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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1 and 2: The Chinese Concepts of Guanxi, Mia
Page 3: Redding and Ng (1982) also found th
Page 7: Leung, T.K.P., Lai, K.H, Chan, R.Y.

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?