Universit de Nice-Sophia Antipolis

In our explorations of I-O Psychology in this TIP column, we have so far had only European contributors. In an effort to expand our horizons to other parts of the globe, I have invited Professor Zhong-Ming Wang from Hangzhou University in China to tell us about some of his recent work. In the next issues of TIP, we will continue to explore our field around the world.

At the recent SIOP conference in Dallas, I had the opportunity to chat with several individuals who were not originally from the U.S. but who went there as students or as professionals. I then realized that this group of people had inverse adaptation experiences to my own. Whereas I am learning to adapt my North American knowledge to a foreign context, they must find ways to make sense of what they learn in the U.S. relative to their previous experiences. I think we could benefit in this column from hearing about how they view their North American knowledge and work experiences when they have a different initial frame of reference. So, this is an invitation to any non-American graduate students or professionals in I-O Psychology who are studying or working in the U.S. to tell us about their adaptation experiences or what they have learned about American or their home cultures through their U.S. experiences. If you would like to contact me for this idea or for other comments and suggestions for future columns, my address is: Dirk Steiner; Dpartement de Psychologie; Ple Universitaire St. Jean d’Angely; 24, avenue des Diables Bleus; 06357 Nice Cedex 4; FRANCE. Email: steiner@hermes.unice.fr. Phone: (33) 492.00.11.91. Fax: (33) 492.00.12.97.

Since my review on culture, economic reform, and the role of I-O psychology in China in the second edition of the Handbook of I-O Psychology (Wang, 1996), both research and applications of industrial and organizational psychology have developed more rapidly on the basis of Chinese cultural tradition and management reform. Now, industrial and organizational psychology in China focuses more on cultural value orientation, team effectiveness, cross-cultural leadership, organizational commitment, and career development.

Chinese economic reform is moving into a new stage of all-round management systems change which has further changed Chinese management in such areas as reward systems, employment structures, personnel management systems, team work systems, leadership patterns, managerial decision-making styles, joint-venture management, technological innovations, and organizational restructuring. The new emphases on work efficiency, individual and team responsibility, and cross-cultural management are modifying organizational strategies and management structures in China.

A recent significant development is the strategic reorganization stage of economic reform in Chinese enterprises, emphasizing strategic restructuring and reorganizing. Efforts are made to convert large and medium state-owned enterprises into shareholding corporations according to the requirements of "clearly established ownership, well defined power and responsibility, separation of enterprise from administration, and scientific management." The main management reform initiatives in China include: (a) separating management power from ownership; (b) reorganizing enterprises into shareholding corporations; and (c) contracting with and grouping trans-regional, inter-trade, cross ownership, and transnational operations. The focus of management development has shifted to the internationalization of management practices and systems changes (e.g., the development of international joint ventures, the implementation of corporate strategies, and the adaptation of cross-cultural businesses).

Under the new development of economic reform in China, several recent areas of research and applications of I-O psychology are worth noticing:

Team Management and Effectiveness

As a new area of I-O psychology, research is carried out on how groups deal with inconsistency and conflicts within groups. Because China has a tradition of favoring harmony and relationship, conflict was considered as a problem in team management. However, under the recent organizational reform and regrouping, conflict is seen as a positive drive for team development. Wang and Wu (1996) completed a large scale study on team conflict and team climate and their effects on performance among 314 employees from 61 teams in 40 organizations. Among them, 37 teams were from the Chinese state-owned companies, 12 teams from joint ventures, and another 12 teams from private companies. Nearly one third were from manufacturing industries with the remaining two thirds coming from service industries. The results showed special dynamics in several areas of Chinese team management:

1. Group interaction. At the individual level, there were significant differences between Chinese State-owned companies and international joint-ventures on such factors as group interaction, conflict resolution, value orientation, and group belongingness. Specifically, employees in State-owned companies expressed a significantly higher degree of group interaction and a higher level of cooperative value orientation.

2. Conflict resolution. At the group level, there was a significant difference between Chinese State-owned companies and international joint-ventures on conflict resolution. Specifically, a more positive conflict management style was revealed in the State-owned systems, which we attributed to the cross-cultural settings.

3. Effects of team management. There were significant effects of team management on team climate, including group communication, innovations, perception of objectives, participation, and task accomplishment.

4. Structural and organizational influence. Under the State-owned system, both group interaction and value orientation had more general positive effects upon team climate while conflict resolution mainly affected communication and group belongingness. Under the joint venture system and the privately owned system, conflict resolution played an important role in determining team climate.

In another field study on the relationships between team management approaches and performance among 41 teams by Wang and Zhu (1996), the following managerial and structural implications were proposed:

1. Problem-solving approach. Compared with teams in State-owned companies, teams from international joint ventures tended to adopt a problem-solving approach, use conflict avoidance and less cooperative strategies, and be more serious in evaluation of subordinates’ performance.

2. Relationship between team management and performance. Team commitment and mutual support had no direct effects on team efficiency but influenced performance through an intervening variable (i.e., high involvement).

3. Cooperative vs. competitive strategy. A competitive strategy reduced members’ mutual support and team commitment whereas a cooperative strategy with opening discussion enhanced their cooperation and self-management.

In the recent years of economic reform and organizational change, team compatibility has become a more important factor in team management. Wang and Lu (1996) completed a series of experiments in defining and analyzing team compatibility. Three components of team compatibility were identified: active cooperation, communicative coordination, and information sharing. Active cooperation is characterized as group value orientation, group interests, and a group resource management style. Through active cooperation, team members work closely toward team objectives. Communicative coordination emphasizes team communication and joint working efforts. Under communicative coordination, team members are provided with specific directions and plans. Information sharing focuses upon comprehensive and multidirectional information exchange. It emphasizes key task information and integrated team objectives.

Human Resource Management

Human resource management in cross-cultural settings has also become a more active area. In a comparison of China and the Netherlands focusing on differences between industrial (manufacturing) enterprises and cultural values among 600 senior personnel managers and general managers of different firms, significant differences were revealed in the HRM practices such as career development, performance appraisal, and rewards which would be more sensitive to cultural variation than other practices. Whereas performance appraisal practices were more developed in the Netherlands, Chinese industrial enterprises featured more promotion opportunities for staff members. Practices such as training, selection, and recruitment were less affected by cultural variation. Also, respect for authority, rationality of procedures, and division of work were more dominant in the organizational culture of industrial Chinese companies. Although we should be careful in interpreting the differences found, these considerable differences between the two countries in rewards, performance appraisal, and career development in industrial enterprises are in line with theoretical differences on the national cultural level.

Cross-Cultural Leadership and Managerial Team Compatibility

In general, several I-O psychological strategies could facilitate a comprehensive development of leadership competencies for managers from both Chinese State-owned enterprises and international joint ventures in China. The key to developing cross-cultural leadership teams is to achieve a high level of team compatibility. In recent research on Chinese work values, leadership styles, and team management, Wang (1998) showed that team compatibility could be differentiated into four levels:

1. Style compatibility is built on a high level of mutually adaptive leadership styles and cultural awareness in the partnership, team readiness for interaction, and task supportiveness for team objectives. This level of team compatibility is an interpersonal-orientation in a cross-cultural management setting.

2. Competency compatibility focuses on cross-cultural leadership competence. It is reached through team network building, development and utilization of competence, and group information sharing. This level of team compatibility is a collectivist competency-orientation based on style compatibility.

3. Commitment compatibility emphasizes mutual involvement in the team goals and long-term organizational objectives. It is accomplished by goal involvement, team attachment, and career development. This level of team compatibility is a goal-orientation based on competency compatibility.

4. Performance compatibility emphasizes business performance and competitive advantage. It is achieved through cultural adaptability, team accountability, and organizational capability. This level of team compatibility is a strategy-orientation based on commitment compatibility.

This team compatibility model of cross-cultural joint venture leadership provides a general framework for the development of cross-cultural leadership teams in China. Further research is underway to test other aspects of this model.