comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

not consciously separate lian and mian aspects of face until the two aspects are pointed
out to them. Face in China is a synergistic combination of these two aspects. This
ethnocentric tendency is documented by Watson (1988: 6), and Lee (2003). Watson
coined a term, “indigenous ignorance”, noting that when asked the meaning of an act or
a symbol, local informants in Chinese cultures often replied, “I’m not clear about that.
We do it this way because that’s how it has always been done.” Watson also found other
indigenous observers and participants giving very varied interpretations of rituals
(Watson, 1988: 5; see also Barley, 1995: 221). This tendency needs to be considered in
every cultue when using local nationals as consultants in survey design and particularly
in qualitative research.
LEADER BEHAVIOUR DIMENSION STRUCTURES IN GUANGZHOU CITY AND NEW
ZEALAND
Multidimensional Scaling Smallest Space Analysis of leader behaviour preferences for
these NZ and GZ samples indicates a preference for a core set of behaviours related to
Managing the Work System for both. The Guangzhou sample shows a bipolar dimension
from Active Leadership Orientation including Initiation of Structure behaviours at one
pole to Relationship Orientation at the other. Managing the Work System in Guangzhou
includes managing the within group relationship-orientated dimensions; this is to be
expected in a high Embeddedness/Collective society. The New Zealand sample shows a
triangular relationship with Managing the Work System as a core dimension, and
Production Orientation, Figurehead Orientation, and a combined Consideration /
Empowerment / Tolerance dimension at the three points. See Figure 6.1; both samples
indicate business system management to be a core competence for managerial leaders.
The Guangzhou sample includes managing relationships within the group of
subordinates as part of the work system.
277