Wolf, Mao or Tao for management?

Citation

Foo, C.-T. (2007), "Wolf, Mao or Tao for management?", Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms.2007.32301aaa.001

Wolf, Mao or Tao for management?

Wolf, Mao or Tao for management?

One of my tasks that I set myself as founding editor of Chinese Management Studies is to widely read the current literature emerging on Chinese book shelves on management. Besides academic rigor, there is also the need for the message in research to be relevant to evolving, fast moving Chinese contexts. Of the texts dealing specifically with Chinese management, two stood out in my mind as being noteworthy.

A recent trend in China is most intriguing: a fascination with the wolf as reflected in this work lang xing guan li fa ze by Luo Yu simply as Wolf for Management. I know from my own studies, of how Sun Tzu had cited the eagle as a model for timing. Perhaps this fascination in itself is a barometric measure of just how much more competitive the Chinese markets now are: imagine us learning to hunt for opportunities like a pack of Mongolian wolves.

Earlier, there is a more substantive work on Mao Zedong jiao women xue guan li by Zhang Yong, Lui Qi Ming or in English Mao Teaches Us Management. It is fascinating to see how the Chinese perceive on learning from Mao on management by reading this work. Personally, I see the thinking of Mao to be more relevant in the arena of competitive strategy. In particular, it is Mao's adept skills of maneuvering to stay in power. If I may use an analogy with imperial Chinese contexts, he excels as an inner palace strategist.

From Mao, I turn to contributions in Chinese Management Studies, to Tao (or in pinyin as Dao), the first paper of the inaugural issue. On Tao there had been many works. Authors across more than 2,000 years who worked on the ancient philosophy and thinking of Lao Tzu, pinyin Laozi. His primary work was the Tao Te Ching, a Chinese classic. Yet, our paper is the first of its kind in the world to validate the philosophy of Tao for CEOs in leading manufacturing firms in highly competitive, turbulent marketplaces. Following “Tao of CEO” are papers on themes that are central to management. Motivation and strategic adaptations are central themes dealt in empirical depth in this journal. Then finally the equally timely question of whence, if ever will there be a merging Eastern and Western philosophy: “Ever the Twain shall meet”.

It is remarkable to find in the very first, inaugural issue of a research journal such a sparkling array of original contributions. These issues are central to a deeper, scholarly appreciation in the art of Chinese management. Authors of these high quality papers are in fact laying the foundation for the first ever international journal devoted to Chinese management. Imagine a highly probable, definitely not altogether impossible, scenario a century later. Say in 2100, Chinese multinationals in the likes of IBM (eminent in the 1980s), Toyota (turn of century), Microsoft and CISCO System (too many to name) groping across every 192 (or 193 including the Vatican City) countries for ever slimmer profits. Chinese competing perhaps with remains of the best corporations rising out of the declining superpower USA, a revitalized Europe and awakened India.

To survive, everybody is in the corporate hunt – like packs of hungry wolves – for emergent, emerging yet fast disappearing opportunities in an ever turbulent, divided, chaotic yet connected world. In such a scenario, only those who are sharp (Wolf) and deep strategic minds (like Mao) and who move fast on technology can thrive. Even in such an environment, insights from deep researches on management remain a key to future competitive successes. Research as reflected in works presented in this issue of Chinese Management Studies.

In their motivation paper, Song Lianke, Wang Yonggui and Wei Jiangru seek to synthesize through empirical works, an east-west merging on the theory of motivation. With sampling taken from the Jiangsu province in China and utilizing Likert scales, their work suggests that motivational forces at work are universal but tend to vary depending on contingencies like gender and personality. Clearly, it is vital for scholars to pursue on with this line of investigation. Imagine improving the productivity of work of 1.3 billion human beings through insights from research. Given this finding, I am myself even more motivated to work on a paper-in-progress on the possible internal, organizational impacts of workers' participation.

In their paper, Kang Jian, Charles Cheah Yuen Jen, David Chew and Liu Guozhi explored a range of critical strategic adaptations in edging towards competitive advantages within a highly intensively cost conscious industry in China: construction. Their work is grounded in empirical analyses utilizing financial measures yield deep insights on the strategic behaviors including all pervading guan-xi. Maybe researchers in China may extend this work to investigating industries besides construction. Maybe, in an industry like aerospace: something intriguing may result from empirical analyses. Unlike construction which the Chinese are past masters (remember, the Great Wall), the aerospace industry is still a tough challenge for China.

Finally, the only qualitative piece by Ken Baskin in the basket is a piece that I feel is most timely. As far as I know, nobody has in Chinese management attempted to relate Chinese philosophy and thinking with complexity theory or chaos science – now already a maturing intellectual enterprise in the west. My massive, empirical work, Organizing Strategy: Sun Tzu Business Warcraft provides extensive evidence of the interconnectivity in Asian corporate strategy processes. I am certain his paper will spur others on to similar efforts in relating Chinese managerial philosophy with chaos, interconnectivity, complexity theory.

Check-Teck Foo