While all of the traditional philosophies by and large accepted hierarchy
of power and status there was also a consensus that hierarchy and
distinction should be based on some kind of merit, be it morality,
ability, or actual performance, and merit was achieved by individuals
rather than ascribed to them through inheritance, such as birth, class,
or other social categories (Parsons and Shils, 1951 ). In general, modern
Chinese leadership philosophies and theories to be discussed later
(Chapters 6–8) are less hier archical than the traditi onal ones. The
paternalistic leadership theory (Chapter 6), even though it was origi-
nally based on authoritarianism, is currently undergoing revision in
order to address negative responses to overemphasis on hierarchy.
The theories of Mao and Deng (Chapter 7) emerged during periods
when Chinese intellectuals, writers, and reformists were most critical
of the long history of Chinese authoritarianism and when they were
exposed to Western philosophies of social, political, and economic
modernism (Lee, 1985 ). Although Maoist theory and practice after
the founding of the People’s Republic of China have been labeled by
Western scholars as neo-traditionalism (e.g. Walder, 1986 ), it repre-
sents the most explicit and radical departure from traditional Chinese
social hierarchy toward social equality.
Individual, dyadic, institutional, and active non-action
leadership
Western leadership research in organization and management has
been categorized into trait, behavioral, transactional, and transform-
ational approaches (Yukl, 1998 ). Another way to differentiate leader-
ship approaches is based on the locus or the unit where leadership is
enacted. The individual level of leadership refers to how leaders
conduct themselves and serve as the model of character and behavior
for their followers. Dyadic leadership is concerned with how leaders
relate to and interact with their subordinates. Institutional leadership
refers to leading by creating organizational systems. While these levels
of leadership are correlated with each other, different leadership philo-
sophies may emphasize different levels. The distinction between action
and non-action leadership contrasts the Daoist approach with other
approaches.
The Confucianist approach to leadership seems to focus first
and foremost on the individual leader. Self-cultivation (its level of
Introduction 11