Dissertation on Cultural Conflict in Sino-Indian Employment

When a company develops internationally in today’s global economy, it frequently carries management techniques deeply ingrained in its national culture and management theory. According to studies, these management methods often do not perform well in foreign locales and may even jeopardise an organisation’s efficacy and production at new locations.

In recent years, many Chinese corporations have invested in India, and many Indian enterprises have also operated in China. Cross-cultural differences between the two countries, on the other hand, could be a stumbling block to effectively operating the organisation in the host country.

This study aims to understand better Sino-Indian culture-related ideas that lead to work-family conflict in a Sino-Indian cross-cultural work context using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and other cultural measurements.

The qualitative technique was employed in this study, with in-depth face-to-face interviews and follow-up forms given to local Indian employees in a Chinese company in India and local Chinese employees in an Indian company in China.

In each company, fifteen people responded. Low to mid-level management made up the majority of the respondents. The responses to the interviews were examined qualitatively using codes and themes. The findings show disparities between employees’ cultural values and the company’s culture, resulting in work-family conflict in their lives.

Individualism/collectivism, power distance, humane orientation, and specificity/diffusion, according to this study, are cultural features of a country that cause a difference in an employee’s work values. In a cross-cultural situation, these fundamental disparities in an employee’s work ethic and the management of a foreign organisation lead to work-family conflict.

This research supports the fact that instead of following long-established ways of managing local workforces in a foreign country, the organisations can benefit from adjusting to local, national culture and work values attached to that country.

Reference:

1. Indians Trespass, Peiping Charges,” NYT, September 10, 1959, 1. 69 Lüthi, Sino-Soviet Split, 276-277. 70 “Indian White Paper Details China Rift,” NYT, September 8, 1959, 1
2. “Nehru’s Policies Assailed in India,” NYT, September 14, 1959, 3.
3. For his immediate oral replies, see: “Peiping Replies to India,” NYT, September 10, 1959, 34. “Nehru again asks peace with China,” NYT, September 11, 1959, 3. For the letter of October 4, 1959, see: “Nehru says China must withdraw,” NYT, October 5, 1959, 5.
4. “Text of Chou’s Note to Nehru on Indian-Chinese Border Dispute,” NYT, October 10, 1959, 16. 74 “Nehru Answers Chou,” NYT, November 17, 1959, 34