The Chinese Concepts of Guanxi, Mianzi, Renqing and ... - ANZMAC

The Chinese Concepts of Guanxi, Mianzi, Renqing and Bao: Their Interrelationships
and Implications for International Business
Alvin M. Chan, University of Western Sydney
Abstract
While the study of the emic (cultural-specific) Chinese concepts of guanxi (relation), mianzi
(prestige face), renqing (favour) and bao (reciprocity) is not new, there were very few studies
on the interrelationships of these concepts. This paper looks at the literal and connotative
meanings of these indigenous concepts and discusses the interrelationships of these concepts
and their implications for international marketers doing business with the Chinese in China as
well as in other countries. Analogies can also be extended to other collectivist cultures
whereas the interdependent-self is more emphasised than the independent-self in society.
Introduction
Read any “handbook” or “guidebook” on how to do business with China or the Chinese and it
is not difficult to identity that guanxi (relation), mianzi (prestige face) and renqing (favour)
are arguably the three most important issues mentioned (e.g., see Ambler and Witzel, 2004;
Crombie, 2005; Pecotich and Shultz II, 2006). And, the “art” of practicing these concepts is
manifested in the behaviour of gift-giving in anticipation of reciprocative paybacks (bao) in
order to maintain a harmonious long-term relationship (Chan, Denton and Tsang, 2003). To
the very extreme, this may even result in unethical behaviours like bribery, etc. (e.g., see
Millington, Eberhardt and Wilkinson, 2005).
In the social science and business literature, there are numerous studies on the conceptual and
practical significance of the Chinese concepts of guanxi, mianzi, renqing and bao (e.g., see
Bond, 1996; Fang, 1999; Yang, 1989), however, there were very few studies on the
interweaving relationships among these concepts with probably the only exception of Hwang
(1987).
In the following, we will firstly discuss the literal and connotative meanings of the Chinese
concepts of guanxi, mianzi, renqing and bao. We will then explain the Hwang (1987) “faceand-favour”
model of resource allocation in depicting the interrelationships among these
concepts. Lastly, we will discuss the implications of the Hwang (1987) conceptual framework
for international marketers doing business with the Chinese and other collectivist cultures.
The Chinese Concept of Guanxi
The Chinese phrase "guanxi" is made up of two characters. Apart from the meaning of
“relation”, the Chinese character "guan" also means a gate or a hurdle, and "xi" refers to a tie,
a relationship, or a connection. So guanxi literally means "pass the gate and get connected"
(Lee and Dawes, 2005). The concept of guanxi refers to interpersonal relationships or
connections in almost every realm of life in the Chinese culture, from kinship to friendship
and from politics to business. The Chinese concept of guanxi differs from the Western
concept of networking in that the latter is typically impersonal and mostly at the
organisational level. However, favour exchanges amongst members of the guanxi network are

not solely commercial, but also social, involving the exchange of renqing and the giving of
mianzi (Luo, 1997b).
Yang (1992) distinguished three groups of Chinese relationships: (1) jiajen (family members),
shoujen (relatives outside the family, friends, neighbours, classmates, and colleagues), and
shengjen (strangers). These distinctions are consistent with Hwang’s (1987) conception of the
three major guanxi categories in Chinese societies.
Chang and Holt (1991) identified four common methods that one might establish guanxi with
another: (1) appealing to kin relations; (2) pointing to a previous association; (3) using ingroup
connections or mediators; or (4) social interaction requiring social skills such as the
ability to play the “renqing (favour) game”.
Empirical evidence suggested that guanxi-based business variables have profound and
positive impacts on the efficiency and growth of companies doing business in China (e.g., see
Luo, 1997a; Luo and Chen, 1997; So and Speece, 2000).
The Chinese Concept of Mianzi
While it is argued that face behaviour is universal, the concept of face is Chinese in origin and
is a literal translation of the Chinse terms of mianzi and lian (Goffman, 1955; Ho, 1976). Hu
(1944, p. 45-46) made very clear distinctions between the two Chinese words for “face”: lien
(or lian) and mien (or mian):
“Of the two words for ‘face’: lien and mien, the latter is by far the older, being found
in ancient literature. Mien has acquired a figurative meaning referring to the relation
between ego and society as early as the fourth century B.C. Lien is a more modern
term, the earliest reference cited in the K’ang-hsi Dictionary dating from the Yuan
Dynasty (1277-1367). This word seems to have originated somewhere in North China
and gradually to have supplanted mien in the physical sense, and also to have acquired
some of its figurative meaning. Meanwhile, mien, with the meaningless syllable –tzu
(zi) attached, had developed different connotations”.
On the physical level, both lian and mian(zi) mean the physical “face”. On the connotative
level, mianzi stands for the kind of prestige or reputation achieved through getting on in life,
through success and ostentation; mianzi is accumulated by means of personal effort or clever
maneuvering. Mianzi is therefore a kind of recognition ego dependent on the external
environment. Lian is the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation; it
represents the confidence of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which
makes it impossible for a person to function properly within the community. Lian is therefore
both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and an internalised sanction (Hu, 1944).
Hu (1944) indicated that the Western concept of “face” corresponds to the Chinese mianzi but
is lacking in the connotation of lian.
The loss of mianzi simply means that a person does not deserve the honour or glory.
However, a sense of self-blame or shame is association with the loss of lian as a result of
wrong-doing regardless of the presence of an audience (Bond and Hwang, 1986). The
importance of lian in day to day life of the Chinese is reflected in the old saying: “Every
person needs lian; every tree needs bark.” As Hu (1994, p. 63) put it, “A person with a feeling
for lien can be trusted implicitly, for lien is worth more than a fortune to those who value it.”

Redding and Ng (1982) also found that the fear of losing lian formed the basis for the
informal system of contracts and agreements that is common in Chinese businesses, but
mianzi entered much more into everyday transactions as a form of social currency.
Results of an online survey conducted by the Sina Corporation (1998), one of China’s largest
Internet Service Provides, on Chinese respondents’ attitudes towards mianzi indicated that of
the 1235 responses, 83.2 % thought that in Chinese social interactions, mianzi is “very
important” and 12.1% thought that it is “somewhat important” (2.7% “not important” and
1.9% “no opinion”). When asked their opinions towards mianzi as a cultural phenomenon,
although 27.8% agreed that “it is a cultural rubbish and should be thrown away”, more that
half of the respondents (52.0%) suggested that “it is neither good nor bad; it is useful anyway”
and some 15.7% of the respondents actually thought that “it is very good; good for
communication with others”; a small percentage (4.8%) of the respondents thought that “have
or do not have mianzi does not matter”.
The above survey results do not just indicate the importance of mianzi in the Chinese culture;
they also reflect the interdependence of the concepts of mianzi and guanxi in social and
business interactions in Chinese societies. However, it must be pointed out that mianzi is a
necessary, but insufficient, condition to build guanxi in China.
The Chinese Concepts of Renqing and Bao
The Chinese character “ren” literally means “a person or a human being” and “qing” literally
means “emotion or feeling”. The concept of renqing has three implications in the Chinese
culture: (1) renqing indicates the affective responses of an individual confronting different
situations; (2) renqing means a resource that an individual can present to another as a gift in
the course of social interaction; and (3) renqing connotes the social norms by which one has
to abide in order to get along well with other people (Gabrenya, Jr. and Hwang, 1996).
The Chinese concept of “bao” is inseparable from the concept of “renqing” as reflected in the
old Chinese saying that “(repaying) renqing is more pressing than that of (repaying) debt”.
Yang (1957) elaborated extensively on how the concept of bao works in the Chinese culture:
“The Chinese believe that reciprocity of action (favor and hatred, reward and
punishment) between man and man, and indeed between men and supernatural beings,
should be as certain as a cause and effect relationship, and, therefore, when a Chinese
acts, he normally anticipates a response on return.” (Yang, 1957, p. 291)
The Chinese concept of bao differs from the Western concept of reciprocity in that the units
involved in the Chinese concept of bao are mostly families, not individuals. I.e., the return of
renqing does not have to be directed towards the original giver; it can be directed towards
other family members or even close acquaintances (Yang, 1989).
The Interrelationships among Guanxi, Mianzi, Renqing and Bao
Based on social exchange theory, Hwang (1987) developed a conceptual “face-and-favour”
model of resource allocation for fathoming the dynamic relationships among the Chinese
concepts of guanxi, mianzi, renqing and bao (see Figure 1).

This simplified dyadic interaction between the “petitioner” and the resources “allocator”
depicted in Figure 1 can be extended to interpret the interactions among more people. In the
interaction process, the two parties may interchangeably play the role of petitioner and
allocator at different times.
Figure 1: A Theoretical Model of Face and Favour in Chinese Society
Source: Hwang (1987, p. 948)
Justice theories suggested that there are three justice norms that are used for social exchange
for distributing resources within groups: (1) the equity rule which dictates that resources be
distributed in proportion to individuals’ contributions; (2) the equality rule which dictates that
resources be distributed equally among members regardless of their objective contributions;
and (3) the need rule which dictates that resources be distributed to satisfy individuals’
legitimate needs regardless of their relative contributions (Hwang, 1987).
When the resource allocator is asked to mete out a social resource to benefit the petitioner, he
or she will first consider: “What is the guanxi between us? How strong is our guanxi?”
Hwang (1987) divided relationships into three categories which correspond with the three
types of Chinese relationships identified by Yang (1992): Expressive ties are common within
the jiajen relation (family members) and involves exchanges based primarily on need. The
instrumental ties are based largely on equity principles and are most common within the
shengjen relations (strangers). The mixed ties are based on influence and are common within
the shoujen relationship (relatives outside the family, friends, neighbours, classmates, and
colleagues) (Kwang, 1987; Yang, 1992).
Hwang (1987) argued that renqing is a variant of the universal equality rule and is much more
elaborated and more tightly bound up with concept of bao. The principle of renqing is not
only a normative standard for regulating social exchange but also a social mechanism that an
individual can use to strive for desirable resources within hierarchically structure relationships
while at the same time maintaining harmony and social order. The current outcome in the
application of the renqing rule becomes input to the evaluation of future guanxi relationships.
Concepts and behaviours similar to renqing can also be found in other collectivist societies

like the concept of on in the Japanese culture (Lebra, 1969) and the concept of chemyeon in
the Korean culture (Choi and Kim, 2004).
In Chinese society, and similar collectivist societies, norms of reciprocity (bao) are intense,
and these norms are heavily shaped by hierarchically structured network of social relations
(guanxi) in which people are embedded, by the public nature of obligation, and by the long
time period over which obligations are incurred through a self-conscious manipulation of face
(mianzi) and related symbols.
Conclusions
The implications that can be drawn from the Hwang (1987) “face-and-favour” framework are
that mianzi and renqing represent some kinds of social capital or resources in interpersonal
interactions in Chinese society. To develop renqing is a precondition for the establishment
and development of guanxi. The degree of renqing that two parties enjoy determines the
strength of guanxi between them. The Chinese use different social exchange rules when
dealing with “in-group” versus “out-group” relationships. It is of paramount importance for
international marketers flocking into the lucrative China market to understand how to play the
face (mianzi)-and-favour (renqing) game in their interactions with their Chinese counterparts
to foster long-term relationship (guanxi) which often extends from an instrumental tie to an
expressive tie in building wider social and business networks.
Leung and Chan (2003) demonstrated how the Hwang (1987) framework can provide
guidance for foreign negotiators to use “face work” as a cultural strategy to negotiate through
the complex business network in China. It will be interesting to see future research attempting
to quantify the relationships between the concepts in the Hwang (1987) framework. Future
research should also take into consideration the dynamic relationship between guanxi and the
Chinese concept of xinyong (personal trust). Xinyong literally means the use or usefulness of
trust. At a general level, xinyong refers to the integrity, credibility, trustworthiness, or the
reputation and character of a person. In business, xinyong usually refers to a person’s credit
rating. Good guanxi fosters the development of reliable xinyong (Leung et al., 2005; Tong and
Yong, 1998).
Analogies can also be drawn between the Chinese and other collectivist cultures which share
similar emphasis on the interdependent-self rather than the independent-self (Markus and
Kitayama, 1991). Experiences that Western companies gained from playing the face-andfavour
game in the Chinese cultural context can be used when doing business with other
collectivist cultures like Japan and Korea, vice versa.
Footnote
The transliteration system used in this paper for the Chinese terms guanxi, mianzi, lian,
renqing and bao are based on the pinyin system which follows the Beijing pronunciation of
standard Northern Chinese. In the Wade-Giles system, these five terms would be
transliterated as kuan-his, mian-tze, lien, jen-chi’ing, and pao, respectively. Other Chinese
terms mentioned in the paper follows the transliteration system adopted in the original source.

References
Ambler, T., Witzel, M., 2004. Doing Business in China. 2 nd Edition. London: Routledge.
Bond, M.H. (Ed.), 1996. The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.
Bond, M.H., Hwang, K.K., 1986. The Social Psychology of Chinese People. In Bond, M.H.
(Ed.), The Psychology of the Chinese People. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 213-66.
Chan, A.K.K., Deton, L.(T.), Tsang, A.S.L., 2003. The Art of Gift Giving in China. Business
Horizons July-August, 47-52.
Chang, H., Holt. G.R., 1991. More Than Relationship: Chinese Interpersonal Relationships.
In Ting-Toomey, S., Korzenny, F., (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 28-57.
Choi, S.C., Kim, K., 2004. Chemyeon – Social Face in Korean Culture. Korea Journal 44 (2,
Summer), 30-51.
Crombie, G., 2005. The Way of the Dragon: A Guide for Australians Doing Business in
China. Milton, Qld: Wrightbooks.
Fang, T., 1999. Chinese Business Negotiating Style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gabrenya, Jr., W. K., Hwang, K.K., 1996. Chinese Social Interaction: Harmony and
Hierarchy on the Good Earth. In Bond, M.H. (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology.
Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 309-321.
Goffman, E., 1955. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.
Psychiatry 18 (August), 213-231.
Ho, D.Y.F., 1976. On the Concept of Face. The American Journal of Sociology 81 (4), 867-
884.
Hu, H.C., 1944. The Chinese Concepts of “Face”. American Anthropologist 46 (1, Part 1),
45-64.
Hwang, K.K., 1987. Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game. American Journal of
Sociology 92 (4), 944-974.
Lebra, T.S., 1969. Reciprocity and the Asymmetric Principle: An Analytical Reappraisal of
the Japanese Concept of On. Psychologia 12, 129-138.
Lee, D.Y., Dawes, P.L., 2005. Guanxi, Trust, and Long-Term Orientation in Chinese Business
Markets. Journal of International Marketing 13(2), 28-56.
Leung, T.K.P., Chan R.Y.K, 2003. Face, Favour and Positioning – A Chinese Power Game.
European Journal of Marketing 37(11/12), 1575-1598.

Leung, T.K.P., Lai, K.H, Chan, R.Y.K., Wong, Y.H., 2005. The Roles of Xinyong and Guanxi
in Chinese Relationship Marketing 39(5/6), 528-559.
Luo, Y., 1997a. Guanxi and Performance of Foreign-Invested Enterprises in China: An
Empirical Inquiry. Management International Review 37(1), 51-70.
Luo, Y., 1997b. Guanxi: Principles, Philosophies, and Implications. Human Systems
Management 16(1), 43-51.
Luo, Y., Chen, M., 1997. Does Guanxi Influence Firm Performance? Asia Pacific Journal of
Management 14, 1-16.
Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion,
and Motivation. Psychological Review 98, 224-153.
Millington, A., Eberhardt, M. Wilkinson, B., 2005. Gift Giving, Guanxi and Illicit Payments
in Buyer-Supplier Relations in China: Analysing the Experience of UK Companies. Journal of
Business Ethics 57, 255-268.
Pecotich, A., Shultz II, C.J (Eds)., 2006. Handbook of Markets and Economies: East Asia,
Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
Redding, S.G., Ng, M., 1982. The Role of “Face” in the Organizational Perceptions of
Chinese Managers. Organization Studies 3, 201-219.
Sina Corporation, 1998. The Chinese Mianzi Survey (in Chinese). Available from
http://survey.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/polling/voteresult.cgi?vid=1988, accessed 27 August 2006.
So, S.L.M., Speece, M.W., 2000. Perceptions of Relationship Marketing among Account
Managers of Commercial Banks in a Chinese Environment. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 18(7), 315-327.
Tong, C.K., Yong, P.K., 1996. Guanxi Bases, Xinyong and Chinese Business Networks.
British Journal of Sociology 49(1), 75-96.
Yang, C.F., 1989. A Conception of Chinese Consumer Behavior. In Yang, C.F., Ho, S.C.,
Yau, H.M. (Eds.), Hong Kong Marketing Management at the Crossroads: A Case Analysis
Approach. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press, 317-342.
Yang, K.S., 1957. The Concept of Pao as a Basis for Relations in China. In Fairbank, J.K.
(Ed.), Chinese Thought and Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yang, K.S., 1992. Do Traditional and Modern Values Coexist in a Modern Chinese Society?
In Proceedings of the Conference on Chinese Perspectives on Values. Taipei: Center for
Sinological Studies, 117-158 (in Chinese).