Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:08:34.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Examination of the Interface between Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

David A. Whetten
David A. Whetten*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper expands recent appeals for more context sensitive organizational research to include organizational theory. It does this by systematically examining the interface between theory and context, characterized herein as contextualizing theory (theories in context) and theorizing about context (theories of context). The results of this analysis challenge recent criticisms of Chinese organizational scholarship for relying too much on Western theory. As an alternative to discontinuing the practice of cross-context theory borrowing, ways of making this borrowing more context sensitive are explored. The use of context effects to explain organizational phenomena, as well as their essential contribution to all forms of cross-context scholarship, is also examined. In addition, specific suggestions are offered for overcoming the obstacles facing scholars engaged in cross-context theorizing, especially scholars in new research contexts interested in using and improving ‘mainstream’ theory.

Keywords

contextualized theorycross-context theorizingtheory development情境化理论跨情境的理论演绎理论发展
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 29 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2009

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.)

References

Ashforth, B. F., & Mael, F. A. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.Google Scholar
Bachrach, S. 13. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496–515.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421–448.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China's emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 600–628.Google Scholar
Brett, J. M., Tinsley, C. H., Janssens, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Lytle, A. L. 1997. New approaches to the study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. 1997. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4): 410–465.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. 1990. The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 39–73. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13(1): 55–110.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C. 1995. New trends in reward allocation preferences: A Sino-US comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 408–428.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 285–304.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. 2002. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management, 28(4): 567–583.Google Scholar
Chen, W. 2007. Does the colour of the cat matter? The red hat strategy in China's private enterprises. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, J. L. C. 1994. Notes: On the concept of universal knowledge in organizational science: Implications for cross-national research. Management Science, 40(1): 162–168.Google Scholar
Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organization cross-nationality. In Cheng, J. L. & Peterson, R. B. (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management, vol. 13: 27–75. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., & Hatch, M. J. 2006. Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2): 85–99.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1281–1303.Google Scholar
Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Hoegl, M. 2004. Cross-national differences in managers' willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: A test of institutional anomie theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332–343.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 1971. That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of a sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2): 309–344.Google Scholar
Dubin, R. 1978. Theory development. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Earley, P. C. 1994. Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1155–1179.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
Evered, R. D. 1976. A typology of explicative models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 9(2): 260–269.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2): 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. 2002. Members' identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organizational Science, 13(6): 618–635.Google Scholar
Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graen, G. B., Hui, C., Wakabayashi, M., & Wang, Z. M. 1997. Cross-cultural research alliances in organizational research: Cross-cultural partnership making in action. In Earley, P. C. & Erez, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology: 160–189. San Francisco: New Lexington.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. A. 2007. Specifying organizational contexts: Systematic links between contexts and processes in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 859–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1346–1352.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big-b versus big-o: What is organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249–267.Google Scholar
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17(1): 71–114.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3(Fall): 81–98.Google Scholar
Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 31–42.Google Scholar
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. Forthcoming. Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organizational Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of team members' cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing working teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5): 597–617.Google Scholar
Koontz, H. 1961. The management theory jungle. Journal of the Academy of Management, 4(3): 174–188.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K.J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. 2002. Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In Earley, P. C. & Erez, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology: 640–675. San Francisco: New Lexington.Google Scholar
Li, H. Y., Bingham, J. B., & Umphress, E. E. 2007. Fairness from the top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organization Science, 18(2): 200–216.Google Scholar
Li, J. T., & Tsui, A. 2002. A citation of analysis of management and organization research in the Chinese context: 1984–1999. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1): 87–107.Google Scholar
Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H., & Janssens, M. 1995. A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 17: 167–214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, W.J. 1983. A contextualist theory of knowledge: Its implications for innovation and reform in psychological research. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 1–47. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, B. 2002. Model-centered organizational science epistemology. In Baum, J. A. C. (Ed.), Companion to organizations: 752–780. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinants and development of schools in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 634–648.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 119–137.Google Scholar
Mezias, S. J., Chen, Y. R., & Murphy, P. 1999. Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore: Some footnotes to cross-cultural research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(3): 323–333.Google Scholar
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1): 195–229.Google Scholar
Nee, V., Opper, S., & Wong, S. 2007. Developmental state and corporate governance in China. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 19–53.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. F. 2001. International collaboration in organizational behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 59–81.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 599–620.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1990. On the emics and etics of Pike and Harris. In Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., & Harris, M. (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate: 28–47. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F.J. 1977. The elusive phenomena. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25: 1–65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: 85–117. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2002. The changing world of Chinese enteiprise: An institutional perspective. In Tsui, A. S. & Lau, C. M. (Eds.), The management of enterprises in the People's Republic of China: 59–78. Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. 2007. Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129–152.Google Scholar
Steers, R. M., & Sanchez-Runde, C.J. 2002. Culture, motivation, and work behavior. In Gannon, M.J. & Newman, K. L. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management: 190–216. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 371–384.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D. 1998. Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(3): 285–342.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Leung, K., & Johnson, D. W. 2006. Cooperative and competitive conflict in China. In Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P. T. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd Ed.): 671–692. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the waves of cultures: Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. 1999. Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 759–780.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4): 491–513.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2006. Editorial: Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Schoonhoven, C. B., Meyer, M. W., Lau, C. M., & Milkovich, G. T. 2004. Organization and management in the midst of societal transformation: The People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 133–144.Google Scholar
Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. 2004. Can we talk, and should we?: Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 578–592.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 385–390.Google Scholar
Welsh, D. H. B., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. 1993. Managing Russian factory workers: The impact of US-based behavioral and participative techniques. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1): 58–79.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490–495.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 2002a. Modeling-as-theorizing: A systematic methodology for theory development. In Partington, D. (Ed.), Essential skills for management research: 45–71. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 2002b. Constructing cross-context scholarly conversation. In Tsui, A. S. & Lau, C. M. (Eds.), The management of enterprises in the People's Republic of China: 29–47. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 2007. A critique of organizational identity scholarship: Challenging the uncritical use of social identity theory when social identities are also social actors. In Bartel, C. A., Blader, S. & Wrzesniewski, A. (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization: 253–272. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 2008. Modeling theoretical propositions. In Huff, A. S., Designing research for publication: 217–250. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
White, S. 2002. Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can we go? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3): 287–352.Google Scholar
Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. 1999. Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3): 456–463.Google Scholar
Xiao, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. 2007. Where brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Yan, A., & Gray, B. 1994. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-Chinese joint ventures: A comparative study. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): 1478–1517.Google Scholar