4.7 Article

Cross-cultural perspectives on collaboration: Differences between the Middle East and the United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 2-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.031

关键词

Collaboration; Teamwork; Culture; Cross-cultural

类别

资金

  1. Army Research Office MURI [Z885903]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX16AP96G, NNX16AB08G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research conducted a comparative structural analysis of interview data from participants in the Middle East and the United States, revealing key differences in conceptualizations of collaboration. Middle Eastern samples emphasized aspects like participant identity and spiritual elements, while American participants focused on equality of resources. However, both cultures agreed that collaboration is challenging and requires effort to succeed.
Cross-cultural collaboration is critical for tackling many complex issues of the modern-day, yet can be challenging, particularly when it includes collaborators with a history of conflict, such as Middle Eastern countries and the United States. To explore how collaborators might have unique conceptualizations of collaboration that could ultimately contribute to this challenge, this research leverages comparative structural analysis of interview data from 113 participants across four nations in the Middle East and the United States. Several key differences in conceptualizations emerged. Middle Eastern samples emphasized (1) who is involved, including a spiritual element, (2) interpersonal aspects, (3) higher levels of motivation, and (4) equality of resources, more so than American participants. However, not all conceptualizations were different. These cultures all agreed collaboration is challenging and requires effort to be successful. Findings provide important insights for informing future research, as well as practical approaches to managing cultural differences in collaborative settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据