A PATOP Study of Philosophy and Business Management: Western vs. Chinese Business Structures in Taiwan

Relationship.

One of the findings shows "continuous relationship" is of paramount importance no matter where is in Chinese or Western setting with Chinese workers. This finding is supported by Chang (2008), Ellis (2009), Kim and Hubbard (2007), Tu (1985), Mote (1989), Yau (1994), Wu and Yong (1998), and Whiteley (2001). As the Chinese worldview depicted in this study, "family circle" is a basis where can be extended to co-workers and managers. From the observation, even within one Chinese workgroup, different family circles can be formed based on whether they have the same characteristics of background, work relationship, value concept, the image on each other, religion, education, and other shared experience. In their family circles, resources and information are collectively shared.

In support of this proposition, based on case A, apparently, middle manager is not a family member of the executive vice president and therefore obtains fewer resources than other in-group members. Furthermore, case B shows branch manager grants favorable appraisal results to the person having poor performance simply because he is a member of the family circle. In spite of arguing and debating with management, workers tend to protect the long-term relationship with harmony and tolerate such situations by using passive and informal communication. Furthermore, interestingly, this study finds that executive vice president in case A always gives favors to in-group members, however, she is close-minded to those in an outside family by strictly enforcing scientific management without considering human being is emotional and autonomous. Again, that supports the importance of "relationship".

Because of this relationship-oriented interaction, "trust" is the key. Chinese people value "trust" based on relationships. With such a "trust" relationship, it is expected that there will be reciprocity with one favor repaid by another. Moreover, this trust relationship can be referred to as "connection" (Lockett, 1988; Ping & Yan, 2013) or "guanxi" (Chi & Seock-Jin, 2017) that is critical to social life at work. The use of guanxi to obtain wanted resources is endemic within the Chinese structure. And the cultivation of guanxi is cited as the reason why those members within the family circle are so successful, reflecting the prevalence of relationship-oriented as opposed to a performance-oriented evaluation in the Chinese setting (Lee & Anderson, 2007; Luo & Yeh, 2012). This is consistent with the finding in case B. In a sense, a long-term social relationship is emphasized.

Collectivism.

Following the concept of "family circle", Chinese people work collectively. Within the family circle, members place group interest above self-interest and will pursue group goals (Li & Fu, 2000; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Rhee et al., 2017). However, through the findings, it is also seen that there have conflicts between different family circles when competition for a limited resource. Therefore, in terms of "in-group", it is reflected that there has a phenomenon that "work collectively in the group" but "compete with the outside group as an individual way". Although much study has already differentiated values between individual-oriented and collective-oriented frameworks, a question of to what degree should people pursue their self-interest rather than contributing to the welfare of the larger in-group will be asked by both Western and Chinese managers (Rhee et al., 2017). The answer may be varied depending on how important their philosophy values individualism and collectivism respectively in the social system (Oyserman & Lee, 2008).

Power distance and face.

"Face" is important in social interaction. This can be seen in case C, where the president respects the age because of not letting him feel "loss of face". In support of this finding, the research reflects that Chinese philosophical values such as face are closely related to the creation and development of business networks (Wu & Yong, 1998). Recent research indicates that loss of face is an important element in interpersonal relations in Chinese organizations (Su, Sirgy & Littlefield, 2003). Consequently, the loss of face occurs when group expectations are not met. Losing "face" will lead to dire social consequences in Chinese society.

Conclusions

1. In Chinese structure or even within the Western structure with Chinese members, the Chinese character is inherently embedded in Chinese managers and workers. Hierarchy, guanxi, and face are central elements to cultivate socialization in the Chinese workgroup. The tradition of these Chinese characteristics provides an ordered collectivity that is harmonious. The extended family is important in Chinese society. Within the family, the resource can be shared, and group goals can be achieved. In the meantime, it is seen that the authority and decisions of managers cannot be questioned. As of result, the dogmatism of Chinese managers sometimes hinders business innovation and restricts growth in terms of size and globalization

2. The scientific principles used by Western structures are contributed to enhance their productivity and encourage workers by economic reward. Promotion and performance are achieved by the element of competition. It values that the human is controllable as long as the economic reward is given. Within the Western structure, it might have high efficiency in terms of human resources, operation flow, sales process, and even decision making. That systematic structure is moving mechanically and shows little acceptance of the affective needs of employees. It somehow also ignores the basic nature of a harmonious environment, reciprocity, and long-term relationship.

3. Synthesis of Western and Chinese values applies to both business and people. Specifically, adopting scientific management based on considerate Chinese characteristics of respecting for the age, maintaining "face" in the public, and emphasizing long-term social relationships (even between family circles) is the key to successfully implementing that emerged rule. Ideally, reasonable Western performance competition with more compassion within the Chinese structure may be attractive to workers and gain loyalty. Practically, even within a foreign-held company, to construct a harmonious and efficient workplace, the key to the effective business operation is that managers need to adjust their Chinese characters toward more open-minded and turn into high receptivity of different ways of doing business through respecting for each other according to the rank and reciprocity. The effectiveness of managers' adjustment may be varied according to whether their mind is much inherently rooted in traditional Chinese characteristics, whether their belief in human nature is innately good or whether their education or training has Western influence.

The scientific novelty. The key contribution of this study is when alignment in the following emerged model is practically realized, workers may follow instructions and would be treated as joint partners in terms of "take ownership" inside the business organizations. Each of the workers is essential and is cared for by each other within the structure. Family-centered becomes the basis of shareholder value.

The significance of the study. The significant implication of the above- mentioned concluding remarks is the emerged PATOP model shown in Figure 3. The model indicates an ideal work environment where the Western approach is applicable to the Chinese structure in Taiwan. For the levels of Philosophy and Assumption, it indicates that workers are somewhat respectfully repressible. It creates an environment with conformity. In that environment, every member respects each other. Under that respectful situation, workers can tolerate arguments and debate on daily routines works and dominant sales demand from managers. It will also establish a learning environment where workers can share feelings and expectations with mid-level managers and the top management. The communication is efficiently smooth and educated.

Figure 3. Emergent ideal PATOP for the Chinese structure with Western approach Source: own development

Moreover, workers like to form a group where they share their own personal feeling about expectations and value concepts for the job assigned. A variety of job functions will be erected for works so as to let them perform pioneering spirit and achieve a goal. In a group, social interaction is very critical to evaluate inter-person skills and be accepted by the counter-group. The faction may exist if there have arguments both in job and personal life concepts. The goal of human work can be achieved by monetary rewards and back-end support with recognition. Compensation programs should be flexible and various for positive competition. And workers are characterized as owning a pioneering spirit when there have new assignments they like to try. They can forges ever onward to obtain an optimum economic contribution as long as they are admired and respected between parties. The approach taken here needs a combined way of Chinese value and Western philosophical thinking as well as adds Taiwanese adventure spirit into the model.

As for the levels of theory of organizing and practice, it indicates that workers are willing to be dominated by the authorization only when they are respected, which means "give them face" and "don't humiliate them in the public". As long as this management concept is erected, organizational learning and motivation to share experiences can be exercised effectively with mutual benefits under a scientific management system. In the structure, the supervision is open. Each member has equal status. Function title is the only differentiation.

In that sense, all workers should work as a group. Brainstorming with related functions of workers is performed while making decisions. The expectation and ideas from the workers are emphasized and translated by their direct managers to the Top. And through two-way communication, considering all aspects of task and business daily issues effectively can solve the problem.

The social interaction between managers and workers is essential to improve a status relationship. The information and comments will be shared through an informal and casual meeting. In the system, since workers will receive respect on the job or daily life, stringent control and performance-tracking strategy will be accepted to push them to achieve a goal. A compensation plan will be established based on both the financial plan and workers' expectations. To enhance innovation, a job transfer system will be constructed for pursuing high productivity. In the process, managers and workers will do performance evaluations mutually. Managers understand issues through coaching as well as workers contribute feedbacks to managers.

Prospects for further research. However, it should be noted that there will be drift as this emerged PATOP model is used in the Chinese structure with the Western approach. This addresses further research issues "what an acceptable time for drift would be", given the organization's ability to manage change, whether a secure commitment to decisions and how well communicate with those managers for implementations.

References

1. Alton, J. (1989). Wa, Guanxi, and Inhwa: Managerial Principles in Japan, China and Korea. Business Horizon, 32 (2), 26-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007- 6813(89)80007-2.

2. Ames, R. T. (2017). Receiving a Confucian Conception of Human Nature: A Challenge to the Ideology of Individualism. Acta Koreana, 20 (1), 9-27, doi: https://doi.org/10.18399/acta.2017.20.L001

3. Bialas, S. (2009). Power Distance as a Determinant of Relations between Managers and Employees in the Enterprises with Foreign Capital. Journal of Intercultural Management, 1(2), 105-115.

4. Bond, M. H. (1991). Chinese Values and Health: A Culture-level Examination. Psychology and Health, 5(2), 137-152, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08870449108400417.

5. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1986). The Social Psychology of Chinese People'. The Psychology of the Chinese People (M. H. Bond, Ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 213-266.

6. Brake, T., Walker, D., & Walker, T. (1995). Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross Cultural Success. New York: Irwin.

7. Chang, Y. Y. (2008). Cultural "Faces" of Interpersonal Communication in the U.S. and China. Intercultural Communication Study, 17 (1), 299-313.

8. Chang, P. T. C. (2017). China's Secular Ruler's Pragmatic Re-appropriation of Traditional Chinese Sacred Resources: A Critical Assessment. International Journal of China Studies, 8 (1), 25-43.

9. Chi, Z., & Seock-Jin, H. (2017). Guanxi Culture: How it Affects the Business Model of Chinese Firms. The China Business Model: Originality and Limits. Elsevier Project: Transaction Cost, 19-40, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0-08-100750-1.00002-4.

10. Chin, S. H., Poon, P. W. T., & Huang, K. L. (2003). Managing the Effectiveness of Library Consortium: A Core Value Perspective on Taiwan e-Book Net. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29 (5), 304-315, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0099-1333(03)00070-3.

11. Coetzer, A., Inma C., Poisat, P., Redmond, J., & Standing, C. (2018). Job Embeddedness and Employee Enactment of Innovation-related Work Behaviours. International Journal of Manpower, 39 (2), 222-239, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJM-04-2016-0095.

12. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California: Sage Publications.

13. Crist, E., & Kopnina, H. (2014). Unsettling Anthropocentrism. Dialectical Anthropology, 38 (4), 387-396, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-014- 9362-1.

14. Earley, P. C. (1993). East Meets West meets Mideast: Further Explosions of Collectivistic and Individualistic Work Group. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2), 319-340.

15. Ellis, R. (2009). Understanding Interpersonal Relationships in the Chinese Context. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 20, 23-37.

16. Fairbank, J. K. (1966). How to Deal with the Chinese Revolution. The New York Review of Books, 6 (12), 5-10.

17. Fan, X. (1995). The Chinese Cultural System: Implication for Cross-cultural Management. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 60 (1), 14-22.

18. Farh, J., & Cheng, B. (2000). A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations. Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context (J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon, Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 84-127, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511590_5.

19. Farh, J., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-Level Cultural Values as Moderators of Perceived Organizational Support-Employee Outcome Relationships in China: Comparing the Effects of Power Distance and Traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 715-729, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159880.

20. Ferraro, G. P. (2010) The Cultural Dimension of International Business, 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

21. Feuchtwang, S. (2016). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. New York: Routledge.

22. Filieri, R., Chen, W., & Lal Dey, B. (2017). The Importance of Enhancing, Maintaining and Saving Face in Smartphone Repurchase Intentions of Chinese Early Adopters. Information Technology & People, 30 (3), 629-652, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2015-0230.

23. Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 16 (7), 16-21, doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016007016.

24. Fulk, H. K., Bell, R. L., & Bodie, N. (2011). Team Management by Objectives: Enhancing Developing Teams' Performance. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12 (3), 17-26.

25. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do Inquiry Paradigms Imply Inquiry Methodologies? Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education (D. M. Fetterman, Ed.). New York: Praeger, 89-115.

26. Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the Relationship between Individualism-Collectivism and Team Performance through an Integration of Social Identity Theory and the Social Relations Model. Human Relations, (59)12, 1603-1632, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706073193.

27. Hameed, S., El-Kafafi, S., & Waretini-Karena, R. (2019). Handbook of Research on Indigenous Knowledge andBi-Culturalism in a Global Context. Hershey: IGI Global.

28. Hanson, K. O., & Rothlin, S. (2010). Taking Your Code to China. Journal of International Business Ethics, 3 (1), 69-80, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978- 3-642-36022-0_6.

29. Hemmat, A. (2016). The Concept of the Manifestation of God in Chinese Symbolism: An Intercivilizational Hermeneutic Study. The Journal of Baha'i Studies, 26 (1/2), 55-89, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.31581/JBS- 26.12.4(2016).

30. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. California: Sage Publications. (Series: Cross Cultural Research and Methodology; Vol. 5).

31. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

32. Hofstede, G, Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

33. Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese Patterns of Socialization: a Critical Review. The Psychology of The Chinese People (M. H. Bond, Ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1-37.

34. Hollebeek, L. D. (2018). Individual-level Cultural Consumer Engagement Styles. International Marketing Review, 35 (1), 42-71, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR- 07-2016-0140.

35. Hu, A. (2016). Ancestor Worship in Contemporary China: An Empirical Investigation. China Review, 16 (1), 169-186.

36. Hu, M., Ma, Z., Jiao, S., Chen, X., Lv, X., & Zhan, Z. (2017). The Sustainable Personality in Entrepreneurship: The Relationship between Big Six Personality, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intention in the Chinese Context. Sustainability, 9 (9), 1649, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su9091649.

37. Huang, L., Lu, M., & Wong, B. K. (2003). The Impact of Power Distance on Email Acceptance: Evidence from the PRC. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44 (1), 93-101.

38. Hwang, H. K. (2012). Guanxi and Organizational Behaviors in Chinese Society. Foundations of Chinese Psychology. International and Cultural Psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Springer, 297-326, doi: https://doi.org/:10.1007/978-1- 4614-1439-1 11.

39. Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations. New York: Springer.

40. Hwang, K. K. (2016). The structure of Confucian Ethics and Morality. Psychology of Morality: New Research (M. Fuller, Ed.). New York: Nova Science Publishers, 19-59.

41. Hwang, K-K., Shiah, Y-J., & Yit, K-T. (2017). Editorial: Eastern Philosophies and Psychology: Towards Psychology of Self-Cultivation. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1083, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01083.

42. Jacobs, L., Goupei, G., & Herbig, P. (1995). Confucian Roots in China: A Force for Today's Business. Management Decision, 33 (10), 19-32, doi: https:// doi.org/10.1108/00251749510100221.

43. Kim, K. (2017). Confucianism and Modernization in East Asia: Critical Reflections. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

44. Kim, M., & Hubbard, A. S. E. (2007). Intercultural Communication in the Global Village: How to Understand "the Other". Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36 (3), 223-35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17475750701737165.

45. Kim, S. S. (2019). The Effect of Social Contexts and Formation of Individualism- Collectivism Orientation on Knowledge Sharing Intention: the Case of Workers in Korea. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24 (2), 196-215, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0284.

46. Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F. Y., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese Conflict Preferences and Negotiating Behavior: Cultural and Psychological Influence. Organizational Studies, 12 (3), 356-386, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 017084069101200302.

47. Koller, J. M. (2016). Asian Philosophies, 6th ed. London; New York: Routledge.

48. Kubatova, J. (2012). The Influence of National Culture on Knowledge Management in China Managerial Implications for Central European Countries. Central European Business Review, 1 (1), 20-26, doi: https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.4.

49. Kuo, C. (2013). e-Religion Relations in Taiwan: From Statism and Separatism to Checks and Balances. Issues and Studies, 49 (1), 1-38, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.7033/ISE.201303_49(1).0001.

50. Latane, B., Williams, K. D., & Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many Things Make the Light Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (6), 822-832, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822.

51. Lee, D. Y., & Dawes, P. L. (2005). Guanxi, Trust, and Long-Term Orientation in Chinese Business Markets. Journal of International Marketing, 13 (2), 28-56, doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.13.2.28.64860.

52. Lee, E. Y., & Anderson, A. R. (2007). The Role of Guanxi in Chinese Entrepreneurship. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 3(3), 38-51.

53. Li, J., Lam, K., & Fu, P. P. (2000). Family-Oriented Collectivism, Collectivism and Its Effect on Firm Performance: a Comparison between Overseas China and Foreign Firms in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(4), 364-379, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028923.

54. Leong, S. (2006). Managing in Chinese Culture: Cross-Cultural Interaction and Co-creation in Australian Invested Enterprises (AIEs). Doctoral Dissertation. Perth: School of Business, Curtin University of Technology.

55. Lin, L., Ho, Y., & Lin, W. E. (2013). Confucian and Taoist Work Values: An Exploratory Study of the Chinese Transformational Leadership Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (1), 91-103, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551 -012-1284-8.

56. Lin, L., & Ho, Y. (2010). Guanxi and OCB: The Chinese Cases. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (2), 285-298, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 010-0465-6.

57. Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (1987). Proposals that work: A guide for Planning Dissertation and Grant Proposals, 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications.

58. Lockett, M. (1988). Culture and Problems of Chinese Management. Organization Studies, 9 (4), 475-496, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900402.

59. Loiacono, E. T., & Lin, H. (2005). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Website Customers. Journal ofInternational Information Management, (14) 1, 53-69.

60. Luo, J., & Yeh, Y. (2012). Neither Collectivism nor Individualism: Trust in the Chinese Guanxi Circle. Journal of Trust Research, 2 (1), 53-70, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21515581.2012.660355.

61. Louth, J. (2011). From Newton to Newtonianism: Reductionism and The Development Of The Social Sciences. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 13 (4), 63-83.

62. McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. California: Sage Publications. (Series: Qualitative Research Methods; Vol. 13), doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781412986229.

63. Milton, C. (1981). Human Behaviour in Organizations-Three Levels of Behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall.

64. Mote, F. W (1989). Intellectual Foundations of China, 2nd ed. New York: Random.

65. Needham, J. (2004). Science and Civilization in China (K. G. Robinson, Ed.). (Vol. 7, Part. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does Culture Influence What and How We Think? Effects of Priming Individualism and Collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (2), 311-342, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311.

67. Peppas, S. (2002). Attitudes toward Business Ethics: Where East doesn't Meet West. Cross Cultural Management, 9 (4), 42-59, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1108/13527600210797488/.

68. Petrakis, P. E. (2011). Cultural Background and Economic Development Indicators: European South Vs. European North. Modern Economy, 2 (3), 324-334, doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2011.23035.

69. Ping, H., & Yan, T. (2013). The Comparison of Chinese and American Interpersonal Relationships. International Academic Workshop on Social Science. Atlantis Press. (Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems Research), 1118-1120, doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/iaw-sc.2013.258.

70. Qi, X. (2011). Face: a Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology. Journal of Sociology, 47 (3), 279-295, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311407692.

71. Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. (2010). Doing Business in China and Performance: a Review of Evidence. Chinese Management Studies, 4 (1), 37-56, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141011032990.

72. Ralston, D. A., & Gustafson, D. J. (1993). Differences in Managerial Values: A Study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC Managers. Journal of International Business Study, 24 (2), 249-377, doi: https://doi.org/0.1057/palgrave jibs.8490232.

73. Ravishankar, M. N. (2015). The Realignment of Offshoring Frame Disputes (OFD): An Ethnographic Cultural Analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (3), 234-246, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.5.

74. Rhee, J., Zhao, X., Jun, I., & Kim, C. (2017). Effects of Collectivism on Chinese Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Guanxi as Moderator. Social Behaviour and Personality, 45 (7), 1127-1142, doi: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6128.

75. Rhodes, J, Lok, P., Yang, S., & Xia, Y. (2011). The Effects of Organizational Intangible Factors on Successful Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Implementation and Organizational Performance: A China Experience. Asian Business & Management, 10 (2), 287-317, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1057/abm.2011.2.

76. Roepke, R., Agarwal, R., & Ferratt, T. W. (2000). Aligning the IT Human Resource with Business Vision: The Leadership Initiative at 3M. MIS Quarterly, 24 (2), 327-353, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3250941.

77. Saee, J. (Ed.). (2011). China and Global Economy in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.

78. Sangren, P. S. (2012). Fate, Agency, and the Economy of Desire in Chinese Ritual and Society. Social Analysis, 56 (2), 117-135, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3167/sa.2012.560209.

79. Schaberg, D. (2005). A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.

80. Sivin, N. (1966). Chinese Conceptions of Time. The Earlham Review, 1, 83-92.

81. Silverman, D. (2000). Theory in Qualitative Research. London: Thousand Oaks; California: Sage Publications.

82. Steenkamp, J., & Geyskens, I. (2012). Transaction Cost Economics and the Roles of National Culture: a Test of Hypotheses based on Inglehart and Hofstede. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (2), 252-270, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-011-0266-1.

83. Su, C., Sirgy, M., & Littlefield, J. E. (2003). Is Guanxi Orientation Bad, Ethically Speaking? A Study of Chinese Enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (4), 303-312, doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023696619286.

84. Tamas, R. (1991). The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our Worldview. New York: Harmony Books.

85. Taylor, F. W. (1991). Scientific Management. New York: Greenwood Press.

86. Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. F. (2001). Effects of Influence Tactics and Social Contexts in Conflict: An Experiment on Relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12 (3), 239-258, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022857.

87. Tjosvold, D., Sun, H. F., & Wan, P. (2005). Effects of Openness, Problem Solving, and Blaming on Learning: An Experiment in China. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (6), 629-644, doi: https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP. 145.6.629-644.

88. Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism v. Individualism: A Reconceptualisation of a Basic Concept in Cross-cultural Social Psychology'. Cross-cultural Studies of Personality, Attitude, and Cognition, (G. K. Verma, & C. Bagley, Eds.). New York: St. Martin's Press, 60-95, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1-349-08120-2_3.

89. Triandis, H. C. (2014). Universal Truths: Can Universally Held Cultural Values Inform the Modern Corporation? Cross Cultural Management, 21(3), 345-356, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-12-2013-0186.

90. Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Reading the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

91. Tu, W. M. (1985). Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York.

92. Wang, Y. (2011). Mission-Driven Organizations in Japan: Management Philosophy and Individual Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 (1), 111-126, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0712-x.

93. Whiteley, A. (2001). PATOP for Leaders and Managers: The Decision Making Activity. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

94. Whiteley, A., Cheung, S., & Zhang, S. Q. (2000). Ideology in Context. Human Resource Strategies in China. Singapore: World Scientific, 25-42.

95. Whiteley, A., Cheung, S., & Zhang, S. Q. (2000). Human Resource Strategies in China. Singapore: World Scientific Publishin, doi: https://doi.org/10. 1142/4073.

96. Whiteley, A., & McCabe, M. (2002). Sustainable Change. A Case on the Waterfront. Australia: Vineyard Publishing, 63-72.

97. Wilson, M., & Dalton, M. (1996, May). Selecting, Developing and Supporting Expatriate Managers [Unpublished paper].

98. Wong, Y. L. (1998). Li and Change. The Paideia Archive: Proceedings of Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, 24. Boston: American Organizing Committee, Boston University, 74-79, doi: https://doi.org/10.5840/wcp20-paideia199824422.

99. Wu, W. P, & Yong, L. (1998). Transaction Cost, Cultural Values and Chinese Business Networks: the Implication and Recommendations for Foreign Firms Doing Business in China. Doing Business with China (J. Reuvid, & L. Yoing, Eds.). London: Kogan Pages, 179-189.

100. Yang, K.-S. (1986). Chinese Personality and Its Change. The Psychology of The Chinese People (M. H. Bond, Ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 107-170.

101. Yau, H. M. (1994). Consumer Behaviour in China: Customer Satisfaction and Cultural Values. London: Routledge.

102. Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese Culture Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing, 22 (5), 44-57, doi: https:// doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005285.

103. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

104. Zamet, M. J., & Buvarnick, M. E. (1986). Employee Relations for Multinational Companies in China. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21(1), 13-9.

105. Zhang, Q. (2016). Humanity or Benevolence? The Interpretation of Confucian Ren and Its Modern Implications. Human Dignity in Classical Chinese Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 53-72, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1057/978-1-349-70920-5_3.

106. Zhao, L., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2018). Importance of Guanxi in Chinese Apparel New Venture Success: a Mixed-method Approach. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8 (13), 21-32, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40497-018-0099-1.

107. Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (1994). The Quantum Society: Mind, Physics and a New Vision. New York: W. Morrow.

Размещено на Allbest.ru