Search results

With rising globalization, Western and Eastern brands are increasingly collaborating and co-branding. Drawing on the theory of dialectical self that captures the degree of cognitive tendency to tolerate conflicts, inconsistencies and ambiguities in self-concept, this paper investigates the effect of consumer dialectical self on co-branding that encompasses Western and East Asian cultural brand personality traits.

Two studies were conducted using Chinese participants to examine the effects of the dialectical self on co-brand evaluation under single-and dual-personality conditions and to explore the mediating role of ideal social self-congruence and the moderating role of product type (high vs low conspicuous).

The findings suggest that counterintuitive to the received wisdom, the dialectical self negatively influences one's attitude towards a co-brand in the dual-personality condition only. Further, ideal social self-congruence mediates the relationship between the dialectical self and dual-personality co-brand evaluation in the high conspicuous product condition only.

Important implications are offered to international marketing managers for managing the dialectical self that lead to positive co-brand evaluations. Moreover, managers should highlight ideal social self-congruence for co-branding success for particular product types.

This paper examines co-branding from a novel perspective of consumer dialectical self and shows the pivotal role it plays when brands carry varying cultural traits engage in co-branding. By identifying the role of the dialectical self and the important mediator and moderator, the paper fulfils an important gap in co-branding literature and offers key implications.

Research has shown that creative self-efficacy is an important antecedent of workplace creativity, but recent research indicates that this relationship may be moderated by contextual factors. The current study investigates whether leader dialectical thinking and leader member exchange moderate the relationship between employee creative self-efficacy and employee creativity.

A survey sample of 222 employees in 43 teams from Chinese high-tech companies was collected and HLM was used to test our research model.

The positive association between employee creative self-efficacy and employee creativity was strengthened when a leader displayed a dialectical thinking style. Additional analyses failed to find support for the moderating role of leader-member exchange (LMX).

These findings establish leadership cognitive style as a potential boundary condition of the relationship between creative self-efficacy and employee creativity.

Companies can make an active effort in recruiting and training leaders who have a dialectical mindset as they can play significant roles in facilitating employee creativity.

Technological advancement and innovation is important for social welfare. This paper helps to improve the efficiency of creativity processes and finally benefits the whole society.

This is the first introduction of the leader's dialectical thinking as a moderator of the relationship between creative self-efficacy and creativity.

The focus of this chapter is quantum dialectical storytelling and its contribution to generate anticipatory knowledge of the future through the intra-play between the ante-narrative and the anti-narrative. The theoretical framework on quantum dialectical storytelling is based upon Boje’s triad storytelling framework interfused with Hegelian dialectics and Baradian diffraction. Through the inspiration of Judith Butler’s performative theory, Riach, Rumens, and Tyler (2016) introduce the concept of the anti-narrative as a critical reflexive methodology. By drawing on Hegel’s work on the dialectical phenomenology of critical reflexive self-consciousness, a dialectical pre-reflexive and reflexive framework emerges as intra-weaving modes of being-in-the-world toward future.

The place of G. H. Mead’s works in symbolic interactionism is both central and paradoxical. It stands at the very foundation of Hebert Blumer’s initial invention of symbolic interactionism with respect to Mead’s social behaviorism and has been discussed and debated ever since because of the problems caused by such a presumed direct filiation. Returning to Mead in order to broaden the perspective offered by Blumer is a must and has to face some fundamental issues raised in this context. This article starts by examining the ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes involved in Mead’s concept of society, in order to show the multiple dimensions involved in significant symbols. An illustration of Mead’s wider perspective is given in reference to the feminist movement as analyzed first by Mead’s student, Jessie Taft, and goes back to the origin of the movement with Mary Wollstonecraft. This leads to the analysis of the debate about the place of power in symbolic interactionism, initiated by Peter M. Hall, and addresses the alternative between domination and emancipation. This alternative has been worked out by Lonnie Athen’s radical symbolic interactionism analysis of domination on the one side, and by Kathy Charmaz and Norman K. Denzin on the other side of emancipatory symbolic interactionist practices. Another solution is proposed to this alternative, with the analysis of power being intrinsically constituted by domination and emancipation, in their respective contribution to the understanding of the symbolic dispositions of autonomy – a concept that remains relatively undeveloped in Mead’s works.

This chapter proposes a quantum relational process philosophy as an approach for studying organization-in-becoming as a world-creating process. Furthermore, the quantum relational process philosophy is tied to quantum storytelling. Whereas the quantum relational process philosophy outlines a philosophy of a processual ontology, epistemology, and ethic, quantum storytelling provides the storytelling medium through which such an ontology, epistemology, and ethic emerges through articulation and actualization. As such, the two approaches are introduced as inseparable from each other.

The focus of this chapter is to unfold the ties between the quantum relational process philosophy and quantum storytelling through the perspective of the quantum relational process philosophy itself.

The proposed quantum relational process philosophy is defined as Being-in-Becoming. Thereby, this approach is suggested as an alternative to the “Being” perspective and the “Becoming” perspective or at least as a further development of the becoming perspective. These latter two perspectives present two different ways of viewing organizational change: development and transformation.

The being perspective relies on substance ontology acknowledging the existence of entities: that “which is.” In substance ontology, however, entities such as individuals and organizations are viewed as existing in themselves in fixed space-time frames. This view entails a rather static and stable ontology, perceiving the organization as a ready-made world of stable, unchanging entities. This perspective is often referred to as the approach of building the organizational world through intervention and control of change.

As a contrast, the becoming perspective relies on a process ontology while the organization is perceived as a sea of constant flux and change through which the organization emerges on the way. In this process-oriented perspective, attention is directed toward “that which is becoming.” In this perspective, the organization is perceived as a world-making phenomenon emerging through ceaseless processes of transformation. This approach is often referred to as the dwelling approach, that is, to dwell in the world-making phenomenon letting it happen. This perspective tends to ignore that which exists, that is the ready-made forms, and only focus on that which is becoming.

In this chapter, the proposed being-in-becoming perspective views the tension between being and becoming as a dialectical interplay that is decisive to organizational transformation. However, in the being-in-becoming perspective, “entities” are viewed from a quantum perspective whereby being-in-becoming differs from the substance ontology in its view of the nature of “entities.” In this perspective, the organization is viewed as a dialectical interplay between, at the one hand, the organizational form(ing) of life and, at the other hand, the aliveness of unfolding and transforming living life-worlds of being-in-the-world in fluid space and open time. This dialectical interplay is conceived as central in organizational world-creating processes.

The aim of the chapter is to develop a conceptual framework of a quantum relational process philosophy that embraces the dialectics of transforming organizations. The contribution is to be capable of understanding the performative consequences of dialectic to organizational transformation viewed from the being-in-becoming perspective of the quantum relational process philosophy.

Through the contribution of Heidegger, Hegel, Aristotle, and Boje, and further enriched by Barad, Bakhtin, and Shotter, a conceptual framework is developed for understanding, analyzing, and problematizing dialectical organizational world-creating.

This framework is called “Fourfold World-Creating.” The fourfold world-creating framework keeps the dialectic of organizational transformation at its center while it at the same time take into consideration the dialectical interplay of ontology, epistemology, and ethic. In this sense, the framework is proposed as quantum relational process philosophy. The incorporation of ethic in the quantum relational process philosophy represents an additional contribution of the chapter.

The fourfold world-creating framework is furthermore suggested to be conceived as a quantum relational process philosophy of the antenarrative dimension in David Boje’s quantum storytelling triad framework encompassing: (1) the narrative, (2) the living stories, and (3) the antenarrative. In his recent research, David Boje has a developed a dialectical perspective on his storytelling framework. Following in line with this thinking, this chapter suggests viewing (1) the narrative as the ready-made form, (2) the living stories as the living life-worlds, and (3) the antenarrative as fourfold world-creating.

In this sense, the proposed dialectical fourfold world-creating framework and its embeddedness in the quantum relational process philosophy contributes to our understanding of the research contributes of antenarrative storytelling in organizational studies.

As findings, the chapter proposes what could be considered as ontological, epistemological, and ethical key constituents in dialectical organizational world-creating. The contribution of these findings encompasses an analytical framework for (1) understanding the dialectical, transformative movements of the organization as well as (2) analyzing and problematizing the cease of dialectical tensions that seems to lock the organization in a particular state of being, only capable of repeating and reproducing its ready-made world in fixed space-time frames.

Purpose – There has been very little development of the capacity of dialectical logic during the last hundred years or so, while the capacity of post-Cartesian analytical logics has expanded greatly in response to efforts to understand more and more complex theoretical and empirical problems, though still within the limits of analytical strictures such as externality of relations and the principle of the excluded middle. This chapter pursues relative lines of development in analytical and dialectical logic.

Design/methodology/approach – After presenting as background a congeries of personal experiences, reflections, and reviews, the chapter addresses some of the lessons relating to the neglect of dialectical logic (e.g., the notion of contradiction as error, and the idealization that is condition to it), in order to work toward some clarifications, developments, and challenges of dialectical logic (past, present, and future). Along the way providing comparisons with analytical logic, the emphasis will be on the contributions of several theorists, including Adorno, Marx, and Habermas.

Findings – Some illustrations of under- and undeveloped capacity are proposed with regard to dialectical-conceptual formations of identity/difference relations, unity of opposites, and quality/quantity relations, as well as contradiction as condition and as consequence of processes wherein various realities are produced. A number of challenges are outlined, with an invitation to scholars to pursue better development of the power of dialectical logic.

Research limitations/implications – An unduly defensive posture against perceived threats from both analytics and empirics (experiences of world) has surely been part of the obstacle to advancing dialectical logic, though one should not underestimate the resistances stemming from poor institutional-disciplinary support for the risk-taking activities required for innovation and development.

Originality/value – Dialectical logic is important to investigations of process dynamics in a number of ways, most especially insofar as contradiction is a major driver of processes, in particular processes that tend to follow trajectories that from the perspective of analytical logic are unexpected and/or illogical; for dialectical logic takes the event of contradiction as not merely indicative of error in the process of propositional reasoning but instead or also as an outcome of specifiable sequences of structurally conditioned behaviors, actions, and chains of effects at supra-individual levels of the production of realities.

The authors’ research examines the impact of cross-cultural difference in dialectical thinking on consumers' responses to androgynous brands and its implication for brand equity. Their research also aims to see how consumers take both feminine and masculine attributes into consideration to form their judgments of androgynous brand equity and whether this process is moderated by brand positioning.

The authors did two experiments with 400 Chinese consumers (high in dialectical thinking) and 528 British consumers (low in dialectical thinking) to test our framework.

The authors’ experimental results suggest an androgynous brand has higher brand equity in China than in the UK. Furthermore, Chinese consumers rate higher feminine/masculine attributes of masculine/feminine brands. In addition, an androgynous brand's equity is mainly driven by its less dominant attributes. Finally, their results suggest that brand positioning moderates the mediating role of less dominant attributes, more evident when brand positioning matches (vs mismatches) an androgynous brand's more dominant attributes.

By focusing on cross-cultural differences in dialectical thinking, the authors’ research offers a novel approach to reconcile existing inconclusive results on androgynous brand equity. Second, to their best knowledge, their research is the first to examine how feminine and masculine attributes jointly decide androgynous brand equity. Finally, by focusing on brand positioning, their research highlights the importance of an androgynous brand's less dominant attributes in driving its brand equity and provides a tool international marketing managers can use to strengthen such influence.

This study aims to introduce a new cognitive style, dialectical thinking, to demonstrate how it can influence a leader’s impact on team conflict and employee performance. Specifically, this study intends to answer the research questions “whether and how leader’s dialectical thinking would influence employee performance” with conflict management perspective in the Chinese context.

Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to test the theoretical model with 222 employees in 43 teams from Chinese high-tech manufacturing firms.

The authors found that the leader’s dialectical thinking had positive relationships with employee creativity and in-role performance and that the relationships were mediated by the leader’s conflict management approach and team conflict in sequence.

Selecting, recruiting or promoting of leaders with a dialectical thinking style or providing training to enhance leaders’ dialectical thinking is important for facilitating team conflict management and employee performance.

This is the first empirical paper to introduce dialectical thinking into the leadership, conflict and employee performance literatures.

Autism spectrum conditions (ASC) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) have overlapping symptom profiles. Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) is an established treatment for self-harm and BPD, but little research has investigated the outcomes of DBT for ASC populations. This exploratory service evaluation aims to investigate the outcomes of a comprehensive DBT programme for adolescents with a diagnosis of emerging BPD and a co-occurring ASC diagnosis as compared to those without an ASC diagnosis.

Differences from the start to end of treatment in the frequency of self-harming behaviours, BPD symptoms, emotion dysregulation, depression, anxiety, the number of A&E attendances and inpatient bed days, education and work status, and treatment non-completion rates were analysed for those with an ASC diagnosis, and compared between those with an ASC diagnosis and those without.

Significant medium to large reductions in self-harming behaviours, BPD symptoms, emotion dysregulation and inpatient bed days were found for those with an ASC diagnosis by the end of treatment. There were no significant differences between those with an ASC and those without in any outcome or in non-completion rates. These findings indicate that DBT may be a useful treatment model for those with an ASC diagnosis, though all results are preliminary and require replication.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to report the outcomes of a comprehensive DBT programme for adolescents with an ASC diagnosis, and to compare the changes in outcomes between those with a diagnosis and those without.

Raises the initial problem of what is meant by the term critical theory and discusses some common misconceptions that have arisen about the meaning of this term. The dialectic logic that was championed by the group of scholars collectively known as the Frankfurt School is outlined and it is noted how dialectics transcends binary oppositional thinking. It is argued that the body of work of these scholars has a strong contemporary relevance to issues in the management of change in organizations. The other papers in the issue are introduced.