Culture Differences between China and America

Culture Differences between China and America

Research Propositions

There are culture differences between China and America.

As l have stated previously, different countries have different cultures. « Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another. » (Hofstede, 1991) It is inevitable that the cultural differences have impact on business. There exist four cultural dimensions that were defined in Hofstede’s research: Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, lndividualism Masculinity, and recently Hofstede has added one another dimension: long-term-short-term orientation. As l have explained in the previous section ofthis literature review, the Chinese people and the American people are quite distant from one other using Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions.

The different culture dimensions will influence the project management styles.

A lot ofresearchers assert that culture is very vital in molding people’s perceptions, attitudes and appraisals of management styles, Jandt & Pedersen, 1996; Leung & Tjosvold, 1998; Ting-Toomey, 1985). In the joint venture companies, staffs from the distinct nations have the different cultures and backgrounds. Thanks to the culture differences, people’ behaviors are not alike. Also, these differences can give rise to the differences ofproject management styles. The reason lies in the fact that the project management styles depend upon the people who work in this management system. Consequently, what the people do may affect the management system directly and thus lead the management to the different styles. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that the management styles relies on cultures.
As opposed to the Western nations, Chinese collectivism, harmony, outer-directed and relationship culture may have implications for international joint venture project managers’ ways of resolving conflicts. Consistent with the differences in conceptions of relationships identified in the above literature review, Chinese project managers are likely to attach much greater attention to group harmony, and maintain their « faces » and relationships with all staffs involved wh en resolving conflicts. They would try to avoid direct debate or confrontation and always try to get through conflicts in a quiet manner. By sharp contrast, the Western project managers would like to encourage open discussions on disagreements and conflicts in order to get problems solved as soon as possible.

There are certain differences between the Chinese and the American project managers in conflict management styles because of the cultural differences.

The American project managers will have a greater preference for confrontation (problem-solving) than their counterparts in China.

The confrontational model usually involves openly acknowledging conflicts and resolving them either by problem solving or by strategies forcing. Problem-solving is an integrated style that is characterized by a willingness to ex change information openly, to address differences constructively, and to make every effort to seek a solution that will be mutually acceptable (Pruittl Carnevale 1993, Rahim 1992). Once it is recognized that a conflict really exists, individuals who are oriented towards collaboration will try to integrate the needs ofboth parties into a solution that will maximize the interests ofboth parties (Gabrielidis et al. 1997). With the intention to be in search of a reasonable solution that very weil meets decision criteria ofboth parties, the participants are actively involved in discovering effective ways to increase the total benefits or profits among them.
In the Western cultures, it is widely accepted that an integrated approach is likely to appear among committed parties and that the real challenge to their success is that the parties are unable, or unwilling, to confront with each other to address emergent issues (Spekman et al. 1996). As it is most likely to yield win-win solutions, a greater preference for the problem-solving styles is commonly reported in US subjects (Rahim 1983, Tinsley 1998).
Nonetheless, such an integrated style may not necessarily be the most desired by the Oriental project managers who repress conflicts rather than make them open to resolve them (Moran et al. 1994). Evidence reveals that Japanese managers make use ofthe problem-solving styles more infrequently than non-confrontation styles (Barnlund 1989, OhbuchlTakahashi 1994).
According to Ting-Toomey et al. (1991), when confronted in an open way, conflicts may result in a loss of « face » and a disruption ofhannony, both ofwhich are undesirable in the Oriental cultures.

The Chinese project managers will have a greater preference for compromising than their counterparts in America.

Compromising refers to the conflict resolution strategy that searchs for a middle ground between the initial positions ofboth sizes (FromanlCohen 1970). It tends to partially draw the line the interests ofboth sides in the process ofmaking mutual concessions to reach an agreement. Compromising enables each party to be better offthan ifno agreement is reached, and to avoid win-lose situations (Swierczek 1994). In an attempt to come to an agreement that is mutually acceptable, both parties may yield gains that they sense to be legitimate. The compromising style is generally characterized as sharing resources in sorne equitable fashions without pursuing alternative solutions that may meet one party’s interests more satisfactorily (RubiniPruittiKim 1994). Although compromising is more often than not viewed as a sub-optimal solution in which no one totally wins or loses, it is preferred by the Chinese or other Oriental managers (Kirkbride/Tang/Westwood 1991, Swierczek 1994) as an optimum solution, or an alternative to collaboration without confrontation. The East Asian managers’ preference for the compromising styles can be explained by the Chinese concepts of « face » and favor. In the Chinese traditional culture, « face » is so important for a person that not giving « face » to the other party is viewed as denying the other part’s pride and dignity (Brunner/ Wang 1988, Huang 2000, Hwang 1997). As such, compromising, or rather an exchange of concessions through mediation, is a good means in order to work out an effective solution that saves « face » for oneself as weil as for others (Leung 1987). In addition to that, in terms of the concept of favor, the giving of « face » to the other part is, in the most cases, expected to be retumed by the other part (Kirkbride/Tang/Westwood 1991). By way of the compromising handling style, resolution of conflicts can be reached without loss on
either side.

The American project managers will have a greater preference for forcing than their counterparts in China.

Forcing is a strategy when power is used to make the other parts comply (Blake/ShepardlMouton 1964). In general, exhibited through non-concessionary behavior or forceful tactics, su ch a competitive strategy focuses on defeating the opponent and thus represents a win-lose orientation (March/Simon 1958). Due to divergent interests, power plays a big role in joint ventures’ ongoing processes when partners hold different perspectives over the design of joint actions (HarriganINewman 1990). Research has showcased that the Westemers are more likely to use the forcing handling strategy because of the relatively high value given to competition and individual achievement, whereas the Asians tend to use less competitive procedures su ch as bargaining and mediation (Leung 1987, Leung/Lind 1986, Morris et al. 1998, Swierczek 1994).

The Chinese project managers will have a greater preference for smoothing than their counterparts in America.

A smoothing approach may have similar consequences although the conflicting parts are less resentful as there is inherent emphasis on identifying sorne common grounds in resolving the conflicts. Let me give an idea that, in a hospital workshop, for instance, sorne artisans were not satisfied with the new job assignments in a remote hospital at the beginning; however, nobody was willing to take the new jobs. The supervisor managed to persuade them to change their minds and accept the new assignments by emphasizing on the benefits over and again, the common benefits it was going to bring to the companies as well as the artisans. Deep-down, the affected artisans were still very unhappy about the longer traveling time and higher cost incurred and other inconveniences caused as a result of the move.
The Western managers’ lacking of more preference for the smoothing style by comparison with the Chinese managers can be revealed by the Western individualism dimension. Most Western employees are willing to do their jobs by their own plans for defending their interests. That is a high degree of individualism. Because of the different attitudes to employment, ‘the incubator culture’ (Trompernaars, 1997: 175) arises when cross-cultural individuals work together as a group. Trompenaars (1993: 158) reports that « the incubator is both personal and egalitarian. » People do not cooperate at ail. They just simply work in their own ways, follow their own rules, and achieve their own objectives.
And that they are reluctant to be interferred by other people. It is truly instrumental to a company in gathering as many ideas as they can turn out when starting up a new pro gram.

The Chinese project managers will have a greater preference for theavoiding (withdrawal) style than their counterparts in America.

Avoiding (withdrawal) is a strategy whereby individuals allow conflicts to go unresolved or permit others to take responsibility for solving the problems (Gabrielids et al. 1997). The person engaged in a conflict may hope that, if left alone, the conflict will somehow go away (PruittlRubin 1986), or at least be less visible to outsiders (BlackIMendenhall 1993).
In the Western cultures, the avoiding (withdrawal) handling style is looked upon in a negative way as it sidesteps the issue (Kozan 1997). In the East Asian cultures, however, project managers tend to work in order to prevent conflicts or fail to acknowledge them (Bond/Wang 1983, Moran et al. 1994). It is widely acknowledged that the East Asian forms of collectivism place pressure on individuals to avoid disagreements of any kind (Barnlund 1989, ChuaiGudykunst 1987, Trubisky/Ting-Toomey/Lin 1991, Wheeler/ReislBond 1989). Research through comparing conflict styles of the Asians, inc1uding Hong Kong Chinese (Kirkbride/Tang/Westwood 1991, TangIKirkbride 1986), Taiwanese (Trubiskyl Ting-Toomey/Lin 1991), and Japanese (Ohbuchi/Takahashi 1994), with their Western counterparts (i.e., British and Americans) consistently points out that the former have a greater preference for indirect avoiding styles in conflicts handling.

Table des matières

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RÉSUMÉ
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLE
CHAPTER 1 INTODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Project Management Theory
2.1.1. Project and Project Management Definition
2.1.2. Proj ect Management Activities
2.1.3. Project Management Process
2.1.4. Project Success
2.1.5. Project Management Styles
2.2. Culture
2.2.1. The Meaning of Culture
2.2.2. The Main Element of Culture
2.2.2.1 . families
2.2.2.2. Educational institutions
2.2.2.3. Religions
2.2.3. The Culture Dimension
2.2.3 .1. High-context Versus Low-context Cultures
2.2.3.2. Monochronic VS Polychronic Time
2.2.3.3. Miscommunication
2.2.3.3 .1. Verbal Miscommunication
2.2.3 .3.2. Silent Language
2.2.3.4. Hofstede’s Four Cultural Dimensions
2.2.4. Culture Difference
2.2.4.1. General Cultural Differences between the West and China
2.2.4.2. Types of Cultures
2.2.5 . What is « Guanxi »?
2.2.5 .1. The importance of « Guanxi »
2.3. Cultural Influence to Project Management Style
2.3.1. Culture and Management
2.3 .2. The Key Culture factor affecting the Project Management Style
2.3.2.1. Age
2.3 .2.2. Race
2.3.2.3. Language
2.3 .2.4. Education
2.3.2.5. Conception of Value
2.3.2.6. Organizational Behaviors
2.3.3. The Different Cultural Project Management Style
2.3.3.1. American Project Manager style
2.3.3.2. Chinese project manager style
2.4. Culture and International Projects
2.4.1 Joint Venture
2.4.2 Joint Venture in China
2.5. Conflict and Culture
2.5.1. Conflict Sources
2.5.2. Types of the conflicts
2.5.3. Conflict Management Theory
2.5.4. Cultural Differences on Conflict Management
2.5.5 . Conflict Management in China
2.5.6. Conflict management in America
2.6. Summary of the Literature Review
CHAPTER3 RESEARCH CONCEPTION AND METHOD
3.1. Problems of the Research Formulation
3.2. Analyze Recension
3.3. Research Question and Proposition
3.3.1. Research Questions
3.3.2. Research Propositions
3.4. Reference Frame (Operational Frame) Methodological Phase
3.5 Research Method
3.6. Research Setting and Sampling Selection
3.7. Data Collection
3.8. Data Analysis
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANAL YSIS OF THE RESULTS
4.1. Culture Differences between China and America
4.1.1. The Differences in Nations and Religions
4.1.2. The Differences in the Languages and Ways of Communication
4.1.3. The Different Opinions of ‘Guanxi’ (Relation)
4.1.4. The Greatest Differences between the Chinese and the Western Cultures
4.1.5 . The level of understanding each other’ s culture
4.2. Difference of Project Management Styles between China and America
4.3. Difference of of Conflict Handling Styles between China and America
4.4. Discussion
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
5.1. Forces and Limits of Study
5.2. Recommendation
5.2.1 . Culture training course
5.2.2. Employ Local People
5.2.3. Create a New Collaborative Style
5.3. Directions of Future Research
REFERENCES 
APPENDICES
GLOSSARY

Télécharger le rapport complet