Extending the Global Acculturation Model to Untangle the Culture Mixing Puzzle

What is it about?

Today’s globalized environment exposes people to culture mixing—mixing of iconic symbols of different cultures in the same space at the same time. Findings on individuals’ exposure to culture mixing provide evidence for both exclusionary and inclusionary responses. In this article, we focus on the growing phenomenon of culture mixing of global and local symbols and artifacts. We generate a conceptual model to identify who is likely to respond in what way to the mixed cultural environment and why. To answer these questions, we build on the global acculturation model, which aims to explain individuals’ adaptation to the global environment by considering the relative strength of their local and global identities. We extend this model by considering not only the two entities’ relative strength but also their balance—the degree of symmetry between the identities’ strength. We propose that individuals with dominant (unbalanced) identity types (global or local) will exhibit negative and exclusionary responses to culture mixing, whereas individuals with balanced identity types (glocal or marginal) will exhibit positive and inclusionary responses to culture mixing. We also incorporate the concept of bicultural identity integration (BII) to suggest that individuals with high identification with both cultures (glocals) and with high BII will exhibit more inclusive responses than glocals with low BII. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Culture mixing of global and local national artifacts is a growing phenomenon. Findings on individuals’ exposure to culture mixing provide evidence for both exclusionary and inclusionary responses, but without sufficient theoretical explanation. We extend the global acculturation model (Shokef & Erez, 2006) that portrays identity types based on the relative strength of a person’s global and local identity by integrating the constructs of identity balance and BII, and put forth an integrative model to identify who is likely to respond in what way to global–local culture mixing. indicated that organizations that operate globally adopt different strategies based on their relative emphasis on global integration and local responsiveness. Whereas the “global” organization type used a “global strategy” approach of high global integration and low local responsiveness, the “transnational” organization type balanced between global integration and local responsiveness, using the decentralized “glocal strategy” approach (Svensson, 2001). Therefore, the implications of our propositions are relevant for marketers in transnational organizations, which are more likely to modify their companies’ global brands and products to fit a specific culture. They are also relevant to organizations undergoing mergers and acquisitions and seek the best method to integrate the two organizational cultures. At the individual level, employees and managers of such organizations differ in their dual organizational identities (DOIs), a difference which reflects their sense of belonging to their local subsidiary and their global organization (Vora & Kostova, 2007). The implications of our propositions are relevant to human resource managers in selection of managers and employees for jobs that require such a balance.