leaders in China and examined whether Confucian ethics and values of hierarchical relationship, collectivism, humanism and self-cultivation continue to be emphasized in educational leadership and management in the contemporary Chinese context. The four major scales of Confucian ethics and values were assessed in terms of eight subscales of value orientations that were espoused by the institutions in daily managerial practices (Institutions’
Espoused Values, IEVs) and that were held and stressed by participants in their personal beliefs and values (Leaders’ Personal Values, LPVs).
Assessments were also made by examining the value differences between IEVs and LPVs, which gave the values of Values Divergence (VD).
Participants from three different sectors (schools, education bureaus, and
higher education institutions) were invited to give responses to the IVI. The results of the assessments gave three profiles for all the participants: The IEV profile, LPV profile and VD profile. The results of the quantitative assessments are shown in the following two figures.
Figure 1 reveals the value orientations of this group of educational leaders in terms of their personal values (LPVs), values espoused by their institutions (IEVs) and the values divergence (VD). It should be noted that three scales of LPVs consistently rated higher than those of IEVs, except in the scale of hierarchical relationship. This finding suggests that participants had greater preferences than their institutions for collectivism (Participation and Collaboration, Collegiality), humanism (Goal Orientation, Communication and Consensus), and self-cultivation (Professional Orientation and Employee Autonomy). They appeared to have lower preferences for Formality and Bureaucratic Control and wished to downplay traditional Confucian values of hierarchical relationship in their institutions.
The findings also show that participants had a higher regard for collectivism, humanism, and self-cultivation than their institutions in terms of the ways an education institution should be operated. Interestingly, hierarchical relationship was the most important institution espoused value which was also the least favored value held by individuals. In a similar vein, collectivism which was highly valued by individuals received lowest attention from institutions. This may result from a confrontation between the existing bureaucratic culture and the emerging democratic culture and participation in Chinese educational institutions, with the former favoring political and systemic interests, and the latter stressing the interests and desires of people working in and for institutions. Yet, it remains to be explored whether these Confucian values are in line or in conflict with modern values of competition, efficiency and accountability.
Figure 1. Values orientation of 67 educational leaders in the master program of educational leadership in Zhejiang Province, China
( indicates significant difference at 0.001 level in T-tests between LPVs and IEVs)
The profile of value divergence indicates the gaps between leaders’
personal values and institutional espoused values. The bigger the gaps, the greater were the divergences in these values. The smaller the gaps, the greater were the extent to which these values were shared between leaders and the institutions. The value divergences in collectivism, humanism and self- cultivation were greater in extent than hierarchical relationship. It is interesting to note that the value divergence in hierarchical relationship was the smallest, which was the least favored by individuals and most preferred by institutions among the four Confucian ethics. A possible explanation is that personal value of hierarchical relationship continues to be accepted and compatible to the value espoused by the institutions. The rapidly changing contexts and fluidity of cultural values under the impacts of globalization may explain such narrowing gap in Chinese educational institutions.
Figure 2 reveals the profiles of institutions’ espoused values across schools, education bureaus, and higher education institutions. A consistent pattern across three sectors with institutions’ particular preference for hierarchical relationship was detected. This can be explained by the cumulative and enduring nature of the Confucianism which provokes a fundamental core belief in the hierarchical ordering of personal relationships.
It is interesting to note that higher education institutions and education bureaus espoused similar institutional values in terms of a high regard for
hierarchical relations, a relatively low emphasis on collectivism and self- cultivation. Unlike their counterparts in higher education sector and education bureaus, school leaders reported very different institutional espoused values in their schools. A consistent and much higher regard for humanism, collectivism and self-cultivation was found in schools, with hierarchical relationship considered as the least preferred institutional value.
The different cultures of the three sectors and the nature of their work may explain such differences. School leaders were generally educational practitioners and site-based leaders who were practically oriented. Compared with system officials and higher education administrators, they tended to pay more attention to operational issues related to learning, teaching, and site- based leadership. They also seemed to have considerable autonomy in running the schools within a broadly prescribed framework. They generally operated in a less bureaucratic culture than the other two groups in this study.
Figure 2. Institution’s espoused values (IEVs) by working institutions in Zhejiang Province, China
( indicates significant difference at 0.05 level in ANOVA tests among the three profiles)
Conclusion
Globalization has brought a fundamental paradigm shift in educational administration and leadership in many countries across the world. In the times of changes, educational leaders are confronted with sets of conflicting values and dilemmas in the choice between traditional values and modern values
brought about by globalized forces. Educational leaders in China are no exception to this. Their assumptions are challenged when they operate in a globalizing context. They need to mediate various forces when their traditional cultures and values meet with new ideologies and values. In their leadership practices, the traditional Confucian ethics and values of hierarchical relationship, collectivism, humanism, and self-cultivation in educational administration and management may be competing with those so- called modern values of market, choice, competition, efficiency, flexibility, productivity and accountability in the age of knowledge economy and neoliberal governance (Pang, 2016; Ranson, 2003; Schugurensky, 2003; Webb, 2006). It is speculated that international competition and further opening of the market and education sectors will be intensified, and a confrontation between Confucianism and new ideologies, ethics and values brought by globalization will become more prominent in China.
Leadership is culturally complex, context dependent and acknowledged as a value-laden concept (Gronn, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2001; Wang, 2011). The findings of this study indicate that although the emergence of the new ideologies seems to be slowly changing the nature of Chinese contemporary culture and social values, such cultural change is unlikely to be radical due to the cumulative and enduring nature of the Chinese traditional culture.
Confucianism plays a role in providing a structure of ethical precepts for the management of society based upon the achievement of social harmony and social order. The Confucian ethics and values of hierarchical relationship, collectivism, humanism, and self-cultivation continue to have an influence over leadership practices in contemporary Chinese educational institutions.
Therefore, an incremental rather than transformational cultural change is expected in Chinese education and leadership practices in the long run.
The findings shed light on leadership strategies in contemporary Chinese educational institutions. The core values of collectivism work directly on people's consciousness influencing how they think about what they do. The values of collectivism affect at least two aspects of thought: The individual’s definitions of the task and commitment to the task (Angelides & Ainscow, 2000). The educational institution’s organizational culture would provide answers to employees about the meanings of the work and creates cohesive efforts from employees (Angus, 1996; Schein, 2010). While the values of humanism in institutions define the general thrust and nature of life for employees, the values of self-cultivation allows a great deal of motivation and
freedom to employees. Thus, the combination of humanism around the core values of the institution and of self-cultivation around autonomy and discretion for employees to pursue the institution’s aims may well be a key reason for their success (Pang, 2003; Law, 2011). However, not every employee in the workplace likes hierarchical relationship at all, because it binds people through hierarchical referral and supervision, rules and procedures, plans and schedules, adding positions and vertical information systems (Hoy, Blazovsky, & Newland, 1983; Gardner, 2014). Nevertheless, most organizations are created bureaucracies and hierarchical relationship within organizations has at least minimum functions. The removal and total avoidance of hierarchical relationship in institutions seems to be impossible and impractical (Pang, 1996, 2003, 2010). Therefore, a strong implication is that educational leaders should put more emphasis on collectivism, humanism and self-cultivation rather than on hierarchical relationship. The factor models of Confucian ethics and values reveal that if Chinese educational leaders are to use collectivism, humanism and self-cultivation to bind employees together, the important strategies include: (1) enhancing communication, consensus, participation and collaboration; (2) strengthening goal orientation and collegiality; and (3) promoting professional orientation and teacher autonomy.
The findings also shed light on leadership roles in enhancing productivity, effectiveness, and performance. This study contributes to the field of educational leadership and effectiveness research through exploring the existence of Confucian ethics and values in leadership practices, especially in the Chinese cultural contexts. Leadership makes significant and measurable contribution, directly or indirectly, to the effectiveness of employees. The practices of the four Confucian ethics and values not only allow leaders to bind employees together within the workplace, but also enhance workplace performance, productivity and effectiveness by means of leadership influence (Gamage & Pang, 2003). The effective use of hierarchical relationship allows leaders to establish the organizational structures and social networks that interplay to facilitate and enhance outcomes. Collectivism enables leaders to emphasize the influence of organizational culture on the meaning people associated with their work and willingness to change. Humanism allows leaders to convey and sustain the institution’s purposes and goals that represent an important domain of indirect influence on outcomes. Self- cultivation allows the reinforcement of the leadership influence on employees who need space for self-determination, growth and discretion.
The research findings in this study provide implications for leadership preparation and practice in the new era. The findings support some researchers’ recommendation that new globally-derived, research based findings as well as indigenously crafted knowledge about teaching and learning and leading school represents legitimate subjects for learning among prospective and practicing school leaders (Walker & Hallinger, 2007; Walker, Hallinger, & Qian, 2007). We would argue that an awareness of indigenous cultural values in an increasingly globalized context and a contextual and cultural sensitivity will guide the immediate way forward for educational leadership development in China and other non-Anglo-American contexts.
This study has developed a theoretical framework of Confucian ethics and values that hold employees together in the workplaces. To date and to the knowledge of the researchers, there is relatively little empirical and quantitative research into the roles of Confucian ethics and values in educational leadership in the Confucius heritage cultures. Limited analyses and critiques of the subject have been published and we are still in the early stage of understanding the effects of Confucianism on educational leadership in organizations. Despite its potential contributions to the existing literature, final comments on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are provided.
Firstly, this study explored the value orientations of a group of educational leaders in Zhejiang Province in China. The findings indicate that the Confucian ethics and values of hierarchical relationship, collectivism, humanism and self-cultivation continue to be emphasized in educational leadership and management in the contemporary Chinese context. This study was exploratory since it was based on the survey responses from a small sample of 67 participants in a transnational leadership program. The researchers tentatively indicated sectoral differences between groups with no intention of generalizing the findings to the wider population. Further research is suggested to examine the value orientations of large samples of educational leaders in other regions of China.
Secondly, a comment is made concerning the weaknesses arising from the research instruments in this study, the Institution Values Inventory (IVI). It should be noted that testing of theoretical frameworks and development of instruments are, in principle, an ever-continuing process. Further testing and development work including a larger sample of educational leaders with different backgrounds should be conducted in the future research, for example,
including diverse demographic variables, a greater diversity of school leaders, more senior leaders from the educational bureaus, a larger sample of senior academic leaders from higher education institutions.
Thirdly, although advanced statistical programs were used in this study, researchers must carefully examine the statistical results and be aware of limitations. Statistical techniques are only tools, no matter how sophisticated they are, the final interpretation of the data and implications of findings should rely on the judgments of researchers, school administrators, educational leaders, policy-makers and general readers.
Lastly, the major aims of this study were to explore the existence of Confucian ethics and values in leadership practices in contemporary Chinese educational institutions. It has been argued in this study that the impacts of globalization have incurred a paradigm shift in educational administration and leadership in many countries, including China. The traditional Confucian ethics and values in leadership may be competing with the so-called new values. However, this study did not seek to examine whether Confucian ethics and values were in line or in conflict with modern values of competition, efficiency and accountability, and this could be the next research agenda.
References
AACSB International. (2011). Globalization of management education: Changing
international structures, adaptive strategies, and the impact on institutions.
Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Advisory Committee on School-based Management. (2000). Transforming schools into
dynamic and accountable professional learning communities: School-based management consultation document. Hong Kong, China: Author.
Angelides, P., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Making sense of the role of culture in school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 145-163.
Angus, L. (1996). Cultural dynamics and organizational analysis: Leadership, administration and the management of meaning in schools. In K. Leithwood, J.
Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of
educational leadership and administration (pp. 967-996). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Bell, D. A. (Ed.) (2008). Confucian political ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berthrong, J. H., & Berthrong, E. M. (2000). Confucianism: A short introduction.
London, England: Oneworld.
Blackmore, J. (2000). Globalization: A useful concept for feminists rethinking theory and strategies in education. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.),
Globalization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 133-155). London,
England: Routledge.Bush, T., & Qiang, H. (2000). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 58-67.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life
sciences. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems. London, England: Routledge.
Erdener, C. B. (1997). Confucianism and business ethical decisions in China. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong Baptist University Press.
Gamage, D. T., & Pang, N. S. K. (2003). Leadership and management in education:
Developing essential skills and competencies. Hong Kong, China: The Chinese
University Press.Gardner, D. K. (2014). Confucianism: A very short introduction. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Gordon, R. D. (2002). Conceptualising leadership with respect to its historical- contexual antecedents to power. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 151-167.
Gronn, P. (2001). Crossing the great divides: Problems of cultural diffusion for leadership in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 401-414.
Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000). Leading at the confluence of tradition and globalization: The challenge of change in Thai schools. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 20(2), 46-57.
Hoy, W. K., Blazovsky, R., & Newland, W. (1983). Bureaucracy and alienation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 21(2), 109-120.
Huang, R. (1988). China: A macro history. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ip, P. K. (1996). Confucian familial collectivism and the underdevelopment of the civic person. In L. N. K. Lo & S. W. Man (Eds.), Research and endeavors in
moral and civic education (pp. 39-58). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong Institute
of Educational Research and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). SPSS LISREL 7 and PRELIS. Chicago, IL:
SPSS.
Law, S. (2011). Humanism: A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. K. (1997). A study of the development of contemporary Korean higher
education (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas.Lee, J. C. K., & Pang, N. S. K. (2011). Educational leadership in China: Contexts and issues. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(3), 331-341.
Li, C. (2008). The Confucian concept of Jen and the feminist ethics of care: A Comparative Study. In D. A. Bell (Ed.), Confucian political ethics (pp. 175-198).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lingard, B. (2000). It is and it isn’t: Vernacular globalization, educational policy, and restructuring. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and
education: Critical perspectives (pp. 79-108). London, England: Routledge.
Littlejohn, R. L. (2011). Confucianism: An introduction. New York, NY: I. B. Tauris.
Mok, J. K. H., & Lee, H. H. (2002). A reflection on quality assurance in Hong Kong’s higher education. In J. K. H. Mok & D. K. K. Chan (Eds.), Globalization and
education: The quest for quality education in Hong Kong (pp. 213-240). Hong
Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.Mok, J. K. H., & Welch, A. (2003). Globalization, structural adjustment and educational reform. In J. K. H. Mok & A. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and
educational restructuring in the Asia Pacific region (pp. 1-31). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2000). The state, globalization and education policy.
In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical
perspectives (pp. 27-56). London, England: Routledge.
Mulford, B. (2002). The global challenge: A matter of balance. Educational
Management & Administration, 30(2), 123-138.
Ngok, K. L., & Kwong, J. (2003). Globalization and educational restructuring in China.
In J. K. H. Mok & A. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and educational restructuring
in the Asia Pacific region (pp. 160-188). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pang, N. S. K. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model. Journal
of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64-83.
Pang, N. S. K. (2003). Binding forces and teachers’ school life: A recursive model.