In honouring John Child receiving the 2012 IACMR Lifetime Contribution Award, we present this Editors’ Forum to showcase his research into the influence of country context on organizations. The forum starts with an invited paper by Child and Marinova that analyzes the challenges faced by Chinese firms in their outward foreign investment. This is followed by four commentaries from Klaus Meyer, Peter Murmann, Kwok Leung, and Gordon Redding. The forum concludes with some reflections by Child and Marinova on the commentaries. Collectively, these six papers provide rich and inspiring insights into John Child’s approach to research and how we can learn from it. Five general observations are offered as suggestions for improving current research practice, including: (1) deepening contextual understanding; (2) theorizing across disciplines; (3) respecting the phenomenon; (4) recognizing cultural contingencies; and (5) rebalancing research criteria.

This paper argues that it is crucial to take account of both home and host country contexts in order, adequately, to understand their implications for Chinese enterprises investing into foreign countries. This calls for an analysis that is sensitive to both home and host country contexts, and that takes into account how the institutions and political systems in those contexts establish institutional and resource capital needs for the overseas-investing firm. We discuss and illustrate three different combinations of Chinese and host country characteristics, and the firm-level learning and adaptation required in the light of the relevant capitals likely to be available to Chinese firms. The analysis draws upon insights from resource-based, institutional, and political perspectives. While it is developed with specific reference to China, we also suggest that this form of analysis can be applied more generally to the implementation of outward foreign direct investment from any country.

Using Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between foxes and hedgehogs, John Child’s approach to management research has been described as a fox in a community dominated by hedgehogs. I thus explore Child’s approach to conducting research on China-related phenomena, and place his new work into this trajectory. In doing so, I offer insights into the opportunities and limitations of developing research agendas and generating new theoretical insights from research that is deeply contextualized.

Although researchers often do it subconsciously, every explanation involves choosing a level of abstraction at which the argument proceeds. The dominant North American style of research in Organization Theory, Strategy, and International Business encourages researchers to frame their explanations at the highest level of abstraction where country-level contextual factors are suppressed or ignored. Yet to provide powerful explanations for recent developments in China, researchers are drawn to a greater level of context specificity. This tension is evident in the Child and Marinova (2014) paper. One way to reduce the tension is to identify general causal mechanisms that combine in different ways to produce different results depending on context. This research strategy is more effective than seeking invariant, general patterns of development across all times and places.

Child and Marinova’s (2014) framework provides an important conceptual tool to analyze the globalization of Chinese firms by highlighting the Chinese context and the context of the host country. Their framework is defined by two dimensions: political stability and institutional maturity, which needs to be augmented by a cultural dimension. To illustrate this argument, I review the importance of a broadened notion of cultural distance, intercultural competence, and intergroup dynamics in shaping the learning and adaptation, and eventual success of Chinese expatriates and firms in their global expansion. There is a severe lack of research on the culture-related issues confronting Chinese global firms, a priority area for future research.

Most of the issues that undermine firms’ globalization efforts are attributable to a combination of cultural differences and weak managerial skill and experience. Because of its exclusive focus on influences from the political stability and institutional maturity aspects of country contexts, Child and Marinova’s (2014) framework for identifying the challenges faced by Chinese firms going abroad is incomplete. It needs to also include the cultural mindsets of executives as an explanatory factor in analyzing how the ‘qualitative interface’ in contextual combinations affects the operation of firms investing into foreign countries.

Our paper (Child & Marinova, 2014) argues the need for an analytical framework that takes both home and host country contexts into account, and the implications that different alignments between such contexts have for the strategies and requisite capabilities of foreign-investing firms. The four commentaries on the paper raise important issues that further the discussion of context and strategy in the globalization of firms. They pose fundamental questions concerning the conceptualization of context, the role of culture in such conceptualization, the linking of levels of analysis (abstract and concrete, macro and micro), and the potential for theoretical generalization from the particular case of Chinese globalizing firms.

We define the ‘Chinese way’ of internationalization as oriented toward experimental learning, in contrast to traditional internationalization models, such as the Uppsala model. Analyses of survey data of private Chinese firms that have made outward foreign direct investments (OFDI) show that only 50 percent follow the Uppsala model in which firms follow a staged approach. The other 50 percent follow more risky explorative OFDI approaches in which the firms learn on the ground experimentally from their OFDI. We further investigate how the founders’ congenital learning, firms’ inward international experience, potential absorptive capabilities, and motivations to learn, influence OFDI performance and how learning outcomes mediate these relationships. We show that the relationship between the firm’s potential absorptive capacity and its OFDI performance is fully mediated by what the firm learned from the OFDI project. Also the firm’s motivation to learn directly affects performance and is partially mediated by what the firm has learned.

Building on the co-opetition perspective, this study takes a unified approach to examine relationship benefits and transaction costs in buyer–supplier relationships. We argue that buyer–supplier vertical dyads fall into one of four distinct co-opetition types based on their respective degrees of cooperation and competition. Each co-opetition situation then corresponds to unique levels of relationship benefits and transaction costs. A sample of 225 supplier–buyer dyads from the Chinese home appliance industry confirms that competition has a positive effect on transaction costs and a negative effect on relationship benefits, while cooperation stimulates greater relationship benefits but affects transaction costs mainly at low competition levels. The results advance prior research on buyer–supplier relationships and co-opetition and offer valuable avenues for future research.