Introduction
In this commentary we reflect on Shaalan, Eid, and Tourky's (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022) article in which they investigated the Chinese concept and practice of guanxi in the Middle East,Footnote 1 a region in which wasta represents the common way of informal networking.Footnote 2 While we encourage and welcome research into informal networks, we have serious concerns about the conceptual and methodological approaches taken by Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022) in investigating informal networks in the Middle East and explain herein why we do not believe guanxi should have been used in place of wasta.
In this commentary, we commence by introducing wasta, the dominant concept in the Middle East, which Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022) disregarded. Then we reflect on the conceptual approach of researching an indigenous network construct in a foreign environment of a different culture which already has its own informal networks. In this commentary, we also point out areas of concern in relation to research design and methodology. Finally, we provide suggestions for future research on informal networks, and we explicitly encourage further debate which draws on our commentary.
Informal Networks Research and Context
Applying Chinese guanxi in the Arab Middle East where wasta is pervasive is an approach that demands some reflection. Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022: 859) suggest that guanxi ‘has not been fully investigated or understood in other contexts, especially the Middle East’; the aim of Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022: 862) is to ‘advance understanding of guanxi as a holistic and global construct’. In our opinion, this endeavor comes as a surprise, since there are abundant studies showing that guanxi is a cultural concept rooted and unique to the Confucian context of the Chinese culture (see Barbalet, Reference Barbalet2021; Kiong & Kee, Reference Kiong and Kee1998). Although, in their article, Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022: 874) stated that ‘the use of guanxi-type relationships is increasingly recognized by both practitioners and academics as an important source of stability in changing external circumstances’, the term ‘guanxi-type relationships’ has not been utilized in previous research studies nor have the authors cited any study using this specific term.
Like guanxi, wasta is a complex relational construct (Ali & Weir, Reference Ali and Weir2020; Al-Twal, Reference Al-Twal2021). Both forms of networks are embedded in, and shaped by, the respective cultural and institutional context in which they operate. In a nutshell, wasta describes informal ties and networks in the Arab world. Wasta is deeply engrained in the Arab (collective) culture, supported by Islamic ethics and values (Hutchings & Weir, Reference Hutchings and Weir2006), and defined by family, kin, clan, and sect membership, among others. It is fair to claim that in China, generally, Confucian behavioral ethics, including acquiescence to authority and institutional constraints, and uncertainty influence how and with whom relationships are developed and maintained. Wasta in the Arab world and guanxi in China are seen as a vital part of the respective business systems in the societies in which they operate. In the international management literature, it is widely accepted that a ‘business system is an amalgamation of culture and institutions’ (Hutchings & Weir, Reference Hutchings and Weir2006: 145). Contextual differences shape informal practices and that therefore impedes generalizations. There is ample evidence, for example, about wasta usage between men and women (Alsarhan, Ali, Weir, & Valax, Reference Alsarhan, Ali, Weir and Valax2021), whereas guanxi usage seems to be gender neutral. This certainly has practical and theoretical implications in a management context.
Research Design
Our major concerns in relation to the chosen research design are summarized as follows. In our opinion, it is disconcerting that a long-held concept and practices from one culture (guanxi) would be imposed upon another cultural context that also has its own long-standing concept and practices (wasta). Again, while we believe that networking ideals and practices around the world share some similarities, it is hard to understand why solely the concept of guanxi would be used in contexts in which wasta already exists. Though the authors note, with reference to emerging markets, that ‘context-specific research becomes even more important’ (Shaalan et al., Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022: 860), they essentially do not recognize the wasta-context prevalent in the Arab world. Although many well-known sources on wasta and comparative wasta research (e.g., wasta–guanxi comparisons) are cited, the term wasta and its context is not actually used at all in the article. Instead, when describing the relational context of countries in the Middle East that they researched (all of which are Arab countries excepting Iran and Turkey), the authors refer to ‘Arab people’ (Shaalan et al., Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022: 869) even when the two aforementioned countries are predominantly Muslim but not Arab populations, and they use the term guanxi.
How relevant can this conceptualization be to the advancement of the extant stream of research on guanxi and the development dynamics of the construct driven by cultural and institutional constraints? It is obvious that the chosen approach will not help to understand the similarities and differences between guanxi and wasta better when wasta is not even explored, nor will it advance understanding about the context of emerging markets, specifically, the Arab Middle East. Moreover, there is a danger that other researchers may be encouraged to follow their lead and apply guanxi without sufficient consideration to other contexts that already have their own well-established informal network concepts and practices.
Despite the international nature of Shaalan et al.'s (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022) study, there are also concerns in relation to methodological considerations that are common in international management and marketing research (e.g., Craig & Douglas, Reference Craig and Douglas2000; Sekaran, Reference Sekaran1983; Usunier, Reference Usunier1998; Van de Vijver & Leung, Reference Van de Vijver and Leung1997). First, the sample is made up of three different cultures (Arab, Turkish, and Iranian) with no conceptual or face validation of how the constructs are defined and operationalized within these cultures, especially the six constructs (bonding, empathy, reciprocity, personal trust, face, and affection) used as second-order to measure the ‘guanxi-type relationship’. Moreover, the authors did not examine the other cultures within the countries that are predominantly Arab. We note that in their study comparing Chinese and Arab informal networks, Abosag and Naude (Reference Abosag and Naude2014) did not include ‘face’ because it is a very Chinese construct. Second, the borrowing/adoption of measurement scales appears to be done in an ‘as-is’ style, meaning items ‘are not informative about the latent constructs in the other countries’ (Katsikeas & Madan, Reference Katsikeas and Madan2023: 2). Third, for empirical research in international management, scholars have argued not to disregard local cultural manifestations of the underlying constructs (e.g., Bhalla & Lin, Reference Bhalla and Lin1987; Malhotra, Agarwal, & Peterson, Reference Malhotra, Agarwal and Peterson1996). Therefore, we believe that the conceptualization and operationalization of constructs with respect to the three cultures the authors included in their study required more attention.
Suggestions for Future Research on Informal Networks
By utilizing the guanxi construct to explore relationships in the Arab Middle East, a chance is missed to contribute to ongoing research on respective constructs and context (e.g., Zhang, Hartley, Al-Husan, & ALHussan, Reference Zhang, Hartley, Al-Husan and ALHussan2021) including the changing nature of wasta within the Arab world, and to critically evaluate generalizations on informal networks. We believe that these two general directions of research are branches with the highest potential to add to theoretical knowledge and practice.
Path 1: Deepening Construct and Contextual Knowledge
The research design suggested by Shaalan et al. (Reference Shaalan, Eid and Tourky2022) may wrongly legitimize others undertaking future informal network research to investigate, for instance, blat/svyazi in Brazil (and disregarding jeitinho), yongo in India (and disregarding jaan-pehchaan), or wasta in Korea (and disregarding yongo and inmaek). This approach would (1) detach construct from context; (2) deploy a construct from one context to another, from which there can hardly be implications drawn that help understanding of the construct itself and the context better; and (3) ignore the methodological techniques and processes developed by international management scholars over the past five decades or so to validly compare constructs across different contexts/cultures. Also, with such an approach, the dynamics between the context and construct can hardly be captured. Informal network research pressing questions include, for example, will informal networks disappear or persist once formal institutions become more effective? How can informal networks be made more inclusive and fairer? How can the dark sides of informal networks be minimized? How may support be provided for the bright sides of informal networks? Finally, we can ask what institutional transformations are needed in the context of these questions. An answer to this leads to theoretical and practical progress that can only be found when research designs align and integrate construct and context.
Path 2: Working toward Generalizations
We see potential and indeed we explicitly support research that identifies common characteristics of informal networks which work toward generalizations. Comparative informal network research has consistently pointed out similarities (and differences) of selected informal networks (Abosag & Naude, Reference Abosag and Naude2014; Horak & Taube, Reference Horak and Taube2016; Hutchings & Weir, Reference Hutchings and Weir2006). Since every country has contextually embedded informal networks,Footnote 3 there is still a long way to go to understand exactly the similarities. Goodwill, for example, seems to be a characteristic shared in most networks; gender-inclusiveness and other areas of diversity-inclusiveness, in contrast, is an important aspect where informal network characteristics differ very much by context. Moreover, whether informal networks are rather affectively or instrumentally driven (or both) is again an important question for future empirical research. Drawing generalizations about informal networks is tricky. Not to mention that informal networks are often taboo to talk about and at times heavily disliked and, in some contexts, organizations and individuals are reticent to admit engaging in practices that are part of such networks. Paradoxically, while people discourage and condemn their usage, they continue to use them because in network societies it is tacitly expected to engage in informal networking, voluntarily and often involuntarily, and it is a necessity to ensure things are done.Footnote 4
When exploring informal networks, research designs should use the respective network term in survey questionnaires and interview questions by asking, for instance, ‘how high would you rate the level of trust in your yongo network?’ instead of ‘how high would you rate the level of trust in your network?’. In network societies, very different dyadic and network ties exist within which individuals are members. In very simplified terms, blat is a different tie and network than svyazi (in Russia and the post-Soviet Union countries), so is yongo and inmaek (in South Korea).
Exploring informal networks and understanding the practice of informal networking in business across cultures requires a deep understanding about the nature and characteristics of the respective network constructs. Respecting the context (i.e., culture and institutions) is key to the advancement of knowledge. Research into informal networks in different contexts/cultures should be no different from other comparative studies in international business and management in that adhering to commonly accepted principles of comparative cross-cultural research methodology is indispensable.
Sven Horak ([email protected]) is a Professor of Management at The Peter J. Tobin College of Business at St. John's University in New York. He works in the area of global management, organization, and leadership. His research examines the role that informality plays in managing globally. Specifically, he explores informal structures and the drivers and ideals of informal networking.
Ibrahim Abosag ([email protected] and [email protected]) is a Professor of Marketing at Alfaisal University and at SOAS University of London. His research interests include B2B focusing on the role of informal business networks in business relationships. Most of his research focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of the concepts of wasta and Et-Moone. His research interests also include analysis of firm capabilities and strategic approaches to internationalization of firms. Another area of interest is brand experiential marketing on virtual platforms.
Kate Hutchings ([email protected]) is a Professor of HRM at Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia. She has held visiting positions in universities in eight countries and has undertaken, and presented, research in a wide range of countries in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and North America. Her research streams include: expatriates and global mobility; HRM in developing economies (especially Asia-Pacific and Middle East); and HRM with a focus on diversity in organisations.
Fadi Alsarhan ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor of Intercultural Management at ISC Paris Business School. His main research areas include international HRM, cross-cultural management, managerial, and business realities in the MENA region. His current research focuses on the study of contextual influences and culture on international HRM and business practices, more specifically the dynamics and impact of informal networks on managerial and business practices within a large international context.
Sa'ad Ali ([email protected]) is a Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Management at the University of Derby, UK. His research explores the role of informal networks in business practices with a particular focus on wasta in Arab countries. His pedagogical research focuses of the development of intercultural skills for graduates.
Arwa Al-Twal ([email protected]) is currently a full-time Assistant Professor and a Chairperson of the Human Resources Management department in the Faculty of Business at the American University of Madaba, Jordan. There, she offers lectures on staffing, international HRM, HR planning, and business ethics. Her research interests include performance management within Higher Education context, wasta, and HRM in the Middle East.
David Weir ([email protected]) is a Professor of Intercultural Management at York St John University and Visiting Professor at Lincoln International Business School with research interests focusing on the Middle East, Islamic management, informal business networks, risky work, vulnerable systems and resilient response, and auto-ethnographic and critical methods. He was a Founding Member of the British Academy of Management and has undertaken consultancy with many leading organizations, including Islamic Development Bank, World Bank, Cambridge Muslim College, the Palestinian Authority, and Sheikh Khalifa Government Excellence Program in the UAE.
Fawaz Baddar ALhussan ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of Strategic Sales & Account Management at Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire Business School (EMLV) Paris and the MBA Programme Director. He explores International Key Account Management in the Arab world and emerging economies. His research aims to shed light on the complexities of conducting business across borders and within different cultural contexts. His research interests are I-KAM, international marketing, and informal buyer-supplier networks.
Faten Baddar AL-Husan ([email protected]) is a Lecturer/Assistant Professor of International Human Resource Management at Newcastle University Business School, UK. She works in the area of cross-cultural management and international & comparative human resource management. Her main research areas include transfer of MNCs’ HRM practices, and knowledge to worldwide subsidiaries by advanced and emerging MNCs, with a current focus on the transfer of sustainable HRM practices, global leadership, B-2-B, & Key Account Management and informal networks.
Open access
