Content area
Full Text
Due to ever-increasing environmental uncertainty, the contradiction between stability and adaptability underlying any fundamental organizational and strategic decision (Thompson, 1967) becomes even more distinct. And organizations turn to be a paradoxical system in various dimensions, such as belonging vs organizing, learning vs performing (Smith and Lewis, 2011). Considering the importance of paradox-related research questions in current management field, we appreciate this invitation to comment on Li’s (2016) paper about the “Yin-Yang balancing” approach of paradox management.
“Paradox” is defined as the “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382). One significant feature of Li’s (2016) contribution to the paradox management literature is its indigenous research feature, providing a vivid example of “Chinese Theory of Management” that Chinese management community is looking for (Barney and Zhang, 2009; Van de Ven and Jing, 2012). Most of the literature on paradox management was written by western scholars, following western cultural logics. As previous studies have shown, concepts of paradox and contradiction vary according to cultural values, and a monolithic research view to see the global society seems to be very limited (Schad et al., 2016). Based on Chinese cultural wisdom, Li (2016) intends to contribute a “Yin-Yang balancing” epistemological system of paradox management. This approach encourages managers to embrace or “live with” paradox, by shifting their expectations for rationality and linearity to accept paradoxes as persistent and unsolvable puzzles. Meanwhile, different from previous western literature including the dynamic equilibrium model recently proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011), this approach has its unique features as follows, to extend our knowledge about paradox management phenomena.
The “either/and” frame to view a paradox system
The “Yin-Yang balancing” approach holds an “either/and” framework toward a paradox system, which is different from the Aristotle’s “either/or” logic toward contradiction, and Hegel’s “both/or” dialectical logic and even the “both/and” dialectical logic. The “either/or” framework resolves paradox by fully separating opposites, the “both/or” framework treats paradox as temporarily tolerable, and even desirable, but ultimately problematic, while the “both/and” logic even refuses to recognize the potential existence of contradictions. These three frameworks toward paradox share their common bias toward absolute positions by treating opposites as either fully complementary or fully conflicting. Embracing the notion of balancing, Li...