Evaluation of Journal Article: Heijes, C. (2010) Cross-Cultural Perception and Power Dynamics Across Changing Organizational and National Contexts: Curacao and the Netherlands, Human Relations, 64 (5) 653-674.

Evaluation of Journal Article: Heijes, C. (2010) Cross-cultural perception and power dynamics across changing organizational and national contexts: Curacao and the Netherlands, Human Relations, 64 (5) 653-674. Introduction This essay critically evaluates Coen Heijes’s paper on power differences in cross-cultural perception and how power imbalance across diverse organizational and national contexts result in various cross-cultural perception between two particular ethnic groups, namely European Dutch and African Curacaoans.To be more specific, this review is critically discussed for the following parts. First of all, the theoretical framework development is briefly examined from dimensional approach to contextual approach. After that follows the research approaches that Heijes adopted and puts forward the advantages and disadvantages, as well as, considering the limitations of them. Eventually, the potential implications for individuals should be involved and particularly wheth er they positively relates to intercultural working in cross-cultural management.Brief description of the article In this article, Heijes (2010) presents a comparative analysis of cross-cultural perception between European Dutch and African Curacaoans in Netherlands and Curacao respectively, as well as including two organizations namely the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the police, each of which owns diverse power dynamics. Through using the exploratory case studies, which enable to test the â€Å"emerging findings in wider survey-based research† (Cassell and Symon, 2004, p. 27), the author tends to illustrate how power differences impact on cross-cultural perception. In order to provide more exactly evidence, Heijes applied a set of various methods in collecting data. Most of data were gathered from interviews between Curacaoan and Dutch employees in IRS and police. Moreover, choosing different interviewers was taken into consideration with the purpose of avoiding inter viewer bias; it is mainly due to the fact that ethnic background of the interviewer plays a dominant role in determining the respondents’ answers.After that, it is followed by participant observation to supply further data. Then data were categorized into four groups and based on an iterative process for checking and interpreting the findings. As for findings, from the anthropological perspective, Heijes concluded that cross-cultural perception between two ethnic groups that are relatively similar, that is because the same external background of the two countries and differs due to the internal context of two different organizations.However, the cultural differences were not very much; therefore, the findings indicated that power dynamics plays a crucial role in influencing the cross-cultural perception not only in internal organizational context, but also in external national context. In other words, taking the power dynamics between different groups into consideration is mu ch more essential for determining cross-cultural perception and cooperation than only rely on a value-based approach.Theory and Literature This article based on Hofstede and McSweeney’s theoretical framework for understanding the power dynamics and cross-cultural perception alongside changing organizational and national contexts. Heijes broadly illustrates the dimensional approach, which one of the most acknowledged and comprehensive cultural typologies is that put forward by Hofstede (Chiang, 2005), is â€Å"monolithic and rather static description of national cultures† (Heijes, 2010, p. 653).In spite of widely application and its popularity, it also challenged by â€Å"a more contextual approach based on actual interaction† (Heijes, 2010, p. 654). The literature assists the author in developing theoretical frameworks through quoting â€Å"many methodological and theoretical criticisms† (Chiang, 2005, p. 1545) surrounding the dynamics of cross-cultural p erception. Firstly, in terms of Hofstede‘s framework, Hoecklin (1996) points out that this framework not only enable to analysis national culture, but also especially focus on understanding the effects of cultural differences in organizations.However, due to â€Å"reduce the complexities of culture† (Deschepper et al, 2008, p. 2), Jackson (as sited in Heijes, 2010, p. 654) correctly argues that dimensional approach unable to address the â€Å"dynamics of cross-cultural interaction within the complexity of power relationship†. Furthermore, the methodological flaws of Hofstede’s model are pointed out by McSweeney (2002), whose critique maintains whether culture can affect differences in behaviour between people from diverse countries (Williamson, 2002).Finally, Marrewijk (1999) makes clear that power imbalances might influence on cross-cultural perception, as well as bringing about different behaviour determined by using contextual approach. Having considere d all the arguments above, this exploratory article through using comparative analysis of cross-cultural perception and emphasising on various contexts between different organizations and countries, which own different power dynamics, to demonstrate how power differences impact on cross-cultural perception.Heijes’s critique of dimensional approach is relatively convincing, however, there are some concepts that the author may be overlooked. For instance, power dynamics and cross-cultural perception are relatively important concepts that the author should be explained. Because of power dynamics related to the Hofstede’s dimensional approach, which is very essential for understanding the main idea of this journal. Moreover, power dynamics, that is, are not very easily to observe and even unconscious occasionally (Boonstra and Gravenhorst, 1998). As Gajewska-De Mattos et al. as cited in Heijes, 2010, p. 654) has argued that â€Å"dimensions were non-commensurable with dat a on actual cross-cultural perception†. Research Approach: In order to demonstrate the research question: â€Å"How power differences impact on cross-cultural perception† exactly, the author adopts a comparative analysis of perception alongside â€Å"two changing axes namely external national context and internal organizational context†, both of them within the home countries of Curacaoans and Dutch, and in two specific organizations: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the police.According to Yin (2009), the reason why choose case study as research method is that questions tend to explain some present circumstance and acquire â€Å"the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events† (p. 5). Moreover, the case is well suited to examine â€Å"complex contemporary phenomena† (Ogawa and Malen, 1991, p. 274) in depth and â€Å"within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evi dent† (Yin, 2009, p. 18).The unique advantages of the case study is enable to deal with various evidence namely â€Å"documents, interviews and observations†, which superior to other research methods (Yin, 2009, p. 11). Another advantage can be to provide more opportunities for â€Å"the researchers that they would not have otherwise†, however, the disadvantages of the case study are obviously, that is the results enable to apply to other individuals (Lanthier, 2002). Interviews, as one of the most significant sources of the case study information, removed gender within the organization and treated all espondents as male (Heijes, 2010). In this journal article, the interview started with open-ended questions. These complex and long questions are too difficult for respondents to answer as well as too difficult to gather the information for interviewers due to the fact that the â€Å"respondent fatigue† (Bryman and Bell, 2011). After interview with open-ende d questions, the interviewers moved to semi-structured interviews that â€Å"interviewer and respondents engage in a formal interview† (Cohen and Crabtree, 2006).On the other words, the interviewers follow some specific questions that have already prepared and the list of questions needs to be covered during the interview in a particular order. Semi- structured interviews usually last for approximately an hour, which might be in full accordance with that of 80 minutes. Another question about whether should record the content during the interviews or not. A study by Yin shows that â€Å"using recording devices is a matter of personal preference†, moreover, recording can provide more accurate information than any other method (2009, p. 09). But a recording device is not permitted to use in some particular situations. In this journal article, the author employed interviewers who differed not only in gender, but also own diverse ethnic background in order to avoid bias of the interviewers; this is a significant way to improve the degree of accuracy. Besides interviews, participant observation is a special mode of observation that should â€Å"assume a range of roles within a case study situation and actually participate in the events being studied† (Yin, 2009, p. 111).The participant-observation research method has already widely used in anthropological studies in terms of different cultural or social groups, which is suitable for using in this journal article (Becker and Geer, 1957). Moreover, one of the most advantages of participant observation is that some topics may be no way to collect information other than through participant-observation (Yin, 2009). Dewalt (as cited in Kawulich, 2005) rightly points out that it has ability to enhance the quality of the data collection and interpretation. However, the limitation of the participant-observation is much obviously.The researcher must consider the â€Å"gender, ethnicity, class and theoret ical approach†, which may impact on observation, analysis and interpretation (Kawulich, 2005) Findings and Conclusions After the process of data collection and analysis, as for Curacaoan context, Heijes can be confirmed that power dynamics between the two groups plays a significant role in determining the perception. That was concluded from the results of the research that cross-cultural perceptions within the groups are relatively similar, that is mainly due to the fact that they own the same national culture and only influenced by the different contexts.However, in colonial area, the cross-cultural perception was effected by the postcolonial setting as well as the power imbalance. Finally, the findings consistent with the argument, which is power imbalance effects cross-cultural perception, after than lead to different behaviour depending on different contexts. Considering the main findings and the arguments, it can be concluded that these findings are valid.In terms of Dutc h context, the findings illustrate that power dynamics impact on cross-cultural perception not only in organizational contexts but also including the national and postcolonial contexts. That means we should take both aspect of contexts into consideration when determine the relationship between power imbalance and cross-cultural perception. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that culture contexts are relatively similar between these two groups, and have no impact on the relationship between cross-cultural perception and power dynamics.In the conclusion, Heijes puts forward the limitations of the approach and research method, as the exploratory case studies only pay attention to the effect of power imbalance on perception between two countries as well as within two organizations. Furthermore, the author even recommends further investigating other cases about how power dynamics of postcolonial context impact on cross-cultural perception and how these areas interrelate to each other. Moreover, this research would provide assistance in understanding the significant interrelationship between power dynamics and culture.