Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asian management research needs more self-confidence

  • Review
  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The challenges faced by Asian businesses merit scholarly investigation, both to help local business and to enrich the global scholarly discourse. Such research should be able to make major contributions, for instance by explaining context-specific variables and effects, and by drawing on traditional Asian thought in developing new theories. Yet, recent work, in part due to a lack of self-confidence to analyze the implications of indigenous contexts, seems to have made little progress on this agenda.

I first discuss how Asian management research could potentially contribute to global management knowledge. On this basis, I outline institutional constraints that may suppress indigenous and innovative research and thus inhibit the potential impact of local work. I conclude that Asian scholars ought to be more careful in applying theories developed in other contexts, and they can be more self-confident in exploring locally relevant research issues, and in developing theories that explain Asian phenomena.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, T. G. & Chompusri, N. 2005. “Temporal dynamics and crossvergence: Institutionalizing MNC integration strategies in post-crisis ASEAN.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 22, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, A. A., Estrin S. & Meyer, K. E. 2004. “Institution building and the integration of Eastern Europe in international production.” International Business Review 13, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, T., Filatotchev, I. & Wright, M. 1998. “Agents, stakeholders, and corporate governance in Russian firm.” Journal of Management Studies 35, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. & Gedajlovic, E. 2003. “Strategic innovation and the administrative heritage of East Asian family business groups.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 20, 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L. C. 1994. “On the concept of universal knowledge in organization science: Implications for cross-national research.” Management Science 40, 162–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. & Tsai, T. 2005. “The dynamic between firms' environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan.” Journal of Management Studies 42, 95–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, E. & Michailova, S. eds., 2004. “Fieldwork in Transforming Societies.” Palgrave.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of Management Review 14, 543–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdener, C. & Shapiro, D. M. 2005. “The internationalization of Chinese family enterprises and Dunning's eclectic MNE paradigm.” Management Organization Review 1, 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, S. & Meyer, K. E., eds. 2004. Investment Strategies in Emerging Markets, Cheltenham: Elgar.

  • Frese, M.; Kring, W.; Soose, A.; Zempel, J. 1996. “Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany.” Academy of Management Journal39, 37–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1980.

  • Hofstede, G. 1993. “Cultural constraints in management theories.” Academy of Management Executive 7, 81–94, 1993.

  • Huff, A. Writing for Scholarly Publication, Sage, 1999.

  • Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context, Journal of Organizational Behavior 22, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. & Palepu, K. 2000. “The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile.” Academy of Management Journal 43, 268–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. 1999. “Strategies for theorizing from process data.” Academy of Management Review 24, 691–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. & Teo, A. 2005. “Organizational restructuring: Impact in trust and work satisfaction.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 22, 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. T. and Tsui, A. S. 2002. “A citation analysis of management and organization research in the Chinese context: 1984–1999.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. 2005. “The puzzle of China's township village enterprises: The paradox of local corporatism in a dual track economic transition.” Management Organization Review 1, 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L. A.; Friedman, R. A. & Chi, S.-C. 2005. “Ren-qing versus the ‘big five: The role of culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations.” Management Organization Review 1, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 2005. “Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organization studies.” Management Organization Review 1,5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. eds. 2004. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business, Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, T. 1993. Truth versus Precision in Economics, Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E. 2001. “Institutions, Transaction Costs and Entry Mode Choice in Eastern Europe.” Journal of International Business Studies vol. 31, 357–367, 2001.

  • Meyer, K. E. 2004. “Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies.” Journal of International Business Studies 21, 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E. 2006. “Globalfocusing: From Domestic Conglomerate to Global Specialist.” Journal of Management Studies 43, forthcoming.

  • Meyer, K. E. & Estrin, S. 2001. “Brownfield entry in emerging markets.”Journal of International Business Studies 32, 575–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer K. E. & Gelbuda, M. 2006. “Process Perspectives in International Business Research.” Management International Review, forthcoming.

  • Meyer K. E. & Lieb-Dóczy, E. 2003. “Post-Acquisition Restructuring as Evolutionary Process.” Journal of Management Studies vol. 40, 459–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer K. E. & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. “Foreign Investment Strategies and Sub-national Institutions in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Vietnam.” Journal of Management Studies 42, 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E. & Peng, M. W. 2005. “Probing Theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions.” Journal of International Business Studies 36, 600–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. W. & Lu, X. 2005. “Managing indefinite boundaries: The strategy and structure of a Chinese business firm.” Management Organization Review 1, 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S. & Hutchings, K. 2006. “National Cultural Influences on Knowledge Sharing: A Comparison of China and Russia.” Journal of Management Studies, forthcoming.

  • Michailova, S. & Worm, V. 2003. “Personal networking in Russia and China: Blat and guanxi.” European Management Journal vol. 23, 509–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachum, L. 2004. “Geographic and industrial diversification of developing country firms.” Journal of Management Studies 41, 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2003. “Institutional transitions and strategic choices.” Academy of Management Review 28, 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2005. “From China strategy to global strategy.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 22, 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W.; Lee, S. H. & Wang, D. Y. L. 2005. “What determines the scope pf the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness.” Academy of Management Review 30, 622–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W.; Lu, Y.; Shenkar, O. & Wang, D. 2001. “Treasures in the China house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater China.” Journal of Business Research 52, 95–110, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. 1987. “Context and action in the transformation of the firm.” Journal of Management Studies 24, 649–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlevogt, K.-A. 2002. “Institutional and Organizational Factors Affecting Effectiveness: Geoeconomic Comparison between Shanghai and Beijing”. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 18, 519–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, A. B. & Pandian, J. R. 2003. “Emerging Asian MNEs and their internationalization strategies: Case study evidence on Taiwanese and Singaporean firms.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 20, 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styles, C. 1998. “Export Performance Measures in Australia and the United Kingdom”. Journal of International Marketing 6, 12–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. 1995. “What theory is not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. & Kwan, K.-M. 1999. “Replication and Theory Development in Organization Science: A Critical Realist Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 24, 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, 491–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S. & Lau, C.-M. eds. 2002. Management and Enterprise in the People's Republic of China, Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. 1989. “Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory.” Academy of Management Review 14, 486–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten D. A. 2002. “Modelling-as-theorizing: A systematic methodology for theory development,” in Essential Skills for Management Research, David Partington (ed.), London: Sage Publications, p. 45–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten D. A. 1989. “What constitutes a theoretical contribution.” Academy of Management Review 14, 490–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S. 2002. “Rigour and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can we go?.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19, 287–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. 2004. “Stakeholders, structure and the failure of corporate governance reform initiatives in post-crisis Thailand.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 21, 130–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M.; Filatotchev, I.; Hoskisson, R. E. & Peng, M. W. 2005. “Strategic management research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom.” Journal of Management Studies 42, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D. & Lu, Y. 2005. “Understandig business group performance in an emerging economy: Acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper.” Journal of Management Studies 42, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Reading Business School, Box 218, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AA, U.K.

    Klaus E. Meyer

Authors
  1. Klaus E. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus E. Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, K.E. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific J Manage 23, 119–137 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-7160-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation