Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:36:32.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2015

Peter Ping Li
Peter Ping Li*
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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).

Type
Response
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 321 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Wang, A. C., & Huang, M. P. 2009. The road more popular versus the road less travelled: An ‘insider’s’ perspective of advancing Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. 1994. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1095–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. 2000. The dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox. In Chowdhury, S. (Ed.), Management 21C: Someday we’ll all lead this way: 66–82. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fong, C. T. 2006. The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 1016–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z., & Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jing, R.-T., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. A Yin-Yang model of organizational change: The case of CBG. Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 1998. Toward a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19(5): 829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2008. Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4(3): 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2012a. Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of Yin-Yang Balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4): 849–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2012b. Exploring the unique roles of trust and play in private creativity: From the complexity-ambiguity-metaphor link to the trust-play-creativity link. Journal of Trust Research, 2(1): 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. forthcoming. The epistemology of Yin-Yang balancing as the root of Chinese traditional culture. In Spencer-Rodgers, J. & Peng, K.-P. (Eds.), The Psychological and Cultural Foundations of Dialectical Thinking. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P. P., Li, Y., & Liu, H. 2012. The exploration-exploitation link reframed from paradox into duality. Working Paper, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Li, X. 2014. Can Yin-Yang guide Chinese indigenous management research? Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, D.-M., Lu, J.-Y., Li, P. P., & Liu, X.-H. 2015. Balancing formality and informality in business exchanges as a duality: A comparative case study of returnee and local entrepreneurs in China. Management and Organization Review, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 2010. The ambiguities of experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1976. Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard Business Review, 54: (July/August), 49–58.Google Scholar
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9): 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plambeck, N., & Weber, K. 2009. CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organization Science, 20(6): 993–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2002. Paraconsistent logic. In Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 6 2nd ed.): 287–393. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6): 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. 2009. A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5): 864–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381–403.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1946. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1353–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W.-C. 2006. Understanding dialectical thinking from a cultural-historical perspective. Philosophical Psychology, 19(2): 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., & Luo, M.-X. 2012. ‘My secret is Yin-Yang theory’: The story of the richest man in Denmark. Southern Weekend (南方周末 in Chinese), October 27, 2012.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (forthcoming). Paradoxical leader behavior in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar