Inclusive Communication. Beyond intercultural communication and competence:‘Cultures don’t meet, people do.’

Edwin Hoffman

Edwin Hoffman, PhD, is an independent trainer, lecturer and author in the field of inclusive communication, and external lecturer at the Alpen Adria University in Klagenfurt, Austria. Email: [email protected] or [email protected] LinkedIn: https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/edwin-hoffman-48032919/

Introduction

In this article I raise the question what is meant by intercultural communication and intercultural competence, and what kind of application-oriented approach could effectively support people in communicating, interacting and collaborating with people from different national, ethnic or religious backgrounds? The starting point of the answer is that widely used theories by e.g. Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars, Richard Lewis and Erin Meyer form a risky approach to intercultural communication because of their culturalist nature. Their culturalist approach, which is still dominant in the intercultural field, encourages learners to 'zoom out' (Bolten, 2014) away from the concrete individuals in an interaction and objectify them into schematic cultures and stereotypes, in order to explain differences and misunderstandings.

Inclusive communication goes beyond the culturalist character of intercultural communication: It encourages the opposite by zooming in on the encounter between unique individuals, connected with others, at an intersection of identities and embedded in diverse social-cultural contexts.

The risks of a culturalist approach

A culturalist approach zooms out (Bolten, 2014) from a concrete interpersonal interaction towards schematic cultures and cultural dimensions: national; collectivist/individualist; linear-active/multi-active/reactive; shame/guilt etc. The people involved in a communicative interaction are reduced to stereotypes of schematic cultures; any difference that arises is called a cultural difference; the cause of arising communication problems is explained by the differences between schematic cultures and knowledge of these differences is seen as the necessary intercultural competence.

An example is the case study in which a team leader seeks Erin Meyer's advice on the contradictions in his international team between the Chinese and the Japanese team members regarding time-management and decision-making. Using her Culture map (2014) Meyer first explains to the team leader that Japan is a society with consensual decision-making and has a linear-time culture. In China, on the other hand, decisions are most often made by the boss in a top-down fashion and China has a flexible time culture. Given these differences, Meyer says, it’s understandable that the Japanese and the Chinese are having difficulties working together. She concludes her advice: “Can the problem be solved? Absolutely. The next step in improving these dynamics is to increase the awareness of your team members about how (the national, E.H.) culture impacts their effectiveness.” (Meyer, 2014) But Alfred Korzybski already warned with his famous statement 'the map is not the territory' (1994, p. 58.) that the language that describes reality is not the actual reality itself, and similarly Meyer's (cultural) map is not the actual interaction and not the individuals involved.

With sincere appreciation and recognition for Geert Hofstede's indispensable contribution to the intercultural field, a culturalist approach was reflected in his practical application of the theory as well. The cause of the outburst of anger by Marcus, an Indonesian manager, because of an amusingly intended accusation by his Dutch colleague Frans, Hofstede explained as follows "In Indonesia, where status is sacred, an insult is always taken literally, Frans should have known that." (Hofstede, 1997, p. 296) Later in 2023 Bas Bredenoord HR Director at Mars International Travel Retail writes ?They (Hofstede Insights, E.H.) also developed a very practical step by step approach for any cultural challenges they might face:

· Is there a national culture (in bold E.H.) at play here?

· Hold your judgement.

· Go into the science. Use the tools available to you and develop a strategy to approach the challenge.” (The Culture Factor Group, 2023)

Instead of seeing encounters between people with different national, ethnic and religious origins as a potential enrichment, as an opportunity to learn from each other; the emphasis in a culturalist approach on intercultural competence and the importance of ‘culture-specific knowledge’, and ‘deep cultural knowledge’ (Ilie, 2019) problematizes these encounters and makes them seem almost impossible to overcome. A quote of Hofstede illustrates this: "Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are at best a nuisance and often a disaster” (ITIM, 2009 in Fang, 2012). But cases from managerial practice show that management techniques or approaches can be learned and transferred often through incidents, conflicts, cultural negotiations (Fang, 2012). And in the daily living and working together of ordinary people in neighbourhoods and at work, it turns out that cultural differences can be connected and can enrich life views, knowledge, practices and identities even without any training or study in intercultural competence. Philip Roth (1992) writes about the everyday realities of living together in American cities: "The workplace - the brewery, the shipyard, the factory, the vegetable market, the construction site, the haberdashery stall - was not necessarily the best place to free oneself from discrimination, to expand one's relationships, or to acquire skills to build new cultural patterns that enhance life and replace the old ones that are suddenly meaningless and paralyzing. Yet, this is where totally new American identities were born. They were not shaped by schools, teachers or textbooks, (…). They were born spontaneously out of the harsh realities of the city.”

The necessity of having cultural knowledge in order to be intercultural competent throws professionals off balance and makes them insecure. When a very experienced Dutch job mediator asked how he could find out about the motivation of a Somali job seeker, he was totally astonished when he was asked in return whether he had tried to simply ask. The mediator had believed that his ‘Dutch direct, individualistic’ communication style of asking would not correspond with the supposedly indirect, collective communication style of Somalis.

The culturalists themselves often warn that their comparative cultural dimensions involve generalisations, intended only to describe collectives such as national societies, managers and cannot be translated to unique individuals and their communication. But in the practical examples of the aforementioned authors and in the applications of their theories by many trainers, consultants, lecturers and other authors, one can see how easily and quickly they switch from the collective, group level to the individual, interpersonal level.

?Now, the idea is that at least cultural dimensions or scales are useful for making people aware of possible differences and are an easy introduction to sensitise people to the importance of intercultural competence. But even then, there is a danger of interpreting differences in communication solely in cultural terms. It is an irresponsible simplification of the complexity of interaction processes and people of different nationalities, ethnicities or faiths are still seen as 'different' and 'foreign', highlighting that intercultural competence is required to engage effectively with them.

Inclusive communication

A proposal for a working alternative - hereby also gladly put up for discussion - is an inclusive approach to intercultural communication.

The principles of recognised equality and recognised diversity

Inclusive communication is based on the principles of recognised equality and recognised diversity. In general, the communication between people, regardless of their background, is always the communication between human beings (recognised equality), who are unique individuals connected with others, with multiple identities, own life stories, and embedded in diverse socio-cultural contexts. Individuals' communication is an interaction/an interplay between their unique personality, physical and mental conditions, biography, the unique processing of the diversity of cultural offerings in their lives and the specific situational context in which the communication, the interaction takes place (recognised diversity).

Furthermore, it is the context that then determines how to approach people inclusively: depending on the context, people are first and foremost e.g. employees, teammembers, managers, learners, parents, patients, citizens, inhabitants, clients, … (recognised equality), each with their own specific personal characteristics, competences, motives, needs, emotions and values (recognised diversity). In the Netherlands, an employer was asked by an employee if he could get Friday off to go to the mosque. The employer responded by saying, "That's not possible. Here in the Netherlands, we go to church on Sundays!" From an inclusive approach, the employer should see the man as an employee (recognised equality) - and not a Muslim - who has a particular wish (recognised diversity), as any employee can have. For example, other employees might want to enjoy a long weekend and also take the Friday off.

Humanising the others

An inclusive approach normalises communication with people of a different nationality, ethnicity or faith: communication with 'the foreign other' is humanised: 'The others' are not from another human species for whom a separate intercultural competence, a manual, is needed. They are fellow human beings, as layered and complex as we ourselves are (Bennett, 2020). For from a systemic perspective, every person takes part in different collectives (social groups) and successful meaningful interactions, each of which is characterised by a certain culture: a social order of habits - language, social practices, beliefs, norms, values - to make meaningful interaction possible (Blommaert, 2015). Culture ranges from a first successful meaningful encounter between two people, to social groups - e.g. families, groups of friends, teams, departments of an organisation, clubs, music fans, sports fans, -, to highly developed, large-scale societies: cities, regions, countries, continents.... Thus, there are as much cultures as there are successful interactions and social groups, all of which shape people- not just a national society, a national culture.

A common objection is that the cultures of other social groups are subcultures and less decisive than national cultures that are supposed to impact people the most. However, the story of Vedran Frankovic from Croatian Istria illustrates how the influence of national cultures can be subordinated to the subcultural influence of a village, family and profession in a person's daily life. Vedran told that his grandfather, born at the beginning of the 20th century, was a winegrower. He had never left his village in Istria and had nevertheless lived in four countries, but this had little influence on him as a person and in his daily life. During his grandfather's lifetime, Istria belonged to four different states: Austria (Habsburg monarchy), Italy, Yugoslavia and Croatia.

Multicollectivity, multiculturality and multiple identities.

From each social group, individuals can derive a certain identity. Everyone is thus characterised by multicollectivity, multiculturality and multiple identities. Hence, cultural differences can occur equally between people of the same group, e.g. a family, because of each family member’s unique multiple identity, multicollectivity and multiculturality. Communication with everyone, regardless of background, is therefore always ‘ordinary’, interpersonal communication: 'Cultures don't meet, people do' (Hoffman 1996, 1998).

Diversity

Differences that may emerge in communication are not always cultural - arising from the habits of a collective - but can have diverse causes: personal, social, psychological, physical, socio-economic, legal, spiritual, power inequality, political, organisational, etc. ?Two examples: In a job interview, an employer asked an applicant (female, wearing a hijab) if he can offer her coffee. The applicant replied: 'No thank you,' to which the employer immediately responded with: “Oh yes, of course, I completely forgot that it is Ramadan. You are not allowed to drink or eat anything until sunset.” “No, no,” said the applicant, “I don't drink coffee, but please tea if possible.”

Members of a team commented that their (Chinese) colleague Alden never spoke up. In team meetings they at some point told Alden that he was “really Chinese” and made comments like “I know he is from a shy culture…” Alden pointed out that his colleagues were partly responsible for the problem because they often spoke too fast, used slang terms, and didn’t take the time to listen or to explain things properly (Debray & Spencer-Oatey, 2019). By interpreting Aldens behaviour using stereotypical ideas about Chinese culture, team members did not see Alden as a person, a teammate (recognised equality) who has his own reasons for his behaviour, such as situational factors and the other team members' part in the communication problem (recognised diversity).

It can be concluded: People are simultaneously part of numerous collectives with diverse cultural habits, and each person processes these in a completely unique way in interaction with their own individual biological and biographical preconditions. While it is possible to infer from individuals' collective ties what cultural habits, they are familiar with, what patterns of behaviour or concepts of thought they may know, it remains completely open what individuals make of these, what ideas, opinions and practices they infer for themselves (Rathje 2009).

The essence of inclusive communication: attentive, mindful communication

The essence of inclusive communication is thus attentive, mindful communication that allows people to present themselves as they wish. In the spirit of Andries Baart's presence theory (2000, p. 21), the question for professionals is: "Can you allow the other, the strange, can it really exist and play a role in the way you interact with the other?" That question is confrontational because it replaces the prior intercultural competence - the ‘culture-specific knowledge’, and ‘deep cultural knowledge’ - with ‘competencelesscompetence’ (in German: ‘Kompetenzlosigkeitskompetenz’, Mecheril 2013, p. 16)) and ‘cultural humility’ (Hook et al, 2013). This means having the courage to embark on an on-the-spot adventure with the other person and adopting an attitude of openness, curiosity, empathy and critical self-reflection. Relinquishing the claim to perfection: admitting one's own ignorance, uncertainties and contradictions and saying goodbye to the idea of having to and being able to function perfectly competently: accepting that interactions are complex and unpredictable, that the situational context and the person may be differently different than expected. Also recognising that knowledge and action are embedded in power structures: as a professional, it is especially important to also reflect on one's own position of power and recognise it critically in one's own actions. Self-reflexivity increases the uncertainty of one's own actions because they are constantly questioned. Tolerating this uncertainty should be understood and practised as normality; it is part of a professional attitude. (Brunner & Ivanova, 2015, pp. 23-28)

Intercultural communication and intercultural competence?

The aforementioned then raises the question of what do we still consider to be the meaning of intercultural communication and intercultural competence? When people share a particular culture, social cohesion is created. This cohesion arises from the familiarity of differences. There is empirical evidence that the cohesion of corporate cultures is not necessarily linked to homogeneity - everybody has the same habits and thinks and acts the same -, but rather to the creation of normality through the familiarity of differences (cf. Rathje 2004). It can be inferred that if culturality is characterised by the familiarity of differences, interculturality, on the other hand, is characterised by the unfamiliarity or strangeness of differences. Intercultural communication can then be understood as communication in which one or more people involved have an experience of strangeness because of unfamiliar, unknown differences of any kind (Rathje 2009; Bolten 2007; Hoffman & Verdooren 2018). For example, person A wants to shake hands with person B as a greeting, but person B greets in a way that person A is not familiar with. Or during a conversation, one conversation partner constantly tries to look the other in the eye, but the latter experiences this as strange and impolite.

Diversity competence - a more appropriate name for intercultural competence because differences are diverse and not only cultural - is then the ability to transform an experience of strangeness because of unfamiliar, unknown differences of any kind, into normality, familiarity and thus (re)create a connection, a basis for (further) communication, cooperation or living together. (Rathje 2009; Hoffman & Verdooren 2018)

Key components of diversity competence

The key components of diversity competence are not culture-specific knowledge’, and ‘deep cultural knowledge’, but general attitudes and skills a person needs to overcome differences, misunderstandings and conflicts in communication with anyone. Apart from familiar elements as respect, openness, curiosity, critical self-reflection, flexibility, active listening, 'reading the air'/'reading between the lines' (being sensitive to the situation, the mutual relationships, the atmosphere, people's unspoken intentions and emotions), reframing, dialogue, ... are the most important attitudes, skills and knowledge:

-?????? Unlabeling people: Approaching others as unique individuals connected to others, with multiple identities, with their own (life)stories and embedded in diverse social-cultural contexts. Somebody said: “If you put my background (a label, E.H.) in the foreground, you don't see me.” (Thanks to Stephan Hild).

-?????? Being aware that identities can shift unintentionally during a conversation and can be shifted consciously. A student of Afro-Surinamese background at a Dutch university smoked at a place where smoking is forbidden. The Dutch (‘white’) janitor warned the student, who resisted a little bit.?Then the janitor said to the student: “You have to adapt like all others.” The student reacted furiously to these words. The student and the janitor had a good relationship with each other and both were surprised by what happened. Afterwards, the incident was discussed with them. The student said: “I don't know what happened to me, but the janitor's words 'You have to adapt' suddenly made me feel like a black Surinamese being corrected by a white Dutchman.” The janitor explained that by ‘like all the others’, he meant ‘like all the other students’ but the student interpreted it within the context of Dutch society where it is often said that 'those foreigners have to adapt' (= a social representation, see further below). The student explained that what also made him so angry was a flashback, a memory of Dutch slavery in Surinam when it was still a colony of The Netherlands.

The shifting of identities can be helpful when communication gets stuck. An international mediator told that a conflict between an engineer from Singapore and his Norwegian director ended well because of a turning point in the mediation: a shared found understanding of each other in fatherhood; the responsibility both felt for their families. There is also a strategic, instrumental use of cultural identities to get things done or to justify behaviour. The strategic use of a cultural identity is illustrated in a negotiation in which the president of a Taiwanese company tried several times to refer to the importance of not losing ‘face’ for Asians, merely as a means to get an extra discount. He asked for an additional discount because he was the president of the company, and he would suffer loss of face if he would not get a discount in the negotiations (Jansseune quoted in Boden, 2006, pp. 185-186). Another instrumental misuse of the national and religious cultural identity of the other to legitimise behaviour is the refusal of a German (female) judge to grant a woman a fast-track divorce. According to the judge’s statement the claimant, a German woman of Moroccan descent and her husband came from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife. That's what the claimant had to reckon with when she married the defendant." The 26-year-old mother of two had been repeatedly beaten and threatened with death by her husband. The judge was removed from the case after a nationwide outcry (Conolly, 2007).

-??????? Being true to who you are, unconcerned, authentic: Having trust in yourself, self-confidence and -respect. Maintaining emotional stability. Decisive is an attitude of dedication, respect, and sincerity. ‘Mistakes’ can and will happen.

-?????? Being prepared and open for differences. Be open to differences, be curious, have empathy and be flexible. Also keeping in mind that differences can have various backgrounds: personal, social, physical, mental, legal, socio-economic, political, … The TOPOI-model - see below - sensitizes to many possible differences that can be encountered in the communication.

-?????? Very important as well is the assumption of the good will: to always assume that ‘Behind each behaviour in the communication there is positive intention’. If you encounter behaviour or beliefs in communication that are strange or difficult, try to assume that people always have good reasons for why they do what they do, say or think. People who give direct feedback may try to be honest and clear about what they think. People who are indirect in their feedback may try to maintain a good relationship. This ‘assumption of the good will’ helps not to jump to negative conclusions immediately, not to feel offended and not to blame the other person or yourself. Try to find out these positive intentions and acknowledge them which is not the same as agreeing to the behaviour of the person. Acknowledgement helps to keep the communication open.

-?????? Knowing that communication is a circular process. Being aware that everyone involved in an interaction always and simultaneously has a share in how the communication proceeds. Interlocutors influence each other simultaneously. The listener also influences the speaker non-verbally. ‘One cannot not communicate’, says Paul Watzlawick (2011). Hence, make sure to always consider the own share in the creation of misunderstandings and conflicts as well: What am I doing, saying that makes the other person react in that way? Besides this interpersonal, mutual influence there is the possible influence of social representations. Social representations are the collectively created and shared images, prejudices, stereotypes, ?single stories‘ (Adichie 2009), perceptions, norms that are prevailing in the social contexts of the interlocutors. Social representations are also the historical and current experiences of a social group - like racism, slavery, colonialism, power relations, poverty, politics - that may, usually unconsciously, influence the communication: What people say to each other and what they understand of each other. People are often not so free as to what they say to each other and to what they understand of each other. (See the example above of the janitor and the student)

-?????? A final key element is to discuss things when necessary: be brave! When differences in the communication are strange, difficult or hurtful; instead of - as often happens - confirming your stereotypes and prejudices, bring it up!

The TOPOI-model

A practical tool for dealing with experiences of strangeness in communication is the TOPOI model already developed in 1994 (originally in Dutch) by Edwin Hoffman (Hoffman & Arts 1994, Hoffman 2018, Hoffman & Verdooren 2018) based on the systemic axioms of Paul Watzlawick et al. (2011).?TOPOI (Greek: plural of place) represents the 5 places or areas in communication where differences of various kinds may occur: Tongue refers to each person's verbal and non-verbal language; Order: everyone’s view and logic; Persons: the identities, roles of the persons involved and the relationship between them; Organisation: the situational, organisational and societal context of the interaction and Intentions: the motives, needs, emotions, values and spirituality of those involved.

The TOPOI model has a twofold purpose: 1. To raise sensitivity of the many possible differences - of whatever nature - that can occur in communication in each TOPOI area, and 2. In the case of an experience of strangeness to zoom in on the interaction using the TOPOI lens to reflect on the potential differences and misunderstandings that could play a role, and what communicative interventions can be deployed.

The TOPOI areas contain concrete, manageable communicative translations of the many aspects that can play a role in communication. The TOPOI areas also include dimensions of Meyer, Hofstede and Trompenaars, among others, with the difference that they are not labelled culturally or country-bound, but as communicative elements to which people can assign different meanings and which they can express in different ways, for example connotations, communication styles, politeness, feedback, interaction rules, body-language, dealing with time, social norms, holistic/analytic/ deductive/inductive logic, building trust, relation building, status attribution, arrangement of the room, context of the organisation, societal context, decision-making, values, needs, motivation, spirituality. Hoffman and Verdooren give numerous concrete examples of these elements in their book Diversity competence (2018). The TOPOI areas thus also offer a much wider range of possible differences than the limited cultural dimensions/scales and may be used effectively in exercises to make people aware of their own communication preferences and the possible differences in these with others.

The TOPOI-lens

The TOPOI lens helps to zoom in on the concrete interpersonal interaction, reflect on the possible differences and misunderstandings, formulate hypotheses, and address them with general communication interventions.

?

Applying the TOPOI lens to Meyer's case-study mentioned in the beginning of this article, an inclusive communication advice would be - very succinctly – to, as a team leader, emphasise that all team members are first and foremost team members and not nationalities (TOPOI area Persons). In a team meeting, team members can share one by one (Organisation) their views and ways of working regarding time management, decision-making and other relevant aspects of working in a team (Tongue, Organisation and Order) and, very importantly, the positive reasons behind them: why they do what they do and think what they think (Intentions). These reasons can be acknowledged by all. This exchange should be done by the team members on a personal level, they should speak as team members (recognised equality), each for themselves (recognised diversity) and not in terms of 'we Chinese or we Japanese' or 'this is how we do it in China or in Japan' (Persons). After this personal exchange as team members, they can agree on how they will work with each other in the team (Order). Furthermore, team building is essential (Organisation), to get to know each other better personally and thus build mutual trust and psychological safety: this is how people meet; not cultures.

Sources:

Adichie, Ch. (2009). The danger of a single story. URLhttps://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Baart, A. (2000). Ruimte om bij het vreemde te blijven. Markant 3, 11-30.

Bennett, J. M. Milton J. Bennett ?(2020).?Paradigms, Pandemics & Power: Lessons for Intercultural Communication Theory & Practice.?URL: https://www.?youtube.?com/watch??v=dYnlx5BXf3g.

Blommaert, J. (2015). Commentary: 'culture' and superdiversity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2015.1020810. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273900171_Commentary_%27culture%27_and_superdiversity

Boden, J. (2006). De essentie van China: Communicatie – Cultuur – Commitment. Bussum: Coutinho.

Bolten, J. (2007). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. Erfurt: Landeszentrale fu?r politische Bildung Thu?ringen.

Bolten, J. (2014). The Dune Model – or: How to Describe Cultures. icNews Link, Summer 2014, New York.

Brunner, M. & A. Ivanova (2015). Praxishandbuch Interkulturelle Lehrer|innenbildung. Impulse – Methoden – übungen. Schwalbach/Ts.: Debus P?dagogik.

Conolly, K. (2007). German judge invokes Qur’an to deny abused wife a divorce. URL: theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/23/germany.islam

Debray, C. & H. Spencer-Oatey (2019). ‘On the same page?’ Marginalisation and positioning practices in intercultural teams. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216618302509?via%3Dihub

Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture. Management and Organization Review 8(1), 25-50. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227792935_Yin_Yang_A_New_Perspective_on_Culture

Hoffman, E. & W. Arts (1994). Interculturele gespreksvoering. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

Hoffman, E.?(1996).? Het zijn mensen die elkaar ontmoeten en niet culturen.? In J.? E.? Neef, J.?Tenwolde & K.?A.?A.?Mouthaan (Eds.). Handboek Interculturele Zorg, 14–36.? Maarsen: Elsevier/De Tijdstroom.?

Hook, J., D. Davis, J. Owen, E.L. Worthington, S. O. Utsey (2013). Cultural Humility: Measuring Openness to Culturally Diverse Clients. URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236641214_Cultural_Humility_Measuring_Openness_to_Culturally_Diverse_Clients

Hoffman, E.?& E. Jaksche (1998).?Cultures don’t meet, people do.? In H.? Eichelberger & E.? Furch (Hrsg.),?Kulturen Sprachen Welten.? Die Herausforderung (Inter)?- Kulturalit?t, 117–143.? Innsbru?ck: StudienVerlag.?

Hoffman, E.?(2018). Interculturele gespreksvoering. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.?

Hoffman, E. & A.?Verdooren (2018).? Diversity competence.? Abington UK: Cabi.?

Hofstede, G. (1997). Lokales Denken, globales Handeln. Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit und globales Management. München: C. H. Beck.

Ilie, O-A (2019). The Intercultural Competence. Developing Effective Intercultural Communication Skills. URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334677436_The_Intercultural_Competence_Developing_Effective_Intercultural_Communication_Skills,

Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Lakeville, CT: Institute of General Semantics.

Mecheril, P. (2013). ‘Kompetenzlosigkeitskompetenz’: P?dagogisches Handeln unter Einwanderungsbedingungen. In Auernheimer, G. (Ed.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz und p?dagogische Professionalit?t (pp. 5-35). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. Philadelphia: Public Affairs.

Meyer, E. (2014, 22 September). Map Out Cultural Conflicts on Your Team. URL: hbr.org/2014/09/predict-cultural-conflicts-on-your-team.

Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations. Explorations in Social Psychology.nbsp;Cambridge UK: polity.

Rathje, S. (2004). Unternehmenskultur als Interkultur - Entwicklung und Gestaltung interkultureller Unternehmenskultur am Beispiel deutscher Unternehmen in Thailand, Sternenfels 2004 (Wissenschaft & Praxis)

Rathje, S. (2006). Interkulturelle Kompetenz – Zustand und Zukunft eines umstrittenen Konzepts. ?Zeitschrift fu?r interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht.

Roth, Ph. (1992). De generatie die Amerika uitvond. De morgen 23 oktober.

The Culture Factor Group. (2023) Diversity as competitive advantage, Mars success story. URL:HTTPS://WWW.HOFSTEDE-INSIGHTS.COM/RESOURCES/DIVERSITY-AS-A-COMPETITIVE-ADVANTAGE-MARS-SUCCESS-STORY.

Watzlawick, P.,?J. Beavin Bavelas,?D. D. Jackson (2011)?Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes.? New York, NY: Norton.?

?

?

?

?