Boosted by the Belt and Road initiative, regional economic cooperation is growing fast; meanwhile, due to the unclear cross-cultural content of expatriate managers, the effectiveness of international leadership development training programs has been minimal, and the failure of expatriates has caused huge losses to multinational corporations. It has become an urgent issue to effectively address the contradictions and tensions brought about by cultural differences in the context of cross-cultural management. The paradoxical perspective is extensively viewed as an optimal approach to addressing cross-cultural conflicts and contradictions. However, the current research on paradoxical leadership behavior is primarily focused on ordinary people management and high-level CEOs, neglecting the in-depth exploration of the unique paradoxes and challenges confronted in the cross-cultural management field. Despite some studies on cross-cultural leadership conducted abroad, these investigations primarily revolve around the developed world, with the research objects primarily comprising expatriate managers from developed countries. In contrast, research and application of the leadership behaviors of Chinese expatriate managers remain relatively scarce. Considering China's overseas investment is primarily project-based, selecting the leader of China's overseas project team, i.e., the dispatched project manager, as the research object holds significant representativeness and universality. From the perspective of paradox, investigating the structural dimension and theoretical framework of the cross-cultural leadership of expatriated project managers undoubtedly marks a valuable breakthrough in exploring and developing cross-cultural leadership with Chinese local characteristics.
To further elucidate the structure of the cross-cultural paradoxical leadership behavior of Chinese expatriate project managers and explore its antecedents and influencing mechanisms, this study employs grounded theory, a widely recognized methodological approach to develop a corresponding theoretical model through the process of data collection, sorting, coding, and iterative refinement. The study records data by the software MindManager and uses triangulation employing elite interview to ensure the reliability and validity of the study. In detail, the primary data for this research is derived from semi-structured interviews with 20 Chinese expatriate managers. Of these, the interview data from 15 expatriate project managers is utilized for the development of the theoretical framework, while the interview data from an additional 5 international engineering project experts, possessing over 15 years of expatriate work experience and senior positions, is employed to validate the theoretical saturation. The findings indicate that cross-cultural paradoxical leadership is a type of effective leadership behavior employed to manage cross-cultural conflicts. This behavior is characterized by four dimensions: risk and opportunity, profit and value, normativity and flexibility, and local specificity and global universality. These dimensions encapsulate several principles from the philosophy of the mean, such as the holistic principle of "the golden mean"; the moderate principle of "going too far is as wrong as falling short; "the power and change principle and loss "of economic right profit"; the harmonious principle of " harmony in diversity".These conclusions provide a comprehensive understanding of the cross-cultural paradoxical leadership behavior of Chinese expatriate project managers, which lays a solid theoretical foundation for the future development of paradoxical leadership behavior measurement tools in cross-cultural management.
The primary innovation of this research is twofold. Firstly, it is the first to examine paradoxical leadership behavior across cultures from a structural perspective and differentiate the types of paradoxes within a cross-cultural context, employing four distinct dimensions. Consequently, it contributes to the advancement of paradoxical leadership theory within the field of cross-cultural management. Secondly, this study elucidates the formation and influence mechanisms of cross-cultural paradox leadership behavior, providing a theoretical foundation for Chinese enterprises engaged in the international engineering contracting market to select, train, and dispatch superior international engineering project managers. This enables them to more effectively identify paradoxes, foster a paradoxical mentality, and enhance paradox management skills in cross-cultural settings. Subsequent research is expected to conduct quantitative analysis on the formation and mechanism of action and verify the effectiveness of the theoretical framework model.
Xie Zhihui
,
Pang Huiwei
,
Niu Yulin
. Paradoxical Leader Behavior in Cross-Cultural Management Based on Grounded Theory: Connotative Structure and Theoretical Framework[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2024
, 41(21)
: 131
-141
.
DOI: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2023070639
[1] 中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室.共建“一带一路”:构建人类命运共同体的重大实践[N].人民日报,2023-10-11.
[2] 中华人民共和国商务部. 商务部召开例行新闻发布会[EB/OL].(2021-01-21)[2023-05-26]http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/xwfbh/20210121.shtml.
[3] PUTNAM L L, FAIRHURST G T, BANGHART S. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach [J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1): 65-171.
[4] WALDMAN D A, BOWEN D E. Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader [J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2016, 30(3): 316-327.
[5] 刘冰, 魏鑫, 蔡地, 等. 基于扎根理论的外派项目经理跨文化领导力结构维度研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2020,35(4): 109-122.
[6] ZHANG Y, WALDMAN D A, HAN Y-L, et al. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(2): 538-566.
[7] ZHANG Y, HAN Y-L. Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: antecedents and consequences [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2019, 155(1): 42-54.
[8] HOFSTEDE G. Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad [J]. Organizational Dynamics, 1980, 9(1): 42-63.
[9] LIN L, LI P P, ROELFSEMA H. The traditional Chinese philosophies in inter-cultural leadership: the case of Chinese expatriate managers in the Dutch context [J]. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2018, 25(2): 299-336.
[10] 朱永新. 管理心智:中国古代管理心理思想及其现代价值 [M]. 北京: 经济管理出版社, 2012.
[11] 杨中芳. 中国人的世界观:中庸实践思维初探 [M]. 台北: 远流书店, 2001.
[12] SMITH W K, LEWIS M W. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2): 381-403.
[13] 王甦. 孟子的中道思想 [J]. 孔子研究, 1990,5(2): 99-106.
[14] CHARMAZ K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006.
[15] NATOW R S. The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews [J]. Qualitative Research, 2020, 20(2): 160-173.
[16] THOMAS J P, WHITMAN D S, VISWESVARAN C. Employee proactivity in organizations: a comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs [J]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2010, 83(2): 275-300.
[17] O'CONNOR M K, NETTING F E, THOMAS M L. Grounded theory-managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight [J]. Qualitative Inquiry, 2008, 14(1): 28-45.
[18] RICHARD D M. A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups [J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56(4): 241-270.
[19] CHOI I, NISBETT R E. Cultural psychology of surprise: holistic theories and recognition of contradiction [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 79(6): 890-905.
[20] FIEDLER F E. The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process-sciencedirect [J]. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 11(1): 59-112.
[21] GRIFFIN M A, NEAL A, PARKER S K. A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(2): 327-347.
[22] DEGROOT T, KIKER D S, CROSS T C. A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership [J]. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, 2000, 17(4): 356-371.
[23] JANSEN J J P, KOSTOPOULOS K C, MIHALACHE O R, et al. A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: the contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2016, 53(6): 939-965.
[24] GANNON M J. Paradoxes of culture and globalization[M]. London: Sage Publications, Inc, 2007.
[25] TILLEY, JOHN J. Cultural relativism[J]. Human Rights Quarterly, 2000, 22(2): 501-547.
[26] HANGES P J, AIKEN J R, PARK J, et al. Cross-cultural leadership: leading around the world [J]. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2016, 8(1): 64-69.
[27] GERSTNER C R, DAY D V. Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes [J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 1994, 5(2): 121-134.
[28] 罗伯森. 全球化:社会理论和全球文化[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社, 2000.
[29] HOFSTEDE G. Culture′s consequences [M]. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.
[30] GUDYKUNST W B,YANG S M,NISHIDA T.A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory[J].Human Communication Research,1985, 11(3):407-454.
[31] HONG Y Y . A dynamic constructivist approach to culture: moving from describing culture to explaining culture [M]// ROBERT S, WYER C-Y C, YING-YI HONG. Understanding culture: theory, research, and application. New York: Psychology Press, 2009:3-23.
[32] KIM Y Y. Cross-cultural adaptation: an integrative theory[M]//WISEMAN R L. Intercultural communication theory. London: Sage Publications, Inc, 1995:170-193.
[33] GRAEN G B. In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project globe: a response viewed from the Third Culture Bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership [J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2006, 20(4): 95-101.
[34] VROOM V H, JAGO A G. The role of the situation in leadership [J]. American Psychologist, 2007, 62(1): 43-47.
[35] GELFAND M J, EREZ M, AYCAN Z. Cross-cultural organizational behavior [J]. Annual Reviews, 2007, 58(1): 479.
[36] OSLAND J, OSLAND A. Expatriate paradoxes and cultural involvement[J]. International Studies of Management & Organization, 2005, 35(4): 91-114.
[37] ELLINGSWORTH H W. A theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads[M]// KIM Y Y, GUDYKUNST W B. Theories in intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc, 1988: 259-279.
[38] VOLK S, WALDMAN D, BARNES C. A circadian theory of paradoxical leadership [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2023,48(4):611-638.
[39] 欧阳晨慧,朱永跃,过旻钰.双元领导与“建言悖论”:一项跨层次研究[J].管理评论,2022,34(8):229-242.
WeChat Service Account
WeChat Official Account
WeCom Customer Service