With the increasing attention paid to research on organizational territoriality in recent years, scholars have been seeking to explore its antecedents as well as the consequences, in order to contribute to the theory of territoriality. However, the research on organizational territoriality should consider cultural differences when we study it in a certain cultural backdrop(e.g., Chinese), that differs from the western culture where the theory was born. Although culture has been used to determine and explain preferences in modes of conduct in individuals and collectivities, it remains a major determinant of individuals' psychology, attitude, and behavior. As a result, the definition and effects of organizational territoriality may vary as a function of culture. In addition, territorial behavior is a social construct, whose meaning lies in social interactions among members that may be easily influenced by culture. The social nature of territoriality indicates that it may be sensitive to cultural differences. Accordingly, the current study aims to explore how the cultural differences can shape organizational territoriality. In particular, this study hinges on the influences of individualism-collectivism on organizational territoriality from a cross-cultural perspective. This is because individualism-collectivism has been demonstrated as the most significant factor reflecting cultural differences between the west and the rest of the world. Besides, it also captures the ways individuals define the relationship between the self and the collective thereby showcasing the boundaries between the self and other members in social interactions. Firstly, we answer the question: why should we consider the differences between individualism and collectivism in studying organizational territoriality? We argue that the ways that individuals define the self will affect the ways they define the boundaries of their territories. Secondly, based on the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism, we compare the territoriality under individualistic culture with that under collectivistic culture. We posit that, compared with individuals under individualistic culture, employees in collectivistic culture are more likely to display identity-oriented marks of a territoriality and anticipatory defense, and to exhibit less reactionary defense but the same level of control-oriented territorial mark. Thirdly, in order to deepen our understanding of organizational territoriality in Chinese collectivistic context, we explore the effects ofquanzi,renqing(favor), face and the trait of tolerance on organizational territoriality. We argue that individuals will display less territoriality toward members withinquanzi than those outsidequanzi, and display more territoriality when they are sensitive to face lose. Besides, individuals who care aboutrenqing and/or are high on tolerance will be less defensive. Fourthly, we identify the challenges for studying territoriality in Chinese collectivistic context, and further we discuss the relevance of the challenges for developing an indigenous theory of organizational territoriality and culture. For example, more and more Chinese employees are becoming bicultural and culturally adapted to both the Western and Chinese ways of life, which tend to challenge the existing cultural framework. Lastly, theoretical and practical implications for organizational territoriality and indigenous management are examined and evaluated.%将组织领地议题引入中国情境时需要考虑文化差异带来的领地内涵的变化.据此,本文拟在个体主义与集体主义文化视角下围绕中西文化的具体差异对组织领地议题内涵进行调整.首先,本文论述了从个体主义—集体主义视角审视组织内领地行为的意义;其次,基于个体主义—集体主义的文化维度,对组织领地行为进行了跨文化对比分析;再次,为了深入刻画组织领地在中国本土情境下的内涵,本文进一步探讨了集体主义文化下组织领地行为的新表现,引入并探索了圈子、人情、面子以及隐忍性格特质对组织领地行为的影响.进而,本文探讨了组织领地本土化可能面临的挑战,并在此基础上透过组织领地本土化识别出构建本土化管理理论可能面临的挑战.最后,本文指出组织领地议题后续发展的几个可行方向.本文在推动有理有据的组织管理本土化研究进展中做出了一定的贡献.
展开▼
