Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research?

Applying a Yin-Yang Perspective to the Theory of Paradox: A Review of Chinese Management

This paper examines the paradox in management through the yin–yang lens and how to apply the yin–yang perspective in Chinese indigenous management research through a literature review. Compared with several western philosophical perspectives, yin–yang places more emphasis on the interaction of interdependent contradictions and better describes the complex dynamics of both contradictions. Our review finds that the scholars propose yin–yang as a supplement to and an optimization of western management. The review focuses on connecting the yin–yang perspective with the paradox in management, cross-cultural management, and practice of organizational management.

A Transparadox Process of Decision Making

Decision makers inevitably face a variety of tensions when managing strategic change. Research from organization and strategy perspectives, such as paradox and organizational learning, has offered useful but limited insight into the systematic mindset and thinking processes involved in decision making. We draw on theoretical and philosophical foundations of the transparadox perspective and related theories to build a dynamic process cycle of transparadoxical decision making. Three interrelated dimensions make up our model: (1) Transparadox Information Navigation, which includes embracing oppositional tendencies, syncretic focus, and creative transcendence; (2) Transparadox Contextual Consideration, characterized by prudent precision and recognizing the flux of temporality and spatiality; and (3) Transparadox Integration, which comprises design-type integration and exploration-type integration. We then present propositions on the interdependent and reinforcing mechanism among the three dimensions. Our work expands the paradox literature with specific mindset dimensions and constituent elements, connecting paradox research with the cognitive perspective by adding dynamic, cyclical processes to paradox cognition study.

Unraveling the Philosophical Foundations of Co-opetition Strategy

This article aims to understand how Eastern and Western philosophies shape the perspectives of scholars and practitioners in framing co-opetition (i.e., the coexistence of competition and cooperation) in distinctive manners and, in turn, how such distinctions shape the behavioral patterns of co-opetition. We disentangle the constructs of competition and cooperation and their coexistence as proposed by three Chinese schools of thought (i.e., Taoism, Confucianism, and Legalism) and three Western philosophers (i.e., Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel, and Adam Smith). Based on this groundwork, we unveil four comparative philosophical logics used to address the essence of co-opetition (i.e., either/or, both/and, both/or, and either/and). In addition, we apply such East-meeting-West linkages to a typology of co-opetition strategies.

A Zhong-Yong perspective on balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy-making

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” and apply it to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors adopt a “West meets East” mindset and approach to develop an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong, and then apply this perspective to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making. There are three steps in the process of developing the alternative perspective. First, the authors argue that the essence of “Yin-Yang balancing” is a ratio-based solution to paradoxical balancing, which is in fact equivalent to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and compatible with some western management scholars’ approaches to solving paradox. Second, the authors identify a different generic solution to paradoxical balancing implicit in the western management literature. Third, the authors find in the original text of Zhong-Yong equivalent ideas to the identified different generic solution and then propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is fundamentally different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing.”

Findings

Applied to the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making, the new perspective on Zhong-Yong provides us with the following prescriptive insights from the life-wisdom of eastern philosophy: first, top management (e.g. Shun as the sage-king) must listen to various views and opinions also from employees and low-level managers at the bottom of the organization to be better informed about complex issues. Second, top management must analyze the diverse elements of the various views and opinions they collect and synthesize by taking the good from the bad to find smarter solutions and make decisions with better outcomes. Third, abiding by a set of (more or less) cohesive values help top managers be open and receptive to information and insights from low-level organizational members and enhancing unbiased information.

Research limitations/implications

This paper is mainly a theoretical perspective. Empirical work is needed to test the prescriptions offered in this paper.

Practical implications

Practitioners may learn new perspectives from ancient Chinese philosophies on how to balance.

Originality/value

This paper applies a new perspective on Zhong-Yong to an important paradox in strategic management.

Transcending Organizational Compassion Paradoxes by Enacting Wise Compassion Courageously

While organizational compassion has attracted increased scholarly interest over the past two decades, inherent paradoxical tensions have been largely overlooked. Transcendence of oppositions is widely recognized as the most effective paradox response. To gain insight about the transcendence of the paradoxical tensions in organizational compassion, we turn to the cultural context of Bhutan, where for centuries compassion has been held as a central virtue informing governance and daily life. Our analysis contributes to the literature on organizational compassion and on organizational paradoxes by (a) theorizing the application of Bhutan’s compassion transcendence strategies to the organizational context, (b) thereby engaging in cross-cultural analysis hereto overlooked in the organizational compassion literature, (c) highlighting paradoxes in compassion relations, and (d) providing a generalizable sociomaterial model for studying paradox transcendence.

How national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience with paradoxical tensions

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine how national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience of tension when confronting paradoxical demands that arise during their day-to-day organizational experience. The paper further explores two types of paradoxical demands (task oriented and relational oriented) and two mediating mechanisms (tolerance for contradictions and harmony enhancement concerns) that exhibit contrary cultural effects.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing from a sample of white-collar workers in China and the USA, the authors first inductively generated scenarios with task-oriented and relational-oriented paradoxical demands and then conducted three studies where participants rated the perceived tension from the scenarios. In Study 1, they examined cross-cultural differences in perceived tension and the mediating role of tolerance for contradictions. In Study 2, they primed Americans with proverbs that promoted tolerance for contradictions. In Study 3, they examined the indirect effects of harmony enhancement concerns in China in relational-oriented paradoxical demands.

Findings

The results found that for task-oriented paradoxical demands, Chinese participants were less likely than American participants to experience tension and the effects were mediated by a higher tolerance for contradictions. Americans exposed to proverbs that promoted tolerance for contradictions also experienced less tension. For relational-oriented paradoxical demands, on the other hand, the authors found no cross-cultural differences, as the indirect effects of a tolerance for contradictions were mitigated by negative indirect effects of greater harmony enhancement concerns.

Originality/value

This paper demonstrates that culture can influence the tension that individuals subjectively experience when they confront paradoxical conditions, suggesting that individuals learn implicitly how to cope with tensions associated with paradoxes from their broader cultural environment. However, the authors also found different cultural effects within different paradoxical conditions, suggesting that the knowledge that individuals acquire from their broader cultural environment is multifaceted.

Is Yin-Yang superior for paradox research?

Purpose

The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence.

Design/methodology/approach

To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.

Findings

The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang.

Research limitations/implications

Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues.

Practical implications

This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures.

Social implications

The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.

Originality/value

This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.

Interpersonal Harmony and Conflict for Chinese People: A Yin-Yang Perspective

This article provides an overview on a series of original studies conducted by the author. The aim here is to present the ideas that the author reconstructed, based on the dialectics of harmonization, regarding harmony and conflict embodied in traditional Chinese thought, and to describe how a formal psychological theory/model on interpersonal harmony and conflict was developed based on the Yin–Yang perspective. The paper also details how essential theories on interpersonal harmony and conflict were constructed under this formal model by conducting a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 30 adults. Psychological research in Western society has, intriguingly, long been focused more on interpersonal conflict than on interpersonal harmony. By contrast, the author’s work started from the viewpoint of a materialist conception of history and dialectics of harmonization in order to reinterpret traditional Chinese thought. Next, a “dynamic model of interpersonal harmony and conflict” was developed, as a formal psychological theory, based on the real-virtual notions in the Yin–Yang perspective. Under this model, interpersonal harmony and conflict can be classified into genuine versus superficial harmony and authentic versus virtual focus conflict, and implicit/hidden conflict is regarded as superficial harmony. Subsequently, the author conducted a series of quantitative studies on interpersonal harmony and conflict within parent–child, supervisor–subordinate, and friend–friend relationships in order to verify the construct validity and the predictive validity of the dynamic model of interpersonal harmony and conflict. The claim presented herein is that Chinese traditional thought and the psychological theory/model based on the Yin–Yang perspective can be combined. Accordingly, by combining qualitative and quantitative empirical research, the relative substantial theory can be developed and the concepts can be validated. Thus, this work represents the realization of a series of modern Chinese indigenous psychological research studies rooted in traditional cultural thought and the Yin–Yang perspective. The work also mirrors the current conflict-management research that has incorporated the Chinese notion of harmony and adopted the Yin–Yang perspective on culture.

Advancing Indigenous Management Theory: Executive Rationale as an Institutional Logic

With this perspective paper, we seek to help open up an additional and, we believe, especially promising avenue for indigenous management research. We explore the potential for progress through the investigation of executive rationale, an institutional logic guiding managerial action and enabling strategies, structures, and formal integration mechanisms. Drawing on interviews with an elite group of executives including some of the world's most powerful managers, we illustrate variance in executive rationale across five major economies – Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and the United States – and suggest that action and structures in these economies are broadly aligned with the respective expressions of executive rationale. We consequently hold that indigenous management research may benefit from a focus on executive rationale in particular, and we propose a concrete research agenda.

The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response

I welcome any well-informed debate over the unique value of Yin-Yang as a cognitive frame in the development of Chinese indigenous management research. The commentary by Xin Li to engage in a debate is timely. Xin Li and I share the same premise that ‘we need indigenous Chinese management research to offer new insights and contribute to the development of truly universal theories’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). That is the common ground upon which we can debate over how best to engage in indigenous research with confidence in balance so as to avoid both overconfidence and under-confidence.

Where we depart from the above common ground is our different perspectives about the value of the Yin-Yang frame. Xin Li challenges my positive perspective on the unique value of the Yin-Yang frame on several dimensions. First, he characterizes my perspective as ‘both/and’ in sharp contrast to Aristotle’s ‘either/or’ logic. Second, he characterizes my perspective as arguing that ‘Yin-Yang thinking is superior to other logical systems and philosophies’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). Third, he implies that my perspective on the Yin-Yang frame is essentially a claim that ‘Westerners cannot think in a non-either/or way’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). Fourth, the above challenges are based upon his basic claim that the Yin-Yang frame is just one form of dialectical framing (Li, X., 2014). Based on these claims, Xin Li warns against the ‘danger of overconfidence’ among Chinese management scholars (Li, X., 2014: 8).