罗肖依;孙黎;

• 1:南开大学商学院
• 2:美国洛厄尔麻省大学曼宁商学院

摘要(Abstract)：

基于经济学正统的股东至上主义形成的绩效导向,过于强调利润最大化和股东价值最大化而忽视其他利益相关者的福祉,会加重管理者的"短视",强化对已有资源能力的利用,降低探索等风险高的创新性活动,从而陷入马奇所强调的"能力陷阱"或者米勒的"伊卡洛斯悖论",降低企业的韧性及适应能力,增加企业失败的风险。迄今,西方一些学者提出的解决方案并未跳出绩效导向的悖论框架。本文基于阴阳理论、组织韧性理论和利益相关者理论建立一个生生不息导向的理论框架,让组织目标回到"道"——中国元典哲学中核心、本质的能量,"道"的创生、"道"的不断涌动和持续变化,即《易经》所谓的"生生之大德"。本文进一步识别了前置因素——董事会的天下思维如何通过影响中介变量,进而影响生生不息导向及其可能引致的战略后果,增强企业开放式创新的程度以及更好地平衡企业间的竞合关系。

关键词(KeyWords)： 生生不息导向;绩效导向;利益相关者理论;股东至上主义;悖论

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 国家自然科学基金面上项目(71672088);; 国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目(留金发〔2017〕3109号);; 人文社科重点研究基地重大项目(15JJD630002)

作者(Authors): 罗肖依;孙黎;

DOI: 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2019.05.010

参考文献(References)：

• [1]曹仰锋,李平.海尔,中国式堂吉诃德:张瑞敏对话詹姆斯·马奇[J].哈佛商业评论,2013,(10):154-159.
• [2]陈春花,刘祯.水样组织:一个新的组织概念[J].外国经济与管理,2017, 39(7):3-14.
• [3]陆亚东,符正平.“水”隐喻在中国特色管理理论中的运用[J].外国经济与管理,2016, 38(1):3-14.
• [4]罗肖依,孙黎.从悖论元理论看知行合一[J].清华管理评论,2018,(4):89-95.
• [5]孙黎,魏刚.“圆形决策”时代到来[J].中欧商业评论,2015,(1):29-33.
• [6]孙黎.蓝军战略[M].北京:机械工业出版社, 2018.
• [7]赵汀阳.坏世界研究:作为第一哲学的政治哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
• [8]Andriopoulos C, Lewis M W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:Managing paradoxes of innovation[J]. Organization Science,2009, 20(4):696-717.
• [9]Bansal P, Song H C. Similar but not the same:Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility[J].Academy of Management Annals,2017, 11(1):105-149.
• [10]Barkema H G, Chen X P, George G, et al. West meets East:New concepts and theories[J]. Academy of Management Journal,2015, 58(2):460.
• [11]Blair M M. Post-Enron reflections on comparative corporate governance[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics,2003,14(2):113-124.
• [12]Chen M J. Transcending paradox:The Chinese “middle way” perspective[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2002,19(2–3):179-199.
• [13]Daily C M, Schwenk C. Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors:Congruent or countervailing forces?[J]. Journal of Management,1996, 22(2):185-208.
• [14]Eisenhardt K M. Agency theory:An assessment and review[J]. Academy of Management Review,1989, 14(1):57-74.
• [15]Freeman R E. Ending the so-called “Friedman-Freeman” debate[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly,2008, 18(2):162-166.
• [16]Friedman M. Capitalism and freedom[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1962.
• [17]Gunderson L H, Holling C S. Panarchy:understanding transformations in human and natural systems[M]. Washington, DC:Island Press, 2002.
• [18]Hambrick D C, Mason P A. Upper echelons:The organization as a reflection of its top managers[J]. Academy of management Review,1984, 9(2):193-206.
• [19]Harrison J S, Bosse D A, Phillips R A. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage[J].Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(1):58-74.
• [20]Jensen M C. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly,2002, 12(2):235-256.
• [21]Lewis M W, Smith W K. Paradox as a meta-theoretical perspective:Sharpening the focus and widening the scope[J]. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,2014, 50(2):127-149.
• [22]Li P P. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing:A critical response[J]. Management and Organization Review,2014, 10(2):321-332.
• [23]March J G, Sutton R I. Crossroads-organizational performance as a dependent variable[J]. Organization Science,1997, 8(6):698-706.
• [24]March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science,1991, 2(1):71-87.
• [25]Mitchell R K, Weaver G R, Agle B R, et al. Stakeholder agency and social welfare:Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation[J]. Academy of Management Review,2016, 41(2):252-275.
• [26]Plambeck N, Weber K. When the glass is half full and half empty:CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations of strategic issues[J].Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(7):689-710.
• [27]Porter M E, Kramer M R. The big idea:Creating shared value[J]. Harvard Business Review,2011, 89(1):2-17.
• [28]Quinn R E, Rohrbaugh J. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis[J]. Management Science,1983, 29(3):363-377.
• [29]Smith W K, Lewis M W. Toward a theory of paradox:A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing[J]. Academy of management Review,2011, 36(2):381-403.
• [30]Sundaram A K, Inkpen A C. The corporate objective revisited[J]. Organization Science,2004, 15(3):350-363.
• [31]Sundaramurthy C, Lewis M. Control and collaboration:Paradoxes of governance[J]. Academy of Management Review,2003,28(3):397-415.