Indigenous Management Research Research Articles

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.

Developing a measurement scale for organizational learning capabilities in China

Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement instrument for organizational learning capability (OLC) in a Chinese management context. Previous research has indicated a need for measurement instruments with proven ecological validity in China, because the learning capability of organizations is influenced by the organization’s external environment. Design/methodology/approach The authors followed a consequent inductive procedure from item sampling through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and nomological validation. The initial part sampled relevant descriptors from a diverse sample of 159 employees from heterogeneous backgrounds in China. After sorting by an expert panel, EFA of data from a sample of 161 executive students yielded a three-dimensional construct comprising knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. These three constructs were again tested in CFA using a sample of 357 employees from five companies. Findings The findings across the three samples resulted in a three-dimensional measurement scale that is called as the organizational learning capability questionnaire (OLCQ). The OLCQ displayed high internal consistency, reliability and nomological validity. Research limitations/implications This focus of this study has only been to establish a measurement instrument that allows indigenous research on organizational learning in China. The approach was statistically driven grounded approach, not a theoretical assumption of learning mechanisms special to the Chinese culture. Further research is needed to estimate how this approach yields results that are different from other cultures or the extent to which our findings can be explained by features of the Chinese culture or business environment. Practical implications This study offers a practical measurement instrument to assess practical and scientific problems of organizational learning in China. Social implications The work here emphasizes the necessity of a knowledge sharing community for organizational learning to appear. It addresses a call for more indigenous Chinese management research. Originality/value The authors provide a measurement instrument for OLC with proven ecological validity and with promising consequences for research and practice in China. The instrument is empirically grounded in the practices and behaviors of Chinese managers, avoiding biases that stem from previously identified shortcomings in cross-cultural management research. To the knowledge, it is the first of its kind and a contribution to a call for indigenous management theories with contextual validity.

A New Research Horizon for Mass Entrepreneurship Policy and Chinese Firms’ CSR: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium

While China has experienced an unprecedented growth over the past decades, sustainability has become a major concern for policymakers and management practitioners. Consideration has been given to the convergence of mass entrepreneurship and innovation as a new economic driver and sustainability as a long-term economic objective. The focus of China’s economic development has moved from a resource-based expansion to a more entrepreneurial and socially responsible one. This is a timely and critical topic that captures the increasing concerns over sustainability and Chinese firms’ increased responsibility under the new governmental initiatives in fulfilling their social mandates from stakeholders at different levels. It is also a rich area for academic research but still under studied in the Chinese context. More indigenous management research on corporate social responsibility is required to adopt Chinese perspectives in conceptualizing CSR-related problems and further formulating more contextualized CSR theories, the emergence of a new research horizon.

From Cross-Cultural Economic Experiments to Experimental Indigenous Management Research – A Suggestion

ABSTRACTThis study provides an overview, categorization, and integration of what has been achieved in the niche of cross-culture experimental economics (CCEE) so far, aiming to inspire indigenous management researchers to extend their methodological toolbox by including experimental methods. As a result of the review, I find that most of the early studies lack depth and contextualization as well as detailed explanation aboutwhyhuman behavior differs. Hence, a better understanding about the influence of culture on economic decision-making is rather limited if it cannot be explained in more detail. In contrast, deep contextualization is a principle in indigenous management research (IMR). Both have so far not benefited from each other in the study of how culture affects human behavior, as both currently develop in parallel. Following the call for high-quality IMR (Tsui, 2004), this paper argues that an experimental methodology can make a contribution to IMR in the future by drawing on the strengths of both IMR (i.e., contextualization) and CCEE (i.e., methodology).

Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness in UAE and Egypt: A Comparison through the Combined Lenses of Islamic Work Ethics and Islamic Leadership

We conduct an emic replication study of managerial and leadership effectiveness in UAE, thereby addressing the paucity in extant literature of indigenous management research in non‐Western countries. Second, we compare our findings from the UAE study with those from a similar study previously conducted by author 3 in Egypt, to reveal that there are considerable similarities in the perceived effectiveness and ineffectiveness of managerial behavior across these two countries, but also considerable differences. Finally and most importantly, we examine the findings from the two studies through the combined conceptual lenses of Islamic Work Ethics (IWE) and Islamic Leadership (IL). We find that more than half of positive and negative Behavioral Statements emerging from these studies are grounded in the principles of IWE and IL, implying that these principles exercise significant influence on followers’ Implicit Leadership Theories, and consequently their perceptions of managerial and leader behaviors. Theoretical and managerial implications are also offered.

Is “Yin-Yang balancing” superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management?

In promoting indigenous management research in China, Peter P. Li has repeatedly asserted that Yin-Yang is superior to all other cognitive frames in dealing with paradox in general and that his “Yin-Yang balancing” solution is superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management in particular. Disagreeing with Peter P. Li, this paper debunks the “Yin-Yang balancing being superior to ambidexterity” assertion by making three critical points. First, at the philosophical level, Peter P. Li’s notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” is an inaccurate interpretation (or incomplete version) of the Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong that is largely compatible with Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. Second, at the practical level, his “Yin-Yang balancing” solution, while being different from the structural ambidexterity approach, is compatible with the contextual ambidexterity approach. These first two points imply that Peter P. Li’s “Yin-Yang balancing” solution is not necessarily superior to the ambidexterity approach in particular and the Western thinking in general. Third, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, in their 1964 book The Managerial Grid, provide a variety of approaches to managing a fundamental organizational paradox (i.e., the production-people conflict). Their analysis not only covers different ambidexterity approaches, but also offers much more insights on paradox management. More significant is that Blake and Mouton made explicit that those ambidexterity-type approaches only deal with the problem at the level of symptoms rather than root causes. This third point implies that some Western scholars have had much deeper thinking on paradox management than some Chinese colleagues may have imagined.

Zhong-Yong as dynamic balancing between Yin-Yang opposites

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to comment on Peter Ping Li’s understanding of Zhong-Yong balancing, presented in his article titled “Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply Yin-Yang balancing to paradox management.” Seeing his understanding of Zhong-Yong balancing being incorrect and incomplete, the author proposes an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong as dynamic balancing between Yin-Yang opposites.Design/methodology/approachThe author first explain why Peter P. Li’s “asymmetry” and “superiority” arguments are flawed by referring to the original text of the classical book of Zhong-Yong (中庸) and a comparison between Zhong-Yong and Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. The author then propose an alternative approach to Zhong-Yong balancing that is embedded in the original text Zhong-Yong but somehow has been neglected by many Chinese scholars. The author concludes the commentary by unifying the two alternative approaches to Zhong-Yong balancing under the inclusion-selection-promotion-transition (ISPT) framework of Zhong-Yong balancing.FindingsThere are three main findings. First, as the original text of Zhong-Yong does not prescribe asymmetry, Peter P. Li’s notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” is ironically unbalanced or anti-Zhong-Yong due to his emphasis on asymmetry to the exclusion of symmetry. Second, due to the equivalency between Zhong-Yong and Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, Peter P. Li’s assertion that “Yin-Yang balancing” is superior as a solution to paradox management is flawed. Third, his “Yin-Yang balancing” solution is only (the less sophisticated) one of two alternative approaches to Zhong-Yong balancing, i.e., ratio-based combination of Yin-Yang opposites. What Peter P. Li and many other Chinese have neglected is another approach to Zhong-Yong that is embedded in the original text of Zhong-Yong, which I call “analysis plus synthesis.”Research limitations/implicationsAs it is a commentary there are no specific limitations except for what can be covered in the space available.Practical implicationsThe “analysis plus synthesis” approach to Zhong-Yong can be adopted by practitioners who are demanded to balance between opposite forces in daily life and work.Social implicationsThe rejection of the “Yin-Yang balancing being superior” assertion facilitates reduction of friction and non-cooperation between intellectual traditions.Originality/valueThis commentary contributes to the “West meets East” discourse by debunking Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang balancing is superior as a solution to paradox management and his prescription that balancing between Yin-Yang opposites must be asymmetric. It also contributes to the Chinese indigenous management research by identifying a largely neglected approach to Zhong-Yong balancing (i.e. “analysis plus synthesis”) that is alternative to the commonly understood ratio-based combination approach (e.g. “Yin-Yang balancing”). In addition, it contributes to the management literature by proposing the ISPT framework of Zhong-Yong balancing.

The Danger of Chinese Exceptionalism

In the movement of Chinese indigenous management research, a sort of ‘Chinese exceptionalism’ (as critiqued by Peng, 2005: 133) seems to have been emerging, namely, some Chinese scholars see Chinese culture, philosophy, and way of thinking are unique and cannot be accounted for by some of the established, often West-based, theories.

Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness Within South Korean and British Private Companies: A Derived Etic Comparative Study

This derived etic cross‐case/cross nation comparative study explored the extent to which behavioral indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, as perceived and judged by managers and non‐managerial employees in South Korean private sector companies, are different (local/context‐specific) or similar (potentially global/context‐general) to behavioral indicators perceived by their counterparts within British private sector companies. The empirical data used for the study were obtained from emic replication studies previously carried out by the authors in South Korea and the United Kingdom respectively. High degrees of overlap and convergence were revealed, with the vast majority of managerial behaviors (87.75% South Korean and 90.53% British) that distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers being found to be the same, similar, or congruent in meaning. The most surprising result of the study is that only 1 out of 13 South Korean behavioral indicators found to be non‐convergent showed any evidence of being local/context‐general, and thus culturally embedded. Overall, the findings bring into question the validity of past claims in the cross‐cultural management literature which assert that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership behavior are contingent upon the cultural aspects of specific societies and countries. Our study is a rare example of Type 4 indigenous management research, and our findings are illustrative of what has become known as geocentric (emic‐and‐etic) knowledge.

Modesty or overconfience: On the attitude of Chinese indigenous management research (谦虚谨慎或者骄傲自负: 中国本土管理研究的心态问题)

Modesty or overconfience: On the attitude of Chinese indigenous management research (谦虚谨慎或者骄傲自负: 中国本土管理研究的心态问题)

A mindful leader with persistence

Purpose This article aims to report the second part of the interview with Dr Bor-Shiuan Cheng on his insights into Chinese indigenous management research, including challenges and future directions. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a recent interview with Dr Bor-Shiuan Cheng. Findings The biggest challenge for current Chinese management research is the administrative system and restrictive publication policy. Under the current system, it is best for researchers to consider a dual approach to research. That is, research must be relevant to local issues and significant to the international community. Research limitations/implications The system that might sabotage academic system needs to be changed. And future leadership studies should be focused on developing mindful and moral leaders. Originality/value The interview provides an insightful view on the current challenges of Chinese management research and valuable advice from Dr Cheng, who also showed the future direction of leadership studies.

Advancing Indigenous Management Theory: Executive Rationale as an Institutional Logic

ABSTRACTWith 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 Economic-Social Duality for Executive Rationale: The Interplay between Resource Pool and Game Rule for Sense-Giving and Sense-Making

I truly enjoyed reading the perspective article entitled ‘Advancing indigenous management theory: Executive rationale as an institutional logic’ by Gordon Redding and Michael Witt (2015), especially its implications for a ‘promising avenue for indigenous management research’ (179). I agree with the authors in general terms that the research on the impact of culture as an informal institution, and also the effect of formal institutions, on business practices must come down from a highly abstract level to a more pragmatic ground, especially their interaction and integration as embodied by various specific mechanisms to guide practices. For that purpose, Redding and Witt introduce an interesting notion of ‘executive rationale’ to guide action. Applying the abstract notion of institutional logic to specific business practices, executive rationale refers to the ‘socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’ (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008: 101) in the specific context of business practices. In other words, executive rationale provides a mental blueprint for practical actions in a business context. In addition, the authors have empirically generated a tentative model with multiple dimensions to compare the dominant executive rationales as institutionally-embedded across five key economies.

“It’s the context all the way down!”

Purpose – This paper aims to emphasize the importance of Chinese institutional contexts beyond “culture” by analyzing a few non-cultural institution-dependent contexts in Chinese HRM research, using an institutional theory perspective. Design/methodology/approach – The authors review existing Chinese indigenous management research from an institutional theoretical perspective and provide a critique of the research from that perspective. Findings – Chinese contexts are more than Confucianism. Focusing on this aspect of culture without integrating other institutional contexts, while informative, is unlikely to identify and explain the uniqueness of Chinese individual and organizational behaviors. Informed by institutional theory, the authors examine how institutional language context influences Chinese institutional behavior. The authors also argue that the guanxi phenomenon is more strongly dependent on institutional forces than on culture in the recent Chinese history. Incorporating these “non-cultural” institutional contexts in research enables us to describe the “what” and explore the “why” and “how” in theory development, rather than placing value judgments on the institutional arrangements. Research limitations/implications – While societal culture provides an important institutional context, China’s broad culture is not unique among countries with similar Confucian traditions. Chinese management scholars are encouraged to be mindful of pervasive institutional contexts in exploring and theorizing local organizational phenomena. Research without considering non-cultural institutional contexts may prevent a finer-grained understanding of Chinese organizational phenomena for developing Chinese management theory, and it is unlikely to identify the uniqueness of Chinese organizational phenomena among countries influenced by similar Confucian cultural traditions. Originality/value – Built on previous literature, this paper is among the first to specify and examine explicitly non-Confucian Chinese institutional contexts as a basis for the exploration of Chinese organizational phenomena.

Employee suzhi in Chinese organizations: organizational ownership behavior

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine a Chinese indigenous concept of organizational ownership behavior (OOB) as an aspect of employee suzhi in relation to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the Western context.Design/methodology/approach– A content analysis based on a review of related research in Western mainstream and Chinese domestic literature is conducted.Findings– Suzhi at the organizational level can be linked to the construct of OCB. In Chinese organizations, a relevant concept to OCB can be better understood as OOB to capture the sociopolitical and cultural context unique to Chinese organizations. The dimensional structure of OOB is presented to differentiate it from OCB which is popular in the Western context.Research limitations/implications– The identified construct of OOB offers important implications for indigenous Chinese management research and human resources management (HRM) practice. OOB, based on Chinese management practice, can better conform to China’s unique historical and cultural context and management practices. This concept varies distinctively from Western OCB in terms of its connotation and dimensions.Originality/value– The concept of OOB as an indigenous employee organizational behavior in the Chinese context is conceptualized. The paper differentiates the OOB construct from OCB and presents an initial set of six dimensions of OOB for future research.

Suzhi: an indigenous criterion for human resource management in China

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the indigenous concept of suzhi at individual and organizational levels, and identify its dimensions for human resource management (HRM) research and practice in China. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a comprehensive review of suzhi literature, Chinese cultural and historical literature, as well as Western mainstream HRM research, a multidimensional suzhi framework is conceptualized. Findings – As an indigenous expression, suzhi can be and has been adopted for Chinese HRM research and practice. As a multidimensional construct, one’s cognitive suzhi is jointly determined by corresponding moral suzhi, wenhua (knowledge-based) suzhi and zhuanye (professional) suzhi. Cognitive suzhi, in turn, determines one’s behavioral suzhi that drives employees to enhance organizational performance, and this relationship is moderated by psychological suzhi. Research limitations/implications – The proposed framework provides new insight for Chinese indigenous management research, particularly in developing suzhi measurement for different dimensions. It also informs HRM practices in recruiting, selection, performance analysis and employee career development. Originality/value – The complexity of suzhi dimensions from an organizational HRM perspective is analyzed. The resulting suzhi framework offers new insight for HRM research and practices in China.

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).

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).

Contextualizing or decontextualizing? The peril of using Western social capital scales in China

Purpose– The purpose of this study is to promote Chinese indigenous research by examining a case in which adopting social capital (SC) scales developed in the Western context for Chinese samples can decontextualize inter-firmguanximanagement in the Chinese context.Design/methodology/approach– Adopting the existing Western scales to measure SC, we collected data from Chinese executives participating in executive master of business administration programs on buyer–supplier relationship. Using the same items and data source, we identifiedpost hocfactors representingguanxidimensions. Ordinary least squared regressions were used for bothguanxiand SC dimensions to test the hypotheses.Findings– Our analysis showed that Chinese natives responded to the Western SC items according to their understanding and mindsets rooted inguanxi. This was evidenced by the results from thepost hoc-derivedguanxidimensions with the same data, which show better regression results for the hypotheses tested, although the construct validity was comparable. Adopting Western SC measurement scales deconceptualized the intricate Chinese context and inter-firm interactions.Research limitations/implications– It is inappropriate to borrow Western-developed scales for Chinese HRM research due to intricate differences in contexts. Doing so may run the risk of ignoring the Chinese context regarding the mechanisms and processes of complex human interactions, although it may produce superficial results consistent with the Western literature. Developing indigenous measurement scales should be considered not only as a preference but also as a requirement for Chinese management research.Originality/value– We empirically compared the difference between Western-developed measurement scales and a Chinese indigenous construct, as well as their impact on relationship management in relation to indigenous Chinese management research.

Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research?

In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.