保护伞?分析中国中层管理者的价值观、混合性和妥协性

Chao Ren, Hui Situ, Gillian Vesty
{"title":"保护伞?分析中国中层管理者的价值观、混合性和妥协性","authors":"Chao Ren, Hui Situ, Gillian Vesty","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-05-2022-5805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper examines the ways in which Chinese university middle managers evaluate subordinate performance in response to the Chinese Double First-Class University Plan, a national project that ranks the performance of universities. In exploring compromise arrangements, the hybridised valuing activity of middle managers is found to be shaped by emergent and extant macro-foundations.Design/methodology/approachThe qualitative data from 49 semi-structured interviews at five Chinese public universities were conducted. Drawing on macro-foundational studies and the sociology of worth (SW) theory, the analysis helps to identify socially shared patterns of actions and outcomes.FindingsThe findings elucidate the interplay between diverse economic, social, political and institutional values and the compromise-making by middle managers. The authors find that contextual factors restrict Chinese academic middle managers' autonomy, preventing workable compromise. Through the selective adoption of international and local management practices, compromise has evolved into a private differential treaty at the operational level.Originality/valueA nuanced explanation reveals how the macro-foundations of Chinese society influence middle managers who engage with accounting when facilitating compromise. This study helps outsiders better understand the complex convergence and divergence of performance evaluative practices in Chinese universities against the backdrop of global market-based forces and the moral dimensions of organisational life. The findings have wider implications for the Chinese government in navigating institutional steps and developing supportive policies to enable middle managers to advance productive but also sustainable compromise.","PeriodicalId":132341,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"34 27","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Umbrella protectors? Analysing valuing, hybridity and compromises for Chinese middle managers\",\"authors\":\"Chao Ren, Hui Situ, Gillian Vesty\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aaaj-05-2022-5805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper examines the ways in which Chinese university middle managers evaluate subordinate performance in response to the Chinese Double First-Class University Plan, a national project that ranks the performance of universities. In exploring compromise arrangements, the hybridised valuing activity of middle managers is found to be shaped by emergent and extant macro-foundations.Design/methodology/approachThe qualitative data from 49 semi-structured interviews at five Chinese public universities were conducted. Drawing on macro-foundational studies and the sociology of worth (SW) theory, the analysis helps to identify socially shared patterns of actions and outcomes.FindingsThe findings elucidate the interplay between diverse economic, social, political and institutional values and the compromise-making by middle managers. The authors find that contextual factors restrict Chinese academic middle managers' autonomy, preventing workable compromise. Through the selective adoption of international and local management practices, compromise has evolved into a private differential treaty at the operational level.Originality/valueA nuanced explanation reveals how the macro-foundations of Chinese society influence middle managers who engage with accounting when facilitating compromise. This study helps outsiders better understand the complex convergence and divergence of performance evaluative practices in Chinese universities against the backdrop of global market-based forces and the moral dimensions of organisational life. The findings have wider implications for the Chinese government in navigating institutional steps and developing supportive policies to enable middle managers to advance productive but also sustainable compromise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":132341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"volume\":\"34 27\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-05-2022-5805\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-05-2022-5805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本文研究了中国大学中层管理者在响应中国 "双一流大学建设计划"(一项对大学绩效进行排名的国家项目)时评价下属绩效的方式。在探索折衷安排的过程中,我们发现中层管理者的混合评价活动受到了新出现的和现有的宏观基础的影响。分析借鉴了宏观基础研究和价值社会学(SW)理论,有助于确定社会共享的行动和结果模式。研究结果研究结果阐明了不同的经济、社会、政治和制度价值与中层管理者妥协决策之间的相互作用。作者发现,环境因素限制了中国学术界中层管理人员的自主权,阻碍了可行的妥协。通过有选择地采用国际和本地管理实践,妥协演变成了操作层面上的私人差别条约。原创性/价值通过细致入微的解释,揭示了中国社会的宏观基础如何影响中层管理人员在促进妥协时与会计打交道。这项研究有助于外界更好地理解在全球市场力量和组织生活道德维度的背景下,中国大学绩效评估实践的复杂趋同与分歧。研究结果对中国政府在引导制度步骤和制定支持政策方面具有更广泛的意义,从而使中层管理者能够推进富有成效且可持续的妥协。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Umbrella protectors? Analysing valuing, hybridity and compromises for Chinese middle managers
PurposeThis paper examines the ways in which Chinese university middle managers evaluate subordinate performance in response to the Chinese Double First-Class University Plan, a national project that ranks the performance of universities. In exploring compromise arrangements, the hybridised valuing activity of middle managers is found to be shaped by emergent and extant macro-foundations.Design/methodology/approachThe qualitative data from 49 semi-structured interviews at five Chinese public universities were conducted. Drawing on macro-foundational studies and the sociology of worth (SW) theory, the analysis helps to identify socially shared patterns of actions and outcomes.FindingsThe findings elucidate the interplay between diverse economic, social, political and institutional values and the compromise-making by middle managers. The authors find that contextual factors restrict Chinese academic middle managers' autonomy, preventing workable compromise. Through the selective adoption of international and local management practices, compromise has evolved into a private differential treaty at the operational level.Originality/valueA nuanced explanation reveals how the macro-foundations of Chinese society influence middle managers who engage with accounting when facilitating compromise. This study helps outsiders better understand the complex convergence and divergence of performance evaluative practices in Chinese universities against the backdrop of global market-based forces and the moral dimensions of organisational life. The findings have wider implications for the Chinese government in navigating institutional steps and developing supportive policies to enable middle managers to advance productive but also sustainable compromise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信