Malcolm Webber, Ph.D.
What is “leadership” in China? As we will see, it is not necessarily the same as leadership in the Western world. This article will briefly discuss seven profound dimensions of difference.
According to the Western view, leadership deals with change. Western leadership teaching speaks of vision, transformation, influence, motivation, and challenging the status quo. There are essentially three parts to a Western definition of leadership: (1) the leader establishes the direction; (2) he aligns the people in that direction; and (3) he motivates and inspires them to move in that direction and to fulfill the vision.
This is the essence of leadership to a Westerner. Leadership involves movement. Fundamentally, the leader is a change agent. This is consistent with the Western view of man’s place in the world. When understanding and relating to the world around him, Western man starts with himself. Man is the center of the universe and he has been given the universe to understand and to conquer.
Harmony, however, is the foundation of Chinese culture. The Chinese wish ideally to live in harmony with the people and the world around them. Seeking corporate harmony thus becomes the primary leadership task. This pursuit is reflected in a Chinese idiom that speaks of “holding a bowl of water in balance.” This means the leadership responsibility is as delicate as balancing a bowl filled with water. The leader is expected to maintain harmony among his people; for example, by giving them equal attention and treatment – to show favoritism to any of them would be to spill the water.
Significantly, the Chinese term for leader is made up of two characters: “collar” and “sleeves.” The meaning of the metaphor is this: a tailor has made a good shirt with the right shape only as long as the collar and the sleeves are right. This is the nature of leadership in China: the leader’s role is to be in his own right place and then to help the whole group be in its right shape.
Thus, in China the leader is not so much a change agent as he is a social architect. His purpose is to maintain the various “social fabrics” within his organisation.
Of course, this is not to imply that the Chinese are always opposed to change any more than Westerners are always opposed to harmony. It is an issue of primary purpose, of conceptual framework – how the fundamental nature of leadership is understood.
This profound difference between worldviews is revealed in our art. A Western portrait of an individual will be dominated by that individual. Think of the Mona Lisa: we see her, with the rest of the world receding over her shoulder – vague, ill-defined and somewhat irrelevant. Now think of a classical Chinese painting: there are massive mountains, waterfalls, the sky, and … down in the corner, if you look closely, there is a little fisherman who has just caught a fish. This is the Confucian view – man’s purpose is to find his place in the vast scheme of things, and he needs to stay in his place, living in harmony with the world around him.
Thus, while the Western leader’s purpose is to challenge the status quo and bring change, the Chinese leader’s goal is to establish and maintain harmony. This is a fundamental and profound difference.
This helps explain why Western ideas of leadership can seem quite strange to the Chinese. It also explains why Westerners are much more willing to quickly give up counter-productive traditions than are their Chinese brethren, a fact that is puzzling and frustrating to Westerners.
Western culture is highly individualistic, emphasizing that the needs and goals of the individual and his immediate family are most important. Decisions are based on what benefits the person rather than the group. Collectivist cultures, as in China, emphasize group identity instead. Individuals do not function as independent agents but rather are defined and make decisions on the basis of their place and role in the larger community.
Westerners’ individualism has strongly influenced their idea of what a good leader looks like. To an American, a strong leader is like the “Marlboro Man” – alone, tough, independent. American leadership heroes in business, politics and the Church are those who stand out from the crowd and dare to be different.
In the West, creativity and innovation are encouraged and highly prized. However, in China, individual creativity and initiative threaten group cohesion and conformity.
Significantly, today’s leadership models, techniques and training approaches have almost exclusively been developed in individualistic countries and are based on cultural assumptions that may not be valid in a strongly collectivist culture such as China. For example, many Western leadership approaches emphasize rewards and recognition that honor individual effort, whereas people in collectivistic cultures are not comfortable with individual recognition and prefer group rewards instead.
Western leaders have a comparative strength in the area of conflict management. In China, argument and confrontation are to be avoided at all costs – everyone’s “face” must be saved, and social harmony preserved. Consequently, the typical Chinese response to conflict is to avoid it altogether and hope that it will go away. This often results in a superficial peace and unity that overlays deeper unresolved frustration and anger, even hostility.
Western leadership thought during the last few decades has emphasized empowerment: the effective leader “gives power away”; decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by the people who actually do the work.
By way of contrast, in a Chinese training school we asked the young people what they were going to do when they finished their studies. With excitement they all replied the same way, “Whatever our leaders tell us to do!” Their answers revealed a degree of submission to authority that is almost offensive to Americans.
In China, the individual is defined by hierarchy and role relationships. One’s status is clearly understood and one’s behavior must be guided by the principle of propriety – doing the proper things with the right people in the appropriate relationships. As a result, social harmony is threatened by individual initiative. This kind of thinking is hard for Westerners to comprehend. Westerners are taught in school to think independently and critically. The Chinese are taught to respect, submit to, and never question their various authorities.
Ironically, for each world – both East and West – the greatest strengths have become the greatest weaknesses. In the West, an overemphasis on individual rights has led to social (and church) disintegration. People have become isolated and lonely entities, searching for their own individual meanings and purposes, unable to submit to any authority or to any overarching unity outside of themselves. By contrast, in China the church movements often enjoy a high degree of unity but at the expense of individual vision and initiative. Today the Chinese church leaders desire, in their words, to “raise the quality of our co-workers.” In the face of the rapid and complicated social, political and economic changes China is experiencing, the church leaders know they need people who can think creatively and who will take responsibility to act without being told.
Can we learn from each other here? Clearly, for Westerners simply to teach empowerment and participative decision-making as “the right leadership methods” is not appropriate in China. Before Westerners are qualified to do “leadership training” in China, they first need to wrestle with how to balance the strengths of the Chinese traditional submission to the benevolent dictatorships above them with the strengths of the individual initiative and creativity with which Westerners are so endowed.
Westerners can be somewhat task oriented, and often enter relationships as a means to achieving certain goals. Americans, in particular, form partnerships more quickly, more superficially and hold to them less tightly. Their strength is that they enter relationships easily when they need those relationships, but their weakness is that they can leave them just as quickly.
The Chinese are slower to trust and to commit themselves to others (particularly foreigners) in a genuine friendship, and when they do, it’s at a deeper and more enduring level. Consequently, they cannot understand the ease with which Westerners disregard or even drop relationships. To the Chinese this seems capricious and disloyal.
The Chinese church leaders say, “If you want to help us, you must get to know us first. Come and spend time with us.” But the Westerner often doesn’t have time for that; he has too many projects to accomplish, too many visions to fulfill. With so much to conquer, who has time to build a relationship? The Chinese feels betrayed and rejected when what he thought of as a genuine friendship is treated so pragmatically and disregarded so easily.
On the other hand, Westerners get frustrated when the Chinese, for complicated social reasons, allow certain individuals to continue to occupy important leadership positions when they are performing very poorly.
Western-Chinese relationships have become quite complicated now for historical reasons. When the Chinese house churches began to build relationships with Westerners years ago, the Chinese leaders were very trusting. They were ready to build genuine relationships, recognizing that the Westerners were taking significant risks to come to help them. This quick readiness for such openness and deep commitment is rare even between the Chinese themselves, but because they trusted that the Westerners were coming in pure love, they deliberately abandoned their own normal “defenses.”
However, when mixed motivations in some of the Westerners began to be revealed, the attitudes of many of the Chinese leaders changed. Today, some leaders will close the door altogether to relationships with Westerners at the first sign of wrong motive – out of hurt, feeling used and betrayed. But many Chinese leaders will not entirely cut off a relationship out of respect and, more importantly, the desire to receive potential benefits from the relationship. Consequently, in these relationships, the Chinese try to maintain harmony with the Westerners at the expense of their own high expectations for purity of motivation. Very few Chinese leaders will ever stand up and say, “Hey, let’s sit down and put things straight.”
Consequently, it has become almost a part of church culture in China – when it comes to working with Westerners – to see how each side can get the most out of the other without creating any offense. Obviously, this needs to change on both sides. If Westerners can better understand this dynamic from the Chinese side, and also understand that on most occasions it is Westerners who initiate these relationships, then they can refine their purposes and approach the Chinese in more sincere and constructive ways that will work toward more genuine and enduring relationships.
Although threatened by a recent postmodern wave of relativism, Western principles of ethics find their roots in biblical standards of right and wrong. These standards are external to man, universal, and absolute in nature. When man violates these standards he is guilty of sinning against God.
Chinese philosophy also is deeply concerned with morality but from a different perspective. In the East, practical ethics flow from an attempt to balance yin (negative, dark, weak, passive) and yang (positive, bright, powerful, active). The well-known circular symbol gives man the assurance that there is a tenable balance between these two contradictory forces in the universe. In the Eastern mind, right and wrong constitute two complementary parts rather than opposing sides to morality; thus, “sin” does not have the same sense of moral wickedness as it does to the Westerner. For the Chinese, “sin” breaches the balance of harmony and therefore disturbs the peace of the whole. For the Chinese, such a breach causes not “guilt” against an absolute standard of right and wrong, but “shame” for having violated relational harmony. Consequently, ethics are more relational in nature and somewhat more subjective and utilitarian.[1]
The Eastern paradigm also supports a pluralism of beliefs and values. The Chinese have an ability to accept and embrace apparent paradoxes. Categories that Westerners would define as incompatible opposites may not be mutually exclusive to Chinese. Embracing one ideal does not necessarily dictate rejecting another – each is allowed to have its own merits, no matter how ambiguous or contradictory it may seem to outsiders. Thus, a Chinese may feel no sense of wrong-doing at having told a lie to make a guest feel comfortable. Furthermore, he may feel that the Western driver who feels bad for breaking a speed limit or running a red light is straining at a gnat.
This profoundly different view of ethics can result in Westerners viewing Chinese as immoral and double-minded people whose ethics are based more on temporal expediency than on moral standards. The Chinese, similarly, can see the Westerner as remote, impersonal and uncaring about the effects his actions have on others.
In regard to ethics, the East can learn from the West by embracing a biblical and absolute structure of right and wrong, and recognizing that all men have sinned against a holy God who judges the guilty. In addition, the Gospel of grace truly removes both guilt (toward God) and shame (toward man) from the repentant, in contrast to Chinese society which sometimes binds the offender in a state of shame from which he is never relieved.
On the other hand, the Westerner can also learn from the Chinese, by recognizing the social violation that his sin does, in fact, cause.
Western educational methods aim to teach the student to think for himself. Young people are taught to think critically and innovatively. It is more important to learn to think than to fill the head with facts. In Western classrooms there are many research assignments given with almost no rote learning. The role of the teacher is to facilitate the student’s own discoveries rather than to tell him what he ought to know. Young people are encouraged to ask questions, to reason for themselves, to express their doubts, to be creative, and to challenge each other’s views – including the teacher’s.
In Chinese hierarchical society, the teacher has a very high place. He is deeply respected and his teaching must not be questioned. The Chinese word for a teacher at any level, laoshi, is not merely a designation of function but a term signifying considerable respect and deference.
Moreover, the student is not encouraged to think for himself. His role is to memorize what he is taught and to repeat it back during examinations in as close a form as possible to the original. This helps explain why the Chinese do not have the same attitude toward plagiarism or even copyright laws as the Western world!
The following are the common tendencies of the Chinese classroom:
- speak on some aspects of their subject while expecting other aspects to be covered by assigned readings.
Once again, each culture’s strengths have become its own greatest weaknesses. The overemphasis on individual exploration in the West has led to functional illiteracy and vast ignorance.
On the other hand, Chinese students are excellent at memorization and thoroughly learn what they are taught; however, they may not know how to use it in the practical world. In addition, it is a great challenge to the Chinese to think critically or creatively, and to question the various norms around them.
Once again, we can learn from each other. Students in the Western educational system – including the world of biblical and theological training – would be greatly benefited by embracing more respect for their teachers’ authority and superior wisdom, along with a willingness to learn certain facts in a disciplined and accountable manner, while Chinese students can be taught how to think for themselves in ways that are positively critical and innovative.
Communication is such an important part of leadership that one scholarly model declares, “Leadership is communication.” In this area there are profound differences between the East and the West.
Westerners usually say what they mean. In China, communication is more subtle, non-verbal, implied, intuitive and indirect. The technical term for this communication style is “high context” since most of the information about the meaning of a message is contained in the context or setting. In “low context” cultures, such as most of the Western world, much more meaning is expressed by the actual words in the verbal message; communication is more direct.
The following are examples of exchanges that mark this divergence:
A.Chinese:Do you like this food? American:No, I don’t like it at all. It’s much too salty. B.American:Do you like this food? Chinese:It’s a little salty. Otherwise, it’s fine. C.Chinese:It’s time for me to leave now. American:Where are you going? Chinese:To Wang’s house; it’s about four kilometers away. (I hope he’ll offer me a ride.) American:(If he wants a ride, he’ll ask me.) See you tomorrow. Chinese:(If he wanted to give me a ride, he would have offered.) Sure. I’ll see you tomorrow.
As indirect as they are, it’s rare for a Chinese to say “no.” They have many other ways to do this: “we’ll study it”; “we’ll consider it”; “there are some difficulties.” When something is described as “inconvenient,” that means it is impossible. In addition, the Chinese will often rely on an intermediary in a conflicted situation in an attempt to avoid relational disruption. The Westerner, of course, usually has little trouble coming directly to the point and saying “no” or whatever else he thinks or feels.
This divergence frequently causes offense on both sides. The American sees the Chinese as insincere and untrustworthy because he “beats around the bush.” The Chinese is offended by the American’s apparent arrogance, rudeness, lack of deference to social propriety and harmony, and lack of concern for the relationship.
Moreover, there are many misunderstandings circulating in the Western missions community about the best ways to serve the Chinese Church. The following has happened many times: the Westerner goes to China and presents his agenda to the church leaders. The church leaders respond positively to the proposal for several reasons: (1) politeness and (2) pragmatism (any help is better than none). The Westerner goes home and announces, “This is the strategy the Chinese want. They are deeply committed to it.” In reality, they are not anywhere near as excited about it as the Westerner thinks.
So, how should Westerners teach leadership communication in China? Do they simply proclaim that honesty and directness are the defining marks of “healthy, transparent leadership”? Indeed, in view of all the above profound differences and others we have not mentioned, is it realistic for Westerners to even attempt in the first place to train leaders in China?
For many years, Chinese church leaders have requested help from outside ministries in the area of “leadership training.” In the face of such complex cultural differences in conceptions of the very nature of leadership, can Westerners actually help them? The answer is a qualified “yes.”
But, we must first realize that we need to learn from each other. The Westerner has as much to learn from his Chinese brother about leadership as he has to teach him. The Westerner can teach the Chinese about change, vision, strategic thinking and planning, accountability, conflict resolution, individual creativity and initiative, and cross-cultural ministry. The Chinese can teach the Westerner about friendship, loyalty, suffering, zeal, prayer, servanthood, discipline, submission, respect, unity and humility.
If we will purify our motives, and then pay the price and take the time to earn one another’s trust and build strong friendships, if we will each look beyond our own natural sense of cultural superiority, and if we will acknowledge that “the eye cannot say to the hand ‘I don’t need you!’” then we will soon realize that the profound differences we have mentioned are not contradictory but rather complementary. Together we can accomplish great things for the glory of the One who transcends human culture.
[1] This difference also explains why the Chinese do not share a Western view of human rights. In China “rights are not endowed by nature but depend on class status and are granted by leaders whose interpretation of society’s interest determines what rights can be given at any specific time and to whom. Rights given today can be taken away tomorrow in accordance with changing circumstances and a changing party line.” (Copper, John, et al., (1985). Human Rights in Post-Mao China. Boulder: Westview Press. p. 5.