首页> 外文期刊>Asia Pacific journal of management >Is 'Yin-Yang balancing' superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management?
【24h】

Is 'Yin-Yang balancing' superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management?

机译:作为一种悖论管理的方法,“阴阳平衡”是否优于模棱两可?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In promoting indigenous management research in China, Peter P. Li has repeatedly asserted that Yin-Yang is superior to all other cognitive frames in dealing with paradox in general and that his "Yin-Yang balancing" solution is superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management in particular. Disagreeing with Peter P. Li, this paper debunks the "Yin-Yang balancing being superior to ambidexterity" assertion by making three critical points. First, at the philosophical level, Peter P. Li's notion of "Yin-Yang balancing" is an inaccurate interpretation (or incomplete version) of the Confucian principle of Zhong-Yong that is largely compatible with Aristotle's doctrine of the mean. Second, at the practical level, his "Yin-Yang balancing" solution, while being different from the structural ambidexterity approach, is compatible with the contextual ambidexterity approach. These first two points imply that Peter P. Li's "Yin-Yang balancing" solution is not necessarily superior to the ambidexterity approach in particular and the Western thinking in general. Third, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, in their 1964 book The Managerial Grid, provide a variety of approaches to managing a fundamental organizational paradox (i.e., the production-people conflict). Their analysis not only covers different ambidexterity approaches, but also offers much more insights on paradox management. More significant is that Blake and Mouton made explicit that those ambidexterity-type approaches only deal with the problem at the level of symptoms rather than root causes. This third point implies that some Western scholars have had much deeper thinking on paradox management than some Chinese colleagues may have imagined.
机译:在推动中国本土管理研究方面,李德培(Peter P. Li)反复断言,在处理悖论方面,阴阳优于其他所有认知框架,并且他的“阴阳平衡”解决方案优于二义性。特别是悖论管理方法。与彼得·李(Peter P. Li)不同,本文通过提出三个关键点来揭穿“阴阳平衡优于灵巧”的主张。首先,在哲学层面上,彼得·李(Peter P. Li)的“阴阳平衡”概念是对中庸儒家原则的一种不准确的解释(或不完整的版本),这在很大程度上与亚里士多德的中庸理论相吻合。其次,在实践上,他的“阴阳平衡”解决方案与结构性歧义方法不同,但与上下文歧义方法兼容。头两点暗示,彼得·李(Peter P. Li)的“阴阳平衡”解决方案不一定要优于歧义方法和整体西方思维。第三,罗伯特·布雷克(Robert Blake)和简·莫顿(Jane Mouton)在1964年出版的《管理网格》(The Managerial Grid)中提供了多种方法来管理基本的组织悖论(即生产人冲突)。他们的分析不仅涵盖了不同的歧义方法,而且还提供了关于悖论管理的更多见解。更为重要的是,布雷克和木顿明确指出,这些歧义类型的方法仅在症状级别而不是根本原因上解决问题。第三点意味着,某些西方学者对悖论管理的思考比某些中国同事所想象的要深。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号