This article takes a much deeper look into the Haier culture, purpose, and strategy.
- Part 1 – The RenHanDeyi approach
- Part 2 – The Haier Business Model
- Part 3 – How Haier Delivers Scenarios: Smart Solutions
- Part 4 – The Orchestration Engine of Haier
- Part 5 – Culture, Purpose and Strategy (this article)
- Part 6 – How Haier Harnesses AI
- Part 7 – How To Transform To Ecosystem Organizing (coming soon)
- Part 8 – Strategies and Tools For Ecosystem Organizing (coming soon)
The Haier culture presents an apparent contradiction.
It has pushed decision making towards thousands of small entrepreneurial units, reduced conventional managerial authority and given teams considerable freedom to pursue opportunities. Yet those units are still expected to act as parts of a larger organisation, combine capabilities and deliver coherent outcomes for users.
Part 4 explained much of the visible machinery that makes this possible. Haier has not removed management. It has shifted much of management away from supervising people and towards orchestrating relationships, commitments, capabilities, data, platforms, incentives and value.
But structures, contracts and platforms explain only part of the system.
There is a deeper question.
Why are people willing and able to operate with this degree of autonomy without the organisation collapsing into thousands of competing interests?
The answer sits underneath the formal structure. Haier has spent decades building a cultural and strategic operating system that performs some of the coordinating work traditionally performed by hierarchy.
Purpose supplies direction. User value gives that purpose an observable meaning. Autonomy gives people close to opportunities the capacity to act. Accountability prevents autonomy from becoming licence. Ambitious goals create pressure to adapt. Shared principles, platforms and governance preserve coherence. Leadership designs and maintains the conditions in which the system operates.
The deeper Haier experiment is therefore not simply about removing managers.
It is about whether an organisation can replace some managerial control with a system in which people know what matters, have the authority to act and experience meaningful consequences from the value they create.
This led to a focus on the Haier culture.
Table of Contents
The Invisible Operating System
Changing an organisation chart does not automatically change an organisation.
A company can remove layers of management and still leave the assumptions of hierarchy untouched. Employees can continue waiting for approval. Leaders can continue protecting resources. Functions can continue measuring their own performance. People can remain more concerned about internal status than users.
Haier therefore changed more than its structure; it changed its culture.
RenDanHeYi connects three things that conventional organisations often separate: the employee, the user, and the value created between them. Zhang Ruimin has repeatedly argued that employees should create users and share in the value they create. More recent descriptions of RenDanHeYi extend this further towards autonomous individuals, autonomous organisations and lifelong users.
This produces three interdependent layers.
- Structural. Decision authority moves towards people dealing more directly with users, technologies and opportunities.
- Economic. Performance, rewards and access to resources become more closely connected with value creation.
- Human and strategic. People are expected to behave entrepreneurially, interpret opportunities, make commitments, work across organisational boundaries and remain accountable for results.
Part 4 dealt mainly with the structural and economic machinery. This article is concerned with the human and strategic layer beneath it, the Haier culture.
That distinction matters because Haier’s culture is not simply a set of beliefs sitting above the organisation. It is reinforced through the way the organisation actually works.
People learn what matters through what they are allowed to decide, what information they receive, how they gain resources, how performance is made visible, what gets rewarded and what happens when value is not created.
That is fundamentally different from publishing a set of corporate values and hoping behaviour follows.
A culture built against complacency
Another element of Haier’s culture is just as important as autonomy: a persistent challenge to the status quo.
Zhang has repeatedly argued that there is no permanently successful enterprise, only an enterprise able to remain relevant to its time. Lago’s account shows how this became a cultural expectation inside Haier. Success is treated as temporary. Each achievement becomes the starting point for another challenge rather than a reason to preserve the current model.
This matters because autonomy alone does not create adaptability.
- Autonomy gives people the capacity to respond.
- A culture of continuous challenge creates pressure to use that capacity.
That helps explain why Haier has repeatedly redesigned RenDanHeYi itself. The system moved from independent operating units to microenterprises and then towards EMCs as new problems emerged.
Haier does not treat the organisation as something to perfect and then preserve. It treats organisation itself as something that must keep adapting.
Purpose Replaces Part of the Hierarchy
Hierarchy provides more than control.
It also provides direction.
Managers interpret strategy, assign priorities, translate objectives and tell people what needs to happen next. If that layer is weakened, something else must help people answer a basic question:
What should I be trying to achieve?
At Haier, the answer begins with the user.
The user becomes the reference point
RenDanHeYi connects the employee, the work and the value created for users.
Zhang has repeatedly argued that employees should orient themselves towards users rather than primarily towards a superior.
This changes the direction of attention.
In a conventional organisation, people can gradually become oriented towards managerial priorities, functional targets, budgets, approval processes and internal career structures. These things are necessary, but they can become more powerful than the external reason the organisation exists.
Haier tries to reverse that logic.
The governing question becomes:
What value are we creating for the user?
This is where Haier’s idea of zero distance becomes strategically important.
Zero distance changes the information structure
Zero distance is often described as a philosophy of customer focus.
Its deeper significance is organisational.
When people close to the work can interact directly with users, they depend less on information travelling upwards through management and then returning as instructions.
In the traditional organisation, a user need can move from the customer to sales, from sales to management, from management to a function and finally from the function to the team expected to act.
Haier tries to shorten that distance.
The entrepreneurial team should be much closer to the original signal.
That matters because hierarchy traditionally performs much of its coordinating work by interpreting information and telling other people what to do with it.
Reduce the distance between the user and the people able to respond, and some of that intermediary work becomes less necessary.
This traces back to Haier’s original development. The inverted pyramid placed the user at the top, while later microenterprises moved greater decision authority towards teams that could respond directly to user needs.
Zero distance is therefore not simply about listening more closely to customers.
It is about changing who receives information and who has the authority to act upon it.
Purpose evolves from customers to lifelong users
Haier’s conception of purpose has also expanded over time.
The early emphasis was zero distance and creating users.
The ambition then moved towards creating lifelong users, where the relationship continues through experiences, services and repeated interaction rather than ending with the purchase of a product.
This change is significant because it alters what the organisation is trying to optimise.
If the aim is simply to sell a refrigerator, product performance and distribution may dominate.
If the aim is to help a household manage food, health, cooking and convenience over time, the organisation must understand a much broader set of needs and coordinate more capabilities around them.
This connects purpose directly with the scenario logic discussed in Part 3.
The user is no longer simply the recipient of a finished offer. Haier increasingly treats users as participants in shaping the experience itself. Lago describes this progression from customer satisfaction towards users as co creators and eventually lifelong users.
Maximising human value
Zhang has also extended the purpose of RenDanHeYi beyond customer value.
His later writing describes the aim as maximising human value. The enterprise should allow people to use their initiative, capabilities and judgement rather than reducing them to executors of instructions.
That idea is not separate from user value.
It depends on it.
Employees gain greater autonomy because Haier wants people closest to opportunities to create more value for users. The employee gains greater scope to act, while the organisation gains a greater capacity to respond.
This is why RenDanHeYi links the two sides together.
Freedom is not offered simply because autonomy is desirable.
It is offered because Haier believes autonomous people can create more value than people restricted to implementing instructions.
Purpose keeps the organisation open
Zhang’s introduces another way of understanding this logic through the idea of negentropy.
The terminology can sound abstract, but the management argument is useful.
A closed system becomes increasingly disordered because it is cut off from external energy and information. Zhang argues that organisations face a similar problem when they become detached from users and changes around them.
Haier therefore tries to remain open to external signals through users, partners, new technologies and entrepreneurial activity. Autonomous people and autonomous units are expected to bring those signals into the organisation and continuously reorganise around them.
The practical point is straightforward.
Purpose keeps the organisation oriented outward rather than allowing its existing structure to become the reason it exists.
Purpose does not eliminate management
A shared purpose cannot decide every allocation of capital, resolve every conflict or determine every acceptable level of risk.
Haier still requires strategy, platforms, rules and governance.
Purpose therefore replaces only part of hierarchy.
Its role is to provide a common reference point against which thousands of local decisions can be judged.
Haier has not replaced managers with a slogan.
It has tried to replace some managerial instruction with a more direct relationship between employee action and user value.
Autonomy Without Accountability Is Chaos
This is where Haier differs sharply from conventional employee empowerment.
Empowerment usually gives people greater discretion while leaving the basic management system intact. Managers still own most resources. Senior executives still retain many important decisions. The organisation still carries most of the consequences.
Haier pushes the relationship further.
Microenterprises can receive considerable authority over decisions, people, resources and business opportunities.
But authority comes with exposure to consequences.
Haier autonomy is therefore demanding, not permissive.
Freedom and responsibility travel together
A microenterprise is expected to identify opportunities, attract resources, coordinate capabilities and produce results.
Its members cannot claim autonomy when making decisions and then return responsibility to senior management when those decisions fail.
The central relationship is therefore not freedom alone.
- It is freedom combined with responsibility.
- Autonomy without accountability creates fragmentation.
- Accountability without autonomy creates bureaucracy.
- Autonomy combined with accountability creates the possibility of distributed entrepreneurship.
That third condition is what Haier is attempting.
Haier changes the form of control
This is one of the most important distinctions in understanding the model.
Haier does not replace control with freedom.
It changes the form of control.
In the conventional model, much control is embodied in the manager. The manager supervises, approves, evaluates and intervenes.
Haier moves more of that control into the system itself.
Targets establish expected outcomes. User feedback provides external evidence. Data makes performance visible. Contracts expose commitments. Economic consequences connect decisions with results. Peer relationships make interdependence visible.
Market based autonomy inside Haier coexists with rigorous oversight. There are extensive information systems, predetermined objectives and frequent performance monitoring. Employees can see their position against goals and respond when results begin to fall behind.
This gives us a more accurate interpretation of Haier.
It is not an organisation with little control.
It is an organisation in which more control has moved from supervision of activity towards visibility of outcomes.
Some control has migrated from the manager into the management system.
Accountability changes behaviour
The mechanisms described in Part 4 matter culturally because they make autonomy consequential.
- User feedback tells a team whether it is actually creating value.
- Economic performance tests whether an opportunity is viable.
- Internal agreements make commitments visible.
- Value sharing connects rewards with results.
- Performance transparency affects reputation and future opportunities.
The talent market means strong performers can gain access to more attractive projects, while poor performance can return people to the talent pool.
The principle is about compensation as combining basic salary with value sharing and, where applicable, dividends. It also describes public recognition, career consequences and visible performance as additional reinforcing mechanisms.
This creates a different psychological contract.
Employees gain more authority over their work. They also accept more responsibility for what happens next.
That is why describing Haier simply as an empowerment model understates what is happening.
Strategy Becomes Direction Plus Discovery
Once thousands of units have meaningful autonomy, another question appears.
Who determines strategy?
The answer cannot be that every microenterprise simply follows its own interests. That would generate entrepreneurial energy but eventually destroy organisational coherence.
Nor is the answer that senior leadership determines the detailed strategy and distributes it downwards. That would recreate the hierarchy RenDanHeYi is intended to weaken.
Haier instead separates strategic direction from much of strategic discovery.
Strategic direction still exists
The wider organisation continues to determine important things.
Platforms establish broad strategic direction, protect common assets such as the Haier brand, help connect microenterprises with resources and provide access to capabilities that individual units cannot easily create themselves.
Lago describes platform leaders as providing strategic guidance and sourcing resources without exercising conventional hierarchical authority over microenterprise leaders. The ultimate decision authority for many operating choices remains with the microenterprise.
This distinction is crucial.
Haier has not decentralised everything.
It has decentralised different kinds of decisions to different parts of the system.
The wider organisation protects common interests and establishes direction.
The microenterprise decides how to act within that context.
Ambitious goals create strategic pressure
The GE Appliances case makes this relationship especially clear.
Its interpretation of RenDanHeYi uses what it calls leading goals.
Rather than specifying every action through detailed planning, leadership establishes demanding outcomes that force operating units to find new ways to achieve them.
This changes the relationship between the centre and the unit.
Leadership becomes more concerned with determining where the organisation needs to go and what level of performance matters.
The unit becomes more responsible for discovering how to get there.
Lago argues that at GE Appliances leading goals partly replaced traditional strategic planning because initiative had moved towards business units and platforms.
That is more than delegated execution. It means part of strategy itself is being distributed.
Opportunity discovery moves outward
Microenterprises are expected to sense emerging user problems and market opportunities rather than simply execute plans created elsewhere.
This moves part of strategy towards the points where the organisation meets users, technologies and partners.
The process becomes less linear.
Leadership establishes direction and demanding outcomes. Units discover opportunities. Teams experiment. User and market evidence reveal what is gaining traction. Capabilities and resources then move towards the more promising opportunities. Results feed back into the next round of choices.
Planning still matters. But planning no longer has a monopoly over strategy.
Strategy becomes a process of selection
Traditional strategy is often represented as a sequence of analysis, decision, planning and execution.
Haier adds another logic: sensing, exploring, selecting, mobilising and learning. Both can coexist.
The second becomes more important when customer needs, technologies and potential partners change faster than a central planning process can absorb.
This is also where the scenario model from Part 3 becomes strategically important.
A scenario provides something larger than a product around which capabilities can assemble.
The strategic question becomes less:
What product should Haier sell?
And increasingly:
What user outcome represents an opportunity worth organising around?
The unit of strategic attention begins to move away from the existing organisational structure and towards the opportunity.
Leadership Without the Traditional Manager
Reducing hierarchy does not reduce the importance of leadership.
It changes what leadership is for.
Traditional managers often derive much of their authority from control over people, information, budgets and approvals.
Haier deliberately weakens those sources of authority. The leader therefore has to create value in different ways.
From giving instructions to creating conditions
A conventional manager often creates coordination directly.
They tell people what matters, allocate resources, approve decisions and intervene when activities conflict.
The Haier leader increasingly creates the conditions in which other people can coordinate.
That means setting direction, establishing challenging goals, defining boundaries, making information visible, creating access to capabilities and resolving conflicts that the distributed system cannot solve itself.
It also means protecting common assets and the overall user outcome when individual units have reasons to optimise their own positions.
This represents a deeper shift than becoming a more supportive manager. The source of leadership value changes.
From controller to system designer
A leader becomes less valuable because every important decision passes through them and more valuable because the organisation can make good decisions without them.
That is difficult.
A leader must create enough structure for autonomous units to work together while resisting the temptation to reclaim decisions whenever uncertainty appears.
- Too much intervention rebuilds hierarchy.
- Too little intervention can produce fragmentation.
Leadership therefore becomes an exercise in designing boundaries, interfaces and conditions for coordination.
This is why reducing hierarchy can actually increase the demands placed on leadership.
The leader can no longer rely on positional authority to compensate for poor organisational design.
Culture Is Reinforced, Not Announced
Calling Haier entrepreneurial is not enough.
The more useful question is:
How does that culture survive?
The Haier culture relies on both social reinforcement and operating reinforcement.
Social reinforcement creates shared meaning
Haier has spent decades reinforcing its culture through stories, symbols, communication and visible leadership behaviour.
The famous destruction of defective refrigerators early in Zhang’s leadership became more than a quality intervention. It became a story about standards, responsibility and the unwillingness to tolerate poor performance.
Stories matter because culture needs interpretation.
People need examples of what abstract principles mean when they encounter difficult choices.
The same applies to recognition. The strong performers present their achievements publicly, receive recognition, and gain status from visible results. Culture is therefore reinforced socially as well as economically.
Haier Europe demonstrates why this translation matters.
Even inside the wider Haier organisation, RenDanHeYi could not simply be transferred through a new structure. European managers used seminars, repeated communication, and knowledge sharing with Chinese colleagues to explain the philosophy and connect it with a European context.
Haier Europe eventually expressed its interpretation through what it called the Haier Attitude, centred on entrepreneurship, innovation, zero distance and the move towards ecosystems.
The important point is not the wording. It is that principles have to become understandable within the context in which people actually work.
Operating reinforcement shapes behaviour
Social reinforcement would not be enough on its own.
The operating system repeatedly reinforces the same messages.
- Direct user feedback keeps attention external.
- Economic accountability reinforces ownership.
Internal choice challenges the assumption that support functions deserve demand simply because they exist.
- Value sharing connects employee reward with the value created.
- Transparency exposes whether teams are meeting commitments.
- Platforms make collaboration possible without requiring every unit to own every capability.
- Selection keeps roles and structures from becoming permanent entitlements.
The Haier culture therefore emerges from the interaction between what the organisation says and what the organisation repeatedly causes people to experience.
That is much more powerful than values statements alone.
When employees see what receives resources, what produces rewards, what users value, what performance everyone can see and who experiences the consequences of failure, they learn what the organisation genuinely values.
The Haier Culture becomes credible because the management system keeps confirming it.
Why Thousands of Autonomous Units Still Remain Haier
This brings us back to the central paradox.
If microenterprises have genuine autonomy, why do they remain connected to Haier rather than becoming independent businesses?
Because autonomy exists inside a wider system whose shared assets and relationships create value for the units themselves.
A microenterprise benefits from Haier’s brand, technology, manufacturing capacity, data, logistics, specialist services and platforms. It can access capabilities far beyond what a small independent business could easily reproduce.
The units also share a broader logic.
User value gives them an external reference point. RenDanHeYi provides common principles about autonomy, entrepreneurship and value sharing. Shared platforms provide access to capabilities. Internal agreements and economic relationships create interdependence.
This produces a different kind of corporate coherence. Traditional firms often rely heavily on ownership and hierarchy.
Haier increasingly relies on ownership combined with purpose, principles, platforms and economic interdependence.
Hierarchy has not disappeared. Its coordinating burden has been redistributed.
That is a much more precise way to understand the organisation.
The Tensions Inside the Model
Haier is interesting partly because it demonstrates what decentralisation can achieve.
It is equally interesting because it demonstrates the problems decentralisation creates.
Many of its strengths contain the seeds of new tensions.
Autonomy can become local optimisation
This is not merely a theoretical concern.
Haier encountered the problem.
After several years of operating through microenterprises, the company found that units could become highly effective at pursuing their own targets while losing sight of the overall customer experience.
During internal negotiations, each unit naturally tried to secure the best possible result for itself.
That behaviour makes sense from the perspective of the individual microenterprise.
It can be damaging from the perspective of the user.
Lago describes this problem as one reason Haier moved towards EMCs. The EMC creates a broader objective around which several microenterprises can collaborate, giving them a shared outcome that sits above their individual economics.
This is one of the most revealing episodes in the development of RenDanHeYi.
Decentralisation solved one coordination problem and created another.
Haier then had to redesign the system again.
That is exactly what a self evolving organisation should be expected to do.
Competition can undermine collaboration
Internal competition can expose weak performance and challenge entitlement.
It can also create defensive behaviour.
A unit that is responsible for its own economics has a rational reason to protect those economics.
What benefits one microenterprise is not automatically what benefits the wider ecosystem.
The challenge is therefore not simply to increase competition or collaboration.
It is to design incentives so that units can protect their own economic viability while still contributing to a larger user outcome.
EMCs and shared value mechanisms are attempts to solve that tension rather than eliminate it.
Accountability can shorten the time horizon
Performance pressure creates discipline.
It can also create a bias towards opportunities with visible returns.
Some strategically important investments take longer to mature. Some capabilities create value across several units rather than producing a clean return inside one microenterprise.
That means the wider organisation still needs mechanisms for protecting investments that local unit economics might undervalue.
Decentralisation does not remove the need for strategic judgement. It changes where that judgement is required.
Coordination has not disappeared
Haier has removed significant hierarchical coordination.
It has not removed coordination itself.
Negotiation, contracting, relationship management, platform governance, data sharing and EMC formation all require effort.
The cost has changed form.
Some coordination work that once occurred inside management layers now happens through relationships between autonomous participants.
This is an important caution for organisations tempted by the idea of eliminating bureaucracy.
Removing a management layer does not remove the underlying interdependence between activities.
Something else must coordinate it.
Leadership becomes harder
Traditional hierarchy gives managers a powerful fallback mechanism.
They can decide.
A distributed organisation asks leaders to judge whether intervention will solve a problem or weaken the system’s ability to solve future problems itself.
That requires restraint as well as judgement.
Leaders also need to distinguish between a failure of an individual unit and a failure in the architecture around it.
The wrong response can easily recreate the centralisation the organisation was trying to escape.
Not everyone wants entrepreneurial responsibility
Another uncomfortable reality is that autonomy is not universally attractive.
Haier asks people to accept greater uncertainty, accountability and exposure to performance.
Some people will thrive under those conditions. Others will not.
Freedom becomes less comfortable when responsibility travels with it.
This is one reason RenDanHeYi should not be presented as a benign empowerment programme.
It gives people more room to act, but it also expects more from them.
Transfer across cultures requires adaptation
Haier Europe makes this especially clear.
European labour regulation, established compensation practices, trade unions and different expectations about employment made it impossible simply to reproduce the Chinese system.
The same balance between fixed and variable compensation could not be transferred directly. Haier Europe therefore had to find different ways to reinforce entrepreneurship and accountability.
Communication also became more important.
The philosophy needed to be translated into terms that people across different European cultures could understand and accept.
The implication is significant.
Principles travel more easily than practices.
An organisation can adopt the principle that authority should move closer to users without reproducing Haier’s exact compensation system.
It can adopt stronger accountability without copying Haier’s talent market.
It can use smaller entrepreneurial units without recreating the same legal structures.
Transfer therefore requires interpretation rather than imitation.
Cultural fit has consequences
Not everyone adapted.
Haier Europe replaced some employees with people considered more suited to an entrepreneurial way of working. It also used recruitment to bring in people more comfortable with ownership and initiative.
This exposes another side of the Haier culture.
Culture is not only about helping existing employees change.
It also influences who joins, who succeeds and who eventually leaves.
Haier took decades to build this system
Perhaps the greatest mistake would be to copy Haier’s visible structure while ignoring how long the system underneath it took to develop.
The central point is that structures such as microenterprises and EMCs are the visible surface of RenDanHeYi. Beneath them sit operating mechanisms, culture and purpose.
That matters.
- Copy microenterprises without accountability and fragmentation can follow.
- Copy internal markets without shared outcomes and competition can overwhelm collaboration.
- Remove management without redesigning information and decision rights and work simply becomes harder.
- Give people autonomy inside a culture that still rewards permission seeking and they will continue seeking permission.
Haier should therefore be understood as an interconnected management system rather than a collection of management practices.
What Leaders Can Learn From Haier
The value of Haier is not that other organisations should reproduce RenDanHeYi.
The value lies in what it reveals about the design of organisations.
Purpose must become a decision rule
Purpose matters when it helps people decide what to do without waiting for managerial instruction.
At Haier, user value plays that role.
A purpose statement that cannot influence resource allocation, priorities or behaviour cannot replace any part of hierarchy.
Authority, accountability and information must move together
- Giving teams responsibility without authority creates frustration.
- Giving teams authority without accountability creates risk.
- Giving teams both while withholding information makes good judgement impossible.
Haier’s system attempts to distribute all three.
That is what makes autonomy operational rather than symbolic.
Control does not disappear
A distributed organisation still needs discipline.
Haier shifts more control into goals, transparency, user feedback, contracts, incentives and economic consequences.
The useful question for leaders is therefore not whether control exists.
It is: Where does control sit, and does it measure activity or outcomes?
Strategic direction and strategic discovery can be separated
Leadership can establish direction, boundaries and demanding outcomes without assuming that it already knows every opportunity or solution.
People closer to users and technologies can then discover how those outcomes might be achieved.
Strategy becomes partly a process of sensing, selecting and mobilising rather than only planning.
Culture must be built into the operating system
- If collaboration matters, incentives must support it.
- If customer focus matters, information must reach the people able to act.
- If entrepreneurship matters, decision rights must change.
- If accountability matters, consequences must be visible.
- If adaptability matters, the organisation must keep challenging its own successes.
Culture becomes credible when everyday management mechanisms reinforce what leaders say matters.
Leadership must change before hierarchy can shrink
Fewer managers do not automatically create a more adaptive organisation.
Someone still needs to set direction, establish rules, protect shared assets, connect capabilities, resolve conflicts and preserve the wider customer outcome.
The leadership challenge becomes less about making every decision and more about creating a system capable of making good decisions without constant intervention.
From Human Autonomy to AI Enabled Orchestration
Haier began building this organisational architecture long before the current wave of generative and agentic AI.
That matters.
Many organisations are now introducing AI agents into structures still dominated by functional silos, fragmented information and long approval chains.
Haier starts from a different position.
It already has autonomous operating units, distributed decision making, shared platforms, direct user signals, visible performance and organisational mechanisms designed to coordinate activity around outcomes.
That creates an intriguing possibility.
AI does not simply make individual tasks faster inside Haier.
It could strengthen the connective tissue of an organisation already designed around distributed sensing, decisions, coordination and action.
AI can potentially help detect changes in user behaviour, connect information across microenterprises, identify emerging opportunities, coordinate resources and support decisions closer to where value is created.
But it may also change the balance between human autonomy and system control.
If Haier has spent decades asking how people can operate autonomously while remaining connected, AI introduces a new question.
What happens when autonomous digital agents become participants in that same organisational system?
That takes us to Part 6.
How does Haier harness AI inside an organisation already designed around autonomous units, platforms, ecosystems, data and customer outcomes?
References
Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012) ‘A stupidity-based theory of organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), pp. 1194–1220. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996) ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), pp. 1154–1184. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/256995.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Available at: Harvard Business School.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128–152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010) ‘How open is innovation?’, Research Policy, 39(6), pp. 699–709. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013.
Hamel, G. and Välikangas, L. (2003) ‘The quest for resilience’, Harvard Business Review, 81(9), pp. 52–63. Available at: Harvard Business Review.
Ocasio, W. (1997) ‘Towards an attention-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), pp. 187–206. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1%2B%3C187::AID-SMJ936%3E3.0.CO;2-K.
Volberda, H.W. and Lewin, A.Y. (2003) ‘Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution’, Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), pp. 2111–2136. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00414.x.
