导　　师： 周杏英

学科专业： 050211

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 广东外语外贸大学

摘　　要： 本文以G.Hofstede的权力距离维度和M.A.Rahim与T.V.Bonoma的五种冲突处理方式为理论框架,比较中美文化的冲突处理方式,以提高人们对文化倾向与冲突处理方式之关系的认识。 作者选了三组受试/(每组30人/)做实验.。通过向/(1/)在中美或美国跨国公司工作的中国人,/(2/)在美国本土工作的美国人以及/(3/)在国有企业或私营企业工作的中国人分发问卷收集原始材料。本研究采用的统计方法为单项方差分析,并对五种冲突处理方式采用重复测试。 从90份有效问卷的分析研究中得出:中美的权力距离倾向没有显著性差异。因此,权力距离对冲突处理方式的选择亦没有显著性的影响。然而,中国人和美国人在冲突管理方式上却表现出了不同。比如,美国人最喜欢采用整合的方法而在国企和私企工作的中国人却最倾向于回避冲突。美国人最不喜欢采用独断的方式,而中国人却更倾向于选择独断。此外,在中美合资企业或在美跨国企业工作的中国人在处理冲突时却表现出与美国人类似的倾向。这些研究结果与前人的研究很一致。 结论部分提出了“文化回归”现象来解释以上结果。此外,本研究建议在做此类跨文化研究时,应考虑到其它民族文化的因素,如,交流方式,自我意识,和非民族文化的因素,如企业文化以及受试的职位等。 本研究结果将对跨文化交际的研究有借鉴意义,并为来华投资的跨国公司在跨国文化管理方面提供有价值的建议。 This study on conflict management styles in US-Chinese cross-cultural environment was designed to improve our understanding of the relationship between cultural orientations and conflict resolution styles through a probability survey of 90 subjects in three groups, including Chinese working in Sino-American or solely American companies, Americans working in merely local American environment and Chinese working in local Chinese companies or state-owned enterprises.Built upon the theory of Hofstede's renowned cultural dimension of power distance as well as Rahim's conflict management model of five conflict resolution styles, the current study explores and compares the patterns in the relationship between cultural orientations and conflict resolution styles across culturally different groups.Previous researches have been thoroughly reviewed and carefully drawn upon, on the basis of which three hypotheses were developed to go in line with the research questions: How does power distance tendency of one culture influence its preference for certain conflict resolution tactics by the Chinese and the Americans, and What conflict management styles are preferred by members from different culture groups: the Chinese and the Americans.The study was carried out through the administration and analysis of two questionnaires to the 90 subjects. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures on five conflict resolution styles was the statistic method employed.Results showed that beyond initial expectation, power distance orientation does not work as an efficient predictor on choosing different conflict styles. That is, the three groups did not present significant difference in their power distance tendency. The encouraging results proved the expectation that the Chinese and the Americans present different preference for conflict styles. For example, the Americans prefer integrating style most while the Chinese working in local companies or state-owned enterprises resort to avoiding more often than the other two groups. Besides, Chinese working in Sino-American or solely American companies did manifest similar preference for conflict styles with the Americans, as previously presumed. These results went in line with previous studies; however, on the other hand, others really deviated from their expected styles in handling conflicts. It was found that the American subjects were reported to resort to dominating style the least across the three groups while the Chinese working in local companies seemed to utilize dominating more often than the other two groups.The findings suggested the phenomenon of 'culture regression' to account for the results obtained. They also highlighted the importance of taking into account other national and non-national factors such as communicating styles, self-construal, organizational cultures and organizational positions of the subjects.The current study will provide guidance to those who explore cross-cultural communication issues as well as to those who are interested in international HR management and training.

关 键 词： 文化 冲突 冲突处理方式 权力距离 中国人 美国人

分 类 号： [F276.7]

领　　域： [经济管理] [经济管理]