Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:30:28.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Top Management Team on Chinese Firms’ FDI Ambidexterity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2018

Yi Li  and
Lin Cui
Yi Li*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia
Lin Cui
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Yi Li (yi.li2@sydney.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Strategic ambidexterity has been under researched in the context of Chinese outward foreign direct investment (FDI). An ambidextrous FDI, balancing between exploratory and exploitive activities, is strategically desirable but managerially challenging. We examine the role of top management team (TMT) functional diversity in influencing Chinese firms’ degree of FDI ambidexterity, and its boundary conditions in relation to the informal and formal institutional environments within which the TMT operates. Based on a panel of Chinese outward-investing manufacturing firms, our empirical analyses show that a marginal positive effect of TMT functional diversity on a firm's FDI ambidexterity is strengthened by the social faultline presence in the firm's TMT, but is weakened by the development of formal institutions in the firm's external environment.

在中国企业对外直接投资情境下, 企业的战略并进性尚未得到充分研究。由于可平衡探索型行为与利用型行为, 并进型对外直接投资对企业而言是具有相当吸引力的战略, 但也对企业的管理能力提出挑战。在本研究中, 我们考察了高管团队职能多样性对于中国企业对外直接投资并进程度的影响, 以及高管团队执行该战略时面临的非正式与正式制度环境约束条件。基于中国制造业企业对外直接投资的样板数据, 我们的定量分析表明:高管团队职能多样性对中国企业对外直接投资并进程度的边际性正效应会由于高管团队的社会断层而增强, 而这一边际性正效应也会随企业外部正式制度环境的发展而减弱。

रणनैतिक उभय-कुशलता का चीनी प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश (एफडीआई) के सन्दर्भ में सीमित अनुसंधान किया गया है. संधान और शोधन के मध्य तालमेल करता उभय-स्वरूप प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश रणनैतिक परिप्रेक्ष्य में वांछनीय होते हुए भी प्रबंधन की दृष्टि से चुनौतीपूर्ण है. हमने शीर्ष प्रबंधन समूह वैविध्य के प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश की उभय-कुशलता के प्रभाव स्तर का विश्लेषण किया है और साथ ही उसके सर्वोच्च प्रबंधन समूह के औपचारिक/अनौपचारिक संस्थागत परिवेश में परिसीमन स्थितियों का विश्लेषण किया है. हमारे चीनी बाहरी-निवेशक उत्पादक फर्मों के पैनल के आधार पर किये गए विश्लेषण के अनुसार शीर्ष प्रबंधन समूह में विशेषज्ञतापरक वैविध्य सम्बद्ध फर्मों की प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश की उभय-कुशलता पर सीमित सकारात्मक प्रभाव सामाजिक अंतरों से सुदृढ़ होता है लेकिन फर्म के परिवेश में औपचारिक संस्थान के विकास से कमज़ोर होता है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

A ambidexteridade estratégica tem sido pesquisada no contexto do investimento estrangeiro direto (FDI) para o estrangeiro da China. Um FDI ambidestro, equilibrando atividades exploratórias e exploradoras, é estrategicamente desejável, mas gerencialmente desafiador. Examinamos o papel da diversidade funcional da equipe de alta gestão (TMT) ao influenciar o grau de ambidexteridade de FDI de empresas chinesas e suas condições de contorno em relação aos ambientes institucionais informais e formais em que o TMT opera. Com base em um painel de empresas chinesas manufatureiras com investimentos externos, nossas análises empíricas mostram que um efeito marginal positivo da diversidade funcional da TMT na ambidexteridade do FDI da empresa é fortalecido pela presença de falha social no TMT da empresa, mas é enfraquecido pelo desenvolvimento de instituições formais no ambiente externo da empresa.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Стратегическая амбидекстрия остается недостаточно изученной в контексте внешних прямых иностранных инвестиций (ПИИ) в Китае. Амбидекстральные ПИИ, основанные на балансе между исследовательской и эксплуатационной деятельностью, стратегически желательны, но сложны в реализации. Мы исследуем, какую роль играет функциональное разнообразие в команде топ-менеджеров (КTM), и как это влияет на степень амбидекстрии прямых иностранных инвестиций (ПИИ) в китайских компаниях, а также изучаем граничные условия в формальной и неформальной институциональной среде, в которой работает команда топ-менеджеров (КTM). На основании данных из китайских промышленных компаний, которые занимаются внешними инвестициями, мы делаем эмпирические выводы о том, что незначительное положительное влияние функционального разнообразия в команде топ-менеджеров (КТМ) на амбидекстрию ПИИ усиливается благодаря наличию линии социальных разломов в команде топ-менеджеров (КТМ), но ослабляется из-за развития формальных институтов во внешней среде компании.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

La ambidexteridad estratégica ha sido poco investigada en el contexto de la inversión extranjera directa (IED)china en el exterior. Una IED ambidiestra, haciendo un balance entre las actividades exploratorias y de explotación, es estratégicamente deseable pero generacionalmente retador. Examinamos el rol de la diversidad funcional de los equipos de alta dirección en influir el grado de ambidexteridad de la IED de las empresas chinas, y sus condiciones limite en relación a los entornos institucionales informales y formales en los cuales el equipo de alta dirección funciona. Basados en un panel de empresas manufactureras chinas con inversiones en exterior, nuestros análisis empíricos muestran que un efecto positivo marginal de la diversidad funcional de los equipos de alta dirección en la ambidexteridad de la IED se fortalece por la presencia de fallas sociales en los equipos de alta dirección de la empresa, pero se debilita con el desarrollo de instituciones formales en el entorno externo de la empresa.

Keywords

ambidexterityChinaforeign direct investmentfunctional diversityinstitutional contexttop management teams并进性中国对外直接投资职能多样性制度环境高管团队उभय-कुशलताप्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेशविशेषज्ञतापरक वैविध्यसंस्थागत सन्दर्भशीर्ष प्रबंधन समूहambidexteridadeChinainvestimento estrangeiro diretodiversidade funcionalcontexto institucionalequipes de alto gestãoамбидекстрияКитайпрямые иностранные инвестициифункциональное разнообразиеинституциональный контексткоманды топ-менеджеровambidexteridadChinainversión extranjera directadiversidad funcionalcontexto institucionalequipos de alta dirección
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 513 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article earned an Open Data badge for transparent practices. The data are available at http://osf.io/tde3r.

References

REFERENCES

Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 123–148.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. C. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3 (3): 321–341.Google Scholar
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 10 (S1): 107–124.Google Scholar
Barkema, H., & Drogendijk, R. 2007. Internationalizing in small, incremental or large steps? Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 1132–1148.Google Scholar
Barkema, H., & Shvyrkov, O. 2007. Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28 (7): 663–680.Google Scholar
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implication. Academy of Management Review, 39 (3): 364–381.Google Scholar
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2009. Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20 (1): 35–50.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Boeker, W., & Wiltbank, R. 2005. New venture evolution and managerial capabilities. Organization Science, 16 (2): 123–133.Google Scholar
Boone, C., & Hendriks, W. 2009. Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55 (2): 165–180.Google Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14 (1): 63–82.Google Scholar
Cannella, A. A. Jr., Park, J., & Lee, H. 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member collocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (4): 768–784.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20: 781–796.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. 2010. Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (7): 1272–1296.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A. 2002. The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (3): 275–284.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 533–545.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30 (6): 749–778.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. The effects of top management team pay and firm internationalization on MNC performance. Journal of Management, 30 (4): 509–528.Google Scholar
Caves, R. E. 1971. International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38 (149): 1–27.Google Scholar
Chizema, A., Liu, X., Lu, J., & Gao, L. 2015. Politically connected boards and top executive pay in Chinese listed firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (6): 890–906.Google Scholar
Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J. R. H., & Lang, L. H. P. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57 (6): 2741–2771.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31: 874–900.Google Scholar
Cui, L. 2016. The primacy of institutional explanation of Chinese outward FDI: Is it understated or overstated? Management and Organization Review, 12 (3): 457–467.Google Scholar
Cui, L., & Jiang, F. M. 2012. State ownership effect on firms' FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 264–284.Google Scholar
Cui, L., Li, Y., Meyer, K., & Li, Z. 2015. Leadership experience meets ownership structure: Returnee managers and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Management International Review, 55 (3): 355–387.Google Scholar
Cui, L., Meyer, K. E., & Hu, H. W. 2014. What drives firms’ intent to seek strategic assets by foreign direct investment? A study of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49 (4): 488–501.Google Scholar
Dau, L. A. 2016. Biculturalism, team performance, and cultural-faultline bridges. Journal of International Management, 22 (1): 48–62.Google Scholar
D'Aveni, R., & Kesner, I. 1993. Top managerial prestige, power and tender offer response: A study of elite social networks and target firm cooperation during takeovers. Organization Science, 4 (2): 123–151.Google Scholar
Deng, P. 2013. Chinese outward direct investment research: Theoretical integration and recommendations. Management and Organization Review, 9 (3): 513–39.Google Scholar
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. 2007. The new deal at the top. Harvard Business Review, 85 (6): 98–104.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H. 1988. The electric paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Cambridge, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 737–770.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. 2005. Identity in work groups: The beneficial and detrimental consequences of multiple identities and group norms for collaboration and group performance. Advances in Group Processes, 22: 1–41.Google Scholar
Estrin, S., Poukiakova, S., & Shapiro, D. 2009. The performance of business groups in Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (3): 393–420.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X. L., & Zhu, H. P. 2007. Marketization index in China: The regional process report of 2006. Beijing: Economic Science Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Fernhaber, S., & Patel, P. 2012. How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 33 (13): 1516–1539.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (3): 484–503.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., & Lane, P. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1): 154–77.Google Scholar
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. 1999. Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3): 489–505.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47 (2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37 (3): 424–438.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6): 685–702.Google Scholar
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. 1993. Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4): 844–863.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, S. T., & Chen, M. J. 1996. The influence of TMT heterogeneity on firm's competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 659–684.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Journal, 9 (2): 193–206.Google Scholar
Harzing, A. W., Brown, M., Koster, K., & Zhao, S. M. 2012. Response style differences in cross-national research dispositional and situational determinants. Management International Review, 52 (3): 341–363.Google Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15 (4): 481–494.Google Scholar
Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4): 767–798.Google Scholar
Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., & Chen, H. 2013. International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48 (1): 58–67.Google Scholar
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte, J. 2013. Performance effects of top management team demographic faultlines in the process of product diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (6): 704–726.Google Scholar
Hymer, S. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50: 49–59.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E. 1992. Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing. In Shrivastava, P., Huff, A., & Dutton, J. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 8): 345–382. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2): 256–282.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3): 530–557.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4): 741–763.Google Scholar
Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (2): 285–309.Google Scholar
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6): 1183–1194.Google Scholar
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. 1988. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (3): 570–598.Google Scholar
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2006. Emerging giants: Building world-class companies in developing countries. Harvard Business Review, 84 (10): 60–69.Google Scholar
Kim, M., Mahoney, J. T., & Tan, D. 2015. Re-conceptualizing exploitative and explorative FDI: A balancing-process approach to firm internationalization. European Journal of International Management, 9 (5): 537–565.Google Scholar
Kim, T., Shin, D., Oh, H., & Jeong, Y. 2007. Inside the iron cage: Organizational political dynamics and institutional changes in presidential selection systems in Korean universities, 1985–2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (2): 286–323.Google Scholar
Knudsen, T., & Madsen, T. K. 2002. Export strategy: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18 (4): 475–502.Google Scholar
Lee, H. U., & Park, J. H. 2006. Top team diversity, internationalization and the mediating effect of international alliances. British Journal of Management, 17 (3): 195–213.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter): 95–112.Google Scholar
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 779–793.Google Scholar
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4): 598–609.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Liu, X., & Wang, H. 2011. Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics, and government policies. Management and Organization Review, 7 (2): 223–248.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. 2015. Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 123–136.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2002. Capability exploitation and building in a foreign market: Implications for multinational enterprises. Organization Science, 13: 48–63.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Rui, H. 2009. An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspective, 23: 49–70.Google Scholar
Lyles, M., Li, D., & Yan, H. 2014. Chinese outward FDI performance: The role of learning. Management and Organization Review, 10 (3): 411–437.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87.Google Scholar
Markides, C. 2013. Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 313–323.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2015. Context in management research in emerging economies. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3): 369–377.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E., & Xin, K. R. 2017. Managing talent in emerging economy multinationals: Integrating strategic management and human resource management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., Glick, W. H. 1998. Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision process. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 39–58.Google Scholar
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. 2012. Is national culture a meaningful concept? Cultural values delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions. Cross-Cultural Research, 46: 133–159.Google Scholar
Morck, R., Yeung, B., & Zhao, M. 2008. Perspectives on China's outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 337–350.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, S., & Perez, P. 2007. Prior conditions and degree of internationalization: The mediating role of domestic mindsets. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 160–176.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B., & Nielsen, S. 2013. Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 373–382.Google Scholar
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pananond, P. 2015. Motives for foreign direct investment: A view from emerging market multinationals. The Multinational Business Review, 23 (1): 77–86.Google Scholar
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1–28.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2012. The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal, 2: 97–107.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 920–936.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74 (November-December): 61–78.Google Scholar
Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. 2009. Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35: 158–188.Google Scholar
Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. 2013. Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 110–120.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34: 375–409.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2012. What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2: 41–47.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M. 1980. Internalization as a general theory of foreign direct investment. Review of World Economics, 116 (2): 365–379.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2009. Location, competitiveness and the multinational enterprise. In Rugman, A. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed.): 146–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shi, W., Sun, S., & Peng, M. 2012. Sub-national institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 1221–1245.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. 2005. Managing strategic paradox: A model of top management teams managing exploration and exploitation simultaneously. Organization Science, 16: 522–36.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43: 172–194.Google Scholar
Thatcher, S., Jehn, K., & Zanutto, E. 2003. Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12: 217–241.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. 2006. Effectiveness of Chinese teams: The role of conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2 (2): 231–252.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., &Yu, Z. 2005. Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building. Human Relations, 58: 341–367.Google Scholar
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9: 31–51.Google Scholar
Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. 2012. Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 655–676.Google Scholar
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91–121.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Lin, Z., & Lin, Y. 2010. A multilevel framework of firm boundaries: Firm characteristics, dyadic differences, and network attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 237–261.Google Scholar
Yang, M. M. 1994. Gifts, favors and banquets: The arts of social relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 341–363.Google Scholar
Zanutto, E., Bezrukova, K., & Jehn, K. 2011. Revisiting faultline conceptualization: Measuring faultline strength and distance. Quality & Quantity, 45: 701–714.Google Scholar
Zou, H., & Adams, M. B. 2008. Corporate ownership, equity risk and returns in the People's Republic of China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 1149–1168.Google Scholar