Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Management and Organization Review |
Volume | 10 |
Issue number | 1 |
Pages (from-to) | 7-27 |
ISSN | 1740-8776 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2014 |
Cite this
}
Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research? / Li, Xin.
In: Management and Organization Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014, p. 7-27.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research?
AU - Li, Xin
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.
AB - In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.
KW - Chinese
KW - Dialectic
KW - Indigenous
KW - Management research
KW - Overconfidence
KW - Yin-Yang
U2 - 10.1111/more.12042
DO - 10.1111/more.12042
M3 - Journal article
VL - 10
SP - 7
EP - 27
JO - Management and Organization Review
JF - Management and Organization Review
SN - 1740-8776
IS - 1
ER -