Espacios y recursos didácticos

After discussing the intertwining of formal and informal relationships and then the interplay of formal and informal coordination mechanisms, this section analyses the coordination outcomes due to the dynamic interplay between Chinese Guanxi and Western job role system. Overall, organisational coordination was perceived as unsatisfactory at both data collection periods. In August 2015, five of six respondents who made comments on the organisational coordination perceived it as unsatisfactory. In May 2016, six of seven respondents perceived the organisational coordination to be dissatisfactory again. In specific, there was strong dissatisfaction with cross-team coordination, limited satisfaction with manager-subordinate coordination and satisfaction with within-team coordination in both periods. To understand these coordination outcomes, this section employs the conceptualisation of Okhuysen and Bechky (2009) about three integrating conditions for coordination: accountability, predictability, and common understanding, as discussed in

71

Section 2.4. With a focus on the final coordination outcomes in May 2016, this section discusses how the relational and formal mechanisms jointly created the three integrating conditions for the within-team, cross-team and manager-subordinate coordination with respective advantages.

The majority interviewees were satisfied with the within-team coordination in both data collection periods, despite an overall dissatisfaction with the organisational coordination. Under incomplete formalisation, Guanxi mechanism strongly contributed to the creation of three integrating conditions for the within-team coordination. Regarding accountability, under ambiguous role definition within teams, individual responsibilities and work progress were made visible mainly through frequent interaction between team members, whilst team members were not calculative but collaborative and proactive in supporting each other (IS, QC1, QC2 & PC1). Regarding predictability, team members were able to anticipate subsequent work activities through a tacit understanding of informal routines and frequent interpersonal communication (QCM, QC2 & PC1). Regarding common understanding, with some limited formal organisational rules creating a shared understanding on the schedule and standards of work (QC1 & QC2), team members relied on interpersonal interaction for reaching the mutual understanding about how to work together (PCM & PC1). As a result, Guanxi mechanism strongly created the accountability, predictability and common understanding with frequent interpersonal interaction and affective social exchange for within-team coordination.

The majority of interviewees also expressed their dissatisfaction with cross-team

coordination, with some of them reporting great dissatisfaction in both data collection

periods. The combination of formal and relational mechanisms had not adequately

created the three integrating conditions for the cross-team coordination. Regarding

accountability, though team responsibilities and some cross-team work flows had been formally clarified, there was a lack of accountability on some joint responsibilities shared by teams (QCM, QC1, QC2, PC2 & IS). Although Familiar Guanxi facilitated cross-

team collaboration, there was a lack of direct relational ties between cross-team

colleagues (QC2, IS, PCM & PC1). Regarding predictability, though the formalised work flows increased the ability of cross-team colleagues to anticipate sequent work activities, they still had to rely on interpersonal interaction to understand detailed work progress of each other (DS, QC1 & PC1). But because there were many Stranger Guanxi between them, they were sometimes unclear about the detailed progress of each other (QC2 & PCM). Regarding common understanding, though formal documentation and the use of an IT-based management system promoted shared understanding in the schedule and expectations of some cross-team tasks, there was still a lack of common work standards and a lack of awareness of organisational interests rather than team interests (DS, QC1, QC2, IS & PCM). In other words, due to the lack of formalisation and the existence of

72

many Stranger Guanxi across teams, the formal and relational mechanisms had not created sufficient integrating conditions for cross-team coordination.

The strong dissatisfaction with cross-team coordination mostly related to the exclusivity of the team-based Guanxi groups and relational conflicts between cross- team colleagues. Many interviewees highlighted that the functional teams emphasised their own interests, blamed each other when there was a problem and responded to their coordination passively (DGM, RDE1, SDM, IS, DS, QCM, PCM, PC1, QC1, & QC2). Moreover, task-related conflicts in cross-team coordination often

turned into relational conflicts between cross-team colleagues, further damaging their coordination (PC1). Therefore, the strong exclusivity of team-based Guanxi groups and the relational values of Guanxi overriding professional values deteriorated the cross-team coordination.

Furthermore, there was about half-to-half satisfaction and dissatisfaction with manager-

subordinate coordination in both data collection periods. The relational and formal

coordination mechanisms jointly created the three integrating conditions, but with many problems, for the manager-subordinate coordination. Regarding accountability, while formalisation process clarified the responsibilities of managers and subordinates, Guanxi mechanism enhanced the accountability with the relational obligations of Paternalistic Leadership and the particularistic emphasis on employee behaviour input (OCM, QC1, QC2, PCM, PC1, PC2 & IS). However, it was found that subordinates were overly dependent on their managers in accomplishing tasks (QC1 & PC1). Regarding predictability, whereas managers were able to anticipate subordinates’ work activities through formal reports and interpersonal interaction, the subordinates had the difficulty to predict the managers’ work activities due to the lack of top-down information sharing (QC1, QC2, PC1, PC2, PCM & IS). Regarding common understanding, there was a lack of mutual understanding in manager-subordinate coordination, due to the lack of employee participation in decision-making, the lack of top-down information sharing and the difficulties in disciplining under-performing employees (QC1, PC1, IS &DS). These findings indicate that under the incomplete implementation of formal performance management system, Guanxi mechanism had strongly supported the creation of the three integrating conditions for manager-subordinate coordination. Nonetheless, the strong authoritarian leadership hindered cross-hierarchical open dialogue and employee participation and the strong benevolent leadership led to the difficulties in addressing problematic performance, causing many problems for the manage-subordinate coordination.

In addition, the formal and relational coordination mechanisms had their own advantages in the security and flexibility of coordination while creating the integrating conditions. It

73

was found that the formal role coordination mechanism had the advantage of strengthening the security of coordination. While formal organisational procedures and documented communication ensured coordination tasks to be performed rather than to be forgotten after oral communication (QC1), formal organisational systems regulated work activities and thus improved the predictability of work processes and outcomes (QCM). In comparison, there was a lack of stability and predictability in interactive coordination activities and a weak enforcement on relational obligations (PC1, QC1 & QCM). However, the formal role coordination mechanism had a problem to satisfy emergent coordination demands under the conditions of task complexity and uncertainty. Whilst the formal role coordination mechanism had difficulty to prescribe individual accountability for complicated tasks that were difficult to be divided, it was unable to offer clear accountability for emergent tasks due to the changes in client order and emergency issues (PCM, QCM, IS & DS). In contrast, Guanxi mechanism strongly supported the within-team, cross-team and manager-subordinate coordination with interpersonal interaction and relational obligations in an unplanned and flexible way. While the particularistic tendency of Guanxi stresses situational obligations, the relational mechanism had an advantage of enhancing the flexibility of coordination.

As a result, the formal and relational coordination mechanisms jointly created the integrating conditions for the within-team, cross-team and manager-subordinate coordination but with many problems. Moreover, while the company had many emergent coordination demands, the formal and relational coordination mechanisms had their own advantages in promoting the security and flexibility of coordination. Nonetheless, due to the incomplete formalisation and many negative organisational outcomes of Guanxi, the organisation coordination was dissatisfactory overall.