A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox

Publikation: Working paperForskning

3 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Professor Peter Ping Li has made important contribution to the promotion of indigenous management research in China in general and application of Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy to organizational paradox research in particular. However, his interpretation of Yin-Yang is incomplete and inaccurate. Namely, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing relates to only one of five distinct epistemological expressions of Yin-Yang in the Chinese literature and its derived methodological prescription, i.e., Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong. Yet, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing is an inaccurate representation of Zhong-Yong due to his dogmatic insistence on asymmetry in the structure of combination of opposites that is not a prescription of the Zhong-Yong principle. Due to his incomplete understanding of Yin-Yang, he has not been able to see the value of the ambidexterity approach and its compatibility with the Yin-Yang thinking in particular and the similarity between Chinese and Western approaches to solving paradox in general. This paper alerts Chinese management scholars to the danger of overconfidence and Chinese exceptionalism and calls for a modest and prudent attitude in pursuing Chinese indigenous management research.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Udgivelses stedFrederiksberg
UdgiverAsia Research Community, CBS
Antal sider29
StatusUdgivet - 2019
NavnCopenhagen Discussion Papers
Nummer68
ISSN0904-8626

Emneord

  • Yin-Yang
  • Zhong-Yong
  • Paradox
  • Ambidexterity
  • Indigenous
  • China

Citer dette

Li, X. (2019). A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox. Frederiksberg: Asia Research Community, CBS. Copenhagen Discussion Papers, Nr. 68
Li, Xin. / A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox. Frederiksberg : Asia Research Community, CBS, 2019. (Copenhagen Discussion Papers; Nr. 68).
@techreport{76ca361aacd743aaba3e9801bcb0de25,
title = "A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox",
abstract = "Professor Peter Ping Li has made important contribution to the promotion of indigenous management research in China in general and application of Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy to organizational paradox research in particular. However, his interpretation of Yin-Yang is incomplete and inaccurate. Namely, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing relates to only one of five distinct epistemological expressions of Yin-Yang in the Chinese literature and its derived methodological prescription, i.e., Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong. Yet, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing is an inaccurate representation of Zhong-Yong due to his dogmatic insistence on asymmetry in the structure of combination of opposites that is not a prescription of the Zhong-Yong principle. Due to his incomplete understanding of Yin-Yang, he has not been able to see the value of the ambidexterity approach and its compatibility with the Yin-Yang thinking in particular and the similarity between Chinese and Western approaches to solving paradox in general. This paper alerts Chinese management scholars to the danger of overconfidence and Chinese exceptionalism and calls for a modest and prudent attitude in pursuing Chinese indigenous management research.",
keywords = "Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Paradox, Ambidexterity, Indigenous, China, Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Paradox, Ambidexterity, Indigenous, China",
author = "Xin Li",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
publisher = "Asia Research Community, CBS",
address = "Denmark",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Asia Research Community, CBS",

}

Li, X 2019 'A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox' Asia Research Community, CBS, Frederiksberg.

A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox. / Li, Xin.

Frederiksberg : Asia Research Community, CBS, 2019.

Publikation: Working paperForskning

TY - UNPB

T1 - A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox

AU - Li, Xin

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Professor Peter Ping Li has made important contribution to the promotion of indigenous management research in China in general and application of Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy to organizational paradox research in particular. However, his interpretation of Yin-Yang is incomplete and inaccurate. Namely, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing relates to only one of five distinct epistemological expressions of Yin-Yang in the Chinese literature and its derived methodological prescription, i.e., Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong. Yet, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing is an inaccurate representation of Zhong-Yong due to his dogmatic insistence on asymmetry in the structure of combination of opposites that is not a prescription of the Zhong-Yong principle. Due to his incomplete understanding of Yin-Yang, he has not been able to see the value of the ambidexterity approach and its compatibility with the Yin-Yang thinking in particular and the similarity between Chinese and Western approaches to solving paradox in general. This paper alerts Chinese management scholars to the danger of overconfidence and Chinese exceptionalism and calls for a modest and prudent attitude in pursuing Chinese indigenous management research.

AB - Professor Peter Ping Li has made important contribution to the promotion of indigenous management research in China in general and application of Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy to organizational paradox research in particular. However, his interpretation of Yin-Yang is incomplete and inaccurate. Namely, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing relates to only one of five distinct epistemological expressions of Yin-Yang in the Chinese literature and its derived methodological prescription, i.e., Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong. Yet, his notion of Yin-Yang balancing is an inaccurate representation of Zhong-Yong due to his dogmatic insistence on asymmetry in the structure of combination of opposites that is not a prescription of the Zhong-Yong principle. Due to his incomplete understanding of Yin-Yang, he has not been able to see the value of the ambidexterity approach and its compatibility with the Yin-Yang thinking in particular and the similarity between Chinese and Western approaches to solving paradox in general. This paper alerts Chinese management scholars to the danger of overconfidence and Chinese exceptionalism and calls for a modest and prudent attitude in pursuing Chinese indigenous management research.

KW - Yin-Yang

KW - Zhong-Yong

KW - Paradox

KW - Ambidexterity

KW - Indigenous

KW - China

KW - Yin-Yang

KW - Zhong-Yong

KW - Paradox

KW - Ambidexterity

KW - Indigenous

KW - China

M3 - Working paper

BT - A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox

PB - Asia Research Community, CBS

CY - Frederiksberg

ER -

Li X. A Discussion on Yin-Yang, Zhong-Yong, Ambidexterity, and Paradox. Frederiksberg: Asia Research Community, CBS. 2019.