Search results1 – 10 of 32
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…
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.
To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.
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.
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.
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.
The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.
This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.
This paper develops the argument for analyzing negotiations from an institutional perspective. A major theme of the argument being advanced in this paper is that the…
This paper develops the argument for analyzing negotiations from an institutional perspective. A major theme of the argument being advanced in this paper is that the institutional perspective provides a more comprehensive understanding of the negotiation process in its entirety. The negotiation process can be broken down into three distinct components, namely (a) the pre‐negotiation phase; (b) the negotiating phase; and (c) the post negotiation evaluation. Each of these phases is critically influenced by a specific component or components of the institutional environment. Scott's distinction between the regulative, the normative, and the cognitive dimension of the institutional environment is drawn upon to illustrate the usefulness of this perspective. The framework is applied to assess the similarities and differences between Indian and Chinese institutional environments and their implications for negotiating processes in the countries discussed. Choosing India and China to illustrate the utility of this framework is justified by the fact that India and China are both in the process of transforming their economies, and although confronted with similar challenges, they have dealt with them in very different ways. This comparison is thus useful, not only for illustrating the value of the institutional perspective, but also for understanding the dynamics of the negotiation process in these countries.