Examining Daoist Big-Five Leadership in Cross-Cultural ... - PsycNET

Asian American Journal of Psychology 2013, Vol. 4, No. 4, 267–276

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1948-1985/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035180

Examining Daoist Big-Five Leadership in Cross-Cultural and Gender Perspectives Yueh-Ting Lee, Heather Haught, Krystal Chen, and Sydney Chan

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Toledo Based on Daoist philosophy and previous research (i.e., Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, Byron, & Fan, 2008; Y.-T. Lee, Yang, & Wang, 2009; also see Watts, 1975), a Daoist model of leadership has been proposed. This study aimed to investigate how student participants of different cultural and gender backgrounds responded to the Daoist Big Five (i.e., altruism, modesty, flexibility, honesty, and perseverance) leadership dimensions. Participants (N ⫽ 448) from China (N ⫽ 213) and the United States (N ⫽ 235) made judgments on a series of traits and behaviors thought to be representative of the five leadership dimensions. These judgments were explored by principal component analysis and yielded five major components that were labeled perseverance, modesty, altruism, flexibility, and honesty. Results revealed differences in judgments as a function of culture and gender. In particular, Americans judged themselves to be more perseverant, modest, and flexible, whereas Chinese judged themselves to be more altruistic and honest. Additionally women judged themselves to be more modest and altruistic than their male counterparts. The interplay between culture and gender was also influential in their judgments on Daoist Big Five. American women judged themselves to be more modest and perseverant than Chinese women, and Chinese men judged themselves to be more altruistic than American men. The implications and limitations of this cross-cultural and cross-gender study are discussed. Keywords: Daoism, water-like leadership, culture and gender, Daoist Big Five

across cultures and gender. First, we will begin with a brief review and definition of the Daoist Big-Five leadership style based on Lee and colleagues’ research (also called “water-like leadership”; see Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008; Watts, 1975). Second, we report on a cross-cultural and cross-gender study of Daoist water-like leadership based on data collected in the United States and in China. Finally, we discuss the limitations and implications of this study, including how Daoist Big-Five leadership and Daoist principles can be incorporated into our understanding of psychology and leadership practice and research, Asian American community, and the rest of the world.

Leadership is a totem in society and a taboo in science —Moscovici (1986, p. 249)

Leadership is honored as a totem (i.e., something we worship) in mainstream society (Moscovici, 1986), but little attention has been paid to research on Eastern or Asian perspectives of leadership in psychology. Specifically, little is known about Chinese Daoism and its implications for leadership in the scientific community because it is considered taboo or, at the very least, foreign to Western thinking. Though numerous publications have been produced on leadership in psychology and business management (e.g., Bass, 1990; Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010; Hackman & Katz, 2010; Hogg, 2010; Messick, & Kramer, 2005; Pittinsky, 2009; Sherif, 1962; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), fewer articles or books are related to diverse research on leadership, especially Eastern perspectives of leadership. In recent years, research on the diversity and dynamism of leadership has challenged our “typical” Western notions of leadership (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Chin, 2010; Eagly & Chin, 2010; Hackman & Wageman, 2007; Lee, 2011; Lee & Jussim, 2010). The aim of this article is to focus on Daoism and Daoist leadership

What Is Daoist Big-Five Leadership? The water-like leadership style is based on the key concepts of Dao and De by Laozi, which are reviewed in great length elsewhere (see Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008). Daoism can be broken into two basic components, Dao and De, from which all other ideas are derived. Dao can be understood as a road, a path, the way it is, the way of nature, the way of ultimate reality, and the law of nature (Lee, 2003; also see Lao Tzu (1993, trans.; p. xiii). It refers to not only the way in which the universe functions, but also the fundamental undifferentiated reality from which the universe first evolved. It also implies that humans are confined or obedient to the natural law. Dao is used by some other schools of Chinese philosophy to signify a specific mission or code of conduct. Its meaning to the Daoist, however, is increasingly comprehensive. It invokes a metaphysical principle that initiates and maintains the totality of existence giving way to endless diversity. In brief Dao is naturalistic or the way it is.

Yueh-Ting Lee, Heather Haught, Krystal Chen, and Sydney Chan, University of Toledo. Thanks are extended to Jean Lau Chin, Kibeom Lee, and those assistants in our Social Cognition and Intercultural Relations laboratory and several reviewers for their helpful comments on the prior versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to YuehTing Lee, Department of Psychology, MS 948, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606. E-mail: [email protected] 267


268

LEE, HAUGHT, CHEN, AND CHAN

Following Dao (i.e., naturalistic), De is understood as virtue, character, influence, moral force, or more generally humanitarianism. That is, people should adhere to human laws and act in a compassionate and humane manner. The Chinese character De is constructed of three elements: an ideograph signifying “to go,” a symbol meaning “straight,” and a pictograph signifying “the heart” (Lao Tzu, 1955, trans., p. 38). The combination of these elements in the creation of the character De suggests motivation by a sort of internal goodness or integrity (Lee, 2003). Simply put, De is humanistic or humanitarian. Both Dao and De are complimentary in essence. The former means that humans are in harmony with nature, and the latter that humans are in harmony with one another. Dao reflects the Chinese belief that change is the fundamental character of reality, just like yin and yang specified in the Yi jing (also known as I-Ching), translated Classic of Change (or the Book of Change). Dao results from the harmony produced through the balancing of yin and yang in the world. As described in Chapter 25 of Dao De Jing, first humans should follow or be consistent with the way Earth works (ren fa di) Laozi, 1961). Second, the way Earth works follows or is consistent with the way Heaven works (di fa tian). Third, the way Heaven works follows or is consistent with the way Dao works (tian fa dao). Finally, the way Dao works follows or is consistent with the way Nature or the Universe works (dao fa zi ran; also see Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008).

Daoist Big-Five: Water-Like Leadership Style The other important component of Daoist leadership can be summarized as “the best is like water” (i.e., Shang Shan Ruo Shui in Chinese) by Laozi. In other words, a great leader must act like water (Fei, 1984). Based on the narrative and exploratory discussion by Lee and colleagues (see Lee, Han, et al., 2008; Y.-T. Lee, Yang, & Wang, 2009), the Daoist Big Five or water-like leadership personality is characterized by five components. First, water is altruistic. All species and organisms depend on water. Without water, none of them can survive. What does water get from us? It gets almost nothing. Accordingly Daoist leaders should be as altruistic as water. Water is very helpful and beneficial to all things. Daoism recognizes that the ultimate goal of leaders is to serve their people without the desire to gain for personal benefit or gratitude. Laozi stated in his book that “The best are like water, good at benefiting all things without competing for gaining” (Laozi, 1961; Chapter 8). This entails selflessness as an essential attribute of a leader, which is realized in accepting people’s aspirations as one’s own. Only when a leader does not have his own ambitions can he truly serve his people instead of competing with them. Second, water is modest and humble. Water always goes to the lowest place. As we can see from the above quotation (i.e., Laozi, Chapter 8), although water benefits all things, it does not compete with them. Although many Westerners often value and enjoy a sense of authority, assertiveness, aggressiveness, and competitiveness, Laozi encouraged people to have a water-like personality—that is, to maintain a low profile and to be humble and modest, especially in the face of the Dao or nature, and to be very helpful and/or beneficial to others. To Laozi, modesty or humbleness, willingness to help and benefit others and the ability to maintain a low profile (just like

water) are qualities essential to a good leader. In Laozi’s opinion, those who are humble and modest not only exist in good harmony with others, but they are effective leaders, just like the rivers and seas. The sea, for instance, can govern a hundred rivers because it has mastered being lower. Being humble is important for leaders because it enables them to accept people’s goals as their own and to attract and unite people around themselves. Laozi said, “He/She who knows how to motivate people acts humble. This is the virtue of no rival and uses the strength of others” (Laozi, 1961; Chapter 68). Third, water is very adaptable and flexible. It can stay in a container of any shape. This flexibility and fluidity lends a great deal of wisdom to leadership. Good leaders should adjust themselves to any situation just as water adjusts to its container. Maintaining flexibility and adapting to the dynamics of change, like water following its path, are probably the best options for leader. Fourth, water is transparent and clear. An effective leader should be honest and transparent. Honorable individuals (not only leaders) are honest and transparent like water. Though Machiavellianism or other deceptive approaches might work temporarily, being honest and transparent is one of the big ethical concerns in modern management. Water itself is very clear and transparent if you do not make it muddy. In Chapter 15, Laozi stated, “Who can (make) the muddy water clear? Let it be still, and it will gradually become clear.” (Laozi, 1961). Metaphorically, human beings by nature are naïve and honest. Components of the social environment such as competition (like muddiness) make them unclear. Water’s clarity, transparency, and honesty are most appreciated by Laozi. Finally, water is soft and gentle, but also persistent and powerful. If drops of water keep pounding at a rock for years, even the hardest rock will yield to water. Over time, water can cut through the hardest rock, forming valleys and canyons. Here is an example of what we could learn from water. “Nothing in the world is as yielding and receptive as water; yet in attacking the firm and inflexible, nothing triumphs so well (Laozi, 1961; Chapter 78). There is nothing softer than water, yet nothing better for attacking stubborn obstacles. Thus, there is no substitute for it. Being soft or gentle is in harmony with all kinds of environments, gathering strength without wearing it off at an earlier stage, and the perseverance of water helps it to cut its path through hard rocks and wear away mountains. It is very important for a leader to know the dialectical relationship as such and to acquire the resolute and persevering characteristics of water. In sum, water has five features which are essential to all individuals including leaders. This is what we call the Daoist/Taoist Big-Five model of “water-like” personality or leadership style (Lee, 2003; Lee, Norasakkunkit, Liu, Zhang, & Zhou, 2008; Watts, 1961, 1975), which includes five essential components: (1) altruism, (2) modesty/humility (or humbleness), (3) flexibility, (4) transparency and honesty, and (5) gentleness with perseverance (Lee, 2003; Lee, Norasakkunkit, et al., 2008). This model is summarized in Figure 1.

Rationale and Objective of the Daoist Big-Five Leadership Study Why are we interested in how people from different cultures and genders respond to the Daoist Big-Five model of leadership (i.e.,

DAOIST BIG-FIVE LEADERSHIP

Modest & humble: deference or yielding

Flexible and adjustable Transparent (or clear) and honest

Altruisc: water is altruisc and helpful


269

Gentle but persistent

Daoist/Taoist Big Five: water-like characteriscs or personality features

or perseverant

Dao ----------De Harmony with other human beings, and harmony with the natural world/universe

Laozi and Daoism or Taoism in ancient China

Figure 1.

The Daoist/Taoist model of water-like leadership style (Taoist Big Five).

the water-like leadership)? First, research on leadership should be more diverse than mainstream Western approaches (see Chin, 2010; Cheung & Halpern, 2010). As Chin (2010) stated, Attention to diversity and leadership means expanding the traditional leadership paradigms of traits, situations . . .; it means expanding the traits and contexts that might define effective leadership. Most of all, it means examining how our theories of leadership can address what constitutes effective leadership in a changing, global and diverse society (p. 152).

Second, Daoist Big-Five leadership focuses relatively more on relationship equality than typical Western, masculine leadership theories, and it is characteristic of Asian management styles (Triandis, 1993). Third, Daoist leadership meshes very well with feminist leadership as other research suggested (Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Cheung & Halpern, 2010). Regarding service leadership and altruism, for example, leaders are servants and lead by example or role modeling (Chin, 2010, p. 153). As well-summarized by Cheung and Halpern (2010), leaders are persons of moral character and who act as role models. The feminist style of leadership includes “making a social contribution,” “being of service to others,” and “advancing an agenda of helping others” (p. 188).

Second, with respect to humbleness and modesty, female or ethnic minority leaders were found to be humble and modest but hardworking, maintaining a low profile and working very diligently (Cheung & Halpern, 2010). According to Cheung and Halpern (2010), women generally have a more democratic, participative, and collaborative style of leading than men. As Cheung and Halpern stated, those highly successful women “redefined their role as successful leaders, which include work ⫹ family” (p. 186). They “worked long hours, but they also managed to leave work for family time” (p. 186). Third, consistent with Daoist leadership stressing flexibility and adjustability, Cheung and Halpern (2010) found that the top female leaders excelled in the optimization strategies through scheduling of time and multitasking. Women “were flexible in adopting the compensation strategy by using alternative means such as outsourcing when time and material sources were limited” (Cheung & Halpern, 2010, p. 185). Effective women leaders are not superwomen who “hold themselves to the highest standards for all of the role-related tasks of being wives and mothers,” but rather they “adopt different internal and external strategies to redefine their roles” (p. 185). Fourth, women and ethnic minority leaders tend to share information. Sharing means transparency and honesty. According to Cheung and Halpern (2010), those women leaders who were


270


interviewed were found to be interested in “creating flatter organizations and sharing information” (p. 188). It was also found that women leaders performed better than men leaders likely because of the difference in leadership styles which may be crucial, “especially women’s greater willingness to share information” (p. 188). Finally, though mainstream Western leadership theory has a focus on aggression and control (see Bass, 1990; Hogg, 2010; Messick, & Kramer, 2005), Daoist leadership advocates gentleness and persistence or perseverance. In fact, Laozi’s Daoism originally demonstrated a close relationship between leadership and respect for motherliness (Lee, 2003). Various researchers reinforced the idea of being relational and participatory (see Eagly & Chin, 2010). As Eagly and Chin pointed out, “Somewhat more than men, women adopt a positive managerial approach that trades on reward rather than a negative approach that trades on reprimands” (p. 219). Female leaders tend to engage in more reward– contingency behavior than male leaders. While becoming leaders, women are progressive and persistent. In a study by Cheung and Halpern (2010), for instance, women reported that they “found meaningful work that they loved and climbed one rung at a time as they rose to meet new challenges” (2010, p. 189). Cross-culturally, Ayman and Korabik (2010) reviewed both the trait approach and behavioral approach to leadership and found that neither traits related to leadership nor leadership behaviors are culturally universal. In other words, leadership studies involving traits or behaviors may be culture-specific. If so, we assume that the Daoist leadership style might also be culture-specific. A note is in order here. Although the theoretical perspective of Daoist leadership has already been well-addressed elsewhere (Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008; Y.-T. Lee, Yang, et al., 2009), little empirical research has been performed to test this theory across cultures and genders. To our knowledge, so far only two empirical studies have been reported to investigate Daoism, but they are not directly related to Chinese Daoist leadership. First, recently, Lee, Chen, and Chan (2013) did a cross-cultural study of Daoistic altruism by comparing both American and Chinese prosocial and helping behavior. They found that overall American participants were more altruistic (i.e., in terms of money and blood donation, helping victims in disasters or from wars) than their Chinese counterparts. However nothing was mentioned about gender differences. In several cross-cultural studies reported in a doctoral dissertation, Cott (2012) recently found that Chinese students were more likely to have the Daoist thinking style (i.e., “Ziran—accepting things as they are”) than the Australian students. Among the Australian sample, Cott (2012) found that adopting a Daoist thinking style was associated with lower levels of stress. Unfortunately he did not report any data about gender differences in the Daoist thinking style. Therefore, based on this discussion, we hypothesize that Daoist water-like leadership styles (i.e., Daoist Big Five) are both culture-related and gender-specific. In other words, different culture and gender backgrounds will lead to different Daoist water-like leadership (i.e., Daoist Big Five) qualities. Chinese and American, male and female students will display different Daoist water-like leadership (i.e., Daoist Big Five) qualities.

Method Participants There were 448 undergraduate students (171 males and 276 females) with a mean age of 19.89 years. They were recruited from several research institutions in North and Central China (N ⫽ 213) and from a Midwest research university in the United States (N ⫽ 235). For the American sample, the majority of participants were from Christian–Catholic backgrounds (N ⫽ 211). With regard to ethnicity, 160 were White Americans; the rest were non-White students (i.e., 39 African Americans, 11 Asian Americans, 8 Latino or Hispanic Americans, and the rest as other Americans). For the American sample, ethnicity (i.e., White and non-White combined) and religion did not show any statistical difference in our Daoist measures below. Thus these data were not reported in Results. A student sample was used for several reasons. First, though students are not current leaders in society, some or many of them may become leaders in the future. Second, based on our hypothesis above, our goal is to examine the extent to which individuals from different culture and gender backgrounds display differences in Daoist water-like leadership qualities. Third, though college student samples are not ideal, it is convenient and economical to recruit students on campus to complete the Daoist leadership measures to test the model cross-culturally. In other words, do the measures distinguish Daoist water-like leadership qualities across culture and gender?

Procedures and Measures We obtained informed consent from each participant before the study was initiated. Participants took part in either a web- or paper-based study depending on their location. Students in the United States completed the questionnaires online through PsychData, whereas Chinese students completed an identical set of questionnaires by hand in their classrooms on campus. The survey took about 30 min, and students received class credit for their participation. Measures included 100 items used by K. Lee and his colleagues (Ashton & Lee, 2008; Lee & Ashton, 2004; K. Lee, Ashton, et al., 2009). Some of the items in their measures are specifically relevant to altruism, modesty, flexibility, and honesty in our theoretical model above. For example, “I try to give generously to those in need” (altruism), “I want people to know that I am an important person of high status” (modesty-reversed), “People sometimes tell me that I’m too stubborn ” (flexibility-reversed), “If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person in order to get it” (honesty-reversed). We also used six perseverance-related questions from Duckworth, Peterson, Mathews, and Kelly (2009). For example,“I finish whatever I begin.” Participants rated the extent to which they agreed that each item described themselves. Altogether, 106 questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Every participant answered the items in random order. Finally the demographic information of the participants was obtained.



Language and Material Translation and Evaluation The English version of the measures was translated into a Chinese version for the Chinese sample by a native of the People’s Republic of China, a certified translator, who resided in the United States for more than 10 years. It was back-translated into English, and any discrepancies between the different versions were resolved. The final Chinese version was also evaluated against the English version by the two other evaluators who were bilingual raters (Brislin, 1986, 1993; Lee, 1993; Werner & Campbell, 1970) to double check its translation accuracy and cultural equivalency. Because it was evaluated qualitatively and holistically, no interrater reliability was not necessarily obtained. These procedures have been used by the first author in several other cross-cultural studies (Lee & Seligman, 1997; Lee & Ottati, 1993; Lee, Ottati, Bornman, & Yang, 2011).

Data Analysis, Rationale, and Statistical Power Analysis We used two statistical procedures to analyze the data. We first performed a principal component analysis of the items that we gathered to provide a stronger empirical basis for the Daoist Big Five. Second, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine culture and gender differences on each of the five dimensions. GⴱPower showed that for a MANOVA with two between subject factors, we needed 302 participants to detect a small effect (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). We had 448 participants, giving us sufficient power to detect an effect. Several clarifications are in order here about our data analysis. First, we combined the American and Chinese sample for the theoretical reason. Our new Daoist leadership scale is conceptually developed for the general purpose, not specifically for Chinese sample, even though the Daoist philosophy was originated from China. Also for statistical analysis, we combined them because our American and Chinese sample was not very large, though this combination is not the best solution. Finally, our small sample size could not allow us to break down the sample into Chinese and American dataset in an exploratory factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis. Instead we conducted an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. Briefly put, the components or structures we obtained were partially theory-driven rather than data-driven. Again, because of small sample size in this study, we only limited our analysis to PCA rather than confirmatory factor analysis.

Results Principal Component Analysis, Reliability, and Intercorrelations Initially, the factorability of the 26 water-like leadership (Daoist Big Five) scale items was examined. Six items were eliminated because they did not contribute to a simple structure and failed to meet a minimum criteria of having a primary component loading of .4 or above and cross-loading to more than one factor with .3 or above. A final analysis of PCA was conducted based on the 20 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO ⫽

271

.74, which is good reliable component. Barlett’s test of sphericity, ␹2(171) ⫽ 1633.98, p ⬍ .001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Five components had eigenvalues larger than Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 48.01% of the variance. As can be seen in Table 1, the principal component analysis yielded five underlying structures or components that we labeled perseverance, modesty, altruism, flexibility, and honesty. In particular, Component 1 represents perseverance, accounting for 13.63% of the variance, and those items in this component are related to persistency and diligence; Component 2 represents modesty, accounting for 10.65% of the variance, and those items in this component involve modesty and self-enhancement (i.e., opposite of modesty); Component 3 represents altruism, accounting for 8.35% of the variance, and those items in this component are related to generosity, sympathy, and helpfulness; Component 4 represents flexibility, accounting for 8.12% of the variance, and those items in this component are related to rigidity or inflexibility (opposite to flexibility); and Component 5 represents honesty, accounting for 7.25% of the variance, and those items in this component pertain to deception and dishonesty (opposite of honesty). Basically, these five components we obtained are basically consistent with those in our theoretical model (see Table 1). Based on these five components, we also obtained their reliability scores. The internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The alphas were acceptable: .76 for perseverance (six items), and moderate: .56 for modesty (four items), .60 for altruism (three items), .53 for flexibility (four items), and poor: .46 for honesty (three items).

Daoist Big-Five (Water-Like Leadership Style) as a Function of Culture and Gender A MANOVA was conducted to determine the relationship between culture and gender on the Daoist Big-Five dimensions. There was an overall significance of culture and gender on Daoist Big-Five dimensions, ␭ ⫽ .97, F(15, 1215.05) ⫽ 3.20, p ⬍ .01. There was a main effect of gender for both modesty, F(1, 443) ⫽ 12.89, p ⬍ .001, and altruism, F(1, 443) ⫽ 10.18, p ⬍ .01, and the rest were not significant, p ⬎ .05 (see Table 2). Follow-up analyses revealed that women judged themselves to be more modest and altruistic than men (see Table 3). A significant main effect of culture was also found for perseverance, F(1, 443) ⫽ 7.27, p ⬍ .01, modesty, F(1, 443) ⫽ 40.78, p ⬍ .001, flexibility, F(1, 443) ⫽ 3.89, p ⫽ .05, and honesty, F(1, 443) ⫽ 6.05, p ⬍ .05; for altruism the effect was marginal, p ⬍ .10 (see Table 3). Cross-culturally, American participants were found to score higher on perseverance, modesty, and flexibility than the Chinese participants, whereas Chinese students tended to score higher on altruism and honesty than American counterparts. However, these main effects are qualified by a Gender ⫻ Culture interaction. In particular, there was a significant interaction for perseverance, F(1, 443) ⫽ 5.48, p ⬍ .05, and a marginal interaction for modesty, F(1, 443) ⫽ 3.45, p ⬍ .10, and for altruism, F(1, 443) ⫽ 2.79, p ⬍ .10. There was no interaction for flexibility, F(1, 443) ⫽ .63, p ⫽ .⬎ .10, or honesty, F(1, 443) ⫽ 1.87, p ⬎ .10. American women (M ⫽ 3.64, SD ⫽ .65) tended to


272

Table 1 Loadings and Communalities Based on a Principle Components Analysis With Varimax Rotation for 20 Items (N ⫽ 448) Rotated component loadings


Items

1

2

3

1. I am a hard worker. .594 ⫺.114 .152 2. I finish whatever I begin. .608 .299 3. I am diligent. .727 .108 ⫺.170 4. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. .548 ⫺.299 5. I have achieved a goal that took years of work. .795 .192 .171 6. Setbacks don’t discourage me. .688 .117 .271 7. I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is. .557 .350 8. I want people to know that I am an important person of high status. ⫺.172 .539 .151 9. It wouldn’t bother me to harm someone I didn’t like. .142 .713 ⫺.111 10. I am an ordinary person who is no better than others. .658 11. I try to give generously to those in need. .274 .147 .725 12. I have sympathy for people who are less fortunate than I am. .233 ⫺.106 .777 13. People see me as a hard-hearted person. .307 .491 14. People sometimes tell me that I’m too stubborn. .120 15. People sometimes tell me that I am too critical of others. .110 16. When people tell me that I’m wrong, my first reaction is to argue with them. 17. I find it hard to compromise with people when I really think I’m right. .173 ⫺.259 18. If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person in order to get it. 19. I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me. ⫺.136 .183 20. I wouldn’t use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed. .101 .136 Eigenvalues 2.73 2.13 1.67 % of variances 13.64 10.65 8.35

4

5 .133

.174

.227

.129 .141 .177 .361 .664 .634 .606 .588

1.63 8.12

.252

.150 ⫺.108 .700 .594 .695 1.45 7.25

Note. Component 1 ⫽ perseverance (Items 1– 6 boldface); Component 2 ⫽ modesty (Items 7–10 boldface); Component 3 ⫽ altruism (Items 11–13 boldface); Component 4 ⫽ flexibility (Items 14 –17 boldface); and Component 5 ⫽ honesty (Items 18 –20 boldface). Boldface indicates rotations.

score higher on perseverance than the Chinese counterparts (M ⫽ 3.33, SD ⫽ .60), t(274) ⫽ ⫺4.18, p ⬍ .001 (see Figures 2 and 3). On the other hand, Chinese men (M ⫽ 3.72, SD ⫽ .68) tended to score higher on altruism than American men (M ⫽ 3.48, SD ⫽ .68), t(274) ⫽ 2.34, p ⬍ .05. Looking at genders and cultures specifically (see Table 3), no significant gender difference was found on the five dimensions among the Chinese sample, ps ⬎ .05 except honesty, t(211) ⫽ ⫺2, p ⬍ .05. Chinese female students (M ⫽ 3.40, SD ⫽ .70) tended to show more honesty than Chinese male students (M ⫽ 3.20, SD ⫽ .70). However, for

the American sample, female students appeared to be more perseverant, t(232) ⫽ ⫺2.60, p ⬍ .05, modest t(232) ⫽ ⫺3.61, p ⬍ .001, and altruistic t(232) ⫽ ⫺3.58, p ⬍ .001, than male students. The rest were not significant, ps ⬎ .05. (see Table 3).

Discussion This study was performed based on the Daoist Big Five (i.e., water-like leadership, see Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008). Different from the mainstream Western leadership theories, this

Table 2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Gender and Cultures Gender China

United States

Components

Male

Female

Male

Female

F

P

␩2

Perseverance Modesty Altruism Flexibility Honesty

3.39 (.65) 3.04 (.65) 3.72 (.68) 2.95 (.65) 3.2 (.70)

3.33 (.60) 3.15 (.54) 3.83 (.75) 2.93 (.63) 3.4 (.70)

3.41 (.68) 3.33 (.72) 3.48 (.68) 3.14 (.71) 3.12 (.65)

3.64 (.65) 3.68 (.73) 3.82 (.72) 3.01 (.77) 3.12 (.85)

1.76 12.89 10.18 1.06 1.88

0.19 0.000 0.002 0.31 0.17

0.000131 0.001083 0.000809 0.00012 0.000213

Culture Components

China

United States

F

P

␩2

Perseverance Modesty Altruism Flexibility Honesty

3.35 (.62) 3.11 (.58) 3.79 (.73) 2.94 (.63) 3.32 (.70)

3.56 (.67) 3.55 (.74) 3.68 (.72) 3.06 (.75) 3.12 (.78)

7.27 40.78 3.35 3.89 6.05

0.007 0.000 0.07 0.05 0.01

0.000541 0.003425 0.000266 0.000442 0.000685

Note.

The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.


273

Table 3 Mean Response of Daoist Big Five: Water-Like Leadership Measures Between Male and Female Students Culture

Gender

Two cultures 1. Perseverance 2. Modesty 3. Altruism 4. Flexibility 5. Honesty Chinese culture 1. Perseverance 2. Modesty 3. Altruism 4. Flexibility 5. Honesty American culture 1. Perseverance 2. Modesty 3. Altruism 4. Flexibility 5. Honesty

Femaleab

t

p

Effect sizes

3.40 (.67) 3.20 (.70) 3.59 (.69) 3.05 (.69) 3.16 (.68)

3.49 (.64) 3.43 (.70) 3.82 (.74) 2.98 (.70) 3.25 (.79)

⫺1.39 ⫺3.41 ⫺3.29 1.1 ⫺1.33

0.166 0.001 0.001 0.274 0.185

.14 .33 .33 .10 .12

3.39 (.65) 3.04 (.65) 3.72 (.68) 2.95 (.65) 3.20 (.70)

3.33 (.60) 3.15 (.54) 3.83 (.75) 2.93 (.63) 3.40 (.70)

0.72 ⫺1.36 ⫺1.03 0.18 ⫺2

0.473 0.177 0.303 0.86 0.047

.10 .18 .15 .03 .29

3.41 (.68) 3.33 (.72) 3.48 (.68) 3.14 (.71) 3.12 (.65)

3.64 (.65) 3.68 (.73) 3.82 (.72) 3.01 (.77) 3.12 (.85)

⫺2.6 ⫺3.61 ⫺3.58 1.23 ⫺0.003

0.01 0 0 0.218 0.997

.35 .48 .49 .18 .00

Male

Note. df ⫽ 445 for two cultures; df ⫽ 211 for Chinese culture; df ⫽ 232 for American culture. a Values are means with standard deviations in parentheses. b Male ⫽ 171; female ⫽ 276; Chinese male ⫽ 80; Chinese female ⫽ 133; American male ⫽ 91; American female ⫽ 143.

approach is based on the yin–yang principle, part of Eastern philosophy, which is both naturalistic and humanistic (i.e., how to get along with Mother Nature and how to get along with other humans). What did we find in this cross-cultural and cross-gender study theoretically and empirically? By examining how college students from different cultural and gender backgrounds responded to various measures, we found

almost the same five components via our exploratory principal component analysis: perseverant, modest, altruistic, flexible, and honest. Further, we found that the Daoist Big-Five components were contingent on different cultures and genders. Our cross-

China USA

China

5

USA

Esmated Marginal Mean Rang

5

4.5

Esmated Marginal Mean Rang


Daoist Big-Five

ab

4

3.5

3

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5 2.5

2 2 Male

Female Gender

Figure 2.

Perseverance across cultures and genders.

Male

Female Gender

Figure 3. Modesty across cultures and genders.


274


cultural and cross-gender findings of the Daoist Big Five (or water-like leadership styles) are as follows. First, culturally, American participants were found to score higher on perseverance, modesty, and flexibility than the Chinese participants, whereas Chinese students tended to score higher on altruism and honesty than American counterparts. Second, with regard to gender, females tended to show more modesty and altruism than male counterparts. Third, with regard to the relationship between culture and gender, American female students scored higher on perseverance and modesty than the Chinese female counterparts, whereas both American and Chinese male students scored the same. Chinese male students tended to score marginally higher on altruism than American male students, whereas both Chinese female and American female students scored the same. How can we interpret the results theoretically and empirically? First, prior research by Lee and colleagues (Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008; Y.-T. Lee, Yang, et al., 2009) provided us with the water-like leadership model (i.e., Daoist Big Five), and this crosscultural study’s data give us some empirical and quantitative support of this model. This Eastern leadership model with the Daoist Big Five was not developed from Western mainstream theories or studies, which is a new contribution to the current leadership research. Second, we applied this theoretical model to the gender and cultural setting and noticed some interesting findings that are not consistent with the prior findings (see Bond, 1986; Lee & Ottati, 1993; Lee, Norasakkunkit, et al., 2008). Bond (1986) and Lee and Ottati (1993) found that Chinese people were more modest than Americans, but we obtained the opposite results. Also Lee, Norasakkunkit, et al. (2008) found that American students scored higher on altruism than Chinese counterparts, but the findings in our current study were just opposite. Further, we obtained an interaction between culture and gender. That is, our cultural main effect was contingent on the gender. That is, there was no difference between Chinese and American males, but American female students scored higher on perseverance and modesty than the Chinese female counterparts. One of the explanations about this cross-cultural difference might be due to the fact that their measurements were different. For example, in terms of altruism, Lee, Norasakkunkit, et al. (2008) measured specific behavior (e.g., donation), whereas the current study measured specific traits. Another explanation might be related to the economic change in China and in the United States. For example, China’s economy is very prosperous and successful, whereas the United States owes trillions of dollars to China. In this case, Chinese students might be less modest (or more self-enhancing) and more generous (in giving), whereas American counterparts might tend to maintain a low profile and be more careful of spending. This will need more investigation in the future. With regard to gender, female students scored higher on modesty and altruism than male counterpart. This finding was consistent with other leadership research on gender (see Ayman & Korabik. 2010; Cheung & Halpern, 2010; Chin, 2010). Again cross-culturally, it is of special interest to note that this may be due to the fact that American females scored higher than Chinese females and that Chinese males scored slightly higher on altruism than American males. American females tended to be most modest, and Chinese males were most altruistic. As speculated above, it might be related to the change in economic and political situa-

tion, in which Chinese men are more economically wealthy and tend to give compared with Chinese women (Zhu, 2011), and American women might to be more careful of spending and might maintain a lower profile during the current U.S. economic difficulty and the 9/11 terrorist attack (Lee et al., 2011). Future research is needed about this cultural and gender difference. This study is informative in empirically demonstrating the qualities associated with the Daoist Big-Five leadership dimensions; however, it has limitations and implications. First, our participants were college students from China and the United States. Though some of them may become future leaders, we did not collect data from those in leadership roles in China or in the United States. Future studies on Daoist Big Five (or water-like leadership style) should be performed directly with those with leadership roles rather than on college student samples. Second, related to the first limitation, we have not addressed the validity, including ecological validity, of the Daoist Big Five (or water-like leadership) measures. To what extent did our methods, measures, and settings of this study approximate the real world with regard to leadership in China and in the United States? Third, our statistical analysis should be improved in our future research with regard to lack of confirmatory factor analysis and a combined American and Chinese sample (i.e., too small to be separated), possibly resulting in less satisfactory loadings and alphas. However implications are also worth mention. First, our current study is based on Eastern philosophy and principles applied to leadership, which is a unique contribution to the leadership research. The introduction of Laozi and the Daoist Big-Five principles to psychologists and leadership scholars will enable our theories of leadership to be more inclusive in incorporating perspectives beyond the typical European American perspectives (Lee, 2003; Lee, Han, et al., 2008). Our study, which incorporates Eastern philosophy and principles for application to both Asian and Western leaders, complements what is missing in Western models, thus increasing both leader and follower satisfaction (also cf. parables of leadership by Kim & Mauborgne, 1992). Second, although Daoism has been linked to psychology through the theory and philosophy elsewhere (Lee, 2003; Maslow, 1998), this has not been well understood or integrated in psychology. For example, as a great humanistic psychologist and a great Daoist clinician, Maslow (1970, 1971) cited the concept Taoism/ Taoistic (or Daoism/Daoistic) numerous times. Although Maslow (1971) alluded to Daoist leadership, mainstream psychologists and/or management scientists pay little attention to this concept in Maslow’s work (see Drucker, 2001, p. 77). Similarly, research by E. Fromm, G. Jung, and C. Rogers explicitly or implicitly relate to Laozi’s Daoism (see Lee, 2003). For example, Fromm (1956) cited Tao (or Dao) in the section of Love of God in his book The Art of Loving and compared it with God (pp. 74 –75). He was fascinated with Laozi’s paradoxical wisdom: “Gravity is the root of lightness; stillness the ruler of movement”; “The Tao in its regular course does nothing and so there is nothing which he does not do” (Fromm, 1956, pp. 74 –75), but God is a religious term to deal with human relations. Daoism is much broader to account for both human relations and the relation with the natural world. Third, Daoist Big-Five leadership has special implications for Asian American leaders. Although those born and raised in the West have been greatly influenced by Western culture, their heritage is rooted in Eastern cultures. To use and apply Daoist



leadership principles can help to reaffirm their cultural identity, enhance group pride, and promote leadership effectiveness and confidence. Balancing Western and Daoist leadership styles can be transforming and relevant to today’s diverse society. For example, perserverance and altruism are two of the important components of Daoist leadership that emerged in our study. Perseverance has been associated with leadership effectiveness (Duckworth et al., 2007) as has the value of community and public service (i.e., altruism; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999; Greenleaf, 1996; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Therefore, the use of Daoist principles of water-like leadership among Asian American leaders may help to reduce stereotypes of Asian Americans as “good scholars, academicians or polite coworkers (e.g., technology slaves)” but not “sociable” (see Lee, Ottati, Chan, & Lin, 2013; Lin, Kwan, Cheung, & Fiske, 2005) when compared with white European Americans. Finally, the use of the Daoist leadership principles and philosophy has global implications if it is applied to help reduce ecological problems and human conflict; its concepts of following Dao and De may urge us to be peaceful and in harmony with Mother Nature and other human beings. Today, the world is like a small village; interpersonal and intergroup or cultural relationships, ethnic conflict or ethnic cleansing, hate crimes, discrimination against women or minorities, violence against women, and ecological/issues of our environment are major concerns for all global citizens and are at odds with principles of Daoism and Daoist Big-Five leadership. To conclude, this study of Daoist leadership dimensions offers a new and unique perspective of leadership, but further investigation of its application and association with culture and gender is needed. It means challenging ourselves to think outside of a Western, ethnocentric perspective. As Laozi stated in Chapter 64, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

References Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty–Humilityrelated criteria by the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1216 –1228. doi:10.1016/j.jrp .2008.03.006 Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157–170. doi:10.1037/a0018806 Bass, B. M. (Ed.), (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bond, M. H. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Brislin, R. W. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chen, C. C., & Lee, Y.-T. (Eds.). (2008). Leadership & management in China: Philosophies, theories and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511753763 Cheung, F. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2010). Women at the top: Powerful leaders define success as work ⫹ family in a culture of gender. American Psychologist, 65, 182–193. doi:10.1037/a0017309 Chin, J. L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on diversity and leadership. American Psychologist, 65, 150 –156. doi:10.1037/a0018716

275

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475–501. doi:10.1016/ S1048-9843(98)90012-1 Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397– 421. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00025-9 Cott, C. (2012). The potential utility of Daoist theory and practice in psychology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92 .6.1087 Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65, 216 –224. doi:10.1037/a0018957 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GⴱPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 Fei, W.-Z. (1984). Investigating and editing Laozi’s Dao de jing. Taiwan, Taibei: Meizhi Library Press. Fiske, S., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J. R., & Katz, N. (2010). Group behavior and performance. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1208 –1251). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 43– 47. doi:10.1037/0003-066X .62.1.43 Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1166 – 1207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1992). Parables of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 70, 123–128. Lao Tzu. (1993, trans.). Tao te ching (S. Addiss & S. Lombardo, trans.; Introduction by B. Watson). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co. Lao Tzu. (1955, trans.) The way of life: a new translation. (R. B. Blakney, trans.). New York, NY: New American Library. Laozi. (1961). Dao De Jing. [Notation by Wang Bi in the Jin Dynasty, c. 150 AD, and review by Yan Fu in the Qing Dynasty, c. 1800 AD; in Chinese] Taipei, Taiwan: Kuang Wen Press. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 Lee, K., Ashton, M., Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Bourdage, J. S., & Ogunfowora, B. (2009). Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well-acquainted persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 460 – 472. doi:10.1037/a0014059 Lee, Y.-T. (1993). Perceived homogeneity and familial loyalty between mainland Chinese and Americans. Current Psychology, 12, 260 –267. Lee, Y.-T. (2003). Daoistic humanism in ancient China: Broadening personality and counseling theories in the 21st century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43, 64 – 85. doi:10.1177/0022167802238814 Lee, Y.-T. (2011). Social psychology of stereotyping and human difference appreciation. In S. Chen (Ed.), Diversity management: Theoretical perspectives, practical approaches, and academic leadership (pp. 33– 46). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Lee, Y.-T., Chen, W. T., & Chan, S. X. (2013). Daoism and altruism: A


276


China–USA perspective. In D. Vakoch & J. Castrovici (Eds.), Altruism in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6952-0_7 Lee, Y.-T., Han, A. G., Bryron, T. K., & Fan, H. X. (2008). Daoist leadership: Theory and application. In C. C. Chen & Y.-T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership & management in China: Philosophies, theories and practices (pp. 83–107). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753763.005 Lee, Y.-T., & Jussim, L. (2010). Back in the real world. American Psychologist, 65, 130 –131. doi:10.1037/a0018195 Lee, Y.-T., Jussim, L., & McCauley, C. (Eds.). (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10495-000 Lee, Y.-T., Norasakkunkit, V., Li, L., Zhang, J.-X., & Zhou, M.-J. (2008). Daoist/Taoist altruism and wateristic personality: East and West. World Cultures eJournal, 16, 1–19. Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/ wc/worldcultures/vol16/iss2/art2/ Lee, Y.-T., & Ottati, V. (1993). Determinants of ingroup and outgroup perception of heterogeneity: An investigation of Chinese-American stereotypes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 298 –318. Lee, Y.-T., Ottati, V., Bornman, E., & Yang, S. (2011). A cross-cultural investigation of beliefs about justice in China, USA and South Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 511–521. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.01.001 Lee, Y.-T., Ottati, V., Chan, X., & Lin, C. (2013). Complexity and subtleness of Asian American stereotypes: Accuracy, valence, and ethnicity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lee, Y.-T., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1997). Are Americans more optimistic than the Chinese? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 32– 40. Lee, Y.-T., Yang, H.-G., & Wang, M. (2009). Daoist harmony as a Chinese philosophy and psychology. Peace and Conflict Studies, 16, 68 – 81. Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34 – 47. doi:10.1177/0146167204271320 Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human natures. New York, NY: The Viking Press. Maslow, A. (1998). Maslow on management (with D. C. Stephens and G. Heil). New York, NY: Wiley. Messick, D. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2005). The psychology of leadership: New perspective and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moscovici, S. (1986). Epilogue. In C. F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of leadership (pp. 241–249). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4876-7_14 Pittinsky, T. L. (2009). Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishing. Sherif, M. (1962). Intergroup relations and leadership: Approaches and research in industrial, ethical, cultural and political areas. New York, NY: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspectives. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspective and directions (pp. 167–188). New York, NY: Academic Press. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37. doi:10.1037/00219010.90.1.25 van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Werner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translations, working through interpreters and the problem of decentering. In R. Narroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398 – 422). New York: American Museum of Natural History. Watts, A. W. (1961). Psychotherapy East and West. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Watts, A. W. (1975). Tao: The watercourse way. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Zhu, Z. (2011). The People’s Republic of China: Internal and external challenges. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Press.

Received October 28, 2012 Revision received October 10, 2013 Accepted October 17, 2013 䡲