managing cross-border intern corporate communication of … · 2018. 9. 23. · e-mail:...

ISSN 1392-1142 (Print), ISSN 2335-8750 (Online)ORGANIZACIJŲ VADYBA:SISTEMINIAI TYRIMAI 2016.75http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/MOSR.2335.8750.2016.75.5

Maƒrta KONCZOSNÉ SZOMBATHELYI Aƒgnes BORGULYA György SZONDI

Márta KONCZOSNÉ SZOMBATHELYI – PhD, habil. dr., associate professor at Széchenyi István University, Hungary. Address: 9026 Győr, Egyetem tér 1, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected].

Ágnes BORGULYA – habil. dr., professor at University of Pécs, Hungary. Address: 7622 Pécs, Rákóczi út 80, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected].

György SZONDI – PhD, dr., associate professor at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hun-gary. Address: 1091 Budapest, Kálvin tér 9, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected].

Managing Cross-Border Intern Corporate Communication of International Companies

This paper aims to share the main results of the research which intended to explore the current strategies and models on a special area of the “internal cross-border communication” of international companies, operating in different socio-cultural environments. This study was designed to examine what strategies are available for CEOs to guide the communication in different socio-cultural environments. The research aimed to investigate the theme of “standardization or differentiation”. It was written on the basis of systematic expert interview made by CEOs of international companies having subsidiaries in Hungary.Keywords: cross-border internal corporate communication, models of standardization/differentiation.

Šio straipsnio tikslas – pasidalyti tyrimo, nagrinėjančio tarptautinių įmonių, veikiančių skirtingoje sociokul-tūrinėje aplinkoje, vidinės tarpvalstybinės komunikacijos strategijas ir modelius, rezultatais. Tyrimas sukur-tas išanalizuoti vadovams prieinamas strategijas komunikacijai valdyti skirtingoje sociokultūrinėje aplinkoje. Siekiama ištirti standartizacijos arba diferenciacijos temas. Remtasi sisteminiu ekspertų interviu, apklausiant tarptautinių įmonių vadovus, turinčių įmonės padalinių Vengrijoje.Raktiniai žodžiai: tarpvalstybinė vidinė korporatyvinė komunikacija, standartizacijos arba diferenciacijos modeliai.

Introduction

A company is considered to be interna-tional if it operates subsidiaries, plants, sales divisions or representative offices across borders. The parent company’s com-munication with these units is intern cor-porate communications. However, since these units are located outside the bor-ders of their own country, communicating with them is cross-borders in nature. The economic, political and social boundaries

have expanded and become international. The framework conditions in which enter-prises operate today have changed. Many companies are expanding abroad: estab-lishing subsidiaries, plants, sales divisions or offices outside the border of their own country.

The scientific problem of the research. The parent organization steps into a foreign cultural context, thus its communication becomes more complex: a cross-border, international communication multiplies

Maƒrta KONCZOSNÉ SZOMBATHELYI, Aƒgnes BORGULYA, György SZONDI 72

and expands with new dimensions and the tasks of communication management.

The aim of this article is to analyse the cross-border intern corporate com-munication in case of international com-panies, grounding this analysis on litera-ture review, as well as to study the current ways, strategies and models of corporate communication practice in Hungarian branches of international companies. The research is aimed to investigate the theme of standardization or differentiation: communication systems of international companies’ entities working in Hungary with subsidiaries.

The research object: cross-border intern corporate communication of in-ternational companies crossing national borders; the interaction between the par-ent companies and their subsidiaries lo-cated abroad.

Research objectives: to find out if communication of entities of the interna-tional companies operating in Hungary can be described by standardization or differentiation models or by their mix; and whether these companies are model-typical or not. S. Huck’s (2005) standard-ization model was tested vs. differentia-tion model. In the frame of the research there was also examined, what strategies are available for CEOs to guide communi-cation in different socio-cultural environ-ment.

Research methods: literature analysis and qualitative research. This paper was written on the basis of qualitative research, based on systematic expert interviews carried out among CEOs of Hungarian branches of international companies hav-ing subsidiaries in Hungary. The expert interview was applied as a method. Ac-cording to L. van Aidenhoove (2007) the expert interview’s advantage is that ex-

perts have accumulated knowledge about the research-subject, processes, strategies and team-behaviour. They are sources of special information which is not avail-able by applying other methods. However, these experts are not neutral: they explore correlations subjectively. L. van Aiden-hoove distinguishes three types of expert interview: exploratory, systematizing and theory-creating interviews. Exploratory interview is suggested to use when we aim to win first information about a new topic, if we want to structure a problem better, or if we want to create an interview-topic list, or prepare a survey. Theory-creating expert interview is applied when the interviewee is more than a source of information. The focus is on the subjective aspects of the expert knowledge (motives, routines, be-lieves) which influence the systems’ and experts’ operation. Systematizing expert interview is used when the focus is laid on the exclusive knowledge of the expert, if we intend to get information that oth-erwise is not available. During our re-search the last type of expert interviews – the systematizing – was applied.

The interview guideline was divided into five parts, examining the communi-cation on the global, regional and local level. The first part includes questions about the global corporation; the second one about the regional centre; the third one about the Hungarian subsidiary; the fourth one about the co-operation be-tween the global, the regional and the national entity, and the last one about the evaluation of co-operation.

Interviews were conducted with lead-ers of twenty foreign corporations’ domes-tic subsidiaries, responsible for communi-cation. Choosing the pattern companies, their size and sector were taken into consideration (we intended to choose

Managing Cross-Border intern Corporate CoMMuniCation of international CoMpanies 73

medium to large companies represent-ing a variety of industries). An interview lasted for 1-1.5 hours on average, carried out at subsidiaries, based on the guideline.

The respondents’ positions were typi-cally Head of Communications (11), Chief Financial Officer (3), executive as-sistants (2), executive (2), and HR Man-ager (1) Sales manager (1).

The parent company’s locations: Ger-many (8) UK (4), Austria (2), India (2), Sweden, Mexico, Finland, the United States (1-1), altogether 16 European, 2 Asian, 1 Central and 1 North American companies took the pattern. Table 1 pres-ents information related to the age of in-vestigated companies.

As far as the industrial sectors con-cerned, the parent companies represent several sectors, such as IT, telecommuni-cation, electronics, logistics, food manu-facturing, automobile manufacturing, construction, toy manufacturing and sales, energy industry, interior, light metal foundry, food distribution, communica-tion service provider: in total 11 produc-ers and 9 service providers.

The size of the global companies in-vestigated is between 700 and 493,000

according to the number of employees. Most of them have 60,000-80,000 employ-ees. In terms of territorial expansion they are multinational companies: operating in 2-190 countries (Table 2).

Literature overview

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on the research object – on communication of international compa-nies. In particular, the chapter examines the intern communication in the context of complexity of the international compa-nies’ communication.

Interpretation of international communication

One of the features of the globalization process is internationalization of compa-nies; the other one is creation of the global information and media networking, as well as the spread of unified management, operational principles and systems. Glo-balisation and the revolution of computer and internet-based information are the driving forces behind the international-

Table 1Year of foundation of Hungarian subsidiaries

1890s (1) 1980s (2) 1990s (13) 2000 (4)

1890 1989 (2) 1990 (2), 1992, 1993 (3), 1994 (2), 1997 (2), 1998, 1999 (2) 2001, 2002, 2005, 2009

Source: according to the results of the survey carried out by the authors in 2012

Table 2The size of Hungarian subsidiaries investigated (based on the number of employees)

Ten thousand (2) Thousand (4) Hundred (14)

22.000, 12.500 8.000, 5.000, 2.000, 1.350, 180, 180-200, 230, 270, 280, 387, 400, 452, 530, 600, 700, 840, 850, 900



ization and international communication. “A new global culture is emerging parallel to a global consumer society. Interactions between cultures are significantly influ-enced by the globalizing cultural forces, including the international media” (Szon-di, 2009, p. 123.).

The cross-border corporate commu-nication can be targeting the company’s external stakeholders, e.g. foreign partner companies, international organizations operating abroad, financial institutions. However, the company’s internal commu-nications also may cross national borders, as long as their branches, offices, subsid-iaries operating in other countries.

These two types of international com-munication (intern and extern) have dif-ferent criteria. Their common feature is that companies are operating in different environments, and it sets the framework for their communication activities.

“As a consequence of globalization, multinational companies are present in many national markets... the difficulties of their daily practice pointed out that dur-ing the communication with stakeholders they have to take into account their dif-ferent social, political, economic and cul-tural particularities. The need for cultural research and application of their results has intensified” (Konczosné, Platz, Stifter, 2012, p. 181).

According to H. Sievert’s research (2007), the responsibility of international corporate communication professionals is large: a quarter of 225 PR experts are responsible for the whole international (global) communication of their com-panies. In order to successfully commu-nicate in those countries one should be aware of these differences.

Scientific literature discusses the body of this knowledge under the name of “in-

ternational corporate communications”. The first book dealing with international corporate communication – the “Hand-book on International Public Relations” – was published in 1967. Since then books in English and German have promoted deeper knowledge on the subject, and since 2000 research on international com-munication topics has become a fashion-able issue. Some of these most outstand-ing works are by H. M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (1996), and K. Shriramesh and D. Vercic (2003). Both of them evolved from the public relations’ roots. In Anglo-Saxon language countries the concepts of communication management and pub-lic relations are often used as synonyms (Tench, Yeomans, 2009), and in this pa-per we also follow this view. However, it is a widespread perception internation-ally (mostly in Hungarian literature) that public relations belong to communication management and this phenomenon is part of it.

In academic literature, the terms “in-ternational PR” and “global PR” are be-ing used interchangeably. In our context, global PR refers to the internationaliza-tion of the profession, which is being practised in more and more countries throughout the globe, while international PR refers to the planning and implemen-tations of programs, campaigns carried out abroad, involving two or more coun-tries (usually referred as parent and host countries) (Szondi, 2009, p. 119).

R. Wakefield’s definition also avoids these concepts and is more tangible. Ac-cording to him, international PR is a mul-tinational program that has certain co-or-dination between the head-quarters and various countries where offices and/or publics are located, and that has potential consequences or results in more than one country (Wakefield, 2003).


Practical problems and interest in the topic has brought an increase in the dif-ferentiation of research issues. Most of research focus on the extern corporate communication (e.g. external PR, media relations, investor relations, marketing communications, and community rela-tions) (Konczos, 2012; Borgulya, 2014; Ablonczyné, Tompos, 2014). Only limit-ted literature is addressed to the com-pany’s special internal (but cross-border) communication, when it crosses the bor-ders due to its units operating abroad. The main players in international communi-cation are: • Multinational organizations (in this

study this group was examined),• Nation-statesandgovernments,• Intergovernmentalorganizations (e.g.

UNESCO, WHO, EU)• International non-governmental or-

ganizations (NGOs, e.g. Greenpeace, Oxfam, Red Cross),

• PRconsultancies(e.g.Edelman,Gray-ling),

• Virtualcommunities(socialmedia),• Celebrities (e.g. sport, media stars)

(Szondi, 2009, p. 120).

International communication of global companies

According to Gy. Szondi, international PR departments can choose to centralise or decentralise their communication policy. Centralisation (standardisation) means that the parent company’s PR team is re-sponsible for panning campaigns and de-veloping communication policies, proce-dures and strategies. The PR departments in the host countries follow these policies. It means a uniform approach in the differ-ent countries. In case of decentralisation (adaptation), policy making and planning

lie with the organization’s PR department in the host countries with partial or full au-tonomy. It is a culture-specific approach. In reality, centralisation and decentralisation can vary to different degrees and the bal-ance between the two approaches should be maintained… Pharmaceutical, IT and telecommunications companies are among the most common clients of international PR agencies (Szondi, 2009, p. 128).

Typologies/modelsThis research is regarded as testing of

models. N. J. Adler (1980) distinguishes three types of the parent company’s man-agement behaviour models related to the culture of a host country: cultural domi-nance, cultural compromise and cultural synergy. N. J. Adler’s models are clear, transparent, but practical reality is too simplified. In practice, there are much more complex and pre-mixed models, which are much more nuanced (Triandis, Albert, 1987, p. 274).

H. Perlmutter (1969) distinguished four types, four strategies of the parent company’s attitudes to their subsidiaries, based on standardization and differentia-tion dimensions: ethnocentric, polycen-tric, region centric and geocentric centric. In case when companies apply the eth-nocentric strategy the key positions are loaded by people from the mother coun-try, whereas decision making and power are concentrated in the headquarter. A polycentric approach characterized by the feature, that the key positions are oc-cupied by people from the host country. In the strategy the national flexibility is dominant, and there are no strict restric-tions on communications. In the case of the region entered strategy, the benefits of globalization and localization are bet-ter used. The geocentric approach means,


that the excellence and positions do not tied to a nation, and the subsidiaries con-sider themselves as part of a whole (Trian-dis, Albert, 1987, pp. 274-275; Poór, 2009, pp. 162-163)

P. A. Argenti (1994) formulated the dilemma of centralization. The advantage of centralization is that it helps to ensure consistency and to keep the communica-tion under control by the top manage-ment. On the other hand, decentralisation gives chance for the subsidiaries to adapt their communication to their local needs, rather than keeping the whole company’s interest in mind. P. A. Argenti believes that the best creative solution for solving the problems is a special combination of centralization and local autonomy, so the local communications manager’s duty is to report to the headquarters (Argenti, 1994, pp. 56-57).

The Huck-modelThe basic model of our research,

evolved by S. Huck (2005), distinguishes three types of basic strategies: standard-ization (globalization), differentiation (lo-cally oriented) and the “glocal” strategy.

The standardization (globalization) strategy aims to create a unified corporate image. For achieve the standardization of communication as much as possible, the consistent image, the “one-voice policy,” all is unified in the international commu-nications. The advantage is that the trans-fer of know-how is simple, relatively high efficient. The disadvantage is that do not break the surface the synergies gaining from cultural differences.

The differentiation (local) strategy bases on the idea that the company needs to integrate into the local environment in which it operates (Corporate Citizen-ship). The different target groups with

different cultures can be engaged through adaptation. Therefore, the principles de-veloped by the Centre should be adapted to local peculiarities. However, in this case the transfer of know-how becomes more difficult.

The “glocal” strategy seeks to balance between the two opposite poles. This strategy combines local and global goals, attempts to combine the advantages of standardization and differentiation. The point is that the centre will develop inter-nationally consistent framework, taking into account the local situations, for prac-tical implementation of cross-border, in-ternationally integrated communication.

The internationally operating companies and the language using

In the multi-cultural business environ-ment, mainly the English language serves as work-language (Konczos, 2008). Us-ing English as a working language (joint language policy) is not without problems. The documents written only in English exclude of those employees who do not speak English. For the operation of the in-ternal multicultural communication net-works, more and more companies employs a full-time communications coordina-tor, who will adapt the English/German, etc. documents to the local cultural re-quirements, taking into account the en-vironmental characteristics (converted to local needs, “localizing”). These included translation in many cases to the local lan-guages. It is experienced, that the inter-nationally active, multi-cultural corpora-tions use in their internal communication the local languages, as well.

If there is no in-house expert or ca-pacity, these tasks must be outsourced. The external communication services can serve impeccable use of language and


design consistence with cultural expecta-tions (Vesala-Varttala, Varttala, 2010, pp. 34-36.).

Results

In this section the authors of the paper intend to give the substantiation of the achieved research results and findings.

The research project examined the fol-lowing topics:• The importance of communication

management for the top management.• Usingtoolsandkeepingcontacts.• Thedegreeofcentralization.• Directionofdevelopment.• Changesincommunicationsmanage-

ment at the company.• The evaluation of communications

management from the local enterprise perspective.

• Model-typicality.The research questions were formu-

lated as it follows:• How significant is the communica-

tion management for the parent com-pany’s leadership? How they position it, where is its place in the corporate hierarchy? Is there any written com-munication strategy? Which areas of communications are handled sepa-rately and which ones particularly?

• What skills andqualificationsare ex-pected from the communication staff? Are there any communication objec-tives particularly pointed out?

• What communication tools are usedprimarily? What is the role of social media?

• Towhatextenttheparentcompanyiscentralised? How much autonomy is allowed for the (foreign) subsidiaries and representations in communica-

tion? In what field have the subsidiar-ies self-sufficiency? Which languages are used in the corporate and in the inter-corporate communications?

• Whatarethefactorsthatprimarilyde-terminethe corporate communication management? (Is there a noticeable role of the founding national back-ground, of the enterprise values, sec-tor affiliation, and environmental fac-tors?)

• What is the development directionof corporate communication? What decisively influence the direction of change? (Territorial expansion? The growth of employees’ number? Eco-nomic circumstances?)

• Howdo the employees of local unitsevaluate the quantity and quality of communication with them? What do they suggest to change?

• Thekeyquestion:basedontheHuck-model is the intern communication of international companies operating in Hungary model-typical? Can we char-acterise them as standardised or dif-ferentiated ones?

Global parent company and its regional centres

14 out of 20 companies’ centres have a separate communication department. Their names and location in the organi-zational structure are different: Commu-nications Division, Unternehmenscom-munication, Corporate Communication, Communications Team, Communica-tions Department, Konsern Kommunika-tion, Communication Regional Affairs, Corporate Relations and Responsibility, Global Communications.

Several companies operate more com-munication departments, dealing with


specialized areas of communication, such as internal and external communication; or internal communications, corporate communications and social relations (engagement department) are in the centre.

The majority of the communication departments (13) centres are independent, their leaders report to their CEO directly and they are members of the top manage-ment. However, the communication ac-tivity belongs to the marketing (five cases) and to the HR department (two cases), therefore communication experts have to report to the head of marketing and HR managers. Their number varies greatly: from one part-time staff member up to 200 workers. Their authority depends on the number of the department’s col-leagues, on the degree of their indepen-dence, and on their place in the corporate hierarchy. Independent communication departments working with high reputa-tion and great number of staff, prepare their own strategy, and their activities span all areas of communication (e.g. in-ternal publication, sponsorship, newslet-ter, and government-relations).

Most of them use English as a work-ing language (12), three of eight German companies use English as a working lan-guage as well. Characteristically, Austrian and German companies use English as a working language besides the German language. Other languages can be used as well, (e.g. Spanish), but the language of con-tracts by all companies is English and/or German.

Half of the global companies investi-gated have written communications strat-egy; they are made for the internal usage, and they are available in printed form or in the intranet, however this strategy is not published openly. The other half of com-

panies also provide regulators, guidelines on communication, even though they are called not strategy. These are available in several languages (they are translated into English in 12 cases, into German in 6 cas-es version, and Hungarian in 3 cases.

Communication handbook is used by 5 companies, regulation used by 4 com-panies, in 4 cases brand identity manual is used, and in 7 cases there is not any kind of written regulation.

The most commonly used communi-cation channels are the intranet, phone, e-mail, websites, and video conference. The parent companies have mostly Eng-lish websites.

Having investigated the communica-tion specifics of global companies, we can report in some cases the “censored”, “strictly centralized,” “centralized”, “stan-dardized” and “mistrustful” markers. Most of them take into account the local aspects, even if the “intensive contacts”, “flexible cooperation,” the cohesive internal com-munication” are their characteristics.

Half of the surveyed companies (10) have regional centres, with 4-1000 em-ployees, who help in coordination be-tween a parent company and local com-panies.

Local subsidiaries

It is characteristic to half of the investi-gated subsidiaries working together with global partners. The others are partners of domestic companies, public institutions, private clients, European companies, and of their parent company.

At the Hungarian subsidiaries exam-ined – except one – there is no commu-nication department: the number of staff in charge of the communication activity is only one. They are included either into


the HR or into marketing departments, so usually they report to the HR manager or the marketing manager. The media rela-tions are strictly ruled; these relations mostly belong to the authority of the CEO or to the colleague who is responsible for the communication, and in some cases it is regulated globally.

In all subsidiaries most of the official material is translated to Hungarian. The language of the daily communication is a mixed one. Hungarian employees talk to each other in Hungarian, but in presence of foreign colleagues they use English consistently. Most of the local companies are multicultural in nature.

The diversity is complete regarded to the social media communication. Com-panies are using Facebook or Twitter. However, it is differently regulated who put out these records. In some cases only the centre of the parent company is autho-rized or an outside agency (in coopera-tion with a company’s communications department), in some cases the local mar-keting staff. There is an example when the centre and the subsidiary have their own Facebook site. There is heterogeneity in the field of language usage with the next variations: English only, English and the local language or the language in which the request received.

We can speak about real communica-tion management (communication strat-egy planning and integrated implemen-tation, evaluation) only in a few cases. A strategic communication plan is made only in a few – mainly large companies – cases. The smaller companies are con-trolled by central commands; it is a rare case when a completely free hand is given in the field of local communication. There is an example when the relation can be characterized by a total lack of trust; strict

control, and deprivation of all indepen-dence and initiative can be observed.

Adaptation to the local sociocultural environment is extended to “how” of communication, but the “what” is a man-datory thing (One Voice). According to the Hungarian communications staff the centralized communication is mostly ef-fective, efficient and inexpensive.

The adaptation shall be approved by the Centre, mostly by the leaders of the communication unit of the Centre. Such approvals extend to the media appear-ances and statements, press conferences, VIP events, and the way of recruiting. It does not extend to the internal commu-nication.

Several proposals were formulated to improve the local and global communica-tion, e.g. to increase the number of per-sonal encounters between the Centre and local employees. The popular e-mail and teleconferences cannot replace personal contacts. At least once a year local com-panies require personal meetings with the global communications leaders. In com-panies where this was achieved was posi-tively appreciated by the local colleagues. The staff of the Centre collect various ideas arriving from local colleagues, the direction of development is discussed, ev-eryone communicates with everyone, and the meetings are regular. Where there is no such practice, this forum is missed by the local employees. They require greater trust and greater flexibility in decisions related to local issues.

Conclusions

In this section the research questions and the conclusions are formulated. The authors also try to find out if the investi-


gated companies are model typical or not. Moreover, the authors try to estimate how these companies differ from the described Huck-model.

The communication professionals take huge responsibility. Therefore, the high level of professionalism is essential.

The most important communications tools in the company are e-mail and chat; the video-conferencing is generally used, which allows international interactiv-ity. The video conference communication generally is not evaluated positively by the professionals because of distortion of the picture, the voice, and lack of direct per-sonal contact.

The companies are very afraid of the media. Compared to other communica-tions applications, media relations play a significant role and for each company it is a sensitive point. There is high prior-ity – only the Executive is authorized to declare, there is strict licensing, etc. The companies are afraid of the negative me-dia image. According to their justification the media is often abusing the informa-tion received. It often occurs that the only credible source is used by a number of other journalists (inaccurately) and incor-rect information is disseminated.

The direction of communication man-agement is influenced by several factors, such as:• currenteffects(costsavings,reorgani-

zation);• specialpurposeandvalueofcorporate

policy;• innovation;• industry constraints: health risk, in-

dustrial characteristics (very rapidly changing environment, very rapidly renewable products – cannot be plan-ned for long term).

According to the analysed companies special processes play determinant roles in the management of communication, e.g.: bankrupt, expansion phase just start-ed transforming, and etc.

The IT service providers led the way on communication, highly treated spe-cialized units; they are good profession-als with excellent technical capabilities, training, intense relationship between the Centre and the units.

There is very little personal – face to face – communication between the local and central communication professionals. Several companies miss it. There should be paid more attention to the internal or-ganizational communication.

The geographical dimension plays a determinative role in the communication characteristics: is the activity full-Euro-pean in nature or it is limited to certain countries or cross-continents?

As far as the direction and develop-ment of the intern cross-border corporate communication concerned, we can report the following features stated below.

The national origin of the founder (originally German, British, Indian, Aus-trian, Finnish, etc.) which was a determi-native factor at the beginning of the com-pany’s operating has any relevance to the today’s communication.

The level of trust depends on personal relations and its rate increases with time.

The central pattern is copied: the posi-tion of the communication management/department is the same as in the parent company and the subsidiary.

The cost saving caused by the crisis made the effect towards standardization and towards the elimination of profes-sional positions.

The next crisis increased cost savings as previous corporate communications


units were merged, communication spe-cialist positions were eliminated.

Based on S. Huck’s model we can conclude that international companies operating in Hungary are model-typical in their communication. In case of 20 in-vestigated companies, eight of them are centralized / standardized / global compa-

nies, but overall the local needs have been taken into consideration (8+4) on varying degrees (Table 3).

The standardization and differentia-tion are influenced by the size of the glob-al, international company: the larger the company the more standardized it is.

Table 3Relations to the Huck-model in the case of Hungarian subsidiaries

Strategy Standardized / globalized “Glocal” Differentiated / localized

Company 8 8 4


References

1. Ablonczy-Mihályka, L., Tompos, A. (2014). Culture-related Aspects of Business and Corpo-rate Communication / In Cudzie Jazyky v Pre-menách Casu IV. Recenzovany Zbornik Prívs-pevkov z Mezdinárodnej Vedeckej Konferencie, ed. L. Adamcová. – Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo EKONÓM, p. 205–210.

2. Adler, N. J. (1980). Cultural Synergy. The Man-agement of Cross-Cultural Organizations / In Trends and Issues in OD. Current Theory and Practice, ed. W. W. Burke, L. G. Goodstein. – San Diego, Calf, University Associates.

3. Aidenhoove, L. van (2007). Expert Interviews and Interview Techniques for Policy Analysis. SMIT (= Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunication, IBBT = Interdisciplinary Institute on Broad Band Technology).

4. Argenti, P. A. (1994). Corporate Communica-tion. – Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

5. Borgulya Iné Vető, Á. Á. (2014). Kulturális Távolságok [Cultural Distances]. – Budapest: Typotex.

6. Culbertson, H. M., Ni Chen [Hrsg.:] (1996). International Public Relations. A Comparative Analysis – Mahwah / N. J.

7. Handbook on International Public Relations (1967). Hill and Knowlton International. – New York: Praeger.

8. Huck, S. (2005). Internationale Unternehmen-skommunikation. Kommunikation & Analysen Band 1. – Hohenheim: Universität Hohenheim.

9. Konczosné, Sz. M. (2008). Kommunikáló Kul-túrák [Communicating Cultures]. – Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.

10. Konczosné, Sz. M., Platz, P., Stifter, V. (2012). A Nemzetközi PR Aktuális Kérdései [Actuality of International PR] / In A Vállalati Kommu-nikáció Interkulturális és Nyelvészeti Aspek-tusai [Intercultural and Linguistic Aspects of Corporate Communication], ed. Dobos, Cs. – Miskolc: Miskolci Egyetem.

11. Konczosné, Sz. M. (2012). A Public Relations Tevékenység Intézményes és Reflektív Megkö-zelítése [Institutional and Reflective Approaches to PR Activity] / In Piskóti, I. (szerk.). Coope-tition: Verseny és Együttműködés a Market-ingben [Competition and Co-operation in the Marketing]. MOK 18. Országos Konferencia Kötete (CD). – Miskolc: Miskolci Egyetem, 52. Tanulmány.

12. Perlmutter, H. (1969). The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation // Columbia Journal of World Business. Jan–Feb 69. Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 9–18.

13. Poór, J. (2009). Nemzetközi Emberierőforrás-menedzsment [International Human Resource


Management]. – Budapest: Complex, Wolters Kluwer Csoport.

14. Sievert, H. (2007). Der Blick über Den Teller-rand. Überlegungen zu Einer Interdisziplinäre. Theorie Internationaler Corporate Communi-cation // Prmagazin. Vol. 2, p. 47–54.

15. Shriramesh, K., Vercic, D. (2003). The Global Public Relations Handbook. Theory, Research, and Practice. – New York: Routledge.

16. Szondi, Gy. (2009). International Context of Public Relations / In Exploring Public Relations eds. R. Tench, L. Yeomans. – Harlow: Financial Times. Prentice Hall, 2nd ed., p. 117–146.

17. Tench, R., Yeomans, L. (2009). Exploring Public Relations. – Harlow: Financial Times. Prentice Hall, 2nd ed.

18. Triandis, H. C., Albert, R. D. (1987). Cross-cul-tural Perspective / In Challenges and Successes in Multicultural Corporate Communication. Haaga-Helia Discussion 1/2010, eds. M. J. Jar-bin, I. I. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, L. W. Porter, H19, T. Vesala-Varttala, T. Varttala (2010). – Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences.

19. Wakefield, R. (2003). Preliminary Delphi Re-search on International Public Relations Pro-gramming / In Perspectives on Public Relations Research, eds. D. Moss, D. Verčič, G. Warnaby. – London: Routledge, p. 179–208. Internet access: <http://www.communicationmonitor.eu>.

The paper submitted: September 3, 2015Prepared for publication: May 30, 2016

Maƒrta KONCZOSNÉ SZOMBATHELYI, Aƒgnes BORGULYA, György SZONDI

TARPTAUTINIŲ ĮMONIŲ TARPVALSTYBINĖS VIDINĖS KORPORATYVINĖS KOMUNIKACIJOS VALDYMASS a n t r a u k a

Tikslas. Šio straipsnio tikslas – pristatyti kokybinio tyrimo, apklausus Vengrijos tarptautinių įmonių vadovus, rezultatus. Tyrimu siekiama išnagrinėti tarptautinių įmonių vidinę komunikaciją už naci-onalinių sienų ribų; išanalizuoti, kokios strategijos yra prieinamos vadovams, norintiems valdyti ko-munikaciją skirtingose sociokultūrinėse aplinkose. Tarptautinė įmonė čia suprantama kaip įmonė, ku-rios pardavimų padalinys ir atstovybė veikia skir-tingose šalyse bei turi dukterinių įmonių užsienyje. Darbe analizuojamos standartizacijos arba diferen-ciacijos tematikos tarptautinių įmonių, veikiančių Vengrijoje, ir jų padalinių komunikacijoje. Išskiria-ma išorinė ir vidinė tarptautinė komunikacija.

Metodologija. Parašyta remiantis sisteminiu ekspertų interviu, apklausus tarptautinių įmonių vadovus, turinčių įmonės padalinių Vengrijoje. In-terviu gairės padalintos į penkias dalis. Pirmoji da-lis apie globalią korporaciją; antroji – apie regioninį centrą; trečioji – filialus Vengrijoje; ketvirtoji – ben-dradarbiavimą tarp globalių, regioninių ir naciona-linių subjektų; penktoji – apie bendradarbiavimo įvertinimą.

Literatūros apžvalga. Pirmiausia buvo apžvelgta mokslinė literatūra, aptarianti tarptautinę korpora-tyvinę komunikaciją. Šis tyrimas vertintinas kaip

modelio bandymas, todėl buvo nagrinėjamos išvar-dytos tarptautinių įmonių tipologijos ir modeliai.

Rezultatai. Tyrimu atskleista tarptautinė ko-munikacija įmonės viduje, atkreiptas dėmesys į interakcijas tarp pagrindinių įmonių ir jų padali-nių užsienyje. Nedidelis tyrimo projektas yra laiko-mas modelių patikrinimu, apžvelgiant N. J. Adler (1980), H. Perlmuterr (1969) ir P. A. P. A. Argenti (1994) modelius bei S. Huck (2005) standartiza-cijos prieš diferenciacijos modelį. Buvo ištirta, ar komunikacija tarp tarptautinių įmonių subjektų, veikiančių Vengrijoje, gali būti apibūdinta standar-tizacijos arba diferenciacijos modeliais ar jų mišiniu ir ar įmonėms būdingas taikomas modelis. Atrasti ypatumai modeliuose sudedant tokius kriterijus, pagal kuriuos generuojamos specifinės užduotys: nacionalinės ir organizacinės kultūros, nacionalinės ekonomikos bruožų, informacijos ir komunikacijos lygio įmonės vadovybei.

Išvados. Tyrimo naujumas remiasi tuo, kad yra labai nedaug literatūros apie tarpvalstybinę vidi-nę korporatyvinę komunikaciją. Krizė, prasidėjusi 2008 m., paveikė korporatyvinę komunikaciją: stan-dartizacija tapo stipresnė įmonių veikloje, atsirado griežtesnių taisyklių bendradarbiaujant su žinias-klaidos atstovais.

managing cross-border intern corporate communication of … · 2018. 9. 23. · e-mail:...

Documents