{"title":"从钟勇的角度看战略制定过程中自上而下和自下而上的平衡","authors":"Xin Li, T. Andersen, C. A. Hallin","doi":"10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” and apply it to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors adopt a “West meets East” mindset and approach to develop an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong, and then apply this perspective to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making. There are three steps in the process of developing the alternative perspective. First, the authors argue that the essence of “Yin-Yang balancing” is a ratio-based solution to paradoxical balancing, which is in fact equivalent to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and compatible with some western management scholars’ approaches to solving paradox. Second, the authors identify a different generic solution to paradoxical balancing implicit in the western management literature. Third, the authors find in the original text of Zhong-Yong equivalent ideas to the identified different generic solution and then propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is fundamentally different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing.”\n\n\nFindings\nApplied to the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making, the new perspective on Zhong-Yong provides us with the following prescriptive insights from the life-wisdom of eastern philosophy: first, top management (e.g. Shun as the sage-king) must listen to various views and opinions also from employees and low-level managers at the bottom of the organization to be better informed about complex issues. Second, top management must analyze the diverse elements of the various views and opinions they collect and synthesize by taking the good from the bad to find smarter solutions and make decisions with better outcomes. Third, abiding by a set of (more or less) cohesive values help top managers be open and receptive to information and insights from low-level organizational members and enhancing unbiased information.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis paper is mainly a theoretical perspective. Empirical work is needed to test the prescriptions offered in this paper.\n\n\nPractical implications\nPractitioners may learn new perspectives from ancient Chinese philosophies on how to balance.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper applies a new perspective on Zhong-Yong to an important paradox in strategic management.\n","PeriodicalId":51820,"journal":{"name":"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Zhong-Yong perspective on balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy-making\",\"authors\":\"Xin Li, T. Andersen, C. A. Hallin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” and apply it to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe authors adopt a “West meets East” mindset and approach to develop an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong, and then apply this perspective to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making. There are three steps in the process of developing the alternative perspective. First, the authors argue that the essence of “Yin-Yang balancing” is a ratio-based solution to paradoxical balancing, which is in fact equivalent to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and compatible with some western management scholars’ approaches to solving paradox. Second, the authors identify a different generic solution to paradoxical balancing implicit in the western management literature. Third, the authors find in the original text of Zhong-Yong equivalent ideas to the identified different generic solution and then propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is fundamentally different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing.”\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nApplied to the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making, the new perspective on Zhong-Yong provides us with the following prescriptive insights from the life-wisdom of eastern philosophy: first, top management (e.g. Shun as the sage-king) must listen to various views and opinions also from employees and low-level managers at the bottom of the organization to be better informed about complex issues. Second, top management must analyze the diverse elements of the various views and opinions they collect and synthesize by taking the good from the bad to find smarter solutions and make decisions with better outcomes. Third, abiding by a set of (more or less) cohesive values help top managers be open and receptive to information and insights from low-level organizational members and enhancing unbiased information.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis paper is mainly a theoretical perspective. Empirical work is needed to test the prescriptions offered in this paper.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nPractitioners may learn new perspectives from ancient Chinese philosophies on how to balance.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper applies a new perspective on Zhong-Yong to an important paradox in strategic management.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":51820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-01-2019-0018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Zhong-Yong perspective on balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy-making
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing” and apply it to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors adopt a “West meets East” mindset and approach to develop an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong, and then apply this perspective to understand the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making. There are three steps in the process of developing the alternative perspective. First, the authors argue that the essence of “Yin-Yang balancing” is a ratio-based solution to paradoxical balancing, which is in fact equivalent to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and compatible with some western management scholars’ approaches to solving paradox. Second, the authors identify a different generic solution to paradoxical balancing implicit in the western management literature. Third, the authors find in the original text of Zhong-Yong equivalent ideas to the identified different generic solution and then propose an alternative perspective on Zhong-Yong that is fundamentally different from the notion of “Yin-Yang balancing.”
Findings
Applied to the issue of balancing the top-down and bottom-up processes in strategy making, the new perspective on Zhong-Yong provides us with the following prescriptive insights from the life-wisdom of eastern philosophy: first, top management (e.g. Shun as the sage-king) must listen to various views and opinions also from employees and low-level managers at the bottom of the organization to be better informed about complex issues. Second, top management must analyze the diverse elements of the various views and opinions they collect and synthesize by taking the good from the bad to find smarter solutions and make decisions with better outcomes. Third, abiding by a set of (more or less) cohesive values help top managers be open and receptive to information and insights from low-level organizational members and enhancing unbiased information.
Research limitations/implications
This paper is mainly a theoretical perspective. Empirical work is needed to test the prescriptions offered in this paper.
Practical implications
Practitioners may learn new perspectives from ancient Chinese philosophies on how to balance.
Originality/value
This paper applies a new perspective on Zhong-Yong to an important paradox in strategic management.
期刊介绍:
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management (CCSM), is dedicated to providing a forum for the publication of high quality cross-cultural and strategic management research in the global context. CCSM is interdisciplinary in nature and welcomes submissions from scholars from international business, management and other disciplines, such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. The goal of CCSM is to publish discerning, theoretically grounded, evidence-based and cutting edge research on issues relevant to all aspects of global management. CCSM is especially interested in theoretical and empirical papers that investigate new and unique ideas and/or are multilevel (micro-meso-macro) and/or are multidisciplinary in nature. Research papers submitted to CCSM are expected to include an answer to the question: What is the contribution of this paper to the literature and the field of international business and managing in the global context? CCSM accepts theoretical/conceptual and empirical papers based on quantitative and qualitative research endeavors that advance our overall knowledge of international business. This includes research that yields positive, neutral or negative findings as long as these studies are based on sound research methodology, and have a good command of the theory/literature that pertains to the phenomena under investigation. These studies should also provide a more in-depth interpretation of the reason(s) for the findings and include more detailed recommendations for future research directions.