Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Orgs

8/10/2019 Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Orgs

1/27

An Examination of the Interface betweenContext and Theory Applied to the Study ofChinese Organizations

David A. WhettenBrigham Young University, USA

ABSTRACT This paper expands recent appeals for more context sensitive organizationalresearch to include organizational theory. It does this by systematically examining the

interface between theory and context, characterized herein as contextualizing theory

(theoriesincontext) and theorizing about context (theories ofcontext). 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 usingand improving mainstream theory.

KEYWORDS contextualized theory, cross-context theorizing, theory development

INTRODUCTION

The need to properly account for context effects is receiving greater attention

among scholars studying organizational and management practices. To date, thiscall to arms has primarily focused on improving the context sensitivity of empirical

research. The principle objective of this paper is to extend the scope of that

discussion to include the development and application of context sensitive organi-

zational theories as well as the expanded use of context effects theories in organi-

zational scholarship. This initiative has relevance for both theoretically and

empirically oriented readers, inasmuch as context sensitive theory is more likely to

foster context sensitive research.

The perspective I bring to this subject reflects my concern that current treat-

ments of theory and context often appear to conflate context specificity and contextsensitivity that is, they tend to equate single context theorizing with context

Management and Organization Review5:1 2955doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x

2009 The AuthorJournal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


2/27

sensitive theory. In contrast, I will argue that, as exemplified by the corpus of

mainstream (i.e., Western) organizational theory, single context theorizing is as

likely as not to produce context insensitive theory. The cross-context approach to

fostering context sensitive theorizing outlined in this paper contains two principle

components: contextualizing theory (theories in context) and theorizing aboutcontext (theoriesofcontext).

While the results of this analytical examination of theory and context are widely

applicable, I will focus on their implications for Chinese organizational scholar-

ship. Commentaries on this growing body of literature argue that the pervasive

practice of borrowing foreign (e.g., Western) theoretical perspectives and research

methods should be curtailed in favour of producing indigenous alternatives.

Although I share the concern expressed in these criticisms that cross-context theory

borrowing, as it is typically practiced in this and most other branches of organi-

zational studies, suffers from a troubling lack of context sensitivity, I will make thecase for improving this practice rather than discontinuing it. My goal is to dem-

onstrate that cross-national theory borrowing can be done in a context sensitive

manner and that this practice can both stimulate novel insights into local (e.g.,

Chinese) organizational practices and foster improvements in borrowed (i.e.,

Western based, mainstream) organizational theory. Thus, the hope for context

sensitive, cross-context scholarship is the possibility of making contributions of

theory and to theory.

This paper is organized into four major sections. In the first section, I briefly

review the contextualized research and the theory development literatures. I then

use this information in the second section to systematically examine the interface

between context and theory and to distinguish between contextualizing theory

(theoriesin context) and theorizing about context (theories ofcontext). In the third

section, 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 theories. Finally, I offer a summary

and concluding thoughts.

CONTEXT AND THEORY

Contextualizing Organizational Scholarship

Pleas for greater sensitivity to context effects are appearing in the organizational

studies literature with increasing regularity (Griffin, 2007; Heath & Sitkin, 2001;

Johns, 2001, 2006; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Indeed,

some authors have argued that context effects are so central to an understanding of

organizational phenomena that contextual analysis should become a distinctivefeature of organizational scholarship (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995;

Johns, 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985).

30 D. A. Whetten



3/27

The term context effects is broadly defined as the set of factors surrounding a

phenomenon that exert some direct or indirect influence on it also characterized

as explanatory factors associated with higher levels of analysis than those expressly

under investigation (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Johns, 2006; Mowday & Sutton,

1993). One of the advantages of framing context effects as cross-level effects is thatit reminds us that they can be observed at any level of analysis. Johns (2006)

describes two types of context effects: omnibus (e.g., occupation, location, time and

rationale for collecting data) and discrete (e.g., task, social and physical factors).

The former are useful for contextualizing research results (describing the type of

data collected, etc.); the latter are more directly related to the practices of contex-

tualizing theory and using context effects as theory.

The general sentiment among authors writing on this subject is that the

influence of context effects is too often unrecognized or underappreciated, even

when research results suggest that moderating contextual factors are at play(Johns, 2006). Two reasons are commonly offered for a lack of context sensitivity

in organizational scholarship: deliberate avoidance and careless oversight

(Heath & Sitkin, 2001; Johns, 2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). In the first case,

scholars intentionally ignore contextual factors for a variety of reasons, including

a mistaken belief that context free knowledge has greater scientific merit

than contextualized knowledge (Cheng, 1994). In the second case, investigators

fail to account for relevant contextual factors because they simply dont see

them.

Regardless of whether or not context effects are intentionally avoided or simply

not observed, context insensitive organizational scholarship has several limitations.

For example, given the socially embedded nature of human activity, when orga-

nizational research fails to account for relevant contextual effects, the results are

necessarily incomplete and inconclusive. Consistent with the strong research focus

of the emerging context effects conversation, this limitation has received a great

deal of attention (Johns, 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). There are also important

theory related limitations that will be examined in this paper. First, given the high

level of diversity across social contexts, when investigators conducting theory basedresearch uncritically borrow theories developed in different settings, they risk

introducing context related threats to validity into their research findings. Said

differently, when theoretical lenses are used in context inappropriate ways, what

we see is likely to yield a distorted understanding. A related, second limitation is

that, when theories are applied in context insensitive ways, investigators forgo the

opportunity to systematically assess and potentially improve the contextual sensi-

tivity of the borrowed perspective.

It is useful to point out how context insensitive research and context insensitive

theory form a self-reinforcing pattern of context insensitive scholarship. Specifi-cally, if we as organizational scholars arent looking for context effects, we wont

seek out context sensitive theoretical perspectives; further, if we characterize our

The Interface between Context and Theory 31



4/27

theories as context independent tools of observation, theory guided research pro-

tocols wont prompt us to look for relevant context effects (Campbell, 1990; King,

Felin, & Whetten, forthcoming; McGuire, 1983; Tsui, 2006; Whetten, 2002b). The

approach to breaking the vicious cycle described herein involves increasing the

attention paid to context effects in organizational research by making our organi-zational theories more explicitly context sensitive.

Rousseau and Fried (2001) propose a three tiered approach for systematically

examining contextual effects, consisting of: (i) rich description; (ii) direct observa-

tion and analysis of contextual effects; and (iii) comparative studies. The contribu-

tion made by rich description to the formulation of context sensitive theory is an

article of faith among advocates of inductive theorizing to the point, I must say,

that the products of grounded theory development (Eisenhardt, 1989) are often

long on description and short on explanation. Whats important for our examina-

tion is that inductive theorizing is typically practiced within a single context.[1]

Unfortunately, the observed fact that context specific theorizing can generate

context sensitive theory appears to have given rise to a factually incorrect belief that

context specificity and context sensitivity are synonymous attributes that context

specific theorizing is necessarily context sensitive and, therefore, context specific

theory is inherently context sensitive.

We dont have to look far to observe the folly of this belief. It is fair to say that

the bulk of organizational and managerial theories informing scholarship con-

ducted within the USA would be classified as context specific. An important lesson

we learn from the fact that this body of indigenous scholarship has been charac-

terized as context blind by scholars outside the USA is that there is nothing in the

formula for context specific investigations, including grounded theory develop-

ment, which prompts investigators to account for relevant context effects.

We see a reflection of the preference for context specific theorizing in recent

criticisms of cross-context theory borrowing within the Chinese organizational

studies literature (e.g., Li & Tsui, 2002; Meyer, 2006; Tsui, 2006; Tsui,

Schoonhoven, Meyer, Lau, & Milkovich, 2004; White, 2002). My purpose in

joining this conversation is to provide an alternative solution for the demon-strated problem of context insensitive theory borrowing. While there is obvious

merit in using in-depth, context specific research to investigate how culture, for

example, actually influences specific organizational outcomes, my concern is

that, when positive treatments of indigenous theorizing imply that context spe-

cific theory equals context sensitive theory, they divert attention from the alter-

native of using systematic cross-context theorizing to generate context sensitive

theory. Therefore, using Rousseau and Frieds terminology, one of the objectives

of this paper is to encourage a more balanced discussion of how to promote

direct observation and analysis of contextual effects in Chinese organizationalscholarship by emphasizing the merits of adopting a comparative studies

approach (2001: 9).

32 D. A. Whetten



5/27

Organizational Theory and Theorizing

A distinguishing feature of the domain of theory and theorizing is that it focuses

on answers to questions of why (Dubin, 1978; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten,

1989). As a point of contrast, descriptive accounts focus on questions of what or

how. Obviously, both forms of inquiry are essential to scholarly investigation for example, one cannot hope to explain why something is occurring without

an in-depth knowledge of what it is and how it functions. But all too often,

scholarship stops short of asking the why question satisfied with description

sans explanation.

At the conclusion of their review of 120 research studies examining the impact

of cultural differences on motivation and work behaviour, Steers and Sanchez-

Runde (2002: 215) state,

However, despite this progress, we are left with the conclusion that serious

efforts are still required to build on these current findings in an effort to

extrapolate more of the essence of culture as a predictive study variable. We

remain largely mired in the realm of knowing what and, to some extent,

knowinghow. What would be particularly useful at this point for the study of

cross-cultural management would be expanding our understanding of why.

(Emphasis in original text.)

There are two other distinguishing attributes that inform our understanding of

what theory is and isnt (Sutton & Staw, 1995). First, explanation is not the same

as prediction. More specifically, as suggested by the observation that predictions

dont require explanations but explanations generate predictions, explanation

requires a deeper level of understanding. Second, except in cases where empirical

associations (i.e., statistical regularities) are explicitly linked to theoretical predic-

tions, they have no explanatory power instead, they call for an explanation

(Bunge, 1997). By implication, while it might be appropriate, statistically speaking,

to say that one observation explains another observation, this is not, theoretically

speaking, an explanation.Within social science, there are two broad types of theory: paradigmatic theo-

ries and propositional theories. As the name suggests, paradigmatic theories are

accepted forms of explanation that are widely shared within and often define a

scientific conversation or community. They function as generally accepted lenses

or perspectives used to explain theory appropriate phenomena. This characteriza-

tion is consistent with Davis and Marquis (2005) observation that paradigmatic

theories within organizational studies are routinely applied but never rejected and

seldom modified. It follows that the legitimacy of paradigmatic theories stems from

the number and perceived impact of previously published applications. Examplesof mainstream paradigmatic theories that have informed Chinese organizational

research include self-efficacy (Earley, 1994), transactions cost economics (Chen,




6/27

Peng, & Saparito, 2002) and institutional theory (Scott, 2002) see also Hoskisson,

Eden, Lau, and Wright (2000).

In contrast, some theories are formulated as propositions. In its simplest X Y

form, a propositional theory explains the relationship between specified variables

(Campbell, 1990; Whetten, 2008). In this paper, I will focus on an organizationalconstruct (X) explaining an organizational phenomenon (Y), consistent with

Evereds (1976) characterization of a causal explanation (i.e., Y because of X).

Hence, with reference to X Y propositions, I will use the terms theory and

explanation interchangeably, but more specifically, I will use the terms explana-

tion (i.e., explanans) and theory to refer to the X variable (X is a theory of Y; X

explains Y).

Complex propositional theories contain multiple X Y relationships and are

often expressed as graphical models. As we will see later, the addition of new

variables to an existing model can improve its explanatory utility in a variety ofways, including increasing its contextual scope or range. As part of their review of

the cross-cultural research on motivated work behaviour, Steers and Sanchez-

Runde (2002) include a graphical model summarizing a complex set of interrelated

propositions. They proceed to show how various pieces of this model have been

added over time. This is an excellent example of incremental theory development

within a field of study.

Examples of propositional theories in Chinese organizational scholarship

include Yan and Grays (1994) investigation of the relationship between bargaining

power, management control and performance in US and Chinese joint ventures

and Chens (1995) examination of reward allocation preferences among Chinese

employees. While the discussion of context and theory in this paper applies equally

to both paradigmatic and propositional theories, because the results of cross-

context theory applications are more likely to stimulate improvements in proposi-

tional theories, they will be our primary focus.[2]

Quoting Campbell (1990: 65), A theory is a collection of assertions, both verbal

and symbolic, that identifies what variables are important for what reasons, speci-

fies how they are interrelated and why, and identifies the conditionsunder whichthey should be related or not related (italics added). In line with Campbells focus

on conditional explanation, it is generally held that a theorys claims (testable

propositions) are circumscribed by two types of boundary conditions (Whetten,

2008): contextual assumptions distinctive features of what is being observed (e.g.,

when, where and who) and conceptual assumptions distinctive features of the

observers point of view (e.g., personal values and interests, preferred scholarly

perspective). For our purposes, an important implication of conditional explana-

tion is that all theories are context constrained or context dependent, whether or

not a particular theorys contextual assumptions have been explicitly identified.Before exploring the relationship between theory and context in detail, I wish to

highlight an additional way of characterizing theory and theory development.

34 D. A. Whetten



7/27

ContributionsOfandTo Theory

As summarized in Figure 1, there are basically two ways for scholarship projects to

make a theoretical contribution what I have referred to previously as contribu-

tions oftheory and contributions totheory (Whetten, 1989, 2002a, 2008).

Contributions oftheory involve the use of accepted theory to guide a scholarlyinvestigation. The intent of theory guided research is to alter the prevailing under-

standing of a particular phenomenon by examining it from a novel perspective.

This is done by applying a theoretical lens that is broadly accepted within a field of

study but that has not previously been applied to the targeted phenomenon. In

brief, contributions of theory generate what Davis (1971) famously referred to as

interesting results that is, novel insights into the subject of study. Theory guided

research has for years been the stock and trade of Western based research oriented

journals in the field of organizational studies (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007).

Contributions to theory include formulations of new theory (adding a new

explanation to the corpus of accepted theory) as well as improvements in existing

theory. Compared with contributions of theory, contributions to theory can be

characterized as a shift in focus from looking through the lens to improving the

lens (Whetten, 2002a). The general objective of both types of theory improvement

initiatives is strong theory, in the sense that the products are reasonably good

approximations (i.e., valid representations) of reality (McKelvey, 2002; Weick,

1995).[3] Examples of proposing a new lens in mainstream organizational schol-

arship include identification as an explanation of commitment (Ashforth & Mael,1989; Foreman & Whetten, 2002) and distinctive competencies as an explanation

of sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Examples of improving a

current lens include the evolving understanding of how leadership style affects

employee satisfaction and performance (House & Mitchell, 1974) and the addition

of moderators such as perceived trust and uncertainty to various explanations of

Figure 1. Making cross-context theoretical contributions

CONTRIBUTION OFTHEORY

Theory applicationTheory informs observation

Novel theory Better insights

CONTRIBUTION TOTHEORY

Theory improvementObservation informs theory

Better theory Novel applications

Context AValidated theories

Context BObserved phenomena

DUAL CONTRIBUTIONSBorrow ( )

and

Improve ( )




8/27

employees reactions to their jobs (Li, Bingham, & Umphress, 2007; Wright &

Cordery, 1999).

As shown in Figure 1, these two types of theoretical contributions can be char-

acterized as theory informing observation and observation informing theory.

Further, they can be combined to form a synthetic, integrated conception of theorybased scholarship, encompassing the reciprocal processes of contextualizing

general knowledge and generalizing contextual knowledge (Roethlisberger, 1977).

In support of this holistic view of knowledge generation, Peterson (2001) observed

that the way in which the terms etic and emic are commonly used in the

organizational studies literature varies significantly from Pikes (1990) intended

meaning. Specifically, he notes that Pike did not use this distinction to compare and

contrast different modes of inquiry, much less to argue that one form of inquiry is

inherently superior. Instead, Peterson draws attention to Pikes core argument that

scholarly inquiry is, ideally, an iterative, recursive process, linking extant compre-hensive theory (etics) with information drawn from new locations (emics). He

states, Pikes idea of emic and etic gives a realistic value base for both working from

what is older and known, albeit limited, and looking in locales unexplored by social

scientists for phenomena and ways of understanding them that have been previ-

ously overlooked (2001: 69).[4]

By extension, the notion of borrow with the intent to improve at the heart of

Figure 1 suggests that context sensitive, cross-context theory borrowing can yield

both types of theoretical contributions. More specifically, it holds out the possibility

that the use of a theory from Context A can generate novel insights into organi-

zational phenomena within Context B and that novel research results from

Context B can lead to improvements in a theory borrowed from Context A. This

way of thinking about theory application and theory improvement in cross-context

scholarship foreshadows the following, more comprehensive analysis of theory and

context.

EXAMINING THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THEORY AND

CONTEXT IN CROSS-CONTEXT SCHOLARSHIP

The analytical relationship between theory and context in organizational studies

can be characterized two ways: contextualizing organizational theory (making it

more context sensitive) and theorizing about the effects of context on organiza-

tional and managerial practices. This distinction can also be depicted as theoriesin

context (context embedded theories) and theoriesofcontext (context effects theory)

following a previously introduced comparison between studies in a context and

studies of a context (Whetten, 2002b; see also Tsui, 2004, and Meyer, 2006).

Table 1 summarizes these distinctions.Contextualizing theory parallels Childs (2000) treatment of high versus low

context theory, meaning the extent to which a theory explicitly accounts for

36 D. A. Whetten



9/27

Table1.

Cross-contexttheorizing

Con

textualizingtheory

Theoriesincontext

Contextembeddedtheory

Theorizingaboutcontext

Theoriesofcontext

Contexteffectstheory

1.Contributionofcontextualiz

ed

organizationaltheory(theory

application)

2.Contributiontocontextualized

organizationaltheory(theory

improvement)

3.Contributionofcontexteffects

theory(theoryapplication)

4.Contribution

tocontexteffects

theory(theory

improvement)

Question

GiventheaccepteduseofX

YinContextA

,howmight

ExplanationXaltercurre

nt

thinkingaboutOrganizational

PracticeYinContextB?

Giventheaccepteduse

ofX

YinContextA

,does

ExplanationXperfor

mthe

samewayinContext

B?

Whatcontextdistinguishing

effectsmightexplainobserved

differencesinOrganizational

PracticeYinCon

textsAvs.

Bvs.

C?

Howmightnew

andbetter

contexteffect

stheories

improvecrosscontext

theorizing?

Purpose

UnderstandContextB

organizationsviacontext

sensitiveapplicationof

ContextAorganizational

theories

ImproveContextA

organizationaltheoriesby

showinghowtheywo

rk

differentlyinContext

B

Understanddifferen

cesin

contextspecificorganizational

phenomenaviaapplicationof

relevantcontexte

ffects

theories

Useorganizatio

nalresearch

resultstoidentifynewcontext

effectstheoriesortorefine

currentconte

xteffects

Method

Toensureconsistencyinan

X

Yexplanationacross

contexts,controlforYrelated

contextdistinguishingeffe

cts

Toaccountforobserved

differencesinXY

predictionsacrosscon

texts,

incorporateobserved

Xand

Yrelatedcontext

distinguishingeffects(Z)as

interactions(X

Z)

Usecontextdistingu

ishing

effectsasexplanations

(Xvariables)

Addtothelibra

ryofavailable

contexteffect

ssuitablefor

organizationa

lresearch(e

.g.,

controlsforcolumn1

,

moderatorsforcolumn2

,

independentvariablesfor

column3)

Outcome

Usenovelinsightsgenerated

by

aforeignorganizational

theorytoinformlocal

organizationalresearch

Usenovelapplications(i.e.,

localorganizational

research

results)toimprovefo

reign

organizationaltheory

Usenovelinsightsgeneratedby

acontexteffectstheoryto

informlocalorganizations

scholarship

Usenovelapplications(i

.e.,

new

combination

ofcontexts)to

improvecont

exteffectstheory




10/27

relevant contextual conditions. It is also consistent with McGuires (1983) contex-

tualist theory of knowledge, which is based on the supposition that the objective of

scientific inquiry is to establish facts within known boundaries, not to build a

repository of well-supported theories. McGuire argues that investigators should not

test hypotheses to determine if they are true or false, but rather they shoulddetermine the conditions under which a particular hypothesis holds. In this con-

ception of the scientific enterprise, the role of theory is to explain observations in

situ. It follows that the utility or validity of a theory is, to a large extent, a function

of its contextual sensitivity (McKelvey, 2002). Echoing the contributions ofand

to theory theme depicted in Figure 1, our cross-context examination of con-

textualizing organizational theory will focus on how to apply organizational

theory in a context sensitive manner and on how to make organizational theories

more context sensitive.

In contrast, theorizing about context fundamentally alters the relationshipbetween context and theory instead of using context effects to contextualize

organizational theories, context effects are used as theories (i.e., explanations,

expressed as X variables, of organizational phenomena). In broader terms, the

focus shifts from contextualizing the study of organizations to studying context

effects in organizational settings. This is akin to Davis and Marquis (2005)

reframing of organizational scholarship: focusing on organizations as the subject,

rather than the object, of inquiry. For example, rather than examining how

organizations institutionalize various practices and beliefs, this approach exam-

ines the effects of institutional level cultural, political and economic mechanisms

on organizational practices and beliefs. Consistent with the contributions ofand

to theory theme from Figure 1, the discussion of theorizing about context will

focus on the use of context effects as explanations in organizational research and

the use of organizational research to develop new or improved context effects

explanations.

In summary, Table 1 uses two analytical distinctions to characterize the domain

of cross-context theorizing. The distinction between contextualizing theory

(columns 1 and 2) and theorizing about context (columns 3 and 4) is combined withthe distinction introduced in conjunction with Figure 1, between contribution of

theory/theory application (columns 1 and 3) and contribution to theory/theory

improvement (columns 2 and 4).

ContributionsofContextualized (Context Sensitive) Organizational

Theory

Inasmuch as all theories are context bound, all theories should be used in a context

sensitive manner that is, they should not unknowingly be applied in circum-stances that exceed their operational boundaries. Ideally, all published organiza-

tional theories should come with a warning label: The utility of this explanation

38 D. A. Whetten



11/27

is limited by its expected contextual range, which is currently specified as

follows. . . . In reality, because a theorys assumptions are seldom explicitly stated,

it is the responsibility of those using a particular theory to systematically compare

contextual features that distinguish the proposed research setting from the setting

which gave rise to the theory. However, even in cases where the characteristics ofContext A and Context B are substantially different (e.g., national contexts), not

all context distinguishing features operate as relevant boundary conditions or

assumptions for a particular theory. Thus, we need to give special attention to

the challenge of identifying theory relevant context effects and determining what

role they should play in context sensitive theory applications.

When dealing with abstractions like organizational theory and organizational

context, I find it useful to ground my thinking in the language of experimental

design. As a starting point, if a study observes a change in Y in the presence of X,

it is logical to conclude that the change in Y was due to X or to something elserelated to Y. In controlled experiments, efforts are made to isolate the unique effect

of X on Y by comparing the results from a treatment group (where Y is experi-

enced in the presence of X) and a control group (where X is not present). Impor-

tantly, the experimental model assumes that outcome related contextual conditions

are the same for the control and treatment groups.

We can apply this rudimentary understanding of experimental design to the case

of cross-context theory borrowing in the following manner (cf., Tsang & Kwan,

1999). Lets suppose that a research team in Context B studying organizational

phenomenon Y reads that colleagues in Context A have used X to explain Y.

Because X is not currently included among the accepted explanations of Y in

Context B, the research team designs a study to demonstrate that X explains Y in

their setting. They do so with the expectation that comparable cross-context results

will significantly alter the thinking of fellow Context B researchers about the

antecedents of Y.

The obvious challenge facing cross-context theory applications of this sort is

ensuring that all Y related, Contexts A and B distinguishing features are accounted

for in the research design. There are two general ways of doing this. First, if a Yrelated, confounding contextual effect is not related to X, it is controlled for

(i.e., the level of the confounding effect is measured and factored into the X Y

statistical analysis). Second, if a confounding contextual effect is related to X, then

it is incorporated into the X Y proposition as a moderator (Z). The use of

context effects as moderators will be discussed in the next section (Context Sensi-

tive Contributions toOrganizational Theory).

Cross-national theory borrowing appears to be a classic high riskhigh pay-off

strategy. On the risk side, when the differences between Context A and Context

B are great, the likelihood of applying a borrowed theory in a context insensitivemanner are high. However, if theory relevant contextual differences can be prop-

erly controlled, the potential for enhancing current explanations of Context B




12/27

organizational practices is equally high. To be clear, when engaging in cross-

context theory application, the principle reason for ensuring that an X Y

theoretical proposition borrowed from Context A holds in Context B is so the

studys results can credibly challenge Context B thinking about Y. Unfortunately,

many cross-context theory applications stop short of producing insights intoContext B phenomena, electing instead to simply report, It works the same way

over here. In addition to learning that the application of a Context A theory in

Context B yielded a comparable result, we need to know if Context B authorities

consider this an interesting result and, if so, how it alters their taken for granted

understanding of a Y outcome. As this discussion illustrates, the research question

guiding cross-context theory application is, Given the accepted use of X Y in

Context A, how might a context sensitive confirmation of this proposition alter

current thinking about Y in Context B?

A classic research strategy used in Western, theory guided scholarship is to pitone theoretical prediction against another. This can be thought of as looking at a

Y outcome through two different X lenses and reporting the results. One of the

practical advantages of this strategy is that it doubles the likelihood of a study

making a contributionoftheory. It is noteworthy that this is one of the recommen-

dations made by Steers and Sanchez-Runde (2002) at the conclusion of their

review of cross-cultural research on work behaviour. As an example, they single out

a study by Welsh, Luthans, and Sommer (1993) comparing three Western incen-

tive systems among Russian employees.

A series of research studies examining conflict management practices in China

and informed by Western theory illustrate the practice of cross-context theory

borrowing. Accepted wisdom has held that Chinese people value harmony and

avoid confrontation in conflict situations (Leung, 1997). The associated stereotypi-

cal belief is that open discussion and debate are avoided in principle and very likely

prove to be counterproductive in practice. Challenging this taken for granted view,

Tjosvold and his colleagues (Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold, Leung, & Johnson, 2006)

applied Deutschs theory, which posits that, when individuals share cooperative

rather than competitive goals, controversies among them are likely to producepositive consequences. Consistent with results from studies conducted in Western

countries, this research showed that, when conflicting parties in Chinese organi-

zations share cooperative goals, open discussion and debate foster positive attitudes

and outcomes.

Contributionsto Contextualized (Context Sensitive) Organizational

Theory

The second column in Table 1 focuses attention on testing an organizationaltheorys contextual range via systematic cross-context comparison. The research

question guiding cross-context theory development initiatives is, Given the

40 D. A. Whetten



13/27

accepted use of X Y in Context A, does it perform the same way in Context B?

This type of scholarship draws heavily on replication theory (Tsang & Kwan,

1999), especially whats referred to as empirical generalization. As noted by Steers

and Sanchez-Runde (2002), this is best done when samples are chosen strategically

rather than conveniently what they refer to as theory based sampling (i.e., pickinga sample that constitutes a suitable test of a theory), not sampling based theory (i.e.,

picking a theory that matches a convenient sample).

A comparison of columns 1 and 2 in Table 1 reveals a critical difference.

Whereas the former is predicated on the results of theory based research in Context

A and Context B being the same (all other things being equal!), the latter is

predicated on these results being unexpectedly different. When this is the case, two

possibilities for making the theory more context sensitive can be explored: modify

the Context A conception of X or add a context effects moderator (Z).

Satisfying the requirement of construct validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991)becomes especially important and significantly more challenging when a construct

is used in multiple contexts. As discussed in some detail in Tsui (2006), cross-

context research must ensure that selected concepts are properly translated and

that their meanings are adapted to each context. An extreme example of this

challenge is reported in Welsh et al. (1993). One of the Western motivational

strategies they tested among Russian workers was engaging them in decisions

affecting their work. In their conclusion, the authors raise questions about the

meaning of employee participation in a post-communist culture. As this example

suggests, the need to formulate context sensitive versions of X variables (i.e.,

making their meaning functionally equivalent across multiple contexts) constitutes

an important theory improvement opportunity.

A study of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in China by Farh,

Zhong, and Organ (2004) illustrates this approach to theory improvement. In this

study, Chinese business employees and managers were given a standard descrip-

tion of OCB and then asked to identify examples they had observed in their

organizations. By comparing these results with the nine dimensions of OCB nor-

mally reported in Western scholarship, the authors concluded that a Chineseappropriate version of OCB excluded three of the standard dimensions, needed

to account for significant changes in the relative importance of at least four other

dimensions and required an additional dimension (social welfare participation).

Let me highlight one of these theoretical contributions. It is noteworthy that the

addition of a new dimension, stemming from the authors awareness that the desire

to promote social welfare is much higher in China than in the USA, resulted in a

more robust conception of OCB. That is, when OCB is subsequently used as an X

variable in any cultural context, it is now capable of accounting for an organiza-

tional members desire, be it large or small, to promote social welfare. Thisexample illustrates an important reason for systematically subjecting organiza-

tional theories to cross-context tests: when the contextual sensitivity of an existing




14/27

theory is enhanced (contributiontotheory), its value as a research tool (contribution

oftheory) is increased.

When a particular context distinguishing feature (Z) alters an X Y explana-

tion and it is related to X, then it should be considered as a possible moderating

condition in the borrowed X

Y propositional theory. (As this characterizationreminds us, moderators specify when under what conditions a specified effect

will occur and what form it might take.) When a contextual moderator is added to

an X Y proposition in the form of an (X Z) variable, our understanding of the

relationship between X and Y becomes more context sensitive.

So how does one identify possible contextual moderators? In the course of

analysing the results from a theory application study, researchers are well advised

to look for telltale indicators. According to Johns (2006), these include contradic-

tory or unstable results across multiple settings and a curvilinear relationship

exhibited within a single setting. When these patterns are observed, the logicalplace to start the search for possible interaction effects is among the context effects

treated as controls in the study. If this investigation does not yield satisfactory

results, the logical alternative is to design a new study that includes a broader range

of context distinguishing features.

There are numerous examples in the Chinese organizational studies literature of

this approach to theory development. Here are two such illustrations. First, in a

study conducted by Lam, Schaubroeck, and Aryee (2002), the researchers started

with the conventional finding that perceived justice is positively correlated with a

persons level of satisfaction related work outcomes (e.g., absenteeism). They then

examined the moderating effects of two context differentiating cultural values:

individualism and power distance. They report that power distance, but not

individualism, moderated this relationship. Second, in a broad exploration of the

moderating effects of context on theories of cooperation, Chen, Chen, and Meindl

(1998) argued that individualismcollectivism alters the relationship between trust

and cooperation, face to face communication and cooperation, goal interdepen-

dence and cooperation, and accountability and cooperation.

ContributionsofContext Effects Theory

As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the transition from columns 1 and

2 (contextualizing theory) to column 3 (theorizing about context) of Table 1 involves

a significant change in the relationship between organizational theory and organi-

zational context. This can be summarized as a shift from increasing the context

sensitivity of organizational theories to using context effects as theories (X variables).

A couple of specific comparisons involving the first three columns in Table 1 might

help clarify this important shift in focus. Whereas in column 2 context effects areused to explain when an X Y prediction will occur, in column 3 they are used to

explain why an organizational phenomenon (Y) occurs.[5]Also, comparing column

42 D. A. Whetten



15/27

1 and column 3, we see a contrast in the type of theory being borrowed, namely,

organizational theory (e.g., organizational culture organizational performance)

versus context effects theory (e.g., national culture organizational culture).

Finally, as we move from left to right across these three columns, the role of context

effects becomes more central to the quest for explanation progressing from (i) whatis deliberately held outside an X Y proposition, to (ii) what is used to refine the

definition of a borrowed X or is incorporated as a context sensitive moderator and,

finally, to (iii) what is invoked as an explanation of Y.

The use of context effects to explain inconsistent cross-context results is the

traditional domain of comparative organizational research, as reflected in the

research question, What context distinguishing effects might explain observed

differences in a particular organizational practice in different settings? Using the

language of experimental design, comparative organizational research (compar-

ing organizations in different contexts) systematically examines the effects ofspecific context distinguishing features by explaining differences in the same phe-

nomenon across multiple contexts. Thus, while research conducted within a

single context may or may not be context sensitive, comparative research nec-

essarily focuses on context distinguishing effects (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, &

Janssens, 1995; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Notable examples of context effects

theories include frameworks developed by Hofstede (1980), Schwartz (1992,

1994), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) and House, Hanges, Javidan,

Dorfman, and Gupta (2004). According to Tsui et al. (2007), the most commonly

used context effects in cross-cultural research are individualismcollectivism and

power distance.

Tsui et al. (2007) bring to our attention a significant limitation in how context

effects are often used in cross-context research. Specifically, they report that 60

percent of the 93 cross-cultural comparative research studies they reviewed used

such imprecise representations of culture, including treating national culture as

a dummy variable, that it was impossible for the studies authors to actually

explain the cross-context differences observed in their data (see Steers &

Sanchez-Runde, 2002, for a similar observation). This sobering critique remindsus that, while statistical regularities can be used to describe or even predict cross-

context differences, they seldom constitute a definitive, defensible explanation of

those differences.

Ill highlight two examples of cross-context applications of context effects theo-

ries.[6] Cullen, Parboteeah, and Hoegl (2004) report a 28-country study of ethically

suspect behaviour. They found that, whereas the cultural values of universalism

and pecuniary materialism were positively related to managers inclination to

justify ethically suspect behaviour, achievement orientation and individualism

were negatively related to it. The authors further found that a number of socialinstitutional context effects (such as degrees of industrialization, socialism and

family breakdown) were associated with a high likelihood of ethically suspect




16/27

behaviour. In contrast, average educational attainment within the society was

negatively related to a lenient ethical attitude.

Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) conducted a study of 461 members in 81 self-

management teams from four countries: Belgium, Finland, the Philippines and the

USA. The purpose of the study was to examine how cultural values (collectivism,power distance, orientation and determination) influenced team effectiveness and

empowerment via a mediating variable: employees resistance to teams or to

self-management. The results showed that resistance fully mediated the influence

of cultural values for team level outcomes and partially mediated the influence of

cultural values for individual level outcomes. Subsequent analysis revealed that

culture had a stronger effect on resistance in some countries than in others. For

example, determinism was more strongly associated with resistance to self-

management among US respondents than it was among Philippine respondents.

Contributionsto Context Effects Theory

The last component of our examination of theory and context involves the iden-

tification of new context effects that are suitable explanations for organizational

phenomenon as well as the refinement of currently specified context effects. The

research question inspiring this form of theory development is, How might refine-

ments in current context effects, as well as the identification of new ones, help

organizational scholarship be more context sensitive? It is important to underscore

how ongoing efforts to expand and improve the organizational studies context

effects tool kit not only contribute to the corpus of context effects theory, but also,

indirectly, contribute to the context sensitive application and development of

organizational theory. As noted previously, these contextualizing theory practices

use context effects to either rule out alternative contextual explanations or to make

an existing organizational theory more context sensitive. It follows that the success

of cross-context theorizing of any kind depends on an investigators ability to

identify relevant context distinguishing differences.

The most obvious way to make this type of theoretical contribution is to identifynew context effects that are suitable for cross-context organizational comparisons.

Tsui et al. (2007) offer several suggestions for formulating theories of contextual

differences, including developing configurational measures of national culture

(following the lead of Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004; Lytle et al., 1995; and

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998) and the use of multiple contextual

features, referred to as polycontextualization by Von Glinow, Shapiro, and Brett

(2004) and Shapiro, Von Glinow, and Xiao (2007).

Although most cross-national comparisons reported in the Chinese organiza-

tional scholarship literature rely on well-known context effects, such asindividualismcollectivism and power distance, there are a few exceptions. Boisot

and Child (1996) proposed a new framework for explaining the form of capitalism

44 D. A. Whetten



17/27

likely to be preferred by an emerging economy based on the level of codified and

diffused information within a society. Also, Yan and Gray (1994) identified several

distinguishing features of China and the USA including degree of mutual trust

and preference for formalized contracts in their study of joint business ventures

between these countries.A second way to contribute to context effect theory is to enhance the utility of a

known context effects explanation by making it more context sensitive via the

addition of a contextual moderator. While at first the notion of an (X context

effect Z context effect) interaction term may seem odd, the role of contextual

moderators is to contextualize theoretical propositions, whether the X variable is

an organizational feature or a contextual feature. As we see in the work of House

et al. (2004) and Von Glinow et al. (2004), the affect of identifying interaction

effects between contextual features is to make context effects theories more fine

grained.Chens (1995) study of incentives in the USA and China exemplifies this

approach to context effects theory development. In his quest to understand how

members of these different cultures allocate scarce resources, he discovered that the

standard collectivism vs. individualism contextual distinction was a necessary but

an insufficient contextual explanation. Specifically, he learned that a second-order

contextual feature called economic vs. humanistic goal preferences moderated the

first-order collectivism vs. individualism explanation. Following Chens research,

organizational scholars interested in using collectivism vs. individualism to explain

outcomes similar to resource allocation decisions are advised to include measures

of economic vs. humanistic goals.

Figure 2 provides a graphical summary of the various ways in which context

effects are used in propositional theory. On the left side of the model are shown two

Figure 2. Using context effects in propositional theory

X1: Context Aorganizational theory

(Table 1: column 1)Y1: Context B

organizational practice

X2: Contexteffects theory

(Table 1: column 3)

Contextual assumptions: what is observed (context effects)

Conceptual assumptions: observers perspective (e.g., context sensitivity)

X explains Y

Y2: Organizationalpractice in

context A vs. B vs. C

Z: Context Bcontext effect

(Table 1: column 2)




18/27

X explanations and on the right side there are two corresponding Y organizational

practices. The X1 Y1 proposition corresponds with column 1 in Table 1:

Contributions of a borrowed contextualized (context sensitive) organizational

theory. The X2 Y2 proposition corresponds with column 3 in Table 1: Con-

tributions ofcontext effects theory. The use of a Context B context effect as a Zmoderator for the X1 Y2 proposition is also depicted in the model. This

corresponds with column 2 in Table 1: Contributions tocontextualized organiza-

tional theory.

At the top of the figure, the conceptual assumptions governing the propositions

that comprise the model are depicted, including the observers level of context

sensitivity. Below the model, a parallel set of governing assumptions is depicted.

These are referred to as contextual assumptions or observed context effects that

apply to all propositions in the model. Listing one or more contextual assumptions

or effects outside a model signifies their use as controls for the propositions com-prising the model. The two arrows connecting the contextual assumptions with the

propositions in the model signify how context effects might be brought into a

model, serving as either moderators or independent variables (predictors).

SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR SCHOLARS IN NEW

RESEARCH CONTEXTS

The central theme of this paper is that cross-context theory application and

improvement, characterized herein as borrow with the intent to improve, consti-

tutes a promising line of inquiry for scholars operating outside the mainstream of

organizational studies scholarship. That said, I dont want to minimize the chal-

lenges facing newcomers seeking to influence the thinking of researchers operating

within the established Western theoretical conventions. Thus, in this section, I

present four practical suggestions for how newcomers can contribute to main-

stream academic conversations in this case Chinese organizational scholars

publishing in US based journals.

Develop a Native Understanding of the Borrowed Theory

An obvious implication of the notion of cross-context theory borrowing is that it

requires an in-depth, native understanding of the new and the old social contexts.

A less obvious implication is that it requires a comparable understanding of the

theory being borrowed. A native-like mastery of a particular theory requires a

broad understanding of its historical roots, including the particular question it was

intended to address, the pre-existing explanations, if any, it challenged, etc. In

addition, it is important to understand how a theory is currently being conceptu-alized and operationalized, especially when contemporary treatments include

conflicting interpretations of key terms and corresponding measures of those terms

46 D. A. Whetten



19/27

(for examples, see Corley, Harquail, Pratt, Glynn, Fiol, & Hatch, 2006; Whetten,

2007). This information helps newcomers avoid inadvertently picking outdated

formulations or mismatching definitions and measures.[7]

What might be characterized as in situ theoretical knowledge becomes espe-

cially important when the act of theory borrowing is done with the intent ofimproving the theory. Stated bluntly, if authorities on a particular theory dont

recognize the description of what was borrowed as an authentic, accurate repre-

sentation, they are likely to summarily dismiss proposals to modify the theory. Said

differently, if what was borrowed is unrecognizable, what is returned will likely be

rejected.

Manage the Perception of What Readers Consider Familiar and

Unfamiliar

This is one of the most difficult challenges facing newcomers attempting to join an

established conversation. It is important to acknowledge that what is considered

context specific vs. general knowledge in the Western organizational studies litera-

ture typically has little to do with whether a particular research finding or theo-

retical proposition has been systematically examined in multiple contexts. Instead,

it reflects the parochial, context specific orientation of what passes as mainstream

scholarship in our field. Simply put, from the perspective of most Western scholars,

what gets classified as local knowledge is what they judge to be unfamiliar context

specific knowledge and what gets classified as general knowledge is what, to their

eyes, is familiar context specific knowledge.

With this mainstream perspective in mind, let me direct attention to two com-

pensating discursive strategies (Whetten, 2002b; see also Tsui, 2004, and Meyer,

2006).[8] First, make the novel appear familiar. This means helping Western schol-

ars understand novel, unfamiliar organizational practices and terms by relating

them to things that are familiar to them. As a consequence, Western scholars who

are unfamiliar with Chinese organizations and culture are better able to assess the

appropriateness of proposed contextualized applicationsofWestern organizationaltheory. Second, make the familiar appear novel. This is an essential component of

cross-context contributions to theory in that it challenges the familiar, taken for

granted rendition of a theoretical perspective by introducing unexpected, incon-

gruent results from novel applications. Examples of both strategies can be found in

Whetten (2002b), Tsui (2004), White (2002) and Meyer (2006).

Use Graphical Models as Illustrations of Complex Theoretical

Formulations

Another way of spanning the gap between author and audience in cross-context

conversations is to utilize easily recognized symbolic representations, such as




20/27

graphical models. This suggestion is especially relevant when the native language

of authors and readers is not the same. Over the years, I have become an advocate

of modeling as a methodology for propositional theory development and of

models as representations of complex theoretical formulations (Whetten, 2002a,

2008). The practice of representing nascent conceptualizations as graphicalmodels, with or without associated formal propositions, can enhance the theorizing

process and make its products more comprehensible to a diverse audience. In

addition, it facilitates continuous theory improvement by making it easier for

readers to design appropriate tests and applications and to propose suitable

enhancements (Bachrach, 1989).

I foresee at least two benefits arising from newcomers fostering the habit of

mind of graphically representing the propositional arguments embedded in the

Western organizational studies literature. First, this practice enhances readers

comprehension of complex arguments. This activity is analogous to the practice ofdiagramming English sentences. The argument supporting this practice is that, by

understanding the structure of a language, one becomes a more proficient speaker

of the language. The same can be said for mastering a body of scholarly knowledge

containing a series of interlaced causal arguments. Second, graphical representa-

tions are a particularly useful way of depicting proposed changes in an extant

theory (e.g., highlighting key differences between the accepted and proposed expla-

nation of Y). They are also an effective way of depicting research designs incor-

porating competing theoretical predictions of the same phenomenon the type of

cross-cultural research recommended by Steers and Sanchez-Runde (2002).

Participate in Cross-Context Research Teams

A final suggestion for achieving the level of cross-context familiarity necessary to do

research in one context and speak to an audience in a different context is to

participate in cross-context research teams. A time honoured strategy for over-

coming deficiencies between ones skills and knowledge and the requirements for

implementing a particular research strategy is to form partnerships with colleaguespossessing complementary capabilities. This strategy is particularly relevant for

the type of cross-national scholarship described in this paper, which requires

in-depth contextual and theoretical knowledge and in which it is difficult to avoid

cultural bias and context insensitivity (House et al., 2004; Peterson, 2001; Steers

& Sanchez-Runde, 2002; Tsui et al., 2007).

It is worth noting that shifting the locus of required expertise from a single

scholar to a team of scholars often introduces its own set of challenges, including

conflicting priorities and disagreements over project leadership or the division of

labour among project members. Fortunately, useful guidelines for organizingmultinational research teams have been developed by a variety of experienced

collaborators, including Brett, Tinsley, Janssens, Barsness, and Lytle (1997);

48 D. A. Whetten



21/27

Graen, Hui, Wakabayashi, and Wang (1997); House et al. (1995); Mezias, Chen,

and Murphy (1999); Peterson (2001).

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to expand a growing interest in context sensitive

organizational research to include context sensitive organizational theory. The

ensuing systematic examination of theory and context was partly a response to the

criticism that Chinese organizational research relies too heavily on Western theo-

ries. While most critics of cross-context theory borrowing advance the alternative

of developing indigenous theory, this paper focused on making theory borrowing

more context sensitive. Further, as we learn from the example of US organizational

scholarship, restricting research to a single context does not make it context

sensitive, and engaging in inductive theorizing is no guarantee that relevant con-textual effects will be considered. I find it more useful, therefore, to think of context

blindness as a manifested property of the observer rather than as a distinguishing

property of a particular observational tool.

A larger concern with a singular focus on indigenous theorizing is that it rules

out the possibility of making cross-context contributionsofand to theory. Context

sensitive applications of foreign theory have the potential to stimulate new insights

into local phenomena and, when the results from a cross-context application are

unexpectedly different, an opportunity arises to make the theory more context

sensitive. Thus, through the systematic application of theories to new settings, their

contextual range can be expanded and their subsequent utility as explanations

enhanced. In this manner, the borrow with the intent to improve approach to

cross-context scholarship can foster context sensitive organizational theory as well

as context sensitive organizational research.

To better understand the relationship between theory and context in organiza-

tional scholarship, four forms of cross-context theorizing were identified and exam-

ined in some detail. These categories were created by combining two distinctions:

contributions oftheory and contributions to theory, together with theories in contextand theoriesofcontext. Key points from this examination include the following.

Context dependent theory: all organizational studies theories are context depen-

dent, in one way or another. However, because theories vary significantly in the

extent to which their contextual boundaries have been explicitly delineated, all

applications of extant theory need to be sensitive to differences in new vs. old

contextual conditions.

Contextualizing theory (theoriesin context): from a research perspective, cross-

context application of borrowed theory is best undertaken when it is most

likely to generate novel insights into local organizational practices and whenit can be done in a context sensitive manner that is, controlling for Y related

context distinguishing effects. From a theoretical perspective, the additional merit




22/27

of cross-context theory borrowing is that novel results may suggest ways to make

the theory more context sensitive. Two possibilities discussed in this paper are

contextualizing the meaning of the explanation (X variable) and incorporating

an X and Y related contextual effect (Z) into the theory as a moderating con-

dition (X

Z).Theorizing about context (theoriesofcontext): some theories used in organiza-

tional research invoke context effects as explanations (X variables). The use of

context effects to explain observed differences in the same phenomenon across

multiple contexts forms the core of theory based comparative research. The

various forms of contextualizing theory and theorizing about context all require the

use of context distinguishing effects. This observation reminds us that the identi-

fication of new context effects, as well as the improvement of those previously

identified, is central to the success of cross-context comparison, of any kind.

The particular implication of this analysis Ive chosen to highlight is that cross-context theorizing holds promise for scholars operating outside the mainstream

organizational studies context (i.e., Western nations) who are interested in joining

mainstream conversations and contributing to theory improvement or develop-

ment. Suggestions for researchers pursuing this course of action include: develop-

ing a native understanding of the borrowed theory, increasing your audiences

understanding of your proposed application or improvement of borrowed theory

by managing their perception of what is considered familiar and unfamiliar, using

graphical models to master complex theoretical arguments and to communicate

proposed changes in those arguments and, finally, participating in strategically

designed cross-context research teams.

Let me end by echoing Steers and Sanchez-Rundes (2002: 214) call for a

particular type of cross-cultural research: The field of cross-cultural motivation

[the subject of their review] requires a significant increase in rigorous, comprehen-

sive, and theory based studies that further our systematic understanding and

predictability of behaviour phenomena in organizations around the world

(emphasis in original text). Hopefully, readers interested in responding to this call

will find the systematic approach to cross-context application and testing ofWestern organizational theory described in this paper useful.

NOTES

This article was presented in the MORspecial symposium Exploitation or exploration: The futureof Chinese management research session at the third biennial conference of the InternationalAssociation for Chinese Management Research, Guangzhou, China, June 2008.

I wish to express appreciation to Anne Tsui, Hector Rocha, Gary Johns and two anonymousreviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts.

[1] For a discussion of grounded theory development that links its use to the life cycle of the subjectmatter, rather than to an epistemological preference for context specific scholarship, seeEdmondson and McManus (2007).

50 D. A. Whetten



23/27

[2] I appreciate a reviewer highlighting Chen, Peng, and Saparitos (2002) proposed changes totransaction cost economics as a notable exception to this pattern. In addition, see Xiao and Tsuis(2007) proposed modifications of structural holes theory.

[3] To avoid misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that only theory related scholarship constitutesa scholarly contribution or that all scholarship should be theory guided (see Hambrick, 2007).Instead, I am assuming that the practices of theory application and theory development will

continue, for some time, serving as hallmarks of mainstream (Western based) organizationalscholarship. Thus, for the foreseeable future, those interested in making contributions to thisliterature would be well advised to have ready answers for the question, Does this work make atheoretical contribution and if so, how?

[4] This treatment of emic and etic scholarship raises an additional concern about the one-sided callfor indigenous Chinese organizational scholarship. Consistent with the early thinking of Koontz(1961) and, more recently, Pfeffer (1993) and Glick, Miller, and Cardinal (2007), the field oforganizational studies would not be well served by the emergence of Asian, US, or Europeanbranded, context specific theories and findings. In contrast, the field of organizational studiesshould promote knowledge that contributes to both context specific and cross-context under-standing and application. While I am emphasizing the contribution that contextualization canmake in this regard, I acknowledge that generalization can yield comparable results. I leave it to

others to chart that course.[5] It is interesting that, of the 93 cross-cultural studies reviewed by Tsui et al. (2007), 38 used

cultural context as a moderating variable and 55 studies used it as an independent variable.[6] In keeping with my cross-national focus, I will not provide detailed examples of China specific

applications of context effects explanations. Examples of this type of research include Chen(2007) and Nee, Opper, and Wong (2007). See Tsui (2004, 2006) for a detailed discussion ofcontext sensitive, indigenous theory development.

[7] I agree with the observation of an anonymous reviewer that the highly fragmented and pluralisticnature of our field makes it difficult even for seasoned Western scholars to master the nuances ofa particular subject matter. Nevertheless, a mismatched definition and measure, for example,conveys the impression that researchers didnt do their homework.

[8] It is worth noting that these strategies appear to parallel the twin values of continuity and novelty

prized by Western organizational scholars (McKinley, Mone, & Moon, 1999).

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. F., & Mael, F. A. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 2039.

Bachrach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Man-agement Review, 14(4): 496515.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421448.

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management,17(1): 99120.

Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining Chinas emergingeconomic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 600628.

Brett, J. M., Tinsley, C. H., Janssens, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Lytle, A. L. 1997. New approaches tothe study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco: NewLexington Press.

Bunge, M. 1997. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4): 410465.

Campbell, J. P. 1990. The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy: 3973. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-levelapproach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13(1): 55110.

Chen, C. C. 1995. New trends in reward allocation preferences: A Sino-US comparison. Academyof Management Journal, 38(2): 408428.

Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The culturaleffects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 285304.




24/27

Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. 2002. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: Acultural perspective on transaction cost economics.Journal of Management, 28(4): 567583.

Chen, W. 2007. Does the colour of the cat matter? The red hat strategy in Chinas private enterprises.Management and Organization Review,3(1): 5580.

Cheng, J. L. C. 1994. Notes: On the concept of universal knowledge in organizational science:Implications for cross-national research. Management Science, 40(1): 162168.

Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organization cross-nationality. In J. L. Cheng & R. B. Peterson(Eds.), Advances in international comparative management, vol. 13: 2775. Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

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 ManagementInquiry, 15(2): 8599.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: Afive-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal.Academy of Management Journal,50(6): 12811303.

Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Hoegl, M. 2004. Cross-national differences in managers willing-ness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: A test of institutional anomie theory. Academy of

Management Journal, 47(3): 411421.

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century:Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332343.

Davis, M. 1971. Thats interesting! Towards a phenomenology of a sociology and a sociology ofphenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2): 309344.

Dubin, R. 1978. Theory development. New York: Free Press.Earley, P. C. 1994. Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 89117.Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research.

Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 11551179.Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review,14(4): 532550.Evered, R. D. 1976. A typology of explicative models. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 9(2): 260269.Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the PeoplesRepublic of China. Organization Science, 15(2): 241253.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. 2002. Members identification with multiple-identity organizations.Organizational Science, 13(6): 618635.

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): 817835.

Graen, G. B., Hui, C., Wakabayashi, M., & Wang, Z. M. 1997. Cross-cultural research alliances inorganizational research: Cross-cultural partnership making in action. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez(Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology:160189. San Francisco: New Lexington.

Griffin, M. A. 2007. Specifying organizational contexts: Systematic links between contexts and

processes in organizational behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 859863.Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of managements devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing.Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 13461352.

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big-b versus big-o: What is organizational about organizationalbehavior?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 4358.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences: International differences in work relatedvalues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies.Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249267.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for theintegration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 17(1): 71114.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.House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business,

3(Fall): 8198.

52 D. A. Whetten



25/27

Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior,22(1): 3142.Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Man-

agement Review, 31(2): 385408.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).

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of team members cultural values on produc-tivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing working teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5): 597617.

Koontz, H. 1961. The management theory jungle. Journal of the Academy of Management,4(3): 174188.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organi-zations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research andmethods in organizations: 390. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. 2002. Relationship between organizational justice andemployee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,23(1): 118.

Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.),

New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology:640675.San Francisco: New Lexington.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. OrganizationScience, 18(2): 200216.

Li, J. T., & Tsui, A. 2002. A citation of analysis of management and organization research in theChinese context: 19841999. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1): 87107.

Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H., & Janssens, M. 1995. A paradigm for con-firmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.),Research in organizational behavior,vol. 17: 167214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McGuire, W. J. 1983. A contextualist theory of knowledge: Its implications for innovation and reformin psychological research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology:147. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.McKelvey, B. 2002. Model-centered organizational science epistemology. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.),Companion to organizations: 752780. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinants and development of schools inorganization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 634648.

Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journalof Management,23(2): 119137.

Mezias, S. J., Chen, Y. R., & Murphy, P. 1999. Toto, I dont think were in Kansas anymore: Somefootnotes to cross-cultural research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(3): 323333.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups toorganizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1): 195229.

Nee, V., Opper, S., & Wong, S. 2007. Developmental state and corporate governance in China.

Management and Organization Review,3(1): 1953.Peterson, M. F. 2001. International collaboration in organizational behavior research. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 22(1): 5981.

Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as adependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 599620.

Pike, K. L. 1990. On the emics and etics of Pike and Harris. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, &M. Harris (Eds.),Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate: 2847. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Roethlisberger, F. J. 1977.The elusive phenomena.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspec-

tives.Research in Organizational Behavior,7(1): 137.Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational

research.Journal of Organizational Behavior,22(1): 113.Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology,vol. 25: 165. New York: Academic Press.




26/27

Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. InU. Kim, H. C. Triandis, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: 85117.London: Sage Publications.

Scott, W. R. 2002. The changing world of Chinese enterprise: An institutional perspective. In A. S.Tsui & C. M. Lau (Eds.), The management of enterprises in the Peoples Republic ofChina: 5978. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. 2007. Toward polycontextually sensitive researchmethods.Management and Organization Review,3(1): 129152.

Steers, R. M., & Sanchez-Runde, C. J. 2002. Culture, motivation, and work behavior. In M. J.Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural manage-ment: 190216. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not.Administrative Science Quarterly,40(3):371384.

Tjosvold, D. 1998. Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments andchallenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review,47(3): 285342.

Tjosvold, D., Leung, K., & Johnson, D. W. 2006. Cooperative and competitive conflict in China. InM. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd Ed.):671692. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998.Riding the waves of cultures: Understandingcultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill.Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. 1999. Replication and theory development in organizational

science: A critical r

Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Orgs

Documents

Transcript of Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Orgs