in Latin America. The association needed an international focus: why
not start with Latin America? The resulting program was the genesis of
a major international initiative. Going beyond either–or thinking (and the
self-righteousness that accompanies a ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’ approach) and
cultivating ‘‘non-action’’ enabled her to act within her ethical limits and
develop something new and creative.
From the above case, there are at least two implications from
the practice of Daoistic leadership style. First, sometimes it is wise to
decide not to act (i.e. positive non-action). Time and patience (i.e.wei
wu wei) are important characteristics of Daoistic leaders. Second,
Western leadership thinking is based on an either–or style while
Daoism is holistic, or both–and. The Western approach is that you
cannot have it both ways. However, the Daoistic style is that you can
have both. Research has shown a difference between the East and
West in reasoning styles, which will be illustrated in greater detail in
the part that follows.
According to Peng and Nisbett ( 1999 ), Western thinking or reasoning
is more Aristotelian, while Chinese thinking is more dialectical. Patterns
of causal attribution and conflict resolution can vary tremendously
from culture to culture (Lee and Seligman, 1997 ; Nisbettet al., 2001 ;
Takaku, Weiner, and Ohbuchi, 2001 ). Recent studies by Richard
Nisbett and his colleagues ( 2001 ) showed that the East Asian view
of causality isholistic, marked by a tendency to attend to the entire
field when making causal attributions. This way of viewing causality
has been labeleddialectical reasoning(oryin–yangthinking as by Lee,
2000 ). It includes the principles of change, contradiction, and inter-
relation based on Chinese Daoism or traditional culture. For example,
an unpleasant situation can become a peaceful one (i.e. change); a
conflict can be viewed as something positive (i.e. contradiction); and
any problem or dilemma involves two parties (i.e. interrelation).
Thus, it is safe to assume that some conflict situations become very
difficult to resolve because of a tendency of both parties to perceive
victims and wrongdoers as separate entities. They hold that if one is
a wrongdoer he or she cannot be anything other than a wrongdoer.
The same holds true for their perception of a victim. If both parties
involved in a conflict were to follow the principles of Eastern dialectical
reasoning, however, these conflict situations could be resolved more
easily (Takakuet al., 2003 ; Takaku, Weiner, and Ohbuchi, 2001 ).
Daoistically, ‘‘it takes two to tango,’’ or ‘‘one hand cannot clap.’’
100 Yueh-ting Leeet al.