and Management Control ... 42

6 Conclusion ... 45

6.1 Summary of results ... 45

6.2 Limitations and further research ... 46

List of references ... 48

Appendix 1 - Interview guide ... 57

Appendix 2 - List of participants ... 58

4

Abstract

5

Preface

In front of you is the result of my final research as a Master student at the Faculty of Business and Economics at Rijksuniversity of Groningen. This paper discusses the relationship between national culture and management control. To be more specific, I try to explore how the individual perception of cultural differences impacts professional interaction between the Dutch and the Russians. I think that the timing of writing this thesis makes it extra relevant. The year 2013 marked a 400 years friendship between the Netherlands and Russia and it received a lot of attention, though not always positive. However, this was not the reason why I chose this subject for my graduation research. My interest in studying culture could be traced back to 2002 when I first came to the Netherlands at the age of 15. I was born in Chechnya, which is a southern province of Russia, and have lived there for the first 15 years of my life. Before my arrival to the Netherlands I had no idea about the Dutch culture, not even a general idea of the country. During my first years in the Netherlands everything seemed new and different to me. I had to learn the Dutch language, get used to the local customs and figure out how to behave appropriately. Still, even after 11 years of living and studying in the Netherlands I continue to uncover things that are new to me. My own experience of living in two different countries, with their own cultural peculiarities, made me realize how similar and at the same time different people can be. It takes time and effort to be able to see the world through a different lens. But it is even more challenging to get others to do the same. Writing this master greatly improved my own understanding of the two cultures. I hope that you as a reader can learn from this work as well.

Completing this study successfully would not be possible without the support from a number of people, whom I am very thankful to. First of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Coen Heijes, for his guidance during the research process. He carefully read my work and provided me with constructive feedback. But, most importantly, he allowed me to figure out what I wanted to research and how I wanted to do it, even though this process was not without struggles. I would also like to thank my family and friends who supported and motivated me during the process of writing this thesis. Of course I also thank everyone who took time to participate in my study, both in the Netherlands and in Russia. Their input was invaluable for this study.

6

1 Introduction

In today’s global business environment Russia has become an attractive business partner for western countries. Rapid economic development following the collapse of the Soviet Union has attracted many western companies to enter the Russian market, the Netherlands being one of them. In 2011 imports from Russia to the Netherlands totaled 16.6 billion euros while exports to Russia equaled 6.4 billion euros, becoming the third largest destination for Dutch exports outside Europe after the US and China. In 2012, 10% of Dutch exporters seeking new markets targeted Russia as a potential new trade partner (Holland Trade and Invest, 2013). The interest towards the Netherlands has been growing among Russian companies as well. However, the attempts to establish a successful collaboration between the two countries have not been completely smooth. Perhaps a good illustration of how things can go wrong is the Bilateral Friendship Year between the Netherlands and Russia. Ironically, the year 2013 that was supposed to celebrate the longstanding economic and cultural ties between the two countries ended up being overshadowed by a series of incidents, from import bans to the arrest of Dutch Greenpeace activists. The list of incidents is too long and may not be relevant in the context of this thesis. This rather general example illustrates that good intentions are not necessarily sufficient to make a cross-national collaboration a success. It also illustrates the need to learn more about other cultures so this knowledge can be used to improve the future interaction. A better understanding of similarities and differences between the Dutch and the Russians might aid future attempts in establishing a successful collaboration.

The importance of studying and dealing with cultural differences has been recognized in the field of international management. The work of Geert Hofstede “Culture’s Consequences”, first published in 1980, has prompted a great stream of cross-cultural research. The study has produced cultural profiles for a large number of countries, including the Netherlands. However, the initial study by Hofstede did not include Russia. In subsequent years a number of scholars have made attempts at measuring the Russian culture using the Hofstede’s approach (see Bollinger, 1994; Naumov, 1996; Elenkov, 1998; Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). The findings from these studies have shown large variation. Measuring Russian culture has proven to be very difficult and any attempt to draw generalizable conclusions from previous research was said to suffer from low reliability. Despite the progress that has been made in studying the role of national culture in cross-cultural management between Russia and western countries the conclusions regarding the impact of cultural differences on cross-national working have often been contradictory (Gilbert, 2001). One of the reasons is the tendency in the cross-cultural literature to make a rough distinction between the “West” and the “East”. While this aggregation provides conceptual clarity, it neglects an important difference within these categories (Camiah and Hollinshead, 2003). The “West” is a collection of cultural and economic variations, with different philosophies and practices. Therefore the idea of the “West” as culturally homogenous is fallacious (Gilbert, 2001). The same could be said of Russia. Its unique position, combining strong influences from Europe and Asia, together with a variety of ethnic groups, ideologies and traditions makes the “Eastern” typology rather over-simplistic (Camiah and Hollinshead, 2003). Therefore any research that targets “West” and “East” may result in conclusions that have a very limited application in the real world.

7 Harrison et al.,1994). A relatively small number of cross-cultural business studies have been done in the Russian context. The existing studies generally compared Russia with the West, again assuming the west to be a unitary concept and focusing primarily on differences between Russia and the United States (for example Elenkov, 1997, 1998; Robertson, Gilley, & Street, 2003; Fey, Adaeva, & Vitkovskaia, 2001; Beamish, 1992; Bollinger, 1994; Puffer, 1994; Puffer, McCarthy, & Naumov, 1997, Camiah & Hollinshead, 2003). Most of the studies focused on identifying challenges that Western multinational companies may face in Russia. These difficulties were often said to be caused by the cultural characteristics of Russian managers and organizations, a great part of which was inherited from the Soviet period. However, with the changing economic and political situation, some scholars have suggested that Russia’s organizational practices and managerial values could be changing towards western standards (Alexashin & Blenkinsopp, 2005). It is reasonable to assume that more than 20 years after the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a new generation of managers that are familiar with western values and organizational practices, the legacy of the Soviet period may be less visible in the Russian organizations of today.

The lack of cross-cultural studies that focus on contemporary Russia presents a gap that this thesis tries to address. In addition, by exploring cross-cultural management issues in the specific context of the Netherlands and Russia I hope to avoid making the common oversimplified distinction between Russia and the West. The role of context in studying cross-cultural interaction has received more attention in the last few years, though the number of such studies is still limited. Heijes (2011) explored the impact of power imbalance on the cross-cultural perception of European Dutch and African Curaçaoans in different organizational and national contexts. The author found that the cross-cultural perception between the two groups was influenced by both extra-organizational and intra-organizational sources of influence. Ybema and Byun (2007) provide similar conclusions, based on their research of cross-cultural interaction between the Dutch and the Japanese in different context: the Japanese firms in the Netherlands and Dutch firms in Japan. Their findings suggest that the experience of cultural differences is related to the power distribution in an organizational setting. By studying mutual perceptions across different extra-organizational context, the Netherlands and Russia, the current research aims to explore how the experience of cultural differences is influenced by the context in the case of the cross-cultural interaction between the Dutch and the Russians. The contribution that I hope to make is twofold. First I hope to make a practical contribution to the business community. A better understanding of the role of national culture on cross-cultural interactions may aid multinational companies in establishing successful operations between the two countries. Second, by extending the number of nations studied in comparative research I hope to make a contribution to the academic community. By focusing on the specific context of the Netherlands and Russia, this research can help identify generalizable and context-specific features that can improve intercultural interaction.

The main question of this thesis is:

What is the influence of the national culture on management control in Russia and the Netherlands from the mutual perception of expatriates and their local counterparts?

The sub-questions are:

8 2. What is the impact of national culture on management control according to the extant

literature?

3. What is the mutual perception of Dutch expatriates and their Russian counterparts in the Russian context?

4. What is the mutual perception of Russian expatriates and their Dutch counterparts in the Netherlands?

5. How does the perception between the Dutch and the Russians differ across national contexts?

6. How do the empirical findings compare to the reviewed literature?

7. What are the main challenges faced by the Dutch and the Russians in their cooperation? Can these be explained by the cross-national cultural differences?

8. How can cross-cultural cooperation be improved from the perception of the Dutch and the Russians?

9

2 Review of relevant theories

2.1 Culture

2.1.1 The concept of Culture

The word culture finds its origin in the Latin word cultura, which derives from the verb colo, meaning “to tend”, “to cultivate”, “to till”, among other things (Minkov and Hofstede, 2013, p. 10) When the object of the verb colo is a human, the verb refers to cultivation of the human character. Thus, the Latin word cultura refers to education and refinement. There seems to be a general agreement about the origin of the word. However, the conceptualization of this construct is a subject of an ongoing debate. A number of scholars from sociology, anthropology and history have proposed their own definition, ranging from very complex to very simple and narrow (see Kluckhohn, 1951, Hofstede, 1980; Adler, 2002; Trompenaars, 1993). The meaning of the concept of culture is proved to be very elusive and the universal definition of the concept has yet to be found. As a consequence, the cross-cultural management research has become fragmentized. Segall (1984) argues that the efforts of the researchers should not be directed at finding the universal definition of culture. Instead the research should focus on the practical link between cultural variables and the established variation in human behavior. Minkov and Hofstede (2013) support this view and propose that culture can be defined depending on the interests of the researcher. As this study focuses on the field of cross-cultural management, it seems appropriate to adopt a conceptualization of ‘culture’ from this stream of research.

2.1.2 Value dimensions approach

The basic premise of the conceptualization adopted in this study is that culture is composed of values, norms and symbols that guide individual behavior. Such a view was first proposed by Parsons and Shils (1951). Subsequently, a group of scholars have focused on shared values as the central feature of culture. In his book ‘The Nature of Human Values’ (1973), Rokeach defined ‘value’ as an ‘enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence’ (Rokeach, 1973, p.5). With other words, the main assumptions made here is that humans all over the world are confronted with universal needs – such as survival, security, affection or accomplishment. In contrast, the value people place on various means for satisfying these needs are not universal. Some people could satisfy the need for self-actualization by increasing their wealth, social status or other forms of individual recognition, while others would try to meet the same need by contributing to the success of the group they belong to. When making choices about the possible means of satisfying needs, people make value judgments, manifesting some deep-rooted attitudes and beliefs towards what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, normal and abnormal. People then act in ways that they believe are the most valuable means of meeting their basic needs. Thus their values motivate their behavior. (Scarborough, 1996)

The most prominent scholar in this stream of research, Geert Hofstede, defined culture as:

10 In general, culture distinguishes one group from another through a certain set of values, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes; which are shared, interpreted, and transmitted over time within a group, which makes the group unique and distinguishes it from other groups. According to Hofstede this group or category of people can be a national society, region, ethnicity, occupation, organization or even age groups and genders (Minkov and Hofstede, 2013). In the context of this study I will focus on cultural difference between two national societies. The cultural framework proposed by Hofstede (1980) will serve as a point of departure.

2.1.3 Hofstede Framework of National Culture

The value dimensions approach was proposed for the first time by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) but the wide acceptance of this view began to grow since the study done by Geert Hofstede between 1967 and 1973. Hofstede conducted a research among 116000 employees of IBM in 67 countries and based on the results proposed four dimensions that could be used to compare nations on four dimensions. A fifth dimension was added to this framework few years later. A number of researchers have adopted this approach in the following years, including Trompenaars (1993), Schwartz (1999), Triandis (1994), Smith et al. (1996) and House et al. (2002 and 2004).

Despite the wide application of the dimension approach, a lot of criticism was heard in the academic community. Bhimani (1999), Harrison and McKinnon (1999) provide a comprehensive review of the literature concerning cross-cultural management control. The articles highlight a number of warnings for implementing the cultural dimensions frameworks, such as the Hofstede’s. The main argument provided by the opponents of this approach is that value dimension frameworks fail to consider the totality and complexity of culture, treating it as a set of independent values. According to Fang (2006) the dimension view of culture rests on a number of assumptions, such as that cultural values are extremely stable and difficult to change and that the basic unit of analysis has to be the nation state. Other scholars have also called for a more contextual approach for studying culture (Heijes, 2011, Ybema and Byun, 2007, Osland and Bird, 2000, Jackson, 2011). Osland and Bird (2000) argue that although the use of bipolar dimensions provides a tool for cross-cultural comparison of different countries, it fails to explain behaviors that seem to be paradoxical in a given culture. They define a paradox as a “situation that exhibits an apparently contradictory nature” (Osland and Bird, 2000, p. 65). They further argue that the use of these dimensions can lead to stereotyping the entire culture which constrains our perception of individual behavior in another culture.

Jackson (2011) argues that cross-cultural studies should focus on the nature of specific intercultural interactions instead of trying to identify the nature of national cultures. These studies should consider the interaction of different cultural interfaces, such as organizational and individual, within power dynamics (Jackson, 2011). Heijes (2011) and Ybema and Byun (2007) also call for a more contextual approach to studying cross-cultural interactions. According to Heijes (2011) ‘Culture cannot be disconnected from its context, and cross-cultural perception cannot be properly understood without analyzing the power asymmetry between the interacting groups’ (p. 670). Ybema and Byun (2007) conclude that experience of cultural differences in cross-cultural interactions is closely related to the power distribution in the organizational setting. They also stress the importance of context in cross-national cooperation.

11 other value dimensions in that sense, do not exist in a tangible sense. They are constructs. A construct is "not directly accessible to observation but inferable from verbal statements and other behaviors and useful in predicting still other observable and measurable verbal and nonverbal behavior" (Levitin, 1973). Another important limitation of this framework is that dimensions that were constructed based on the data accounted for only half of the differences between countries (Hofstede, 1993). The other half remained specific to the particular countries. These dimensions are tools for analysis which may or may not be able to clarify the situation, because individual differences may be more salient than cultural differences. Therefore, when using this or any other value dimensions framework on the level of individual behavior, one should be very careful making claims of causality (Gilbert, 2001).

Despite the wide criticism of the dimensional approach, and in particular the framework of Hofstede, it does provide a useful tool for comparing cultures and understanding cultural behavior, given the limitations are acknowledged. Therefore, the five dimensions will serve as a point of departure in this research. The five value dimensions included in the framework are:

Power Distance (PD) Is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. According to Hofstede, power and inequality, are extremely fundamental facts of any society. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others.

Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) deals with a society's tolerance for ambiguity. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and unusual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict behavioral codes, laws and rules, disapproval of deviant opinions, and a belief in absolute truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'.

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV) as a societal, not an individual characteristic, is the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. On the individualist side are cultures in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side we find cultures in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty, and oppose other in-groups.

12 rewards, in particular saving, persistence, and adapting to changing circumstances. Short-term oriented societies foster virtues related to the past and present such as national pride, respect for tradition, preservation of "face", and fulfilling social obligations.

2.2 Research Context

The cultural context presented in this thesis is sketched using the value dimensions framework of Hofstede (1980). As mentioned earlier, using such a framework will allow a systematic comparison of the Dutch and Russian national cultures. The dimensions included in this framework represent universal values that are held by all people, regardless of the origin and place of residence. The research conducted by Hofstede and the subsequent researches that were conducted using his framework have produced certain scores. While these scores can only serve as an indication of the national culture, they provide a useful point of reference when doing a comparative cross-cultural study. In order to place these scores in the context it is also important to look at the factors that shape a country’s culture. According to Scarborough (1998) a culture takes a long time to develop and is strongly shaped by factors such as religion, the way political power is distributed, physical surroundings and the way in which people sustain themselves economically. Therefore when describing the Dutch and the Russian cultures using the Hofstede’s framework it is important to place the given scores into context and look for historical sources. The figure below presents a comparative overview of the national scores of the Netherlands and Russia on the five dimensions discussed earlier. In the next sub-paragraphs each country’s score and their historical context are explained.

Figure 1: Values on Hofstede dimensions: Russia and The Netherlands

2.2.1 Russia

The initial study of Hofstede did not include Russia. He later provided estimates (see Hofstede, 1993) for Russia derived through the study of national statistics, regional cultural studies and archetypes found in literature and history. In the subsequent years a number of scholars have used the Hofstede’s methodology to measure the Russian culture. The first such study was conducted by Bollinger in 1994. In the following years other researchers have targeted Russia as the country of interest as well (see Naumov, 1996; Elenkov, 1998). Latova and Latov (2008) provide a comparative analysis of current findings on Russian mentality and those of other cultures and argue that none of the samples used in the above studies are representative of Russia as a whole. Thus, scores

74 37 44 83 59 38 80 14 53 44 0 20 40 60 80 100

PD IDV MAS UAI LTO

13 produced by these studies can be used with respect to overall Russian culture only with a degree of approximation. The table below presents the ratings produced in the cultural studies.

Study Year Sample Power Distance

Individualism Uncertainty Avoidance

Masculinity Long term orientation

Bollinger 1994 55 76 26 92 28 59

Naumov 1996 250 40 41 68 55 59

Elenkov 1996 178 88 45 80 59 N/A

Hofstede 2001 N/A 93 39 95 36 N/A

Based on these findings the Russian culture can be roughly characterized by low to medium individualism, medium to high power distance, low to medium masculinity, high uncertainty avoidance and medium long-term orientation.

Power distance

Most studies found Russian culture to exhibit high power distance. Some have attributed this high score to the long history of Russian leaders possessing a high degree of power over the Russian people’s destinies (Bollinger, 1994). Given the 70 years long Soviet Union period and its end in the 1990’s, that brought dramatic social, economic and political change could have increased the disparity between the ordinary people and those with power. Elenkov (1998) suggests that the high degree of power distance can be explained by the long history of authoritarian leadership and centralized power. Over the centuries Russian people had to endure tight control and the lack of freedom from Tsaar, Orthodox Church, landowners and finally the communist party. A high score on the Power Distance dimension means that on average people in Russia feel dependent on those in authority and expect direction from them. Those in authority exercise power in an autocratic or paternalistic manner. They are assumed to be there because they have a right to it. Organizations are hierarchical, and decision making is centralized (Scarborough, 1998).

Uncertainty Avoidance

14

Individualism

Russian culture, falling into low-to-medium individualism category can be described as one where people feel relatively more loyal to group interests and where people rely on their network of family, friends and coworkers for security. Deep trust is essential criterion for successful personal and business relationships. However, scholars have not been able to reach an agreement on this conclusion. Elenkov (1998) argues that people in Russia believe that individual success comes only at the expense of those who have less. As a result many Russians have negative feelings towards those who earn more, even if it comes from hard work. On the other hand, Naumov and Puffer (2000) question the idea that Russians are group oriented. The slogan “don’t live worse than your neighbor” shows hostility towards- and envy of more successful people. Russian communal collective was shattered by the economist Stolypin’s reforms and communism in the 1920’s (Scarborough, 1996). This led to an individual approach to a communist system that was unable to adequately meet the basic needs of the population. According to Naumov and Puffer (2000) the limited collectivism that was promoted by the communist party in the soviet era was hastened by perestroika and later economic reforms.

Masculinity

Russia scores moderately on the masculinity dimension. Based on this score Russian culture could be described as one where people place great value on warm, deeply committed and emotional human relationships. Productivity, time and punctuality are of lesser importance in this culture. Russians will take time to consider the broader implications of a decision or action though neglecting practicalities or urgency (Scarborough, 1998). Again, the views regarding this score are somewhat different. Bollinger (1994) suggests that the medium masculinity score can be explained by centuries of serfdom followed by Communist Dictatorship, which prevented men from developing a sense of initiative. Another explanation is related to the successive wars that cost Russia a great number of men which forced Russian women to take their destinies into their own hands and as a result women feel equal to men and perhaps even superior to them.

Long term orientation

According to the studies of Bollinger (1994) and Naumov (1996) Russia has a medium-high score on long term orientation. This would suggest that Russians prescribe value to commitment and exhibit willingness to postpone rewards for today’s hard work. The relationships are ordered by status and business may take longer to develop in this culture, especially for an “outsider”. Personal adaptability is important while leisure time is of less importance. A greater emphasis is placed on developing relationships instead of focusing on the outcome.

2.2.2 The Netherlands

In general the Dutch are described as orderly, pragmatic, modest, frugal, reserved, hardworking and self-reliant. The communication style can be characterized by low context and high content (Scarborough, 1998).

Power distance

15 involve them in decision making in a consultative or even participatory manner. The manager is a

primus inter pares (first among equals). His authority has been granted to him by the employees of

the organization, not by his titles or social status (Mole, 1997). Management-labor relations tend to be very cooperative. Dutch organizations exhibit the flattest, most egalitarian, least-hierarchical structure in Europe (Trompenaars, 1993). Philippe d'Iribarne (1997) found the management principle in the Netherlands to be based on consensus among all parties. The workplace democracy that is so typical of Dutch firms could be traced all the way to the Germanic tribal origin (Scarborough, 1998). Looking back at the period of Roman Empire, we can see that the “Low Countries”, were situated on the northern border of Roman Empire and later Holy Roman Empire and were never fully subdued to the foreign rule. Throughout the Middle Ages, the United Provinces of Holland became prosperous through commerce and took readily to Calvinism. The fact that Calvinism advocated separation of church and state and praised material success appealed to progressive merchants and traders who saw the centralized power as a threat to their commerce (Scarborough, 1998).

Uncertainty avoidance

The Netherlands exhibits medium uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Mole (1997) the Dutch culture could be described as one where people have an emotional need for rules and codes of behavior. Time is seen as a limited and therefore valuable asset, hence people have an urge to be busy, work hard and values of precision and punctuality are important (Mole, 1997). The need to avoid uncertainty can be detected in organizations through existence of clear goals and instructions concerning the tasks. The Dutch saying “Regeren is vooruitzien” [To govern is to predict] says a lot about the attitude of the Dutch towards uncertainty (Vossestein, 1998). The Dutch try to control as much as possible and prefer not to leave anything to chance. Mole (1997) and Vossestein (1998) attribute this characteristic to the long history of reclaiming the land and holding back the North Sea. The dike boards, in Dutch “Waterschappen”, that were installed between the 12th and 14th centuries in order to protect the dikes, required a very good organization of resources and calculation of the possible risks. Control and certainty are also visible on individual level. People in the Netherlands prefer not to change their jobs too often and stay rather loyal to their current employer; this is also stimulated by good pension plans (Mole, 1997).

Individualism

16

Masculinity

The Netherlands scores low on masculinity, which suggests that the Dutch culture can be characterized as feministic. It is manifested in the workplace through a great reliance on consensus decision making and a more harmonious relationship between management and employees (Mole, 1997; Vossestein, 1998). A greater value is placed on the quality of life rather than on making a career. In the Dutch culture both men and women are expected to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. According to Scarborough (1998) the feminine ranking of the Netherlands could be explained by a long history of peaceful commerce and the traditional role as middlemen. Being economically dependent on trade and having vulnerable military position, flat terrain among three large European powers, has made the Dutch a skillful negotiator. In relation to management and organizations in general this means that conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Management is generally based on involvement, equality and solidarity. Dutch are known for their long discussions that must always result in a consensus. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation rather than by the use of hierarchical power (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2001; Vossestein, 1998).

Long-term orientation

Netherlands has medium to low score on the Long-term dimension which implies that the Dutch tend to be more short-term oriented. According to Hofstede (1980) change can occur more rapidly in the Netherlands as long-term traditions and commitment do not become impediments to progress. Emphasis is placed on quick results. Status is less important in relationships. Personal steadfastness and stability are appreciated. Leisure time is important and more weight is attributed to the result rather than relationship (Heijes, 2004). Although Netherlands has a lower score on this dimension the difference with Russia is not very significant. Since both countries navigate toward the medium on this dimension we should expect that both will have mixed characteristics and there should not be strong contrast between the countries on this dimension.

2.3 Management Control

Management control as a construct has received many definitions. Most of these definitions are based on the premise that control is about exerting influence on the subordinates to seek their compliance with organizational goals (Simons, 1995). Management control is then ‘the process of organizing resources and directing activities for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives’ (Merchant et al., 2003). In the context of Multinational Corporations (MNC’s) it can be defined as the ability of MNC to enforce its various operating units around the world to act in accordance with its overall policy in a systematic and coherent manner (Paik and Sohn, 2004). According to Flamholtz (1996) the basic functions of control are threefold. First it motivates employees and makes sure that their decisions are consistent with the organizational goals. Second, management control coordinates employee’s efforts and allows for decentralized structure. Third, a control system provides information about employee’s performance and operations.

17

Figure 2. Source: Harzing (1999)

Classification of control mechanisms on two dimensions

Personal/Cultural

(founded on social interaction)

Impersonal/Bureaucratic/Technocratic

(founded on instrumental artifacts)

Direct/explicit Category 1:

Personal centralized control

 High centralization of decision making  Direct personal supervision

 Expatriate control

Category 2:

Bureaucratic formalized control

 High degree of standardization  High degree of formalization

Indirect/implicit Category 4:

Control by socialization and networks

 Socialization: common corporate culture  High degree of informal communication  _{International management training}

Category 3:

Output control

 Continuous evaluation of results  Detailed planning

The first two categories present control mechanisms that are directed at controlling behavior directly and explicitly. Category 3 and 4 are mechanisms that control behavior indirectly and implicitly.

Category 1

Personal Centralized Control consists of mechanisms such as hierarchy, centralized decision making and personal surveillance of carrying out orders. High degree of centralization means limited decision authority for subsidiaries. Decision making authority resides at the headquarters, where the strategy and policies for the whole organization are decided. The behavior of employees is controlled and guided through personal surveillance by the supervisors. To this group of control mechanisms also belongs expatriate control. In this case parent-country nationals are installed at foreign subsidiaries to make sure that headquarters’ policies are carried out properly (Harzing, 2003).

Category 2

Bureaucratic Formalized Control consists of impersonal mechanisms used by the management to direct employee’s behavior. This group of control mechanisms includes formalization, rules, written regulations and programs. Since these rules and regulations are written, there is less need for direct personal control. An important pre-requisite for this form of control is standardization. Bureaucratic Formalized Control is characterized by a high degree of standardization and formalization. The former means that all subsidiaries are supposed to function in the same manner. The latter refers to the MNC’s written rules and procedures that guide employee’s behavior towards achieving organizational goals. (Harzing, 2003)

Category 3

18

Category 4

Control by Socialization and Networks encompasses all the mechanisms that do not fit the other three categories. These control mechanisms are not bureaucratic, hierarchical or formal, nor do they have fixed targets. According to Child (1984) these social control mechanisms are used to develop identification with and commitment to the values and objectives of the organization.

Boyacigiller (1990) argues that given the diversity in task and differences in institutional environments MNC’s choice of a control mechanism may be limited. For example, standardization of procedures is not always a viable option given the differences in institutional environments between countries; the socialization also may not be practical for MNCs because it takes time and expertise to achieve a similar worldview among people from different countries. Furthermore, in situations where output cannot be measured easily a MNC’s choice of control mechanism is further restricted. Making use of Personal Centralized Control through expatriates can be a feasible alternative in such a case. Using home country nationals in managerial positions gives MNCs flexible means of control without burdening them with complex structures and time-consuming socialization programs (Boyacigiller, 1990). The advantages of using expatriates as a mechanism of management control have been stressed by other studies as well. According to Doz & Prahalad (1986) and Kobrin (1988) expatriates have a better understanding of overall corporate priorities, are more committed to overall corporate goals and accept the headquarter-determined rules easier than their locally hired counterparts. At the same time, a strong body of literature demonstrates that success of expatriates is by no means guaranteed.

2.4 Management Control and National Culture

In exploring the relationship between management control and culture a great number of studies have adopted the cultural dimensions approach. The most widely used is the cultural value dimensions framework proposed by Hofstede (1980). However, in studying the link between management control and national culture most studies have focused on comparing Asian and Anglo-American nations, (see Awasthi et al., 2001; Chow et al., 1997; Chow et al., 1999; Harrison, 1992, 1993; Harrison et al.,1994). Other studies have often made a rough distinction between the “West” and the “East” for the purpose of preserving conceptual clarity. As a consequence, important differences within these categories have been neglected (Camiah and Hollinshead, 2003). The “West” is a collection of cultural and economic variations, with different philosophies and practices. Therefore the idea of the “West” as culturally homogenous is fallacious (Gilbert, 2001). The same can be said of the “East”. Even Russia itself is far from being a monolithic entity. Its unique position, combining strong influences from Europe and Asia, together with a variety of ethnic groups, ideologies and traditions makes the “Eastern” typology rather over-simplistic (Camiah and Hollinshead, 2003).

19 people actually perceive and understand management control and accounting tasks as well as the economic situation of the firm (Noerreklit and Schoenfeld, 2000). There seems to be ample evidence that people from different cultures may have different work-related values, and may react differently to management practices (Adler, 2002; Birnberg & Snodgrass, 1988; Chow et al., 1997; Chow et al., 1999). For example, Tse, Lee, Vertinsky, and Wehrung (1988) have found national culture and differences among national cultures to influence managerial decision making and strategy. Hamilton and Kashlak (1999) found national culture to impact patterns of negotiation and control. Jansen, Mechant and Van der Stede (2009) concluded that national culture matters in practices relating to the design and use of incentives. The results of their research indicated that Dutch firms compared to US firms are less likely to provide incentive compensation to their managers and when the incentive compensation is used it is likely to be smaller in the Dutch firms.

The extant literature on management in Russia provides some insights on characteristics of Russian organizations as well. McCarthy and Puffer (2003) concluded that Russians are not willing to share information or work with those they consider outsiders. People within organizations try to guard information which can be possibly used against their interests. Elenkov (1998) described Russian culture in a similar way. According to him the high power distance combined with high uncertainty avoidance and lack of trust creates environment where it is difficult to acquire information that can be crucial for the corporate governance. Michailova and Husted (2003) argue that respect for hierarchy and formal power obstruct sharing of knowledge between different groups in an organization. They found that knowledge hoarding was used as a mechanism to deal with uncertainty. The fear of making and admitting a mistake makes Russian employees hesitate in sharing possibly disadvantageous information. Fey et al. (1999) also concludes that high uncertainty avoidance causes Russian employees to avoid any sort of initiative outside of the guidelines of the hierarchy. As a result on average Russian organization are said to be characterized by very low empowerment and participation from the employees. In the same study Fey et al. (1999) found that the top-performing organizations in Russia had their employees working in teams and that this was natural for the highly collectivistic country to show a positive attitude towards working in teams. Fey and Denison (2003) further argues that Russians often act against the firm-level goals as long as their functional area is protected. This is because people in Russian organizations strongly identify themselves with their functional area, for example finance, production, sales and therefore everyone outside of their function is considered as distant and unfamiliar.

2.5 Expatriate theory

The concept of expatriation has been discussed extensively since the increase in the number of multinational corporations since the 1980’s. Based on the review of a number of papers that discuss this concept (see Brewster and Scullion 1997; Inkson et al. 1997; Suutari and Brewster 2000; Dowling and Welch 2004; Paik and Sohn, 2004; Selmer et al., 2007) expatriates can be defined here as individuals who undertake employment outside their own country for at least a year.

20 corporate culture and creation of a verbal exchange network with corporate headquarters (Kobrin, 1988). Boyacigiller (1990) and Rosenzweig (1994) argue that assigning expatriates to international subsidiaries may facilitate inter-subsidiary communication and coordination by transferring corporate philosophies. The more recent research on management control in multinational companies sees expatriation as mechanism that can be used in order to establish (1) formal direct control, (2) informal coordination and control through socialization and (3) informal communication (Harzing, 2001a). According to Beamish and Inkpen (1998) and Beard and Al-Rai (1999) expatriate managers have an important role in representing and transferring the corporate goals and structures from the headquarters to subsidiaries. Sohn (1994) and Paik & Sohn (2004) support this view, suggesting that expatriates act as a control mechanism to assure that a subsidiary complies with corporate goals.

With increasing globalization and the growing number of multinational companies the number of expatriates has been growing steadily in the last few decades. According to UN statistics the number of people who lived and worked outside their country estimated 215 million in 2011. This number is expected to grow even more in the coming years. Although developed economies such as United States, Australia and UK have the highest population of highly skilled foreigners, other countries are expected to close the gap. Countries such as Russia, Brazil, India and China are becoming attractive destinations for MNC’s and expatriates in general (Muijen, 2012). Despite the increasing number of expatriates and the expected growth of this population many expatriates still encounter barriers in their international employment, which often leads to their failure and even premature return to the home country. The high failure rate among expatriates has attracted a lot of attention among the scholars. For the past two decades research has focused on identifying and understanding the causes of expatriate’s failure. A vast amount of research suggests that the main challenges related to expatriation are often not of technical character. Instead the problems are said to be related to cross-cultural differences (Bird and Mukuda, 1989; Stening & Hammer, 1992; Tung, 1993;). For example, Paik and Sohn (2004), Mendenhall and Oddou (1985), Black (1988), Black et al. (1991), Tung (1998b), Adler (1986), Black and Mendenhall (1990) and Jun, Lee & Gentry (1997), argue that difficulties in cross-cultural adaptation can negatively impact managerial performance of expatriates reducing their control abilities over the host country employees. More recent research provides support for this perspective. In particular, expatriates performance has been linked to the concept of cross-cultural adjustment. Selmer et al. (2007), Siljanen and Lamsa (2009), Peltokorpi and Froese (2009), Froese and Peltokorpi (2013) discuss different factors that can affect expatriate’s performance and conclude that cross-cultural adjustment is a complex process and that there is an array of factors that may affect the expatriate’s performance in a foreign country.

2.5.1 Cross-cultural adjustment

21 symbols that guide individual behavior. Individuals from different cultural background have different patterns of behaving and believing and have different cognitive blueprints for interpreting the environment (Triandis et al. 1972). When individuals who hold different views of the world based on their cultural background interact, difficulties can arise because of the incorrect interpretation of the motives and meanings of each other’s behavior (Bochner, 1982). Thus in order to deal effectively with such differences, representatives of different cultural backgrounds should be motivated for and engage in mutual learning.

Adjustment as a learning process is considered to include several facets. One of most comprehensive frameworks of cross-cultural expatriate’s adjustment has been proposed by Black and Mendenhall (1991). The framework has three facets: adjustment to general environment, adjustment to work and

interaction with host nationals. General adjustment refers to the way expatriates get used to the

several aspects of the host country, such as climate, food, health care, shopping and housing conditions. Work adjustment refers to the ease with which expatriates integrate into the workplace and deal with different work values, expectation and job responsibilities. Interaction adjustment is the degree of psychological comfort regarding communication and interpersonal styles of the host culture (Black and Mendenhall, 1991). The authors further argue that cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates happens in two phases. The first phase takes place prior to the actual departure to a foreign country and it is called anticipatory adjustment. The building blocks of anticipatory adjustment are expatriate’s training, previous international experience and expatriate’s expectations. Furthermore authors argue that anticipatory adjustment can be influenced by the selection mechanisms used by the assigning firms. Using a wide array of selection criteria will help the MNC’s to select individuals who are most fit for the international assignment, not only technically, but also based on personal traits and social skills (Black and Mendenhall, 1991).

Just as anticipatory adjustment includes several building blocks so is the in-country adjustment influenced by a set of factors. Among these are individual, work related factors and non-work factors. Individual factors include self-efficacy of expatriates, their relational skills and perceptual skills. Self-efficacy refers to the ability to believe in oneself and one’s ability to deal effectively with the foreign surroundings (Mendehnhall and Oddou, 1985). Black and Mendenhall (1991) suggest that individual with high self-efficacy will be more likely to engage in new behavior in the foreign country. Thus they are more likely to receive feedback to their behavior and as a result learn and adjust. Hence self-efficacy is positively related to cross-cultural adjustment. The better individual’s relational skills the more likely he is to succeed in interacting with host nationals so there is also a positive relationship between relational skills and adjustment. Furthermore, high perceptual skills enable individuals to better understand and interpret the host culture. Work related factors are linked to job characteristics and an array of organizational variables. Last, but not least, there are non-work factors that can affect the expatriate’s adjustment. These are cultural novelty and family adjustment. The greater the difference between the two countries the greater the cultural novelty would be and the more difficult it would be for the expatriates to adjust to the new environment. Finally, the framework of Black and Mendenhall (1991), proposes that when expatriates arrive to a foreign country with their families, the degree of the adjustment of their family members is positively correlated to the degree of their own adjustment.

22 language had direct effects on expatriate’s interaction adjustment. Black, Mendenhall and Oddou (1991) argue that it is logical that previous experience of living overseas should have a positive effect on the adjustment of expatriates. Tung (1998) provides support for the framework, arguing that in order to effectively communicate with host country nationals, especially when the cultural distance is high, expatriates must have highly developed relational skills. Church (1982) and Black (1988) found that previous overseas experience indeed facilitates adjustment. While family adjustment, role clarity and relational skills contributed to a high degree to a successful expatriate adjustment. Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al. (2005) also found evidence in support of the framework. The authors found individual factors – self-efficacy and relational skills – were strong predictors of expatriate adjustment. Furthermore, their results indicated that host country language ability is positively related to expatriate’s general adjustment and interaction adjustment. However, contrary to the established belief their analysis showed that previous overseas experience has only a limited positive effect on the present adjustment. Selmer (2006) studied the relationship between Chinese language ability and adjustment among Western expatriates in China. He concluded that the ability to speak Chinese was positively associated with all three facets of adjustment. Comparable conclusion was provided by Peltokorpi (2008) who found language proficiency to be one of the most significant determinants of expatriate’s adjustment in Japan. He argues that the ability to speak the local language allows expatriates to interact with a larger number of host country nationals, which in turn facilitates adjustment by providing expatriates with information host country’s behavioral norms. Feely and Harzing (2003) stress the importance of language in international business by arguing that language barrier between the headquarters and the subsidiary can potentially hinder collaborative processes such as knowledge sharing and technology transfer. They conclude that language differences in multinational corporations can lead to miscommunication, uncertainty, mistrust and conflict, and hence will have a negative impact on the organizations as a whole.

When reviewing the literature on cross-cultural adjustment two major research streams can be identified. The first one deals with selection methods of expatriates, suggesting that selecting the right type of individuals for international assignments will contribute to successful expatriation (see Hechanova et al. 2003; Caligiuri 2000; Peltokorpi and Froese, 2012; Swaak, 1995). The second stream of research has focused on cross-cultural training as a predictor of expatriate’s adjustment (see Black and Menhenhall, 1989; Black and Mendenhall, 1990; Cerdin, 1996; Rita et al., 2000; Yavas and Bodur, 1999; Earley and Mosakowski, 2004; Hu et al., 2002; Puck et al. 2008). Both perspectives are discussed next.

2.5.2 Cross-cultural training

23 concept of cross-cultural training has been discussed widely in the literature and has been receiving more recognition from the MNC’s the convincing evidence of its impact on expatriate adjustment have not always been found. Based on their review of empirical literature on cross-cultural training, Black and Mendenhall (1990) concluded that cross-cultural training is effective in developing important skills that facilitate cross-cultural adjustment and improve expatriate’s performance. Rita et al. (2000) and Yavas and Bodur (1999) also support this view and argue that by providing cross-cultural training to expatriates their adjustment will be improved and so the cost of failed international assignment will be reduced.

Others have questioned the role of cross-cultural training in expatriate’s adjustment. For example, Cerdin (1996) found the cross-cultural training to be ineffective in relation to three facets of adjustment proposed by Black (1988). Morris and Robie (2001) conducted a meta-analysis aimed at exploring the relationship between cross-cultural training and expatriate’s adjustment and performance. They found that although adjustment was positively influenced by cross-cultural training, the impact was much weaker than expected. More recent research on the effectiveness of cross-cultural training also suggests that it may not have significant difference on the level of expatriate’s adjustment (Hu et al., 2002; Puck et al. 2008). In other words, individuals who have completed a training program prior to their departure do not adjust to the new culture better than individuals who have not participated in cross-cultural training. Hence, a general agreement on the effectiveness of cross-cultural training is yet to be established in the current literature.

2.5.3 Expatriate’s selection

The research into the selection of expatriates considers the selection method to be an important antecedent of expatriate’s success or failure. Poor expatriate selection is often linked to expatriate’s premature return from the host country (Tung, 1981). A number of scholars have suggested that great reliance on technical skills in the selection procedure has resulted in very little attention to other individual factors, such as self-efficacy, personality traits, interpersonal skills, previous overseas experience etc. (see, Hechanova et al. 2003; Caligiuri, 2000, 2009; Peltokorpi, 2008, 2012; Swaak, 1995). Caligiuri (2000) and Caligiuri et al. (2009) discuss in greater depth the selection mechanisms and criteria with relation to international assignments. They argue that more attention should be directed at identifying psychological and bio-data of expatriates, including personality traits, ability to speak the host-country language and previous international experience. Shaffer et al. (2006) point to the importance of language fluency as a selection criterion. Peltokorpi (2008 and 2012) stresses the importance of personality traits for successful expatriate adjustment and suggests that personality traits should be included in expatriates selection criteria in order to prevent suboptimal performance among expatriates. He further mentions that though cultural understanding has a positive effect on expatriate’s adjustment, pre-assignment screening can help to ensure that the right people are selected for the employment abroad. Four personality characteristics have been said to have positive relationship with expatriate’s performance (Church, 1982; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Black, 1990; Caligiuri, 2000; Shaffer et al., 2006). In particular, openness and receptiveness to learning, being proactive in gathering cultural information, initiative in searching contact with host country nationals and high stress resistance.

25

3 Method of research

The aim of the study is to understand how cross-national cultural differences influence the interaction between the Dutch and the Russians. This goal is achieved by studying mutual perceptions between these two groups. By focusing on the individual’s perception I am trying to understand the meanings they attribute to social phenomena, as well as capture their attitudes and feelings. Another characteristic of this study is that it takes the role of the context into account by conducting the research in two different cultural contexts, the Netherlands and Russia. Considering the goal of the study and the complexity that surrounds the phenomena of interest the qualitative approach of gathering and analyzing the data is the most appropriate. The qualitative information allows to increase the explanatory power with regard to the complexity of the reality is highly suitable for analyzing cultural phenomena (Helfrich et al., 2008). Van Aken and Andriessen (2011) also argue that the qualitative research approach is highly suitable for studying perceptions. According to Creswell (2009) qualitative research methods serve well for “exploring and

understanding the meanings individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell,

2009, p.4)

A qualitative research can have different purposes, namely to “explore a new topic, describe a social

phenomenon or explain why something occurs” (Neuman, 2004, p 15). The aim of this research is to

uncover issues that are specific to the interaction between the representatives of the Dutch and Russian cultures. At the same time I am also trying to provide, when possible, an explanation for these issues. Hence the research combines both exploratory and explanatory elements.

3.1 Method of data collection

26 Netherlands. One pair of interviews with Russian expatriates and the Dutch counterparts was done using Skype video call. The interviews with 2 Dutch expatriates and their Russian counterparts in Moscow were conducted by phone. The list of participants is presented in the appendix 2.

In order to avoid bias the questions were phrased as clearly as possible and presented in a neutral way. All Dutch expatriates were interviewed in Dutch language while Russian expatriates were interviewed in Russian. Before each interview I explained to the participants the purpose of the interview, gave an approximation of the time frame. Next I asked the participant for their permeation to record the interviews and explained that their confidentiality be guaranteed. Two Dutch participants preferred not to have their interviews recorded on tape. Therefore I made notes during the interviews and tried to remember as much information as possible. Each interview was transcribed the same day in the original language.

3.2 Method of data analysis

The analysis of the data acquired through the interviews was done in a number of steps discussed by Creswell (2009). First, the transcripts of the interviews were arranged according to the context and the ethnicity of the participant. The Dutch interviews in the Netherlands were grouped together and the Russian interviews were grouped as well. The same was done with the interviews from Russia. After that all of the data was read through several times to obtain general sense of the information. During these readings I made notes of the ideas that seemed to appear from the data. In the following step that data was categorized according to general themes. The analysis of the data in this study was based on the deductive approach. The deductive approach makes use of theoretical frame of reference when analyzing the data, while leaving enough room for new categories to appear. The interviewee’s statements were placed in a theoretical context, when possible. According to Rasmussen et al. (2006) the deductive approach requires that the statements by the respondents are not taken at “face value”. Instead a researcher should use the theoretical frame of reference and try to link the raw data to this frame of reference in order to give it new significance. The cultural framework of Hofstede was used as the theoretical frame of reference in this study. The interviews were analyzed using predefined cultural dimensions.

During the coding, I used several techniques: direct presentation, condensation and interpretation (Rasmussen et al., 2006). Direct presentation occurs when a statement directly express things that match a category. The condensation was necessary when a certain theme was expressed over a number of sentences. In many instances the statements needed to be interpreted and placed in relation to the theory. The process of categorizing and coding was done several times in order to rearrange and reduce the number of categories and search for the pattern among different cases until the data was saturated.

3.3 Reliability and Validity

27 perfect reliability or validity. Nevertheless, some techniques can be used to maximize the quality of the research. In order to make this study as reliable as possible the data was recorded, in most cases, transcribed and added to the appendix. The interviews were done using an interview guide that allowed gathering data in a more or less systematic way. This allows other researchers to check how the data was collected. In addition, during the coding and categorization of the data a constant comparison was made between the data and the codes. This was done to prevent a shift in the meaning of the codes.

28

4 Empirical findings

4.1 Cross-cultural perception and management control

4.1.1 The Dutch context

The Russian expatriates that were interviewed for this research in the Netherlands did not hold managerial positions in their organizations. Neither did their Dutch counterparts. The overall perception expatriates had towards the Dutch culture was very positive. There were a few strong differences between the Netherlands and Russia according to the interviewees. However all expatriates found that the differences did not have a negative effect on the collaboration with the Dutch counterparts. On the contrary, they seemed to appreciate some aspects of the Dutch (work) culture. The majority of expatriates admitted to have some trouble adjusting to the Dutch way of working in the beginning, but the challenges were said to be minor and the expatriates said to have no difficulties in living and working in the Netherlands. Still, a number of issues were mentioned. The first and the most important difference between working in the Netherlands and in Russia as perceived by the Russian expatriates was the absence of hierarchy in Dutch organizations, which translated in a more democratic relationship between management and employees. As one of the expatriates said:

A huge difference between the Netherlands and Russia is the attitude towards management. In general, the Dutch do not have the same hierarchy as in Russia. You can talk to the boss as an equal. There is no mind-boggling hierarchy here. I think it’s a general characteristic of the Dutch society. They don’t brag about their status or money. They even have a saying “Doe normaal dat is al gek genoeg!” [act normal, it is crazy enough]. They have a whole different philosophy and it reflects on the entire society.

This statement shows that this difference was perceived very positively. This attitude could be found among all Russian expatriates. Other Russian expatriates also perceived it to be a very positive difference. Furthermore, the Dutch management style was perceived to be based on consensus and participation. This was also considered to be one of the most positive aspects of working with the Dutch. The expatriates felt like their opinion was considered and that they took part in the organizational decision making: “In this organization, there is no clear distinction between the director and the employees. At least I see it that way. I can always speak out if I don’t agree with something, of course within certain boundaries”. The empowerment of the employees was considered to be a distinctive aspect of Dutch organizations, compared to the Russian work culture: “In Russia we have bosses who think for us. Here everyone thinks for himself”. From some statements given by the Russian expatriates we can observe that it is common that the management in the Russia uses its powerful position for intimidation and to create an atmosphere of fear:

Not once in the 7 years of working here the boss raised his voice to me. In Russia it happens a lot, when you are in a meeting and the director is shouting and swearing at you “Why did you not do this?!”…..Here, I don’t remember to have been afraid or stressed because of the boss.

In the Netherlands people work from 9 to 5 and then they go home and their working day is over. In Russia, people work around the clock. If there is a lot of work to do in the company people won’t even dare to go home. People here work in order to enjoy their lives, we live in order to work.