|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
.
Selections from Calcote, Michelle, and Lopez, Rhina
Clicking on a name above will take you to the
corresponding essay on this page.
Clicking on each name below will take you to
the writer's personal profile.
Hart (1998) explained the Chinese term guanxi as “relationship” or “connections” in English terms, but said the term should be distinguished from the English meanings of relationship or connections because guanxi is deeply imbedded in the Chinese mindset.
Guthrie (1998) also provided a definition of the practice of guanxi: “Guanxi xue (the art of guanxi) involves the exchange of gifts, favors and banquets; the cultivation of personal relationships and networks of mutual dependence; and the manufacturing of obligation and indebtedness” (p. 256). So, just as Westerners are imbedded with the values of individualism and independence, Chinese are imbedded with the idea of guanxi, the constant close identification of a variety of groups beyond the family.
Hart claimed that many Westerners make value judgments about guanxi, claiming that the practice is corrupt or inefficient. And, according to Guthrie, others see the practice as no different from Westerners’ practices of connections and business relationships (p. 255). But Guthrie himself sees the practice as an “institutionally defined system – i.e. a system that depends on the institutional structure of society rather than on culture – that is changing with the institutional changes of the reform era” (Ibid.).
As China undergoes an economic transition, the role of guanxi is being studied. Guthrie’s study analyzes this change in respect to the urban industrial economy. He claims that guanxi and guanxi practice are distinguishable institutions in the economic transition (Ibid.). The difference lies in between “establishing good business relations” (gaohao shangye guanxi) and “using social relations to take care of procedures (kao guanxi xue ban shouxu) in economic and political situations (Ibid.). The latter is considered corrupt by many Chinese today and is taboo for many large urban industrial firms because many adhere more and more to the laws, rules and regulations that are part of the new rational-legal system being created by the Chinese state. And, guanxi – the reliance on the general institution of social relationships in China – is gaining in importance within the context of the economic transition, becoming a “central force in the organization of Chinese society” (Guthrie, p. 256).
The difference between guanxi and guanxi practice can best be explained in the following three points about guanxi practice. First, guanxi practice is based on the social connections inherent in the institution of guanxi. “Where the general institution of guanxi has far-reaching cultural and historical roots in the Confucian ethics of interpersonal kinship relations and the clan system, its modern descendant is based on a broader vision of interpersonal relations independent of state-defined organizational structure,” claimed Guthrie. “And while the institution of guanxi is grounded in the personal relations and ‘human sentiments’ that arise from the concept of renging¸ guanxi practice is the instrumental manipulation of these relations and sentiments” (p. 256). The second point is that the elements of exchange, indebtedness and obligation are essential components in guanxi practice. Guthrie stated that “interpersonal relationships lay the foundation for a system that is based on the exchange of favors and accruing debt, which can be cashed in at a future time” (p. 256). The third point is that guanxi practice is based on, but distinguished from, the social institution of guanxi. Also included in this argument is the view that guanxi practice is used many times as an “alternative path” to formal bureaucratic dealings, processes, procedures and power (Guthrie, p. 256).
Therefore, the value judgments that many Westerners place on guanxi may derive from this other form of guanxi – guanxi practice – which is based on, but different from guanxi. But many Westerners forget that guanxi is not indigenous to the Chinese. To end this analysis of guanxi, a quote from Guthrie’s study seems appropriate. The quote is by a Chinese industrial manager in the foods sector. It was taken from a personal interview in 1995.
In markets, guanxi is really important. But I think it’s strange that so many people think guanxi is so different in China than in other places. Whenever I am in Europe, people always ask me about this. The last time I was in Europe, when people started asking me about guanxi in China, I asked them, “Don’t Europeans rely on friends and connections to do business? I can’t believe they don’t. I don’t believe it’s possible anywhere.” I told them that I don’t think it matters what country you’re doing business in, everyone relies on connections to do business. Otherwise you don’t do much business. I’ll give you an example: I had a great time talking to the businessmen I met the last time I went to do market research in Europe. We were like old friends by the end. Now, when I want to buy some machinery parts, they will be the first people I call. If they don’t have the things I need, I’ll ask them to suggest some people they know and trust who can help me. There is nothing special about China in this way of doing business. But this kind of guanxi is different from relying to guanxi to carry out procedures and going around the law (guanxi xue). Using connections in that way is illegal; but there is nothing wrong with using guanxi to do good business (p. 255).
References:
Guthrie, D. (1998). “The declining significance of ‘guanxi’ in China’s economic transition.” The China Quarterly , 154 254 – 282.
Hart, M.C. (1998). “The Chinese Practice of Guanxi.” In G. Weaver (Ed.),
Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations
(pp. 162 – 167). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Publishing.
"Fitting in" in American Society
As it looks in Weaver's Section 6, fitting in the workplace is the next frontier for minorities in the American business world. What all of the authors in the section basically say is that dealing with different cultures is both an opportunity and a risk.
In talking about incorporating cultures in the workplace, I really liked how in the introduction Weaver pointed out the risk of absorbing cultures under the condition that they function like the mainstream (Weaver 89). It makes sense that if the workplace today is designed for white men and by white men, they will want new groups to adopt their ways. Like Weaver says after mentioning the creation of "assertiveness training courses," the reason why these courses were invented were to train "women" to act like men. In a way, I can see these courses helping women (or any other minority group) who feel inferior to white men by teaching them the tools of success: self-confidence, assertiveness, etc. But at the same time, we are still subjecting these groups to the approval and success criteria of the same group in control: white men. So when does the standard of success gets redefined by other than white men? When will groups other than white men "fit the mold"? Supposedly, when minorities reach managerial positions, according to most of the authors on Section 2.
This is when "managing diversity" comes in. How will diversity be managed? By turning groups into pupils of the dominant culture of white men by actually valuing and incorporating minorities' ways of thinking and creating? To Orlando Patterson, the answer to engaging minorities is by encouraging interaction and improving the attitudes of the dominant group toward minorities. Jolie Solomon also encourages interaction in order to confront cultural differences instead of running away from them, and one of the simple way she proposes is asking (Weaver 102).
Solomon and Mariam Jelinek made me think that while at the university
(the critical phase before entering the workforce), some people miss the
great opportunity of interacting with other cultures because the kind of
hide inside homogeneous organizations that only promote their culture or
their ways in social and professional environments. I respect some of the
things that fraternities and sororities do, but I think they may just be
fostering people to continue ignoring other cultures, and to only value
their own. Jelinek and Adler say, "Like most organization theory, organization
culture, too, views organizations, their cultures, and members closed off
from the influence of the society around them" (Weaver 144).
My point is that, if we get a workforce that from the beginning is
used to dealing and interacting with other cultures, we will get a healthier
workforce that will deal with others in a less stereotypical way. I think
that being in the university is a great chance for us to train ourselves
to do this. I have learned to get out of the safety of my culture (whether
they are organizations or not) and seek friends of other parts of the world.
This experience has enriched not only my social life, but also my academic
life, because I have learned so much from these friends. The only thing
I needed to do was take the chance and do it.
Bibliography
Weaver, Gary R. "Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations." Second Edition.
Chapters Cited from Section 2:
Adler, Nancy J. and Mariann Jelinek. "Is Organization Culture, Culture Bound?" Pgs. 136-145. (Chapter 16)
Patterson, Orlando. "The Paradox of Integration." Pgs. 95-100. (Chapter
12).