Understanding indigenous leadership research: Explication and Chinese examples
Introduction
As the business world becomes increasingly globalized, the need to understand leadership across the world is also becoming more and more urgent, making indigenous research increasingly important and necessary (Gopinath, 1998, Kempster and Parry, 2011, Tsui, 2004, Tsui, 2009). Using local language, local subjects, and local perspectives (Li et al., 2012, Tsui, 2004), indigenous leadership research primarily examines the impact of local contextual factors, including historical, societal, and cultural, on leadership outcomes in a particular region or country. Researchers taking this approach need to speak the local language and understand the local culture to analyze and interpret emergent and dynamic local meanings and concepts of leadership in a unique social context. Such an approach goes beyond traditional contextualizing and cross-cultural perspectives (Gopinath, 1998).
Despite a century-long history, almost all leadership studies so far have been conducted in the West, and nearly all leadership theories have been developed based on the Western context1 (Yukl, 2010), making them very limited in their applicability to different economies and cultures (Britto, 1973, Gonzalez and McMillan, 1961, Hofstede, 1993, Rosenzweig, 1994, Rousseau and Fried, 2001, Smith et al., 1989). This limitation makes leadership phenomena outside the Western context difficult to understand. This paper addresses this issue and contributes to the leadership literature in three ways: first, it explains the uniqueness of indigenous leadership research and the rationale for conducting such research by pointing out how this type of study differs from studies that simply include situational variables or examine the effect of culture as a moderating variable and the methodological issues involved; second, it proposes a three-step methodological framework for researchers who want to conduct indigenous leadership research; and, finally, by using an example to illustrate how to use the three-step model, it demonstrates how to combine quantitative and qualitative methods that originated from traditional positivist and constructionist views, thus offering new inspirations on how to promote leadership research in non-Western societies.
There are many reasons why leadership scholars should take the indigenous approach when studying local leadership phenomena. We discuss these reasons based on practical, methodological and theoretical perspectives.
Practically, if we consider leadership phenomena around the world as an ongoing interpretation of meaning produced by social actors (Suddaby, 2006) and if we want to understand leadership in different social contexts and develop context-specific leadership theories (Leung, 2012), indigenous research is no longer an option, but a requirement, because “local leadership phenomena” are viewed as an ongoing interpretation of meaning produced by individuals engaged in the local leadership process. In this context, most of the extant leadership theories developed by American scholars in the US can be viewed as American indigenous leadership theories, which seek to explain unique leadership phenomena in the US with local meanings and concepts. These meanings and concepts are unique to the US and distinct from those in other contexts (Riad, 2011). Further, Rousseau and Fried (2001) argued that the causal dynamic of relations in organizations might be substantially altered by the context. Therefore, theories developed in the US have limited capacity to predict and interpret leadership practices in non-American contexts, especially those that are very different from the American context (Barney and Zhang, 2009, Gonzalez and McMillan, 1961, Rousseau and Fried, 2001, Tsui, 2004).
According to Action Theory (Parsons and Shils, 1951, Parsons, 1937), individual actions (e.g., leadership behaviors) are shaped and moderated by specific social and cultural systems (Parsons & Shils, 1951), which can substantially determine the underlying causal dynamic of worker-organization relations (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). When studying leadership phenomena in a specific region or country, many factors, including historical (the development history of the country or the maturing process of the leaders in a specific context), societal (the social structure or networks of a specific context), and cultural (values, ideational systems, and behavioral models) that impact leadership outcomes should be taken into consideration. These factors may be unique in the studied context, requiring the indigenous approach to study them.
Child (2009) further proposed material, ideational, and institutional systems as contextual factors that need to be considered in organizational behavior research. Among these, material systems refer to the temporary economic and technological characteristics of the studied context, while ideational systems are the substantive values salient to the context, and institutional systems include the government, intermediate institutions, and conformity to international regulations. Obviously, material and institutional systems are temporary arrangements or circumstances of local context so that they can only influence people living within these systems. In contrast, ideational system can shape values and beliefs of people through socializing process, generating long-term or even permanent impact on people living or lived within the system for a period. These systems from different societies or nations are distinct from each other in many dimensions (Hofstede, 1980) and their influence on leadership practices gives rise to challenges in transforming leadership theories from one society or nation to another (Li and Shi, 2005, Rousseau and Fried, 2001, Smith et al., 1989).
Let's take the notion of guanxi in China as an example. Defined as a direct particularistic tie between two individuals (Tsui & Farh, 1997), guanxi plays an important role in the Chinese society. Western scholars often interpret the term using the Western concept of networks, but guanxi is much more intricate and pervasive than networks are and its effects may vary over time. In other words, guanxi is more dynamic, while networks are relatively more structured and assumed to be relatively stable once formed (Fu, Tsui, & Dess, 2006). In addition to its dynamic nature, guanxi is also much richer and more complex than networks (Yang, 2002). Not only is the inherent nature different depending on the type of people the guanxi is built on, but the quality of guanxi, “the state of the relationship at a given point in time” (Chen & Chen, 2004: 312), can also vary in the degree of closeness or strength (Tsui & Farh, 1997). Therefore, to understand how guanxi affects the dyadic leader–member relationship, we cannot simply use the Western concept of network, but rather start from a clear understanding of the nuances in the notion of guanxi and examine the subtle effect it exerts when studying leadership in China. In fact, the term guanxi has been added to the English vocabulary because of the unique connotations that are not covered by any Western concepts, and many scholars examining the impact of this unique Chinese phenomenon have explicitly pointed out that “Not understanding the differences between the Chinese notion of guanxi and the American relationship notion may lead to the mismanagement of relationships between partners or between superior and subordinates of different cultural backgrounds” (Hui & Graen, 1997: 459).
Methodologically, existing methods do not accommodate the study of indigenous leadership practices. Studying indigenous leadership requires employing novel methods and developing new context-specific leadership theories. Preliminary results from the Indigenous Leadership Research Project Team2 (Fu, 2012) offer us a good glimpse of how. The invisible driving forces behind various decisions made by leaders over the long term cannot be captured by any type of survey, no matter how comprehensive the survey is. A grounded approach has to be taken and secondary data from multiple sources have to be used for “holistic depictions of realities that cannot be reduced to a few variables” (Gephart, 2004: 455), and for comparisons and contrasts to make sense of a single event and understand the impact of various factors. However, extant leadership studies, including indigenous studies of US leaders, are mainly positivist and quantitative oriented (Bryman, 2004); the diversity of methods needs further emphasis (Munford, 2011). What is more, the philosophy of research involved in specific research methods also needs to be examined and diversified when exploring various indigenous research questions (e.g. Kempster & Parry, 2011).
Finally, theoretically, indigenous leadership studies are also critical ways by which leadership scholars can communicate and collaborate with each other to promote global leadership theories (Tsui, 2004). A compelling indigenous leadership theory should not only effectively and accurately describe the unique cultural, societal, and historical elements of a society's collective sub-consciousness (Cheng, Wang, & Huang, 2009), but it should also identify factors in social and cultural systems that shape and moderate the behaviors of individual leaders and explain how these factors influence leadership effectiveness in a particular context, thus providing global leaders implications that are relevant in a specific local context. The identification of paternalistic leadership is a good example.
Based on the previous research (Redding, 1990, Silin, 1976, Westwood, 1997), paternalistic leadership is shown to have two obvious indigenous Chinese characteristics: paternalistic authority and relational differences (Cheng, 1991). Paternalistic authority originates from the Confucian belief in social order, according to which fathers possessed absolute authority over their sons. Because of this traditional influence, organizations in China are still regarded as large families with their leaders acting as the families' heads. Accordingly, autocratic and instructive behaviors always lead to downward communications, with limited empowerment and often belittling of subordinates' contributions (Cheng, Chou, & Farh, 2000). A “differential pattern” (Fei, 1998), which refers to the different ways leaders treat insiders and outsiders, is clearly observed and results in leaders constructing intimate relationships and mutual trust with certain groups. These close relationships also lead to more opportunities for those groups to obtain support or acquire resources (Cheng, 1991). These observations are related to leadership practices but are difficult to understand without understanding their underlying reasons. Indigenously developed theories are therefore needed to explain the impact of a particular context on leadership practices and to help guide leaders to be more effective.
More than 95% of research on leadership describes North American leadership phenomena (Yukl, 2010). Our review of the 285 papers published in The Leadership Quarterly over the past five years (2007 ~ 2011) shows that 209 (73%) were conducted in the US, or were, in other words, indigenous US studies. Of the 76 that were conducted in a non-Western context, 71 (25%) used theories that were developed in the US or other Western societies. Only five (less than 2%) were genuinely indigenous studies in non-Western contexts. We analyzed those five papers and found that they used qualitative methods, such as case study (Campbell, 2008; Neal & Tansey, 2010), cultural analysis (Riad, 2011), narrative (Islam, 2009), and a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods (Yang, 2011). Three of these five indigenous studies were conducted by Western scholars in non-Western contexts.
Although some Western scholars have pointed out that cultural differences matter, they are often unfamiliar with or even misunderstand non-Western cultural concepts (Cheng et al., 2009). Moreover, scholars from non-Western nations primarily use theories that were developed and validated in the West as the basis for their research on indigenous leaders. Such studies contribute very limited knowledge and may sometimes misrepresent the leader–member relationship in the non-Western context. If applied to guiding leaders, such studies would either be totally irrelevant, or help to solve the wrong problem (Mitroff, 1998, Von Glinow and Teagarden, 2009). For example, studies using the Leader–Member exchange (LMX) theory will not fully capture the much broader exchange base in the leader and member relationship in China. The supervisor–subordinate relationship in China differs from the Western concept of LMX, which only refers to the supervisor–subordinate exchange within the work relationship and the benefits being exchanged are mainly related to work. In contrast to LMX, the supervisor–subordinate relationship in China mainly covers the non-work exchange within the vertical dyad and the benefits being exchanged can be social and material in nature. This exchange is developed through the interaction between the subordinate and the supervisor after office hours through home visits or other social functions (Chen and Tjosvold, 2006, Law et al., 2000). Unique leadership phenomena such as those embedded in history, tradition, and culture cannot be fully explained by Western theories and the subtleties that make the differences still remain largely puzzling to Western leadership scholars. Thus, there is a clear need to resolve this asymmetry in the creation of leadership knowledge (Zhao & Jiang, 2009) between Western and non-Western societies.
To address this need and promote indigenous leadership research in the non-American contexts, we propose a methodological framework as a specific way to handle key challenges in conducting high-quality indigenous leadership studies. In the following sections, we first discuss methodological issues in indigenous leadership studies and introduce the framework. Then, we offer one of our recent studies as an example to illustrate how to use the framework. Finally, we discuss possible problems and future directions for indigenous leadership studies.
Section snippets
Content of indigenous leadership research
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness (GLOBE) Project defines leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization” (House et al., 1999: 184). According to this definition, the leader who exercises influence, the influence exercised, and the outcomes generated would all be the major components in leadership theories (Yukl, 2010). This process can be seen as the ongoing
The necessity of conducting indigenous Chinese leadership research
Western leadership research, started during the Industrial Revolution, has a century-long history. Chinese leadership research, started about thirty years ago when China started its economic reforms, is still a relatively recent phenomenon (Zhao & Jiang, 2009). Moreover, much of the research on Chinese leadership so far has been followed the same basic pattern — finding Chinese phenomena that exemplify some existing theory or theories developed in the West (Barney & Zhang, 2009). Western
Implications for leadership research
With the fast economic development in non-Western countries such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the leadership practices of these nations have been largely noticed, but hardly studied (Leung, 2012). Leadership research is a typical domain in which local practices are poorly understood because only theories developed in the West are used. It is out of the need to understand indigenous leadership practices that we propose a three-step methodology integrating the
Acknowledgements
The project was funded as a major project by the National Science Foundation of China (71032002). The authors would like to thank Professor C. A. Schriesheim for his valuable suggestions during the development process of this paper. They also wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
References (99)
- et al.
The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory
Journal of Management
(2001) - et al.
The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991
Journal of Management
(2001) Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review
The Leadership Quarterly
(2004)- et al.
The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
(1996) Leadership succession in early Islam: Exploring the nature and role of historical precedents
The Leadership Quarterly
(2008)Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
(1998)Leadership development in the context of on-going work
The Leadership Quarterly
(2000)- et al.
Leadership development and the dark side of personality
The Leadership Quarterly
(2011) - et al.
Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary Sino-American joint ventures in mainland China
The Leadership Quarterly
(1997) Animating leadership: Crisis and renewal of governance in 4 mythic narratives
The Leadership Quarterly
(2009)
Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change
The Leadership Quarterly
Grounded theory and leadership research: A realistic critical perspective
The Leadership Quarterly
The dynamics of effective corrupt leadership: Lessons from Rafik Hariri's political career in Lebanon
The Leadership Quarterly
Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis
The Leadership Quarterly
Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research
The Leadership Quarterly
Invoking Cleopatra to examine the shifting ground of leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
Introduction to the special issue: longitudinal study of leadership development
The Leadership Quarterly
Consensual commitment: A ground theory of meso-level influence of organizational design on leadership and decision-making
The Leadership Quarterly
Wisdom displayed through leadership: Exploring leadership-related wisdom
The Leadership Quarterly
Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage
Journal of Management
The future of Chinese management research: A theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of management
Management and Organization Review
Transformational leadership
Personality and transactional and transformational leadership: A meta-analysis
Journal of Applied Psychology
Cultural variables and managerial effectiveness: Is Western know-how transferable?
Social Action
Grounded theory in the 21st century: Application for advancing social justice studies
Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis
Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research
Organization Science
On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships
Journal of Management Studies
Familism and leader behavior
A triad model of paternalistic leadership: Constructs and measurement
Indigenous Psychological Research
The road more popular versus the road less travelled: an ‘insider's’ perspective of advancing Chinese management research
Management and Organization Review
Context, comparison, and methodology in Chinese management research
Management and Organization Review
How national systems differ in their constraints on corporative executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries
Strategic Management Review
Building theories from case study research
Academy of Management Review
Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic
Academy of Management Journal
Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges
Academy of Management Journal
A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations
From the soil-system of growth
An exploration of the methods to study indigenous leadership
A caucus discussion of doing indigenous leadership studies held at the International Academy of Chinese Management Research (IACMR) conference in June, Hong Kong
The dynamics of guanxi in Chinese high-tech firms: Implications for knowledge management decision making
Management International Review
Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders' transformational behaviors and personal values
Administrative Science Quarterly
Qualitative research and Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Journal
Forging an identity: An insider–outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identify
Administrative Science Quarterly
Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory
Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing
Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions
The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description
The discovery of grounded theory
Cited by (57)
The Three Graces of Leadership: Untangling the Relative Importance and the Mediating Mechanisms of Three Leadership Styles in Russia
2020, Management and Organization ReviewIntroduction: Exploring culturally sensitive and Indigenous research methods
2023, Culturally Sensitive Research Methods for Educational Administration and LeadershipThe meaning of leadership for educated young bedouin men
2023, LeadershipClassic and emergent approaches to researching leadership education and development
2023, A Research Agenda for Leadership Learning and Development through Higher EducationCollaborative Leadership in the Institution of Higher Education: A Sociocultural Context of Pakistan
2023, South Asian Journal of Business and Management CasesAdvancing Chinese leadership research: review and future directions
2023, Asian Business and Management