The cultural architecture of China is complex - in some instances, the architecture is homogeneous while in other cases, it is heterogeneous. Early studies portrayed Chinese managers as uniquely homogeneous and collective bunch, keeping in line with frameworks supplied by Hofstede et al. Their management practices and values seemed similar across China and much early research occurred within this dominant paradigm.
Recently, significant differences among the values of Chinese manager was observed by Ralston et al; younger managers appeared more individualistic, independent, profit-oriented and placed less value and reliance on patron-client relationships. In this setting, higher levels of individualism promoted a search for monetary rather than in-kind rewards. Uneven reforms in rural and urban areas, influence speed of adoptions of new policies, technology and practices within China. Instrumental attachments to work among the vast numbers of internal migrant workers also affected workplace practices.
In the above context, there are probably several Chinas - the neglected West, the old industrial belt of the northeast and the heartland around Wuhan, the south-west and the economic powerhouses of the coastal areas that stretch in a crescent shape from Beijing to Guangzhou. This economic architecture also brings with it another form of cultural diversity because distinct patterns of investment in China originate in Old China. There are favoured Economic Zones for overseas Chinese – those from Hong Kong and Macau tend to invest in Pearl River delta while those in Taiwan (Minnan) invest in Minnan River delta. The Chinese from East China invest in Yangtze River delta and the Eastern regions. With the WTO came a reaffirmation of agreements, a move to create and maintain a level playing field, more transparency, less regulation and an improved infrastructure. In the new environment, the entry of foreign firms was made comparatively easier. Foreign firms could also manufacture and distribute independently. Even the Chinese government agreed not to use its considerable power to benefit or assist local firms.
The implications of these developments for Chinese manager were considerable. A rapid transition from JVs to WOFEs as preferred entry mechanism occurred (although recently, the JV made a comeback). There were changes to foreign value chains in China and more direct negotiations occurred between foreign representatives and Chinese officials. In turn, this subtly affected the reliance of both foreign and Chinese managers on the networks of social capital in China. In addition, a sustained move from an outputs-based mindset to a performance-for-profit mindset gained currency.
Against this background and wondering if these changes had affected the way Chinese managers thought about managing, I executed a small research project during several consultancies in China. Experienced senior Chinese managers of IJVs were asked to identify management areas that they thought would be important for them in doing their jobs and getting results for their organizations in the next ten years. Five focus groups (12 managers in each) used a nominal group technique (NGT) to identify and prioritize important issues in management (completed in early 2005). An additional Q-Sort technique with the same groups (minus a few people who had ''gone elsewhere'') fine-tuned the data. While nearly all management issues gained a place in the initial identification, the NGT and Q-Sort produced the following five areas (in original order with no weightings attached), these were: 1. Performance management; 2. Innovation management and R&D; 3. Strategic HRM; 4. Risk management (including non-financial risk); and 5. Remuneration and rewards. After these issues, the others tapered off noticeably.
Borrowing from Tom Saaty’s AHP methodology, a further 191 managers (representing a cross-section of Chinese managers) from 15 organizations participated in a mini-AHP (accessed in-house via the internet). These managers were asked to rate the relative importance of each factors in the context of a series of stem questions that drive the AHP. The stem questions were of the type: In gaining better results for your organization, do you think that knowledge about innovation management and R&D is more important that knowledge about Performance management. These pairwise judgements allow for respondents to estimate how much more important one factor is over the other in the context of the question at hand. Judgements were made for the five priority management areas identified by the NGT. The AHP produced the following weightings for the priority management areas: Remuneration and rewards (.275); Performance management (.271); Strategic HRM (.190); Risk management (.149); and Innovation management and R&D (.115).
In the above context, there are probably several Chinas - the neglected West, the old industrial belt of the northeast and the heartland around Wuhan, the south-west and the economic powerhouses of the coastal areas that stretch in a crescent shape from Beijing to Guangzhou. This economic architecture also brings with it another form of cultural diversity because distinct patterns of investment in China originate in Old China. There are favoured Economic Zones for overseas Chinese – those from Hong Kong and Macau tend to invest in Pearl River delta while those in Taiwan (Minnan) invest in Minnan River delta. The Chinese from East China invest in Yangtze River delta and the Eastern regions. With the WTO came a reaffirmation of agreements, a move to create and maintain a level playing field, more transparency, less regulation and an improved infrastructure. In the new environment, the entry of foreign firms was made comparatively easier. Foreign firms could also manufacture and distribute independently. Even the Chinese government agreed not to use its considerable power to benefit or assist local firms.
The implications of these developments for Chinese manager were considerable. A rapid transition from JVs to WOFEs as preferred entry mechanism occurred (although recently, the JV made a comeback). There were changes to foreign value chains in China and more direct negotiations occurred between foreign representatives and Chinese officials. In turn, this subtly affected the reliance of both foreign and Chinese managers on the networks of social capital in China. In addition, a sustained move from an outputs-based mindset to a performance-for-profit mindset gained currency.
Against this background and wondering if these changes had affected the way Chinese managers thought about managing, I executed a small research project during several consultancies in China. Experienced senior Chinese managers of IJVs were asked to identify management areas that they thought would be important for them in doing their jobs and getting results for their organizations in the next ten years. Five focus groups (12 managers in each) used a nominal group technique (NGT) to identify and prioritize important issues in management (completed in early 2005). An additional Q-Sort technique with the same groups (minus a few people who had ''gone elsewhere'') fine-tuned the data. While nearly all management issues gained a place in the initial identification, the NGT and Q-Sort produced the following five areas (in original order with no weightings attached), these were: 1. Performance management; 2. Innovation management and R&D; 3. Strategic HRM; 4. Risk management (including non-financial risk); and 5. Remuneration and rewards. After these issues, the others tapered off noticeably.
Borrowing from Tom Saaty’s AHP methodology, a further 191 managers (representing a cross-section of Chinese managers) from 15 organizations participated in a mini-AHP (accessed in-house via the internet). These managers were asked to rate the relative importance of each factors in the context of a series of stem questions that drive the AHP. The stem questions were of the type: In gaining better results for your organization, do you think that knowledge about innovation management and R&D is more important that knowledge about Performance management. These pairwise judgements allow for respondents to estimate how much more important one factor is over the other in the context of the question at hand. Judgements were made for the five priority management areas identified by the NGT. The AHP produced the following weightings for the priority management areas: Remuneration and rewards (.275); Performance management (.271); Strategic HRM (.190); Risk management (.149); and Innovation management and R&D (.115).
No comments:
Post a Comment