Globalnomics: “battle of China”?

Citation

Teck Foo, C. (2009), "Globalnomics: “battle of China”?", Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms.2009.32303baa.001

Globalnomics: “battle of China”?

Article Type: Editorial From: Chinese Management Studies, Volume 3, Issue 2

US President Obama, in his recent inaugural address to the Congress, suggested highly likely convergence towards globalnomics. That is, economics increasingly managed from a global perspective. Most interestingly, he cited China as the model for realigning US energy usage towards clean power. This piece of news must be welcomed the world over. It is a change in US policy making that is long, long overdue.

Yes, he clearly espouses the very traditional American “never say die” spirit. In recent management history, the Americans fought back highly successfully against the onslaught of Japanese corporations. It was an era that spawned the hugely popular management classic by Peters and Waterman, In Search of Excellence. I must say, however, that many of these excellent corporations lost their luster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to stay ahead of competition.

Then it was just Japan and South Korea as overseas competitors to the USA. Now, as the USA is rebuilding, there is on the horizon a foe that is far more formidable. Metaphorically, can the USA, burdened by more than a trillion dollars (as of 25 February, 2009) of deficit, do battle with China? Clearly, the “battle of China” is enthralling to watch. Just as the emergence of Japan as an economic powerhouse led to Americans learning the Toyota way, will the USA and the world be embracing some aspects of Chinese management?

Perhaps this very phase – the “battle of ideas” – has already been anticipated by the Chinese, for China has been active in sponsoring the establishment of Confucius Institutes globally. Born 2,500 years ago, Confucius was like Sun Tzu from the turbulent Spring and Autumn period. Why Confucius? If you know not why, then it is time to read his works and ponder.

Like Obama in his inaugural Congressional address, Confucius too emphasized education. Of most importance for the Confucian scholar is the necessity for continual self-learning. The difference in management studies between the USA and China lies in one fact. In China, there is a core of ancient texts that remain timeless, providing continuing relevance to the Chinese people. In the USA, management education is fast becoming much more like fashion. See how business schools compete with a parade of ever flashier brochures.

Where did Confucius get his ideas, you may ask. Few people realize Confucius considered himself simply a “transmitter”, and that in the Analects, Confucius made it clear, “I invent nothing new”. So this core of ancient yet ever-relevant Chinese thinking had already been in existence 2,500 years ago. One key source of deep Chinese wisdom is the I Ching.

If you study Lao Tzu’s (Lao-zi) Tao De Jing or Sun Tzu’s (Sun-zi) Art of War and ponder deeply on the root sources of their ideas, you find it goes right back to the guas or hexagrams in I Ching. In other words, Confucius often pondered on these symbolic imageries in his own self-learning. With China as the future global economic powerhouse, it will be very intriguing research to explore how some of the popular “MBA” ideas may be traced back in time. Perhaps to antiquated sources where authors first crafted their works on bamboo, wood, bone, tortoise shells or bronze instead of iPods.

Looking to the near future, corporate executives, besides citing Toyota, may perhaps also be learning the Chinese way of managing from Hua-wei Technologies Corporation. Literally Hua-Wei is pinyin of or the Chinese way. If so, this makes research a necessity in order to obtain a deep understanding of the current reality of Chinese management. Thus, it is timely that we re-structure our editorial office. Instead of just the editor, we now have a small yet global team of editors with diverse backgrounds.

I am very glad, as founding Editor-in-Chief, to introduce to you to our team of editors. John Humphreys covers both the USA and Europe. Inside of China, it is Wang Xiaohui, and for Asia, Robert Tiong. As for book reviews, we have Zhang Yenming. If you an idea for a paper, you should first approach the Regional Editor who covers your geographical region. In this issue we have a 50 percent increase in the number of the kind of papers that we like to feature in our journal.

In our collection of papers, we have a very interesting paper looking at strategic decision making within small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). I had anticipated some of the findings by Charles Huang but it is good that we have this validated through research. Theoretical models on decision making are typically far more complex than reality. The second paper in the selection is what should immediately interest Chinese policymakers. Why? With the USA in deep economic trouble, President Hu Jintao has advocated a self-independent, innovative strategy (; pinyin zi zhu chuang xin).

Yet as the Datang hosiery cluster paper (Michele Akoorie and Qiang Ding) documents, Chinese value adding lies mainly in intensive, cheap labor. China needs a sustained strategy for breakthroughs in design that captivate both their home as well as global markets. How? By staying a step ahead of the Italians through evolving Euro-Sino designs. Papers documenting other industry clusters will be considered favorably, especially if they add new perspectives and insights. I will especially welcome theory-based, policy type papers on how Chinese policy makers may help China transform to become self-independently innovative in product creations.

The third paper highlights the critical role in managing organizational behavior within Chinese enterprises. It is highly rigorous doctoral work, factor analyzing the responses from 1,303 respondents from 29 Chinese companies in 2005-2006. The fourth paper, by Ding Zhikun and N.G. Fungfai, is an empirical test, in China, of a well-known theory of reasoned action. In their paper, Gebaur and Fischer highlight, through their research, the service needs within the manufacturing sector. Again as the data are from the pre-crisis era, emphasis is consistent with China being a global manufacturing base: in a word, cost-driven. Such doctoral works are certainly welcomed but it is necessary that these should not be overly technical, or be merely extended discussions of refining a research instrument for Chinese respondents. Such papers belong elsewhere but not in Chinese Management Studies. Finally we have a very welcome piece relating I Ching to leadership, by Yen Ming Zhang and Pak Tee Ng.

Check Teck FooFounding Editor-in-Chief