Search results

Cross-cultural cognitive paradoxes have frequently broken the existing boundaries of knowledge and stimulated demands for knowledge creation (KC), and such paradoxes have triggered and will continue to trigger novel risks in the context of international business (IB). Given the nascency of relevant issues, this study aims to develop a more comprehensive understanding of KC across cultures by proposing a Yin-Yang dialectical systems theory of KC as micro-foundation to more systematically frame the risk/paradox-resolving mechanism elicited by cultural collisions.

This paper is conceptual in nature. The authors first critically review the literature to lay a broad theoretical foundation. Integrating the philosophy- and praxis-based views, the authors reposition knowledge as a Yin-Yang dialectical system of knowing, with yin representing the tacit while yang represents the explicit. Next, the authors justify the underling logic of realising KC through a contradiction-resolving process. On this basis, the authors draw upon the Yijing’s Later Heaven Sequence (LHS) as the source domain of a heuristic metaphor to reconceptualise KC as a dynamic capability in the IB context.

Using the LHS paradigm to metaphorically map the intricate patterns of interaction and interconnectivity among the involved individuals, organisations and all related stakeholders, this research identifies and theorises the overall dynamic capability of KC in the IB context, which comprises five sets of processes: contradiction, conflict, communication, compromise and conversion.

This research highlights that KC is simultaneously activated and constrained by human actions as well as by the socially constructed context in which it emerges, which helps individuals, organisations and policy makers more clearly frame the novel risks induced by cross-cultural cognitive conflicts in the IB context.

The authors synthesise Yin-Yang dialectics with the approach of collective phronesis, proposing a novel, praxis-oriented Yin-Yang dialectical systems theory of KC. It provides a deeper understanding of the epistemological paradox inherent in all knowledge, thus enabling KC to be rationalised by a sounder logical reasoning. By fusing the macro and micro perspectives on KC, the authors also enrich existing theory and future theory building in the domain of knowledge management.

In the face of external paradoxical requirements, the cognitive framework of managers and employees use to perceive, interpret and reconstruct information is important to ease anxiety and improve job performance. The Yin-Yang balancing of eastern philosophical thought is particularly good at explaining and predicting changes and conflict environments. For this reason, this study aims to propose the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework based on the Yin-Yang balancing theory and its antecedent framework.

This paper contrasts the similarity and differences between Chinese and Western philosophy’s thoughts on paradoxes. On this basis, the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework is proposed. Then, the paper puts forward the antecedent framework of managers’ cognitive framework and employees’ paradoxical cognitive framework.

This paper proposes the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework includes the following three dimensions: the unity-in-diversity of paradoxical elements, the asymmetric balance of paradoxical elements and mutual transformation of paradoxical elements. In addition, this paper proposes an antecedent framework of the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework – the paradoxical requirement of organizational environment exerts a direct impact on managers’ and employees’ paradoxical cognitive framework; managers’ paradoxical cognitive framework has a positive impact on paradoxical leadership; paradoxical leadership exerts an indirect impact on employees’ paradoxical cognitive framework through the collective paradoxical cognitive framework; paradoxical leadership directly affects employees’ paradoxical cognitive framework.

This paper focuses on comparing the similarities and differences of the individual paradoxical cognitive framework in Chinese and Western cultures and proposes the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework and its antecedent framework. Future research needs to further verify the theoretical framework proposed in this paper.

This paper makes a detailed comparison of the paradox views in Chinese and Western philosophy. It is the first to propose the eastern construction of the paradoxical cognitive framework and its antecedent framework, laying a theoretical foundation for future empirical research.

The purpose of this paper is to comment on “Global implication of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to Apply yin-yang balancing to paradox management” by Li (2016). As a pioneer in developing indigenous Chinese management theories, Li has been focused on extracting essential principles of the Chinese yin-yang philosophy and applying them to organization and management phenomena within and outside China (Li, 1998, 2012, 2014a, b). In this paper (Li, 2016), Li sharpens his thinking on the unique attributes of the Chinese yin-yang balancing perspective so as to both distinguish it from and connect it to Western Aristotelian and Hegelian philosophies in regard to contradictions and paradoxes that are increasingly more prevalent in contemporary organizations. The author found Li’s paper thought provoking and highly relevant to cross-cultural management research. The author reflects on the yin and yang of the yin-yang perspective itself and discusses how it can be extended for theorizing about cross-cultural or inter-cultural management research.

Applying yin-yang dialectics on the East-West cultural differences, this commentary contends that the strengths and weaknesses of the cultural mindsets of the East and the West are relative and potentially complementary to each other, and seeks to balance and integrate Eastern and Western perspectives for theorizing and tackling cultural differences and conflicts in a globalized world.

On the basis of yin-yang dialectics on cultural differences, a communitarianism model is proposed for cross-cultural researchers to balance and integrate individualism and collectivism, a well-established East-West cultural difference.

The theoretical model of communitarianism builds upon but transcends either Eastern or Western cultural differences toward a viable global value system.

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.

The author argues and explains that the indigenous Eastern epistemological system of Yin-Yang balancing should be taken as a novel system or frame of thinking, which is deeply rooted in the indigenous Eastern culture traditions, but it has significant global implications, especially in the domain of paradox management. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to provide a detailed elaboration of the indigenous Eastern epistemological system of Yin-Yang balancing in contrast to the Western logic systems; and second, to provide a roadmap for applying the system of Yin-Yang balancing to complex issues in the area of management, in general, and paradoxical issues, in particular.

This is a conceptual paper with a focus on theory-building.

The author elaborates on the indigenous features of Yin-Yang balancing, in contrast to Aristotle’s formal logic and Hegel’s dialectical logic in the West, to further explore the former’s global implications for the increased attention to research on paradox management. In particular, the author posits that Yin-Yang balancing appears to be better suited for paradox management than the more commonly used logics available in the Western literature. Built upon the Yin-Yang balancing, a practical tool of Duality Map for paradox management is proposed.

The system of Yin-Yang balancing proposed in this paper has the potential to embrace logical systems available in the West into a geocentric (East-meeting-West) meta-system. This paper further shows how to apply Yin-Yang balancing with the tool of Duality Map to the most salient paradoxes in the domain of management, including value-profit balance (triple bottom lines), exploration-exploitation balance (ambidexterity), cooperation-competition balance (co-opetition), globalization-localization balance (glocalization), institution-agency balance (institutional entrepreneurship), simultaneously positive and negative attitudes toward an entity (ambivalence), and etic-emic balance (geocentric) across all domains of management research.

The primary challenge for management researchers is to find a way to achieve a geocentric integration between the West and the East at the fundamental level of philosophy. The hope is that the philosophical traditions in the East will facilitate such integration. In particular, the Eastern philosophy of wisdom has a unique capacity to reframe paradox from a negative problem (i.e. a problem of inconsistency to be resolved by dualism in terms of separating opposite elements) to a positive solution (i.e. a solution of completeness or holism to be achieved by duality in terms of partially separating and partially integrating opposite elements).

Scholars increasingly depict hybridity as pervasive across organizations. The authors offer insight about how paradox theory informs and expands this approach to hybridity. To do so, the authors do a deeper dive into paradox theory, comparing and contrasting a dynamic equilibrium approach with a permanent dialectics approach. Integrating these two approaches offers paradox theory insights that can enrich and expand hybridity scholarship. The authors offer suggestions for how paradox theory can help develop a future research agenda for organizational hybridity.

Aiming to resolve cross-cultural paradoxes in combining artificial intelligence (AI) with human intelligence (HI) for international humanitarian logistics, this paper aims to adopt an unorthodox Yin–Yang dialectic approach to address how AI–HI interactions can be interpreted as a sophisticated cross-cultural knowledge creation (KC) system that enables more effective decision-making for providing humanitarian relief across borders.

This paper is conceptual and pragmatic in nature, whereas its structure design follows the requirements of a real impact study.

Based on experimental information and logical reasoning, the authors first identify three critical cross-cultural challenges in AI–HI collaboration: paradoxes of building a cross-cultural KC system, paradoxes of integrative AI and HI in moral judgement and paradoxes of processing moral-related information with emotions in AI–HI collaboration. Then applying the Yin–Yang dialectic to interpret Klir’s epistemological frame (1993), the authors propose an unconventional stratified system of cross-cultural KC for understanding integrative AI–HI decision-making for humanitarian logistics across cultures.

This paper aids not only in deeply understanding complex issues stemming from human emotions and cultural cognitions in the context of cross-border humanitarian logistics, but also equips culturally-diverse stakeholders to effectively navigate these challenges and their potential ramifications. It enhances the decision-making process and optimizes the synergy between AI and HI for cross-cultural humanitarian logistics.

The originality lies in the use of a cognitive methodology of the Yin–Yang dialectic to metaphorize the dynamic genesis of integrative AI-HI KC for international humanitarian logistics. Based on system science and knowledge management, this paper applies game theory, multi-objective optimization and Markov decision process to operationalize the conceptual framework in the context of cross-cultural humanitarian logistics.

This paper investigates how to embrace an “either/and” logic, borrowed from the Yin-Yang epistemological system, to provide a different perspective to the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) research and reframe its paradoxes and dilemmas.

The study adopts the duality map for paradox management, a tool designed to recognize and measure the threshold as a range within which opposite elements can be properly balanced for a healthy tension, to show that the apparently contradictory poles of the EO construct can co-exist within the same organization depending on specific situations, contexts and time.

By using duality maps as working models, the study shows that, in real life, the apparently contradictory poles of the EO construct co-exist in a healthy tension within the same organization and are managed in a constant process of dynamic balancing over time.

The present paper contributes to the EO research by providing a different perspective to the EO concept, thus filling the gap on how to go beyond the traditional polarized (“either/or”) paradigm that has dominated the EO literature since its origins.

EO is dominated by a polarized view that sees opposites as sharp dichotomies. However, the complexity and variability of today’s interconnected world are pushing scholars to move from this hegemonic Western perspective by adopting different cultural and philosophical approaches able to balance the inherent duality of the EO concept.

This paper aims to initiate a new, formal theory of sociocultural physics.

Its intended scope is limited to predicting either long‐term, large‐scale or short‐term, small‐scale sociocultural events. The theory that the authors develop, called sociohistory, links three independent but relatable approaches: part of Sorokin's epistemological theory of sociocultural dynamics, Frieden's epistemological theory of extreme physical information (EPI), and Yolles's social viable systems (SVS) theory.

Although not all of Sorokin's ideas are universally accepted, a subset of them is found to be extremely useful for describing the conceptual context of complex systems. This includes how sociocultural processes link closely into political processes.

The theory that develops helps explain how opposing, cultural enantiomers or yin‐yang forces (represented, for instance, by the polar mindsets represented in Islamic fundamentalism and global enterprise) can result in violent conflict, or in either viable or non‐viable social communities. The informations I and J of EPI theory are regarded, respectively, as sensate and ideational enantiomers.

While the resulting sociocultural physics is in its infancy, an illustrative application to the developmental dynamics of post‐colonial Iran demonstrates its potential utility.

Purpose – This chapter introduces this volume's topics, purpose and key themes.

Methodology/approach – This chapter reviews literature and chapters and offers conceptual development.

Findings – The difficulties of CSR in theory and practice are mainly due to its incomplete conceptualisation because its inseparable counterpart CSI has been eventually neglected or ignored in the CSR theorising process. The CSI concept is as equally important as CSR. CSI offers a theoretical platform to avoid the vagueness, ambiguity, arbitrariness and mysticism of CSR. CSI deserves to be a serious subject of inquiry and demands more scholarly attention.

Practical/social implications – With the aid of the CSI concept, CSR becomes more realistic and effective, as it is now more focused, practical and operational. While CSI is clear-cut, CSR is clearly meant, at the very least, to do well by undoing CSI. It is easier to promote CSR by addressing CSI first. The concept of CSI may allow everyone, including business practitioners, to concentrate on resolving the most important and urgent issues of public concern. It also encourages people to address the root causes of CSI problems in a systematic way. Doing so undoubtedly expands and enriches the understanding of CSR.

Originality/value of chapter – The concept of CSI has been less developed in academic circles. While the contributors of this volume have made significant contributions to the understanding of CSI, this chapter adds fresh reasoning and explanations to the development of the CSI subject.