|
In the mid-eighties, a detailed survey called the "Chinese Value Survey" was developed (CVS). It was designed by Michael Bond, a Canadian who lived and worked in the Far East since 1971. He designed the questionnaire with a deliberate non-Western bias, and in this case a Chinese culture bias. He did this by asking a number of Chinese social scientists to create a list of at least 10 basic values for Chinese people. It was given to a number of people in 22 countries plus China (for a total of 23). To a lot of Westerners, some of the questions were quite strange, e.g., filial piety -- honoring ancestors and obedience to, respect for, and financial support of parents.
While it was used to correlate three dimensions in other western style cultural surveys, it had a fourth dimension unrelated to anything found with Western surveys -- "Confucian dynamism" (referring to the teachings of Confucius). In practical terms, it refers to long-term verses short-term orientation of life and is composed of the following values. On the long-term orientation pole we have:
Listed below are the scores of the 23 countries samples for the LONG-TERM orientation:
Now, while there are correlations to be made, there is no proof of a causal link. But it is interesting that at the time, no other surveys had any indications of why the the five dragons were doing so well. In fact, they snuck up and surprised many economists. The short-term orientation is also identified with Truth, while the long-term orientation is identified with Virtue. Confucius dealt with Virtue but left the question of Truth open. Our interpretation of the Truth is how we in the West view religion, science, and management. Thus, when information is manipulated or held to obtain a certain result, then one is simply going after the short-term orientation. There may be truth to the results, but the virtue of it has been removed. However, when we take the long-term view, we can practice Virtue without seeking the Truth, we can mix religion with Confucian, we can mix Eastern management styles with Western management styles. A short-term view of results occurs when we know what result we want, thus we are willing to play with the truth to get it. A long-term view of results mean that we will get it when we get it -- it is more important to find the greatness in our results than to find the result that we want. And for quite some time that has been China's philosophy -- taking the long-term outlook. However, to go beyond manufacturing and on to innovation, information, and knowledge is something that their oriental philosphy is desined for, yet their socialistic view abhors. Socialism rules by controlling information. Innovation rules by allowing the greatness of it to come through. Historically, China has had NO interest in the West, and that's even at the highest levels of politics, which is one reason they've been so difficult to interact with. That of course is changing now, and it's changing fast. Like Japan, they will take what works best from everywhere, discard what doesn't, and they WILL adapt what they take to their own culture and resources. They are, however, skipping all the intermediary steps (and the time) that Japan took to evolve from a manufacturer of junk products to dominating markets. China has grown economically because capital was pumped into their economy from outside sources to take advantage of their cheap labor. India, on the other hand has created several companies that have the potential to become disruptive innovations, e.g. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (pharmaceuticals ), Wipro (IT Services), and Infosys (software, IT). Thus, India has a greater long-term potential than China does. And again this could change, but we always talk about how hard is is too change the culture in the organization. With China, you have to change the world's largest population. Now the majority of the population might want to change, but when they are led by a small group that dominates through total control, I just find it extremely hard to fathom them letting loose the reigns so that innovation can take place. I think this is why they are at the top of the long-term orientation list, but not the economic list -- they have the culture for it, but their leaders must control to remain in power. ReferenceHofstede, Geert (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill (ch7). |
|
| For author and copyright information, see the About page. |
Copyright 2005 by Donald Clark Created April 3, 2005 Updated January 12, 2007 |
A Big Dog, Little Dog and Knowledge Jump Production. Contact: donclark@nwlink.com |