Soin. 2006. Making The Case For Narrative Methods

Organizational Research Methods
http://orm.sagepub.com
Making the Case for Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Organizational Research

Kim Soin and Tobias Scheytt
Organizational Research Methods 2006; 9; 55
DOI: 10.1177/1094428105283297
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/1/55
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The Research Methods Division of The Academy of Management
Additional services and information for Organizational Research Methods can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://orm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 9 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/1/55#BIBL
Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Organizational
10.1177/1094428105283297
Soin,
Scheytt / Narrative
Research Methods in Cross-Cultural Research
Making the Case for Narrative

Methods in Cross-Cultural
Organizational Research
Organizational
Research Methods
Volume 9 Number 1
January 2006 55-77
2006 Sage Publications
10.1177/1094428105283297
http://orm.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Kim Soin
Kings College London
Tobias Scheytt
University of Innsbruck
The prevailing literature on cross-cultural research in management studies has tended to conceptualize the meaning and the impact of culture on organizations by using distinct categories. This
article argues that given the embedded nature of organizations, a narrative methodology offers
an alternative and complementary approach to developing our understanding in cross-cultural
research. Using examples of story-driven investigations into cultural differences, it explains the
potential of this approach. It therefore seeks to offer a contribution to the variety of methods for
organizational research on cross-cultural issues.
Keywords: cross-cultural research; narrative methodology; interpretivism; organizational
culture; management control
tories are the fabric of our lives. If we explain our actions to others or to ourselves, we tell
stories. Stories help us to make sense of what we are, where we come from, and what we
want to be. When we try to understand complex and meaningful historical developments and
events, stories can augment and enhance more neutral and objective descriptions, as Steven
Spielbergs project of oral history has shown. And, when we aim to interpret what happens in
cultures different from our own, we mostly obtain information via stories, or other types of
narratives, that are presented to us in different ways, for example, through movies, novels,
newspapers, or comedy.
In the same way, the rich tapestry of organizational realities is captured by stories, which
are generated within and around organizations. And, in telling, listening, and relating to stories in actions or decisions, individuals aim to understand and interpret practices in the organization of which they are part (Boyce, 1997; Czarniawska, 1998, 2004, Gabriel, 2000). Stories can also be a powerful tool for management that can be used to design, change, or refocus
the organizations culture (Czarniawska-Joerges & Monthoux, 1994; Denning, 2004). How-
Authors Note: We would like to thank Richard Laughlin and three anonymous reviewers and the editor, Herman
Aguinis, for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the article. Please address correspondence to Dr. Kim Soin,
Department of Management, Kings College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London,
SE1 9NH, United Kingdom; e-mail: kim.soin@kcl.ac.uk.
55

56
ever, even if some archetypical similarities of stories can be identified (Martin, Feldman,
Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983), stories vary between organizations, as all organizations are unique,
having their own gestalt. Organizations vary according to their specific history, origin, structure, size, location, and societys economic stage of development. However, it is not only the
external factors but also the internal ones that make an organization unique. From a cognitive
perspective, it is the ways of sensemaking (Weick, 1995) that are enacted in a focal organization and particularly the means by which individuals ascribe meanings to specific events and
circumstances in and around the organization that give rise to the uniqueness of organizations. In addition, stories play an important role in, and are also a significant outcome of,
these processes of sensemaking (Gabriel, 2000). Against this backdrop, it seems surprising
that stories, like other types of narratives, are only randomly employed in business management research and particularly in cross-cultural studies of organizational life. This article
therefore argues for the utility of a narrative research methodology and, in particular, the use
of stories for the cross-cultural study of organizations. We argue that stories can be understood as the result of ongoing accomplishments to make sense (Weick, 1995) of what is happening in social entities such as groups, institutions, or even nations. The way in which actors
order their experiences in these processes is, however, coined by culture (Czarniawska,
2004). Hence, stories provide an eminent medium to explore the construction of social life
(Bruner, 1991).
In an era of globalization, this culturally sensitive perspective in organizational analysis
remains very important in cross-cultural organizational research. Although it is common
sense that the culture of nations or greater regions influences organizations, research that differentiates between universals and cultural specificities remains a central topic of organization studies (Aguinis & Henle, 2003). One field of organizational practice that is of particular
interest for cross-cultural research is the field of management control. This field has seemingly undergone a comprehensive process of internationalization and globalization. However, this shift has led not only to a process of the standardization of management control systems but also to a greater awareness of the tension between (conceptual) universality and
(cultural) differentiation and diversity in the design of management control systems
(Hopwood, 1999). The balanced scorecard system (Kaplan & Norton, 1997) is a good example here. Developed just a decade ago, this system for management control is now used in
diverse types of organizations across the world. Therefore, a standardizing effect on practices
of management control could be supposed. And these systems for management control seem
to be value-neutral systems of calculative practices (Miller, 1994) and hence independent
of the cultural background in which they are implemented. However, over the past few years,
researchers in the field of management control have increasingly identified obstacles that
accrue from the cultural background in which such systems such as the balanced scorecard
are implemented. Hence, they have turned their attention to understanding the relation
between national culture and the design of management control systems and focused on
cross-cultural issues, respectively (Harrison & McKinnon, 1999). As Hopwood (1999) put it,
It seems likely, that encroaching global practices do stimulate an awareness of and some degree
of reflection upon the specificity of the prevailing local practices. In this area there are also other
reasons for furthering our understanding of the differences between the local and the global and
the interrelationship between them. Being intimately related to other practices of corporate and
organizational governance management accounting systems may vary in relationship to their

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research
57
positioning in a wider configuration of organizational and social-economic arrangements. Different cultural configurations may attach different explicit emphasis to economic factors and
may engage in different forms of economic management and thereby invest differentially in
forms of economic calculation. (p. 377)
In the case of management control systems, it is the very basic notion of control that differs
across cultures. Thus, the exploration of how local management control practices are
informed by cultural aspects can be understood as a valuable source for cross-cultural
research. And as control practices depend on processes of sensemaking, stories about such
practices can provide insights into factors that surround, inflate, and vary the seemingly neutral and objective nature of control systems. In the following, we choose, therefore, the field
of management control for our considerations of the utility of a narrative approach to crosscultural management research. We propose that a narrative methodology, as a crucial part of
interpretive, ethnographic research, can be a valuable and unique resource for theorizing about
the interplay between national cultures and the ways in which organizational life is constructed
and particularly how management control is enacted in organizations (Czarniawska, 1998;
Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Denzin, 1997; Rosen, 2000; Van Maanen, 1983).
The article is structured as follows. First, we explain the diverse concepts of (organizational) culture that are used in culture-related management research and highlight the respective epistemological positions to which the different approaches are linked. Second, we point
out the respective methodological positions in cross-cultural research and contrast dominant
approaches to cross-cultural management research that mainly focus on cultural dimensions
(e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001) with alternative methodological choices. We will depict the
essential characteristics and features of using narrative methodologies and the role this methodology can play in our attempts to understand cross-cultural issues in organizations. Third,
to substantiate the potential of narrative methodologies, we provide examples of studies
taken from the field of cross-cultural management control research, which, based on a narrative methodology, use stories as a means to interpret management control practice. In the
concluding section, we discuss the potential advantages of such approaches as augmentations and extensions to other methodological frameworks of cross-cultural research and
provide some suggestions for future research.
Cultures and Organizations

Given the plethora of literature on culture-related management and organization research,
it is clear that culture is an important feature of organizational life and is therefore a central
issue for all management and organizational research. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged among organizational researchers that culture plays an important role in organizations,
and the volume of contributions made to this field in the past 30 years demonstrates that the
discussions are not merely another example of a management fashion (Kieser, 1997) but
are crystallized into (a) new paradigm(s) for organization research.
However, most leading researchers in this field state that there are various approaches that
conceptualize the relationship between culture and organization. Culture-related research
can therefore be depicted as diverse, disparate, and controversial. This is often stated by
researchers who are concerned with organizational culture (Alvesson, 2002; Ashkanasy,
Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000; Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Eisenberg & Riley, 2001; Jeffcutt,

58
1994; Martin, 1992, 2002; Martin & Frost, 1996; Parker, 2000; Smircich, 1983a, 1983b;
Smircich & Calas, 1987) but also in most contributions to cross-cultural management
research (Aguinis & Henle, 2003; Boyacigiller et al., 1996; Early & Singh, 2000).
We do not aim to fully explain the complex field of research on the relationship between
culture and organizations in all its detail and different approaches, nor do we feel that we are
able to settle what Martin and Frost (1996) called the organizational culture war games.
However, in the following, we aim to sketch the structure of the field by outlining one basic
distinction that paradigmatically divides the approaches of culture-related research into two
main groups. Since its first appearance, culture-related research in management and organization studies seems to be split into several distinct pockets that standin terms of their
epistemological background and the methods for empirical research employedin direct
opposition to each other. More than two decades ago, in her seminal contribution to the discussion on organizational culture, Smircich (1983b) distinguished between five different
ways of linking culture and organization. The two perspectives that Smircich called crosscultural or comparative management and corporate culture form the main paradigm of a
culture as a variable. The approaches labeled as organizational cognition, organizational symbolism, and unconscious processes and organizations form the second main
paradigm, namely, the basic conception of culture as a root metaphor.
Cross-cultural or comparative management researchas part of the culture as a variable
approachis, according to Smircich (1983b), attached to the underlying assumption that
culture is an instrument serving human biological and physical needs (p. 342) and hence to
a functionalist understanding of culture. Organizations are, respectively, instruments for task
accomplishment. Hence, culture is from this perspective an independent variable, an environmental factor that leads to variations in management systems or leadership styles. However, it is the quest for causal explanations between the national culture and identifiable practices and systems within organizations that is the focus of this research. As Smircich put it,
the culture as a variable approach is based on the conception of organizations as organisms, existing within an environment that presents imperatives for behaviour. . . . Underlying
the interests in comparative management and corporate culture is the search for predictable
means for organizational control and improved means for organization management (p. 347).
The culture as a root metaphor approach is in some ways the direct opposite: Characterized very broadly, the research agenda stemming from this perspective is to explore the phenomenon as subjective experience and to investigate the patterns that make organized action
possible (Smircich, 1983a, p. 348). Hence, this approach is based on assumptions that are
fundamentally opposed to the variable approach:
The mode of thought that underlies culture as a root metaphor gives the social world much less
concrete status. The social world is not assumed to have an objective, independent existence that
imposes itself on human beings. Instead, the social or organizational world exists only as a pattern of symbolic relationships and meanings sustained through the continued processes of
human interaction. Social action is considered possible because of consensually determined
meanings for experience that, to an external observer, may have the appearance of an independent rule-like existence. (Smircich, 1983a, p. 353)
We argue that the main distinction between the culture as a variable approach and culture as a root metaphor approach drawn by Smircich (1983b) is still significant in culture-

59
related research on organizations and management. Admittedly, as Martin and Frost (1996)
described, the field is structured by manifold idiosyncratic approaches that are disparate,
even if they stem from similar research traditions. Nevertheless, the two main paradigms of
the variable approach and the root-metaphor approach are still being interpreted as forming
families of approaches in culture-related research (see, e.g., Alvesson, 2002; Meek, 1988;
Parker, 2000). Furthermore, the two paradigms are, in these attempts to map the field, identified as distinct in relation to their epistemological, ontological, and methodological position. Hence, in the words of Burrell and Morgan (1979), the culture as a variable approach
is seen as part of the functionalist paradigm, which is based on a realist ontology and positivist epistemology, whereas most research in the culture as root metaphor approach is identified as part of the interpretive paradigm that is based on a nominalist ontology and
antipositivist epistemology. Methodologically, this leads to nomothetic versus ideographic
research.
However, we argue that the understanding that certain research issues (such as crosscultural management research) are closely linked to certain paradigms, with clearly defined
ontological assumptions, epistemologies, and methodologies, is somewhat inexact. Today, it
is widely acknowledged, for example, in cross-cultural management research that culture has
a degree of complexity that exceeds the notion of an independent variable influencing organizations in an unambiguous and objectively describable way. Hence, when analyzing crosscultural issues in management, the complexity of organizational life requires a view of the
organization that is different from that of a machine-like system.
Corresponding to recent discussions in cross-cultural and international management
research, we argue therefore for a paradigmatic position that combines insights from the
interpretive branch of organization studies and issues of cross-cultural management
research. Most recently, drawing on a broad range of the current literature on cross-cultural
management, organizational behavior, and cross-cultural psychology, Aguinis and Henle
(2003) provided a definition of culture that can also be taken as the basis underlying such an
approach to cross-cultural management research. In their view, culture is defined as a set of
commonalities shared by a group that limits the behavioral choices of its members. Culture is
therefore determined by common experiences; sets the stage for behavior (but does not
include or consist of behavior); is a stable system that, however, can change; and is a latent,
multidimensional, and multilayered construct. What makes this definition so useful is that it
holds for national as well as organizational culture. However, national and organizational
cultures demonstrate differences in the way in which culture is formed. As Hofstede and
Peterson (2000) recently stated, national cultures are shaped by values; organizational cultures are, however, shaped by practices. Although in general we agree with the criticisms that
national cultures are not only formed by values (McSweeney, 2002), we argue that
Hofstedes distinction about the way in which culture at different levels is informed is significant for epistemological and methodological considerations. If organizational culture is
informed by practices, then any attempt to identify how national culture affects organizations
has to focus on the interrelation and mutual influence of actual practices and the culture
within a focal organization. Hence, it is not the direct link between values at a national level
and the espoused values (Schein, 1985) that are part of the explicit or explicated organizational culture that leads to comprehensive insights into the influences of national culture on
organizations. Rather, if it is to identify the influence national cultures have on organizations,

60
or if we want to speak of an American or a Japanese company, the way in which national

cultures are engraved in real organizational practices becomes the core focus of interest.
To conceptualize the complex relationship between national culture and organization life,
it is useful to relate to the notion of sensemaking in organizations (Weick, 1995). The commonalities shared by a group that limits the behavioral choices of its members (the definition
of culture provided by Aguinis & Henle, 2003) consists of the patterns by which members of
an organization make sense of the events and incidents in the organization. If the rhetoric of a
national culture is being held as in general relevant, then it could be argued that national culture influences sensemaking in organizations. However, it is clear that organizational cultures are coined by inner fragmentation and that therefore the patterns of sensemaking might
differ within organizations. As in all cultures, organizational cultures consist of a complex set
of subcultures that are formed by different, and sometimes contrasting, ideologies and underlying assumptions (Martin, 1992, 2002; Smircich & Calas, 1987). However, we follow Martin and Meyerson (1988), who presented a picture of ambiguity at this point: (Organizational)
culture is a web in which individuals share several, but not all, cultural issues. And one of
these concerns can be, in specific settings, that national culture binds individuals together in
different ways.
The sociocognitive perspective that underlies the notion of sensemaking has two advantages for the conceptualization of (organizational) culture. First, it allows us to link the two
basic features of culture, namely, that culture is something that is shared among a group and
helps members of that group to ascribe meanings to, and hence to interpret, specific incidents
that they experience. Hence, the processes of sensemaking and meaning ascription are understood as a core part of organizational life. As Smircich (1983b) put it,
In a particular situation the set of meanings that evolves gives a group its own ethos or distinctive
character, which is expressed in patterns of belief (ideology), activity (norms and rituals), language and other symbolic forms through which organization members both create and sustain
their view of the world and image of themselves in the world. The development of a worldview
with its shared understanding of group identity, purpose, and direction are products of the unique
history, personal interactions, and environmental circumstances of the group. (p. 56)
However, even if the history, patterns of interaction, and environmental circumstances of the
group are unique, it can be argued that there are common features among group members that
intervene into the processes of sensemaking. Weick (1995, p. 188) therefore proposed to add
to the notion of shared meanings the aspect that members of a group have shared experiences, something that is in his view easier to observe and analyze as experiences are more
explicit and communicable.
The second reason why a perspective of culture as an enacted means of sensemaking is
useful is the notion that culture is related to aspects of knowledge. In this respect, Sackmann
(1991) proposed the notion of a cultural knowledge in organization and described culture
as the outcome of cognitive processes:
These mechanisms include the standards and rules for perceiving, interpreting, believing and
acting that are typically used in a given cultural setting. Within this perspective artefacts and
behavioural manifestations are considered as expressions of culture. These expressions are
located at the visible surface level while their attached meanings are below the visible level.
Their understanding requires an inquiry into the underlying processes of sense-making. (p. 33)

61
Hence, it is this specific, local, and also emotionally imbued (Sackmann, 1991, p. 41) cultural knowledge that forms a major source for the analysis of the intricate pattern of organizational culture. The knowledgeability (Giddens, 1984, p. xxiii) of local actorsin that they
know how to make sense of incidents and artifactsis therefore a primary source for in-depth
analyses when analyzing the way in which national cultures might influence organizational
life.
To sum it up, this sociocognitive definition of organizational culture as a means of
sensemaking enacted in local organizations has the advantage that it is compatible with social
anthropological approaches to organizational culture (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992) and
simultaneously provides the potential to take account of aspects of national culture in organizational analysis. This is because it focuses on local actors as knowledgeable, culture experienced experts in relation to issues such as how they enact (national) cultural backgrounds
in local organizational settings. This notion of culture, hence, situates the approach described
above as an alternative to the main distinction between the variable and the root-metaphor
approaches and therefore corresponds to the call for hybrid approaches to international and
cross-cultural management (Earley & Singh, 2000).
Methodological Issues Associated With the Conceptualization

of Culture in Cross-Cultural Research
One factor that influences the enacted patterns of sensemaking in organizations is the
place where an organization is rooted and/or located. It is widely acknowledged in organization theory that national cultures affect the culture of organizations. The statement that the
course of history has fashioned many variations in national social characteristics and views
of the meaning of life, and in national styles and philosophies of organization and management (Morgan, 1986, p. 114) demonstrates this common insight. Nevertheless, despite the
very basic consensus, the empirical studies undertaken on how national differences might
affect specific organizational cultures are far from unitary in their methodological basis. One
of the major concerns of research on organizational culture has been the quest for a methodology through which adequate representations of culturally influenced behavior can be
achieveda matter that has long been dealt with by not only organizations theorists but also
cultural anthropologists and psychologists (Tayeb, 2001). These methodological concerns
particularly hold for research on cross-cultural issues in organization research. The fact that
the interplay between culture and organizations variesin both its extent and mannerfrom
(national/regional) culture to culture and that research styles and methods might be contextually bound to the cultural background in which they are achieved adds to the complexity of
culture as a research genre.
In general, we argue that the landscape of methodology in cross-cultural research is
shaped in a similar way to the paradigmatic structure in culture-related organization research
described above. This argument is based on the understanding that there are different notions
of culture that relate to the different research paradigms, which can be classified as positivistfunctionalist and interpretivist (Williamson, 2001). In cross-cultural organization research,
the emphasis has tended to focus on objective validity (for an overview related to management studies, see Usunier, 1998, p. 32 ff.; for research on management control, see Harrison
& McKinnon, 1999). However, according to the belief that organizational culture is
enmeshed in practice, alternative methodological approaches that are related to interpretive

62
and mainly ethnographical frames of reference are proposed in the broad field of research on
organizational culture (see, e.g., Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Denzin, 1997; Jnsson &
Macintosh, 1997; Rosen, 2000; Symon & Cassell, 1998; Van Maanen, 1983, 1988). Hence,
although there is an array of interpretive studies on organizational culture, in cross-cultural
research on organizations, there are only a few examples of research that employ interpretive,
and particularly ethnographic, methods. Given the origins of ethnography, this is surprising,
as ethnography is part of the organizational research methods borrowed from the field of
anthropology, a field in which, from its inception, research crossing cultural boundaries was
a main theoretical concern.
In contrast, most studies in cross-cultural organizational research refer to the work of
Hofstede (1980, 2001) on cultures consequences (see also Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede,
Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990). In sum, Hofstedes work, and that of others who have
adopted, refined, or critically transformed his framework (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars,
1994; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Tayeb, 1988;
Triandis, 1995; Trompenaars, 1993; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997), focuses on
splitting the complexity of national culture into several observable and measurable values
that can then be identified in terms of the extent and way in which they influence organizational cultures. Hence, the main interest focuses on the identification of differences in
national cultures (not the cultures themselves; Hofstede, 2002) and the operationalization of
these relative measures (and not absolute measures; Hofstede, 2001, p. 73) for cross-cultural
management issues (Smith, 2002; Williamson, 2002). The extensive adoption of Hofstedes
framework has taken place in comparative studies on attitudes, values, and norms of managers and employees in different national cultures in many diverse fields, such as cross-cultural
psychology (see, e.g., Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995),
international management (see, e.g., Hickson & Pugh, 1995), and management control (for
an overview, see Harrison & McKinnon, 1999, p. 486 ff.).
Despite the level of influence Hofstedes findings exert in cross-cultural organizational
research, it has spawned almost as much critique. This critique is broadly related to the underlying assumptions and design of the framework, for example, for being ethnocentric in the
selection of methods and dimensions (Adler, 1983; Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Chinese
Culture Connection, 1987); for treating all dimensions the same way across cultures,
although they might have differing levels of importance (Lachman, Nedd, & Hinings, 1994;
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997); for fixing culture over time or disrespecting its
evolutionary character (Triandis, 1995); or, more generally, for being methodologically,
epistemologically, and ontologically narrow (McSweeney, 2002; Redding, 1994; Roberts &
Boyacigiller, 1984; Tayeb, 2001; Williamson, 2002).
In addition, within the field of organization research, there are criticisms toward
Hofstedes model. Czarniawska-Joergess (1992) critique, for example, focuses on the problems of relating the dimensionalized culture to the domain of organizational research.
From the perspective of social anthropology, she argued that organizations are cultural contexts for social action that are too complex to describe by using distinct categories and measurements but can be interpreted only by focusing on organizational practice, that is, meanings and artifacts typical (or unique) to complex organizations (p. 186). A more recent
analysis by McSweeney (2002) similarly critiques, evaluates, and challenges Hofstedes
research methodology.

63
Within the field of management control, Hofstedes model and results have also been
employed (e.g., Hofstede, 1986)with similar criticisms about the methodological issues
(see, e.g., Ahrens, 1996; Bhimani, 1999). Ahrens (1996), for example, argued that one
important obstacle in employing Hofstedes categories in studies on management control lies
in the conceptualization of culture as collective programming of the mind. Basing empirical work on questionnaire data is, to some extent, a contradiction in itself because one could
argue that the use of a questionnaire as a method of collecting data is a form of
preprogramming. Along with Ahrens (1996) and Bhimani (1999), Harrison and McKinnon
(1999) call for more use of ethnographic methods that draw on participant observation, interviews, narratives, and historical accounts. In addition, Bhimani (1999) argued that only
methodological pluralism can guarantee an insightful analysis of cross-cultural issues in
management control research.
Despite the conflicts about the methodological foundations of Hofstedes approach, there
is a consensus that the dimensionalization research paradigm is just one approach for
thinking about the implications of culture for organizations, namely, what has been termed
the culture as a variable approach (Smircich, 1983b). However, this aspect of the discussion on organizational culture does not realize the full potential of methodological variety.
The question is not simply whether a dimensionalization approach should be applied but also
what other approaches enable us to delve into the complexity of cross-cultural issues in management and organizational research. We therefore argue that the second broad strand of
research defined by Smircich (1983b), namely, the discussion on culture as basic metaphor,
contains useful concepts, ideas, and related methodologies that can open up the potential of
paradigmatic diversity for cross-cultural management and organization research (see also
Tayeb, 2001, p. 101 f.).
Clearly, interpretive approaches in organization studies do not attempt to standardize or
objectify the material but seek to reveal a rich understanding of how practices that are culturally influenced are constituted and perceived in the life-world of individuals. From the
interpretivist perspective, conceptualizing the relation between national culture and organizations has always been seen as a complex and challenging task for theorists. Many notions,
which play an important role in organization theory and practice (such as management, control, leadership, hierarchy, or organizing) are seen as being influenced by culture; hence, culture is an implicit source of meaning(s) to which individuals relate when experiencing,
understanding, and enacting (organizational) life. This has to be taken into account when
exploring how actors make sense of processes in organizations (Weick, 1995), particularly
when conducting research on these issues with respect to the cross-cultural dimension. Consequently, attempts to understand the embedded nature of organizational practices have to
delve into the interpretations actors ascribe to these notions and the different ways
organizational practices are enacted in their cultural context.
Ethnographical approaches (for an overview, see Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Denzin,
1997; Gummesson, 2000; Jnsson & Macintosh, 1997; Symon & Cassell, 1998; Van
Maanen, 1983) can be interpreted as providing alternative methodological means of accessing the embedded nature of organizational practices. The use of narratives (Czarniawska,
1998) is one aspect of this methodology that can be used in conjunction with other
ethnographic methods. In other social science disciplines, for example, history, anthropology, psychology, and sociology, the use of narratives has long been seen as a method that provides an alternative means to access the meaning people ascribe to specific situations and

64
incidents. This approach has led to a differentiated body of literature on the methodological
aspects of narrative research (see, e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 1999; Denzin, 1997; Lieblich,
Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998; Polkinghorne, 1988).
Narrative and ethnographical approaches have been applied in areas such as international
human resource management (see, e.g., Peltonen, 1998), the wider field of organizational
research (see, e.g., Boje, 1991, 1995, 2001; Boyce, 1995; Czarniawska-Joerges, 1996;
Czarniawska, 1997; Gabriel, 1995; Patriotta, 2003; Van Maanen, 1988) as well as in the field
of management accounting and control research. However, researchers who use narratives
come from different philosophical positions. For example, the work of Boyce (1995, 1997) is
related to social cognitivism, Czarniawskas work (Czarniawska, 1997, 1998, 2004) combines cognitivism with theories of drama and acting. For Gabriel (1995, 2000, 2004), who
refers to postmodern and poststructuralist concepts, stories are a prominent type of narratives
and are an important part of the construction of the life-world of individuals. Bojes work
(1991, 1995, 2001) also takes a postmodern view but sees the whole organization as consisting of webs of stories, rather than taking stories as expressive forms of organizational or individual life. The work of Van Maanen (1988) is clearly related to ethnography, as is the work
of other researchers that is related to an interpretive framework (e.g., Patriotta, 2003). In
management control research, the interpretive and ethnographic research views are predominant in relation to narrative research (Ahrens, 1996, 1997, 1999; Ahrens & Chapman, 2000;
Kostera, 2002; Llewellyn, 1999; Scheytt, Soin, & Metz, 2003).
At this point, it is important to distinguish between narratives and stories. From the interpretive perspective of narrative-related research, stories told by actorswho can be interpreted as local expertsdo not merely present facts or information. Rather, they provide
insights into the emotional and symbolic ascriptions and hence into the meanings that actors
ascribe to events in relation to their cultural background. The relevance of stories is that they
echo the voice, thinking, and perceptions of people in organizations and hence are a valuable
basis to explore the patterns of sensemaking within organizations, as Weick (1995) has also
highlighted. The work of Boyce (1995), for example, clearly exemplifies how the processes
of storytelling correspond to the processes of sensemaking in organizations. Furthermore, as
Van Maanen, Manning, and Miller (cited in Czarniawska, 1998) pointed out, the potential of
a narrative research setting is that it can be directed toward contextual factors that might
otherwise be neglected:
Narrative stories and tales, it is said, connect the person and the personal to social events, processes and organizations. Qualitative research using narrative methods enables researchers to
place themselves at the interface between persons, stories and organizations, and to place the
person in emotional and organisational context.
In stories, there has to be some kind of a plot that links the diverse, more rational aspects of
organizations with the feelings, events, and emotions of organizational members. However,
not all narratives do so, and this forms the basis of the difference between narratives and stories, in that stories are a specific type of narrative. Czarniawska (2004, p. 17) defined narratives as a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/action or series of events/
actions, chronologically connected (p. 19 ff.), whereas stories need to be emplotted in that
they are more complicated, imbued by emotions, descriptions of tensions, and/or moral conclusions. Accordingly, Gabriel (2000) argued that not all narratives are stories; in particular

65
factual or descriptive accounts of events that aspire at objectivity rather than emotional effect
must not be treated as stories (p. 5). For example, a formal description of how an organization works, guidelines for behavior, a chronicle of events, or an annual report do not constitute a story. Hence, stories are interesting as a particular form of narratives, in which the traces
of diverse cultural influences can be identified.
There are numerous ways to collect a variety of stories in organizations, both from different sources and in different contexts. For example, researchers can be told stories by members of an organization in both formal (e.g., a meeting) and informal situations (e.g., at a
Christmas party, over coffee, or in the staff canteen). A story can also be written in a report.
Furthermore, a researcher can directly ask a chosen group or person to tell me a story or
take a collected story and transfer it into a different cultural setting for interpretation by a
third party. Furthermore, as Czarniawska (2004) highlighted, the analysis of the stories can
draw on a number of techniques for interpretation such as ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, semiotic analysis, dramaturgical and narrative analysis, and
deconstruction.
We distinguish three main reasons that render the use of stories enlightening for crosscultural research. The first reason is that stories do not merely present facts or information.
Rather, they are told by local actors who can, however, be identified as local experts for the
interpretation of their own culture in cross-cultural research settings. They therefore provide
insights into the emotional and symbolic ascriptions and hence into the meanings that actors
ascribe to events in relation to their cultural background. Gabriel (2000, p. 135) stated that
stories are emotionally and symbolically charged narratives; they do not present information or facts about events, but they enrich, enhance and infuse facts with meaning. But,
how is this done in telling a story? In telling stories, a narrator always creates a plot (White,
1981), a way to bring single events or a sequence of actions experienced by the narrator into a
meaningful whole (Czarniawska, 1998, p. 2). However, it is not only the diachronicity of
stories (Bruner, 1991, p. 5), the sequential order of events, that is created or constructed by
the plot. Stories are dynamic, for example, tragic or comic, and reflexive, namely, selfdeconstructing, flowing, emerging and networking, not at all static (Boje, 2001, p. 1).
Hence, by saying, for example, and then . . . , the narrator links single events in a temporal
but also a logical sense. Thus, a story transforms events into historical facts by demonstrating their ability to function as elements of completed stories (White, 1987, p. 251). However, the way in which events are formed into a story depends on the very background of the
narrator, namely, the cultural aspects of his or her life: When people punctuate their own living into stories, they impose a formal coherence on what is otherwise a flowing soup
(Weick, 1995, p. 128).
Although a story provides an account that might bein the first instanceconsistent only
in the narrators view, it is exactly the constructive act of creating a plot that infuses the story
with expressions of the narrators feelings, values, norms, and beliefs. Lieblich et al. (1998,
p. 7) stated that such research provides one of the clearest channels for learning about the
inner world of the narrators, their lives, and their experienced reality. Therefore, a story can
provide different data than can be gathered on the basis of nomothetic methodologies.
Gabriel (1998) stated that
in telling a story, the requirements of accuracy and veracity are relaxed in the interest of making a
point. Poetic license is the prerogative of storytelling. At the same time, by shrouding a point in

66
symbolic terms, stories are able to evade censors, both internal and external, and express views
and feelings which may be unacceptable in straight talk. (p. 136)
A second reason for the use of stories is their ability to reveal hidden aspects of culture,
namely, the other side of rules, norms, and values that might be particularly valuable in crosscultural research. Van Maanen (1988) argued that the value of storytelling is its presumably
out of the ordinary or unique character. Impressionist tales are not about what usually happens but about what rarely happens (p. 102). This makes stories appealing as a basis for analyzing culture as they influence the way(s) of sensemaking in organizations. Not only are the
usual, literally normal patterns of behavior embraced but also how rare, unusual, or even deviant human behavior is formed and what the reasons for this behavior are in diverse social entities, such as organizations. As Bruner (1991) and White (1981) explained, narratives are a
means by which human beings construct realities and hence their own identity; however, culture is, from this perspective, constituted not only by rules but also by ways of breaking these
rules in the course of individual actions, the reactions that can be expected by this violation,
and the following events that form the consequences (on the issue of breach as point of reference in culture-related research, see also Trompenaars, 1993). Therefore, for Bruner (1991),
human behavior as described in stories is shaped not only by the prescription for canonical
behavior in a culturally defined situation but also by breach: For to be worth telling, a tale
must be about how an implicit canonical script has been breached, violated, or deviated from
in a manner to do violence to the legitimacy of the canonical script (p. 11).
Stories are therefore a suitable way of understanding how people interpret, obey, and actually do break the rules. This empirical richness, which is essential for cross-cultural research,
cannot be achieved by nomothetic approaches. Owing to their methodological nature, these
approaches ask respondents for their interpretation of rules and perhaps how the respondents
apply these rules, but they cannot ask for contextual situations and backgrounds in which
breaking the rules might be imperative in the eyes of the respondents. Thus, by using stories
as an empirical reference, cross-cultural research on organizations can take account of the
other side of culture, namely, the reasons why and when culture finds its end as a system that
regulates social relations. One of the central weaknesses of Hofstedes and similar models is
that they cannot take account of the importance or real meaning respondents ascribe in real
situations to culture in its different dimensions. According to interpretivist approaches, with
the use of stories, more space is provided for the respondent to shape the relation of values
and actions in his or her story. Hence, it can be observed how much attention is paid to different values or dimensions. This methodological strength also helps to bridge the gap between
the average tendencies of research, focusing on national-level culture in its impact on organizations and the mere description of organizational cultures as generic and self-evident entities in which no analytical link to national culture can be depicted. Furthermore, it provides a
basis for analyses, which accepts the fact that national cultures are not a holistic entity but are
differentiated into subcultures with different, or even contradicting, sets of norms, values,
and beliefs.
The third advantage of using stories is that the method acknowledges the fact that culture
needs to be understood in its context by those who have access to local practices, lived experiences, and shared meanings in that context. When cross-cultural research is directed toward
taking account of how (national) culture intervenes in processes of sensemaking, an emphasis has to be placed on the local actors who actually carry out these processes. In contrast to

67
nomothetic approaches, idiographic approaches (Tsoukas, 1989) enable us to identify contextual specifics, and particularly the role of local actors, that would otherwise be methodologically neglected. According to Williamson (2002, p. 1392), idiographic research is more
feasible than a nomothetic methodology for research into the context-specific factors as it
allows the researcher to investigate the complex and dynamic interrelationships of cultures,
institutions, history, and processes of social adaptation. That is to say, to fully understand
organizational practices, it is useful to interpret them as experiential concepts
(Czarniawska-Joerges, 1990). In this sense, stories allow us to explore the meanings of concepts by studying how people who are considered to be socially competent (CzarniawskaJoerges, 1990, p. 8) use them in real situations. Hence, using stories to analyze organizational
practices enables consideration of contextual factors, such as national cultures. With respect
to analyzing the practices of the use of power in organizations, Czarniawska-Joerges (1990)
argued that if one isolates [in organizational analysis] the concept of power from the world
of everyday life, it becomes empty, in the sense that we do not know what facts it relates to, or
how it relates to them (p. 7). The use of stories thus emphasizes the processes of interpretation and understanding carried out by local actors in a social context (Schuetz, 1927).
Similarly, drawing on Bruner (1990), Jnsson and Macintosh (1997) highlight that
the narrative mode constructs stories that give credible accounts of the world of actors experience and how they maintain their roles and identities. These stories illustrate how human actors
give meaning to their experience. So interpretive research provides reports about how actors feel
and think and establish what is canonical in a given societywhat is expected of a member. (p.
381)
There are, of course, limitations to using stories as a database. Researchers run the risk of
overlooking alternative sources of data that might reveal other organizational issues. However, our argument is that stories should not be the sole source of data in empirical research
butas our later discussion of Ahrenss (1996, 1997, 1999) and Scheytt et al.s (2003) work
illustratesused in conjunction with other ethnographical methods. In summary, therefore,
the use of stories responds to Williamsons (2002), as well as Hofstedes, call for alternative
methodologies as a supplement to our understanding. With this addition, valuable and important insights can be gathered not only about differences in cultures (not about cultures themselves) but also about the validity of cultural dimensions and the extent to which the dimensions play a role in the context of situations. Narrative approaches, such as the use of stories,
can therefore also augment other methodologies used for culture-related research in two
ways. First, they provide a basis for examining and explaining the cultural factors that shape a
specific situation. Second, they provide a basis for examining how the shared understandings
that are revealed through the analysis of stories play out in real situations.
For the researcher, using stories as an empirical basis necessitates being aware of ones
own theoretical and conceptual assumptions. Researchers bring assumptions and biases to
the research process because the nature of research itself can be interpreted as a process of
sensemaking and storytelling. Reflexivity as part of the methodology (see Alvesson &
Skoldberg, 2000; Van Maanen, 1988) is therefore particularly important in cross-cultural
research, given the researchers own cultural context. The methodological framework has to
ensure awareness of the fact that the processes of interpretation and sensemaking unintentionally change the material by reconfiguring meanings, making (new) sense of the inter-

68
preted material, fixing significationsto the results, and finally act[ing] as authors of the
narratives that we call theories (Calas & Smircich, 1999).
It is therefore important to clarify that such an understanding does not concentrate on the
deduction of positive analytical knowledge. The understanding of this approach is therefore
that all results are provisional and the object of a necessarily ongoing process of interpretation and reinterpretation(s), along the inevitable hermeneutic circle.
The next section provides some examples of the use of stories in cross-cultural research to
demonstrate the contribution of a narrative approach.
The Use of Stories in Cross-Cultural Research

The examples presented here are drawn from the field of management control because
control is one of the most pervasiveand literally universalmanagement practices. Furthermore, the situations in which control is exerted specifically explicate the influence of values and beliefs, feelings, and emotions on the decisions and actions of local and culturally
bound actors. In addition, increasing attention has been paid in the past two decades to the
transferability of management control practices. This has happened for two reasons: First,
increasing globalization implies that many firms have to establish international operations.
The key question that emerges is whether they can . . . transport their domestic MCS [management control systems] overseas, or whether they need to redesign the MCS according to
the cultural imperatives of the overseas nations (Harrison & McKinnon, 1999, p. 483). Second, although there is some recognition of the significance of culture in relation to management control systems design, this is still very limited with cross-cultural research. And
although these arguments are not unique to this fieldindeed, the same could be said for the
field of management research more generallythe ubiquitous nature of control, its significance to management accounting theory and practice, and the fact that it is of contemporary
relevance given that we live in a cost-driven global society all render it a particularly
interesting and useful construct to explore in the context of the issues addressed in this article.
To investigate control in organizations, one has to consider the ambiguous characteristics
of the way control exists as a central means to direct a company and to coordinate the actions
and behavior that are enacted by the organizations members. Although from a functionalist
paradigm, control is usually held as being neutral and objective, the use of control is potentially linked to the way power, and sometimes discretion, is exerted (see also Boland &
Schultze, 1996). Management accounting intensifies this ambiguous nature of control in that
it rationalizes and standardizes the control practices. By concentrating on specific (financial)
aspects, it hides other aspects of organizational life (Miller, 1994; Munro, 1999). Owing to
this ambiguous nature, control practices are arguably the most concealed yet highly significant type of processes in organizations and are context specific and influenced by the cultural
background. Hence, the use of stories, which leaves the widest possible space for the respondent in reasoning about the background, the meaning, and the implication of control, is presented here as being a suitable methodological means of theorizing about the practice of control in organizations. Consequently, narrative methodologies, and particularly the use of
stories, may play an important role in cross-cultural research on management accounting and
control practices. In the following, we present three examples of how such methodologies were
employed in exploring the cross-cultural formation of control practices in organizations.

69
The first example is the analysis of management accounting and control practices in Germany and the United Kingdom undertaken by Ahrens (1996, 1997, 1999; Ahrens & Chapman, 2000). In his ethnographically inspired research, Ahrens investigated the everyday
practices of management accountants and focused, among other things, on different styles of
accountability and the ways in which accounting practices and accountability were interrelated in the respective organizations. The empirical basis for the research consisted of document analysis, interviews, and participant observation of formal and informal meetings in a
set of German and British breweries. The brewery industry was selected because the economic situation (stagnating markets, simple technology, stable industry structure) is similar
in both countries.
Although not exclusively based on the use of narrative methodologies, Ahrenss work has
to be highlighted here with respect to his use of stories as a specific source of data for innovative cross-cultural research. This is best explained with the leaking roof example in Ahrens
(1996). During the ethnographic research phase in one British company, Ahrens observed a
lack of funds for maintenance, particularly for the upkeep of buildings, that led to dilapidation and finally to a leaking roof on a warehouse where canned beer and filled kegs were
stored. Although the maintenance manager of this company expressed concerns about the
state of the buildings, a budget for repair had not been granted through the period of 3 years.
The functioning of the production lines, which were perfectly maintained, and furthermore
the overall profit orientation in times of market and cost pressure were more central to the
perceived accountability of managers than the perceived need to repair the roof; although
hygienic, health and quality matters were clearly at risk.
What makes this significant for this context is the next step in Ahrenss empirical research
framework. He took these examples as a specific style of accountability and transferred it into
another culture by telling the stories to managers in the companies in the other country and
asked for their judgment and experience of accountability. Ahrens (1996) commented that
this brings out contradictory sentiments and logic-in-use in the two countries (p. 148).
Hence, clear differences of the culturally embedded nature of accountability could be
revealed. With respect to the leaking roof, the British style of accountability was beyond the
understanding of the German managers. The latter expressed a clear and unambiguous opinion that they would make sure that the roof would be repaired without any delay. Ahrens concluded with respect to the different Anglo-German styles of accountability that the British
view seemed to be that financial performance objectives and strategic ambitions are much
more important than the repair of a leaking roof, whereas the Germans put more emphasis on
the integrity of operational processes and expressed indifference toward any information that
does not represent operational economies of the organization:
It appears that the British senior management accountant and his finance director primarily hold
themselves accountable to managing their organization such that it generates revenues now and
in the future. The processes of accountability are such that in the pursuit of this goal drastic
action is perfectly acceptable. The German manager and the senior management accountant
both seem to hold themselves accountable to a concept of management which puts operational
integrity and economy before reported earnings. For them the failure to repair the roof is
inconceivable. (p. 152)

70
The strengths of using stories in this setting are obvious. The story is the container in which
the rationale of an everyday management practice (in this case, British management accountants and managers) is brought into a context that is coined by the same professional expertise
but is culturally different. By activating the professional expertise of people from another
region, cross-cultural differences are explored from a perspective that is different to the
dimensionalization approaches discussed earlier. In this case, it is not the researcher who is
imposing his interpretation and assessments onto the material; rather, it is the professionals
who, by their estimation of practices in other countries, exemplify the cultural differences.
This cross-cultural empirical research might therefore disclose a direct view, not on the
explicit aspects that can be categorized or measured, but on the implicit understandings of
professional actors in everyday situations very familiar to them.
Another example for the utilization of this approach to cross-cultural management is the
research by Kostera (2002). She focused on how a culturally specific understanding of concepts proliferates from one cultural region to another. In this case, it is the way in which the
concept of control, as it is understood by the Western part of the world and transported by
media and (Anglo-Saxon) textbooks, forms the notion of control in postcommunist Poland.
Kostera collected accounts from Polish management students, asking them (during the first
encounter) to write short stories or poems about the notion of control, without giving any further explanation of the aim of this exercise. The aim of research was to explore the current
associations of controlamong the Polish future management theorists and practitioners (p.
116). The following content analysis focused on the lived experience of students who were
too young to be eyewitnesses to the totalitarian (Stalinist) phase of Poland and therefore had
not experienced the communist system as adults. Hence, the responses were taken as an
expression of how control as social praxis is understood and judged in postcommunist
Poland. The hypothesis was that differences in terms of the political system (compared to the
Western world) would vanish but might continue in terms of the cultural setting. In general,
the accounts consisted mainly of definitionsoften combined with a personal account or
storyof kontrola, a Polish word that depicts only one aspect of the English word control,
namely, the social process of inspection or examination of one (group of) person(s) by
another one. The other aspects of the English word control, namely, supervision, directing,
(self-)restraint, technical control or check of devices, regulation, and so forth, were not used.
Although the results cannot be described here in detail, it is important to highlight the main
insights that Kostera (2002) extracted from her empirical data. Usually, the sentiment
expressed was that control is an awkward and threatening procedure whose legitimation and
meaning is scrutinized by the narrators. Positive connotations of control were not discussed.
And although control has a negative image, it is seen as necessary or inescapable, while the
ways in which it is constituted as social practice are seen as fraudulent and deceptive. Kostera
concluded that two skirmishing forces can be identified. First, the former experience in the
totalitarian phase of communism led to a fundamental mistrust toward all processes in which
an official or a superior acts toward another person or a subordinate. This also led to rigors in
personal relationships when it came to situations that were perceived as situations of control.
On the other hand, the import of Western (management) knowledge and culture in the past 15
years led to a rather uncritical borrowing of management practices, in the sense of this is the
way it has to be. Kostera concluded that

71
the inhabitants of the ex-Eastern bloc have lost their innocencethe totalitarian system has
taught them to be careful with words, with meanings and not to take things at face value. On the
other hand, it has also encouraged people to do the opposite, to read without thinking and accept
without reflection. . . . The clash of the tendencies: to believe and to doubt, is . . . a paradox of the
contemporary Polish society. (p. 124)
The value of using stories in this case is that the analytical view goes far beyond the characteristics that can be made explicit with measure-oriented methods (e.g., surveys). The intricate pattern of effects that contradict the idea of simply transferring (management) knowledge from one culture to anotheras it is supposed, for example, from the global perspective
of management control textbooksneeds to be understood when it comes to analyzing
issues of cross-cultural management. Specifically, the use of stories can depict the dynamic
and transformational aspects of evolving societies and cultures, aspects for which the
dimensionalization approaches have problems accounting.
Employing a similar methodological framework to Kostera (2002), Scheytt et al. (2003)
explored notions of control across four different (West) European countries: Austria, France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom. The main aim of the research was to generate an understanding about control as a social (and organizational) practice and to provide insights into
the differences in understanding and sensemaking of control in the different regions.1 Seventy-six stories were collected from students at the beginning of their first management
accounting and control course. The students were asked to write a short story about their personal experience of control. Using qualitative content analysis, the results were interpreted
against the backdrop of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) and related to the relational,
processual, situational, and reflexive aspects of control.
Scheytt et al.s (2003) research provides insights into the lived experience of control across
different cultures. The results demonstrate thatalthough the countries are all part of Europe
and therefore just a small part of the globalized economythe rational as well as the emotional aspects of control show considerable differences in how control is constituted, perceived, and assessed. Overall, the stories describe control as a procedure or a set of actions
with clearly defined temporal, spatial, and social boundaries. Control, however, is not a neutral event: The stories suggest that control mobilizes feelings and judgments by the controller
and the controlled. Furthermore, the results suggest that despite its shifting conceptual
nature, control as an everyday experience has many interrelated social, political, cultural, and
moral connotations that have to be considered when transferring control structures, standards, or systems from one region to another. One main difference is, for example, how
everyday control situations are understood. In the German, Austrian, and French samples, all
stories are told from the perspective of the controlled. Control situations are typically seen as
an examination or check, where the mode of subordination is clear. Control is seen as a necessary though unpleasant procedure, imposed on the controlled to regulate social processes and
exerted through something. The controlled person perceives himself or herself as the victim of a power structure (French) or formal process (German) over which they have no influence, and control is typically something that happens to me. In the French examples, control is mainly perceived as threatening the individual integrity of the controlled, whereas the
German stories express concerns about how correctly the accepted control rules are applied
or whether the controller acts arbitrarily. In the Austrian examples, the controlled person
sometimes reflects on the possibility of turning the situation into an intellectual challenge for

72
the controller and the controlled, in which escaping the situation without being punished or
harassed is the goal for the controlled person. Control is typically depicted as a game that is
played. This is particularly interesting as Germany and Austria share the same language and
are regularly seen as being rooted in the same culture. In contrast to the three other samples,
all the U.K. stories are told from the perspective of the controller. Despite that, some of the
U.K. narrators acknowledge the fact that they themselves are being controlled. However, in
general, control is seen as an opportunity for personal development, where control is
something that I do and is mainly an explicit practice of control over something.
The results of Scheytt et al.s (2003) research indicate an answer to an intensively discussed issue in management accounting and control theory. That is, the ongoing debate about
whether the processes of internationalization and globalization also lead to a standardization
of management practices and whether a transfer of management accounting and control systems from one region to another is possible. The use of stories as an empirical basis led in this
case to a clear image of how the cultural factors actually shape the notions of control. By providing the respondents with a framework in which they could depict the full picture of their
experience, the degree of the interrelation between culture and control was analyzed. The
results show that the notion of control on whose basis local actors make sense of a particular
situation is closely related to contextual factors, of which the most significant is national or
regional culture. However, the fact that this notion is so deeply embedded in, and laden with,
ascriptions cannot be ignored when implementing a management control system in a
different region than that of its origin.
Concluding Remarks
This article has sought to advance our understanding and evaluate the application of an
alternative methodological approach to cross-cultural research in the field of social sciences,
organization theory, and management research. Drawing on a discussion of different conceptualizations of culture-related research, and by discussing examples of story-driven investigations into cultural differences, the article has highlighted the potential of a narrative
approach to cross-cultural research. Furthermore, drawing on the distinction between
idiographic and nomothetic approaches, the article responds to calls for multiple methods
(Bhimani, 1999; Hofstede, 2002; Hopwood, 1999; Scheytt et al., 2003; Williamson, 2002) in
cross-cultural research. As Williamson (2002) commented, It is not yet time to abandon
either functionalist research into national culture or the great advances it has made in
unbundling the black box of culture. We still need multiple methods from several paradigms
for researching national culture (p. 1392).
Narrative methods are useful in a multimethodological framework for exploring the relation between organizational practices and culture in cross-cultural settings. By confronting
local actors accounts of implicit factors from different countries, rich descriptions of (management control) cultures can be realized for cross-cultural analyses. Hence, although narrative methodologies take the opposite stance to positivist, quantitative-orientated approaches,
they can be seen as complementary rather than merely different or alternative. They allow the
cross-cultural researcher to take account of the specifics of the context in which local actors
make sense of incidents they experience. Thus, they acknowledge that in (organizational)
practice, the seemingly articulated point of view is tied together with and often largely submerged in action. And, more significantly for cross-cultural research, these approaches focus

73
on differences of meanings, rather than seeking to assemble identities, in terms of a common

cultural knowledge in the form of a certain set of culturally specified variables.
A further strength of narrative approaches is that narratives (e.g., stories) address culture
in alternative ways: As stated earlier, by expressing not only canonicity, but also breach
(Bruner, 1991), they permit identification of rules as well as how acts of breaching and violating the rules are interpreted by the social context. Hence, narrative accounts may provide
examples of attempts to change or overcome the system. They therefore provide clearer
insights into the hidden influences of a culture (rather than, e.g., a questionnaire, which can
ask for only an explanation of rules). In addition, narrative accounts are useful in cross-cultural research for the interpretation of interactive situations as opposed to neutral, objective,
and/or reified matters. Consequently, from a cross-cultural perspective, the use of narrative
methodologies is important for issues such as leadership, managerial control, human
resource management and development, and organizational change.
Glanz (1993) highlighted the power of storytelling, suggesting that stories told by incumbent employees to new recruits can transport more content than formal training in organizations. On a methodological level, this suggests that stories can convey extensive and sizeable
aspects of organizational life and are therefore particularly useful for cross-cultural research.
Hence, although this approach can be used on its own, its potential strength lies in how it can
act as a first step in exploring, identifying, and conceptualizing the traces of culture in the patterns of sensemaking enacted in organizations. Future research could therefore combine this
approach with others in cross-cultural research and can be particularly useful for intercultural
research teams, which also have to face the rich fabric of diverse cultural backgrounds that
can be augmented by a plurality of methods.
Note
1. With respect to Hickson and Pughs (1995) classification of consistent management cultures, the Anglos
(United Kingdom), the Latins (France), the Northern Europeans (Germany), and the East-Central Europeans
(Austria) were represented.
References
Adler, N. (1983). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of International Business Studies,
Fall, 29-47.
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2003). The search for universals in cross-cultural organizational behavior. In
J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 373-411). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ahrens, T. (1996). Styles of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 139-173.
Ahrens, T. (1997). Talking accounting: An ethnography of management knowledge in German and British brewers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 617-637.
Ahrens, T. (1999). Management accounting practices in Britain and Germany. Amsterdam: Harwood.
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2000). Occupational identity of management accountants in Britain and Germany.
European Accounting Review, 9, 477-498.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Cultural perspectives on organizations. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Introduction. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 1-18). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

74
Bhimani, A. (1999). Mapping methodological frontiers in cross-national management control research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 413-440.
Boje, D. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of performance in an office-supply firm. Administration
Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126.
Boje, D. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney Tamara-land. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997-1035.
Boje, D. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boland, R. J., & Schultze, U. (1996). Narrating accountability: Cognition and the production of the accountable
self. In R. Munro & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technology of managing (pp. 6281). London: Thomson Business Press.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy
of Management Review, 16, 262-290.
Boyacigiller, N. A., Kleinberg, M. J., Phillips, M. E., & Sackmann, S. A. (1996). Handbook for international management research (pp. 157-208). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centring and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16, 107-137.
Boyce, M. E. (1997). Organizational story and storytelling: A critical review. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 9(5), 5-26.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1-21.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology
of corporate life. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 649-671.
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1999). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. London: Sage.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1990). In the eyes of the innocent: Students on organizational power. Stockholm:
Regeringskansliets Offsetcentral.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1992). Exploring complex organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1996). Changing times and accounts: Tales from an organization field. In R. Munro &
J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technology of managing (pp. 307-328). London:
Thomson Business Press.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B., & Monthoux, P. G. D. (Eds.). (1994). Good novels, better management: Reading organizational realities (in fiction). Chur, UK: Harwood Academic.
Denning, S. (2004). Telling tales. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 122-127.
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. London: Sage
Earley, P. C., & Singh, H. (2000). Introduction: New approaches to international and cross-cultural management
research. In P. C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in international and cross-cultural management (pp.
1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 291-322). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (1995). Turning facts into stories and stories into facts: A hermeneutic exploration of organizational
folklore. Human Relations, 44, 857-875.
Gabriel, Y. (1998). The use of stories. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research (pp. 135-160). London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions and fantasies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

75
Gabriel, Y. (2004). Stories in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 114-126). London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Glanz, J. (1993). Bureaucracy and professionalization. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1994). The seven cultures of capitalism. London: Piatkus Books.
Harrison, G. L., & McKinnon, J. L. (1999). Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A
review of the current state. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 483-506.
Hickson, D. J., & Pugh, D. (1995). Management worldwide: The impact of societal culture on organizations
around the globe. London: Penguin.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Editorial: The usefulness of the organizational culture concept. Journal of Management
Studies, 23, 253-257.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55, 1355-1361.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational culture: A qualitative
and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
Hofstede, G., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Culture: National values and organizational practices. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp.
401-416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hopwood, A. G. (1999). Situating the practice of management accounting in its cultural context: An introduction.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 377-378.
Jeffcutt, P. (1994). From interpretation to representation in organizational analysis: Postmodernism, ethnography
and organizational symbolism. Organization Studies, 15, 241-274.
Jnsson, S., & Macintosh, N. B. (1997). CATS, RATS and EARS: Making the case for ethnographic accounting
research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 367-386.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1997). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kieser, A. (1997). Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization, 4, 49-74.
Kostera, M. (2002). Control: Accounting for the lost innocence. In M. Kelemen & M. Kostera (Eds.), Managing
the transition: Critical management research in Eastern Europe (pp. 111-127). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Lachman, R., Nedd, A., & Hinings, B. (1994). Analyzing cross-national management and organizations: A theoretical framework. Management Science, 40, 40-55.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, interpretation. London: Sage.
Llewellyn, S. (1999). Narratives in accounting and management research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12, 220-236.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., Feldman, M., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organization studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453.
Martin, J., & Frost, P. (1996). The organizational culture war games: A struggle for intellectual dominance. In
S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 599-621). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling, and acknowledgement of
ambiguity. In L. Pondy, R. Boland, & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change (pp. 93-125). New
York: John Wiley.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of
faith: A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89-118.
Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization Studies, 9, 453-473.

76
Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice: An introduction. In A. G. Hopwood & P. Miller
(Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice (pp. 1-39). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Munro, R. (1999). The cultural performance of control. Organization Studies, 20, 619-640.
Parker, M. (2000). Organizational culture and identity. London: Sage
Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 349-375.
Peltonen, T. (1998). Narrative construction of expatriate experience and career cycle: Discursive patterns in Finnish stories of international career. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 875-892.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization Studies, 15,
323-359.
Roberts, K., & Boyacigiller, N. (1984). Cross-national organizational research: The grasp of the blind man. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 6 (pp. 423-475). Stamford, CT:
JAI.
Rosen, M. (2000). Chapters in organizational ethnography. Amsterdam: Harwood.
Sackmann, S. A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Metz, T. (2003). Exploring notions of control across cultures. European Accounting
Review, 12, 515-547.
Schuetz, A. (1927). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in
20 countries. Advances in Empirical Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Schwartz, S., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
Smircich, L. (1983a). Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge
(Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 55-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Smircich, L. (1983b). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339358.
Smircich, L., & Calas, M. F. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 228-263). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. (2002). Cultures consequences: Something old and something new. Human Relations, 55, 119-135.
Symon, G., & Cassell, C. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. London:
Sage.
Tayeb, M. (1988). Organizations and culture. London: Sage.
Tayeb, M. (2001). Conducting research across cultures: Overcoming drawbacks and obstacles. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 91-108.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in
business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Breazley.
Tsoukas, H. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 551561.
Usunier, J. C. (1998). International and cross-cultural management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1983). Epilogue: Qualitative methods reclaimed. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 247-269). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

77
White, H. (1981). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative
(pp. 1-25). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
White, H. (1987). The content of form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Williamson, D. (2001). A review of cross-national research into management control: Moles in search of earthworms? In Proceedings of the 5th International Management Control Systems Conference. Egham, UK:
School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London.
Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstedes model of national culture. Human Relations, 55,
1373-1395.
Kim Soin is a lecturer in the Department of Management at Kings College London. Her research focuses on analyzing risk management, regulation, and compliance practices; analyzing management accounting change in
organizations; and the (inter)relationship between culture and control. Her work has appeared in Management
Accounting Research and European Accounting Review.
Tobias Scheytt is an assistant professor at the School of Management at Innsbruck University, Austria. His main
research interest lies on the ways in which systems of control and governance inform modes of organizational perception, knowledge, communication, and culture(s). His work is published in many German, English, and Japanese journals and books.


Soin. 2006. Making The Case For Narrative Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soin. 2006. Making The Case For Narrative Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Research Methods

Making the Case for Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Organizational Research

The Research Methods Division of The Academy of Management

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Making the Case for Narrative

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Cultures and Organizations

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

or if we want to speak of an American or a Japanese company, the way in which national

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Methodological Issues Associated With the Conceptualization

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

The Use of Stories in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

on differences of meanings, rather than seeking to assemble identities, in terms of a common

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Organizational Research Methods

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

Soin, Scheytt / Narrative Methods in Cross-Cultural Research

Downloaded from http://orm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007

You might also like