As Chinese management practices have received wide attention from academy at home and abroad, the importance of indigenous management research is becoming increasingly prominent. However, there are still views that question the purpose and value of indigenous management research. For example, is indigenous research equal to regional research? Why does management research need indigenous theory? Why can indigenous research contribute to general theory? These views weaken understanding of the significance of indigenous research and hinder further development of indigenous management research. This paper combines speeches and viewpoint discussions at the International Symposium on “Research on Organizational Change and Leadership Behavior from the Perspective of Chinese Enterprises”, presents some successful examples of management research, analyzes and clarifies above-mentioned doubts, and expounds the nature, characteristics and difficulties of indigenous management research. Specifically, this paper elaborates the “indigenous” from three aspects: the different definitions between indigenous research and local research, the legitimacy of indigenous research, and the perspectives needed for indigenous management research. In addition, this research illustrates the necessity of indigenous theory in management research through the lens that one good theory will make compromise among generality, accuracy and simplicity. Moreover, indigenous management research can also contribute to the general theory through theorizing about the indigenous research context. Finally, this paper puts forward suggestions for further development of indigenous management research. For example, seeking meaningful indigenous research problems, following the research paradigm based upon the spirit of engaged scholarship, choosing appropriate research methods and strategies, considering dialectically about holistic thinking while building theories, carrying out dialogue actively between indigenous and mainstream theories, and building indigenous research communities following three stages which can interact recursively, that is, differentiation, mobilization and legitimacy building.
Why Is Indigenous Management Research Important? Responses to Previous Questioning Views and Suggestions for Future Development
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 42, Issue 08, pp. 3 - 16 (2020) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200308.101
 Farh J L, Cheng B S. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations [J]. Indigenous Psychological Research, 2000, 13:127-180 .
 Guo C. It is time for Chinese management scholars to make their debut[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2011, 8(12):1733-1736 .
 Guo Y. Local knowledge: A free path to the academic autonomy——my commentary on “management in China”[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2010, 7(4):475-488 .
 Han W, Zeng X. The theoretical contribution of indigenous management research: Interpretation on several Chinese works[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2019, 16(5):644-651 .
 Jing R, Lu F. Indigenous research in Chinese management theory: Conception, challenges, and strategies[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2012, 9(11):1569-1576 .
 Li H, Zhang Y. Integrating contextual knowledge and generalizable theory: How can Chinese management research make theoretical contributions[J]? Quarterly Journal of Management, 2016, 4:1-17 .
 Li L, Xi Y, Ge J, et al. “Context” in the leadership studies: Content, method and direction for future research[J]. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2013, 27(3):1-10 .
 Li P. Indigenous research on Chinese management and Chinese traditional Philosophies[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2013, 10(9):1249-1261 .
 Li P. Indigenous research on Chinese management: Conceptual definitions and methodological designs[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2010, 7(5): 633-648 .
 Lu F, Jing R, Yin S. The dilemma and access of Chinese indigenous management research[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2013, 10(12):1717-1724 .
 Luo X, Sun L. “Live long and prosper”: A dialogue with the performance-orientation paradox[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2019, (5): 128-140 .
 Mauss M, Ji Z. The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, 2005 .
 Qi B, Wu Y. The mid-long term motivation mechanism for private enterprise in the context of transitional economy: The practice and theoretical enlightenment of Huawei time unit plan[J]. Fudan Journal (Social Science), 2018, 60(3):162-175 .
 Sun L. Blue army strategy[M]. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2018 .
 Wang Q, Xi Y, Shang Y. The core of “Hexie” management theory: The interpretation of “Hexie” theme[J]. Management Review, 2003, 15(9):24-30 .
 Wu Y. “Strategic framework thought”, “integration of paradox” and enterprise competition advantage: The analysis of Ren Zhengfei’s cognitive model and managerial implications [J]. Management World, 2013, 235(4):150-167 .
 Wu Y, Gao X, Li M. The strategy of China’s native enterprises under the circumstance of globalization: A theoretical framework and applied analysis[J]. Management World, 2005, (11):101-111 .
 Xiao J, Sun L, Luo X. Strategy as practice: A critical review and a conversation with “zhi-xing-he-yi” perspective[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, (3): 3-19 .
 Xie P, Wei N. Paths exploration for Chinese indigenous management research[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2012, 9(9):1255-1262 .
 Tsui A S, Li X, Jia L, et al. Responsible research in management: Philosophy and practice[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2018 .
 Tsui A S, Lyu L. The theoretical and practical issues in Chinese indigenous management research[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2015, 12(3): 313-321 .
 Tsui A S, Zhang Z. Management and building theory: The strategies of research on Chinese native management[J]. Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition), 2011, 17(4):1-7 .
 Yan H, Jing R, Huang X. Organizational momentum: The state of art and future research prospects[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2016, 13(1): 148-156 .
 Zhang Y, Cao Z, Yi Z. The innovation of management theory in economic transition: A review of the 2015 Symposium on the 2nd indigenous management research in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2015, 12(10):1436-1441 .
 Zhou H, Long L. A review of paternalistic leadership research[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2005, 13(2):227-238 .
 Alvesson M, Sandberg J. Generating research questions through problematization[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2): 247-271.
 Barney J B, Zhang S J. The future of Chinese management research: A theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of management[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2009, 5(1): 15-28.
 Child J. Context, comparison, and methodology in Chinese management research[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2009, 5(1): 57-73.
 DiMaggio P J. Comments on “What Theory is Not”[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40(3): 391-397.
 Ghoshal S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices[J]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005, 4(1): 75-91.
 Hambrick DC. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(6): 1346-1352.
 Hambrick DC, Chen MJ. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2008, 33(1): 32-54.
 Honig B, Lampel J, Baum J A C, et al. Reflections on scientific misconduct in management: Unfortunate incidents or a normative crisis?[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2018, 32(4): 412-442.
 Hwang K K. Face and favor: The Chinese power game[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1987, 92(4): 944-974.
 Jing R T, Dong M. Management scholars’ learning from history: Direct vs. Indirect approach[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2017, 13(4): 905-911.
 Jing R T, Van de Ven A H. A yin‐yang model of organizational change: The case of Chengdu Bus Group[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2014, 10(1): 29-54.
 Jing R T. Momentum for change: Connecting Chinese and western perspectives[A]. Best paper proceedings of the seventy-seventh annual meeting of the academy of management[C]. NY: Academy of Management, 2017.
 Kotter J P. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1995, 73(2): 59-67.
 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
 March J G. Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organization studies[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2005, 1(1): 5-22.
 Marquis C, Battilana J. Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2009, 29: 283-302.
 Nisbett R E, Peng K P, Choi I, et al. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition[J]. Psychological Review, 2001, 108(2): 291-309.
 Pellegrini E K, Scandura T A. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research[J]. Journal of Management, 2008, 34(3): 566-593.
 Pellegrini E K, Scandura T A, Jayaraman V. Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory[J]. Group & Organization Management, 2010, 35(4): 391-420.
 Raynard M, Lu F M, Jing R T. Reinventing the state-owned enterprise? Negotiating change during profound environmental upheaval[J/OL]. Academy of Management Journal, 2019. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1162.
 Silin R H. Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1976.
 Smith L T. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples[M]. New York: Zed Books Limited, 1999.
 Thorngate W. Possible limits on a science of social behavior[A]. Strickland J H, Aboud F E, Gergen K J. Social psychology in transition[M]. Boston: Springer, 1976.
 Tsui A S. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2004, 21(4): 491-513.
 Tsui A S. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(6): 1353-1364.
 Van de Ven A H. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research[M]. Oxford: U. K. Oxford University Press, 2007.
 Van de Ven A H, Jing R T. Indigenous management research in China from an engaged scholarship perspective[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2012, 8(1): 123-137.
 Van de Ven A H, Meyer A D, Jing R T. Opportunities and challenges of engaged indigenous scholarship[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2018, 14(3): 449-462.
 Whetten D A. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2009, 5(1): 29-55.
 Xi Y M, Cao X W, Xiangli L X. A Chinese view on rebuilding the integrity of management research: The evolving He-Xie management theory[J]. Chinese Management Studies, 2010, 4(3): 197-211.
 Zhang Y, Han Y L. Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2019, 155: 42-54.
 Zhang Y, Waldman D A, Han Y L, et al. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(2): 538-566.
Cite this article
Jing Runtian, Cheng Shengqiang, Yuan Danyao. Why Is Indigenous Management Research Important? Responses to Previous Questioning Views and Suggestions for Future Development[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2020, 42(8): 3-16.
Previous: Recuperate and Build up Energy: A Literature Review and Prospects of Micro-break in the Workplace