In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.

The Chinese cultural logics of change offer a rich understanding of organizational change. We address three key aspects of the Chinese yin-yang view of change: context, process, and actions. A case study of Chengdu Bus Group CBG enables us to develop a conceptual model that examines organizational change in a Chinese indigenous context. The model reflects the key functions of shi (situational momentum, 势), the action strategies of ying-shi (leveraging momentum, 应势)and zao-shi (building momentum, 造势), and the dialectics of nonaction (无为). Our findings will help researchers and practitioners better understand organizational change from a unique yin-yang perspective, and will also contribute general knowledge to process theories of organizational change.

Social entrepreneurship plays an important role in local development in emerging economies, but scholars have paid little attention to this emerging phenomenon. Under the theory of moral sentiments, we posit that some entrepreneurs are altruistically motivated to promote a morally effective economic system by engaging in social entrepreneurial activities. Focusing on China's Guangcai (Glorious) Program, a social entrepreneurship program initiated by China's private entrepreneurs to combat poverty and contribute to regional development, we find that private entrepreneurs are motivated to participate in such programs if they have more past distressing experiences, including limited educational opportunities, unemployment experience, rural poverty experience, and startup location hardship. Their perceived social status further strengthens these relationships. Our study contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature by offering a moral sentiment perspective that explains why some entrepreneurs voluntarily join a social entrepreneurship program to mitigate poverty in society.

The literature on dirty work has focused on what physically (e.g., garbage collectors), socially (e.g., addiction counsellors), and morally (e.g., exotic dancers) stigmatized occupations have in common, implying that dirty work is a relatively monolithic construct. In this article, we focus on the differences between these three forms of dirty work and how occupational members collectively attempt to counter the particular stigma associated with each. We argue that the largest differences are between moral dirty work and the other two forms; if physical and social dirty work tend to be seen as more necessary than evil, then moral dirty work tends to be seen as more evil than necessary. Moral dirty work typically constitutes a graver identity threat to occupational members, fostering greater entitativity (a sense of being a distinct group), a greater reliance on members as social buffers, and a greater use of condemning condemners and organization-level defensive tactics. We develop a series of propositions to formalize our arguments and suggest how this more nuanced approach to studying dirty work can stimulate and inform future research.

This study integrates research on social networks and interpersonal counterproductive behaviours to examine the role of third party relationships in predicting an individual's susceptibility to co-worker mistreatment, and in moderating the relationship between co-worker mistreatment and job performance. Third party embeddedness and network closure are examined in the formal workflow network and the informal liking network. Results obtained from employees in a family-owned Chinese business in Singapore indicate that an individual is more likely to be mistreated by a co-worker when both parties are strongly embedded in mutual third party relationships in the workflow network, and that the individual is less likely to be mistreated when both parties are strongly embedded in the liking network. At the individual network level, network closure (i.e., the extent to which an individual's contacts are themselves connected to one another) in the workflow network increases the likelihood that a co-worker will mistreat the individual, but closure in the liking network weakens the negative relationship between mistreatment and performance. The findings offer a network-based perspective to understanding interpersonal mistreatment and counterproductive work behaviours, particularly in the context of Confucian Asian firms, and provide practical implications for organizations and individuals to reduce counterproductive behaviours at work.

In this article we test a model of bounded empowerment: the boundary conditions under which power sharing affects employees' psychological empowerment. Using data from two telecommunication companies, we investigate how management control and power distance orientation moderate the effects of supervisors' power sharing on employees' psychological empowerment. Results show that power sharing improves job performance partly through psychological empowerment. Furthermore, management control enhances rather than impedes the positive effect of power sharing on psychological empowerment. Power distance orientation further enhances management control's positive moderating effect on employee psychological empowerment. Limitations and implications for future research are also discussed.

The above article from Management and Organization Review, published online 7 SEP 2011, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's outgoing Editor-in-Chief Anne Tsui, the journal's incoming Editor-in-Chief Arie Y. Lewin, and John Wiley & Sons Asia Pty Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to unattributed overlap with work previously published in Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 586–591: ‘Editor's comments: The better angels of our nature – Ethics and integrity in publishing process’ by Marshall Schminke. The editors and authors joindy wrote a letter, available below, to explain the process used to come to the retraction decision.

The purpose of this letter is to explain the circumstances and reasons for the retraction of the paper ‘Ethics and integrity of the publishing process: Myths, facts, and a roadmap’ by Schminke and Ambrose in Management and Organization Review (MOR), Volume 7 issue 3, pages 397 to 406, November 2011.

Retraction of a published paper due to self-plagiarism is an unpleasant if not painful experience for both journal editors and authors. Self-plagiarism means that authors have used materials in another paper (whether published or in working paper format) without attributing the source of the materials or ideas. In this instance, the materials being self-plagiarized are from an earlier editorial written by the lead author. Self-plagiarism is in violation of publication ethics, according to the Committee of Publication Ethics' guidelines on suspected plagiarism (http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/plagiarism%20B_0.pdf).