Abstract
The field of Chinese management studies has grown tremendously over the past four decades. Management theories originating from the United States have remained dominant in the analysis of Chinese firms, prompting the question of how powerfully these Western lenses explain management practices in non-Western contexts. Through a matched-samples meta-analysis, which integrates matching techniques into meta-analysis, we compare the mean effect sizes for five classic Western management theories-institutional theory, resource dependence theory, the resource-based view, agency theory, and transaction cost theory-on 452 matched samples drawn from 1,028 U.S. and Chinese studies. Surprisingly, as compared to their U.S. counterparts, Chinese firms (a) are less responsive to coercive and mimetic pressures yet more subject to normative pressures, (b) establish fewer business relations when faced with resource dependencies and transaction costs, (c) extract more profit from managing generic strategic resources, and (d) are more sensitive to pay incentives and private blockholders. To understand the specificities of Chinese management practices, we furthermore conduct a focused review of the emerging literature on China-endemic explanations: political institutional imprinting theory, state-driven sustainable development, and China-endemic corporate governance. We conclude that indigenous theories effectively complement Western perspectives when accounting for Chinese management practices.