In addition, by examining the issues like militancy, terror groups, active trade union movement,

bilateral relations, I argue that the protectionist approach that should be shown by the

Headquarters towards MNCs performance. The phenomenon of threat whether perceived or real

needs to be explored. Positioning and performance of MNCs are constantly posed with this

challenge and concerned of Headquarters raise because other important factors like foreign

directive Investment, modes of payment, entry and exit barriers, International Human Resources

and Industrial Relations. The subsidiary mangers in MNCs often are influenced by these factors

and need constant updation of matters of sensitiveness.

From this study, two implications arise: Firstly, the extent to which China has expanded its

MNCs in India is very slow and nonexplorative. To compare 73 Indian MNCs those are currently

operating in China, to name of few are Marico, Dabur, Godrej, Tech Mahindra, Emani etc. In the

last two decades, only 6 telecommunication companies have established their operations in India

and have been successful. Chinese MNC like Fiberhome Technologies group, Huawei, Jiangsu

Overseas Group Corporation, China Shougang International Trade and Engineering Corporation

India, CMIEC India, ZTE (www.embassy.org). However, the Africa experience is providing a

greater participation to Chinese MNCs in the recent past. Probably, China enjoys a greater

mutual and reciprocal trust, economic win-win cooperation and smooth exchange of culture

between the two countries.

The point to be addressed in further research is whether trust deficit plays a vital role in ensuring

Chinese and Indian counterparts maintain arms length distance although they continue to be

projected as “emerging superpowers” in Asia. Secondly, I observed that the concept of

‘adaptability’ is a critical issue. Indian MNCs both Public Sector and Private Sector) greater

local responsive behaviour and high conformity to Headquarter strategies. Contrarily, Chinese

MNCs are primarily State Owned enterprises and strategically positioned MNCs are meant to

actualize the Headquarters directions. Therefore, there is extreme amount of Headquarter control.

Moreover, the subtle issues of strategic issues are coined as “State Secrets” rather than trade

secrets. China has been actively considering a tough draft proposal on State Secret law.

Therefore, transparency and disclosure of financial performance faces causality as State Secrets

are meant to be concealed. An issue of further research leads to find out the conflicting issues

between HQ state secrets and transparency and disclosure norms of host country where MNCS

operate.

The results presented in Table 8, indicate that results of analysis of variations. Contrary to our

hypothesis, in case of part of the table (Transferability of HQ Cultures to MNCs in host

countries), it is found that, in case of Chinese HQ and its MNCs where HQ Centralization and in

Indian HQ and its MNCs where high concern for task and on similar lines, in both cases,

compliance with disclosure norm between HQ and MNCs seem to be appear to be significant.

Hence, the Hypothesis 1a is rejected. It is also found that variables like HQ Decentralization,

High Concern for person and Freedom to make strategic choices in both countries perspective

has reflected that there is statistically significant difference. Therefore, Hypothesis 1b is

supported.

Hypothesis 2 signifies that importance legal compliance as this indicates the constant interaction

between HQ requirements and the degree of confirmation by the MNCs operating in the host

country. This shows that MNCs conform to the legal provisions of Host country. Further, Host

country might demonstrate a degree of relaxation by providing exemptions from Foreign Direct

Investments to move freely by ensuring that operating MNCs can explore and exploit their

business. This relationship in Part B (Compliance of MNCs to Host Country legal requirements)

in Both Chinese MNCs and Indian MNCs reflected statistically significance and hence,

Hypothesis 2a is supported. MNCs, largely both whether Indian, Chinese or African context

reflected that the degree of conformation between MNCs and governmental demands is less

where democratic approach is adopted.

However, since compliance of host country requirements by Indian MNCs mandatorily show

statistically significant difference in areas like adherence to legal compliance in host country,

open for inspection by regulatory bodies, confirmation to HQ requirements; engage in talented

and diverse workforce. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b is partially supported.

As shown in part C of Table 8, it deals with assertion of HQ on operating MNCs across

challenging workplace environment in host countries. Contrary to the hypothesis 3, it has not

supported for degree of assertion of HQ on MNCs. However, variables like Over concerned

about trade secrets, Trade union movement, positive bilateral relations showed statistically

significance is case of Chinese MNCs where in Indian MNCs context, Operations in risk prone

areas, Threats of militants, terror groups and positive Bilateral relations showed statistical

significance. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a and 3b not fully supported.

CONCLUSION

The ancient India society has been rooted through stringent rules and cultural norms. But,

modern India is molded with the fast track of economic development based on the western model

of development which consists of high dose of science and technology. Indian companies has

already started practicing westernized management style with cut through competitions, merit

and quality considerations and a no-non-sense approach to work ethics. Hence, this study is

conducted on Western and European MNCs working environment. This study focused on

cultural identity and knowledge management to identify the cultural influence of organisational

behavior pattern of Indian software engineers. More research is needed to validate the various

issues of cross-cultural management of Indian expatriates to European and Western countries.

Obtaining larger number of samples from different industries will ensure more reliability and

validity for the study.

Clearly, the statistical findings has shown that national culture (Hostede, 1980; Hampden Turner

and Trompenaar, 1997) has great impact on MNCs. It is true that the scope of National Culture

when looked beyond the five dimensions, it could give an in-depth perspective of how MNCs

could face the impact and how it could be measured. Irrespective of the fact that there are varied

forms of MNCs operating in different countries, yet the dynamics of working in the host country

still would raise issues of greater concern. I agree to the critiques of national cultures (Smith et

al. 1996), who state that the dimensions identified and examine by Hofstede may not be

comprehensive.

I also have identified that countries not only explore options to exploits resource by formulating

MNCs but also may envisage interest to capture strategic information that could be used by

parent institution. Therefore, I argue that this research would provide scope further inquiry how

MNCs who are susceptible to appreciate the pressures from the host country and deal with cross

cultural differences.