{"title":"“一带一路”项目背景下中巴谈判时间敏感性下的风险承担","authors":"T. Malik, Qiusha Liang, Yanzhi Zhao, K. Nielsen","doi":"10.1177/03063070231167288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"China and Pakistan took part in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project through CPEC (China–Pakistan Economic Corridor), but it faced many challenges at the negotiation and implementation stages. While their firms and individuals have come closer to exploring the scope and scales of opportunities, they have faced difficulties associated with uncertainty and time (risk-taking behaviour directly and indirectly through time sensitivity). Culturally, the potential differences in the risk orientation are plausible, but the contextualised differences in the negotiation process are not clear at the style level of analysis. This article explores whether how and why the negotiation style of China and Pakistan differs despite the visible values ahead of them. Based on postgraduate students in business schools, we investigated the notion of risk-taking orientation and moderation of the time sensitivity to both sides. The survey was based on 1398 participants: 917 (66%) Chinese and 481 (34%) Pakistani participants responded to risk-taking (low-high) and time sensitivity (low-high). The results are consistent across models. Directly, Chinese negotiators are more risk-takers than Pakistani negotiators. Indirectly, time-sensitive Chinese negotiators are low risk-takers than time-sensitive Pakistani negotiators. The study extends the risk orientation and time-sensitivity in perceptual assumptions in the cultural context.","PeriodicalId":46142,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk-taking under time-sensitivity in Sino-Pak negotiation in the context of the BRI project\",\"authors\":\"T. Malik, Qiusha Liang, Yanzhi Zhao, K. Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03063070231167288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"China and Pakistan took part in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project through CPEC (China–Pakistan Economic Corridor), but it faced many challenges at the negotiation and implementation stages. While their firms and individuals have come closer to exploring the scope and scales of opportunities, they have faced difficulties associated with uncertainty and time (risk-taking behaviour directly and indirectly through time sensitivity). Culturally, the potential differences in the risk orientation are plausible, but the contextualised differences in the negotiation process are not clear at the style level of analysis. This article explores whether how and why the negotiation style of China and Pakistan differs despite the visible values ahead of them. Based on postgraduate students in business schools, we investigated the notion of risk-taking orientation and moderation of the time sensitivity to both sides. The survey was based on 1398 participants: 917 (66%) Chinese and 481 (34%) Pakistani participants responded to risk-taking (low-high) and time sensitivity (low-high). The results are consistent across models. Directly, Chinese negotiators are more risk-takers than Pakistani negotiators. Indirectly, time-sensitive Chinese negotiators are low risk-takers than time-sensitive Pakistani negotiators. The study extends the risk orientation and time-sensitivity in perceptual assumptions in the cultural context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070231167288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070231167288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Risk-taking under time-sensitivity in Sino-Pak negotiation in the context of the BRI project
China and Pakistan took part in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project through CPEC (China–Pakistan Economic Corridor), but it faced many challenges at the negotiation and implementation stages. While their firms and individuals have come closer to exploring the scope and scales of opportunities, they have faced difficulties associated with uncertainty and time (risk-taking behaviour directly and indirectly through time sensitivity). Culturally, the potential differences in the risk orientation are plausible, but the contextualised differences in the negotiation process are not clear at the style level of analysis. This article explores whether how and why the negotiation style of China and Pakistan differs despite the visible values ahead of them. Based on postgraduate students in business schools, we investigated the notion of risk-taking orientation and moderation of the time sensitivity to both sides. The survey was based on 1398 participants: 917 (66%) Chinese and 481 (34%) Pakistani participants responded to risk-taking (low-high) and time sensitivity (low-high). The results are consistent across models. Directly, Chinese negotiators are more risk-takers than Pakistani negotiators. Indirectly, time-sensitive Chinese negotiators are low risk-takers than time-sensitive Pakistani negotiators. The study extends the risk orientation and time-sensitivity in perceptual assumptions in the cultural context.
期刊介绍:
Journal of General Management is quarterly peer reviewed journal, with a mission to provide thought leadership by publishing articles on managerial practices with organisation-wide or cross-functional implications. We seek original theoretical and practical insights into general management in all types of organisations.