Search results

Purpose – The author introduces the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, especially its epistemology of Yin-Yang Balancing as the Eastern cognitive frame, to shed light on the debates over the distinction and integration between research and practice as well as between qualitative and quantitative methods so as to solve the problems of relevance-rigor gap as well as complexity-simplicity gap. The author also applies the frame of Yin-Yang Balancing to the development of a novel method of case study.

Methodology/Approach – This is a conceptual article.

Central theme – The Eastern philosophy of wisdom is better at an open-minded exploration of open-ended issues by emphasizing relevance and complexity, while the Western philosophy of science is better at a closed-minded exploitation of close-ended issues by emphasizing rigor and simplicity. A geocentric integration of both Eastern and Western philosophies is needed.

Research and practical implications – Management research is far behind the need for theoretical insights into practical solutions largely due to the increasing gaps between relevance and rigor as well as between complex problems and simple solutions. The root cause of the two gaps lies in the overreliance on the Western philosophy of science, so a new light can be found in the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, and the ultimate solution is a geocentric integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. A novel method of case study can be built by applying the Eastern philosophy.

Originality/Value – The author highlights the urgent needs for the Eastern philosophy of wisdom and its integration with the Western philosophy of science toward a geocentric meta-paradigm. As a specific application of the geocentric meta-paradigm, the author proposes a novel method of case study called Yin-Yang Method.

The author argues and explains that the indigenous Eastern epistemological frame of yin-yang balancing can be taken as a unique system of thinking toward a meta-perspective. It is not only deeply rooted in the indigenous Eastern culture traditions, but also bears salient global implications, especially in the domain of paradox management. The purpose and contribution of this chapter are twofold: (1) to explain the unique and salient features of yin-yang balancing (the “either/and” system to reframe paradox into duality as partially conflicting and partially complementary, both spatially and temporarily) as compared with the Western logic systems (the “either/or” and “both/or” or “both/and” systems); and (2) to explore the global implications of the “either/and” system for future paradox research, including the three unique themes of overlap between opposites with the “seed” of one opposite inside the other; threshold from the contingent balance between partial separation and partial integration in line with specific contexts through three operating mechanisms, and knot for the special role of third-party to shift paradox from a dyadic level to a triadic and even a multiplex level.

In this chapter, the author explores and discusses the transformation of management from the perspective of complex systems, systems change and the Taoist yin-yang theory. Modern complex organizations require innovative management practices that move beyond traditional approaches. Consequently, many organizations are experiencing a management shift towards more holistic and sustainable methods. This shift encompasses changes in organizational structures and modes of inquiry. Organizations are transitioning from rigid hierarchies to more collaborative and agile configurations while adopting a systemic approach to management that acknowledges the interconnectedness and interdependence of all organizational aspects. Simultaneously, there is a paradigm shift in management thinking, replacing the conventional focus on ego-action with eco-action, which emphasizes the integration of diverse perspectives and the cultivation of self-awareness and introspection. This shift in mindset is embodied in the yin-yang paradigm, highlighting the importance of balance and harmony between contrasting forces.

Purpose – This chapter aims to construct a scientific microworld to explain the management strategy of yang-ru yin-fa (Confucianism in public and Legalism in private) in Chinese organizations by an emic approach of indigenous psychology.

Design/Methodology/Approach – In consideration of the difficulties faced by either an imposed etic approach or a derived etic approach, this chapter advocates for an emic approach that argues that, in order to understand the specific features of organizational dynamics in China, it is necessary for us to construct an objective system of knowledge (epistemology) on the basis of Chinese cultural values (ontology), which can be examined by methods of social sciences (methodology).

Findings – Based on the theoretical model of Face and Favor, a conceptual scheme was proposed to highlight the contrast between Confucianism and Legalism in traditional as well as contemporary Chinese society. Findings of pervious empirical researches on two types of guanxi, along with two types of official and ethical leadership in Chinese organizations were reviewed to demonstrate the usage of yin/yang balance in strategic management.

Originality/Value – Taking the discourse of this chapter as an example, it is expected that the author's approach may initiate a scientific revolution against the Western paradigms of psychology that had been constructed on the presumption of individualism (Evenden & Sandstrom, 2011; Hwang, 2012).

In the aftermath of the global economic crisis, the pursuit of new perspectives and different growth models is imperative. One of the most significant trends of our time is the rise of Asia in the world economy. After centuries of Western economic dominance, China, India, and the rest of the East, alongside emerging economies more broadly, are beginning to challenge the West for positions of global industry leadership and underlying managerial philosophies and perspectives. In this paper, I review some key philosophical insights from Asia that have underpinned the success of many Asian businesses for generations, hoping that it will encourage more efforts – conceptually, theoretically, and empirically – leading the discourse on fresh new perspectives on business in emerging economies in general, and on Asian management in particular.

Are the social domains of kinship and business on balance complementary or contradictory? Do ventures that invest heavily in both – conventionally referred to as “family firms” – bear a net gain or net loss? We are scarcely the first to raise these questions. How then will we try to contribute to an answer? We try this in five ways, all of them based on previous literature. First, we develop the dichotomy of kinship and business by taking seriously the metaphor of yin and yang, merging it with the anthropological constructs of structural domains such as “domestic” and “public.” This metaphor proves to shed light on the relevant literature. Second, we provide a qualitative survey of the costs and benefits of kinship in business. Third, we summarize the empirical work that addresses the performance outcomes from family involvement. Fourth, we consider the practitioner implications of these studies. Finally, we ask if scholars are as yet in a position to answer these questions.

Over the past decades, scholars advanced foundational insights about paradox in organization theory. In this double volume, we seek to expand upon these insights through interdisciplinary theorizing. We do so for two reasons. First, we think that now is a moment to build on those foundations toward richer, more complex insights by learning from disciplines outside of organization theory. Second, as our world increasingly faces grand challenges, scholars turn to paradox theory. Yet as the challenges become more complex, authors turn to other disciplines to ensure the requisite complexity of our own theories. To advance these goals, we invited scholars with knowledge in paradox theory to explore how these ideas could be expanded by outside disciplines. This provides a both/and opportunity for paradox theory: both learning from outside disciplines beyond existing boundaries and enriching our insights in organization scholarship. The result is an impressive collection of papers about paradox theory that draws from four outside realms – the realm of belief, the realm of physical systems, the realm of social structures, and the realm of expression. In this introduction, we expand on why paradox theory is ripe for interdisciplinary theorizing, explore the benefits of doing so, and introduce the papers in this double volume.

“Excessive teacher/faculty entitlement” is a nascent idea in teacher education. Ratnam chanced upon this notion of “excessive teacher entitlement” while trying to understand and find a language to characterize the perplexing paradox of teacher intransigence in the face of the adaptability required of them to address the intensifying issues of equity and diversity in this global multicultural world. The concept of the “best loved self” brought in by Craig as a perfect complement to “excessive teacher/faculty entitlement” helped them present the two in a yin-yang relationship. The authors in the five chapters of this section use the language of excessive entitlement to conceptualise and uncover the sources of oppression experienced by them in the situated dynamics of their institutional milieu. Their narratives tell how the naming of the phenomenon provoked them to become conscious of the presence of excessive entitlement in themselves and others accompanied by a liberating push towards realising their best loved self.