Never trust the smile, never trust the nod, never trust the “yes” — at least not until you know the person very well indeed.
Those are basic rules any Westerner must follow when first coming to South East and East Asia. In the West, business and social agreements can mostly be settled by a nod, a “yes”, and a shake of the hand.
Not in Asia.
Like every Westerner who first arrives in this region, I too have been confounded, confused, and sometimes rendered speechless by the ability of Asian’s (Thai’s and Chinese especially) to smile broadly, look me straight in the eye and tell me what they assumed I wanted to hear but rarely what they really thought.
There are occasions when this is downright dangerous and times when it is simply amusing.
The dangerous examples are, of course, most likely to occur in intimate and business arrangements. How many Western men have married Asian women without knowing an iota about Asian culture and especially, Asian gender relationships?
Too many to count.
How many Westerners have invested money in Asia, believing everything they were told by their Asian ‘business partners’, only to find they were never investing in a business but in castles in the sky?
Too many to count.
An amusing example which comes immediately to my mind is asking a Thai for directions to a destination when one is lost, usually driving. I cannot tell you how many times Thais have given me those ‘directions’ with apparent confidence in their accuracy only for me to quickly discover they were sending me in completely the opposite direction. Eventually, when I raised this conundrum with my Thai wife, she explained that Thai’s would rather give a Westerner the wrong direction than admit they don’t know.
Is this an issue only for Westerners in Asia? No, Asians also confuse and confound each other.
No Asian boss can possibly take at face value anything their employees agree to do. Asian employees have a marked tendency to agree with anything and everything their boss demands or requests. But that apparent agreement in no way means the boss can assume the job will get done.
To a Westerner, the outward willingness of Asian employees to please their boss borders on sycophancy; fawning, obsequious behaviour towards someone important in order to gain advantage.
What is going on here?
Are all Asians duplicitous? No, of course not. Asians and Westerners are equally capable of dishonesty, deception, and of candidness and openness.
The difference between these two cultures can be summarised in one word; Confucionism (1).
For the sake of brevity, I summarise the key elements of Confucius philosophy as follows:
Family first
Loyalty to authority
Following traditional gender roles
Maintaining social harmony
Traditional physical appearance
Mutuality and communalism
For Westerners coming to Asia, understanding this rather straightforward philosophy is vital, because it is the exact opposite to how Westerner’s tend to think and act.
Take the example of communication (2). Asian communication processes are very different to Western. Harmony and its maintenance are central to most Asian languages and cultures. This includes:
1. Self-restraint/self-discipline (subduing emotions, especially in public)
2. Indirect expression of disapproval (not saying ‘no’ outright)
3. Saving or make ‘face’ for counterparts (avoiding conflict and humiliation)
4. Reciprocity (returning a favour for a favour, regardless of other considerations)
5. Emphasis on particularistic relationships (hierarchy based on age, job, social status).
In essence, Asian cultures are communal, Western cultures are individualistic. However, while this difference is generally understood in theory, it is rarely understood in practice.
Westerners arriving in Asia may well recognise that Asian culture is more communal than their own, but not until they start living here and interacting with Asians will they really find the issues confound them.
You may well say, does it all matter? Surely it is a good thing that cultural differences exist around the world?
Yes, I agree.
But then you have to ask how will Asian businesses and their staff, adapt to Western globalising influences?
Because for sure, the global trend in business is definitely towards Westernisation, not towards a reinforcement of Asian values.
The Impact of International Schools
It is not just that English is now the undisputed language of globalisation and international business, it is what this means in terms of the changing behaviour of Asians in the modern workplace.
Taking Thailand as an example, the next generation of Thai business and political leaders are not being taught in the Thai state school system, they are being taught in the international school system — following English curricula such as Cambridge International and the International Baccalaureate. This educational experience has a profound impact on young Asian minds: it emphasises critical thinking, creativity, questioning, discussion, self-confidence, individuality, managing self, undertaking research, global citizenship and working with others. The teaching and learning style is inquiry-based learning, action, and reflection.
What the international school curriculum doesn’t emphasise is traditional Confucionism. Which is precisely why wealthy Asian parents are more likely to send their child to an international school than a state school; they know only too well which education experience is most likely to be of benefit to their child. They recognise how an international school experience is more likely to enable their child to become a leader, not a follower.
So what we have here is an important arena of change: the modern Asian workplace. It is a cultural, social and business revolution that has already been underway for at least two decades, when the international schools first began to grow in number across Asia (3).
Increasingly, Gen Z and Millennial Asian business leaders will speak English, have been educated in Asian-located international schools but have gone to the USA, UK, Australia, Canada for their undergraduate and/or postgraduate degrees. They will be true global citizens, able and willing to communicate with Westerners on equal terms but with a heightened cultural awareness and sense of being an intercultural person. These business leaders will still be Asian but their sense of self will be more culturally hybrid and much less devoted to strict and traditional Confucian values and traditions.
Importantly, these Asian business leaders are also increasingly likely to be female — they will certainly have already rejected the patriarchal ideology which underpins Confucian philosophy. Not for them traditional Asian marriage followed by life as a dutiful and compliant wife and devoted mother. Indeed, a great many of these new Asian women leaders will remain childless.
Correspondingly, the impact of Confucian values on Asian workplaces will lessen more and more as this century unfolds.
Of course, major organisational cultural change is rarely easy and this one certainly isn’t going to be. It is one thing having large Asian companies becoming more Westernised in their systems and practices, driven not least by global-thinking Asian leaders, it is entirely another trying to get such values to percolate down through the organisation.
Most of the Asian employees who work in the modern Asian workplace haven’t been to an international school and probably don’t even speak English; certainly not if they are Thai, Vietnamese or Chinese. They have been raised in Confucianist-minded families and had those values strictly reinforced in their schooling. For such employees, what matters is following the rules not critical thinking; staying silent in front of bosses not questioning decisions; not demonstrating individuality but communality, not thinking and acting independently but knowing how to maintain ‘social harmony’.
In short, the modern Asian workplace offers a microscopic view of what is happening across all Asian countries; the emergence of Asian leaders with increasingly hybrid cultural identities who have power and authority over a traditionally-minded, Asian (and Confucian-adhering) populace.
If I were a young Asian business leader I would certainly want less Confucianism in my organisation and a lot more Westernisation. I would want my employees to be loyal and communal, but also capable and willing to use their initiative, to think critically and creatively, to not be afraid of failing or of criticism through perceived loss of ‘face’, and to have the self-confidence to use their initiative. I would want my organisation to follow the values and practices of ‘total inclusivity’(4), not those of an ideology long passed its sell-by date.
But for this to happen the modern Asian workplace will have to introduce professional development which encourages precisely anti-Confucian values. Sure, retain the best bits of Confucian thinking in terms of working together, but stress entrepreneurialism and initiative, not adherence to traditional hierarchies and blind authority to a leader.
This is important for the following reasons:
1. There is no meritocracy in the traditional Confucian workplace.
2. There is no initiative in the traditional Confucian workplace.
3. There is no incentive to entrepreneurship in the traditional Confucian workplace.
4. There is every incentive to over-bureaucratise and create stagnant, status-fixated management in the traditional Confucian workplace.
5. There is every pressure to stay silent, be invisible, copy, agree, and behave like everyone else in the traditional Confucian workplace.
References:
1. Gardner, D.K (2014) Confucianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Liu, S., Volcic, Z. and Gallois, C. (2012) Introducting Intercultural Communication: Global Cultures and Contexts. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
3. Machin, D. and Whitehead, S. (2020) International Schooling: The Teacher’s Guide’. Bangkok: Pedagogue.
4. Whitehead, S. (2022) Total Inclusivity at Work. London: Routledge.
ACADEMIC ARTICLES BY STEPHEN
Refereed Journal Articles
Whitehead, S. (1997)
‘Men/Managers and the Shifting Discourses of Post-Compulsory Education’. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 1:2.
Whitehead, S. (1998)
‘Disrupted Selves: Resistance and Identity Work in the Managerial Arena’. Gender and Education, 10:2.
Kerfoot, D. and Whitehead, S. (1998)
‘’Boys Own’ Stuff: Masculinity and the Management of Further Education’. The Sociological Review, 46:3.
Whitehead, S. (1999)
‘From Paternalism to Entrepreneuralism: The Experience of Men Managers in UK Postcompulsory Education’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20:1.
Kerfoot, D. and Whitehead, S. (2000)
‘Keeping All the Balls In the Air: FE and the Masculine/Managerial Subject’. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24:2.
Goddard-Patel, P. and Whitehead, S. (2000))
‘Examining the Crisis of Further Education: An analysis of “failing” colleges and failing policies’. Policy Studies, 21:3.
Whitehead, S. (2001)
‘Woman as Manager: A Seductive Ontology’. Gender, Work and Organization, 8:1.
Whitehead, S. (2001)
‘The Invisible Gendered Subject: Men in Education Management’. Journal of Gender Studies, 10:1.
Goddard-Patel, P. and Whitehead, S. (2002) ‘The Mechanics of ‘Failure’ in Further Education: The Case of Bilston Community College’. Policy Studies, 22:3/4.
Whitehead, S. (2005) ‘Performativity Culture and the Further Education Professional’. International Journal of Management in Education, 19:3.
Whitehead, S. (2008) ‘Metrosexuality! Cameron, Brown and the politics of ‘new masculinity’, Public Policy Research, 14:4.
Sanderson, R and Whitehead, S (2015) ‘The Gendered International School: Barriers to women managers’ progression’. Journal Education + Training.
Review Articles
Whitehead, S. (1997)
‘Class Inequality Revisited’. Reviewing Sociology, 10:2.
Whitehead, S. (1999)
‘Hegemonic Masculinity Revisited’. Gender, Work and Organization, 6:1.
Whitehead, S. (2000)
‘Masculinity: Shutting Out the Nasty Bits’ Gender, Work and Organization. 7:2.
Whitehead, S. (2000)
‘Postmodernism in Education Theory’, British Journal of Educational Studies. 48:3.
Whitehead, S. (2000)
‘Masculinities, Race and Nationhood – Critical Connections’. Gender and History. 12:2
Guest Editing (Journal Special Issues)
Kerfoot, D., Prichard, C. and Whitehead, S. (2000)
‘(En)Gendering Management: Work, Organisation and Further Education’. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 24:2.
