Identifying cultural difference in R&D project for performance improvement: A field study

    S. X. Zeng Info
    X. M. Xie Info
    C. M. Tam Info
    P. M. Sun Info
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.61-70

Abstract

In recent years, some large multinational companies have begun moving their R&D centers to China. As a result, cross‐cultural management for R&D projects becomes challenging due to the cultural diversity. Based on the technique of relative importance index (RII), this study examines the gaps between the Chinese and Western cultures in R&D projects for multinational firms. The findings show there is a significant difference between Chinese and Western cultures. The top five factors transformed into self‐reflection statements include: 1) You could accept your manager criticizing your mistake in public; 2) You avoid any conflict with your manager; 3) Objective of the project is the target for the whole project group; 4) You do not mind the methods for your performance evaluation; and 5) You pay greater attention to improve “relationship” among colleagues. Overall, these findings reveal managerial implications for R&D managers that the need to recognize and manage cultural difference is an important component in cross‐cultural project management.

First Publish Online: 14 Oct 2010

Keywords:

cultural difference, R&D project, project management

How to Cite

Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., Tam, C. M., & Sun, P. M. (2009). Identifying cultural difference in R&D project for performance improvement: A field study. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.61-70

Share

Published in Issue
March 31, 2009
Abstract Views
815

View article in other formats

CrossMark check

CrossMark logo

Published

2009-03-31

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., Tam, C. M., & Sun, P. M. (2009). Identifying cultural difference in R&D project for performance improvement: A field study. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.61-70

Share