Spanning Cultural Boundaries: U.S. Return Migrants in the Indian Technology Sector

Abstract

Most studies on cross-national workplace cultures in technology companies focus either on multiple countries or on individuals of different nationalities within a single country. This paper, however, is unique in being both monocultural and cross-cultural. It examines workplace culture in Indian and U.S. technology companies through the perspectives of returning Indian migrants. The paper is based on in-depth interviews with 50 scientists and engineers who returned to India after studying and working in the U.S. It is monocultural because the participants are professionals working in the Indian technology sector, and cross-cultural because they have also experienced working in the U.S. technology sector. The paper shows that these individuals, motivated by personal and professional factors, represent a new demographic that synthesizes differences and similarities between Indian and American workplace cultures into a cohesive interpretation.

1. Introduction

Culture has been defined in many ways, but one example that is pertinent to this paper is Hofstede’s definition of culture as “the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” [1]. The term ‘group’ can operate at many levels, and one cans speak of a friend-group culture, a city culture, a workplace culture, a national culture, and so on. National culture refers to a set of core values that shape a nation’s personality and ethos, providing it with a unique identity distinct from other nations [2]. Research has demonstrated that national culture significantly influences workplace culture, practices, and attitudes [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] However, the existence of cross-cultural and cross-national differences in the workplace has been questioned on two distinct grounds.

First, it has been proposed that globalization—the integration of economic, socio-cultural, technological, and political domains, along with the movement of people and knowledge across national borders, facilitated by advances in communication and information technologies—has blurred the boundaries between national cultural identity and the workplace [11]. First, it is argued that the competitive playing field between industrialized and developing countries is levelling, leading to a more equal distribution of power. This “flattening” phenomenon is erasing cross-national distinctions. Second, the Mertonian paradigm of science asserts that science is a self-regulating and rational process. It holds that modern science functions independently of social, cultural, economic, and political influences, maintaining neutrality and being driven solely by rational and cognitive factors. This perspective remains the dominant view of within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Are workplace cultures divergent or convergent with international migration in technology companies? This paper examines the key differences in workplace cultures as identified by return migrants—individuals who relocated to India to work in technology companies after spending significant time in the United States. These individuals were born in India and raised within Indian social and cultural norms but were also socialized into the American scientific and engineering culture. In the U.S., they developed skills to perform technical tasks, evaluate their own work, and collaborate with colleagues. Their decision to return to India is shaped by a combination of personal and professional motivations, as well as structural factors such as enhanced economic and career opportunities in their home country. These return migrants occupy a unique position that allows them to compare, contrast, and mediate the diverse factors that define workplace cultures in India and the U.S. Notably, return migration rates among foreign-born scientists and engineers in the U.S. are rising—a trend often referred to as “reverse brain drain” [12,13].

This paper draws primarily on in-depth interviews with 50 return scientists and engineers (hereafter referred to as “returnees”) who relocated from the U.S. to India. These returnees were born and raised in India; most moved to the U.S. for higher education, which subsequently led to employment, while some relocated directly for work. Their unique experiences position them to compare the opportunities and challenges of American and Indian workplaces. The analysis of these interviews revealed major comparative themes that highlight significant trends in workplace cultures. Key differences emerged in areas such as work ethics, workplace communication, organizational structure, productivity, managerial decision-making, work–life balance, and gender dynamics.

This paper contributes to the growing body of literature on scientific communities by bridging the discourse on return migration with that of workplace culture. It offers insights into how workplace culture shapes—and is shaped by—the experiences of return migrants. Most notably, this paper advances ongoing discussions by addressing two key perspectives: those who argue that globalization has blurred the boundaries between national cultural identity and the workplace, and those who assert that scientific and engineering activities operate independently of cultural influences.

2. Insights from Literature

In his landmark study, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Hofstede [1] developed a framework to understand cultural differences across countries. Using data from 116,000 surveys conducted with over 88,000 employees in 40 countries at International Business Machines (IBM) between 1967 and 1973, he identified four key dimensions of national cultural differences:

• Individualism vs. Collectivism: This dimension examines the degree to which societies emphasize individual versus group goals. Individualism prioritizes personal goals and autonomy, while collectivism emphasizes group well-being and cohesion.
• Power Distance: This dimension reflects the extent to which inequality and power imbalances are accepted within a society. High power distance signifies a hierarchical structure that values rank and authority, whereas low power distance promotes egalitarianism and participative decision-making.
• Uncertainty Avoidance: This dimension measures how comfortable people are with ambiguity and risk. High uncertainty avoidance indicates a low tolerance for risk and a preference for structure, while low uncertainty avoidance reflects greater comfort with risk and flexibility.
• Masculinity vs. Femininity: This dimension explores societal preferences for achievement and behavior. Masculinity is associated with assertiveness and competitiveness, while femininity is linked to nurturing, cooperation, and modesty.

Hofstede’s model of national culture continues to hold significant influence, owing to its clarity, simplicity, and relevance to managers [12]. First, the model provides clarity by breaking down the complex notion of culture into distinct, measurable dimensions, which makes it easier for both scholars and practitioners to conceptualize cultural differences. Second, its simplicity is a strength; the framework avoids overwhelming complexity and instead offers a structured, accessible way for managers to understand and compare cultural values across nations. Finally, the model maintains relevance for managers, as it directly links cultural values to workplace behaviors, communication styles, leadership expectations, and organizational practices. Despite criticisms for its broad generalizations of diverse cultures and its methodology [14,15], Hofstede’s model remains a cornerstone because it balances theoretical robustness with practical utility.

This paper, which examines cross-cultural dimensions in the U.S. and India, narrows the scholarly literature to these two countries. According to the Hofstede tool for comparing countries, the U.S. ranks 91 on individualism, 40 on power distance, 46 on uncertainty avoidance, and 62 on masculinity. For India, the corresponding rankings are 48, 77, 40, and 56, respectively (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/fi/product/compare-countries/, accessed on 20 July 2025). The primary contrasts between the U.S. and India revolve around power distance and individualism versus collectivism. Most scholarly studies using Hofstede’s model in the context of India have similarly focused on these two dimensions.

Power dynamics play a crucial role in the workplace and vary significantly between the U.S. and India [16]. Studies suggest that the hierarchical system is much stronger in Indian culture than in the U.S. [17]. India has a long history of dealing with social hierarchy, with the caste system being one of the most prominent expressions of this issue [18]. Although the caste system was formally abolished in 1950, its influence continues to shape social, political, economic, and organizational life in India. This deeply rooted, institutionalized form of stratification has cultivated a strong expectation of hierarchy. It is important to note that hierarchy is a universal phenomenon in social systems; however, the extent to which Indians are inclined to structure all relationships hierarchically is particularly pronounced [10,19].

Power distance also influences employee preferences for managerial and leadership styles. In India, tightly regulated relational structures create a preference for clearly defined superior–subordinate roles and responsibilities [20]. However, this does not imply that autonomy is undervalued; rather, individuals seek job security and clarity when leadership is assertive rather than democratic, allowing employees to work independently within their designated roles. This aligns with the paternalistic leadership style, where employees are more receptive to personalized interactions [10,19]. A unique form of paternalism exists between managers and employees, where the superior is expected to be distant yet benevolent, while the employee’s role is to be deferential, and at times, ingratiating [2]. This duality—rigid hierarchy alongside personalized relationships—constitutes a paradox in the Indian workplace, where strict adherence to procedures coexists with susceptibility to personal pressure and intervention [18]. The high-power distance in India also means that employees rarely interact with higher levels of the organization, which hinders organizational mobility. The corporate ladder becomes entrenched, requiring patience and persistence to climb.

In the U.S., while employees are not immune to the effects of power hierarchy and distance, there is a prevailing expectation of egalitarianism in the workplace that often overrides individual susceptibility to stratification. The cultural dimensions of individualism and power distance combine to foster managerial structures that empower employees to work autonomously, with self-imposed roles and responsibilities [9,16]. Furthermore, U.S. employees believe they have the right, ability, and knowledge to speak up and offer constructive criticism [21]. They are protected from retributive actions by the clear, contractual nature of employment. As a result, they are less willing to blindly accept directives from their superiors and are more sensitive to how their supervisors treat them in their interactions [5]. This emphasis on accountability in U.S. workplaces protects employees’ right to speak critically.

One of the most readily discernible dimensions in Hofstede’s model is individualism versus collectivism. Analysis based on Hofstede’s model reveals that the U.S. is one of the most individualist nations in the world, while India tends to be more collectivist. The Indian workplace promotes collectivist practices, such as conflict avoidance and paternalistic superior–subordinate relationships [22]. Employers in India may expect extra-job favours beyond the formal job description, as hiring and retention are often based on an employee’s loyalty to the organization. Employee appraisals and job satisfaction are frequently influenced by interpersonal relationships with employers, sometimes overshadowing actual job performance. Additionally, there is a preference for indirect and relational communication styles to maintain intergroup harmony, alongside the elaborate rituals of hierarchy and status in the workplace [23]. Indian employees are generally more accepting of management decisions and are inclined to protect face and avoid conflict during difficult situations.

The U.S. workplace culture is highly individualistic and autonomous, with clearly defined roles and expectations for all parties. Work relationships are often viewed as contractual, and practices such as open-door policies, candid discussions, and direct employee input are common [24]. Collaboration and conflict resolution are key elements of U.S. workplace culture, fostering both autonomous and cohesive work. However, this reduced emphasis on personalization can result in management and organizational practices that are transactional in nature, often indifferent to the emotional and spiritual needs of employees, potentially leading to burnout and dissatisfaction [25].

Perceptions of time management differ significantly between Indian and American workplaces. In India, there is a more relaxed perception of time, influenced by religious and cultural beliefs that view time as cyclical [2]. This relaxed approach to time is reflected in communication styles that are often indirect and roundabout, as well as in longer response times for formal communication channels. Additionally, the emphasis on informal socialization can lead to extended hours spent in the office. In contrast, the U.S. workplace culture values directness and practicality in communication, placing greater importance on productive work behavior and strict adherence to pre-arranged office hours. The American work culture is future-oriented, with a strong focus on efficient time utilization to drive productivity.

To summarize, in India, there is a strong appreciation for hierarchy and a top-down structure within organizations. While American organizations also have a hierarchy, the focus is on equality and participative decision-making. Although India exhibits both collectivist and individualist traits, there is a stronger preference for working in alignment with the collective good of the group. In contrast, individualistic traits are more dominant in U.S. workplaces.

3. Methodology

Data for this paper come from a National Science Foundation funded study on the return migration of scientists and engineers from the U.S. to India, conducted from 2017 to 2019. Given the limited information on this subject, we adapted qualitative methodology, which focuses on understanding why and how a certain phenomenon occurs by examining attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, characteristics, concepts, definitions, experiences, meanings, metaphors, and symbols [26]. We conducted in-depth interviews with Indian scientists and engineers who returned to India after working in the U.S. for a minimum of three years (temporary U.S. work visa is valid for 3 years, which can be renewed for another 3 years) and were working in the Indian industrial sector for a minimum of three years. This way, they have experienced working and living in both countries. We identified “scientists and engineers” as those people who have at least a bachelor’s degree in a science or engineering field or an occupation in one of those fields.

Participants were recruited from major Indian cities—Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Gurgaon, Hyderabad, and Mumbai—which have a concentration of both technology companies and returned Indian scientists and engineers. These participants came from two industries: information communication technology (ICT) and biotechnology. We interviewed 50 Indian scientists and engineers who have returned to India and were employed in ICT and bio-technology companies. This sample size was considered appropriate because in qualitative research, such sample size is likely to provide sufficient information for the analysis on return migrants. Since subjects are studied an in-depth manner, their number cannot be much larger. Typically, the sample size around 30 is considered adequate to reach data saturation, i.e., new data no longer provides new insights [4]. We used snowball sampling to recruit participants as a list of Indian scientists and engineers and unrestricted access to companies were not available. For a comparative purposes, we had first interviewed 40 Indian scientists and engineers who chose to stay in the U.S. These scientists and engineers gave names of their colleagues who had moved back to India. Once a list of Indian returnees was compiled, we selected participants based on degree, location, and gender. Because our focus was on understanding voluntary return migration, we did not include participants who lacked the choice to return.

We used a semi-structured interview guide to conduct in-depth interviews with returnees, each lasting approximately one hour. Most interviews were conducted face-to-face, with a few conducted via Skype. In addition to demographic questions, we asked 35 questions, with the following forming the basis of this paper:

You have worked for technology companies in the U.S. and are now working for technology companies in India. Based on your experiences in both countries, could you discuss the similarities and differences in working cultures between American and Indian technology companies?

All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, with the transcriptions analyzed using NVivo software. To ensure data trustworthiness, two independent coders analyzed the same data. Inter-coder reliability [27] for each category was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa statistic, and reliability was established between coder one and coder two with coefficients of 0.90. The codes were categorized by themes, enabling the identification of patterns within the text [28]. Since participants often provided multiple responses to the question posed, the data was coded into various themes, resulting in percentages that do not sum to 100. Notably, many participants addressed the question by reflecting on how they compared with their colleagues in the U.S. and, subsequently, in India. Findings are presented with interview excerpts to illustrate the complexity of the concepts and by frequency to indicate their significance. To protect participants’ privacy and comply with Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements for research involving human subjects, the names of participants and companies are not disclosed.

All returnees worked in technology companies both while they were in the U.S. and after they returned to India. In India, 64% returnees held managerial positions, while the remaining 36% held technical staff positions. While in the U.S., a large majority of them (88%) were in technical roles, and only 22% were in management. It should be noted that most of them in both the U.S. and India were project managers, overseeing small teams of four to six technical staff. The majority (88%) of returnees held a postgraduate degree, including 32% who held a doctorate, while the remaining 12% held a bachelor’s degree. An overwhelming majority of these individuals (74%) received their terminal degrees in the U.S., with the remaining 26% completing their degrees in India before going to the U.S. A little over half (54%) held degrees in engineering, while the rest (46%) held degrees in science. Almost half of the returnees (48%) were in their forties, 38% were in their thirties, 11% were in their fifties, and the remaining 3% were 60 years or older. Every returnee was married, and the vast majority (94%) had at least one child. The most common immigration status held by these returnees while in the U.S. was split evenly, with 46% holding temporary work permits (H-1B visas) and 54% holding U.S. citizenship (44%) or permanent residency (10%). Finally, the majority (84%) of returnees were men, while 16% were women.

It should be noted that this study uses a qualitative design, which provides in-depth insights into participants’ experiences but also entails certain limitations. The findings are context-specific and may not be generalizable beyond the sample. Also, snowball sampling may introduce selection bias, and theme interpretation involves some subjectivity despite efforts to ensure credibility. Additionally, the study does not examine statistical relationships or subgroup differences (e.g., by gender, age, or company type), which limits comparative or predictive conclusions. Future research could build on these findings by using larger or more diverse samples and exploring cross-group or cross-country comparisons to extend understanding of workplace experiences.

4. Findings

Given the nature of the question, each returnee identified multiple differences between American and Indian work cultures, which were categorized into seven key concepts (

Table 1. Work Cultural Differences between U.S. and Indian Technology Companies.

Work Culture Indicators (%)	United States	India
Work Ethics (47%)	Hard working attitude; Separation of work and social lives; Punctual	Relaxed working attitude; Mixing of work and social lives; Tardiness
Workplace Communication (44%)	Direct; Formal; Preference for communication tools; Emphasis on soft skills	Indirect; Informal; Preference for face-to-face communication; Emphasis on hard skills
Organizational Structure (36%)	Easy to express disagreement with managers; Less red tape	Difficult to express disagreement with managers; More red tape
Workplace Productivity (34%)	High output; Less time to complete a project	Average output; More time to complete a project
Management Decision-Making (14%)	Less involved with scientists and engineers	Too involved with scientists and engineers
Work–Life Balance (11%)	Conscious to achieve work–life balance	Less distinction between work and life
Gender Issues (9%)	Acceptance of female employees; Gender-based comments unwelcome	Less acceptance of female colleagues; Prevalence of gender-based comments

Note: Because returnees provided multiple differences in work culture, % do not add to 100.

).

5. Work Ethics

Nearly half of the returnees (47%) observed notable differences in work ethics between U.S. and Indian technology companies. By “work ethics”, they referred to attitudes toward the importance of work, particularly the belief in hard work and adherence to workplace rules. There was a consensus among the returnees that a hardworking workforce benefits both the company’s performance and the overall morale of its employees. Many returnees perceived that scientists and engineers in India generally exhibited a more relaxed work ethic compared to their U.S. counterparts. Their observations often focused on self-motivation and the sense of urgency required to complete tasks. As one returnee remarked: “[In India], there is a much more laid-back culture than in the U.S.’ Another noted: ‘In the U.S., you go to work and do your job. No one has to push you. In India, it is a little different. People may not take their work as seriously, so constant encouragement is often necessary”. One returnee elaborated: “In the U.S., whether you are working at the front or in the background, there is a drive to leave a mark through your work. Such drive is often missing in India”. Another returnee summed it up bluntly: “The work ethic in India is pretty bad”.

Punctuality is an essential job requirement in both countries, reflecting professionalism and adherence to workplace rules. In the U.S., corporate culture emphasizes arriving on time for work and scheduled meetings. Such punctuality signals that employees value their work and the success of the company. In India, however, punctuality is often seen as a challenge. Scientists and engineers frequently exhibit a more casual attitude toward time, with delayed arrivals to scheduled meetings being a common issue. One returnee described working in the U.S. as “always being on your toes, running all the time… [while] in India, people are somewhat relaxed about time”. Another returnee highlighted this cultural difference: “In the U.S., 9 a.m. means 9 a.m. sharp. [In India], 9 a.m. means 9:15 a.m. if you are lucky, or 9:30 a.m. It is never going to be 8:45 a.m.”. This individual also observed, “Keeping people waiting seems to be a way to appear important”.

In India, the boundary between work and social life is often blurred, whereas in the U.S., work is generally performed in an objective manner, with a clear separation from personal considerations. Returnees described American work culture as formal, with distinct lines between office relationships and social circles. In contrast, Indian work culture was perceived as more informal and personal. As one returnee observed: “In India, you not only come to work, but you also come to socialize at work”. Another explained: “In India, people prioritize building personal relationships and gaining trust rather than focusing solely on hard work and letting the results speak for themselves”. One returnee expressed frustration, saying: “Here, 8 or 10 people go for tea, and they take their own time… They come back slowly to work”. At the same time, this individual acknowledged: “Socially, I enjoy it more [in India], but work also becomes somewhat personal, whereas it tends to remain professional in the U.S”.

Some returnees attributed the differences in work ethics between India and the U.S. to the educational and social foundations prevalent in each country. In the U.S., higher education and training often instil a sense of commitment to science and engineering, emphasizing the intrinsic rewards of work and the importance of setting aside self-interest. In contrast, Indian education focuses primarily on mastering scientific and technical skills, with less emphasis on professionalism or workplace etiquette. As a result, many Indian scientists and engineers are not explicitly guided on behaviors like punctuality or workplace conduct. Instead, they often develop their work habits by observing their seniors, who may embody a more laid-back approach. Additionally, India’s poor transportation infrastructure—including inadequate highways, roads, metro systems, and frequent traffic jams—further hampers punctuality, making it more challenging for employees to arrive on time.

6. Workplace Communication

Workplace communication—how employees share information among themselves and with managers—is a vital component of productivity in technology companies. Effective communication ensures that scientists and engineers clearly understand their companies’ goals, direction, and expectations while fostering open interactions with managers. For many returnees, workplace communication stood out as a key difference between U.S. and Indian work cultures. Nearly half of the returnees (44%) highlighted various aspects of communication differences between the two contexts. They noted that clear and open communication was more prevalent in the U.S., whereas constraints often affected interactions in Indian workplaces.

There was broad agreement among returnees that workplace communication should be clear to avoid confusion. However, many noted significant differences in communication styles between India and the U.S. They observed that communication in India tends to be less direct, often relying on subtle and equivocal expressions where exact meanings are not always immediately clear. In contrast, U.S. employees typically prioritize brevity and clarity, using concise language to ensure messages are direct and unambiguous. Indian employees, however, often use longer sentences and nuanced language to avoid offending others, placing a higher value on politeness than on succinctness. One returnee explained: “The Indian mentality favours indirect communication, which is suppressed in the American setup but becomes prominent in the Indian setup”. Another echoed this sentiment: “[Indians’] preference is for indirect communication. You often have to read between the lines when dealing with them. Americans, on the other hand, are much more direct and express exactly what they feel”.

Technology companies increasingly rely on a wide range of technical tools for workplace communication, including email, office telephones, smartphones, computers, corporate social media, video chat, alerting software for emergencies, and web conferencing. In the U.S., workplace communication tends to be formal and structured, often conducted through emails, memos, and other written formats. This approach emphasizes professionalism and efficiency. In India, despite the availability of similar tools, the preference often leans toward verbal, face-to-face communication. Email, which is a staple for efficiency-driven American offices, “does not always work [in India]”, as one returnee remarked. Instead, scientists and engineers frequently use breaks, such as “chai” (tea) or walks for fresh air, as opportunities to engage with colleagues. These informal discussions allow them to share information and stay updated about workplace events. As one returnee observed: “In the U.S., if I am working in one building, I would not know what is happening in the other building. [In India], I know almost everything because of the socialization”. This informal communication plays a vital role in building relationships and fostering a sense of community among colleagues. While social connections also hold value in the American workplace, they are generally seen as separate from the formal aspects of work communication. It is important to note that these communication styles are not absolute and may vary based on organizational culture and individual preferences.

Some returnees observed that scientists and engineers in the U.S. often possess a combination of “hard” and “soft” skills, whereas their counterparts in India primarily excel in hard skills. By hard skills, they referred to specialized knowledge and technical expertise acquired through formal education and on-the-job training. Soft skills, on the other hand, encompass communication, organizational abilities, and interpersonal traits. According to the returnees, the prevailing belief in Indian technology companies is that a “real” scientist or engineer is someone with deep technical knowledge and mastery of science and technology. A few returnees noted, however, that while American scientists and engineers may not always be as technically sophisticated, they excel in communication and interpersonal skills, which enables them to effectively present their work to upper management. As one returnee remarked: “For us, technical content is more important than marketing our work”. Another added: “Americans are not technically sophisticated… but they know how to sell the work”. Interestingly, despite the emphasis on socialization in Indian workplaces, returnees pointed out that scientists and engineers in India often lack strong interpersonal communication skills, highlighting a paradox in the workplace culture.

7. Organizational Structure

Technology companies in both the U.S. and India operate within formal organizational structures designed to achieve goals and ensure efficient performance. While these structures have evolved from rigid hierarchies to more flexible, boundary-less models, they still play a critical role in defining responsibilities, reporting lines, and the coordination and supervision of work by managers. Returnees acknowledged the value of having a formal organizational structure but raised two key concerns regarding authority and bureaucracy. Over one-third (36%) of returnees noted a stronger emphasis on status and authority in Indian technology companies compared to those in the U.S. Additionally, they expressed frustration with the higher levels of approval and paperwork required to accomplish tasks in India, which contrasted sharply with the comparatively streamlined processes in U.S. organizations.

When scientists and engineers work in a technology company, differences in opinion with colleagues and managers are likely to arise. Disagreements may concern what should be accomplished, how to define a problem, the procedures for finding a solution, and assumptions about values and fairness. From an ideological standpoint, such differences are often considered healthy, as they can bring diverse perspectives that benefit technology companies. In the U.S., individual rights to freedom and expression are central, allowing scientists and engineers to openly tackle problems with their colleagues and managers. In contrast, Indian culture promotes a more non-confrontational, less assertive, and cooperative work environment, where disagreements and individual rights typically do not take centre stage. Many returnees described a culture of acquiescence with Indian managers, even if they internally disagreed with their perspective. One returnee explained: “In the U.S., I could interact with my supervisor and seniors openly. I could express my disagreement if I had one. However, you have to be a little bit careful [in India], as people have big egos”. Another said: “In the U.S., you can call your manager by his first name. If you do the same here, it will be perceived as disrespect”. A third returnee shared: “If you have an open disagreement with your manager, he will do everything to get you fired.’ There was general agreement that, ‘we do not say no to our bosses”.

In both countries, technology companies are formal and well-organized, with carefully crafted policies and procedures. Managers ensure that the work conducted by scientists and engineers aligns with company policies. Returnees noted that in the U.S., there is an effort to “cut through red tape” to make the work process more efficient. In contrast, returnees observed that the official routine in India often involves “excessive red tape”, leading to delays and inaction. Returnees expressed a general attitude of discontent and resigned frustration toward bureaucratic procedures. One returnee compared: “In the U.S., I could just call up someone for parts and they would arrive quickly. I would be able to work on the experiment right away…In India, my request for parts takes months”. Similarly, another remarked: “When you are doing research in engineering, you need to get instruments. In the U.S., you would not need too many signatures. The bureaucracy is minimal. But in India, for even a small request, you end up spending a lot of time getting all the papers signed”. This returnee laughed and added: “[In India], I buy more than what I need, just because tomorrow I may need them again”.

8. Workplace Productivity

Typically, workforce productivity has two key aspects. The first aspect is that employees are getting the work done to achieve the company’s goals. The second aspect is achieving those goals efficiently—without wasting time or effort. When a technology company is productive, its profit margin increases, the cost of production decreases, its reputation and ranking improve, and employee morale rises. It is therefore no surprise that managers in both countries strive to enhance workplace productivity. They aim to hire well-trained scientists and engineers, providing the necessary resources and support to ensure quality work is completed with better turnaround times. Over one-third of returnees (34%) discussed differences in workplace productivity between U.S. and Indian technology companies, attributing these differences to the themes previously mentioned.

In both countries, scientists and engineers are expected to start and finish work within an allocated time, typically eight hours per day (9 am to 5 pm in the U.S. and 10 am to 6 pm in India), totalling 40 h per week. Depending on the project, they may stay late, take work home, or work on weekends. As salaried employees, they are not paid for extra hours. Despite these similarities, returnees believed that U.S. technology companies offer shorter work hours than their Indian counterparts. There was a consensus among returnees that they spent more time at work in India than in the U.S., but their productivity did not compare to what they were able to achieve in the U.S. One returnee explained, “For the same project done in the U.S. and in India, people will end up putting in more effort in India than in the U.S. They will take more time in India than in the U.S”. Another returnee described the work output-to-time ratio in Indian companies: “They stay 10 h in the office, but the productivity is like five hours”. “You are efficient in the U.S., but not in India”, summarized one returnee.

Returnees believed that the differences in productivity were due to a laid-back work ethic in India, with less emphasis on efficiency, relaxed adherence to deadlines, informal communication that made work vague, and red tape creating obstacles to completing tasks on time. In contrast, the U.S. promotes a strong work ethic, increased focus on efficiency with strict deadlines, formal communication to ensure clarity, and less red tape to expedite work. As one returnee noted, “In the U.S., most of the time the system is functioning so well that you spend most of your time on creative tasks. But in India, the system is not streamlined, and it breaks down at multiple levels”. Another returnee explained, “If you write one email in the U.S. and send it to your team, 90% of your team members will interpret it in the same way…In India, you have to send the same message in three different forms to communicate”. This returnee added, “What slows down productivity is the bureaucracy. It is more complicated in India than in the U.S”. A returnee observed, “People [in India] are easy-going and do not really care about deadlines”. This returnee expressed frustration: “There is an old mindset that more time worked equals better results. People think that if they stay long hours, they will be seen as working hard. It breeds an idiotic culture where productivity is not the norm, but spending more time is”.

9. Management Decision-Making

Management decision-making is the process through which managers identify problems, evaluate alternatives, and select the best course of action to achieve the organization’s objectives. It involves assessing information, considering risks and benefits, and making informed choices that drive the success of the business. This process is crucial for ensuring that resources are used efficiently, goals are met, and the organization remains competitive. Effective decision-making requires analytical thinking, leadership skills, and the ability to balance short-term and long-term goals. It is fundamental to achieving organizational success in any industry.

About one-seventh of returnees (14%) discussed how management decision-making differed between U.S. and Indian technology companies. In both countries, managers are responsible for ensuring that the company’s interests are prioritized when delegating work, allocating resources, and managing finances. Returnees believed that they had much more freedom to generate and implement projects in the U.S. than in India. In the U.S., they could decide what they wanted to work on within the framework of the company’s goals and then engage their managers to gain support for their ideas. The process of obtaining manager approval was relatively informal at lower levels of management, based mainly on technical merit. However, at higher levels, approval was more formal and often driven by cost considerations rather than just technical merit. As one returnee noted: “[In the U.S.], you have freedom in executing the work. You are not told what to do, but you know what you have to do… From time to time, you have to get approval from upper management, but ultimately you have a free hand”. In contrast, returnees found that in India, managers were more involved in delegating work and closely monitoring progress and performance. Many described a level of excessive supervision, with managers micromanaging their work. As one returnee explained: “There are a lot of problems with management and leaders in India… There is a little bit of micromanagement”. A returnee manager justified this approach, saying: “That pace of work is lacking [in India], so every day I have to make a list for people to work on”. Interestingly, despite having more freedom in the U.S., returnees felt “tremendous pressure in the U.S. which [they] do not have [in India]”. This pressure stemmed largely from the fact that their work in the U.S. was closely tied to product outcomes, and they had to meet strict deadlines.

10. Work–Life Balance

Work–life balance refers to the ability to effectively manage and prioritize the demands of both work and personal life. It involves finding a healthy equilibrium between professional responsibilities (such as job duties, career development, and work-related stress) and personal life (including family, hobbies, health, and relaxation). Achieving work–life balance is important for maintaining mental and physical well-being, fostering personal relationships, and ensuring long-term career satisfaction. A good work–life balance means not overworking, taking time off when needed, setting boundaries between work and personal time, and allocating time for activities that promote relaxation and fulfilment outside of work. It is a dynamic and individual concept, as each person’s ideal balance may vary depending on their personal preferences and life circumstances.

Working long hours has become the norm in many professional and managerial jobs, despite the recognition that it is detrimental to both companies and employees. Achieving a work–life balance has become a challenge. A large majority of returnees believed that working long hours was inevitable in scientific and technical jobs, though a small minority (11%) discussed the importance of achieving a better balance between work and personal life. As mentioned earlier, returnees felt they spent more time at work in India than in the U.S. They also observed that American employees were becoming more conscious of resisting the pressure to work long hours, with some reprioritizing their work and life choices. In India, however, returnees believed there was both an internal desire and managerial expectation to spend long hours at work. Many returnees did not want to miss out on work-related opportunities and thus preferred to be at work most of the time. As one returnee explained: “In the U.S., people look for a balanced lifestyle. In India, you allow some flexibility, but work is there most of the time… Because of work-life balance, people in the U.S. may sacrifice opportunities, but not in India”. Another noted: “[Indian managers] think they can call you at any time, day or night… Americans would not tolerate routine long hours”. Some of these returnees worked for international companies located in India or Indian companies doing business with international firms. When connecting with people outside India, it was rarely during Indian time zones. As one returnee said: “We are expected to be on long calls in the U.S. time zone. This means we stay until 10 pm”. Ironically, one of the reasons these returnees moved back to India was to have more time with their families.

11. Gender Issues

Traditionally, STEM fields have been dominated by men. Over the years, the number of women pursuing STEM careers has increased, but they remain underrepresented compared to their male counterparts, both in the U.S. and India. Despite significant progress, women in STEM continue to face challenges such as gender bias, unequal opportunities, and a lack of representation in leadership roles. Both countries acknowledge the importance of diversity and inclusion and have implemented programs to promote equal employment opportunities and safer workplaces. Some returnees (9%) noted that traditional gender roles are more prevalent in India than in the U.S., and that gender bias against women is more overt in India, whereas it tends to be more subtle in the U.S. This observation is even though over one-third of employees in India’s technology industry are women.

Returnees observed that the work culture in Indian technology companies is often described as “patriarchal”, where men are viewed as dominant and women as subordinate. Despite the increasing number of women employed in these companies, the prevailing perception is that women are not as technically competent as their male counterparts. As one female returnee shared, “People are very nice and very helpful, but they would not change their attitude about women. In the U.S., they accepted me as soon as they saw what I could do for them. But in India, they still do not believe that I can do good engineering work”. A male returnee expressed his shock at colleagues who openly made “gender-biased comments”, such as “This is not meant for women”. In India, workplace socialization is often a cultural norm, which creates boundaries for women in their daily routines. They are seldom invited to socialize with male colleagues. As one female returnee explained, “I go to the office, but I do not mingle with people. I see men go for a break and talk, but I do not do that. I feel isolated”. For safety reasons, women often avoid working after regular business hours, which results in them missing out on important meetings with international clients scheduled in different time zones.

12. Discussion

This paper examines the intersection of national cultural identity and the workplace in a globalized world, highlighting how scientific activities are influenced by culture. Contrary to claims that globalization and the universality of science create a culture-free workplace, the study reveals that cultural differences significantly shape the activities of scientists and engineers in technology companies in the U.S. and India.

This paper highlights notable differences in communication practices between U.S. and Indian workplaces. In the U.S., communication is typically formal and structured, primarily conducted through email, memos, and other written formats. This method prioritizes professionalism and efficiency, with an emphasis on clear, concise messaging. Conversely, Indian workplaces favour face-to-face communication, with verbal exchanges being the preferred mode. This approach fosters interpersonal relationships and social networks, which are integral to accomplishing tasks. While workplace socialization is often discouraged in the U.S., it appears to offer distinct advantages in the Indian context. Social interactions among colleagues facilitate knowledge-sharing [29] and promote the exchange of information and ideas beyond formal communication channels. By engaging in workplace socialization, scientists and engineers in India gain insights into developments across other areas of the company, which they might not otherwise encounter. This interpersonal communication style not only builds trust and personal relationships but can also benefit organizational dynamics [23]. Although workplace socialization may seem inefficient from a U.S. perspective, it proves enriching in the Indian workplace. Hofstede’s [1] individualism–collectivism dimension sheds some light here: American workplaces emphasize individual accountability and written efficiency, while Indian workplaces emphasize collective trust-building and relational ties. Yet Hofstede’s framework cannot fully account for the strategic role of informal socialization in Indian organizations, underscoring the need for context-sensitive perspectives.

Another key difference in workplace culture between U.S. and Indian technology companies, as highlighted in the paper, revolves around scientists’ and engineers’ preferences for managerial and leadership styles. Both countries have clearly defined superior-subordinate roles and responsibilities. However, managerial decision-making in the U.S. tends to be democratic, while in India, it is more assertive [5,17,22]. Scientists and engineers in India are often attuned to organizational hierarchy, shaping their interactions based on rank. Managers are expected to closely monitor work, take responsibility for its outcomes, and receive obedience and respect from their subordinates. Interestingly, many returnees expressed dissatisfaction with these hierarchical leadership norms. They showed a reduced tolerance for such structures and preferred more egalitarian leadership styles. Despite the prevalence of workplace socialization in India, managers typically do not socialize with scientists and engineers, particularly with local employees rather than returnees. These hierarchical dynamics also influence conflict resolution styles. For instance, Indian workplaces often emphasize indirect and relational communication cues to maintain intergroup harmony, a practice less common in the U.S. Hofstede’s concept of power distance provides some explanatory power here, as Indian workplaces exemplify high power distance while U.S. workplaces lean toward lower power distance. Yet, the resistance of returnees to hierarchical authority highlights how cultural orientations are dynamic and reshaped by transnational experiences—something Hofstede’s static framework does not anticipate.

The paper highlights a notable contrast in work–life balance between scientists and engineers in the U.S. and India. In the U.S., scientists and engineers are encouraged to work autonomously and feel empowered to manage their own tasks. However, this often results in them bringing work home, blurring the boundaries between professional and personal life. In contrast, scientists and engineers in India tend to stay at work beyond the standard eight hours but rarely take their work home. The study reveals that returnees experienced differing perceptions of their work responsibilities and commitment to family and leisure time while working in the U.S. compared to India. In the U.S., they struggled to maintain a clear separation between home and work, whereas in India, they could achieve this balance more effectively. For returnees, work in India is primarily a means of earning income to support their families, reducing the need to extend work into their personal lives. In the U.S., however, their engagement with work often stemmed from a passion for science and engineering, making their lives revolve more heavily around their professional pursuits. Hofstede’s dimensions of individualism and masculinity help explain why U.S. employees might prioritize achievement and passion, while Indian employees emphasize family and collective obligations. Yet, work–life balance is not directly addressed in Hofstede’s framework, and this study shows how it is negotiated in culturally specific and evolving ways that extend beyond his six dimensions.

Professionalism is closely linked to time perception, a value orientation that differs significantly between Indian and American workplaces [24]. Attitudes toward time management reflect how scientists and engineers prioritize concepts such as punctuality, deadlines, and productivity, serving as indicators of their overall work ethic. The paper highlights that Indian workplaces tend to have a more relaxed approach to time management. Unlike the sense of urgency and meticulous planning typical of American work culture, Indian workplaces often embody the “chalta hai” (take it easy) mindset, as described by returnees. This mentality manifests in characteristic workplace behaviors: communication tends to be indirect and roundabout to accommodate hierarchical structures, and response times for emails and other formal communication channels are often prolonged. Combined with informal socialization, as the paper reveals, this approach can result in extended hours spent in the office. By contrast, returnees emphasized that American work culture places a higher premium on productive behaviours, prioritizing efficient use of time within the workplace. Most returnees disliked Indian notion of time and their lack of productivity due to inefficiency. Hofstede’s long-term vs. short-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance dimensions partially capture these differences, but they fall short of explaining how time perceptions are entangled with hierarchy, communication norms, and informal networks.

As previously noted, the paper highlights the prevalence of informal socialization in Indian technology companies. However, in patriarchal societies, social networking often tends to be gender-based [30]. Women scientists and engineers rarely engage in socialization with their male colleagues. Gender attitudes and behaviors in workplaces in both the U.S. and India reflect deeply ingrained societal and cultural beliefs that limit the career mobility and full potential of women. In the Indian workplace context, exclusion from informal social networks is a significant barrier to the career advancement of women. The paper reveals that women returnees often faced professional rejection in Indian technology companies, an experience they did not encounter to the same extent in the U.S. However, it is important to note that these women returnees also had to continually prove themselves in the U.S., albeit under different circumstances. Hofstede’s masculinity–femininity dimension provides only a partial explanation, as it points to unequal gender roles in more “masculine” societies, but it does not address how patriarchy operates through informal workplace networks or how exclusionary practices intersect with migration and career trajectories.

Equally important is the observation that most studies on workplace culture are analyzed from a Western, particularly American, perspective. There is a pressing need to incorporate diverse cultural perspectives to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of workplace culture in technology companies. While this paper provides some support for Hofstede’s [1] national cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism versus collectivism, it also underscores that the national culture of Indian immigrant scientists and engineers is neither homogeneous nor strictly bimodal, as Hofstede’s framework suggests. The study reveals variations in how returnees perceived and experienced workplace culture within India, as well as differences in their adaptation to U.S. workplace culture. Furthermore, Hofstede’s model appears somewhat outdated, as this paper identifies work–life balance and gender issues as critical aspects of workplace culture, which are not addressed in his framework. These findings highlight that culture is a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by a single set of dimensions.

The paper demonstrates that nationality alone does not determine the scientific and engineering activities of individuals. Instead, the cultural environment in which scientists and engineers undergo professional socialization plays a significant role, resulting in what can be termed a “hybrid workplace culture”. While this term has recently gained prominence during COVID-19, referring to the blending of virtual and in-person work arrangements [31], here it refers to scientists and engineers who, through higher education and training outside their birth countries, integrate elements of foreign scientific and engineering cultures by modifying their native cultural norms. Returnees’ work behaviors were neither wholly American nor Indian but a fusion of both, shaped by their exposure to and interaction with these distinct cultural contexts. The paper supports Arabandi’s [32] argument regarding shifts in workplace cultures influenced by global corporate norms and generational differences in conceptions of national identity. However, it also acknowledges that such attitudinal changes occur gradually and must contend with longstanding traditions of workplace individualism versus collectivism and power distance. Hofstede’s framework, with its emphasis on stable, nationally bounded traits, struggles to account for these hybrid identities and transnational negotiations. Instead, culture-in-context approaches [33] offer a more flexible lens to capture how workplace norms are continually adapted and reinterpreted.

While the paper offers valuable insights into the differences in workplace cultures between India and the U.S., future studies could further explore the mechanisms through which these cultural differences are diffused and potentially adopted or resisted by scientists and engineers. For example, do return migrants bring back experiences and practices from the U.S. and try to implement them in the Indian workplace, or do they adapt to the existing Indian workplace culture? Are certain aspects of U.S. workplace culture more easily adopted or resisted than others, and what factors contribute to this? Additionally, further research could examine how workplace culture differences are negotiated by scientists and engineers who have not experienced both cultures but work in multicultural teams or with colleagues from diverse cultural backgrounds. Moreover, the paper’s integration of the discourse on return migration with workplace culture provides a valuable contribution to the literature on scientific communities. Future studies could continue to investigate the impact of workplace culture on the experiences and practices of scientific workers, including its influence on innovation, collaboration, and professional development in scientific and engineering fields. This research could also explore how workplace culture intersects with other factors, such as gender, religion, caste, and socioeconomic status, to shape career trajectories and opportunities.

13. Conclusions

This paper explored the key differences in workplace cultures as perceived by return migrants who relocated to India to work in technology companies after their experience in the U.S. Having been immersed in both environments, the participants offered valuable insights into the distinct workplace dynamics, communication styles, and cultural norms that shape professional relationships and career success. Interpreted through Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, these findings highlight how U.S. workplaces, characterized by low power distance, high individualism, and task-oriented communication, contrast with Indian workplaces, where higher power distance, collectivist values, and relationship-centered communication prevail. Rather than viewing nationality alone as the determinant of scientific and engineering practices, the findings emphasize how cultural socialization influences workplace behavior, producing hybrid practices when professionals cross-national boundaries. The returnees’ navigation of both low-context, efficiency-driven U.S. systems and high-context, relationally driven Indian systems illustrates strategies for adapting across cultural dimensions. These experiences offer guidance for organizations seeking to foster inclusive and culturally sensitive environments, where awareness of Hofstede’s dimensions can enhance cross-cultural collaboration, innovation, and professional growth.

Findings of this paper offer useful insights for shaping policy in India, particularly in addressing hierarchical leadership norms, collectivist communication styles, and persistent gender inequalities in workplaces. Policies could encourage participatory decision-making, structured knowledge-sharing, and targeted initiatives to support women’s inclusion in professional networks, thereby balancing efficiency with trust-building. In education and training, curricula that combine collaborative, project-based learning with intercultural competence and time management skills would better prepare graduates for global careers. At the governance level, decentralization and participatory mechanisms can reduce the effects of high power distance, while start-up incentives and incubation centers can mitigate risk aversion and foster innovation.