« China's Crescendo | Main | The Changing Value of "Guanxi" »
March 21, 2005
Where Would You Like the Comma Placed, Sir?
Let’s continue our discussion of the manager in the Chinese enterprise, which I began in "Chinese Management -- Beyond Garbage In, Garbage Out."
Western Flights of Fancy
When I counsel western expatriate managers running businesses in China, I find a few predisposed to flights of fancy. They expect P.R.C. Chinese business managers, and other P.R.C. Chinese in positions of authority, to act benevolently towards their staff, as if the constructs of ancient Confucianism were practical management methods in the modern day.
Measure this against the reality and one will find it very far from the truth. In 20 years of involvement with Chinese companies, I have only met three Chinese nationals -- all elderly, whose formative years preceded the Liberation of 1949 -- who practiced a management style one might call benevolent. (And yet I have encountered many Taiwanese who practice a benign, generous and compassionate “fatherly” authority over their staff, with, in all cases, great success.)
One musn’t blame or ridicule these westerners – they have merely picked up on a fantastic thread running through the western imagination, one unfortunately propagated by academics, journalists and travelers who have known as little of every day Chinese life as non-specialists, with sparse exception. It is emblematic of the long and preciously held western consciousness about China that many still consider it exotic, mysterious, exciting.
The Authoritarian Style
P.R.C. Chinese management style is founded upon the premise that all good flows from the manager. Fear of loss – of job, prestige, income, self-respect – demands that staff placate the manager at all times, regardless of the demand.
“You are my salesman. On Saturday (our usual day off), you will wash my car.” Most Chinese staffers would readily agree, albeit grumbling in secret, to such a demand. Imagine the reaction from an American salesman! (Far more outrageous demands have been made, but I hesitate to include them here, for fear that the reader would not believe me.)
Some Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese adopt a similar management style, especially while managing in China. Even their demands exceed one’s usual tolerance for outrage.
As for whatever business problems that must be resolved during the course of the day, the PRC Chinese manager, with exception, of course, is often a micro-manager, causing surprisingly curious and even stammering reactions in staffers. One asked me, in timorous voice and bowing heartily, where I thought certain punctuation should be placed in a presentation I was to give. Only fear could have given rise to such a queer question, for the staffer was extremely intelligent.
But what is one to do, thinks the ordinary Chinese staffer?
So, What is Going On?
The usual explanation is population. There are far too many Chinese for too few employment slots. One in a position of authority can exploit the situation to his benefit.
But I think there is more going on than simply supply and demand.
The urban intellectuals -- Mao, for example, was briefly a librarian at Peking University; Zhou studied in Japan and France -- who formed the peasant-based Communist movement in the first half of this century consciously instituted a rigid discipline over them. One became subject to the exacting requirements of obedient thought and choreographed action in virtually all aspects of life.
That militarizing mode of behavior has served pervasively as the model over the past 50 years. Chinese decision-makers throughout society have been trained – well-trained -- to emulate the authoritarian command of the politically powerful. Concomitantly, those who serve have been trained to obey, with contempt redounding to their detriment.
A Change Coming?
But, as I wrote,
“…the role of the manager in a Chinese enterprise is in flux. The authoritarian style, while remaining the style of choice, shows fine cracks running up and down its facade.”
How has it changed? There is a new Sino-western combination of management styles: one that, while abjuring authoritarian command, allows one to maintain close supervision over staff.
Importantly, without sacrificing results, this style is a kind of carefully managed freedom that allows staffers to better utilize their skills and knowledge to resolve business problems for the benefit of themselves, the management and the business. I have used it with success.
More on this in a future post.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.asiabizblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/12
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where Would You Like the Comma Placed, Sir?:
» Daily linklets 22nd March from Simon World
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates. Scroll down for today's other posts. The New Blog Carnival is up at Jim's... [Read More]
Tracked on March 22, 2005 6:01 AM
Comments
On my one and only trip to China I met a young man at a conference in Shanghai. He was from Hong Kong but held a high position in a Chinese firm due to his IT expertise. He lamented that he had no real future with the company, though, because he said he could not be a member of the party. Even so, he was required to attend meetings, because his boss was the local party secretary. Until then, I did not understand the relationship between business and the party. Any insights on that subject?
EDITOR REPLY: How recently did this occur? Party membership by itself is no longer important in private enterprise. Political officers, whose job it was to bring ideological conformity to the management of the business, do not staff the highest echelons of these companies, as once they did. That said, many private enterprises have been thrown off by local government with management who are party members. But their membership in the party does not figure into their ascension in the management. Unless something else is going on. More detail on this situation would help -- for example, was it a state-owned enterprise? perhaps in a sensitive industry? etc. Rich
Posted by: Howard Drescher at March 21, 2005 8:19 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
