Deciphering Chinese School Leadership

Conceptualisation, Context and Complexities

Allan Walker, Haiyan Qian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317351917
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Leadership in Education

With existing educational leadership models and theories being predominantly western influenced, this book aims to provide more insight into school leadership in China. It pioneers building research- and practice-informed knowledge and unravels the complexities that characterize the scholarship, context and practices of school leadership. School leadership in China is presented through four sub-purposes: investigating how Chinese school leadership is conceptualized in the international and Chinese literature; exploring the shifting context within which Chinese school leaders enact their leadership, and examining key policies that have shaped the practice of leader development; extending the understandings about the complexities of work lives of Chinese school leaders; and further locating indigenous understandings of Chinese school leadership in the political and socio-cultural context of contemporary China, and the theoretical and conceptual context of international school leadership. This text will be particularly useful to international education researchers with focus on educational leadership, comparative education, education policy and education in China.

1 Leadership in China

Traditional expectations and cultural underpinnings

Over the last decade, there has been growing international interest in Chinese schools, due in large part to their success in international comparative tests such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2010, 2013), but more generally to China’s ascendency as an economic powerhouse. A steady stream of reports by different agencies has attempted to dissect this success and extract advice on how to improve academic performance globally (e.g., Liang, Kidwai, & Zhang, 2016; Cheng, 2010). In many ways, China’s success has been as much a surprise inside China as outside, and has prompted renewed reflection on the purpose, nature and workings of the education system and of individual schools. This attentiveness is shared by educational actors from the top of the political infrastructure to grandparents walking their children to school, and those engaged at the national, provincial, district, community and school levels.

Recent discussions of the progress and future of education have touched on all aspects of the enterprise, from the ideological to the pragmatic, and on issues that heretofore lay in the political and social shadowlands. For example, discussions in China today are as much around equity as quality, whether they relate to the lot of migrant children or the seemingly intractable inequities between rural and urban education. As they play out in homes, classrooms, staffrooms and around bureaucratic meeting tables, these discussions expose tensions between traditional beliefs and practices and globalised modernising agendas. However, complex and wide-ranging discussions only have real meaning when they land in schools. It is here where the changing values, relationships and methods flowing from political agendas, radical reform policies and the tensions surrounding ‘the best way to educate’ take form; that is, in the lives of the millions of students, parents, teachers and leaders who comprise Chinese schools. Our aim is to contribute some understanding of the role of school leaders in this process.

This chapter has two main purposes. The first is to describe the context of school leadership in China today by discussing some of the important cultural traditions underpinning leadership and learning in China. This background is important because it provides some basic insights into the antecedents of the educational reforms launched in China in the mid-1980s. The central theme of this book is the interplay of these reforms with enduring cultural influences, as well as with a myriad of political, organisational, economic and pedagogical factors and how they play out at the school leadership level. Understanding this interplay helps us to understand the hybridity that characterises modern and evolving Chinese leadership theories. The second purpose of the chapter is therefore to offer a rough profile of modern Chinese leadership, which brings together influences of socialist/communist ideologies and Western leadership theories and juxtaposes these with some strands of traditional Chinese thought.

Given the growing literature on the influence of society and culture on leadership and organisational processes, this chapter focuses on two aspects of culture that are particularly relevant to leaders’ work in China: traditional expectations of learning and preferred leadership styles. These play an important role in shaping the exercise of school leadership and constitute, at least partly, the deep leadership structures in a given society (Gordon, 2002). In other words, these deep structures continue to shape school leadership and preferred leadership styles.

Understanding preferred leadership styles helps to identify the cultural scripts that underpin the ‘right’ leadership as perceived by leaders and followers in China. For example, Chinese business leaders are known for their high degree of authoritarianism, but also for their care of subordinates and the high level of moral character shown in their actions and decisions (Farh & Chen, 2000; Pye, 1999). These characteristics are attributed to deeply embedded Confucian values. Understanding how society and culture shape the purpose of learning and education provides a historical lens for viewing the work environments of school leaders today. For 2,000 years, the ancient education system was built around the Civil Service Examination system (Gu, 1981; Mao, 1984). Traditionally, learning has been unambiguously connected with passing exams to bring glory to ‘families and ancestors’ (Gu, 2006, p. 173). School leaders today remain caught in the tensions and conflicts arising from the lingering impact of the traditional emphasis on examinations.

The influence of society and culture on leadership and organisational behaviour are fully recognised in the educational leadership literature (e.g., Oplatka, 2004). The nuances of these influences have been investigated in a number of large-scale, more generic, international leadership studies (e.g., House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). For example, the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) investigates the meaning and exercise of leadership in 62 societies. The study identifies attributes that people across cultures perceive as making effective and ineffective leaders. In addition to these universal positive/negative leader attributes, the study identifies a set of what is named culturally contingent leader attributes. In other words, the attributes that can be seen to either impede or enhance effective leadership depend on the culture within which it is exercised. For example, participative leadership is considered a contextually contingent concept. Participative leadership is viewed more positively in Anglo cultures (e.g., Australia, Canada, the UK and the US) than in Confucian Asian cultures (e.g., China, Japan and Singapore). More specific to education leadership, Oplatka’s (2004) study of principalship in non-Western societies indicates that principals from these societies display higher levels of autocratic leadership (Oplatka, 2004). This wider exercise of autocratic leadership in non-Western societies is related to what Hofstede (1997) labelled ‘high power distance’.

Traditional expectations of preferred leadership styles

Although Confucianism is often treated as shorthand for Chinese culture, Chinese preferred leadership styles are underpinned by a range of Chinese philosophies and ideologies (Chen & Lee, 2008). For example, from a historical and cultural perspective, Guo (2002) sketches a portrait of ideal political leaders in China. Guo (2002) confirms that the Chinese rely on a ruler’s personal qualities to master officialdom rather than favouring an institutionalised political system to control bureaucracy. The history of Chinese political leadership thought includes three traditions: Confucian junzi (nobleman), Daoist shengren (sage) and zhenren (authentic person) and Legalist mingjun (enlightened leader). Different leadership ideals emerge from these traditions. Table 1.1 provides a description of each tradition’s key concepts.

The three traditions create an ‘ideal’ model of Chinese leaders (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Child, 1994; Fahr, Liang, Chou, & Cheng, 2008; Guo, 2002).

• Chinese leadership emphasises Confucian humaneness (ren), namely, benevolence. In leadership, the straightforward application of benevolence is being sensitive and attentive to the basic needs of followers. More importantly, it means a commitment to building and maintaining a humane organisation that provides each member with a livelihood and takes care of his or her social-psychological well-being (Chen & Lee, 2008).
• Chinese leadership promotes a strong tendency toward ritual (li). The Chinese culture views people as social and relational beings, that is, as members of social communities rather than as independent individuals (Chen & Lee, 2008). Chinese people, including leaders, are expected to think and behave within accepted social norms and to avoid hurting others in their social group and social environment (Child, 1994).

Table 1.1 Three traditional values and their key concepts in China

Traditions	Key concepts
Confucian junzi	• Humaneness, which involves sympathy and empathy • Ritualism, which emphasises compliance with established social norms • Moralism, where the leader is expected to provide a role model that establishes moral order
Daoist shengren and zhenren	• Leader as sage, which exemplifies the belief that social harmony can be achieved by following nature • Leader as an authentic person who shuns glory and wealth to keep the spirit free
Legalist mingjun	• Legalism emphasises wisdom but combines this with cunning and strategy

• The leader-member hierarchical relationship is unquestionable. Chinese culture reveres hierarchy, and the observance of order is made possible by obedience to authority (Child, 1994). Hierarchy in the Confucian leadership philosophy bears a symbiotic relationship to authority, unity, order and stability (Chen & Lee, 2008).
• There is a traditional emphasis on the strong moral obligation (de) of leaders. The high tolerance for leader authority and leader discretion in relation to subordinates is matched and balanced by the high moral standards expected of leaders (Chen & Lee, 2008). For example, the Confucian junzi is seen as a sage who emphasises humaneness, altruism, sympathy and so on (Guo, 2002).
• The doctrine of the mean (avoiding extremes) is the principle for handling conflicts. This principle encourages people, including leaders, to control their emotions in times of anger and remain calm when upset. The principle also encourages leaders to wisely handle conflicts with people at different levels (Fu & Tsui, 2003).

Put together, these multiple traditional expectations set a very high bar for Chinese leaders, one replete with tension. For example, the culture reveres hierarchy but expects leaders to be responsive to the needs of followers. There is also a consensus that hierarchy and distinction should be based on some kind of merit, whether it is related to morality, ability or actual performance. Furthermore, this merit should be achieved by individuals rather than ascribed to them through inheritance, such as birth, class or other social categories (Parsons & Shils, 1951). In short, authority is expected to combine, with grace and benevolence, both elitism and sympathy (Pye, 1991). Mirroring the prototype of the Chinese family, the Chinese leader is often portrayed as the father (Fahr et al., 2008). As the head of the family, the father’s role is to rule benevolently and justly. The other family members are expected to be obedient and loyal to the family head (Fu & Tsui, 2003). Similarly, the leader of an organisation is expected to provide guidance, protection, nurture and care for subordinates; the subordinate, in return, is normally required to be loyal and deferential to the superior (Aycan, 2006).

Historical and cultural underpinnings of learning and education

Confucianism has and continues to exert a significant influence on Chinese leadership thinking. It has had an enduring impact on Chinese education and on the all-important central examination system. Before Confucius, education was for noble families only, and was controlled by court officials (Wong, 2001). Confucius was the first to open the door to education for all and to challenge class distinctions. His disciples and students called him ‘The Master’, and in Chinese culture he is considered a Master of Masters (Adair, 2013).

Confucianism underpins Chinese perceptions of the purpose of education. China has a long history of relying on high-stakes exams to select people. The 2,000-year-old ancient education system, the Civil Service Examination system, was based on the Confucian concept of serving the state through learning (Gu, 1981; Mao, 1984). A Confucian ‘superior’ man’s first responsibility to society was to serve the state by participating in government. Scholars believed it was this examination system that created the Chinese bureaucratic system (e.g., Ho, 1964; Sunoo, 1985). This system also made it possible for the ruling class to select unknown intellectuals for government service; thus, intellectuals from all classes had a chance for advancement. This enabled people to change their status through education. By passing exams, they could not only serve the imperial government, but also change their family status and bring glory to their ‘families and ancestors’ (Gu, 2006, p. 173).

Confucianism has had a profound influence on the way Chinese students learn and how teachers teach. The imperial examination system became an effective means for the government to control intellectuals, given that ‘the topics used in the examinations are from the classics, which are the only courses taught in all schools’ (Sunoo, 1985, p. 113). Confucius laid great emphasis on learning and effort. Everyone had the opportunity to succeed in learning, but it took great effort to become successful. The learning strategies were based on repetition and memorisation (Bowden, Abhayawansa, & Manzin, 2015). In Confucian philosophy, repetition is perceived as a necessary method for deep understanding and the production of meaning.

Confucianism has also influenced the teacher-student relationship. The power inequality between the parent and child is perpetuated in the teacher-student relationship, which endows teachers with great authority and venerable status (Marambe, Vermunt, & Boshuizen, 2012). Under this system, ‘obedience’ is the major characteristic cultivated by students who ‘dare not think, dare not speak, dare not take risks, and lack [a] pioneering and innovating spirit’ (Gu, 2006, p. 173).

Major features of modern Chinese leadership theories and practices

The establishment of the socialist People’s Republic of China in 1949 and the adoption of the reform and opening-up policy in the late 1970s spread both socialist/communist values and Western leadership philosophies throughout China. These introduced philosophies have interacted and intertwined with traditional Chinese culture to shape leadership and organisational behaviours in schools (e.g., Bush & Qiang, 2002; Fu & Tsui, 2003; Pye, 1991).

Confucianism remains a major influence on contemporary Chinese leadership theories and practices, but now shares the stage with a number of other sources. A review of the literature (e.g., Bush & Qiang, 2002; Fu & Tsui, 2003; Pye, 1999; Qian & Walker, 2014; Walker & Qian, 2015) suggests that Confucian values, communist/socialist ideologies and Western leadership philosophies are the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of tables
• List of figures
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Leadership in China: traditional expectations and cultural underpinnings
• Section 1 Conceptualisation
• Section 2 Context
• Section 3 Complexities
• Index