Decision making process: conceptualizing how Chinese and Western managers differ

In this paper we pose the question: How does the decision making process of Chinese managers differ from that of Western managers? Integrating Chinese notions of thinking with the stages of decision making process, our central argument is that in contrast to Western managers, Chinese managers are more likely to identify problems collectively (rather than set goals individualistically), synthesize conflicting alternative views (rather than analyze mutually exclusive alternatives), and arrive at non-binding solutions (instead of committing to a unique solution). We offer a depiction of the decision making process of Chinese managers, which we show to differ fundamentally from that of Western managers

Paradoxical cognition and decision quality: the moderating effects of flexibility and rationality

While recent research has provided valuable insight into how paradox facilitates dynamic decision making, the positive effect of paradoxical cognition on strategic decision quality has not been empirically tested, and its boundary conditions are unclear. We addressed these lacunae using survey data from 110 firms in China, an intriguing setting for studying paradox. We found the effect of paradoxical cognition on decision quality to be positive and significant. Furthermore, we found that firms adopting high levels of comprehensiveness and low levels of strategic flexibility benefit more from paradoxical cognition. We thus shed light on the boundary conditions of paradoxical cognition’s positive effect on strategic decision quality: it is a complement to comprehensiveness, but is a substitute to strategic flexibility

Cultural differences in paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes

In this conceptual paper, we ask: How does the larger cultural context influence the way that groups of managers deal with paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes? We focus on three sources of tension in the conduct and design of strategy episodes – inclusion, formality and coordination/communication. We argue that in each case, cultural influences affect the extent to which these facets of strategy episodes are dealt with using a paradox lens. Specifically, in Western cultural contexts, managers tend to have a lower proclivity for adopting a paradoxical frame resulting in a separation of tensions in strategy episodes; by contrast, managers in Eastern cultural contexts such as China more readily adopt a paradoxical frame, and embrace tensions in strategy episodes. We suggest that, over time, non-paradoxical thinking likely promotes inter-episode plurality and planned emergence, while paradoxical thinking tends to foster intra-episode plurality and emergent planning. We contribute to a deeper understanding of strategy episodes as culturally embedded practices

How entrepreneurs and managers can find common ground in big data

Large corporations are increasingly seeking to collaborate with startups as part of their open innovation strategy. Each has strengths that the other lacks. Corporations have resources and legitimacy, startups have creativity and agility. Given the disruptive effects of digitalization, corporations are reaching out to startups with digital capabilities

QAA Shared Modules Collaborative Enhancement Project: Shared modules literature review

Modules taught to students on more than one degree programme, henceforth referred to as shared modules, are a common feature across the Higher Education (HE) landscape. Yet, a gap exists in the definition and study of shared modules in the HE literature and in designing pedagogical tools to support the construction of shared modules. To elicit the distinctiveness of shared modules and their implications for curriculum design, this literature review first draws on selective literature related to modularisation in HE, disciplinary identity, interdisciplinarity, interprofessional education and curriculum frameworks. From the insights gained, the second part of the review proposes a definition and typology of shared modules that includes the challenges they present. The review highlighted the institutional forces underneath the development of shared modules in HE, and the conflicting identities (disciplinary, student, teacher) and heterogeneity that emerge as a result. The review also revealed insights into issues involving a convoluted articulation between disciplinary boundaries, interaction with other disciplines and integration across disciplines. Challenges associated with shared disciplines include academic isolation and alienation, disciplinary protectionism, curricular incoherence and intractable administrative arrangements that take module sharing for granted. However, shared modules offer opportunities to highlight the potential of disciplinary interaction in the curriculum and for collaborative curriculum design and team teaching which can ultimately enhance the quality of learning. Thus, there is a need for a distinction between the process of module sharing and the shared module as a vehicle for learning and creation of interdisciplinary students. Understanding and approaching the design of shared modules to promote inclusive education requires a nuanced approach that recognizes the variations in the shared modules universe and associated issues. A typology is developed which defines and differentiates between implanted, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and interprofessional shared modules, highlighting the challenges that are associated with each. Just as important for understanding the nature of module sharing are the student pathways that underpin module sharing. Based on this review, we are proposing the following possibilities for such pathways.  • Shared by students on different programmes or pathways in the same disciplinary area  • Shared by students from different disciplinary areas which are within the same school or faculty  • Shared by students from different disciplinary areas which are in different schools or faculties  • Can be selected by students on a combined honours programme  Each of these has different implications for students’ experience, particularly in terms of identity and belonging. There is little attention in the literature to how students’ characteristics are brought into curriculum design and the learning environment in the case of shared modules

Globalization, entrepreneurship and paradox thinking

Abstract Globalization has been facing a backlash. By contrast, entrepreneurship has come to be seen as a panacea for economic development and generating jobs that are perceived to be under threat from globalization. In this Perspectives paper, our central argument is that globalization and entrepreneurship must be viewed holistically, recognizing that globalization is an enabler of important entrepreneurship outcomes. We argue that networks created as a byproduct of globalization facilitate various forms of entrepreneurship. Interpersonal networks (e.g., diasporas) facilitate transnational entrepreneurship which can, in turn, reduce institutional distance between locations. Interorganizational networks (e.g., MNE-orchestrated ecosystems) facilitate technology entrepreneurship which reinforces the institutional work that gives rise to new technological domains and fields. Intergovernmental and civil society networks facilitate social entrepreneurship which helps redress institutional voids. Thus globalization can be a force for good by enabling forms of entrepreneurship that enable important institutional change. We highlight the importance of paradox thinking, which is rooted in ancient Chinese philosophy, in transcending an either/or perspective of globalization and entrepreneurship.Keywords Globalization.Entrepreneurship.Internationalentrepreneurship.Paradox thinking.Institutionalchange.Anti-globalizatio

Decision making and paradox: Why study China?

Decision making has been studied from various angles and perspectives. Despite much progress, the role of paradox and the ways it reveals itself in decision making has received little attention. Perhaps, part of the reason is that paradox has been studied in the West based on the analysis of Western managers’ activities while neglecting the fact that in the East, and especially in China, paradox has always been integral to managerial decision making. This “viewpoint” article seeks to highlight China as an important research setting that could add impetus to the study of paradox and decision making. It sheds light on questions such as: What do we know about paradox today and how do Western scholars treat this notion? What does research say about decision making in China? Is there a potential to get a better understanding of the concepts of paradox if study it in decision making in China

Shared mobility research: looking through a paradox lens

Cities’ high traffic concentration, fast technological change, resource scarcity and growing environmental concerns accentuate competing tensions between stakeholders, transport modes and policies in the mobility sector. Tensions become even more salient in shared mobility – a complex yet relatively new phenomenon at the intersection between sharing economy and the transport sector – and raise numerous concerns for meeting sustainability objectives. The purpose of this paper is to identify conflicting demands associated with shared mobility by conducting a systematic literature review. Our results reveal several contradictions related to shared mobility and sustainability goals, and relations between those constantly evolving in a dynamic fashion. Thus, although shared mobility represents a step forward in achieving sustainability in theory, in practice, this task is only partially completed due to existing inherent contradictions. A paradox perspective on shared mobility, proposed in this paper, provides grounds for revisiting policy actions and finding workable solutions for practitioners

QAA Shared Modules Collaborative Enhancement Project: Shared Modules Literature Review

Literature review has been completed as part of a wider QAA project titled: Embedding multiple disciplinary affiliation identities in shared modules to enhance curriculum. We have produced a proposed typology for shared modules based on a literature review examining their past and current use in higher education programmes.</p

Globalization, entrepreneurship and paradox thinking

Globalization has been facing a backlash. By contrast, entrepreneurship has come to be seen as a panacea for economic development and generating jobs that are perceived to be under threat from globalization. In this Perspectives paper, our central argument is that globalization and entrepreneurship must be viewed holistically, recognizing that globalization is an enabler of important entrepreneurship outcomes. We argue that networks created as a byproduct of globalization facilitate various forms of entrepreneurship. Interpersonal networks (e.g., diasporas) facilitate transnational entrepreneurship which can, in turn, reduce institutional distance between locations. Interorganizational networks (e.g., MNE-orchestrated ecosystems) facilitate technology entrepreneurship which reinforces the institutional work that gives rise to new technological domains and fields. Intergovernmental and civil society networks facilitate social entrepreneurship which helps redress institutional voids. Thus globalization can be a force for good by enabling forms of entrepreneurship that enable important institutional change. We highlight the importance of paradox thinking, which is rooted in ancient Chinese philosophy, in transcending an either/or perspective of globalization and entrepreneurship