Yean Yng Ling, F; Ming Hsia Ang, A and su yu Lim, S (2007) Encounters between foreigners and Chinese: Perception and management of cultural differences. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6), pp. 501-518. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this research is to investigate how foreign (non-mainland Chinese) architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) professionals manage cross-cultural encounters with mainland Chinese in the construction industry. The specific objectives are to identify perceived cultural differences between Chinese and foreigners when executing construction projects, based on the perceptions of foreign personnel only; and recommend a framework to manage cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese. Design/methodology/approach – The data collection instrument was a questionnaire, which had open-ended questions. The data collection method was face-to-face in-depth interviews with 19 foreign AEC practitioners who had worked with Chinese in construction projects in mainland China. The majority of these projects were located in Shanghai. Findings – The main perceived differences were: the absence of team spirit in Chinese staff; the need to micro-manage Chinese staff; the lack of initiative in Chinese staff; difficulty in communicating with Chinese staff; the absence of trust among the Chinese and by Chinese of foreigners; Chinese firms' attempts at recovery of under-pricing following contract award; ease of settling disputes with Chinese; lack of safety and quality culture; and prevalence of networking culture. Several methods to manage cross-cultural encounters are identified. Among these, most of the interviewees practiced adaptability, mimicry and mindfulness, which involved paying attention, being watchful and attentive. They also relied on their knowledge and experience of Chinese culture. Research limitations/implications – The findings may not be readily generalized because interviews were conducted with only 19 foreign AEC professionals, many of who are from Singapore and had worked primarily in Shanghai. The small number of interviewees may be unrepresentative of the population. Practical implications – Foreign firms could use the findings to help them decide on some of the methods to overcome cultural differences. Originality/value – The research proposed a framework for foreign firms to use when managing cross-cultural encounters with Chinese. It recommends different measures to manage cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; Chinese people; construction industry; cross-cultural management; national cultures; risk management |
| Index terms: | recovery, Singapore, pricing, mindfulness, dispute, national culture, risk management, construction industry, personnel, interview, Shanghai, cultural difference, face, networking, population, construction project, methodology, questionnaire, adaptability, practitioner, foreign firm, China |
| Subjects: | research methods, management, Geography, production management, health conditions and diseases, cross-cultural studies, demography, industry analysis, user focus, strategic management, risk assessment, data collection methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, operations management, communication, psychology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, International Construction, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here