Jeong exchange and collective leadership in Korean organizations

Abstract

Collective, Emotion, Leadership, Informal social tie, Korea, Japan, China, Confucianism,

Centralization and innovation performance in an emerging economy: testing the moderating effects

“…First, when a centralized structure is more legitimate and prevails more often in firms from emerging countries (Hoskisson et al, 2005;Yang, 2006), managers who have little incentive or discretion to change the structure may go beyond structure itself to improve innovation performance. Attracting high quality employees, offering on-the-job training, and other ways of enhancing experience, knowledge and expertise embedded in organizational members can help improve innovation performance within a centralized structure.…”

Relationship of Confucian Values to Spiritual Leadership in a South Korean Context

“…Jeong can be broadly defined as "a bond of affection or feelings of empathy to others" (Yang, 2006, p. 285) that equalizes the balance of power between unequal. Confucian philosophy underpins the concept of jeong through a complex fusion of seven emotions: happiness, anger, worry, sadness, joy, hate, and fear (Yang, 2006). Finally, the concept of woori, or we-ness, encourages the development of in-group collectivism by obscuring the complexity of unequal relationships through "a psychological states where individuals de-differentiate themselves to the collective" (Yang, 2006, p. 286).…”

“…Finally, Korean leadership and management practices are best described as paternalistic, hierarchical, and collective (Chen, 2004;Chung, Lee, & Jung, 1997;Yang, 2006), despite the gradual adoption of western leadership and human resource practices in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis (Hemmert, 2012;Rowley, 2013). This is reflective of Korea's organizational leadership culture being high in power distance and collectivism, and low in gender egalitarianism, as determined by the GLOBE research study (House et al, 2004).…”

“…According to Sohn, this management tug-o-war between people and profits has led to several misunderstandings over the influence of Confucianism, including the belief that (a) Confucianism is outdated and no longer had an effective ideological management taken, and (b) the hierarchical nature of Confucian relationships creates a climate of seniority and authoritarianism. Indeed, Korean leadership is divergent in nature, characterized on one extreme by authoritarian, directive, and paternalistic behaviors (Chen, 2004;Chung et al, 1997;Yang, 2006) that are offset by supportive and participative characteristics at the other extreme (Dorfman et al, 1997). However, despite these contrasting leadership styles, the central motivations of Confucianism are (a) a moral code of conduct of reciprocal loyalties that is governed by rules and regulations that create order and stability for workers (Kim & Park, 2003;Paik & Sohn, 1998), and (b) establishing and sustaining harmonious relationships; not creating social order through a relational hierarchy of seniorities to be abused through authoritarianism (Cho & Yoon;Sohn, 2013).…”

The adolescence of Asia management research: APJM, 1997–2006

“…For example, many scholars in Asia, similar to governments, societies, and citizens, often have an interesting "love-hate" relationship with business groups and conglomerates (Peng & Delios, 2006). "Asian value" and culture's consequences (Westwood & Everett, 1987), corporate governance in Japan (Yoshikawa & Phan, 2001), interlocking directorates (networks) (Au et al, 2000;Peng et al, 2001a, b), guanxi in China (Chen & Chen, 2004), the kigyo keiretsu Organization (Tabeta, 1998), jeong exchange and collective leadership in Korea (Yang, 2006)-all these concepts or models that come from distinctive Asia management practices inevitably involve some kind of value judgment on research.…”