Search results

Grounded in Yijing, the wellspring of Chinese philosophies, this research aims to propose a novel interpretation of the indigenous Yin-Yang harmony cognitive framework, and to elaborate on how to use it as a meta-theorising tool to characterise the conflicting yet complementary dynamics of strategy, commonly seen as the prominent feature of Chinese strategic thinking.

Using the Yin-Yang harmony approach (i.e. Yin as the endogenous factors and Yang the exogenous factors), the authors first put forward eight paradoxical situations facing Chinese organisations as per the changing paradigm of Yijing. Then the authors use the thick description model as a roadmap to identify three evolving trajectories in Chinese higher education (HE) system. Finally, they raise four strategic propositions regarding how competing HE institutes handle the conflicting yet complementary dynamics in China.

Results show that the main strategic choices used by two different types of higher education institutes to cope with the current high-level uncertainty and competition could be described in terms of the two “Qian” and “Li” strategic situations, respectively. More details are discussed in the four propositions.

This research brings potentially valuable implications for global regulators, policymakers, providers and other stakeholders through better understanding of HE-related issues, as well as certain distinct conceptual complexities in terms of developing strategies in China. It implies potentially significant differences in cognition between East and West, and illustrates what may be their workings.

This indigenous eight-dimensional paradigm demonstrates the conflicting yet complementary dynamic gestalt of organisational strategic choices that may only be realised in Chinese terms, and that cannot be elucidated by theories purely derived from Western experience. It thus can foster the transfer of understanding between the East and West and open a new chapter for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to locate the concept of competitive productivity (CP) within a general theory of societal progress and include new thinking on the challenge of obstacles to be met at certain stages.

The approach is to review the key literature dealing with economic growth and rising societal achievement and to refine out concepts that offer understanding of the dynamics commonly involved, taking illustrative examples from different societies and seeking overall common denominators that appear within the historical processes.

New understandings of societal progress, using complex adaptive systems theory applied to cities and industrial districts, indicate that two forces are at work to release new positive forms of energy into society. Economies of scale work via the laws of fractal geometry to yield sublinear growth of energy. More intense social interaction works within the core of the society in a different way to yield superlinear growth. These two forms of energy release can feed off each other beneficially in conditions where, as with CP, the forces of competition can work with forces driving efficiency, in conditions where societal order can be supported by appropriate cultural norms.

A wide literature across several disciplines is brought to bear on the very complex question. Some of the theories are new but very well anchored. It is consequently possible to suggest a pattern of multi-determinants able to match the reality and to foster nuanced comprehensive analysis.

Impacts on policy of foreign direct investment and joint venture management.

Emphasis on the roles of societal virtues in establishing the cooperativeness needed for CP.

Few studies bring together so many disciplinary perspectives into a complete argument.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to consider the proposal by Peter Li about developing an inclusive research paradigm bringing together eastern and western research approaches; and second, to make a proposal for a division of labor in this endeavor.

Literature review and consideration of opposing intellectual traditions and their origins.

If the western approach was to deal with structures and institutions, and the eastern approach was to deal with process, then some progress might be possible toward a valuable fusion. But there may be sociological as well as intellectual reasons why this would be difficult.

As it is a commentary there are no specific limitations except for what can be covered in the space available.

If the proposal can be made to bear fruit the chances of much greater East-West collaboration in research are higher.

The reduction of friction and non-cooperation between intellectual traditions.

The “process” suggestion is new in this form.

Recognising interest in the nascent “rise of China”, the purpose of this paper is to engage with the normative social science approach to comparative management, positing that it is inadequate for an enlightened view of the Chinese subject.

This paper presents a critical appraisal of extant literature, specifically Redding's The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, by drawing resources from Fabian's epistemological critique of anthropology and Levinas' ethics to replace ontology as first philosophy, and by reference to historical studies on China's economic culture and its language.

Attention is drawn to how Redding's research subject is made an object of knowledge. In the objectification process, the subject's continuity is interrupted, its voice deprived, and its capacity for dialogue denied. This is evident in Redding's framework for analysis. Indeed, his Weberian social science template manifests a certain “imperialism of the same” and is symptomatic of much in comparative management regarding non‐western subjects. After critique, this essay then explores a supplement to Redding.

The paper proposes three principles for finding one's way out of objectification: ethics before “knowledge”, justice before “power”, and dialogue before “vision”.

The paper contributes to discourse on how comparative management must transcend its imperial social science legacy before it can find a just footing, and be born again.

The metaphor of a poker game suggests the reality of international business as a competitive field in which players test their wits against each other, often using guile, and play at high levels of uncertainty. The game's rules are essentially simple but there is extensive room to maneuver. If business were actually conducted internationally with one set of clear rules used by all, then it would be like chess. A chess master can play against many others, given the highly structured nature of the game's processes. A poker master takes on a different kind of complexity, and in that, the reading of others’ minds, characters, behavior patterns, and interactions becomes crucial. The essential challenge of the global mindset is that, whereas you might think you are playing chess against several opponents, you are actually playing poker.

Purpose – This chapter examines the challenges in exploring, analysing and developing the concept of social capital, seen as the proclivity (or otherwise) of societies to engender stable structures for cooperativeness that support economic exchange and control. The authors focus on Asia and outline a theory of researchable social capital elements. Methodology is considered against the contexts of Asia. The authors emphasize the role of higher education as determinant, seeing it as crucial to the accumulation of human capital and often at the centre of many theories of societal progress.

Findings – The authors’ findings are that social capital is a contested concept that does not rest within a bed of widely adopted theory; researching it comparatively requires acknowledging societal meaning structures; there is emerging acceptance of complexity theory, evolutionary dynamics, and multi-disciplinary analysis; it is possible to disaggregate the concept into researchable issues; many research methods are available.

Implications – Modes of human cooperativeness are crucial for the understanding and comparison of economic systems. Implications are strong and pervasive for policy and practice. The authors find no evidence of a distinct indigenous ‘Asian’ perspective in research but much evidence of powerful contributions from Asian scholars working collaboratively with colleagues internationally.

Originality/Value – The chapter provides a helicopter perspective of an emerging field, notes conceptual challenges and gives practical guidance for researchers.

In a presidential speech to the annual conference of the Academy of Management in Seattle, Professor Lyman Porter took as his theme the progress of work in Organizational Behaviour, and noted the long time‐gap between the discovery of ideas in Organizational Behaviour and their application in Organization Development. With some ideas, twenty years have elapsed between their original discovery and the ability to apply them to real‐life situations.

Practising managers, particularly those in charge of large numbers of people in one work unit, such as a factory or a department store, are accustomed to talk about ‘morale’ as an important aspect of their work. It is often held to be the thing that makes the difference between high and low productivity. A manager who can create this sense of belonging and commitment among his staff tends to be highly valued, and visiting superiors often develop sensitive antennae for detecting the ‘atmosphere’ in a work situation — expressed in the way people behave towards each other, to their bosses, to customers, and in the attitude with which they carry out the basic operations of their work.

The authors of the various chapters in this book have approached the concept of global mindset from diverse perspectives and have defined it differently. Levy et al. in this volume define global mindset as a highly complex cognitive structure distinguished by an openness to and expression of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels and the cognitive capacity to moderate and assimilate across this diversity. More specifically, global mindset is typified by three corresponding dimensions: (1) an openness and attentiveness to multiple realms of action and meaning, (2) a complex representation and expression of cultural and strategic dynamics, and (3) a moderation and incorporation of ideals and actions oriented toward both global and local levels (Chapter 1 of this volume). At the core of their definition is the awareness of and openness to multiple realities, meanings, and perspectives.

Because of the importance of a global mindset from both a theoretical and a practical point of view, there is need to examine this construct further to understand its contents, how it is developed, when and how it should be applied, and what its consequences are. Thus, we invited a select group of scholars to develop chapters on specific aspects of this topic to help build a volume accomplishing these goals. Our aim here was to invite the foremost thinkers and writers on this topic.