and Ariel ( 2000 ) showed that the Chineseguanxities are multiplex,
that is, serve both instrumental and affective purposes, whereas
American social ties tend to serve single purposes. In contrast, in
the United States, while family connections are similar, work relation-
ships can be mutually rewarding on the job or mutually satisfying off
the job, or both. What we find in Sino-American ventures is that
American employees seek to develop instrumental work relationships
that may not be friendships. This creates problems for Chinese who
see these American work relations in terms of Confucian values.
Accordingly, supervisors should take care of their charges both pro-
fessionally and socially (father–son relationship). Peer relationships
also are seen in terms of Confucian values (sibling–sibling). In con-
trast, Americans view work relations in more limited terms, because
they are relevant at work but do not extend outside of work to
one’s private life. This means that when we refer to leader–member
exchange (LMX) or member–member exchange (MMX) we are
talking about different phenotypic relationships between Chinese and
Americans. Even though research shows that LMX predicts the same
leadership outcomes for both China and America (Graen and Graen,
2007 ), the Chinese and American concepts of leadership ties involve
different obligations. In the Chinese concept, Confucian values direct
one’s leader to play the role of surrogate father including private duties
such as sponsoring suitors and attending weddings, funerals, and
holidays. One’s Chinese leader is a mentor, monitor, and motivator
in both work and private life. Overall, leaders ‘‘take care’’ of their
followers until the parent becomes the child and the child the parent.
Westerners, especially Americans, face apparently gross contradic-
tions when attempting to understand Chinese rationality, because it
is different from Western rationality. Similarly, Easterners, especially
Japanese and Chinese cannot make much sense of Americans’ appar-
ently gross contradictions. Clearly, East and West employ different
sense-making systems. For example, the present PRC government has
enacted laws that outlaw capitalistic activities despite China’s trans-
formation from Chinese communism to a system more capitalistic than
the American one in the last twenty-five years. As long as the enacted
economic system benefits the country, the legal system can be held in
abeyance. As long as the Party allows it, relevant laws do not apply.
In contrast, the rule of law is supreme in the United States. Westerners
should remember the two keys to Chinese sense-making: the Emperor
Linking Chinese leadership theory and practice to the world 285