Cross-cultural management supporting global space

Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /ac taast ro

Cross-culturalmanagement supporting global space exploration

P. Ehrenfreunda,∗, N. Peterb, K.U. Schroglb, J.M. Logsdona, c

aSpace Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, 1957 E Street, Suite 403, Washington, DC 20052, USAbEuropean Space Policy Institute ESPI, Schwarzenbergplatz 6, 1030 Vienna, AustriacNational Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:Received 6 November 2008Received in revised form1 April 2009Accepted 30 May 2009Available online 6 August 2009

Keywords:Cross-cultural managementSpace policySpace explorationInternational cooperationCultural dimension

A new era of space exploration has begun that may soon expand into a global endeavormainly driven by socio-economic motives. Currently the main space powers, namely theUnited States, Russia, Europe, Japan, Canada as well as new rising space powers China andIndia, are pursuing national exploration programs to explore robotically and later with hu-mans the Earth–Moon–Mars space. New axes of partnerships and cooperation mechanismshave emerged in the last decades. However, in order to achieve highly ambitious goalssuch as establishing human bases on the Moon, journeys to Mars and the construction ofnew infrastructures in space, international space cooperation has to be optimized to reducecosts and reap the benefits of worldwide expertise. Future ambitious space explorationendeavors are a long-term undertaking that could influence countries to look beyond theirown interests and see the advantages that a larger program can bring. This paper providesnew concepts for managing global space exploration in the framework of cross-culturalmanagement, an element often neglected in the planning of future partnerships.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

We are currently at the verge of transitioning to anew space exploration era targeting the Earth–Moon–Marsspace.1 A number of robotic and human space explorationendeavors are currently in the planning stage to visit Moon,Mars and Near Earth Objects (NEOs). The expansion of hu-man presence in space will involve new stakeholders aswell as a growing number of new countries leading to an

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +12029945124; fax: +12029941639.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Ehrenfreund).1 The European Space Agency ESA defines exploration as the ``travel

through [and to] an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it'' andspace exploration as ``extending access and a sustainable presence forhumans in the Earth–Moon–Mars space, including the Lagrangian pointsand near-Earth objects'' [1]. In this paper we adopt this definition of spaceexploration to explore robotically and later with humans neighboringplanets and small bodies of our solar system.

0094-5765/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.05.030

internationalization of the space exploration context. Spaceexploration has evolved from a “space race” between the twomajor space powers, the United States and the Soviet Union(now Russia) during the Cold War, toward a more diverseset of actors, with major contributions from Europe, Japan,Canada and rising new partners such as China and India. Theperiod of human space exploration was initiated by the suc-cessful launch of the first artificial satellite Sputnik in 1957and culminated with the first human landing on the Moon inthe context of the Apollo program in 1969. After these suc-cessful achievements the “space race” slowed down and thejoint Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) of 1975 is seen histor-ically as the first human spaceflight project managed jointlyby two countries. The new era of space exploration unfold-ing in the post-Cold War era is based on a more coopera-tive approach symbolized by the International Space Station(ISS), still under assembly. Within two years (2007–2009)four space powers (Japan, China, India, US) launched orbitersto the Moon.

246 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

All major space actors are also conducting studies on howto send humans to the Moon and the majority of space pow-ers have a Mars robotic exploration program in some caseleading ultimately to manned missions to the Red Planet.Moreover, 14 space agencies have recently released a doc-ument on the “Global Exploration Strategy: The Frameworkfor Coordination” [2]. In order to anticipate the consequencesof this evolving exploration context and to facilitate sus-tainable space exploration plans, new elements need to beconsidered. This paper reviews the main aspects of pastand present collaborative space activities. Moreover, an el-ement often neglected is discussed: how can more effec-tive cross-cultural management positively influence futureglobal space exploration?

Cross-cultural differences play a major role in multi-national projects. Miscommunications due to languagebarriers, diverging visions, and different negotiation andmanagement styles can lead to poor and failed collabora-tions, as often observed during international commercialmergers. Future space exploration endeavors targeting theEarth–Moon–Mars space will lead to extensive interac-tions worldwide between a larger variety of stakeholdersincluding governments, aerospace companies, space en-trepreneurs, science and engineering networks, and the pub-lic. All space powers are developing their space explorationprogram under different political realities and have differ-ent interests, but also experience a different authority andinfluence from the various space exploration stakeholders.Resources, technological capabilities, national security as-pects, inter-sector competition, public interest, and culturaldimensions influence the implementation of national andinternational space exploration programs. Whereas manystudies have addressed geopolitical and financial issues, theinfluence of cultural values and dimensions in long-termcooperative exploration activities has often been neglected.Analyzing cross-cultural differences between space-faringcountries and rising space exploration powers can thereforeprovide helpful insights for the successful management ofambitious multinational space activities in the next decades.

2. A brief history of exploring the Earth–Moon–Marssystem

The history of space exploration can be structured inthree phases, each having distinct features and characteris-tics.

2.1. The space race

The launch of Sputnik in 1957, more than 50 years ago,marks the origin of the space era in general, but space ex-ploration in particular. With the successful launch of thefirst artificial satellite the Soviet Union demonstrated im-pressive leadership in space technology in the Cold War pe-riod. In response to Sputnik, the United States created theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on1 October 1958 and Explorer 1, the first US satellite, wassuccessfully launched in January 1958. The “space race” hadbegun.

The Soviet Union and the United States pursued space ex-ploration programs (both robotic and human) that expandedbeyond immediate Earth orbit, to reach the Moon and otherplanetary bodies. The Soviet mission Luna 1 performed thefirst lunar flyby and Luna 2 was the first spacecraft that im-pacted on the Moon, in 1959. Yuri Gagarin, the first humanin space, orbited the Earth for 108min onboard Vostok 1 on12 April 1961. The next step for NASA was to prepare for hu-man spaceflight as well. On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard con-ducted a 15min sub-orbital flight on the Mercury capsule.He was followed by John Glenn who became the first US as-tronaut to orbit the Earth on 20 February 1962. US PresidentJohn F. Kennedy initiated in 1961 the 11 year US Apollo pro-gram to orbit, land humans and investigate the Moon. Apollo11 landed the first humans on the Moon on 20 July 1969.After five additional landings the Apollo program endedwiththe Apollo 17 mission of December 1972. Finally, in 1975the US/Soviet Union joint Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP)ended the period of fierce space rivalry.

2.2. Post Cold War: the era of space stations

Since the end of the “space race” in the mid-1970s theUnited States and Russia focused independently, and then incooperation with other nations (Canada, Japan and Europeancountries) on the construction of manned space stations. Ad-ditionally, an extensive planetary robotic exploration pro-gramwas pursued by the United States, Europe, Russia, Japanand Canada.

Skylab was the first space station put into orbit by theUnited States in 1973. It served mainly as a laboratoryfor scientific experiments testing microgravity conditions.NASA continued its human spaceflight activities by devel-oping the space shuttle as both, a new launch vehicle and a“base” for orbital operations; the shuttle was launched forthe first time in 1981. Moreover, Spacelab was designed incollaboration between ESA and NASA as a reusable labo-ratory for experiments in microgravity on-board the spaceshuttle.

The first-generation Soviet space stations included theAlmaz station (announced as Salyut 2) launched in 1973.Second-generation stations included short-duration to long-duration stays that received crews from the Soyuz spacecraftin the period of 1977–1985. The Russian space station Mirwas assembled and operated in orbit from 1986 and was de-orbited in March 2001. Russia developed also a space shuttlenamed Buran.

The design and development of the space station“Freedom” was another fundamental part of the UnitedStates exploration initiative in the eighties. The program,renamed the International Space Station (ISS) in 1993, hasbeen assembled in low Earth orbit through more than 30construction flights in collaboration with the space agenciesof the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and 11 Europeancountries (since 1998). The assembly of the ISS should becompleted by 2010. The United States and Russia are pro-viding most of the modules and other equipment for the ISS.Main building blocks include the Unity and Destiny modulesprovided by the US and Russia's Zarya component and theZvedzda module. The technological contributions of the ISS

P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256 247

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Num

ber o

f mis

sion

s la

unch

ed p

er y

ear

1957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Time

China ESA France India Japan USA USSR/Russia

Fig. 1. Robotic exploration missions sent in the 1957–2008 time period (per country).

partner Canada includes as key element the Canadarm 2,a part of the Mobile Servicing System on the ISS used forrepair and maintenance. Major milestones in the coop-erative effort to complete and operate the ISS have alsobeen achieved in 2008 by Europe and Japan. The EuropeanColumbus laboratory was launched in February 2008, fol-lowed by the first European Automated Transfer Vehicle(ATV) that supplies the ISS with food, water, air, equipmentand fuel. Kibo, Japan's new experimental module consists ofsix components that will be assembled during three spaceshuttle missions. The first launch was conducted in 2008.The ISS celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2008 and repre-sents an important international cooperation scheme thatprovides a strong basis for future international space pro-grams. Since 2000, astronauts from 15 countries have visitedthe ISS (United States, Russia, Canada, Italy, France, Japan,Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Malaysia, Netherlands, SouthAfrica, South Korea, Spain, Sweden) as well as a few payingspaceflight participants.

When looking at robotic exploration programs of the ma-jor space-faring countries two distinct phases can be distin-guished. Fig. 1 lists the number of space explorationmissionslaunched in the last 50 years. The first three decades ofspace exploration were governed by a duopoly of the formerSoviet Union and the United States. In the last two decadesEurope, Japan, Canada and the new rising space powersChina and India have contributed to exploration milestonesfollowing the internationalization and globalization of spaceactivities [3].

2.3. Current and future space exploration activities

In the new millennium the major space-faring countrieshave developed plans for ambitious space exploration pro-grams to return to the Moon and to travel to Mars. US Presi-dent GeorgeW. Bush announced a new US Space ExplorationStrategy in early 2004 [4]. The document identifies “the re-turn to the Moon by 2020”, as the first main goal and “as thelaunching point for missions beyond”. The schedule foreseesrobotic probes on the lunar surface with subsequent humanmissions in the next decade, “with the goal of living andworking there for increasingly extended periods of time”.The new exploration program includes the construction ofa new space transportation architecture, habitats and basesfor Moon and eventually for Mars. Those endeavors will berealized in the framework of the “Constellation Program”.Its purpose is to design and build the US spacecraft for thenext generation of human spaceflight. Main components ofthe Constellation program are the Ares 1 and Ares 5 launchvehicles and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Full oper-ation of Orion is expected in 2015 and the return of humansto the Moon is currently planned for 2020. The US conductedseveral successful robotic Mars exploration missions, includ-ing Viking, Mars Pathfinder, the MER rovers and the Phoenixmission. The Mars Science Laboratory to be launched in 2011will likely be followed by a series of surface missions con-ducted in collaboration between the US and Europe.

Europe's long-term plans for exploration began in 2001when the European Space Agency (ESA) introduced the

248 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

robotic and human exploration program “Aurora”. “Aurora's”primary objective was to develop a roadmap that would cul-minate with European astronauts reaching Mars within thefirst half of this century, preceded by a return to the Moon[5]. Europe's key mission of the exploration program Aurorais Exomars, a complex rover that is destined to search forlife on Mars in 2018. Some European countries also pursuespace exploration activities independently from ESA, in par-ticular in the robotic fields. The human spaceflight activitiesof ESA are to date based primarily on its involvement inthe ISS and currently focused on assembly, operation andutilization of the ISS. ESA is a major partner in the program,with the orbital laboratory Columbus launched in 2008,and the operational cargo system ATV that is a key elementof the ISS logistics system. In addition, Europe providesthe ISS with various hardware elements and services (i.e.,the Microgravity Glovebox, the European Robot Arm ERA,etc.).

The Russian government adopted several years ago a newFederal Space Program (2006–2015). The 10 year plan in-cludes as major goal the development and maintenance oforbital space constellations in the interest of Russia's socio-economic benefits. The exploitation of the Russian ISS seg-ment and the development and replacement of its crew andcargo transportation capabilities are other major items listedin the new Federal Space Program. Following the decisionof the US to terminate shuttle operations in 2010, and theexistence of a gap before the entry into operation of thenext US human space flight vehicle, Russia will play an un-foreseen role in providing support to the ISS. It will be theonly country capable to deliver crew to the ISS. This ele-vates Russian importance in providing logistical and supplyflights, but particularly human access to the station. Russiais also considering an extension of the ISS to 2025. Russia'sstrengths in the new exploration initiative are particularlylaunch vehicles and human launch capabilities. Russia's Se-curity Council approved also a draft space policy for the pe-riod until 2020. This policy aims at retaining Russia's statusas a leading space power [6].

Human spaceflight is one of Japan's Aerospace Explo-ration Agency JAXA largest budget lines. Japan's participa-tion to the ISS focuses on the development and exploitationof the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), Kibo, along withthe H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Like the US, Canada and Eu-rope, Japan has launched a call for recruitment of new astro-nauts in 2008. In the document “JAXA Vision 2025” releasedin March 2005, JAXA underlined its aspiration for lunar andMartian exploration as well as of NEOs and primitive bodies.Japan outpaced its Asian rivals by launching its lunar probe(Selene/Kaguya) before China's and India's lunar missions.Kaguya is JAXA's first large lunar explorer and impacted onthe Moon after successful operation in June 2009.

China is an emerging space power and is currently build-ing up a space program with high ambitions. Among themain targets are a robotic program for exploring the Moonand human spaceflight. The success of its three mannedShenzhou missions has encouraged China to envisage anown permanent manned spaceflight system in the futureand possibly a Chinese lunar landing. The developmentand operation of China's human spaceflight program iscoordinated by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). China's

human spaceflight and space exploration activities are partof a long-term program to expand China's space technologycapabilities. In 2007, China launched its first lunar probe,Chang-e 1, as the first mission of the China Lunar ExplorationProgram (CLEP) and in 2008 it performed its first extrave-hicular activity (EVA).

India is now embarking into new space endeavors thatinclude exploration, launchers and satellite navigation sys-tems. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) isshowing greater interest for space science and explorationas illustrated by the development of new programs andparticularly the launch of Chandrayaan-1 (October 2008),the first Indian planetary mission. A second robotic lunarmission is in the planning stage. ISRO is also eager to starta human spaceflight program. Recent technological studieson human spaceflight scenarios have led to a proposal tothe Indian government for a first manned mission in the2014/15 timeframe. In 2007 ISRO received an increasedbudget to investigate the possibility of a human spaceflightprogram leading to a first launch by 2015.

Canada's ambitions are to integrate with large interna-tional programs, in particular in the fields of robotics and au-tomation both to generate technological spin-offs on Earthand to allow long-term access to the space environment forCanadian researchers. Canada is committed to continue itshuman spaceflight activities; it has released a new call to re-cruit astronauts. Canada has strong interest in NASA's roboticMars exploration program that was recently demonstratedthrough Canada's participation to NASA's Phoenix mission.Canada intends to contribute technology, expertise and per-sonnel to the world space effort, especially in collaborationwith NASA and ESA.

In summary, the main space powers—the United States,Russia, Europe, Japan, Canada, China and India—are devel-oping new capabilities to fulfill their exploration aspirations(see Table 1). The United States and Russia have well estab-lished capabilities in launch systems, robotic exploration,human spaceflight and satellite manufacturing. Japan andEurope are well advanced in their exploration capabilitiesas well but have not yet invested in autonomous humanspaceflight capabilities. However, Europe, Canada and Japanhave an agreement to send astronauts to the ISS on-boardUS and Russian vehicles. China has recently demonstratedhuman spaceflight capabilities. The new emerging spacepowers China and India have launch systems and satel-lite manufacturing capabilities but their deep space net-work facilities are not yet comprehensive. Neither of themcontributes to the ISS. China and India are also workingon future Mars missions. Canada continues to nurtureits robotic capabilities and is reinforcing its astronautcorps.

Table 1 illustrates that the space actors have the poten-tial to complement each other in collaborative efforts to ex-plore targets in our solar system. The development of newcapabilities of rising space actors China and India will allowa global exploration program with a higher frequency anddiversity of space missions. Although many new countriesare currently embarking in space endeavors, only the majorspace-faring nations listed in Table 1 have proven space ex-pertise and will invest a substantial amount in space explo-ration in the near future. However, in order to accomplish

P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256 249

Table 1Overview of space exploration capabilities of the major space actors.

United States Russia Europe Japan Canada China India

Launch system D D D D NE D DHuman spaceflight capabilities D D NE NE NE D UDAstronaut corps D D D D D D UDSatellite manufacturing capabilities D D D D D D DDeep space network D D D D NE UD UDMoon missions D D D D NE D DMars missions D D D D D UD UDOther planetary and NEO missions D D D D D NE NEISS participation D D D D D NE NEGES participation D D D D D D D

D: developed; UD: under development; NE: not existent.

any long-term ambitious space exploration activities broaderinternational cooperation will be vital. A better understand-ing of the motivations and aspirations of the potential part-ners is therefore an important prerequisite before engagingin cooperative activities.

3. International space cooperation and culturaldimensions

The benefits of international cooperation are numerousand well documented. Among others, they include improv-ing capability, sharing costs, building common interests andincreasing the total level of available resources, eliminatingthe duplication of efforts, and improving international rela-tionships [7]. Cooperation potentially makes the implemen-tation of a space project more affordable to each individ-ual partner involved, while enriching the pool of scientificand technological expertise. In addition, international co-operation offers robustness and redundancy through addedmission options and access to alternative transportation sys-tems. It also enhances domestic legitimacy of space projectsand gives them international credibility and consequentlymakes them less vulnerable to cancellation due to domes-tic political or financial problems [3]. Successful cooperationrequires the satisfaction of a significant amount of the coreinterests and needs of all partners as the benefits to eachpartner from cooperation are often neither simultaneous norof the same nature. However, while cooperation is an im-portant complement to each country's capabilities, it alsocarries risks. International cooperation adds layers of com-plexity to the specification andmanagement of the programsand introduces additional elements of dependence and riskthat can undermine successful performance within budgetand the planned schedule. One of those layers of complexityis the issue of cross-cultural management.

A cooperative framework has therefore not only to takeinto account the differences in political systems, budgets,and goals but also the cultural values of the involved actors.The increased participation of new actors and stakeholdersin space exploration activities requires a multi-dimensionalunderstanding of culture and business practices. The newera of space exploration will be international, human centric,trans-disciplinary and participatory. An effective integrationof the stakeholders requires bridging the cultural differences

in market and financial aspects, technology, regulations andoutreach to provide common strategies.

3.1. Currently existing cooperation structures

In the domain of space activities two structures havebeen working over the years on bridging the existing cul-tural gap in the sector. The activities of the United NationsCommittee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS)are important to mention. COPUOS acts as a platform tofoster the exchange of knowledge and information on spaceactivities by gathering interested States on a regular ba-sis. COPUOS has grown over the years to 69 members andtakes care of organizational arrangements and creates theinternational legal and policy environment within whichspace activities take place [8]. The International Space Uni-versity (ISU) is another major structure raising culturalawareness in the space domain. ISU represents an environ-ment of intercultural spirit and through its “3I” approach(International, Interdisciplinary, Intercultural dimensions).ISU graduates are catalyzing networks worldwide to supportcross-cultural management in space activities [9].

International cooperation in Space Science and EarthObservations has led to outstanding achievements in thegeneral context of space activities. The Hubble Telescopeexploring the deep universe and the US-European Cassini-Huygens mission investigating planets and moons of Saturnare exemplary among the many successful endeavors of in-ternational cooperation in Space Science. Another examplefor worldwide space cooperation is the Group on Earth Ob-servation (GEO), a voluntary partnership which coordinatesefforts to build Global Earth Observation System of Systems(GEOSS), which will link together existing and plannedEarth observing systems around the world to provide com-prehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth observationinformation to be used as decision support tool by a varietyof users [10].

The previous section has highlighted the advancementsin cooperation schemes concerning infrastructures in Earthorbit. For space exploration of the Earth–Moon–Mars spacewe are witnessing a paradigm shift in the last decade [3].A major achievement is the establishment of the ISECG (In-ternational Space Exploration Coordination Group) that rep-resents 14 space agencies (Australia, Canada, China, France,

250 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

Germany, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, theRepublic of Korea, the Ukraine, the United States and theEuropean Space Agency) and acts as the coordination mech-anism to implement the global exploration strategy [2,11].

3.2. How can the implementation of global space explorationstrategies be supported by greater intercultural sensitivity?

The new era of space exploration will require newstructuring frameworks, political and economic, to enablea sustainable long-term activity and evolve from an inter-national to a truly global endeavor. New and innovativemanagement structures have to be implemented to realizethese ambitions. As discussed in Section 1, new stakehold-ers will gain stronger influence and new countries willembark in space activities. A general alignment of all spaceexploration stakeholders including emerging ones (govern-ments, industry, scientists and the public) will be crucial toachieve a basis for a stable funding structure. It is essentialthat those stakeholders thrive toward a common goal, onnational and international level. The creation of an inter-national task force—involving many stakeholders—acting asan efficient planning and decision-making body supportedby interactive teams and cross-cultural experts must evolvefrom recent cooperation models that are currently limitedto space agencies [12]. Such a platform will allow bridgingthe gap among stakeholders and reaping the benefits ofpotential synergies.

The central question that defines the future of space ex-ploration (national or global) is the availability of resources.A transition from a technology push to a market pull situ-ation for space exploration may be envisaged in the future.The depth of relationships between stakeholders in individu-alist and collectivist countries depends on their developmentlevel and varies across the range of space-faring countries. Inthe future resources may be drawn from different sources,e.g. core capital from governments and contributions fromthe private sector and private donors. Cross-fertilization andexchange among stakeholders worldwide can be facilitatedand supported by efficient cross-cultural management. Pub-lic support plays an important role in this context, in particu-lar in economically challenging times that make it difficult todefend large scale space endeavors. Worldwide aligned pub-lic relation and education activities can strongly contributeto the implementation of a long-term exploration program(see Section 5). Balancing gaps between different cultures,national security aspects and to strengthen transnational al-liances will require the education of a new workforce thatis trained in cross-cultural management.

4. Cultural dimensions: an evolving perspective

Cultural identity is described as the perceived acceptanceinto a group that shares a system of language, symbols, ritu-als, norms and values. Culture is not determined genetically;cultural elements are learned by interaction through oth-ers in the culture [13]. Culture and (verbal and non-verbal)communication are therefore strongly interlinked. The an-thropologist Edward T. Hall introduced the terms of low andhigh context cultures that refer to a cultural tendency to

cater towards in-groups. In low context cultures (such as theUnited States) verbal messages are highly specific, detailedand aim to communicate meaning. In high context cultures(such as Japan) most of the information is in the physicalcontext and less words are used in the communication pro-cess. The fruitful contact between different cultures leads toexchange of ideas and information or to convergence whereboth cultures reach a level of agreement.

Cultural dimensions play an important role in multina-tional projects. They often determine the success or failure ofbusiness transactions and ventures. Clashing corporate cul-tures represent one of the major obstacles for post-mergerintegration [14]. Cultural dimensions must therefore be con-sidered in international technological projects like majorspace exploration activities to ensure long-term success andsustainability. However, cultures can only be understood rel-ative to one another within the overall context. That impliesthat people are limited to perceiving other cultures by theperceptual bias of their own culture. It has been widely ac-knowledged that in any global sustainable long-term busi-ness endeavor it is crucial to be aware of communicationstyles, gestures, beliefs, notions of justice and ethics andmany other factors of another culture in order to engage ina constructive dialogue.

The cultural diversity existing in any one nation adds tothe complexity of identifying cultural dimensions. The mul-tiplicity of various cultures coexisting within organizationalsettings of transnational companies should be taken intoconsideration as a source of insights relevant to space ex-ploration. In this context, we present in Section 4.1 a gen-eral analysis of the cultural differences of the main spaceactors, in Section 4.2 an analysis of cultural dimensions ac-cording to the cross-cultural management method based onHofstede and in Section 4.3 we discuss new approaches ofcross-cultural management that focus on knowledge man-agement.

4.1. General cultural differences of the major space-faringcountries

The analysis of cultural differences and core values of in-dividual countries has been useful in the past to improvenegotiations and cooperation in the transnational context.The Dutch management researcher Geert Hofstede investi-gated in the 1980s cultural dimensions by gathering datafrom more than 100,000 employees of the multinationalcompany IBM [15]. Based on his extensive research it ap-pears that cross-cultural issues play a major role in multi-national projects; cultural mismatches may explain why ahigh percentage of mergers fail. The cultural profile of eachof the aforementioned space powers can therefore provideprecious insights on their management styles and culturaldifferences.

4.1.1. United StatesThe United States has emerged over the years as amelting

pot of cultural groups that have left their traces in the overallUS culture. Among the core values of US citizens are self-control and self-reliance, resulting in strong individualism[13]. The United States encourages risk-taking, innovation

P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256 251

and entrepreneurship. Deciding at a particular moment whatis right to do is more familiar to US citizens than the planningof long-term strategies. Among the American core valuesare capitalism, equality, individuality, achievement, law andorder, and directness. Some of these values are perceivednegatively by other countries and US business practices aresometimes considered as profit-oriented, disrespectful, self-centered and competitive. Furthermore, US companies aremore likely to push for or to assert own ideas and focus ona win-lose strategy. The low power distance leads to moreefficient business interactions and faster results. The mostdifficult dimension for intercultural cooperation is the short-term orientation and subsequent rapid changes in the UnitedStates.

4.1.2. EuropeIn 2009, Europe is composed of 48 countries. In partic-

ular, 27 member States (equivalent to 500 million people)are included in the political and economic community ofthe European Union (EU). Europe has many different tradi-tions and languages that lead to major cross-cultural differ-ences within the continent. Europe is thus characterized bya multi-cultural patchwork. Each country (and even regionswithin those countries) is culturally distinctive. It is actu-ally the existence of country-to-country diversity that givesEuropean culture a unique characteristic and its core val-ues. However, when considered relative to other groupings,Europeans are convinced that Europe shares elements of acollective culture. The roots for these key societal values liein the inherited shared history. Among the European keysocietal values are peace, respect for environment and soli-darity. A survey indicated that few Europeans consider thatinnovation and entrepreneurship should be reinforced in so-ciety [16]. Europe is characterized by a tendency for long-term planning that is followed by rigorous implementation.

4.1.3. Russian FederationRussia is a “Euro-Asian federal presidential republic that

practices democracy”. In recent years, Russia has experi-enced a triple transition: from dictatorship to democracy;from a centralized economy to a free market zone; froma four century old empire to a nation state. In contrast tothe United States and Europe, Russia has a collectivist cul-ture. Russians fear the loss of respect concerning power, dig-nity and influence. Their concept of time is agrarian, whichleads often to slow negotiations and delays due to extensivebureaucracy. Stable relationships and face to face contactsdominate the Russian negotiation style. Russians are linearthinkers and prefer to decide on a case-by-case basis. Theirmanagement style is rather authoritarian and does not nec-essarily follow processes and standardization. Russian man-agers are cautious and conservative in the decision-makingprocess. Russians find harmony in unity of thought and pur-pose.

4.1.4. JapanJapan is currently the second largest economic power

in the world. The economic success is based on closegovernment-industry cooperation and high technologicalprogress. Japanese people are characterized as collectivists,

and relations are dominated by politeness, harmony andindirectness. Japan's cultural concept is homogeneity, a corevalue of society. This homogeneity results in its people's“communication without language”. Japanese people feelmost comfortable with others who empathize. Reciprocityis of great importance in the Japanese culture. Loyalty andobedience are among the core values of the Japanese so-ciety. Japan has a century long preference for harmoniousrelations and respect for elders and excellence. In the edu-cation process reflection and constructive criticism are notencouraged. However, the younger generation acts moreworldly and independent. A strong sense of obligationscharacterizes the Japanese society in private or professionalsense. Obligated inter-personal ties and inter-organizationalalliances that are governed by human relations rule Japansbusiness architecture [13].

4.1.5. ChinaThe “unique blend of capitalism and communism” in

China makes this country a target for worldwide businessopportunities and a threat to global stability at the sametime [13]. China is characterized by a hierarchical systemand a collectivist culture as well as long-term orientation.Among Chinese core values are respect for age and hierar-chy, trust, reciprocity, face, time, and harmony. Trust mustbe established before any serious business relationship canbe practiced. Long-term relationships are maintained by re-ciprocating benefits. Chinese people settle conflicts by com-promise. China's cultural values have, however, shifted overtime due to internal political change and the communis-tic regime has affected religion and traditional cultural val-ues. China remains nonetheless as one of the cultures moststrongly influenced by Confucianism [13].

4.1.6. IndiaIndia is the world's largest democracy and hosts a mul-

tilingual and multiethnic society. India's religious heritageprovides the country with cultural roots. The basis of Indianculture is religious belief despite differences of race, lan-guage, customs and tradition. Indian people are regarded ashighly spiritual, but also as scientific and rational. Mutualrespect is a central issue in Indian culture although socialstratification dominates the Indian caste system. The combi-nation of India's religious and entrepreneurial cultures hasprovided a strong moral foundation for the country's eco-nomic rise. Indians are known for their humaneness andcalm nature. A strong negative correlation between povertyand education can be observed. However, India has a grow-ing, entrepreneurial population that is young and optimistic.

4.1.7. CanadaCanada's culture has been strongly influenced by Euro-

pean culture and traditions, especially by British and Frenchsettlers, and also by its cultural neighbor, the United States.Furthermore, Canada's culture is enriched by immigrants ofdifferent racial and religious backgrounds, as well as NativeAmericans. The legislated bi-nationalism, bi-culturalism andbi-lingualism institutionalizes cultural diversity and allowsthe efficient integration of immigrants. Canadians are gen-erally open, tolerant, polite and very community-oriented

252 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

Fig. 2. Main cultural differences among the main space powers (adapted from [15,19]). World averages for the categories shown above from top to bottomare: 43, 55, 64, 50, 45, respectively. Canada's values for power distance, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation are very similar to the US;values for individualism and masculinity are slightly lower (75 and 60, respectively). Averaging only the four countries in Europe that dominate the spaceprogram (France, Italy, Germany and the UK) results in higher values for social orientation and lower values for uncertainty avoidance, respectively [15].

people. Although they are individualists Canadians practiceindividual responsibility to the community.

4.2. Culture dimensions according to Hofstede

Geert Hofstede's research provides insights into culturalinteractions; his observations are therefore relevant for fu-ture cooperative space exploration activities. Hofstede at-tempted a classification of cultural differences and analyzeda large data base of employee value scores collected by IBMbetween 1967 and 1973 covering more than 70 countries[15]. While derived from a single international company thiswork remains the best global example to which benchmarkfuture space exploration activities as it provides a deep qual-itative and quantitative data set covering space explorationstakeholders.

His classification included five dimensions:

• Individualism: Investigating the ties between individualswithin a society;

• Power distance: Distribution of power and the attitudetoward authority and rules;

• Uncertainty avoidance: How strong is the tolerance foruncertainty?;

• Masculinity: Testing if the culture emphasizes interper-sonal harmony or assertiveness;

• Long-term orientation: Confucian dynamism, stability ofa society.

Hofstede's five dimensions, illustrated in Fig. 2, show that thecultural differences among the main space powers UnitedStates, Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, China and India reflectstrong diversity and heterogeneity, particularly in social andtime orientation.

4.2.1. Individualism: investigating the ties between individualswithin a society

The United States scores the highest in individualism andChina the lowest (Fig. 2). Europe, Russia, India and Japanare scattered in the middle of the scale between an indi-vidualist and collectivist orientation. Whereas individualist

P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256 253

cultures focus on self-achievement, collectivist cultures havea trend to conformity and group loyalty. In individualistcountries the ties between individuals are loose. In con-trast, in collectivist countries people are integrated frombirth into a strong cohesive group which protects individualsfor a lifetime in exchange for unquestioned loyalty. Collec-tivists perform best when operating anonymously within agroup. In the collectivist society personal relationships pre-vail over the task and should be established first, whereasin the individualist society the task is supposed to pre-vail over any personal relationship. Management style andcommunication are therefore very different in individual-ist and collectivist cultures and thus negotiations betweensuch partners often require mediators to reach a positiveoutcome.

4.2.2. Power distance: distribution of power and the attitudetoward authority and rules

Cultures with high power distance often centralize powerand concentrate the influence in the hands of a few individ-uals. The power distance and respect ranks highest in Chinaand India followed by Japan, Russia, Europe and the UnitedStates (see Fig. 2). In high power distance countries, supe-riors and subordinates are unequal and personal contactsbetween different levels in the hierarchy are discouraged.Cultural differences do exist even among the European coun-tries. In particular the individualist attitude in the UnitedKingdom and the rigid and autocratic system prevailing inFrance has to be underlined. In countries with high powerdistance managers rely on the upper executive and on for-mal rules and less on their own experience or subordinates.In countries with low power distance superiors and subordi-nates feel equal and subordinates expect to be consulted inthe decision-making progress. Heterogeneity in power dis-tribution among partners leads to inequalities in the nego-tiation process and inhibits the information flow. This mayconstrain cooperations in particular between Western andAsian nations.

4.2.3. Uncertainty avoidance: how strong is the tolerance foruncertainty?

The United States, China and India rank significantly lowon uncertainty avoidance (Fig. 2). Uncertainty avoidance thatis equivalent to a reduction in risks is highest for Japan(Fig. 2). Also Russia and Europe are rather conservative andprefer to reduce uncertainty. Cultures which are strong inuncertainty avoidance are often security seeking and intol-erant. Low uncertainty avoidance also stands for low anxietyand is related to conditions that provide more opportunityfor creativity. Strategic problems that are by definition moreunstructured demand a greater tolerance for ambiguity thando operational problems. A comparison indicates that lowuncertainty avoidance provides a climate that fosters inven-tions but not necessarily their implementation. People ofdifferent cultures show therefore a strong diversity in cop-ing with uncertain situations, unstructured organization orambiguous agreements. Risk-taking plays an important rolein new technology endeavors and therefore countries with

high uncertainty avoidance will not engage easily or rapidlyin new risky projects.

4.2.4. Masculinity: testing if the culture emphasizesinterpersonal harmony or assertiveness

Cultures that place high value in assertiveness, competi-tion and material success are identified as masculine. Mas-culinity is dominant in Japan but rather balanced in all otherspace-faring nations Russia, Europe, India, China and theUnited States (Fig. 2). Masculinity represents the genderroles where men are supposed to be assertive and womenmore concerned with the quality of life. In a feminine so-ciety, both genders act similarly and value cooperation andsolidarity. A masculine society is based on performance andcompetition and handles business in a different way. Recog-nition, advancement and challenge are important values fora masculine society. In feminine societies there is a prefer-ence for resolving conflicts by compromise and negotiation.Femininity also stands for cultivating the interdependencybetween profession and people. Masculine cultures succeedin manufacturing, feminine societies succeed well in serviceindustries. In technological areas masculinity is still a dom-inant cultural attribute.

4.2.5. Long-term orientation: Confucian dynamism, stabilityof a society

As illustrated in Fig. 2, China and Japan have long-termorientations. India, Russia and Europe are mid-term orien-tated and the United States is very short-term oriented. Per-severance of goals is witnessed in countries that accompanylong-term orientation. Countries with a short-term orienta-tion are characterized by constant pressure and judgment ofperformance. Short-term orientation also stands for differen-tiation according to abilities. In long-term orientation soci-eties horizontal cooperation is crucial to sustaining personallong-term networks. Long-term orientation values includelearning, honesty, and self-discipline. This cultural dimen-sion strongly influences cooperation on all levels. Long-termorientation encourages savings and persevering in the questfor goals [13]. Confucian dynamism is defined as “acceptanceof the legitimacy of hierarchy and valuing of perseveranceand thrift, without undue emphasis on tradition and socialobligations that could impede business initiative.”

Negotiations that are performed exclusively on the exec-utive level of space agencies have been practiced successfullyin the past. The increasing role of the private sector indicatesthat space exploration may shift strongly toward more in-volvement of business including space entrepreneurs, witha remaining core program managed by governmental spaceagencies (see Section 3.2). In this context Hofstede's anal-ysis of cultural dimensions of the main space powers out-lines the necessity of taking into account the differencesin negotiation and management styles and most of all incommunication patterns among different cultures. However,globalization contributes to an evolving context of culturaldimensions and the next section investigates how socialresponsibility, innovations in knowledge management andinnovation technology will require new impulses for cross-cultural management studies.

254 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

4.3. Cross-cultural management as a knowledge managementperspective

The importance of cross-cultural management in high-technology projects has broadened extensively in the lastdecades due to globalization. New trends in cross-culturalmanagement challenge therefore the traditional culturaldimensions of Hofstede and suggest that they are not any-more sufficient to define cross-cultural management bestpractices. Holden suggests the need “to recast culturalfactors and influences as a set of international objects oforganizational knowledge” [17]. He argues that in the cur-rent age of globalization, today's networked cultures arecomplicated, changing and strongly influenced by technol-ogy [17]. Hofstede's dimensions have consequently to beupgraded to fit today's reality. Moreover, redesigning cross-cultural management can help to transform cross-culturaldiversity into organizational knowledge and provide in-ternational organizations and networks with practicalsolutions.

According to Holden [17] cross-cultural managementshould focus on six core tasks: (1) cross-cultural transferof knowledge, (2) collaborative cross-cultural learning, (3)cross-cultural networking, (4) interactive translation, (5)development of participative competence, (6) creation ofcollaborative atmosphere. The combination of cultures C1and C2 may lead to culture shock, friction and misunder-standing. Cross-cultural management should be focusing onC1+C2 = C3, a new cultural hybrid. New approaches for in-tercultural communication and cross-cultural managementare therefore not anymore reduced to traditional manage-ment techniques. They rather seek to create an environmentthat facilitates cross-cultural learning and knowledge shar-ing across fields and domains. In this context, interactivetranslation, a cross-cultural work in which participantsengage in groups in order to negotiate common meaningsand common understandings in an international company,puts emphasis on dialogue rather than deal making [18].Successful international companies use such a structure toharmonize initiatives and to serve as a channel for knowl-edge. Cross cultural learning needs to be implemented ineducation, programs worldwide and public outreach activ-ities to raise a new generation and a new workforce withstrong intercultural sensitivity. This will be essential toguarantee successful transnational alliances on all levels,including space exploration.

5. Cross-cultural management in global spaceexploration

International cooperation will, as aforementioned, be animportant element enabling ambitious space explorationprograms. While new axes of partnerships and cooperationmechanisms have emerged in the last decades, the era ofglobal space exploration that is currently unfolding willlead to new models of cooperation reflecting the legacyof partnerships and the evolution of the field [3]. In thiscontext, more flexible mechanisms allowing the incorpo-ration of new and emerging space powers are needed [7],but also increased efficiency in managing complex and

multinational exploration activities. Open-system architec-ture will allow for increased participation and functionality.This will require more cultural awareness than before asthose ventures may bring together partners with less coop-erative experience than today, such as China and India. Fur-thermore, in the future space exploration ventures will notonly concern space agencies and other institutional actors,but also space entrepreneurs (the so-called “New Space”),as well as transnational companies. Negotiations that havebeen previously restricted to the institutional space agencylevel will be opened and broadened to a larger group ofstakeholders. In this context, cross-cultural managementwill be even more vital.

Negotiation and management styles are strongly influ-enced by cultural values. Ethnocentrism, language barriersand differing frames of reference are among the main factorsthat can negatively influence successful cooperations [13].For global space exploration activities, new ways to improvecross-cultural management are of utmost importance. Deal-ing with many different cultures Cn and a long-term pro-gram that spans generations and is dynamic �Cn leads toa system with a high degree of complexity. Collaborativecross-cultural learning requires thus a fruitful atmospherethat enhances absorptive capacity.

The execution of a global long-term space explorationprogram can therefore benefit from:

• The continuation of a common base and facilitation ofcross border networking in the context of the ISECG toensure that knowledge is shared effectively.

• The assembly of a task force that brings together indi-viduals of different cultural and linguistic background formutual learning and knowledge-sharing.

• The participation of cross-cultural trainers in negotiationprocesses who teach participative competence (the abilityto interact on equal terms in multicultural environments),that can ensure effective knowledge sharing and that thelearning experience is professionally enhancing.

The following cross-cultural management guidelines arema-jor elements to support the planning and execution of a sus-tainable global long-term space exploration program:

Commitment to share knowledge and mutual respect amongactors. Respect and awareness of cultural diversity duringnegotiations and implementation of programs will be aprerequisite for a sustainable global space exploration pro-gram. Intercultural communicators who display personalitystrength and are trained in psychological adjustment andcultural awareness should act as mediators during negotia-tion processes.

Commitment to ensure information and open communica-tion. Open and effective communication remains one of themajor obstacles in cross-cultural management. Proxemics,kinesics and chronemics, types of non-verbal communica-tion, differ among cultures. The commitment to open com-munication should be executed on all levels. Documentationof all significant reports should be prepared in the main lan-guages (English, Russian, German, French, Italian, Mandarin,Hindu and Japanese) representing the various actors to al-low the active participation of all stakeholders.

P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256 255

Overcome cross-cultural differences between the main spaceactors and future players.

Social orientation: Individualist and collectivist culturesdiffer in their relationship with others and practice directand indirect communication, respectively. In collectivistcountries personal relations of trust are a central issue in ne-gotiations and need to be fostered. Cross-cultural specialistscan assist positively during negotiations. Another importantdifference concerning the space program is the involve-ment of the public in collectivist countries. In individualistcountries like the United States and Europe the public isinvolved in the decisions and the definition of objectives ofthe respective space programs. In order to support spaceactivities the public in individualist countries has thereforeto be continuously informed, educated, encouraged, andmotivated.

Power distance: Power distance is strongly heterogeneousamong the main space powers analyzed. The different rela-tion between executives and subordinates can lead to un-equal information flow. High power distance often leads tocentralization, more complex bureaucracy and limits inter-action between people. China and India are countries witha high degree of power distance and will expect to negoti-ate only with executive partners and restrain from dissem-inating information. The relations between executives andsubordinates in different cultures of space powers as well asnegotiation and management styles have to be understood,respected and aligned when possible.

Uncertainty avoidance: Coping with risk-taking and toler-ance for new and ambitious opportunities is a critical issuein space exploration. Countries with a high degree in uncer-tainty avoidance resist changes. There will be a much higherdemand for details in the negotiation process when estab-lishing a contract with Japan or European countries. How-ever, cultures with a low degree of uncertainty avoidanceare more open to novelty, are more flexible and more act-ing than reacting. Countries such as Japan and Europe pur-sue a slow and secure path of building space missions andmay not want to embark in any risky plans when comparedto the United States. In the context of building cutting-edgetechnology and concepts for space exploration, a consensusamong the space powers has to be reached that satisfies therespective tolerance of risks.

Gender roles: This cultural dimension expresses the willfor competition and challenge and directly influences theoutcome of negotiations. Japan seems to be one of the coun-tries with the highest masculinity. Most Asian countries pur-sue a consensus or win–win strategy to complete businesstransactions successfully. Also many European countries fol-low this strategy. In general, Japan and China will avoid ma-jor conflict situations. The assertive and goal oriented USnegotiation style has to be mediated to ensure successfulcooperation with most of the other main space powers.

Long-term orientation: Asian countries places value onlong-term business relationships that combine practicalneeds with closeness. China and Japan are space powerswith a very long-term orientation, in strong contrast tothe United States. This cultural dimension will stronglyinfluence a long-term global space exploration program.Specialists are needed that can align economic and strategicinterests of different space powers to overcome the differ-

ences in time orientation and related bureaucracy. An opensystem providing flexibility to leverage cooperative oppor-tunities will provide therefore the best operating scenario.

Create a workforce trained in intercultural sensitivity andcross-cultural management: The new economy with rapidcommunication and global reach and the complexity of crossborder interactions requires a new emphasis on the resourceof “knowledge” for transnational business management. Cul-ture should act as an organizational resource that can facil-itate cross-cultural knowledge sharing and networking. Thetraining of the space exploration workforce (in governmen-tal institutions and industry) concerning cross-cultural man-agement will be supportive to the international negotiationprocess to plan and implement space exploration endeav-ors. Worldwide educational awareness programs for spaceexploration should target all ages, including schools, univer-sities in order to educate a new generation that will supportlong-term global space exploration programs.

Win the public worldwide to sustain global space explo-ration: It appears necessary to raise the general public levelof interest in space exploration and to foster the explorationculture across generations and nurture public constituenciesfor long-term space exploration. Worldwide aligned mediaevents are an essential tool to raise public awareness forfuture space endeavors. With the younger generations in-teractive tools in the form of reality shows and computergames are very popular. Participation in space experiments,parabolic flights, habitat training and televised tours of theISS were successfully conducted and should be accessible toa larger public. Concepts for worldwide public outreach ac-tivities are crucial to cross-cultural understanding and willbe an important tool to boost an international space explo-ration program and sustain a stable funding structure.

6. Conclusion

Political changes, environmental concerns and rapidpopulation growth from now to at least 2030 will providea dynamic landscape for the development of a global spaceexploration program [20]. Recent and future geopoliticaldevelopments and funding constraints of major space pow-ers made it clear that international cooperation will be evenmore important for future long-term space exploration.New axes of partnerships and cooperation mechanisms andactors have emerged in the last decades. Stakeholders suchas industries, non-governmental organizations, transna-tional companies and the public, will be more involved inthe future planning and execution of space activities. In thisevolving space exploration context, the case for increasingconsideration of cross-cultural management in space explo-ration activities, particularly among the main space powers,the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, Canada, Chinaand India, will thus be a key to long-term sustainable ex-ploration endeavors. The cultural dimensions according to“Hofstede” provide a reliable analytical framework but newcross-cultural elements and dimensions are also needed toensure long-term success. This will include a cultural sensi-tive workforce and strong public support to foster transna-tional alliances between new stakeholders and emergingspace nations. It will be important to implement current

256 P. Ehrenfreund et al. / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 245 -- 256

practices and new ideas of cross-cultural management toraise the awareness and bridge the gap between differentcultures even within space-faring nations. Cross-culturalmanagement is needed to balance cultural differences, ne-gotiation styles, management styles, and communicationtactics to tackle efficiently mankind's next grand challengethat is long-term space exploration.

Acknowledgments

PE is supported by NASA Grant NNX08AG78G and theNASA Astrobiology Institute NAI.

References

[1] European Objectives and Interests in Space Exploration, November2007. p. 8.

[2] The global exploration strategy: the framework for coordination 2007〈http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/GES_Framework_final.pdf〉.

[3] N. Peter, The changing geopolitics of space activities, Space Policy 22(2006) 100–109.

[4] The vision for space exploration, February 2004 (President Bush)〈http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html〉.

[5] ESA Aurora exploration programme 〈http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Aurora/index.html〉.

[6] N. Peter, Space policies, issues and trends in 2007/2008, ESPI Report15, October 2008.

[7] R.R. Correll, N. Peter, Odyssey: principles for enduring spaceexploration, Space Policy 21 (2005) 251–258.

[8] Report on the committee on the peaceful uses of outer spaceCOPUOS, 63rd session, 2008 〈http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gadocs/A_63_20E.pdf〉.

[9] International Space University 〈http://www.isunet.edu/〉.[10] GEO website 〈www.earthobservations.org〉.[11] Annual Report 2007 of the international space exploration

coordination group 〈http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/exploration/InternationalCoordination/ISECG_workplan%202008%20.pdf〉.

[12] P. Ehrenfreund, N. Peter, Managing future global space explorationendeavors—towards a paradigm shift, Space Policy, 2009, in revision.

[13] F.E. Jandt, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identitiesin a Global Community, Sage Publications Inc., US, 2007.

[14] S. Schuler, S.E. Jackson, HR issues and activities in mergers andacquisitions, Rutgers University, May 2, 2001.

[15] G. Hofstede, 2001 〈http://www.geert-hofstede.com/〉.[16] EC Report 2007: European cultural values 〈http://ec.europa.eu/

public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_278_en.pdf〉.[17] N. Holden, Cross-cultural management: a knowledge management

perspective, Pearson Education Limited, 2002.[18] R. Spekman, L.A. Isabella, T.C. MacAvoy, Alliance Competence:

Maximizing the Value of Your Partnerships, Wiley, New York, 2000.[19] N. Naumov, S.M. Puffer, Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's

dimension, Applied Psychology: An international review 49 (4) (2000)709–718.

[20] N. Peter, Space exploration 2025: global perspectives and options forEurope, ESPI Report 14, September 2008.