Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:38:25.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neither-And Thinking: Understanding James March's Unique Solution to Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2021

Xin Li Open the ORCID record for Xin Li [Opens in a new window]
Xin Li*
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, and Nanjing University, China
*
Corresponding author: Xin Li ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I propose a typology of thinking pattern that helps us understand the variants of the so-called ‘both/and thinking’ shared by many organizational paradox scholars in the West and China. The variants are distinguished by the ‘primary thinking-secondary thinking’ structure between the combined elementary thinking. One of the variants, i.e., Neither-And thinking, is associated with James March's discussion of logic of consequences and logic of appropriateness. An examination of March's writings reveals an additional ‘principle-practice’ structure underlining March's unique solution to paradox. Incorporating the ‘principle-practice’ structure into the proposed typology in turn helps us better understand the other variants of ‘both/and thinking’ such as ambidexterity, contingency, and Zhong-Yong. The typology shows March's Neither-And solution is unique because it embraces a primary neither/nor thinking while all the other variants do not. To demonstrate the value of March's unique solution, I apply Neither-And thinking characterized by the ‘principle-practice’ relationship to paradoxes outside organization studies, e.g., in Deconstruction, Buddhism, and quantum physics. The wide application of Neither-And thinking implies that James March's unique solution to organizational paradox may have provided a key to understanding paradox in general.

摘要

在本文中，我提出一个关于思维模式的分类法，以便理解中西方研究组织管理悖论的诸多学者所共同提倡的both/and思维的五种不同表现形式。这些不同的思维模式是由两个最基本的思维模式按照“主要思维-次要思维”的结构组合而成。其中Neither-And（可译为逆安）思维被用来与詹姆士马奇关于结果导向逻辑和正义导向逻辑的思想相关联。研究马奇的著作可以发现，在马奇独特的悖论化解方案中还蕴含着一个“原则-现实”结构。将该结构融入我的这个分类法中有助于更好地理解作为both/and思维不同表现形式的双元性、权变、中庸等方案。该分类法显示出马奇的Neither-And方案的独特性，因为只有它将neither/nor作为主要思维。为了显示马奇的独特方案的价值，我运用其体现了“原则-现实”结构关系的Neither-And思维来理解组织研究领域之外（比如解构主义哲学、佛教、量子物理）的一些悖论问题。Neither-And思维的这种广泛应用性表明，马奇对于组织悖论的独特化解方案可能为理解一般性的悖论问题提供了一把钥匙。

Аннотация

В этой статье, я предлагаю типологию модели мышления, которая помогает нам понять варианты так называемого «мышления и то, и другое», которое поддерживают многие исследователи организационных парадоксов на Западе и в Китае. Варианты отличаются структурой «первичное мышление – вторичное мышление» в пределах общего базового мышления. Один из вариантов, то есть мышление по модели «ни то, ни другое – и все вместе», связано с логикой следствий и логикой уместности, которые обсуждает Джеймс Марч. При изучении трудов Марча, я обнаруживаю дополнительную структуру «принцип-практика», которая показывает уникальное решение Марча проблемы парадокса. В свою очередь, введение структуры «принцип-практика» в предложенную типологию помогает нам лучше понять другие варианты «мышления и то, и другое», такие как амбидекстрия, непредвиденные обстоятельства и Чжун-Юн. Типология показывает, что решение Марча «ни то, ни другое – и все вместе» уникально, потому что оно включает в себя первичное мышление «ни то, ни другое», в то время как все другие варианты этого не делают. С целью продемонстрировать ценность уникального решения Марча, я применяю модель мышления «ни то, ни другое – и все вместе», с характерной структурой «принцип-практика», к парадоксам за пределами исследований по организации, например, в деконструкции, буддизме и квантовой физике. Широкая область применения модели мышления «ни то, ни другое – и все вместе» доказывает, что уникальное решение Джеймса Марча для организационного парадокса возможно дает ключ к пониманию парадокса в целом.

Resumen

En este artículo, propongo una tipología de patrón de pensamiento que nos ayuda a entender las variantes del denominado “pensamiento ambos/y” compartido por académicos de varias paradojas organizacionales en el Occidente y China. Las variantes se distinguen por la estructura del “pensamiento primario-pensamiento secundario” entre el pensamiento elemental combinado. Una de las variantes, es decir, el pensamiento de “n-y”, está asociada con la discusión de James March de la lógica de consecuencias y lógica de lo apropiado. Una examinación de los escritos de March revela una estructura de “principio-práctica” subyacente a la única solución de James March a la paradoja. Al incorporar la estructura de “principio-práctica” a la tipología propuesta nos ayuda entender mejor las variantes del pensamiento “pensamiento ambos/y” como la ambidestreza, la contingencia y el Zhong-Yong. La tipología muestra que la solución ni-y de March es única puesto que abarca un pensamiento tampoco/no muestra que todas las otras variantes no lo hacen. Para demostrar el valor de la única solución de March, aplico el pensamiento de ni-y caracterizado por la relación “principio-práctica” a las paradojas por fuera de los estudios organizacionales, por ejemplo, en Desconstrucción, Budismo, y física cuántica. La amplia aplicación del pensamiento ni-y implica que la única solución de James March a la paradoja organizacional puede haber proporcionado una clave para entender paradojas en general.

Keywords

both/andeither/orneither/norparadoxthinkingtypology悖论思维both/andeither/orneither/nor分类法и то/и другоеили то/или другоени то/ни другоепарадоксмышлениетипологияambos/ycualquiera/oni/noparadojapensamientotipología
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Special Issue 4: Remembering James G. March , October 2021 , pp. 755 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Mooweon Rhee

References

REFERENCES

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badham, R. J. 2017. Reflections on the paradoxes of modernity: A conversation with James March. In Smith, W., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., & Langley, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 277–292. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. 2014. Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5): 1181–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A. 1988. A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In Duck, S. W., Hay, D. F., Hobfoll, S. E., Iches, W., & Montgomery, B. (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: 257–273. London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A. 1990. Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1): 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. 1934. Atomic theory and the description of nature. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. 1938. Biology and atomic physics. Il Nuovo Cimento (1924–1942), 15(7): 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. 1958. Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. 1963. The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr, vol. 3. Essays, 1958–1962, on atomic physics and human knowledge. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
Carr, P. H. 2007. Beauty in science and spirit. Center Ossipee, NH: Beech River Books.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. 1938. The evolution of physics. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faye, J. 1991. Niels Bohr: His heritage and legacy: An anti-realist view of quantum mechanics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business MediaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. 1963. Feynman lectures on physics, Volume 1. Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Garfield, J. L. 1994. Dependent arising and the emptiness of emptiness: Why did Nāgārjuna start with causation? Philosophy: East and West, 44(2): 219–250.Google Scholar
Gutauskas, M. 2014. The truth of cynicism and nihilism. In Chiurazzi, G., Sisto, D., & Tinning, S. (Eds.), Philosophical paths in the public sphere: 239–249. Wien: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. 1991. Projection, physical intelligibility, objectivity and completeness: The divergent ideals of Bohr and Einstein. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42(4): 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. 1989. A world of difference. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y. 2018. Letter from the editor. Management and Organization Review, 14(4): 649– 650.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2): 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2014. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 321–332.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. 2016. Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply Yin-Yang balancing to paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1): 42–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2018. Zhong-Yong as dynamic balancing between Yin-Yang opposites. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2): 375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2019. Is ‘Yin-Yang balancing’ superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1982. The technology of foolishness. In March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations: 69–81. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1994. Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 2010. The ambiguities of experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 2011. A scholar's quest. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(4): 355–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G., & Coutu, D. 2006. Ideas as art. Harvard Business Review, 84(10): 82–89.Google ScholarPubMed
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 2009. The logic of appropriateness. In Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy: 689–709. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McRae, J. R. 2000. The platform sutra of the sixth patrarich (Translated from the Chinese of Zongbao). Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1992. The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. Business Horizons, 35(1): 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. 1963. The philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 19(7): 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnitsky, A. 2013. Niels Bohr and complementarity: An introduction. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organisational theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raju, P. T. 1954. The principle of four-cornered negation in Indian philosophy. The Review of Metaphysics, 7(4): 694–713.Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change: 73–109. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1592–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., & Langley, A. (Eds.), 2017. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stent, G. S. 1979. Does God play dice? For nearly a decade Einstein and Bohr struggled over the nature of reality. The Sciences, 19(3): 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroh, P., & Miller, W. W. 1994. Learning to thrive on paradox. Training and Development, 48(9): 28–39.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerhoff, J. C. 2019. Nāgārjuna. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition). Available from URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/nagarjuna/Google Scholar