Confucian Leadership

In China this week I gave a lecture at a Chinese multinational company about the similarities and differences between Chinese culture and French culture. Referencing Hofstede’s work, the similarity is to be found in the high “power distance” (PD) where both national cultures expect and accept that power will be distributed unequally. The difference is to be found in the dimension of uncertainty avoidance (UAI): the French national culture exhibits high uncertainty avoidance whereas the Chinese national culture appears to be comfortable with ambiguity. Combining these two national cultural dimensions can then be correlated with Mintzberg’s organisational types of “Clan” (or "family" being high PD and low UAI) and “Hierarchy” (or "pyramid" being high PD and low UAI).

The organisational cultures typically found in both national cultures tend to result in the organisation having a “strong” hierarchy of one sort or another; however how do the hierarchies work in their respective cultures and why might they be different? I was therefore very interested to attend a lecture by Barbara Xiaoyu Wang about leadership in China. Drawing on her book (written with Harold Chee), “Chinese Leadership”, 2011, Palgrave MacMillan, Barbara proposes five different leadership theories that are prevalent in China. One of those theories is based on Confucianism.

Here’s a synthesis of that leadership theory and further implications (“et alors”).

Confucian Leadership

Confucian organisations are very hierarchical and to cite Confucius himself, “if you are not in a certain position, you do not concern yourself with matters concerning that position”. Beyond this principal attitude, the hierarchy only “works” if the “rulers” are benevolent.

Rén (benevolence)

A leader should not be a leader if he or she is not rén (benevolent). To excel in this benevolence, the leader needs to be:

·         Capable of constant learning (self-awareness, self-control and self-development)

·         Assertive but not aggressive in conflict

·         Fair, just, responsible and act with integrity

·         Trustworthy, kind, respectful and modest

·         Empathetic with everyone, and loyal to superiors

Golden Mean

Confucius believed that the “golden mean” (never being too much or too little) was the best way to lead an organization. The leader should therefore find a balance between:

·         Being yourself and collaborating with others without compromising your values

·         Establishing a “guanxi” (a powerful network) without abusing it for personal gain

·         Being flexible and adapting to change without losing direction or focus

·         Being astute and adapting style to circumstances without changing just to suit superiors

·         Managing conflict impartially without political maneuvering

Harmony

Putting the above into practice means that the optimal state for any organisation should be “harmony”. Moderation and congruence can be found through a:

·         Focus on training and personal development

·         Strong sense of ethics (to the point of not needing formal regulations per se)

·         Hierarchy that everyone understands and accepts

·         Leadership style which is benevolent and finds a “golden mean”

·         Organisational style where all employees are “family”

Et alors?

To some extent, the above leadership proposal could support the idea of Mintzberg’s “clan” organisation. The key part is the “strategic apex” and for this to “work” it is assumed that the leader has to be benevolent otherwise the organisational type might move from a “family” to a tyranny. Similarly, the working mechanism proposed for this type is “direct supervision” which fits with the idea of a hierarchy that everyone understands and accepts. This is in contrast to the “pyramid” organisation where against a background of uncertainty avoidance the “technostructure” becomes the key part and the working mechanism becomes the “standardisation of work processes”.

Does this mean that “pyramid” organisational types lack “harmony”? Potentially yes, when viewed from a Confucian leadership perspective. With the power concentrated in the technostructure and impersonal “work processes” being the key there is likely to be a “depersonalisation” of the organisation (such as less “constant learning” and “empathy”). However, it must be emphasised that no one culture is better or worse than any other culture. In particular, the key point regarding how national cultures can influence organisational cultures is that even if a multinational organisation purports to have one single “organisational” culture which is applicable worldwide, the national cultures will still have a very strong impact on the interpretation of that organisational culture in different locations. The challenge is to connect across those different cultures at each and every frontier; however that connection becomes easier with greater understanding.