GUEST EDITORIAL

Perspectives on organizationalchange in Asia

Christopher J. Rees and John HassardUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the wide-ranging nature of organizational changeresearch and practice with reference to the diverse context of Asia.

Design/methodology/approach – Specific reviews of literature are highlighted which haveidentified the relative dearth of research which could be used to inform the theory and practice ofmanagement in Asia. The paper proceeds to offer an overview of the four papers included in thisthemed section on organizational change in Asia.

Findings – After reviewing the four papers, a summary is presented of two key themes whichemerge from this body of work, that is, in the process of considering various aspects of organizationalchange in Asia, the four papers tend to place a relatively heavy emphasis upon the ownership oforganizations, and issues directly associated with human resource management. These two themes areidentified as recommended areas for future research.

Originality/value – This paper provides an introduction to the themed section on perspectives onorganizational change in Asia.

Keywords Organizational change, Asia, Human resource management

Paper type General review

This themed section of the current issue of the Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement is devoted to the subject of organizational change in Asia. In terms ofan overall rationale for this contextual focus on organizational change in Asiancountries, we highlight the conclusions drawn by both Bruton and Lau (2008) andWhite (2002) in their reviews of Asian management research. In their review, Brutonand Lau (2008, p. 636) state that, despite the rapidly changing global economicenvironment, management research has tended to neglect Asia. They describe thislack of focus on Asia as “particularly startling” given both the economic influenceexerted by countries such as China and India and also the opportunities thatcountries in Asia offer to researchers seeking to extend and revise managementtheories through the exploration of new contextual variables. Similarly, in his earlierreview of the rigor and relevance in Asian management research, White (2002, p. 287)concludes that this research has tended to lack theory development and has littlerelevance to management practice mainly because “[. . .] too much of the researcheffort has been limited to simplistic comparisons, correlational analyses providing noinsight into underlying processes, and skewed idiosyncratic sampling”. It is intendedthat the selection of papers presented in this themed sub-section will, through thetopics investigated and the methodologies employed, make a valuable contribution toextending knowledge and understanding of the under-researched subject oforganizational change in Asia.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM23,5

480

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagementVol. 23 No. 5, 2010pp. 480-484q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814DOI 10.1108/09534811011071234

The parameters of organisational change as a field of studyAt a general level of the subject of organisational change, the papers that we received,reviewed and in some cases were accepted for publication in this themed section, whileall specifically covering aspects of organizational change in Asia, explored a wide arrayof subjects. As a result, these contributions, although focused upon a statedgeographical region, served to confirm our view that literature and research on thesubject of organizational change does not constitute a clearly defined body of work.Elsewhere, Rees (2008a, p. 87) has highlighted the multi-disciplinary nature oforganizational change literature and proposed that, in the absence of strict parameters,organizational change research and literature should be not be seen as a closely defineddiscipline but rather as an “[. . .] integrating mechanism that brings together ideas andtheories from a range of academic fields”. This view has echoes in other writings. Forexample, Marshak and Grant (2008, p. S7) cite Pettigrew et al. (2001) when they observethat organizational change research has “[. . .] undergone a ‘metamorphosis’, one thatencompasses a pluralism of approaches and a strengthening of the links betweenorganizational studies and the social sciences”. We emphasize here that organizationalchange may be approached from a multitude of perspectives including, for example,strategic management (Dufour and Steane, 2006), accountancy (Bell and Hoque, 2009),economic (Ukpata and Olukotun, 2008), cross-cultural (Fagenson-Eland et al., 2004),psychological (Yiu and Saner, 2006), and environmental (Yeganeh and Glavas, 2008).In essence, the contributions offered in this themed section demonstrate that, byrestricting the study of organizational change to a geographical region, albeit one asill-defined as Asia, one does not limit the parameters of the field of organizationalchange. In the process of editing this themed section about organizational change inAsia, we were provided with further insights into the sheer breadth andmulti-disciplinary nature of organizational change theory and practice.

At a more specific level, the editorial challenge we faced in presenting a coherentthemed section on the subject of organizational change in Asia was monumental notonly because of the diverse nature of organizational change but also because of the sizeand complexity of Asia. White (2002, p. 287) states that the region of Asia “[. . .]comprises vast and diverse contexts defined in terms of geographical and political units,cultural traditions, economic systems, and related social institutions”. Similarly, Warner(2000) draws attention to the variation of geography, population structures, economies,labour markets, and values that prevail across Asia. This themed section confirms themultiplicity and the complexity of the factors connected to the theory and practice oforganisational change in Asia despite the obvious limitations surrounding the restrictedscope of this collection of papers.

Organisational change in Asia: four contributionsThe themed section contains four papers which explore aspects of organizational changein the countries of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. In the light of the discussionabove, it is relevant to note that the authors of these papers all responded to the call forpapers in extremely different ways, as reflected by their main research aims, theirpreferred methodologies, and their country foci.

The first paper of this themed section is a qualitative case study analysis whichexamines how organizational change interventions are implemented in India. Theauthors, Jyotsna Bhatnagar, Pawan Budhwar, Pallavi Srivastava, and Debi S. Saini,

Organizationalchange in Asia

481

offer an in-depth analysis of the implementation of various organizational changeinitiatives within a large organization in India operating as a public-private partnership.This study provides more evidence of the important role that HR functions can adopt inthe implementation of organizational change strategies in Asian countries. The mainfindings of the study reveal that, despite operating in a context that is often associatedwith a strongly bureaucratic and hierarchical culture, it was necessary fororganizational change agents to manage change with reference to concepts andpractices such as internal marketing, quality management, and employee participation.The detailed nature of the case study analysis provides readers with a valuable insightinto a wide range of practical issues associated with the day-to-day management oforganizational change in a large public-private partnership organization in India.

In the second paper by John Hassard, Jonathan Morris, Jackie Sheehan, and XiaoYuxin offers a distinctive contribution to debates surrounding the impact of economicreform on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China. By means of the longitudinaldesign of the study, which commenced in 1995 and was still ongoing in 2010, theauthors were able to track key aspects of organizational change such as restructuringinitiatives which resulted from economic reform originating at the national level. Oneof the most original aspects of this study surrounds the analysis of how policy changesat national level led to resistance to change at the organizational level and, further, howthe national government then sought to respond to this resistance to change at theorganizational level. In drawing attention to issues such as the relationship betweenthe relative size of an SOE and its response to economic reform, the use ofsub-companies to implement the less palatable aspects of organizational change, andthe social and political tensions that have surrounded organizational change in SOEs inChina, the paper offers unique insights into organizational change in SOEs in Asiawhich complement and build upon associated literature (Dixon et al., 2010; Aulakh andKotabe, 2008; Wei and Lau, 2008).

In the third paper, Christopher J. Rees and Hasanah Johari use a qualitative case studyanalysis of a public sector financial services organisation in Malaysia to explore seniormanagers’ perceptions of the contribution of the organization’s human resourcemanagement (HRM) function in strategic organizational change initiatives. The studyprovides a fascinating insight into HRM practice and managerial behaviour in Malaysia.In investigating the perceived credibility of the HRM function’s role in strategic change,the authors unearth a range of related influences which take the findings into areas suchas ethics and spirituality. One of the key conclusions of this study is to question theextent to which workplace demographics, for example, connected to the religious andcultural profile of a workforce, can be used to determine formulaic organizational changeinitiatives.

The final paper, the theme of organizational change and SOEs is pursued further byEfa Yonnedi. Using the context of Indonesia, he employs quantitative analyses toexamine the relationship between features of the privatization of SOEs, organizationalchange, and performance. The study places a clear emphasis on the organizationalchanges that take place in the transition from public to private sector ownership asopposed to examining ongoing changes that take place within SOEs as a result ofincreasing market competition (Sitalaksmi and Zhu, 2010). One of the main conclusionsdrawn by Yonnedi is that privatization in this context produces effects such as reducedpolitical interference, flatter more decentralized organizations, and reduced employment

JOCM23,5

482

opportunities as reflected by the introduction of redundancy programs at theorganizational level. In his discussion, he suggests that changes of this nature were to beanticipated in response to privatization initiatives. However, one of the major criticismswhich is leveled at management research in general surrounds its occidental nature. Onthe basis of effects observed in organizational studies conducted in North America andWestern Europe, Western-based scholars may hold certain assumptions thatprivatization initiatives in Asian countries will lead to particular forms oforganization structures, communication systems, and employment patterns. As such,studies such as Yonnedi’s make a key contribution to knowledge of organizationalchange in Asia because they provide data upon which to base informed views about theimpact of organizational change strategies such as privatization initiatives.

ConclusionThe papers in this themed section approach the subject of organizational change fromdifferent perspectives. However, in conclusion, when viewed as a whole, it is interestingto note that at least two main themes emerge from the analyses presented in the papers.First, all four contributions acknowledge the relevance of the ownership of organizationswhen exploring aspects of organizational change in Asia. This theme may betray thebackground and biases of the authors and the guest editors involved; however, giventhat three of the four papers are co-authored by researchers who originate from WesternEurope and Asia, it is suggested that this observation should not be dismissed as artifactof highly subjective scholarship. Rather, the theme of ownership does resonate with amore established body of literature on empowerment and change, particularly thatprovided by writers adopting a critical management perspective (Hassard et al., 2001).This indicates that future research into organizational change could usefully explore,on an international and comparative basis, the relative importance of ownership oforganizations to organizational change theory and practice in Asia.

The second main theme that emerges from the four papers is the relatively heavyemphasis that has been placed by the authors on issues generally associated with HRM.The original call for papers which formed the initiative for this themed sectionencouraged contributions from a wide array of perspectives. Yet, from an editorialperspective, it soon became clear from the resulting submissions that research intoorganizational change in Asia, while tremendously wide ranging, is often linked directlyto the field of HRM in one way or another. This observation may well reflect the moregeneral international trend towards the convergence of organization development,HRM, and human resource development (HRD) theory and practice (Ellis, 2007; McLean,2007; Rees, 2008b). This observation again represents a call for more focused futureresearch into the overlap between organizational change theory and practice and thefields of HRM and HRD in Asia.

References

Aulakh, P.S. and Kotabe, M. (2008), “Institutional changes and organizational transformation indeveloping economies”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 209-16.

Bell, J. and Hoque, Z. (2009), “GAOC 2008 conference issue: accounting’s role in organizationalchange”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 133-8.

Bruton, G.D. and Lau, C.M. (2008), “Asian management research: status today and futureoutlook”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 636-59.

Organizationalchange in Asia

483

Dixon, S.E.A., Meyer, K.E. and Day, M. (2010), “Stages of organizational transformation intransition economies: a dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 416-36.

Dufour, Y. and Steane, P. (2006), “Competitive paradigms on strategic change: mapping the fieldand further research development”, Strategic Change, Vol. 15, pp. 129-44.

Ellis, F. (2007), “The benefits of partnership for OD and HR”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 6 No. 4,pp. 32-5.

Fagenson-Eland, E., Ensher, E.A. and Burke, W.W. (2004), “Organization development andchange interventions: a seven-nation comparison”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 432-64.

Hassard, J., Hogan, J. and Rowlinson, M. (2001), “From labor process theory to criticalmanagement studies”, Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 339-62.

McLean, G.N. (2007), Organization Development: Principles, Processes, Performance,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Marshak, R.J. and Grant, D. (2008), “Organizational discourse and new organization developmentpractices”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. S7-S19.

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), “Studying organizational changeand development: challenges for future research”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 697-713.

Rees, C.J. (2008a), “Editorial: organisational change and development: perspectives on theory andpractice”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 87-9.

Rees, C.J. (2008b), “Organization development in the 21st century”, in Wankel, C. (Ed.), Handbookof 21st Century Management, Sage, New York, NY, pp. 433-41.

Sitalaksmi, S. and Zhu, Y. (2010), “The transformation of human resource management inIndonesian state-owned enterprises since the Asian crisis”, Asia Pacific Business Review,Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 37-57.

Ukpata, I.S. and Olukotun, G.A. (2008), “The effect of organizational development on theNigerian economy”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 85-92.

Warner, M. (2000), “Introduction: the Asia-Pacific HRM model revisited”, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 171-82.

Wei, L.Q. and Lau, C.M. (2008), “The impact of market orientation and strategic HRM on firmperformance: the case of Chinese enterprises”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 980-95.

White, S. (2002), “Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: where are we and wherecan we go?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 287-352.

Yeganeh, B. and Glavas, A. (2008), “Green organization development”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 40No. 2, pp. 6-11.

Yiu, L. and Saner, R. (2006), “Witkin’s cognitive styles and field theory applied to the study ofglobal managers and OD practitioners”, in Pasmore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (Eds),Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Oxford.

Corresponding authorChristopher J. Rees can be contacted at: chris.rees@manchester.ac.uk

JOCM23,5

484

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints