Professor Wu Changqi is the Dean of the School of Management at Shandong University, and Director of Shandong University MBA/EMBA Education Center. He is also a professor of the organization and strategy management department at Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, the Dean of the Academy of Development Strategy for National High-Tech Industrial Zones of Peking University, the Director of Guanghua Leadership Research Center of Peking University, and the Executive Deputy Director of International Business Management Institute of Peking University.
Along with the rise of China and the development of Chinese enterprises, more and more attention has been paid to the study of Chinese enterprise management. As early as 30 years ago, however, a group of pioneers was the first to publish their research achievements in top international journals, analyzing the challenges and achievements of Chinese enterprises, and introducing the Chinese context, Chinese elements and Chinese model to the world management community. The pioneering spirit and their work laid the foundation for the development of Chinese management studies and even the construction of global management studies. The rapid development of Chinese enterprises has raised new issues for the development of modern management studies and challenged the existing theories. The theory construction based on the practice of Chinese enterprises is an important task for Chinese management scholars.
I. The Development of History
The rise of China is one of the most significant events in the past hundred years. Looking at the history of human development, there has never been such a large group of people achieving such a large scale and such rapid economic growth in such a short period. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and especially after the reform and opening up, China has moved from a penniless and weak country to a moderately prosperous society in all respects. The process of changing China’s economic structure and economic position in the world has taken place mainly in the past 30 years. Professor Li Jiatao’s article grasps the important stage of China’s economic development and enterprise growth. As a witness, he reveals a facet of China’s historic change through his academic experience and unique perspective, along with that of a specific group of scholars who studied in Western countries during the 1980s. His work reviews the significance of China’s economic reforms and enterprise development for management studies, as well as the impact of management studies on China’s economic evolution and enterprise change. Through his research and analyzes on Chinese enterprises over the years, Professor Li has revealed important phenomena that are not easily observed, enriched the management literature, and increased the world’s management community’s understanding of Chinese enterprises. As a long-time colleague of Professor Li and having had similar experiences, I am very pleased to share some of my observations and reflections.
Although China’s reform and opening up has been going on for more than 40 years, the main challenges faced and the goals of economic development have varied greatly at different periods of the historical process. The main task in the 1980s was to gradually realize the transition from a planned economy to a market economy. The early period of reform and opening up in Mainland China was essentially characterized by the quest for economic transformation. Before the reform and opening up, there were no real enterprises with decision-making and behavioral capabilities in mainland China; all were factories under the overall national planned economic system. The establishment of a market economy and the formation of a price mechanism required that enterprises have operational autonomy. The economic reform measures at that time included the gradual expansion of the operational autonomy of state enterprises and the establishment of a market order, which required the emancipation of the mindset and the use of the concepts of a modern market economy in the operation of enterprises. The achievement of industrial modernization was complemented by the enterprise capacity.
At the early stage of reform and opening up, a group of outstanding young people went out to the Western developed countries to learn advanced scientific and technological knowledge. Against the background, national leaders realized the importance of business management for economic development. Among the many young students who went abroad, a small number of students went abroad to study modern enterprise management, hoping to serve China’s economic construction and enterprise management. Professor Li and I, as well as the 21 scholars mentioned in Professor Li’s article who have published papers in top international journals, were among the first group of students who went abroad to study business management in the 1980s. At that time, economics seemed to be more attractive, and Professor Zou Zhizhuang of Princeton University made a great contribution to attracting several groups of young scholars to study economics in the United States, while the number of scholars engaged in management research was very small. In the early 1980s, when Japanese enterprises were on the ascendant, in addition to sending a small number of foreign students to Western countries, the government and enterprises in the field of enterprise operation and management studies sent a part of the management personnel to Japan to learn the management methods and management mode of Japanese enterprises.
In the early 80s, young students who went abroad to study enterprise management mainly systematically studied enterprise management under the conditions of market economy in developed countries, but the market environment and enterprise form in these countries were very different from the reality of Chinese enterprises at that time. It was also difficult to apply what they had learned to analyze the problems of Chinese enterprises directly, and apply the research of management, under the conditions of the market, to the enterprises in China. Therefore, the main work of the scholars at that time was to study the management problems of enterprises in developed countries with the learned methods, just like the articles published by Professor Li, Professor Shan Weijian, and Professor Chen Zhaoquan in the top journals in the early days had little direct relevance to the situation of Chinese enterprises.
In the early 1990s, the reform and opening up of China entered a new phase. After about a decade of transition, the Chinese economy was gradually freed from the shackles of the planned economy, and the production workshops, which were part of the planned economy, gradually evolved into the prototype of modern enterprise organizations. Especially after Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour Talks, the state’s determination to establish a market economy led to enterprise reforms and attracted foreign investment. At that time, the first batch of young scholars who went abroad to study management studies also completed their studies and were capable of carrying out high-level research. Although management academics in developed countries did not know much about China and they were more interested in Japanese enterprises, the multinational corporations(MNCs) in developed countries were still aware of the potential of the Chinese market, and they were becoming more and more interested in the Chinese market and the Chinese economy with increasing investment. Scholars from Mainland China who have studied abroad have the unique advantage that their early research centered on the operations of MNCs in China, and even joint ventures focused on how MNCs succeeded in a market like China.
The establishment of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) in 1991 played an important role in the reform of management education and research in mainland China. In the 1990s, HKUST gathered a group of mainland scholars who had completed their studies in Western countries. Professors Li Jiatao, Professors Xu Shuying, Professors Xin Rong, and Professors Xiang Bing were all engaged in teaching and research at HKUST, and they made use of HKUST as a platform to serve the management education of mainland universities. Shortly after the establishment of the HKUST, Deng Xiaoping issued the Southern Tour Talks, and reform and opening up had initially yielded results. Hong Kong, a neighboring city of Shenzhen, was also reinvigorated and entered a period of rapid development. The group of scholars observed the changes in Chinese enterprises and Chinese management education and actively participated in the process. The Management Seminar for Young Teachers chaired by Professor Xu Shuying lasted for many years and trained several talents in management studies for various universities in China. Professor Li and I were both teaching at the Business School of the HKUST at that time. I left HKUST in 2001 to join the Guanghua School of Management of Peking University, while Professor Li is still the Chair Professor of Business School at HKUST.
1991 was also the first year that the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree was established in mainland China. As China’s reform and opening up entered a new stage, the formal incorporation of MBA education into China’s education system as a product of the full development of the market economy and as a sign of economic globalization was an important historical event. The commencement of MBA education and the adoption of the internationally accepted curriculum and teaching content prepared the talents for China’s successful accession to the World Trade Organization and its full integration into the world economic system ten years later. The availability of MBA education and the demand of enterprises for managers educated in systematic management studies is certainly a boon for management scholars. However, due to the increasing demand for management education and practice in the mainland, the group of management scholars who returned to China at that time had difficulty concentrating on academic research and were mainly engaged in the promotion and education of modern management.
The market economy derived from the planned economy has the characteristics of a transition economy. How enterprises and their managers, as the micro-foundation, can be transformed into managers and operators of modern enterprises is of great importance to economic development and industrial transformation, and is also a major challenge to the study of management studies. After the development of the past 30 years, China has become a major economy in the world, and the growth of Chinese enterprises has become increasingly important to the world. Management scholars, business leaders, and policy makers alike are now focusing on the growth of Chinese enterprises. Under this background, the research of Professor Li and the group of outstanding Chinese scholars he represents is of great significance. By analyzing and describing what is happening around Chinese enterprises through existing management theory frameworks and methods, these studies will enable more management scholars to understand the management concepts, models, and development of Chinese enterprises, and introduce Chinese management studies to the world, integrating them into the main content of the global management theory to be constructed.
The growth of Chinese enterprises has commonalities with the growth of enterprises in other countries around the world, but at the same time, it also has characteristics, which are the Chinese elements mentioned in Professor Li’s article. The 47 high-level papers by 21 scholars analyzed in the article are rich in research on China from different perspectives, some adopting Chinese contexts and some focusing on Chinese phenomena. Yet in what ways do the management practices and innovations of Chinese enterprises still perplex management scholars, or in what ways do the behaviors of Chinese enterprises have the potential to enrich existing theoretical models and analytical frameworks? I will share my observations and reflections on the following four aspects.
II. The Mystery of Chinese Corporate Growth
If China’s economic growth has been a “world miracle”, the growth of Chinese enterprises as a whole has been no less impressive. In 1991, there was only one Chinese company in the Fortune 500 - Bank of China - and only 12 in 2001, while the number of Chinese enterprises in the Fortune 500 ranking in 2021 has reached a record 143.
Penrose has developed a theory of corporate growth that argues that the central question is not whether a business will grow, but what are the principles that guide its growth. How fast can a business grow and for how long? Sixty years later, the same questions can be asked of Chinese enterprises that Penrose asked: we are not asking whether Chinese enterprises will grow, but what are the factors that cause them to grow so fast? and whether Chinese enterprises can achieve sustainable growth?
Professor Li has worked on many aspects of management, covering various aspects of China’s economy and enterprise reform, and in the literature review has provided a broad categorization of the work according to institutional environments and organizational characteristics. Professor Li’s article provides a detailed analysis of China’s institutional environment and organizational capabilities in the process of enterprise development. It also coincides with the macro and micro categorization of management, and I also discuss these two main lines. From the perspective of enterprise development, one of the important factors affecting enterprise development is the institutional environment and the other is organizational capability.
The growth speed is not a major issue for Chinese enterprises, but rather what causes them to grow. The institutional environment for Chinese enterprises is different from the situation in developed countries and is often defined as an emerging market economy. Compared with developed market economies, emerging market economies are characterized by inadequate systems, poor laws, unclear property rights, lack of respect for intellectual property rights, a lack of separation between government and enterprises, serious corruption, and unfair treatment of different enterprises, which are in general an underdeveloped market system. However, under such an institutional environment, Chinese enterprises have grown at an incredible speed. If we make a side-by-side comparison over the past 30 years, the growth of enterprises in economies with a better institutional environment, especially in Japan, which is adjacent to China, has been lackluster; while compared to emerging market economies with similar institutional environments, such as with India, the growth of Chinese enterprises is also at the top of the list.
From the perspective of institutional economics, the Washington Consensus of the 1980s, centered on private property rights, market economy, and deregulation, was considered a necessary condition for economic growth, yet the results of its practice in the economic development of developing countries were not satisfactory. Ramo, an economist at Goldman Sachs, suggests that the Beijing Consensus, characterized by progressive reforms with efficient markets and active governments, offers a different option for economic transformation and enterprise development in developing countries, and enhances the legitimacy of the Chinese model. Market-based reforms and institutional factors play a very important role, and market cultivation and enterprise development take time but are not adequately recounted in existing management theories. The challenges posed by the successful practices of Chinese enterprises as a group to management studies have not been systematically answered and theorized.
In the past 30 years, research on the organizational level of Chinese enterprises has also been lackluster, and basically, it is still a massive introduction and absorption of management concepts and methods from developed countries. Some entrepreneurs have thought deeply about the management of Chinese enterprises, such as Zhang Ruimin of Haier Group and Song Zhiping of China National Building Material Group, who have summarized their successful experiences from the practice of enterprise management, but there is still a lot of work to be done on how to interface and communicate with existing management theories, to form a global influence. The rapid development of Japanese enterprises in the 1970s and 1980s aroused the attention of American management scholars, and the management methods were even widely adopted by some global MNCs. In contrast, the development of Chinese enterprises and their management theories and practices have not yet formed such a pattern. In 2012, the Department of Management of the National Natural Science Foundation of China launched a key program “Research on Theoretical Innovation Based on Chinese Management Practices”, in which Professor Lu Yadong also participated, and achieved some useful results. In this regard, Professor Li’s proposal to take Chinese management as a part of global management theory construction is very important.
In explaining the heterogeneity of enterprises from an institutional perspective, especially in the study of Chinese enterprises, institutional changes, and adjustments should be one of the most important factors that the Chinese context may contribute to management research. It would not have been possible for Chinese enterprises to follow the same path of development that developed countries have followed for hundreds of years in more than 40 years without institutional changes. For example, the most significant change in macro-level institutional arrangements in the last 30 years has been the protection of private property in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (Hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). In 1982, the Constitution was amended on several occasions, and the protection of private property of citizens has been strengthened. And the Constitution (Amended in 2004) explicitly stipulates that the lawful private property of citizens shall be inviolable. China’s economic reform and enterprises are not characterized by a perfect system designed at the initial stage of reform, but rather by a system that is constantly being explored, adapted, iterated, and intertwined with the process of enterprise development and interaction. Improvements in the business environment in mainland China reflect this characteristic, with mainland China rising from 91st out of 190 economies globally in 2006 to 31st in 2020 according to the World Bank’s Doing Business rankings. Institutional change and institutional flexibility, as well as the changes in business organization brought about by such change, should be a contribution of the Chinese context to the future development of management theory.
III. Function of the Government and the Role of State-owned Enterprises
Unlike the social organization of the United States, the institutional arrangements of East Asian countries have a strong organizational capacity in the government. The Confucian logic of “Cultivate personal virtue, manage family affairs well, govern the state properly, and establish universal peace” still has an important influence on young people, and the government system concentrates a group of social elites. The economic function and organizational capacity of the government are very important for economic and business development, especially for countries with economies in transition. Market development requires rules, and rules need to be established and changed in the early stages of market establishment and development through active government and social organization, and through continuous reforms to establish efficient markets. China’s formal patent system was formally established in 1985 and China’s anti-monopoly law only came into force in 2008.
In the 1980s major economies around the world were affected by Neoliberalism. Reagan, the then US President, and Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister, were the political representatives. At the same time, China was pushing for economic reforms, the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries also initiated changes, and the economic globalization prevails on a global scale. After more than 30 years of development, old social and economic contradictions became more and more prominent and the role of the state was re-emphasized. It became so prominent in the field of international trade that deglobalization and economic decoupling were also put at the policy level of some major countries. The suppression and restriction of the internationalization of a group of outstanding Chinese enterprises is unlikely to be without implications for the future research of management scholars studying the development of Chinese enterprises. How the government is involved in economic activities, in the case of Chinese enterprises, is mainly manifested in the existence of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and their organizational forms. The following section deals mainly with the role of Chinese SOEs and the reform of SOEs, an area in which I have done some research and exploration over the years.
Related to the government function is the role of SOEs in economic activities. The academic group in Professor Li’s article is mainly scholars who studied and grew up in the U.S. In the U.S. social organization, the federal government is mainly responsible for foreign affairs and defense, and has a very low level of involvement in the enterprises themselves. For many European countries, SOEs have gone through a longer phase of development. There are successful and unsuccessful social practices, and there is also mature experience in the management of SOEs. The world’s largest German Volkswagen is in a sense a SOE, and Electricité de France is still a SOE. In the “post-war” 70 years, SOEs around the world have gone from strength to weakness, but in most countries, they still play an important role. The reform of SOEs over the past 30 years has been a major content in China’s enterprise reform. Because the development of private enterprises in a market economy is not very different from the situation in any other country in the world in terms of management and operation, it is precisely the reform and development of China’s SOEs, as well as their management methods, governance structures, incentive tools, and evaluation criteria, that have practical significance at the global level. In this regard, Chinese enterprises have been making their way forward, and Chinese management scholars have done some research and study in the area. To date, the entities of SOEs have realized the reform of mixed ownership, which is manifested in the form of state-owned capital participating in the market entity as a form of capital. The challenge for the future is how to achieve a governance structure, organizational form, and operational mechanism that effectively integrates the strength of state-owned capital, the vitality of private capital, and the capabilities of human capital. The effective experience of international joint ventures has important insights for the development of mixed-ownership enterprises. Professor Li has presented valuable results in his research, and Bai Chong’en, Tao Zhigang, and I have some findings based on effective cooperation and governance of Chinese and foreign joint ventures in China.
IV. Enterprise Innovation and Development
With the growth of Chinese enterprises, their innovation capacity has also improved greatly. Although most Chinese enterprises are still following the world’s developed countries in terms of the technological level compared to cutting-edge technologies, there are still several leading enterprises that have already stepped into the forefront of global technological development and in some areas have even achieved leadership. In recent years there have also been more studies on the innovation activities of Chinese SOEs, revealing some important findings, and most of the empirical tests of these studies use the number of patent applications or grants as an indicator of innovation activities. While these indicators are important for research affiliations or the long-term development of innovative enterprises, landmark results are often a more meaningful indicator of innovation activity for the Chinese economy and the problem- and goal-oriented innovation activities of Chinese enterprises. In contrast to other economies dominated by the economic activities of enterprises and individuals, as well as to China’s domestic private sector, the innovative activities and other behaviors of China’s SOEs, when re-examined in the context of the logic of the overall economic system, lead to different interpretations. Chinese enterprises’ innovation activities have developed under China’s national innovation system, and the basic form of innovation development of Chinese enterprises and even the country over the past 30 years has taken the form of importation, absorption, digestion, and re-innovation, relying on cross-border transfer and application of technology, whereas in the future China’s enterprises’ own research capacity and innovation dynamism, as well as institutional arrangements, as found in the study mentioned in Professor Li’s article, have very much room for improvement.
V. The Contribution of Chinese Business Practices to the Construction of a Global Management Studies
The practice of Chinese business management and its theoretical contributions to management studies requires the concerted efforts of the management community. The study of Chinese business development over the past 30 years requires a dynamic perspective and a historical perspective both of which are still lacking in mainstream management theory. While the institutional environment in developed Western countries has remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years, in China there has been a sea change not only in the institutional environment, but also in the organizational level of the enterprises, and more importantly, a change in the perceptions of the people. The change in perception and the evolution of the rules in China is like the cityscape of many cities in China. I went abroad in 1983 to study at the University of Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven), which was established in 1425. Decades have passed, and when I return to the University, it looks a little different today than it did then. Shanghai today, however, is strikingly different from the Shanghai of 30 years ago. Thinking in a relatively stable and slowly changing social environment may be different from thinking in a tide of great change. A significant number of countries in the world can be called emerging market economies, which means that the institutional environment is different from that of developed market economies, and the resulting micro-organizations are also different. The development experience, development path, and management theories of Chinese enterprises should be more enlightening for enterprises in these countries.
Institutional theory is an important tool that has been widely used in recent years to analyze firm heterogeneity and international business activities. In the long run, only firm-friendly institutional arrangements can lead to sustainable firm development and economic growth. An important factor limiting the growth of enterprises in emerging market economies is institutional vacancies. Journal of International Business Studies published a special issue in 2017 discussing the role of the concept of institutional vacancies in research in the field of international business. The conceptual shortcoming of the institutional vacancy theory, which has led to its failure in practice, lies in the lack of research on the institutional realities that exist in developing countries, ignoring the importance of the processes and paths of institutional evolution. The reality of enterprise development in China is at least a test of the limitations of the so-called institutional vacancy theory. The concept of institutional vacancies is to some extent based on the stereotypical thinking about fixed ideal institutional models and attempts to discuss how to fill the so-called institutional vacancies. To regard the institutional arrangements of economies with long civilizations and histories as institutional vacancies is in fact to lack an understanding of the logic of different institutions. More than 2,000 years ago, China had a relatively sound institutional arrangement, with the system that the Han Dynasty inherited the Qin Dynasty, but the institutional arrangement at that time was different from that in a modern market economy, but it should not be called an institutional vacancy. The generation that has experienced China’s reform and opening up and ideological emancipation is familiar with the great discussion on “Practice is the sole criterion of truth”. Enterprises and entrepreneurs growing up in China’s rapidly changing institutional environment have different capabilities than those growing up in the relatively stable market environment of developed countries. Chinese enterprises have encountered various problems in the process of growth, and have explored the path of successful development through continuous trial and improvement. In the face of the miracle of China’s economic development and the rise of Chinese enterprises, the main question Chinese management scholars need to answer is which enterprises have succeeded in such a systematic change, which enterprises have failed, and what the successful enterprises have done right.
What China can contribute to global management studies is also a historical perspective. China’s 5,000 years of uninterrupted civilization provide a vast scope for management studies. In 2014, Talhelm and his colleagues used social psychological analysis to argue that the south and north of China have huge cultural differences that are closely related to the geographic and climatic environment. The history of rice cultivation may have made populations in the southern provinces more inclined to adopt a holistic way of thinking, act more collectively, and be more interdependent. People in the northern provinces, where wheat is grown, tend to be more analytical and individualistic. It is also known as the “rice theory”. The results of the study, published in the journal Nature, have attracted a lot of attention from both academics and the public. From the perspective of theoretical foundation, research methodology, and historical practice, the “Rice Theory” discusses the cultural composition of a nation and society from a micro-individual perspective and based on a limited sample. Undoubtedly, due to the vastness of China’s territory, the climatic and natural conditions of different regions vary greatly, and the relationship between people and nature is also intricate. However, the development of society depends to a greater extent on the behavior of social organizations than on the perception of individual members of society. In the face of different natural environments, especially harsh ones, the strength of the individual is insignificant, and cooperation on a wider scale and different forms of synergy become important. Such an environment also forms the basis of the natural environment of collectivist culture. It is recognized that only by organizing and joining forces on a wider scale and to a greater extent can people overcome the challenges posed to society as a whole due to the harsh natural environment. The Yellow River basin in northern China has a much harsher natural environment than the Yangtze River basin, which is located in the south. At the same time, foreign threats often came from the north of China. Throughout China’s thousands of years of history, large-scale cooperation and construction have often taken place in northern China, for example, the legend of Dayu’s water control, the construction of the Great Wall, the opening of the Grand Canal, and the regulation of the Yellow River could not have been achieved without large-scale synergy and organization. It is the harsh ecological environment and the challenges from nature and from outside that have made the social organization of large-scale economic cooperation and the political organization of centralized power the main organizational forms of Chinese society and economy throughout the dynasties. Social organization has had a significant impact on the formation of culture and the organization of business at the micro level in modern society. It should be said that there are differences in the forms of cooperation between individuals in southern and northern China, and it is not possible to simply conclude that southern China is more collectivist and northern China more individualistic. In modern management research, the use of historical research methods needs to be further expanded, while China’s long historical lineage and exploration practices provide rich materials for management research.
VI. Conclusion
Professor Li and the group of mainland scholars, who were the first to publish their research results in top international journals, are an important group of academics. Because they have completed their basic education in Mainland Chinese universities, and they understand China’s cultural, social, and economic development. Moreover, they have received rigorous academic training in research universities in developed countries, and have a solid foundation and good intuition in theory and methodology. Over the past 30 years, these scholars have been concerned with the development of enterprises in Mainland China, and have put forward important research questions and analytical conclusions. Indeed, over the past 30 years or even longer, as latecomers, China and Chinese enterprises still had to learn a lot from the management experience of other developed countries and the process of technological development. The group of pioneers has done a lot of work in the dissemination and promotion of the theories, concepts, and methods of modern management in mainland China. As a result, Chinese management scholars, especially young scholars, have made tremendous progress in the area. I joined the Guanghua School of Management of Peking University in 2001 when its PhD program was just starting; in 2004, the Guanghua School of Management launched an international PhD program for high-level international research; by 2016, 13 young scholars graduated with PhDs from the Guanghua School of Management had already published their research results in top international journals. According to a Web of Sciences database search, I found that 399 papers in UTD-24 journals will bear the names of academic institutions and management scholars from mainland China in 2021; management scholars trained in mainland China have already made their way to the world’s universities, and the group of management scholars has gradually grown over the past 30 years.
Chinese enterprises still face major challenges for their future development, and the task of Chinese management scholars has become even more difficult. Restrictions on the economic activities of enterprises, international trade, cross-border investment, and technology flows are again on the rise in different countries, in an attempt to slow down or reverse the wave of economic globalization of the past 30 years. In such an environment, how can we solve the mystery of China’s corporate growth through objective analysis, answer the question posed by Penrose more than 60 years ago, discover the reasons that lead to the sustainable growth of Chinese enterprises, tell the Chinese story through existing and yet to be established theoretical frameworks and analytical methods on a scientific basis, discover the laws and regulations of management, and offer management insights for enterprises in countries with different institutional environments, cultural backgrounds and stages of development? At the same time, China’s economic development and the improvement of enterprise competitiveness will depend on the research and discovery of the laws of enterprise growth by management scholars in China and around the world. Doctrines and theories that can be passed on to the next generation must answer the big questions faced by the economy, society, and enterprises. Michael Porter’s competitive strategy and a series of books have had a lasting impact mainly because they answered the question of how American firms could regain their competitiveness under the conditions of the impact of Japanese firms in the 1970s. Chinese management scholars will certainly be able to make contributions to the construction of global management in the context of the dramatic changes in the world landscape.
(Originally published in Quarterly Journal of Management, Issue 1, 2022)
