IER-07-03-05-pp061--2027-Batz,Siegfried 2021, Vol. 7, No. 3 10.15678/IER.2021.0703.05 Complexity of culture and entrepreneurial practice Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried A B S T R A C T Objective: The objective of the article highlight the significance of culture in the entrepreneurial landscape and provides entrepreneurs and (project) managers with a guidance tool to overcome previously unconsidered stumbling blocks while operating in the intercultural setting. Research Design & Methods: The following article was prepared based on a critical study review devoted to existing approaches to intercultural impact in business life and used the archival technique from 1990- 2020. The study review reflects on the identification of existing literature gaps in the implementation of a subcultural business environment. It addresses these by designing an appropriate model to bypass the apparent pitfalls of intercultural business communication and co-existence, if possible. Findings: Culture impacts diverse sets of society and businesses, including entrepreneurship. This article un- derpins which pitfalls are advisable to consider when encountering the intercultural and entrepreneurship- driven workplace. Implications & Recommendations: Based on the study review, startups, as well as big corporate companies’ projects of a creational nature, are advised to reconsider their perception and handling of culture applying The Building of Cultural and Entrepreneurial Force. Contribution & Value Added: The added value of this article is to be found in the solid analysis of cultural essentialism, anti-essentialism, and implications to beware of in the managerial and entrepreneurial con- text related to The Building of Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force that intends to ease to co-work of intercultural teams. Article type: research article Keywords: Culture; essentialism; anti-essentialism; entrepreneurship; cultural perception; cultural innovation; work cultivation; intercultural teams JEL codes: B55, F00, F53 Received: 27 April 2021 Revised: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 12 June 2021 Suggested citation: Bätz, K. & Siegfried, P. (2021).Complexity of culture and entrepreneurial practice. International Entrepreneur- ship Review, 7(3), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2021.0703.05 INTRODUCTION This paper attempts to explore the interaction between culture and entrepreneurship. Entrepre- neurship is increasingly being recognized as an important factor for economic growth. Some cul- tures are more conducive for entrepreneurship than others, considering the different cultural her- itages and dimensions. The significance of different cultural aspects and their effect on entrepre- neurship has been noted in a number of studies (cf. Wach, 2015). Therefore, as culture is a relatively unconscious framework based on a shared understanding that can vary, the objective of the article is to highlight the significance of culture in the entrepreneurial landscape to provides entrepreneurs and (project) managers with a guidance tool to overcome previously unconsidered stumbling blocks while operating in the intercultural setting (cf. Bartha et al., 2018; Kaasa et al., 2013), providing this article with sufficient novelty. Thus, the assumptions on which this article is based on are as follows: International Entrepreneurship Review RI E 62 | Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried A1: The anti-essentialist approach disregards entrepreneurship. A2: Existing cultural approaches do not yet provide entrepreneurship with a framework to lev- erage its intercultural setting. Culture can provide a system of commonly shared meaning, interpretation, and values (Primecz et al., 2009; cf. Hall, 1959, 1976; Holliday, 2011; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; Trompenaars & Hampden- Turner, 1997). According to Søderberg and Holden (2002), culture is related to the notion of social constructivism. In that case, it is a collective and relational construct that can be defined and redefined by those participating. Thus culture is based on a mutable construction. “Culture used to be a way to describe, generalize and explain what a person was doing. Itis not so easy – maybe even impossible – to do that anymore” (Agar, 2002, p. 15). The complex and dynamic construct of a culture built upon interpersonal communication pro- cesses, co-existence, and behavior does not remain consistent in its values and practices since it is a negotiable social process of change (cf. Bartha et al., 2018; Kaasa et al., 2013). That proceeding tends to happen on a presumably unconscious level. The relational construct refers to the interaction of people who belong to the same particular culture. Simultaneously these people are catalysts for a new emergent contextual setting of visions, aspirations, and change (cf. Olwig, 1997; contra. Hall, 1959, 1976; Hofstede, 1980; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Conse- quently, culture can adapt and integrate novelty, unifying the old and new practices (cf. Clausen, 2010; Fischer et al., 2014; Flitzsimmons, 2013; Hannerz, 1996; Joy & Poonamallee, 2013; Primecz et al., 2009; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; contra. Hall, 1959, 1976). Similar to culture, business, especially entrepreneurship, is a never stagnant process – culture is in continuous progress, a related structure can be found in entrepreneurship. However, this circum- stance in the entrepreneurial context is not only driven by desirable states of cultural diversity but also much more by the competitive nature and accompanying innovation in a business world that is in- creasingly VUCA: volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; cf. Kim & Mauborgne, 2015). “Entrepreneurship necessarily takes place within culture, it is utterly shaped b cul- ture, and it fundamentally consists in interpreting and influencing culture. Consequently, the [entre- preneur] can understand it only if he is willing to immerse himself in the cultural context in which the entrepreneurial process occurs”(Lavoie 1991, p. 36). In particular, entrepreneurs with the will to make progress accessible to entire economies use creative diversity, skill sets, and in the same process, acquire an awareness of the significance of cultural diversity. Thus, multidisciplinary teams are increasing in frequency, as they are said to meet not in their weaknesses but complementarily in their strengths (Bartha et al., 2018; Weinberg, 2019). Multidisciplinary teams pro- mote the learning of cooperativeness and solution-oriented action and openness and exposure to new ideas (Weinberg, 2019; cf. Di Cristini et al., 2003; Lewrick et al., 2018; Pearce, 2003). Multidisciplinarity, however, expands to the analysis of hard and soft skills, but cultural diversity simultaneously. A variance of this kind may not only result in a holistic go-to-market strategy of an emerging startup but also indicate unavoidable knowledge about global markets and their particular characteristics (cf. Nathan, 2014). Ignor- ing these characteristics could negatively impact a born global in the market entry phase and its market power (contra. Habermann, 2008; Kaplan, 1966; Rumelt, 2011; Voloshinov et al., 1973). Therefore, shared leadership (Di Cristini et al., 2003; Pearce, 2003; cf. Myers, 1962) and flat or no hierarchies are beneficial in startups with the desire to be competitive (cf. Weinberg, 2019), as collab- orative team working for and with the same vision (Sinek, 2009) is critical to the breakthrough entre- preneurial success of a founding team. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY DEVELOMENT Reviewing Culture’s Complexity Even though practiced with superb intentions, approaching cultural otherness in the entrepreneurial context of a multidisciplinary, intercultural team (cf.; Kaasa et al., 2013; Weinberg, 2019) can cause Complexity of Culture and Entrepreneurial Practice | 63 frictions unconsciously. The rather one-dimensional approach to categorizing the complex dynamic and mutable construct of culture implies the potential of becoming increasingly tricky in its utiliza- tion (Primecz et al., 2009; cf. Clausen, 2010; Hannerz, 1996; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; contra. Hall, 1976) since culture is inappropriate to perceive as nation-based (contra. Hofstede, 1980). Cultural diversification is inextricably related to the notion of vastly growing globalization (Cheung & Chan, 2009; cf. Szromnik, 2020) and its diverse microcultures’ facets. “The world is full of confrontations between people, groups, and nations who think, feel, and act differently. At the same time these people, groups, and nations, […] are exposed to common problems that demand cooperation for their solution“ (Hofstede &Minkov, 2010, p. 10).Consequently, national cultures appear to emanci- pate themselves automatically from standardized norms – against essentialists’ assumptions (con- tra. Hofstede, 1980) – and similar to innovation-driven startups. Respectively, the anti-essentialism paradigm underpins that culture extends beyond the standstill. The opposite would imply that nei- ther further development nor learning in a mental framework would occur, which can be seen from an anthropologist’s and behaviorist's perspective on culture, as invalid as well (cf. Kahn, 2001; con- tra. Hofstede, 1980; Hall, 1959). Generalizing individuals from a presumably shared cultural background as practiced by cultural essentialists can imply the apparent risk of educational convenience. The result of mental impartiality may lead to the prevention of intercultural progress and efforts (cf. Bartha et al., 2018; Kaasa et al., 2013). That can harm a respectful – even face-maintaining – co-existence in an emergent company that is reliant on its internal functionality (Bond, 1991; Hu, 1944; Mao, 1994; Pan, 2000, Spencer-Oatey, 2002; cf. Gorski, 2013; contra. Wendt & Gone, 2011). Resultantly, disrespectful social interactions (con- tra. Bartha, Gubik & Bereczk, 2018) in the entrepreneurial setting are accompanied by the jeopardy of preventing the progress of cultural sensitivity (cf. Bennett, 2017; contra. Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). As startups often lack this internal stability based on cultural mindfulness due to the novel and never experienced an overall situation, team-internal problems reported causing 23% of startups’ failure (cf. StartUpWissen, 2020; t3n, 2016). Contrastingly, cultural sensemaking and the desire to gain a richer understanding of cultures distinct from the familiar can make a valuable contribution to economic progress (Bennett, 2017; cf. Weinberg, 2019). Therefore, cultural sensemaking can be appreciated as it may result in the ability to acquire cau- sality and a broader understanding of the counterpart’s behavioral practice. That includes the change of cultural perspective (Bhatti et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2021) and ethnorelativism: the existence of nu- merous viable possibilities for perceiving culture’s reality (Bennett, 2017; cf. Hannerz, 1996). Additionally, by categorizing and generalizing culture and individuals, principles of cultural ontol- ogy are likely to be violated as the essentialist paradigm links identity to the broader concept of na- tional origin and measures national-geographical criteria (Sayer, 1997; contra. Hofstede, 2002) pre- dominantly. That essentialist’s approach practice could work counterproductively on the self-fulfill- ment needs and the cultural self-awareness beliefs of those the generalizing conversation’s part en- counters (Deardorff et al., 2012; cf. Maslow, 1943; contra. Sayer, 1997). Gorski (2013) claims that the anti-essentialism approach regards political, interpersonal, and eth- nographical mindfulness. The usage of stereotypes is said to disregard gender and the ethnicity of individuals that might refer to a hybrid ethnical background (cf. Friedman, 1994; Scollon & Scollon 2001; contra. Hall, 1976). “The need to make sustained and serious progress toward ethnic and racial justice is clear” (McKinsey & Company, 2020, p. 2). This statement is increasingly important consid- ering the currently ongoing Black Lives Matter movement that fights for societal equality for all eth- nic groups, aiming to combat ethnic-based injustice (cf. De Genova, 2016; Swart & Maralack, 2020; Taylor, 2016). By focusing on cultural complexity, the anti-essentialist statements above emphasize the rele- vance of ethnic variety in entrepreneurship (Hassan et al., 2021; Lauring et al., 2018; cf. Clausen, 2010; contra. Hofstede, 1980). Hence, it is advisable to perceive culture as a continuously and so- cially constructed process (Søderberg & Holden, 2002; cf. Bartha et al., 2018; Sayer, 1997; contra. Hofstede, 2002). Also, emergent companies should recall the consciousness that culture can be a reassessed and redesigned, reinforcing the emergence of a negotiated culture, even in an economic 64 | Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried setting (Clausen, 2010; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; Sayer, 1997; contra. Hall, 1959). That knowledge of cultural otherness can encourage intercultural encounters to create a shared cultural complexity similar to shared leadership where every participant is accountable for the outcome. More clearly: shared leadership and cultural complexity have in common that culture is a mutually accountable process (cf. Pearce, 2003). Thus, not only culture, but global entrepreneurship too (cf. Hassan et al., 2021), move towards a global melting pot of shared ideas (McKinsey & Company, 1993; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; cf. Gorski, 2013; contra. Hofstede, 2002). Ostensibly, the likelihood of unintendedly disrespecting the set of norms and values individuals refer to increases. It must be underpinned that global together- ness is not equal to emancipating the self from the individual set of societal expectations of polite- ness, education, or language taught. As a result, the promising melting of cultures implies potential pitfalls, reinforcing the urgency to examine blind spots evident in the entrepreneurial intercultural setting (cf. Hassan et al., 2021). Building Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force It is known that entrepreneurship is increasing in its popularity. “The decision to start a venture has both cultural and economic [reasons]“ (Radziszewska, 2014).Visionaries, game-changers, and chal- lengers demand and foster the change of entire industries (cf. Christensen, 2016). However, inter- culturality is a topic relevant to an entrepreneur’s success and harmonious business excellence ei- ther as elaborated above. International business partners can access globalized networks – obviating a born global’s economic jeopardy of running the liability of outsidership (cf. Cheung & Chan, 2009; Johanson & Vahlne, 2009; Singh et al., 1986; Wach, 2016). Operating interculturally is respectively an essential element for born global startups (McKinsey & Company, 1993). Additionally, referring to the current political movement Black Lives Matter, mutual understanding and efforts towards cultural alterations demand severe overdue changes (cf. Bennett, 2017; De Genova, 2016; Taylor, 2016; contra. Hofstede, 1980). Nevertheless, strategic but interpersonal and intercultural skills should increase to maximize inter- national entrepreneurial prosperity (Bennett, 2017; Radziszewska, 2014; cf. Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Hassan et al., 2021). However, as merely addressing the significance of practicing cultural inclu- sion in the media instead of providing the economy guidance on how to shed light on the examination of cultural otherness to be leveraged, perform an entrepreneur’s managerial duty (Drucker, 2006) fashionably. The following model on The Building of Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force serves as a tool for economic, cultural game-changers to help realize their anticipated success. The fundament builds upon the vision. It is built through a diverse team that engages in creating a socially constructed genre (cf. Bartha et al., 2018). For this, the project’s participants should em- ploy cultural intelligence to enable the emergence of common ground: the first attempt of a nego- tiated multi-culture. Further, communicating and agreeing on shared values enhance the likelihood of a sociologically empathetic mindful working environment, fostering commercial and entrepre- neurial success (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2002; cf. Hassan et al.,2021; Sinek, 2011; contra. Hall, 1959). However, for the vision’s unambiguous interpretation, it should be con- sidered that interpretations may differ due to the culture’s complexity and variety. Evading misin- terpretations should be reinforced by clear communication to achieve the common economic goal with the shared vision (cf. Bargiela-Chiappini & Nickerson, 1999; Clausen, 2010; Lauring et al., 2018; Usunier, 2011). Additionally, an in-depth examination of the vision’s and communication’s meaning is advisable as proximity breeds mindfulness whereas distance breeds failure (cf. StartUpWissen, 2020; t3n, 2016; contra. Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Habermann, 2008; Kaplan, 1966; Pearce & Conger, 2002; Voloshinov et al., 1973). Complexity of Culture and Entrepreneurial Practice | 65 Figure 1. The Building of Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force Source: own elaboration. The three pillars encourage interculturality in an entrepreneurial scope, catalyzing mutual inter- cultural understanding efforts. The pillars provide information on how to grow together to become a successful intercultural team: − Self-Reflection of Intercultural Sensitivity (Ethnorelativism): Reassess ethnorelativism. One should remember to remain open-minded towards cultural otherness for the shared success. − Emancipation From Linear Thought Patterns (Non-Essentialism): Approaching the intercultural en- counter as diversity is an enrichment in its excellence. There are numerous viable realities of inter- cultural entrepreneurship. − Encountering Interculturality Sociologically (Intercultural Sensitivity): Showing cultural absorptive capacity through mirroring gestures and customs distinct is beneficial. Nonetheless, one should not forget about their cultural background. Showing sociological empathy is advisable. Notwithstanding, the emergence of one key issue should be addressed: generalizing not only one’s national culture but work practices (contra. Hall, 1959, 1976; Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars & Hamp- den-Turner, 1997). Here, the judgmental thinking in a working environment (contra. Gorski, 2013) that is as dynamic and vulnerable due to its novelty can decrease performance. Thus, an unbiased and ex- plorative mindset cannot only increase the harmonious working atmosphere but creativity, too (cf. Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Festinger, 1957; Primecz et al.,2009; contra. Hofstede, 1980). After the three pillars, reaching the operational realization stage of the startup is economically promising and fruitful as it enables the scaling stage to begin shortly after. Resultantly, throughout the entire process that is presumably never-ending, a new negotiated startup culture with the project’s 66 | Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried unique genre that all participants constructed emerge (Clausen, 2010; Søderberg & Holden, 2002; con- tra. Hall, 1959). It might find its reliable structures with first economic success as real-life circumstances are experienced for the first time. Those reliable structures can create a feeling of togetherness and increase the inevitable working efficiency (cf. Ries, 2014). In contrast, it should be taken into account that individuals might differ in their understanding of togetherness in the new contextual setting (cf. Olwig, 1997). Hence, they might still perceive the new emergent culture as part of the occupation only, reflecting the failure on the vision’s relevance (contra. Sinek, 2011). CONCLUSIONS Summary of results In summary, it was identified that the Essentialist approach to culture is not contemporary with the ever-changing context of economic growth, which is mainly driven by the upward trend of entrepre- neurship. The stylistic approach of arranging individuals of a geographically arranged culture does not consider the nuances and hybrid histories of individuals but tends to generalize people, contrary to the nature of being. Although the anti-essentialist approach on culture criticizes and tries to overcome these very stum- bling blocks of the essentialist approach by emphasizing the individual, this approach, although an ad- vance of the initial approach, is not yet sufficient in the entrepreneurial context, since here not only the subjective culture but also the subjective perception of culture and work meet. In order to create a sym- biosis of both, The Building of Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force is intended to serve entrepreneurs and (project) managers, but generally, all those who want to participate in the growth of the cognitive maturation process in a business landscape, as a thinking aid for self-reflection towards progress. Managerial implications As practical and managerial implications of this study review, it can be deduced that (project) man- agers – especially entrepreneurs – who are constantly facing new challenges have to deal with their composition and dynamics of the team. Thus, this process starts with the team’s most senior mem- ber by acquiring the awareness and the need for understanding cultural otherness. That cognitive process should be complemented by an open feedback culture but must be separated from re- proachful jargon. In addition, the process of critical self-reflection should go beyond the self and address the per- ceptions of the wider participating team members. The transformation to culturally aware work can only happen through shared cognition and sensitivity. At the same time, open, respectful communi- cation and the ability of self-reflection are sharpened. However, it must be remembered that pa- tience and tolerance for error are as ready for this process as acknowledging and understanding cultural otherness itself. Emphasizing error feeds further errors. Fixing errors through patience and mutual understanding paves the way for sustained, effective co-work. The Building of Intercultural and Entrepreneurial Force serves as a guideline for visionaries, enabling them to engage in societal and economic change, contributing in a promising way as not only startups but those demanding cultural thought pattern change can leverage their inherent power towards closing the gap of ethical and economic injustice. Research Limitations This article reaches its limits of expressiveness as existing literature regarding approaches to cultural other concepts were reflected. No confirmed case study was conducted to prove or disprove the findings of this article. Furthermore, The Building of Intercultural Force is arguably not a linear tool that provides predic- tive insight into behaviors (cf. Olwig, 1997; contra. Hofstede, 1980) and business success-due to the complex and dynamic nature of culture rooted in the interactive communication of processes of indi- viduals, and the increasingly VUCA (volatile; uncertain, complex, ambiguous) (Bennett & Lemoine, Complexity of Culture and Entrepreneurial Practice | 67 2014). A business landscape with its drive for radical innovation does not stand still but strives for the unpredictable richness of continuous change. Neither a framework, nor a model, nor an analytical tool introduced to the robust entrepreneurial mindset guarantees a higher, validated degree of certainty, as the prosperity state of success is subject to practitioner application. Suggestions for further research Further research should be directed towards underpinning the present article with sufficient real life cases that either prove or refute The Building of Intercultural Force’s academic expressiveness. Addi- tionally, future research should consider the team’s internal interculturality, and the country-specific distribution should ideally take place across all continents on a random basis so that representative results can support the study review. Only in this way can it be determined whether the identified gaps in the existing literature have been served. REFERENCES Agar, N. (2002). Agar’s Review of Katz. Biology & Philosophy, 17 (1), 123-139. Bargiela-Chiappini, F.,& Nickerson, C. R. (1999). Writing business: Genres, media, and discourses. Longman. Bartha, Z. S., Gubik, A., & Bereczk, A. (2018). The Social Dimension of the Entrepreneurial Motivation in the Cen- tral and Eastern European Countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070101 Bennett, J. M. (2017). Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. John Wiley & Sons. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92 (1), 27-28. Bhatti, A., Rehman, S. U., & Rumman, J. (2020). Organizational capabilities mediates between organizational cul- ture, entrepreneurial orientation, and organizational performance of SMEs in Pakistan. Entrepreneurial Busi- ness and Economics Review, 8(4), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080405 Bond, M. H. (1991) Beyond the Chinese Face, insights from psychology. Oxford University Press. Cheung, M. W.-L.,& Chan, W. (2009). A Two-Stage Approach to Synthesizing Covariance Matrices in Meta-Ana- lytic Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,16 (1), 28-53. https://doi,org/10.1080/10705510802561295 Christensen, M.C. (2000). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail.Harvard Business School Press. Clausen, L. (2010). Moving beyond stereotypes in managing cultural difference: Communication in Danish–Japa- nese corporate relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26 (1), 57-66. Deardorff, D. K.; Trompenaars, F.,& Berardo, K. (2012). Building Cultural Competence: Innovative Activities and Models. Stylus Publishing. De Genova, N. (2016). The “migrant crisis” as racial crisis: do Black Lives Matter in Europe?. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41 (10), 1765-1782. Di Cristini, A., Gaj, A., Labory, S. & Leoni, R. (2003). Flat Hierarchical Structure, Bundles of New Work Practices and Firm Performance. Journal of the Italian Economic Association, 8 (2), 313-328. Drucker, P. F. (2006). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper Business. Earley, P. C.,& Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural Intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 10 (1), 57-62. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. Fischer, R., Ferreira, C. M., Assmar, E. M. L., Baris, G., Berberoglu, G.,Dalyan, F., Wong, C. C., Hassan, A., Hanke, K. & Boer, D. (2014). Organizational practices across cultures: an exploration in six cultural contexts. Interna- tional Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14 (1), 105-25. Fitzsimmons, S. (2013). Multicultural employees: a framework for understanding how they contribute to organ- izations. Academy of Management Review, 38, (4), 525-49. Friedman, J. (1994). Cultural Identity & Global Process. SAGE Publications. Gorski, P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty. Strategies for Erasing the Opportunity Gap. Teach- ers College Press. 68 | Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried Habermann, F. (2008). Der homo oeconomicus und das Andere: Hegemonie, Identität und Emanzipation.Nomos: Baden-Baden. Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Doubleday & Company. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday & Company. Hannerz, E. (1996). Performing Punk. Palgrave Macmillan. Hassan, Z., Lashari, M., & Basit, A. (2021). Cultivating entrepreneurial culture among students in Malaysia. Entre- preneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(1), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090108 Hofstede, G. J. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE Publica- tions. Hofstede, G. J. (2002). Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55 (11), 1355- 1361. d o i : 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 0 1 8 7 2 6 7 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 0 4 Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill. Holliday, A. (2011).Intercultural Communication and Ideology. London. Hu, H.C. (1944). The Chinese Concept of Face. American Anthropologist, 46 (1), 45-64. Johanson, J.,& Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1), 1411-1431. Joy, S.,& Poonamallee, L. (2013) Cross-cultural teaching in globalized management classrooms: time to move from functionalist to postcolonial approaches?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (3), 396-413. Kaasa, A.,Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2013). European Social Survey as a source of new cultural dimensions esti- mates for regions. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13 (2), 137-57. Kahn, J. S. (2001). Anthropology and Modernity. Current Anthropology, 42 (5), 651-680. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in inter-cultural education. Reprinted in K. Croft (Ed.) Readings on English as a Second Language for teachers and teacher trainers. Cambridge MA: Winthrop. Kim, C. W., & Mauborgne, R. A. (2015). Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business Review Press. Lauring, J., Bjerregaard, T., & Klitmøller, A. (2018). Understanding Culture in International Management: Func- tionalism, Constructivism, and the Emerging Practice Turn. International Studies of Management & Organi- zation, 48(3), 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1480869 Lavoie, D. (1991). Economics and Hermeneutics. Routledge. Lewrick, M., Link, P.,& Leifer, L. (2018).The Design Thinking Playbook. Wiley. Mao, R. L. (1994). Beyond Politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(1), 451-486. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. McKinsey & Company (1993). Born global. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4 (1), 45-63. McKinsey & Company (2020). Problems amid progress: Improving lives and livelihoods for ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. McKinsey Global Publishing. Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Manual (1962). Consulting Psychologists Press. Nathan, G. (2014). Multi-stakeholder deliberation for (Global) justice: An approach from modern civic republi- canism. In S. Schepers, A. Kakabadse (Eds.) Rethinking the Future of Europe: A Challenge of Governance (pp. 10-27).Palgrave Macmillan. Olwig, F. K. (1997). Introduction and Cultural Sites: Sustaining a Home in a Deterritorialized World. In F.K. Olwig & K. Hastrup (Eds.), Siting Culture: The Shifting Anthropological Object ( pp.23-47). Routledge. Pan, Y. (2000). Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Ablex Publishing. Pearce, C. L. (2003). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18 (1), 47-57. Pearce, C. L.,& Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. SAGE Pub- lications. Primecz, H., Romani, L., & Sackmann, S. (2009). Cross-Cultural Management Research: Contributions from Vari- ous Paradigms. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(3), 267-274. Complexity of Culture and Entrepreneurial Practice | 69 Radziszewska, A. (2014). Intercultural dimensions of entrepreneurship. Journal of Intercultural Management, 6(2), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2014-0010 Ries, E. (2012). Lean Startup: Schnell, risikolos und erfolgreich Unternehmen gründen. Redline. Rumelt, R. (2011). Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The difference and why it matters (4th ed.). Profile Books. Sayer, A. (1997). Essentialism, Social Constructionism, and beyond. SAGE Journals, 45(3), 453-487. Scollon, R.,&Scollon, S. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.538-547). Blackwell Publishers. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper. Sinek, S. (2009). Start With Why. Penguin LCC US. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J.,& House, R. J. (1986). Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 31 (2), 171-193. Søderberg, A. M.,& Holden, N. (2002). Rethinking cross cultural management in a globalizing business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2 (1), 103 - 121. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). ‘Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (5), 529-545. Start Up Wissen (2020). Warum scheitern StartUps? Die 20 häufigsten Gründe. Retrieved 18.02.2021 from https://startupwissen.biz/daran-scheitern-die-meisten-startups/ Swart, K.,& Maralack, D. (2020). Black Lives Matter: perspectives from South African cricket. Sport in Society: Culture, Commerce, Media, Politics, 23 (11), 1-16. Szromnik, A. (2019). Market and marketing within the concept of functioning and development of cultural herit- age sites. International Entrepreneurship Review, 5(3), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2019.0503.06 t3n (2016). Warum Startups scheitern: Das sind die 20 häufigsten Gründe. Retrieved from https://t3n.de/news/startups-scheitern-20-569194/ on 27.01.2021. Taylor, K.-Y. (2016). From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. Haymarket Books. Trompenaars, A.,& Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Mastering the infinite game: how East Asian values are trans- forming business practices. Capstone. Usunier, J.-C. (2011). Language as a resource to assess cross-cultural equivalence in quantitative management research. Journal of World Business, 46(3) 314-319. Voloshinov, V. N., Matejka, L.,&Titunik, I. R. (1973) (original 1929). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Seminar Press. Wach, K. (2015). Impact of Cultural and Social Norms on Entrepreneurship in the EU: Cross-Country Evidence based on GEM Survey Results. Zarządzanie w Kulturze, 16(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843976ZK.15.002.3037 Wąsowicz-Zaborek, E. (2018). Influence of national culture on website characteristics in international business. International Entrepreneurship Review, 4(3), 421-442. Retrieved from https://ier.uek.krakow.pl/in- dex.php/pm/article/view/1783 on 27.01.2021. Wendt, D. C., & Gone, P. J. (2011). Rethinking cultural competence: Insights from indigenous community treat- ment settings. SAGE Journals, 49 (2), 206-222. Weinberg, U. (2019). Design Thinking: Vom Innovationsmotor zum Kulturtransformator. In Von Engelhardt, S. &Petzolt, S. (Eds.), Das Geschäftsmodell Toolbook für Digitale Ökosysteme (pp. 36-49).Campus. 70 | Kerstin Bätz, Patrick Siegfried Authors The contribution share of authors is equal and amounted to 50% for each of them. KB – conceptualisation, literature writing, PS – methodology, calculations, discussion. Kerstin Bätz Graduate Student at the International School of Management in Frankfurt (Germany). Correspondence to: Ms. Kerstin Bätz, International School of Management, Germany, e-mail: kerstin.baetz.2019@student.ism.de ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6345-5104 Patrick Siegfried Professor of Supply Chain Management and Logistics at the International School of Management (ISM) in Frankfurt (Germany). Guest Professorship for Entrepreneurship at the Szent István University in Gödöllö (Hungary). He has professional experience as a CEO of various logistics companies and as a commercial manager for an international distribution centre. His research focuses is on Strategic Management and Inno- vation Management in Startups. Correspondence to: Prof. dr Patrick Siegfried, International School of Management, MörfelderLandstraße 55, 60598 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, e-mail: patrick.siegfried@ism.de ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6783-4518 Acknowledgements and Financial Disclosure The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Vivien Zhou and Dr. Nick Pilcher for their valuable knowledge delivery on linguistics and culture in the managerial context, Pascal Schaarschmidt for critically reflecting on the draft version of this paper, and Nathalie Schwarzkopf for her inspiration. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relation- ships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright and License This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NoDerivs (CC BY-ND 4.0) License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Published by Cracow University of Economics – Krakow, Poland