Culture and Gender in Leadership

Perspectives from the Middle East and Asia

J. Rajasekar, L. Beh, J. Rajasekar, L. Beh

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137311566
• eBook ISBN: 9781137311573
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The overall aim of this volume is to present the research studies carried out in the Middle East and Asia in the fields of culture and gender and their influence on leadership in particular. The cultures and practices of these geographical regions are very much varied and this book, Culture and Gender in Leadership: Perspectives from the Middle East and Asia, brings together analyses of these themes in selected countries of these two regions. The chapter authors use detailed descriptions, case studies and vignettes to speak to the cultural relativism and gender in leadership in these countries and provide a unique and comparative perspective drawn from their own cultures. This volume also contributes to the development of theory and empirical research found in these regions and through the collective efforts presented in this book, attempts to strengthen the body of knowledge and practice in the fields of culture and gender in leadership. As Asia is becoming the engine of economic growth for the world and Arab Spring is opening up new vistas in the Middle East, this book is a must read.

Section II

Culture

6

Organizational Leadership Decision Making in Asia: The Chinese Ways

Alexandre A. Bachkirov

Introduction

Decision making constitutes the essence of leadership. Whether it is related to strategy formulation, corporate policies on sustainability, a product range review, a budget approval, or the agenda of a meeting, the leader’s role is fundamentally about making decisions. The outcomes of good leadership decisions are numerous and important: strong follower commitment, smooth teamwork, strong employee motivation and job satisfaction, enhanced performance, sustained competitive advantage and, ultimately, superior value creation for customers and shareholders. Not surprisingly, organizational decision processes in general have been persistently investigated and discussed (Bazerman & Moore, 2008; Beach & Connolly, 2005; Shapira, 1997), and decision making as the primary leadership activity has been continuously emphasized (Kotter, 1990; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998; Yukl, 2002). As a distinct research domain, leadership decision making has remained in the focus of scholarly attention for decades (Aldag, 2012; Guerra-Lopez & Blake, 2011; Lipshitz & Mann, 2005; Paul & Ebadi, 1989; Simon, 1997; Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Westaby, Probst & Lee, 2010).

In organizational science, decision making is defined in many ways. The definitions range from very concise, such as “a commitment to action” (Mintzberg, 1983:188), to more extended, such as “a moment, in an ongoing process of evaluating alternatives for meeting an objective, at which expectations about a particular course of action impel the decision maker to select that course of action most likely to result in attaining the object” (Harrison, 1995:4). For our purposes, leadership decision making is defined as a cognitive-emotional activity involving information processing, which leads to the selection of, and a commitment to, a course of action aimed at achieving desirable organizational outcomes. This definition will focus the discussion presented in this chapter.

One direction in recent decision research stands out as being particularly critical for leadership theory and practice at the beginning of the 21st century: the impact of national cultures on decision making. The assumption that decision making has characteristics that are universal across national cultures has proved to be unsustainable (Peterson, Miranda, Smith & Haskell, 2003). There is now ample and growing evidence to suggest that national cultures cause significant dissimilarities in this cognitive process (Atran, Medin & Ross, 2005; Brooks, 1994; Carr & Harris, 2004; Chu, Spires & Sueyoshi, 1999; Güss & Dörner, 2011; Rouzies, Segalla & Weitz, 2003; Schramm-Nielsen, 2001; Tse, Lee, Vertinsky & Wehrung, 1988).

While Chinese decision making has already received some research attention (Yates & Lee, 1996), the focus on Chinese organizational decision making is motivated by the country’s growing global presence (Arora & Vamvakidis, 2011). An understanding of how Chinese organizational leaders arrive at a choice is increasingly becoming a matter of strategic wisdom (Olson, Bao & Parayitam, 2007). This chapter takes stock of what has been achieved in the field so far and is organized as follows. To set the scene, the sources of Chinese culture are briefly reviewed, and the aspects which are most relevant to organizational leadership are emphasized. An important consequence of the Chinese cultural tradition is a paternalistic leadership style, which is discussed next. After that, a description of the general thinking pattern of Chinese decision makers is presented, and the research on decision modes is reviewed. This is followed by an examination of specific types of leadership decision. First, stock market decisions, risk perceptions, and risk preferences of Chinese decision makers are described, and their implications for leadership decision making are discussed. Then compensation decisions by Chinese organizational leaders are examined, given the critical role which reward allocation decisions play in employee motivation and, ultimately, in organizational performance. Finally, the effects of Chinese national culture on the ethical dimensions of leadership decision making are described. The chapter concludes with a sketch of the Chinese organizational decision maker, and emphasizes the need for clear and accurate contextualization of future research.

Chinese culture

Chinese culture is a complex amalgam of diverse traditions, and this complexity is evident at various levels. Historically the Chinese cultural landscape has been formed by Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Legalism, and the Art of War (Pan, Rowney & Peterson, 2011). By and large, the teachings of Confucius are a major component of Chinese culture structure. The core of this worldview comprises a set of moral virtues – for example, societal harmony and stability through a hierarchy of unequal social relationships, dedication to collective interests, filial piety, respect, humanness, reciprocity, and long-term orientation¹ (Hill, 2006; Ip, 2009; Xing, 1995). Leaders embracing Confucian tradition would be expected to promote group harmony, teamwork, and concern for followers. They would also exhibit a self-sacrificial attitude, build cordial relationships, and execute the leadership authority with kindness (Rarick, 2009). Another major Chinese cultural tradition is Taoism. This is based on the belief that the universe is ruled by two equally powerful forces, yin and yang, which are also manifested in human societies and organizations (Bai & Roberts, 2011; Fang, 2010). When these forces are in a harmonious balance, goodness ensues; if the balance is broken, evil surges (Rarick, 2009). Therefore, Taoist leaders who would have such traits as flexibility and humility would embrace multiple perspectives when making decisions, seek consensus in conflict situations, avoid actively exerting influence on followers and would generally keep a low profile (Johnson, 2000). Following a recent study by Pan et al. (2011), who conducted an analysis of the structure of Chinese culture, it can be reasonably assumed that the decisions of Chinese organizational leaders would reflect such cultural values as harmony, hierarchy, and reciprocity (Confucianism); simplicity and non-strife (Taoism); mercy and restraint (Buddhism); keeping potential, manipulation, and concealing weakness (Legalism); planning, strategizing, non-fight, and deceit (Art of War). It must be strongly emphasized that because of a diverse cultural heritage, some native Chinese can be expected to be influenced by one particular tradition, whereas others will follow a different set of principles (Pan et al., 2011).

Modern oriental Chinese societies

Geographically, modern oriental Chinese societies include the People’s Republic of China (PRC), also known as mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The historically recent influences experienced by these societies have been diverse (Li, Fu, Chow & Peng, 2002), which has resulted in a certain differentness between their modern cultures. Because cross-national studies, including those on leadership and decision-making, have been conducted with Chinese participants of different cultural origins, it is helpful briefly to review the salient characteristics of modern oriental Chinese societies.

The People’s Republic of China

In the second half of the 20th century, the PRC experienced the powerful economic and political influence of the former USSR. Chinese cultural heritage suffered a devastating blow during a series of statesponsored initiatives, including the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). The Marxist-Leninist ideology of Mao Zedong (Ladany, 1988), Maoism, attempted to remove Confucianism by indoctrinating people with the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party and to create a society based on the principles of collective ownership and collective identity, conformity, self-sacrifice in favour of the state’s interests, and complete social equality with no class distinctions (Vohra, 2000). The societal reality into which this ideology materialized was a highly centralized command and control system stimulating the survivalist pursuit of personal bureaucratic power (Inglehart, 1997).

Economic revival, which started in 1978, has turned the PRC into a global trade player and has caused deep sociocultural changes. Despite the decades of supremacy of Maoist ideology, the country is now described as “network capitalism” (Boisot & Child, 1996), with a unique blend of revived Confucian values (Ip, 2009), and growing materialistic and individualistic trends in thinking, attitudes, and behaviours among the younger population (Rosen, 1990). This observation was confirmed by Fang (2010), who noted that in the PRC, traditional values coexist with their recently emerging opposites – for example, family/group orientation and individualization, aversion to the law and respect for legal practices, importance of face and directness, age/hierarchy and competence. From an organizational perspective, the most important perceived goals of business leaders in the PRC include respecting ethical norms, being a patriot, power, honour, reputation (face), and responsibility, whereas the least important goals, among others, are personal wealth and staying within the law (Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, Charles & the Business Goals Network, 2002). A recent study (Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina & Nicholson, 1997) across the four classic cultural dimensions found that business professionals in the PRC score high on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity, but score below the mean on individualism – that is, they can be considered a collectivistic society.² In management contexts specifically, it was shown that

organizational leaders in the PRC have comparatively lower tolerance of uncertainty (Cragin, 1986; Leong, Bond & Fu, 2006), rely heavily on rules, procedures, colleagues, and subordinates (Smith, Peterson & Wang, 1996), are status conscious, and have pronounced autocratic tendencies (Li et al., 2002). At the same time, Wang (2011), revealing the changing nature of organizational leadership in the PRC, found that the new Chinese are “supportive, caring, engaging, self-disciplined, unselfish, responsible, and knowledgeable” (p. 16) and involve subordinates in decision-making processes rather than simply exercising power and control.

Taiwan

In contrast to the PRC, in contemporary Taiwan, which was deeply impacted by the Japanese and the Americans, the societally sanctioned cultural values encompass progressiveness, democratic attitude, self-reliance, and independence (Yang, 1991). It was also demonstrated that Taiwanese leaders are highly diplomatic and procedural (Li et al., 2002), and that Taiwanese entrepreneurs score lower levels of uncertainty avoidance and power distance in comparison with the respondents from the PRC (McGrath, Macmillan, Yang & Tsai, 1992).

Hong Kong

The economic and sociocultural environment of this society was shaped by more than 150 years of British rule, which promoted an entrepreneurial spirit, a proactive and self-reliant stance, and risk-taking behaviours. However, living “in a borrowed place and on borrowed time” (Hughes, 1968) encouraged a preference for short-term orientation. An analysis of data obtained from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project (House et al., 1999) revealed further variations in leaders’ characteristics in modern oriental Chinese societies – for example, organizational leaders in Hong Kong were found to be highly autonomous whereas in the PRC and Taiwan they tend to value collectivism, and they have pronounced and collaborative team orientation.

Such heterogeneity of cultural roots and leadership behaviour profiles could make it challenging to identify factors shaping the “Chinese ways” of making decisions in organizations. Yet despite the noted dissimilarities, modern oriental Chinese societies do possess a number of important cultural commonalities. To begin with, a deeply rooted Chinese notion of guanxi – the practice of developing networks and maintaining personal connections in order to secure reciprocal exchange of favours in personal, organizational, or business relationships (Fan, Woodbine & Scully, 2012; Park & Luo, 2001; Yen, Barnes & Wang, 2011) – is probably a common underlying cultural phenomenon for all Chinese societies. According to Yen, Barnes, & Wang (2011), the quality of guanxi is measured by the related concepts of ganqing (emotional connectedness, the sharing of feelings, social bonding, loyalty), renqing (empathy, reciprocity-based obligation, and an ongoing exchange of favours), and xinren (trust, confidence in and dependence on an associate). An important organizational implication of guanxi is that it can make it difficult to identify one sole “real” decision maker. As Davies, Leung, Luk, & Wong (1995) suggested, this is because, in all probability, the actual decision maker is the guanxi network itself.

Within the Western conceptual frameworks, Chinese culture has been demonstrated to be high in power distance and in collectivism (Bond, 1996; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Cragin, 1986; Hofstede, 2007; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Schwartz, 1994). In addition, paternalism, personalism, and insecurity/defensiveness (Redding & Hsiao, 1990) constitute another set of common underlying cultural aspects. Here, paternalism is conceptualized as a social force which maintains order in a society through basic societal units like families rather than a legislative system and law-enforcing institutions. Personalism is based on mutual interpersonal obligations and entails establishing, developing, and maintaining connections for the purposes of everyday transactions. Finally, insecurity/defensiveness, as a cultural pattern, is said to stem from the age-old exploitative nature of Chinese social structures. In terms of leadership behaviours, the GLOBE project data revealed important similarities in leadership styles across the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: some of the most preferred leadership characteristics were shown to be performance orientation, administrative competence, decisiveness, and integrity, while some of the common least preferred leadership characteristics include being malevolent and self-centred (Li et al., 2002). These characteristics shared by the Chinese of diverse cultural backgrounds encourage the quest to find the essence of Chinese organizational decision making. Therefore, in order to avoid a reductionist approach, it is judicious to consider empirical findings generated by research in all modern oriental Chinese societies.

Chinese personality

This introductory discussion would not be complete without brief reference to Chinese personality. While there is an association between cultural dimensions and personality traits, the debate about the causal direction of this relationship has not been settled. One stance suggests that culture explains personality; the opposite viewpoint maintains that culture is a product of personality structure – that is, aggregates of nation-level personality traits (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Without taking either side in this debate, it is worth acknowledging a growing body of relevant work. For instance, Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martinez (2007) discovered that, out of ten world regions, East Asians score the lowest on extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, while they score the highest on neuroticism. As regards the Chinese personality specifically, Dong & Liu (2010), summarizing previous research, noted that the Chinese score high on straightforwardness, compliance, dogmatism, and external locus of control, but they score low on altruism and Machiavellianism. An additional Chinese personality trait which has not been captured by models developed in the West is interpersonal relatedness (Cheung, Leung, Zhang, Sun, Gan, Song & Xie, 2001).

An important organizational consequence of the Chinese cultural tradition is the paternalistic leadership style (Aycan, 2006; Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang & Farh, 2004; Farh & Cheng, 2000; Redding, 1990; Silin, 1976; Westwood, 1997). The characteristics of Chinese organizational paternalism and its consequences for leadership decision making are discussed next.

Paternalistic leadership

The roots of Chinese paternalistic leadership can be traced back to Confucian philosophy (Kao, Sek-Hong & Kwan, 1990). A comprehensive model of this concept was developed by Westwood (1997) and included three components: general structural context (centralization, low/selective formalization, and non-complexity), general relational context (harmony-building, relationship maintenance, and moral leadership), and personalism. These are crystallized into specific stylistic elements: didactic leadership, non-specific intentions, reputation-building, protection of dominance, political manipulation, patronage and nepotism, conflict diffusion, aloofness and social distance, and dialogue ideal. More rece...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction and Overview
• Section I Leadership
• Section II Culture
• Section III Gender and Leadership
• Index