Global markets are characterized by economic agents in any given part of the world that are more affected by events elsewhere in the world than before; the growing integration of the national economies of the world to the degree that we may be witnessing the emergence and operations of a single worldwide economy. In such a setting the best companies are those that succeed at meeting desirable goals regardless of their nationalities. Boyacigiller & Adler (1991) reviewed a selected global business literature and concluded that the understanding of multinational organizations by then was inappropriate and parochial. The companies focused on markets in which they had interest. It is part of a strategy to design and implement a market structure in which it could influence prices.
International Human Resources Management
According to Jain, Lawler & Morishima (1998), after reviewing a series of articles dealing with international human resource management practices of MNCs in different countries, concluded that HRM policies and practices can impact developing countries more deeply than developed countries. Among this stream of literature, there exist arguments concerning the divergence vs. convergence approaches in MNC subsidiary HRM practices. To study the global practices of MNCs, one needs to look at the local subsidiary practices because the convergence vs. divergence dynamic is an on-going process at the local level (Geppert & Williams, 2006; Martin & Beaumont, 1998). Chen (2000) posited that for multinational corporations in China, problems exist regarding the local employees’ understanding and acceptance of MNC management styles as well as management understanding of employees’ cultural assumptions; thus, mutual cultural and organizational learning is imperative for both management and the local employees.
Culture has a significant influence on people’s choice of communication patterns such as conflict management styles. For example, Ting-Toomey (1991) and her colleagues have found that Americans tend to use dominating style while Chinese tend to use avoiding and obliging styles. Since then, a number of scholars have conducted studies on the Chinese’s conflict management styles in multinational organizations (e.g., Chen, Tjosvold, & Fang, 2005; Knutson, Hwang, & Deng, 2000; Liu &Chen, 2000; Peng, He & Zhu, 2000; Wang, Jing, & Klossek, 2007; Yuan, 2010), and found that the Chinese tend to be non-confrontational in conflict situations. They prefer using mediation or third party intervention in conflict management (Deng & Xu, 2014; Jia, 2002). Scholars have also identified harmony as a cardinal value in Chinese conflict resolution (Chen & Starosta, 1997; Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991; Knutson et al., 2000).