Indigenous Research on Chinese Management:WhatandHow

Abstract

We attempt to provide a definition and a typology of indigenous research on Chinese management as well as outline the general methodological approaches for this type of research. We also present an integrative summary of the four articles included in this special issue and show how they illustrate our definition and typology of indigenous research on Chinese management, as well as the various methodological approaches we advocate. Further, we introduce a commentary on the four articles from the perspective of engaged scholarship, and also three additional articles included in this issue. Finally, we conclude with our suggestions for future indigenous research.

The emerging research on indigenous management in Asia

“…It is encouraging to note that the majority of the articles in this Special Issue adopt the qualitative and inductive methods to generate novel theories or frameworks. This is natural considering the fact that the local phenomena are under-studied and poorly understood, so diverse qualitative methods are necessary (Li, 2012a;Li, Leung, Chen, & Luo, 2012). One of the weaknesses of this Special Issue is the absence of any article focusing on the methodological issues of indigenous research.…”

The Invisible Negotiator in the Land of Paradox Management

“…Western patterns suppose bi-polar standards of constant linear behavior without taking context into account. On the Chinese side, context is what determines behavior (Li, 2012;2016;Li et al, 2012;Fang, 2014;2011;2010;2003;1999;Fang et al, 2008;Fang & Faure, 2011;Faure & Fang, 2008;Faure, 1995;Chen, 1987;Chen, 2001;Chen & Starosta, 1997;Chen, 2002;Ghauri & Fang, 2001;Shi & Wright, 2003).…”

“…Prominent researchers (Li, 2012;2016;Li et al, 2012;Fang, 2014;2011;2010;2003;Fang et al, 2008;Fang & Faure, 2011;Faure & Fang, 2008;Faure, 1995;Chen, 1987;Chen, 2011;Chen, 2002;Ghauri & Fang, 2001;Shi & Wright, 2003) have been explaining how critical is the understanding and the use of Yin-Yang approach to the analysis of the Chinese culture. Its applicability to international negotiations is paramount for anyone who works with Chinese counterparts.…”

“…As stated in previous research (Li, 2016;Li, Leung, Chen, & Luo, 2012;Fang, 2014;2011;2010;2003;1999;Fang et al, 2008;Fang & Faure, 2011;Faure & Fang, 2008;Faure, 1995;Chen, 1987;Chen, 2001;Chen & Starosta, 1997;Chen, 2002;Ghauri & Fang, 2001;Shi & Wright, 2003), Western models of cultural dimensions are limited in capturing the essence of the Chinese culture and value system, symbolized in the mutually opposed yet complementary forces of Yin and Yang viewed in the Chinese tradition as the opposites contained in one another, forming together an ever-changing, harmonious unity. In particular, the traditional Western cultural dimension approach is not suitable for understanding the paradoxical and changing character of the Chinese negotiation style as a reflection and expression of their value system.…”

“…In other terms, the invisible negotiator shifts the negotiation process from "either/or" (G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005;Hofstede, 1984;Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2006;Lewis, 2006;Hall, 1976) and "both/and" (Fang, 2014;2011;2010;2003;1999;Fang et al, 2008;Fang & Faure, 2011;Faure & Fang, 2008;Chen, 2002) paradigms to an "either/and" framework (Li, 2012;2016;Li et al, 2012). That is to say that the role of the invisible negotiator is to bring negotiators together, despite their differences and integrate their goals and interests into a deal that makes them succeed in a negotiation instead of focusing on winning or losing the negotiation.…”