In their own time and space

Abstract

In today’s globalized business environment, managers regularly interact with employees from different cultures. Since meetings are endemic to all business organizations, better understanding of the way meetings are conducted in diverse cross-cultural settings may increase organizational effectiveness. This study investigated business meetings in the United Arab Emirates, a country where ethnic diversity across the workforce is prevalent. The Gulf Arab region offers an eclectic mix of different cross-cultural interactions, when business meetings are being conducted. Using qualitative methods of inquiry, we collected data about meetings held in three large organizations, each with a diverse cross-cultural workforce. This study uses the conceptual framework of ‘organizational rituals’ to explore the nature of meeting behaviour. Findings suggest that behaviours in organizational meetings in the Gulf Arab states have many differences when compared with the norms of traditional ‘western-style’ meetings. Specifically, it was found that meeting times were treated rather flexibly in this cultural setting, with lateness, interruptions and a lack of time boundaries. Similarly, meeting space was fluid in this environment, with regular disruptions, open doors, and haphazard seating. Another observation is that the ethnic origin of the chairperson of the meeting determines many of the participant behaviours at these meetings. The main contribution of this research study is in identifying ritualistic behaviours that are very different to those of typical meetings held in western countries and reflect an eclectic mix of different cross-cultural interactions.

Keywords

Meetings rituals cultural differences Middle East space time

Introduction

Meetings are important components in the life of business organizations, serving as purposeful work-related interactions between at least two individuals (Luong and Rogelberg, 2005; Rogelberg et al., 2010). So far, however, business meetings in different cultural contexts, especially those in Gulf Arab countries,¹ remain largely unexplored. The Gulf Arab region has a wealth of interesting organizational research opportunities, as the workforce is made up of a significant numbers of expatriates from around the world, who interact with local and regional employees (Forstenlechner, 2010; Forstenlechner and Rutledge, 2012). For example, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), expatriates make up between 80% and 90% of the resident population, with Emirati Nationals estimated as between10% and 20% of the total population² (CIA, 2010: Forstenlechner, 2010). Expatriates come from many other Arab countries and also from India, Iran, Pakistan, and many western countries. Within the context of diversity and international business in this region, this article aims to provide a richer understanding of group dynamics and employee behaviours in organizational meetings.

Although cultural diversity may add value to the organizational experience, it has been noted that expatriates’ working within the culture of the Gulf states experience it as a ‘daily challenge’ (Lauring and Selmer, 2009: 1451). Neal (2010) suggests that we need a better understanding of the dynamics of diversity among and between different cultural groupings in the Gulf Arab workplace. Cultural diversity may lead to competitive advantage, although potential negative effects can include increased time for communication and coordination of activities (Alserhan et al., 2009). It has been recognized that having insight into cultural differences amongst employees helps managers to conduct business in a more effective manner and to enable support and adjustment strategies for expatriate employees (Festing and Maletzky, 2011; Neal, 2010). Furthermore, an individual manager will only be successful if she manages communication in contexts of cultural diversity (Lauring, 2011). Meetings in international settings are communication events replete with cultural diversity and hence need to be studied. The findings can then be applied to influence the effectiveness of cross-cultural meeting behaviours.

This study uses the conceptual framework of ‘organizational rituals’ in business to explore the nature of meeting behaviour. While rituals and ritualistic behaviour are often symbolized with religious rites of passage, and other important social ceremonies, such as graduation ceremonies and weddings, it appears that there are many dimensions of rituals embodied in organizational behaviour (Islam and Zyphur, 2009; Trice and Beyer, 1984). Rituals may include behavioural characteristics such as repetition and patterned behaviour; structure and formality; standardization and invariability; symbols and scripts; and performance enactment (Smith and Stewart, 2011). With that in mind, it is contended that in this study business meetings can be analyzed in the context of ritualistic organizational behaviour, as meetings embody many of these characteristics. Deal and Kennedy (2000) support this and suggest that when studying organizational culture the most important management ritual continues to be the formal meeting. Importantly for our study, it has already been acknowledged that assumptions about appropriate meeting behaviour, and even what meetings are, depends on cultural interpretation (Miller, 1994).

Just as Pudelko and Harzing (2007) recognize, there are various models for managing human resources, apart from the ‘American model’ of the competent organization, we too consider that a cross-cultural workforce offers a way into other models of organizational competence. In fact, it is predicted that in a more globalized world, the virtual monopoly of the United States will weaken in setting standards for managerial best practice (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). This study aims therefore to help understand alternatives in cross-cultural management (Jackson and Aycan, 2006). The Middle East, a region lacking precise borders, but incorporating the UAE where this study takes place, is unknown to the majority of organizational scholars, and the region suffers from a general lack of research about organizational practices such as meetings (Budhwar and Mellahi, 2007). In addition, there is a general neglect by organizational behaviour scholars of an international context (Peterson and Thomas, 2007). We, therefore, qualitatively explore business meetings in a UAE context, with participants from diverse cultural backgrounds interacting together. Such diversity should add incrementally to our understanding of organizational behaviour in the Gulf Arab region.

Meetings – rituals and culture

Researchers have attempted to better understand meetings in business organizations for many years (e.g. Allen et al., 2008; Beck and Keyton, 2009; Bennington et al., 2003; Hallett et al., 2009; Myers, 1986; Olesen, 1990). However, Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) claim that despite their pervasiveness, we know little about the effects of meetings upon the organizations in which they take place. Volkema and Niederman (1996: 275), Rogelberg et al. (2007: 18) and Leach et al. (2009) also lament that meetings, while a common organizational activity, are rarely the focus of empirical research; 11 million meetings each day in the United States; taking up 60–80% of managerial time. Further, most previous studies have ignored cultural influences on meetings and have tended to limit their research to monocultural environments (Ballard and Seibold, 2006; Millhous, 1999). In order to explore organizational behaviour in this context, we use the framework of organizational rituals.

Organizational rituals

Trice and Beyer (1984) first showed that organizational culture could be understood through studying ritualistic events in organizational life. Within such events, are the rituals that expose and enforce the values of the organization. A ritual is defined by Islam and Zyphur (2009) as a group’s values and identity demonstrated within the context of a specific occasion or event. Organizational rituals can be characterized as standardized, rule-bound, predictable and repetitive behaviours undertaken in conditions demanding explicit performance expectations (Smith and Stewart, 2011).

Rituals are important to the working of the organization, as performance events are invested with added significance through rituals (Rook, 1985; Smith and Stewart, 2011). The investigation of rituals offers a ‘theoretical category’ for a researcher to make sense of the realities of organizational life (Beech et al., 2009). Rituals usually follow a specified sequence, including a significant degree of invariability, symbolism, performance and formality (Dennett, 2006; Smith and Stewart, 2011). Meetings, as performance events, include annual general meetings, general assemblies, promotion ceremonies, employee inductions, contract signing ceremonies, and strategic planning meetings. Within each of these meeting events, examples of rituals will be observed. In addition, within the organization, there are other meetings that may be more informal but include some degree of ritualistic behaviour or some ritualized processes. For example, many ad hoc business meetings, Friday afternoon get-togethers, welcome parties, and retirement parties have differing degrees of ritualistic behaviours.

Smith and Stewart (2011) suggest that organizational rituals can operate on a spectrum from ‘full’ to ‘ritual-like’ where the degrees of each ritual dimension vary. For example, full rituals are more repetitive, rigid, structured, formalized, and have rites of passage involving ceremonial performance through social interaction and heavy symbolism. A rite of passage is considered by Johnson et al. (2010) as a full ritual that represents change. Full rituals are powerful but are infrequent events. However, ritual-like activities relax many of these dimensions somewhat and are less repetitive, less structured, more informal, use less symbolism and occur more frequently, for example, in a weekly sales meeting.

Various authors have investigated organizational rituals or ritualistic behaviour in organizations (e.g. Deal and Kennedy, 2000; Islam and Zyphur, 2009; Johnson et al., 2010; Peck et al., 2004; Smith and Stewart, 2011; Trice and Beyer, 1984). These authors have focused more on the corporate and macro view of organizational behaviour when investigating rituals in company life. For example, Smith and Stewart (2011) and Niederman and Volkemar (1999) highlight that organizational rituals have several macro-organizational functions – to reinforce social order; communicate important values; enhance group solidarity; signal commitment. The present study, however, will focus on the more micro-level view of the managerial/operational level of organizations, with a specific focus on business meetings. It is contended that a more micro-level view of organization will help to better understand the cross-cultural dynamics of rituals.

Business meetings and ritualistic behaviour

Managers and employees spend considerable amounts of time and energy in business meetings (Allen et al., 2008; Bang et al., 2010; Miller, 1994; Volkema and Niederman, 1995). Meetings may involve any person-to-person interaction with the firm including those interactions between company employees and other employees, managers, government, suppliers, outside agencies, public or customers. Meetings can take place in a variety of settings and formats, whether they are open forums or general assemblies, or meetings in board room settings. Meetings may take various forms such as a presentation, ceremony, announcement, forum or round-robin discussion (Volkema and Niederman, 1995). Meetings largely facilitate information flow with an interactive group of participants, who usually have a common or shared understanding of the meeting’s purpose. Meetings serve the purposes of collective information dissemination, sharing of opinions, planning, conflict resolution, training, brainstorming, problem solving, negotiating and shared decision making (Cummings, 2004; Volkema and Niederman, 1995). As Miller (1994: 223) states, the significance of an American meeting is that of ‘a decision-making body, a place of force and persuasion’.

Meetings are recurring events in organizational life, and as such can be recognized as an organizational ritual (Hughes et al., 2009). As noted earlier, Deal and Kennedy (2000: 70) confirm this when stating that meetings continue to be ‘the most important management ritual’. Internal meetings consist of groups of employees, for example, all managers meet together at management meetings, managers meet with subordinates, and managers meet with superiors. ‘Presenteeism’, or the physical presence of somebody at a meeting indicates that they are part of an in-group, differences are accentuated as those in the group identify with those in the meeting (Lauring and Selmer, 2009; Moss-Kanter, 1992). Smith and Stewart (2011) and McComas et al. (2010) support this and consider that organizational rituals give meaning by reinforcing order in a group, by including and excluding those not in the group, others (not at the meeting) are therefore an out-group (Khan et al., 2010).

As noted earlier, ritualistic behaviour includes formality as a dimension when applied within business meetings. In a study of board meetings in the largest British public institution, the National Health Service, it was noted that ‘formality is one of the most frequently cited characteristics of ritual’ (Peck et al., 2004: 102). Organizational formality is evident in many meetings through such ritualistic meeting behaviours as frequency, regularity, and location of meetings. In addition, formality is evident when symbolized in an agenda, the seating plans of how the meeting group is constituted and the designation of a chairperson (Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Hallett et al., 2009; Leach et al., 2009). Meetings, therefore, are often indicative of a formal organizational culture (Miller, 1994; Schein, 1992). Other examples of ritualization include the communicative style followed in meetings; the extent of discussion; minute taking; reportage, and style of questioning. Open discussion is more associated with a less hierarchical system, whereas reporting and closed questioning indicate a more controlled system (Deal and Kennedy, 2000; Pino and Mora, 1998; Waal van der, 2009).

Other ritualistic dimensions of meetings may include symbols, which are used as important ciphers to the meeting that reinforce ritual boundaries. An agenda for a meeting is symbolic because it is a material object that serves as a vehicle for conveying meaning (Gioia and Poole, 1984; Trice and Beyer, 1990). In America, the quality of meetings is judged by the ritualistic procedures, for example, agenda setting, and the resulting outcomes and decisions that emanate (Miller, 1994). A study of meetings with 958 participants in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia found that meeting rituals, such as the use of an agenda and the use of facilities, were important for the perceived effectiveness of meetings (Leach et al., 2009). In fact, rituals and symbols are somewhat intertwined; they are interdependent in both national and organizational culture (Hofstede et al., 1990; Pettigrew, 1979; Trice and Bayer, 1984). Findings from previous research show that shared practices form organizational culture and that shared practices rest on perceptions of symbols and rituals (Hofstede et al., 1990; Kirkman et al., 2006; Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997). As a consequence, symbols here are considered as ritualistic objects that represent meaning to those within a group (Hofstede et al., 1990; Levine and Moreland, 2006).

Arab culture and behaviour

The influence of culture on organizational behaviour has been researched extensively with the common view that organizational behaviour and national culture are symbiotic (Hofstede, 1994). Culture is defined as ‘the shared knowledge and schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, interpreting, expressing, and responding to the social realities around them’ (Khan et al., 2010: 290). National culture has been shown to influence behaviour at work, due to the collective programming of the mind from a pattern of basic assumptions that are taken for granted and considered valid by a group of people. Further, it has been suggested that patterns of behaviour in organizations are likely to differ because of differences in the national cultures of the employees, resulting in different attitudes and values to each other (Adler, 1997; Dedoussis, 2004).

Culture encompasses the beliefs and values of a people, as well as their norms, and this can be applied to norms in attitudes to work (Thein et al., 2010). Behaviour differs from culture to culture, and organizational behaviour will thus reflect the norms of social behaviour. Arab culture is a shared knowledge between peoples of that culture, and because their social reality is different to westerners, understanding of a ritual will differ between Arabs and westerners. Cultural norms of others, signed through rituals, are unrecognizable to an individual if she attempts to explain them only from her own cultural norms and values (Lauring, 2011). Hofstede’s work (1980, Khan et al., 2010) has shown that differences in perceptions lead to dissatisfaction as to how others go about work. This finding has implications for cross-cultural management where a diversity of nationalities work together, because when they meet the rituals, for example, of meetings will be interpreted differently. Diversity being defined as a ‘surface-level’ characteristic; the attribute of culture that leads employees to the perception that others (of different nationality) are different; perception rests on ‘deep-level’ characteristics that attitudes will be different (Khan et al., 2010: 290). Differences that cause obstacles in communication between those of differing cultures have application in the Gulf Arab states due to the high percentage of expatriates (Lauring, 2011).

There are some studies on human resource management in the Arab world, especially those applying western practices in Islamic contexts (Mellahi and Budhwar, 2010). Research on organizational behaviour in the Arab world has been more the exception than the norm (Dedoussis, 2004). Arab culture and values have influenced the practices and systems of management in the region, and western management practices have been transferred to the Middle East by the expatriate workforce (Budhwar and Mellahi, 2007). At this juncture, we examine some nuances of Arab culture in the context of organizational behaviour. Our contribution towards the study of cross-cultural management is the recognition that both Arab and western cultural norms are played out in the rituals of organization practice such as meetings.

In the context of business, Arabs often prefer face-to-face discussions, which would imply that meetings in the Middle East region are commonplace and are even preferred by employees and managers (Rice, 2003). Business relationships are built on strategies of communication that relates to the cultural dimensions (Zhu et al., 2006). The Arab culture works on building friendly relationships and keeping harmony within the group, even in a business context. As such, interpersonal meetings are very important to the Arabs. It is relevant to note that Arab managers prefer participative and consultative decision making (Ali, 1992; Ali et al., 1997). As Rice (2003) notes, mechanisms for sharing and integrating ideas include frequent meetings, face-to-face contact to build relationships and share decision making, in order to create a richness of personal interaction that Arabs prefer. The Arab culture is of high context, that is, communication is rather indirect with many interruptions and is dependent on the external environment, and implicit non-verbal cues are gathered from the context and the conversation (Hall, 1991; Lauring, 2011; Zhu et al., 2006). As Lauring (2008: 238) found from a study in Saudi Arabia, ‘in the meeting of different nationalities in the local organizational context, the outcome of communication processes can be difficult to predict’.

The Arab culture is considered a very collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1997; Zhu et al., 2006). Dedoussis (2004) argues that ‘collectivist’ has a focus on relationships, which creates intense loyalties that bind people to the company for the long term. Long traditions of Arab tribal values are also a symbol of loyalties, which Neal et al. (2007) consider overlap with ‘rational–legal’ stances invoked through bureaucratization in the regions’ public and private organizations. It has been shown in leadership studies that managers from the Gulf Arab region place strong reliance on both formal and unwritten rules (Smith et al., 2007). The making and following of rules is deeply involved within ritualistic behaviour, and Mellahi (2007) points to one Gulf Arab country (Saudi Arabia) where the relation-based culture causes rules to be inequitably applied. With evidence of a reliance on rules in the Arab culture, we would expect to see that business meetings in the region would adhere to more formal, rules-oriented, ritualistic behaviour.

Other nuances of dealing with people from the Middle East include a non-linear approach to doing business. Rice (2003) suggests that Gulf Arabs tend to use circular patterns of reasoning rather than linear approaches common in Anglo Saxon cultures, for example, the ‘linear orientation of Americans during business meetings’ (Miller, 1994: 224). An ad hoc business meeting in the Middle East involves the ritual of handshakes, begins with conversation about the health of the participants and their families, while tea is offered. It is unusual in a western meeting that people who know each other shake hands, that so much time is spent on enquiries about family well-being and for the offer of refreshment to be given ‘centre stage’. Arabs generally avoid getting directly down to the task at hand and instead loop around and around (Dedoussis, 2004). They start with social talk, discuss business for a while, loop around to general and social issues, then back to business, and so on (Deresky, 1994). An attempt to get down to business right away without going through the obligatory small talk, to enable relationship building, is likely to be frowned on and even considered rude in collectivist cultures (Zhu et al., 2007). From a western perspective, where time is considered a scarce business resource to be managed efficiently, doing business this way can be frustrating and create impatience. It could be argued here that social rituals may be more evident in business meetings in the Arab region.

Through studying the rituals of meetings, an understanding of time for cross-cultural groups can be explored in more detail (Ballard et al., 2008; Gersick, 1989; Millhous, 1999). In research on the effective dynamics of boardroom meetings within Fortune 500 companies, the management of time is considered to be a key attribute of meetings (Letendre, 2004; Rogelberg et al., 2006). Unfortunately, time spent at meetings is often considered a poor investment, with inordinate amounts of time spent in meetings for no tangible reason (Elsayed-Elkhouly et al., 1997; Francisco, 2007; Schwartzman, 1986). The ineffective use of meeting time is interpreted as a wasted resource in western cultures and is thus a cost to business (Arrow et al., 2004; Leach et al., 2009; Scott, 2009; Tate et al., 2006).

In the western hemisphere, time is a commodity to be invested wisely; in a monochronic culture, time is ‘as though it were money, as something that can be ‘spent’, ‘saved’, ‘wasted’ and ‘lost’ (Hall and Hall, 1990:13). Hall (1991) and Rice (2003) suggest that Arabs live according to polychronic time, where time is flexible. Arabs value the person and the relationship more than the task at hand, so time is considered flexible when meetings are held. The punctual Americans, who approach time as ‘monochronic’, insist on the meeting of deadlines and will often be left waiting in such situations (Al Maeena, 2010; Hall and Hall, 1990; Huang, 2010). With their polychronic approach to time, being 30 minutes late is perfectly normal in Arab countries (Hall and Hall, 1990). Further, Badawy (1980) goes so far as to say there is no concept of time in the Middle East; where time at best is an open-ended concept, typically lacking a strict sense of punctuality so common in the West. In particular, cultural differences towards ‘time, urgency and pace’ may affect meeting behaviour as the westerners consider the slow pace to be inefficient (Khan et al., 2010: 292). Furthermore, such cultural differences in attitudes to time between nationalities lead to negative stereotyping of Arabs, particularly of Gulf Arabs (locals) by foreign workers (Mellahi, 2007).

The use of meeting space tends to be less defined, more open, in the Middle East where people are expected to have business conversations with different people at the same time, in the same office, similar to a round-table discussion (Badawy, 1980). According to the reasoning of Hall (1990:164), this stems from Arabs considering space as a ‘village’, if you are a villager you know or are getting to know people in a place – no matter how large the village is or how distant the inhabitants are. Americans are concerned with matters of procedure and agenda setting, getting things done and having a plan of action. The Arabs are focused on interpersonal relationships and loyalty and secondary with the business at hand. The Arab culture is tribal with traditional norms and values associated with a consultative/participative nature; and at the same time, the members demonstrate behaviour that is patriarchal, i.e. submissive to authority revealing respect for a large power distance (Ali et al., 1995; Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede, 1994; Zhu et al., 2006). Attitudes to doing business in the Middle East require an understanding and appreciation of the Middle Eastern attitudes towards time and space particularly in the way status is revealed (Abbasi and Hollman, 1993).

Research methodology

Research design

Our study aimed to explore the different behaviours of participants in business meetings conducted in Gulf Arab settings (Kemp, 2010). Previous studies into international business have tended to focus on positivist approaches to understanding intercultural interactions (Lauring, 2008). However, in recent years, there has been a call for more ethnographic approaches (Sackmann and Phillips, 2004; Van Maanen, 1988), and this enables a deeper and richer insight into the micro-dynamics of intercultural encounters (Lauring, 2008). In addition, the complexity of human behaviour in cross-cultural group meant that we needed to use ethnographic fieldwork techniques to fully capture the richness of the data. While our study used exploration and inductive methods of inquiry, we also built on the existing theory of cross-cultural behaviour. This approach is known as iterative theory building (Johnson et al., 2010). The study of culture should use research methods that are pragmatic to piece together a set of representations that are fitted to the specifics of a complex situation (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). Recognizing that meetings are complex, and that meetings in cross-cultural settings heighten that complexity, a qualitative research design was thus considered the most appropriate to this study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Lauring, 2008; Miles and Hubermann, 1994). Quality, rigor and trustworthiness in this qualitative study were considered at each stage of the research process (Golafshani, 2003). The specific research methods included participant observation, non-participant observation and in-depth interviews (Lauring and Selmer, 2009; Moeran, 2009).

We collected data from three large organizations based in the UAE over a period of 3 years. We wanted to collect data from several organizational perspectives, so we included one organization from each of the private, public and semi-private sectors, NWC, SHC and SUA. NWC is a private, industrial organization, and it has 203 employees with18 different nationalities represented. SHC is a public sector tertiary institution offering degree programmes, diplomas and certificates to UAE Nationals. It employs around 3000 who are from over 60 different nationalities. Similarly, SUA is a tertiary institution offering degree programmes to students from around the region. It employs around 350 faculties, with 29 different nationalities recorded. All three organizations conduct all their business in English, are international in scope, and employ a diverse range of nationalities. We conducted interviews and observations in all three organizations. To increase reliability and validity of the study, multiple methods of data collection and analysis (triangulation) were used (Flick, 2007; Golafshani, 2003; Lofland, 1989; Silverman and Marvasti, 2008). Mixed methodology research was considered appropriate and has been successfully invoked in other studies on organizational dynamics (Bernard, 1994; Roberts, 1990; Yin, 2009).

Using an ethnographic methodology meant the researchers were able to conduct fieldwork in their place of employment for one of the organizations (SUA), a semi-private tertiary institution. The research conducted in the public tertiary institution (SHC) was through invitation of a senior member of management. The third organization (NWC) was a multinational industrial company operating in the private sector where we had excellent contacts and close access to the running of the business. The research team became immersed in the daily business life of all three organizations, observing and making field notes. In some meetings, we were active participants but for some we were more passive observers. Observation of participants at the meetings allowed the researchers to see and hear and to examine a wide range and variety of behaviour in a natural setting (Sutter, 2000). During the fieldwork, the researchers attended a wide range of formal meetings. It was decided to include only meetings that held some degree of ‘formality’ as a descriptor – they were regular and pre-planned in the life of the participants and not ad hoc ‘get togethers’ that were beyond the scope of the study. Such formal meetings included management meetings, quality meetings, sales meetings, curriculum meetings and departmental meetings. In total, we were exposed to approximately 30 different meetings, as non-participant and as participant observers, where we made observations over the course of the study. In addition, we conducted interviews with key people at each of the organizations about their specific thoughts on behaviours in organizational meetings in this environment. Interviews enabled detailed questioning of each participant on their thoughts, sentiments and organizational activities (Gubrium, 1994; Hammersley, 1990).

Data analysis

Observation of meetings in action, and the stories told at interviews about meetings, together with organizational documentation, was analyzed to compare information and to offer a complete picture of the organization (Bogdewic and Jamison, l994). The collected data were imported into research software that supports qualitative analysis (NVivo 9), and more than 500 pages of field notes and transcripts were loaded and analyzed. Keywords/phrases were chosen from the earlier literature review to create nodes (codes) in support of a data analysis, ‘coding represents the operations by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways’ (Thein et al., 2010: 308). The nodes and sub-nodes were then attributed to the data sources, that is, audio files from recorded interview, transcripts, extracts from field notes from observations or copies of organizational documentation (Table 1). As exampled in Table 1, the code of ‘furniture’ (column 1) was attributed to the observer’s field notes about the meeting room. Sub-codes for examples, ‘table’, ‘room’, etc., were attributed to observations on how the meeting behaviour was mediated. Discussion between members of the research team led to decisions as to the themes that emerged from the coding.

Table 1.

Summary of field work coding (nodes).

Node	Sub-node	Theme
Furniture	Table	Space
	Room
	Door
	Seating
Meeting time	Lateness	Time
	Agenda
	Frequency
	Regularity
Boundary	Flexible	Formality/informality
	Fluid
	Rigid
	Interruption
Culture	Arab	Symbol
	Other nationality
	Dress
	Handshakes
Talk	Side conversation	Communication
	Discussion
	Language
Written	Notes
Technology	Phone	Expected/unexpected
	Laptop
	Email
Position	Chair	Status
	Head of table
	Titles

Results

During and after the data collection, the researchers noted emergent themes from analysis and held further discussions between themselves about these themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). A theme that emerged through this process was based on the a priori literature on rituals (Smith and Stewart, 2011), and data were coded where possible into the respective themes surrounding such ritualistic behaviours (Table 1). A report had been requested and was sent to one institution, and they and a sample of interview participants were encouraged to give their feedback as comments, accepted as ‘the perceptions of the informants’ (Lauring, 2008: 351).

Formality of meetings

As noted earlier, we only included meetings that held some degree of formality, including pre-planning, regularity and a written agenda. As Rappaport (1999) noted, formality consists of an ‘adherence to form’, in that participants act consistently with prescribed expectations. It also involves behaviour that has some predetermined and formulaic actions and sequences (Smith and Stewart, 2011). We noted that in some meetings, there was a high degree of formality. The meeting was opened by the chairperson, members were welcomed, a previously set agenda would be accepted and then each agenda item would be followed in sequence, discussed, proposed, seconded, voted, minuted and then the next agenda item would be raised. In essence, the meeting followed a repetitive sequence and rigid rules of patterned behaviour (Dulaney and Fisk, 1994). Highly formalized meetings tended to be at weekly management meetings and formal annual meetings. When such meetings were chaired by a Caucasian person, the meetings tended to start on time. As an example, in a meeting at SHC led by a Canadian, the meeting was scheduled on the agenda to begin at 10 am and started exactly at that time with a ‘call to order’ (Field notes, February 2010). Quotations referencing formality of meetings include:

Yea … there’s an agenda … circulated normally a week in advance. … minutes are produced within a couple of days. (ID M, SHC)

For me, the meetings are all/they are always/should be about reaching some sort of decision or conclusion or ______ on something that needs to move forward … they should never simply be for information. (ID B, SHC)

In other meetings, however, there would be a more fluid approach to the rules and formality. Randomly, participants would arrive late or not at all. Regularly, seating arrangements would be changed round and the agenda would be changed or discussed out of sequence. As an example is an extract from field notes:

A meeting at NWC is due to begin at 12 noon. At 12 noon a meeting participant and myself left her office to walk to the meeting room. Ten minutes later we are at the meeting room to find two other meeting members present. Then the participant (who during the meeting was also declared to be the ‘meeting leader’) requested to postpone as she had a meeting conflict, ‘can we not postpone it for half hour’. The meeting actually began at 1213. (Field notes, January 2010)

We also noted that even though dates were fixed and pre-planned, there were several changes to dates and times of meetings, as one manager said,

during the meeting, the date [for next meeting] is fixed which changes of course. (Field notes, March 2010).

In fact, even the senior management meetings (SUA) often started slightly late, almost as a cultural acknowledgement that some participants would show up late. In addition, we noted that wherever the chairperson of the meeting was of Arab descent, the meeting started later and there was less formal structure to the meeting, as exampled in this extract from field notes where the chair is of Arab nationality:

The meeting has been called for 1 pm. At 1303, the secretary is asked by the meeting chair ‘to call everybody to the meeting’. The secretary goes to each persons’ office telling them to come to the meeting. In the meantime, the office boy is arranging and bringing in more chairs to the meeting room. At 1306, the meeting chair leaves his office and wanders into offices and down the corridor calling to people to come to the meeting. There are six meeting members around the table at 1308 when the chair enters to start the meeting. (Field notes, March 2010)

In the above meetings, there is an abject lack of time keeping by the participants, nobody is ready to start on time. The chair of one chooses not to mention time keeping but starts late to accommodate the participants, rather than using managerial authority to reinforce the rules of the meeting. In a similar disregard for time keeping, at another the chair is tardy, but there is a seeming lack of concern from herself or the other participants about the delay.

Participant performance in the meetings

The expectations surrounding ritual performance are instrumental to defining their features (Boyer and Lienard, 2006; Rappaport, 1999). Even where most meetings held a number of ethnically diverse participants, some followed the performance script as expected. For most participants, they would arrive in advance of the allotted time, and each participant would know their prescribed position at the table. This was irrespective of the cultural background of the participant. For example, at a formal monthly meeting at SHC, participants kept to their seats even following lunch break. At meetings, the chair sat at the head of the table, or perhaps where the chair sat became the head of the table. Appropriate business attire was worn, for example, men and women wore conservative clothes.

However, there were many examples where participant performance was not following expectations. A quote from a SHC manager highlights this,

there is a fundamental misconception that everyone … knows how to go to a meeting, knows how to conduct themselves in the meeting, knows how to run a meeting and how to be part of a team and that’s a fundamental mistake. I see horrendous meetings in here every week. (Field notes, March 2010)

Technology was used for private and professional purposes even to the extent that during a management meeting (SHC) the majority were on laptops throughout the meeting. It was observed that some were checking personal websites. The use of laptops was also something of a shared ritual as participants accessed their work email accounts, sending and receiving emails during the meeting. The meeting chair discussed this ritual during interview,

you can take your laptop anywhere … the upside to that is yes we can basically have paperless meetings. … we don’t have to print and bring any papers anymore or bring the documents … the downside is that it means every single person in that meeting has access to their email. … so what I'm now finding is that it’s very difficult to get people to focus on meeting … because most of them are on their email trying to keep up with what’s going on back in their office instead of focusing on the meeting … if they focus on the meeting it would probably take a whole lot less time … it was a good idea and now it got to the point where I think that it’s becoming a detriment. (Field notes March 2010)

During all meetings at NWC, and many at SUA, there was the ritual of mobile/cell phone laid on the table in front of the attendees– this was particularly marked for participants or chair (Arab nationality). Although the devices were usually switched to silent mode, there were occasions when the phones rang or buzzed. In a sales meeting and quality meeting, there was frequent use of mobile/cell phones when participants responded to a text. Or indeed walked out of the room, answering the telephone as they went. There were further interruptions to meeting space and time. There were further interruptions to meeting space and time; people arriving late; other people, including secretaries and supervisors walking in and out of meetings at NWC to gain signatures, to check on something, or to deal with an issue for the meeting chair.

Although in most meetings there was a set agenda, there were instances where this sequencing was not followed, which led to a more fluid performance. For example, at a meeting of the SHC, it was off-track during the morning as everyone had their own agendas, but in the afternoon it ‘settled down.’ Fluid agenda keeping is noted here where the western chair tries to get the cross-cultural meeting members back on track,

sorry folks we are definitely running behind now, on agenda 5.1, we are behind. (Field notes, February 2010)

The meeting room doors remained open throughout many meetings, allowing a flow of people in and out of the meeting space. Even when the meetings had begun late, there were further distractions and interruptions, and nobody apologized, side conversations were manifest, few seeming oblivious to the leader of the meeting and the other participants.

Symbolism in meetings

Rituals experience a symbiotic relationship with symbols, where they imbue meaning to the ritual performance (Smith and Stewart, 2011). It is also argued that symbols act as markers to define boundaries or cooperation and inclusion (Boyer, 2001; Sosis and Ruffle, 2003). Symbols can also reinforce shared commitment but may confirm the status positions of the participants to the ritual. A boardroom was used for the formal monthly management meeting at NWC. At other organizations, formal meeting rooms were used. Formal symbolized by highly polished, very large oval, oblong tables, around which were plush leather seats. The symbolism was of a serious event that was to take place, which deserved ‘grand’ furnishings and a separate room.

Clothing was symbolic of the gravitas of meetings, the UAE culture has a conservative dress code that is followed in the organizations of study and through to meetings. The formality of the meeting attire echoes the formality of organizational dress in the region. Even in institutions of higher education, employees are expected to dress in western business dress. Exceptions are nationals who wear their national dress. The men dress in dark trousers, shirts and usually ties. Women dress in skirts that are knee length or longer or wear trousers and avoid revealing décolleté. Those, especially male, in the higher positions wear more conservative and formal business dress, for example, a suit and tie. Symbols of the religious context feeds into business attire, that is, in the SHC meeting there were women wearing head cover. Whatever be the nationality of the employees, arms and legs are covered in organizational dress in all the three quite formal organizations, and it is unusual to see sleeveless attire in this context.

Seating position was symbolic. The meeting chair sits at the head of the table and ‘important’ participants are nearer to the head of the table. For example, at a formal monthly meeting at NWC, the participants (apart from one) arrived there ahead of the meeting time and before the meeting chair. The managing director (meeting chair) sat at the head of the table and next to him was the finance manager. The finance manager also was the only department manager with an office on the same floor as the owner. Thus, location of the meeting leader and those positioned at the table is symbolic of the status. Symbols of the business of meetings pervade the scene in the form of sales brochures (under the table in the sales meetings) and framed certificates, for example, for quality on the walls at other meetings at NWC.

Formality of titles and addresses were used in written documentation at NWC meetings. The agenda for the management meeting was constructed as ‘2. Finance Dept. report – Mr., first name, 3. Sales and Marketing Dept. report – Eng. [Engineer] first name’. This usage of formal titles on meeting documentation was repeated on the agenda for a plant meeting (30 December 2009), ‘Cc to: Dr. full name [owner], Mr. full name [Managing Director]. … Attendees: Mr. last name, Shift Engineers’. In the quality meeting, participants occasionally formally addressed each other, ‘one second Mr. [first name] before we start’ (quality assurance manager), the production manager referred to his colleague, the quality control manager as ‘Mr. [last name]’ (Field notes, 2010).

Rituals governing the dimension of space were also noted as there were fluid boundaries when the action within the meetings is considered. It had been noted by both researchers that meetings in the UAE have been conducted usually with open doors or doors left ajar – perhaps to accommodate the rituals of in and out and lateness. Even when doors are closed, it does not symbolize privacy for a meeting as is usually expected and accepted. An illustration of that was when the two researchers had deliberately closed the door during a research meeting at SUA, to have it opened and an ‘interrupter’ asking for information even as they stepped into the meeting space (Field notes, May 2012). In one quality management meeting, the open door allowed entrance to an employee to gain a signature from a meeting participant and enabled a participant to speak to his secretary in another room. The meeting chair referred to that meeting as an ‘open discussion [rather than a] formal meeting’ (Field notes, January 2010). In a sales management meeting, an ‘office boy’ was called in to clean the white board, and participants left the meeting to stand in the corridor talking on their cell phones. The open doors to these meetings enabled participants to continue other organizational business through face to face and phone communication even as they were somewhat still within the meeting. Glass walls between the meeting room and the sales manager’s office (NWC) allowed him, as meeting chair, to observe that participants were not present in the room at the appointed time. A meeting at SHC was also conducted in a glass room, enabling others to gaze into the meeting.

The fluidity of the space and time dimension in these meetings re-enacted the findings in the secondary research that meeting space and time in the Arab world is valued as open and public. The spacial and temporal rituals contrasted and somewhat violated the rigid, private world of meetings, as valued in the western world.

Discussion

A lack of respect for the meeting business and meeting colleagues is suggested in the behaviour at meetings when looked at with a western cultural perspective. It would seem that these meetings are not being held in accordance with ‘traditional’ rules, under which many western meetings take place. There also appears to be differences in cultural interpretation attached to the time and space components of a meeting (Hong, 1999). In a meeting situation, these different approaches are commonplace in the Arab world. Formal meetings are conducted in a more unstructured, flexible way (Rice, 2003). For example, there is often flexible rather than explicit work agendas for meetings, and when they do meet, the participants may not follow the agenda closely (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). Meetings sometimes appear to be social occasions with oblique reference to the task at hand (Schuster and Copeland, 1996). Such facets of cultural behaviour can be frustrating for westerners conducting meetings in this Arab context.

The space dimension of meetings also offers some interesting cultural insights. An organization’s culture is displayed through the use of office space, where the values of privacy are presented through separate offices, in comparison with less privacy in an open-plan office arrangement (Adler, 2002). From the surveys conducted by Nixon and Littlepage (1992), open communication is considered an effective process in meetings. The human relation’s tradition of management considers meetings as a forum for ‘open communication’ (Schwartzman, 1986). However, while open door policies for office work are noted in western organizations, it is not such a usual practice in meetings. Meeting rooms at two organizations were never closed to the organizational gaze because of the transparency of glass walls of the meeting rooms. Foucault’s notion of ‘gaze’ construes that control is enforced by surveillance within the organization (Arac, 1988; Boje and Dennehy, 2000: 17).

Earlier we had noted that meetings exclude those not in the in-group, for example, all managers’ meeting together. In our study, we found a similarity to this symbol of in-group in meetings where others (physical or virtual) were excluded. However, it is noteworthy that the meetings have in-group members that is those formally invited, but there was a difference in the western concept of in-group and out-group. As people came and went, there was more acceptance of them as being in the meeting group. Meeting invitees stepped out frequently from the group to answer phone calls or were not present even when sitting around the table as they were busy texting or answering emails. The acceptance of meeting ‘interruption’ through phone calls and people coming in and out would be less of an occurrence and certainly less acceptable in meetings in the West. Status is also demonstrated when space for meetings expands to fit the seniority of the chairperson. The ritualistic use of formality in address and titles in written and verbal communication was a difference in meetings outside this region. The repeated use of formal titles in both written and oral communication does confirm the rigid attitudes to status in the Arab countries (Hofstede et al., 1990).

Meetings are events that bring attendees out of their offices during a particular space and time, while bracketing out others (Boden, 1994; Jarzabkowski and Seidl, 2008). Similarly, in terms of ritualistic behaviour, the choice of location to hold the meeting is important, such as in a conference room or office, and also the types of furnishings (styles of table, seats and wall hangings) for that space (Deal and Kennedy, 2000; Pino and Mora, 1998). The shape of the meeting table symbolizes organizational structure – round tables indicate equality of members and a square/oblong table has a ‘head’ to represent more hierarchy (Deal and Kennedy, 2000). From a profile of American business meetings, 74% of meetings took place in conference rooms (Monge et al., 1989). Using the space of a conference room for a meeting represents formality for those attending, and symbolizes to outsiders that important business is being conducted. Entering through the door of a meeting room is a rite of passage to the space and time of management decision making.

Time has been shown to be understood differently across cultures, and space is also understood differently. A western insistence on the clock to regulate time also creates a separation of time and space, with the invention of clock time we could say that time has become separated from space (Stevenson, 2010).

Limitations and future directions

In many qualitative studies of organizational behaviour, there are likely to be opportunities for further inquiry into the main concepts being studied, either through empirical validation of the findings or through comparative analyses. Similarly, the use of observational methods over a specific cross-sectional time period creates opportunities for a longitudinal study to examine whether the findings are dynamic or stable over time. In this study, we took appropriate steps to see the organization through the eyes of those involved and interpret what was happening with that knowledge but without being involved as a long-term member of the business. For example, in an introductory meeting at NWC, when the researcher met the whole management team, the research was explained. It was a concern for some participants that finance and marketing information about the company could be made available to their competitors. It is doubtful, given the concern about secrecy that full disclosure about meetings or the organization would have been expressed. There was some acceptance within the company that any information was solely for academic purposes, but it would have been useful to have had access to more internal information.

It must be taken into account that the researchers did make a difference to the setting, although for the most part the researchers were accepted. The researchers have a disadvantage in that they were not from the nationality of many of the participants and, therefore, any cultural norms for meetings could have been overlooked. The fact that the participants represented many different cultures would have helped with that, that is, it was less of one culture and more of a cross-cultural representation. Another limitation was that the researchers could only speak one language, English, so the fieldwork had to be conducted in that language. Although the organizational language was English, there were times when other languages were spoken, and a couple of participants were less fluent in English. That language barrier may have been a limitation to receiving some data about meetings. It is recognized that the information participants divulged, and how they conducted themselves, was their story of the meetings, and is not necessarily the same story for other cross-cultural meetings (Boje, 2008). Further research is needed before it could be said that any benefits of demographic diversity were realized (Chatman et al., 1998).

The interpretation of cross-cultural meeting rituals can be widened through further qualitative research. First, further qualitative research needs to be undertaken in other cross-cultural meetings within the UAE, the Arab Gulf area and outwards to the Middle East region. The purpose of that geographical widening is to gather information about meetings from an as yet under researched part of the world. Such research will solidify the rituals in use to support an emerging picture of cross-cultural meetings. Finally, comparisons can be made of meeting rituals throughout geographic regions. Similar to the work of Project GLOBE, groups of researchers in various regions can gather specific fieldwork data on meetings (Gerhart, 2008; Javidan et al., 2006). Beside academic interest in such a global cross-cultural meetings project, the understanding that emerges can be of practical use for the effective management of cross-cultural meetings worldwide. There is also practical value in this knowledge for western managers striving to conduct business in the Middle East. Given the current and future political changes in the region, our research is particularly timely for a wider audience in offering some insight into meeting behaviour in a cross-cultural context.

Conclusions

Through an interpretation of the rituals of these meetings in the UAE, an understanding has emerged of cross-cultural meeting behaviour in the Middle East. Findings, in this context, appear to indicate that the norms of meeting rituals are interpreted more fluidly than findings from research based predominantly on western, mono cultural meetings. These findings are significant for two reasons. Of academic significance is that the findings about rituals in cross-cultural meetings add to our knowledge of a somewhat unexplored area of research. Going someway to ameliorate a concern that ‘people from developed countries, and especially Western ones, can show and have shown a certain kind of arrogance in assuming that concepts......or results ......obtained in one culture-usually, their culture-apply anywhere’ (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2006: 37). The significance for practitioners is that ritualistic actions of intercultural meetings can be adapted to enhance their meeting effectiveness. The challenges of interaction in cross-cultural organizational situations have been somewhat recognized as variables in the rituals of meeting behaviour (Molinsky, 2007). By interpretation of what was observed and said during fieldwork, some sense making about the meetings has emerged (Schwartzman, 1987; Soin and Scheytt, 2006; Weick, 1995). It is by no means a complete sense of cross-cultural meeting behaviour, and this opens up a direction for further research.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Abbasi

Hollman

(1993) Business success in the Middle East. Management Decision 31(1): 55–9.

Adler

(2002) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: South-Western.

Adler

(1997) Global leadership: women leaders. Management International Review 37(1): 171–96.

Ali

(1992) Islamic work ethics in Arabia. Journal of Psychology 126(5): 507–19.

Ali

Azim

Krishnan

(1995) Expatriates and host country nationals: managerial values and decision styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 16(6): 27–5.

Ali

Taqi

Krishnan

(1997) Individualism, collectivism, and decision styles of managers in Kuwait. The Journal of Social Psychology 137(5): 629–37.

Allen

Rogelberg

Scott

(2008) Mind your meetings. Quality Progress 41(4): 48–53.

Al Maeena

(December 26th, 2010) Expatriate musings on Saudi Arabia: the “shrug factor”. Gulf News. URL: http://www1.albawaba.com/expatriate-musings-saudis-shrug-factor (accessed 14 February 2013).

Alserhan

Forstenlechner

Al-Nakeeb

(2009) Employees’ attitudes towards diversity in a non-western context. Employee Relations 32(1): 42–55.

10.

Arac

(ed) (1988) Foucault: Modern or Postmodern? After Foucault, Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges. New Brunswick, UK: Rutgers University Press.

11.

Arrow

Poole

Henry

Wheelan

Moreland

(2004) Time, change, and development: the temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research 35(1): 73–05.

12.

Badawy

(1980) Styles of Mideastern managers. California Management Review 22(3): 51–8.

13.

Ballard

Seibold

(2006) The experience of time at work: relationship to communication load, job satisfaction, and interdepartmental communication. Communication Studies 57(3): 317–40.

14.

Ballard

Tschan

Waller

(2008) All in the timing: considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Research 39(3): 328–51.

15.

Bang

Fuglesang

Ovesen

Eilertsen

(2010) Effectiveness in top management group meetings: the role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51(3): 253–61.

16.

Beck

Keyton

(2009) Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small Group Research 40(2): 223–46.

17.

Beech

Hibbert

MacIntosh

McInnes

(2009) But i thought we were friends? life cycles and research relationships. In: Ybema

Yanow

Wels

Kamsteeg

(eds) Organizational Ethnography Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 196–15.

18.

Bennington

Shetler

Shaw

(2003) Negotiating order in inter organizational communication: discourse analysis of a meeting of three diverse organizations. Journal of Business Communication 40(2): 118–43.

19.

Bernard

(1994) Research Methodology in Anthropology, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Field Notes: How to Take, Code and Manage Them. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage.

20.

Boden

(1994) The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

21.

Bogdewic

Jamison

(1994) Participant observation. In: Crabtree

Miller

Addison

Gilchrist

Kuzel

(eds) Exploring Collaborative Research in Primary Care. California, CA: Sage.

22.

Boje

(2008) Storytelling Organizations. London, UK: Sage.

23.

Boje

Dennehy

(April, 2000) Managing in the Postmodern World. 3rd ed. URL: http://business.nmsu.edu/∼dboje/mpwchap1.html (accessed 14 February 2013).

24.

Boyer

(2001) Explaining Religion: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.

25.

Boyer

Liénard

(2006) Why ritualized behavior? Precaution Systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29(6): 595–613.

26.

Budhwar

Mellahi

(2007) Introduction: human resource management in the Middle East. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(1): 2–10.

27.

Chatman

Polzer

Barsade

Neale

(1998) Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 43(4): 749–80.

28.

CIA (2010) Geography, people. Middle East: United Arab Emirates. The World Fact Book. URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html (accessed 14 February 2013).

29.

Cummings

(2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science 50(3): 352–64.

30.

Deal

Kennedy

(2000) Corporate Cultures, the Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Perseus.

31.

Dedoussis

(2004) A cross-cultural comparison of organizational culture: evidence from universities in the Arab world and Japan. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 11(1): 15–34.

32.

Dennett

(2006) Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York, NY: Viking.

33.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2008) Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage, 1–27.

34.

Deresky

(1994) International Management Managing Across Borders and Culture. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

35.

Dulaney

Fiske

(1994) Cultural rituals and obsessive-compulsive disorder: Is there a common psychological mechanism? ETHOS Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 22(3): 243–283.

36.

Elsayed-Elkhouly

Lazarus

Forsythe

(1997) Why is a third of your time wasted in meetings? Journal of Management Development 16(9): 672–76.

37.

Feldman

Pentland

(2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1): 94–18.

38.

Festing

Maletzky

(2011) Cross-cultural leadership adjustment: a multilevel framework based on the theory of structuration. Human Resource Management Review 21: 186–00.

39.

Flick

(2007) Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London, UK: Sage.

40.

Forstenlechner

(2010) Expats and citizens: managing diverse teams in the Middle East. Team Performance Management 16 (5/6): 237–41.

41.

Forstenlechner

Rutledge

(2012) Unemployment in the Gulf: Time to Update the “Social Contract” Middle East Policy Council. URL: http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/unemployment-gulf-time-update-social-contract (accessed April 8 2012)

42.

Francisco

(2007) How to create and facilitate meetings that matter. Information Management Journal 41(6): 54–58.

43.

Gerhart

(2008) Cross cultural management research: assumptions, evidence, and suggested directions. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(3): 259–74.

44.

Gersick

CJG

(1989) Making time: predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal 32(2): 274–09.

45.

Gioia

Poole

(1984) Scripts in organizational behavior. The Academy of Management Review 9(3): 449–59.

46.

Golafshani

(December 2003) Understanding reliability and validity. The Qualitative Report 8(4): 597–07. URL: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf (accessed 14 February 2013).

47.

Gubrium

(1994) Interviewing. In: Crabtree

Miller

Addison

Gilchrist

Kuzel

(eds) Exploring Collaborative Research in Primary Care. California, CA: Sage.

48.

Hall

(1990) The Silent Language. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

49.

Hall

(1991) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

50.

Hall

(1990) Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, UK: Intercultural Press.

51.

Hallett

Harger

Eder

(2009) Gossip at work: unsanctioned evaluative talk in formal school meetings. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 38(5): 584–18.

52.

Hammersley

(1990) Reading Ethnographic Research, a Critical Guide. London, UK: Longman.

53.

Hofstede

(1994) The business of international business is culture. International Business Review 3(1): 1–14.

54.

Hofstede

(1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, SAGE: London.

56.

Hofstede

Neuijen

Ohayv

Sanders

(1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(2): 286–16.

57.

Hong

(1999) Information technology to support any-time, any-place team meetings in Korean organizations. Industrial Management and Data Systems 99(1): 18–24.

58.

Huang

(2010) Cross-cultural communication in business negotiations. International Journal of Economics and Finance 2(2): 196–99.

59.

Hughes

Ginnett

Curphy

(2009) Leadership, Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. International Edition, 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

60.

Islam

Zyphur

(2009). Rituals in organizations: a review and expansion of current theory. Group and Organization Management 34(1): 114–34.

61.

Jackson

Aycan

(2006) Editorial: from cultural values to cross cultural interfaces. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM 6(1): 5–13.

62.

Javidan

Dorfman

De Luque

House

(2006) In the eye of the beholder: cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives 20(1): 67–90.

63.

Jarzabkowski

Seidl

(2008) The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies 29(11): 1391–26.

64.

Johnson

Prashantham

Floyd

Bourque

(2010) The ritualization of strategy workshops. Organization Studies 31(12): 1589–18.

65.

Khan

Clear

Al-Kaabi

Pezeshki

(2010) An exploratory study of the effects of diversity dimensions and intervening variables on attitudes to diversity. Team Performance Management 16 (5/6): 289–08.

66.

Kemp

(2010) Access to fieldwork: “strange” work in a Middle East setting. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 12: 289–98.

67.

Kirkman

Lowe

Gibson

(May, 2006) A quarter century of “culture’s consequences”: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37(3): 285–20.

68.

Lauring

(2008) Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: language use as a negotiated object for identity making International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(3): 343–61.

69.

Lauring

(2011) Intercultural organizational communication the social organizing of interaction in international encounters. Journal of Business Communication 48(3): 231–55.

70.

Lauring

Selmer

(2009) Expatriate compound living: an ethnographic field study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(7): 1451–67.

71.

Leach

Rogelberg

Warr

Burnfield

(2009) Perceived meeting effectiveness: the role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology 24(1): 65–76.

72.

Letendre

(February 2004) The dynamics of the boardroom. The Academy of Management Executive 18(1): 101–04.

73.

Levine

Moreland

(2006) Small Groups. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

74.

Lofland

(translator and editor) (July, 1989) Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18(2): 123–132.

75.

Luong

Rogelberg

(2005) Meetings and more meetings: the relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 9(1): 58–67.

76.

Mellahi

(2007) The effect of regulations on HRM: private sector firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Human Resource Management (18)1: 85–99.

77.

Mellahi

Budhwar

(2010) Introduction: Islam and human resource management. Personnel Review 39(6): 685–91.

78.

McComas

Besley

Black

(2010) The rituals of public meetings. Public Administration Review 70: 122–30.

79.

Miles

Huberman

(1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

80.

Miller

(1994) Japanese and American Meetings and what goes on before them: a case study of co-worker misunderstanding. Pragmatics 4(2): 221–38.

81.

Millhous

(1999) The experience of culture in multicultural groups: case studies of Russian-American collaboration in business. Small Group Research 30(3): 280–08.

82.

Moeran

(2009) From participant observation to observant participation. In: Ybema

Yanow

Wels

Kamsteeg

(eds) Organizational Ethnography Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

83.

Molinsky

(2007) Cross-cultural code-switching: the psychological challenges of adapting behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 622–40.

84.

Monge

McSween

Wyer

(1989) A Profile of Meetings in Corporate America: Results of the 3M Meeting Effectiveness Study. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Press.

85.

Moss-Kanter

(1992) The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. London, UK: Routledge.

86.

Myers

(1986) Reflections on a meeting: structure, language and the polity in a small scale society. American Ethnologist 13(3): 430–47.

87.

Neal

(2010) When Arab-expatriate relations work well: diversity and discourse in the Gulf Arab workplace. Team Performance Management 16 (5/6): 242–66.

88.

Neal

Finlay

Catana

(2007) A Comparison of leadership prototypes of Arab and European females. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(3): 291–15.

89.

Niederman

Volkema

(1999) The effects of facilitator characteristics on meeting preparation, set up, and implementation. Small Group Research 30(3): 330–60.

90.

Nixon

Littlepage

(1992) Impact of meeting procedures on meeting effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology 6(3): 361–69.

91.

Olesen

(1990) Immersed, amorphous, and episodic fieldwork: theory and policy in three contrasting contexts. Studies in Qualitative Methodology 2: 205–32.

92.

Peck

Six

Gulliver

Towell

(2004) Why do we keep on meeting like this? The board as a ritual in health and social care. Health Services Management Research Online 17(2): 100–09.

93.

Peterson

Thomas

(2007) Organizational behavior in multinational organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(3): 262–79.

94.

Pettigrew

(1979) On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 570–81.

95.

Pino

Mora

(1998) Scheduling meetings using participants' preferences. Information Technology and People 11(2): 140–51.

96.

Pratt

Rafaeli

(1997) Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal 40(4): 862–98.

97.

Pudelko

Harzing

AWK

(2007) How European is management in Europe? an analysis of past, present and future management practices in Europe. European Journal of International Management 1(3): 206–24.

98.

Rappaport

(1999) Epistemology of Rituals A review of Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

99.

Rice

(2003) The challenge of creativity and culture: a framework for analysis with application to Arabian Gulf firms. International Business Review 12: 461–77.

100.

Roberts

(1990) Women and their doctors: power and powerlessness in the research process. In: Roberts

(ed) Doing Feminist Research. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge.

101.

Rogelberg

Allen

Shanock

Scott

Shuffler

(March-April 2010) Employee satisfaction with meetings: a contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management 49(2): 149–72.

102.

Rogelberg

Leach

Warr

Burnfield

(2006) Not another meeting! Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1): 83–96.

103.

Rogelberg

Scott

Kello

(2007) The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review 48(2): 18–21.

104.

Rook

(1985) The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research 12(3): 251–54.

105.

Sackmann

Phillips

(2004) Contextual influences on culture research: Shifting assumptions for new workplace realities. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4(3): 370–390.

106.

Schein

(1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

107.

Schuster

Copeland

(1996) Global Business. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

108.

Schwartzman

(1986) The meeting as a neglected social form in organizational studies. Research in Organizational Behavior 8: 233–58.

109.

Schwartzman

(1987) The Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

110.

Scott

(2009) The pow-wow factor. Financial Management 1: 28–32.

111.

Silverman

Marvasti

(2008) Doing Qualitative Research A Comprehensive Guide. London, UK: Sage.

112.

Smith

Achoui

Harb

(2007) Unity and diversity in Arab managerial styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM 7(3): 275.

113.

Smith

Stewart

(2011) Organizational rituals: features, functions and mechanisms. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(2): 113–33.

114.

Soin

Scheytt

(2006) Making the case for narrative methods in cross-cultural organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 9(1): 55–77.

115.

Sosis

Ruffle

(2003) Religious ritual and cooperation: Testing for a relationship on Israeli religious and secular Kibbutzim. Current Anthropology 44(5): 713–722.

116.

Sternberg

Grigorenko

(2006) Cultural intelligence and successful intelligence. Group & Organization Management (31)1: 27–39.

117.

Stevenson

(2010) Marshall McLuhan and media and cultural studies. In: Crosswiler

(ed) Transforming McLuhan Cultural, Critical, and Postmodern perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

118.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage.

119.

Sutter

(2000) Focus groups in ethnography of communication: expanding topics of inquiry beyond participant observation. The Qualitative Report 5(1 ,2). URL: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-1/suter.html (accessed 14 February 2013).

120.

Tate

Eisenstodt

Rosen

(2006) Managing meetings. Journal of Accountancy 201(4): 59–62.

121.

Thein

Austen

Currie

Lewin

(2010) The impact of cultural context on the perception of work/family balance by professional women in Singapore and Hong Kong. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10(3): 303–20.

122.

Trice

Beyer

(1984) Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. The Academy of Management Review 9(4): 653–69.

123.

Van Maanen

(1988) Tales of the Field on Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

124.

Volkema

Niederman

(1995) Organizational meetings formats and information requirements. Small Group Research 26(1): 3–24.

125.

Volkema

Niederman

(1996) Planning and managing organizational meetings: an empirical analysis of written and oral communications. Journal of Business Communication 33(3): 275–96.

126.

Waal van der

(2009) Getting going: organizing ethnographic fieldwork. In: Ybema

Yanow

Wels

Kamsteeg

(eds) Organizational Ethnography Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

127.

Wenger

Snyder

(2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78: 139–45.

128.

Weick

(1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. London, UK: Sage.

129.

Yin

(2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods. London, UK: Sage.

130.

Zhu

Nel

Bhat

(2006) A cross cultural study of communication strategies for building business relationships. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6(3): 319–41.

131.

Zhu

McKenna

Sun

(2007) Negotiating with Chinese: success of initial meetings is the key. Cross Cultural Management 14(4): 354–64.