Leader Emergence Trends Among Mainland Chinese Executives
This report uses socioanalytic theory as the framework for discussing leader emergence among mainland Chinese executives.
Socioanalytic Theory of Personality
Personality psychology offers invaluable insights into understanding human behavior; it is the only discipline with a primary focus on the nature of human nature. Hogan’s perspective on personality is based on socioanalytic theory.
Robert Hogan, PhD, founder and president of Hogan Assessments, explains that throughout evolutionary history, humans have used groups to survive. As a result, humans are motivated to become accepted members of desired groups (i.e., to get along). The persistent pattern of religion and similar phenomena throughout evolutionary history also demonstrates that humans seek to be a part of something bigger than themselves and maintain predictability in their environment (i.e., to find meaning), which makes groups that provide meaning more desirable.
Indeed, humans continue to live in groups to this day. Groups must compete with other groups for access to limited environmental resources (e.g., organizations competing for market share). An effective group, relative to its competition, requires coordination and organization. Leadership evolved as a solution to this problem by providing a centralized source for decision-making and influence.
To be centralized means that not everyone in the group enjoys leadership status. Within groups, a status hierarchy always exists. Status comes with additional reproductive and survival advantages. Therefore, people are motivated to gain status within their group (i.e., to get ahead), fueling within-group competition. Status hierarchies also help groups determine who should lead the group.
Survival also requires people to adapt to the situation in which they find themselves, leading to differences in motives and behavioral patterns across individuals. Individual differences, or personality characteristics, determine how people get ahead, get along, and find meaning and personal fulfillment in their groups.
Why is this important? If we understand how individuals get along, get ahead, and find meaning, we can choose the best performers for every job and develop talent so people excel in their current and future jobs. More importantly, we can understand how leaders will lead their teams and organizations, including how they set strategies, communicate, make decisions, and create culture.
The concept of getting ahead helps us understand how people will seek to gain authority and positions of power. The goal of many leaders is to gain a position of power or leadership. Someone who is successful at doing this is what Hogan calls an emergent leader. This may be good for the leader’s career but is not necessarily good for the group or organization they are leading. Hogan defines an effective leader, on the other hand, as one who can persuade people to temporarily set aside their selfish desires for the good of the group. In this view, leaders should be evaluated by the group’s performance and satisfaction, not by the leader’s ability to gain leadership positions.
The concept of getting along underscores the importance of social adeptness in navigating professional environments. This skill entails advancing personal goals while maintaining harmonious relationships within the group by interacting in a manner other members perceive as rewarding—a delicate balance that shapes one’s trajectory within organizational hierarchies.
Finally, the pursuit of meaning stands as a cornerstone of human motivation, drawing from diverse sources such as existential beliefs, philosophical convictions, and core values. Understanding how individuals derive significance from their work illuminates essential facets of their personality and professional aspirations, the cultures created in organizations, and the unconscious biases at play.
The Hogan Assessments
To measure the nuances in how a person gets ahead, gets along, and finds meaning, Drs. Robert and Joyce Hogan developed three assessments for a holistic measurement of personality: the bright side, the dark side, and the inside of personality.
The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) looks at the bright side of personality. The bright side refers to an individual’s strengths and weaknesses, or how an individual might behave on a day-to-day basis. The HPI is based on a universal taxonomy of how humans perceive and describe other people. In other words, the HPI indexes the reputation someone has likely achieved in their social environment and thus captures how they get along and get ahead.
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) assesses potential derailers, or the dark side of personality. These adverse behaviors may negatively affect performance at work or an individual’s reputation. Hogan calls these dark-side characteristics because they primarily emerge when an individual stops self-monitoring, such as in times of stress, complacency and disengagement, or boredom. In many cases, derailers are overused strengths, which can get in the way of one’s attempts to get along and get ahead.
The Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) examines the inside of personality. This inventory looks at an individual’s values and drivers, their preferred organizational culture, what motivates them to make decisions and choose careers, and the leadership environment they will likely create.
Hogan’s Data
Hogan has collected data on leaders and executives who emerge in leadership positions within hundreds of markets across the globe.
While these may not all be effective leaders, we can still gain deep insights into leadership styles by examining the personality trends of leaders to learn how they get along, get ahead, and find meaning in different markets. For example, our data show that leaders in the US tend to be higher on the Hogan scales of Ambition and Interpersonal Sensitivity, suggesting that US leaders may tend to take charge and prioritize sensitive, professional communication.
Hogan’s benchmark of more than 2,800 executives and top business leaders in mainland China spans multiple industries, from technology to banking to manufacturing and enterprise types. It includes leaders of state-owned enterprises, private companies, multinational corporations, and wholly foreign-owned enterprises.
We at Hogan partnered with our mainland China distributors to garner their unique expertise and insights from decades of work with mainland Chinese executives. We thank Vivian Yang, director of tool-based solutions at Mobley Group Pacific; Alex Zhang, CEO at Edge Management Consulting; and Nancy Zhang, CEO at Empowered Leaders Consulting,
Understanding these personality trends is important because leaders determine the success of their organizations. By exploring how leaders navigate the realms of ambition, social cohesion, and personal fulfillment, we aim to uncover invaluable insights into China's corporate landscape.
Getting Ahead
How leaders get ahead and how people expect leaders to behave is different across markets and countries. Dr. Robert Hogan says, “Who you are is how you lead.” Understanding how Chinese leaders get ahead will reveal how these emergent leaders deal with competition, navigate organizational hierarchy, and seek positions of power.
HPI
Ambition
On the HPI, we find that Chinese leaders tend to score lower on Ambition.
Leaders who score higher on Ambition are more energetic and competitive, focus on ambitious goals, and usually like to take charge. Leaders who score lower on Ambition tend to be more driven by consensus, willing to ask others’ input for direction, collaborative, focused on achievable goals, and comfortable leading as part of a group. Compared to executives across the world, executives in China score 16 percentile points lower on the characteristic of Ambition, which represents a substantial difference between the Chinese executives’ and the global executives’ samples.
How does this play out for Chinese executives? Yang observes that Chinese executives prefer to make decisions through group discussion and building consensus. Nancy Zhang provides an additional perspective, explaining that a core factor of Chinese leadership is the respect for a leader’s professional competency over charisma. For example, she mentions that for most of China’s national sports teams, the coaches tend to be former national champions themselves.
In China, a leader must be capable, competent, and prove that they have done the job before and are good at the job before they can be accepted as leaders. Chinese executives rely on their hard work and capabilities to gain positions of leadership.
A drawback of this is that, because many leaders do not consider how to develop leadership skills to motivate or encourage their team members and people, they lead to perform to the best of their ability. Furthermore, she mentions that Chinese executives tend to bolster their internal political power by seeking input from others. That way, when a decision is made in a certain direction, it’s supported by employees.
Adjustment
Another HPI scale for which we see a unique trend among Chinese executives is the Adjustment scale. Chinese executives often score lower on Adjustment than compared to global executives.
Leaders who score high on Adjustment tend to seem optimistic. They manage pressure and changes well; they remain calm, cool, and collected under pressure; however, they tend not to take feedback seriously and may not react quickly to potential problems or issues in the market. Chinese executives who score low on Adjustment tend to feel more stress and pressure; however, they tend to be open to feedback, have a sense of urgency, and anticipate problems before they occur. Chinese executives score 10 percentile points lower on Adjustment than executives across the globe.
Alex Zhang believes that Chinese executives likely feel internal and extern churn stemming from the pressures of an ever-evolving landscape. Their lower Adjustment likely serves as a motivator for change and adaptation—and subsequent success. Considering the combination of low Ambition and low Adjustment, Chinese executives are likely somewhat insecure and highly self-reflective. Yang agrees that Chinese executives may be quite sensitive, especially given the challenges of the fast-changing and dynamic environment of business in China. These executives may be constantly worried about their performance on the job, which propels them to work even harder to perform.
HDS
Bold
On the HDS, Chinese executives’ top derailer is the Bold scale. In fact, Chinese executives score 17 percentile points higher than global executives on this scale.
Leaders who are higher on Bold tend to be confident and self-assured. When this strength is overused, however, leaders may seem entitled, arrogant, and unwilling to admit mistakes. When under stress, Chinese executives may show derailment behaviors, such as acting overconfident, overemphasizing their talents, and being unwilling to listen to others. According to Nancy Zhang, in these times, employees of these leaders will likely have a hard time influencing their decisions.
Hogan data show a theoretical and empirical relationship between high Ambition and high Bold; we would expect to see people who are driven, high energy, willing to take individual lead on their own become more extreme in their self-confidence and taking charge when not self-monitoring. However, among Chinese leaders we see a unique, unexpected combination of low Ambition and high Bold.
When in stress, a switch flips, and Chinese leaders become hard-charging, confrontational, and arrogant. According to Yang, Chinese executives try to achieve results through consensus and considering the perspective of the group. Echoing Zhang, she points out that Chinese executives may be more difficult to influence when facing stress or pressure.
MVPI
Power
On the MVPI, Chinese executives’ highest scale is Power. Leaders who are motivated by Power tend to value competition, achievement, and being perceived as influential.
These leaders prefer organizational cultures that are results oriented, aggressive, and competitive. Compared to global executives, Chinese executives score 12 percentile points higher on Power.
Leaders who score lower on Ambition like Chinese executives do not usually seem highly driven or interested in taking charge. However, considering their higher Power scores, Chinese leaders are likely to be highly motivated to compete, achieve positions of power, and thrive in a work environment that is focused on driving results.
Although low Ambition combined with high Power may seem to be a contradiction, Yang describes what this means for leaders in the workplace. She explains that Chinese executives tend to have a strong drive to become leaders and gain positions of power; however, with lower scores on Ambition, they may satisfy this motivation for Power by attempting to gain power through decision by consensus. Essentially, Chinese leaders are willing to take the time and effort to lobby or rally their colleagues and direct reports to get aligned for an idea or plan.
However, when stressful situations occur, which can be quite frequent in a fast-changing business environment, Nancy Zhang pointed out that Chinese executives may change tactics and behave overconfidently and arrogantly, using their own power and influence to control the situation, get the job done, and produce the results they desire without listening to input from others.
Chinese executives have unique ways in which they get ahead, which is a product of the dynamic history and cultural context in which they exist. Executives in China tend to be motivated to achieve power and be influential. They want to do these things by: (1) driving consensus and common goals; (2) by achieving practical goals instead of pushing for ambitious ones; and (3) in times of stress, disengagement, or when they are not self-monitoring, by taking command and control in a more hierarchal fashion.
Getting Along
How individuals get along highlights the crucial role of social and relational skill in success in the workplace. Chinese leaders use unique strategies to further their individual goals while preserving a positive group dynamic.
HPI
Interpersonal Sensitivity
On the HPI, one relationship-oriented scale that clearly stands out for Chinese leaders is Interpersonal Sensitivity. We find that Chinese executives score 12 percentile points lower than global executives on the Interpersonal Sensitivity scale.
Interpersonal Sensitivity refers to the degree to which a person seems sensitive, tactful, and perceptive. It is about quality and depth of social interaction. Leaders who score high on this scale tend to appear warm and agreeable but may also seem oversensitive and conflict averse. Leaders who score low on Interpersonal Sensitivity tend to be task oriented and willing to speak directly. These leaders could also appear blunt and have a reputation for being too critical and argumentative. Chinese leaders at every organizational level score lower on Interpersonal Sensitivity.
How does this play out for Chinese executives? According to Nancy Zhang, Chinese executives tend to communicate using few, straightforward words. They are oriented toward solving problems, and their communication is direct. However, they could seem insensitive or too direct in their style when communicating with people unused to this style.
According to Alex Zhang, many Chinese executives do not realize they are coming across as rude or insensitive. This presents an opportunity for strategic self-awareness. Chinese leaders may treat individuals with whom they are relationally close with more warmth. However, these leaders generally tend to prioritize tasks and efficiency in their communication with their teams and the people they manage.
HDS
Reserved
Among Chinese executives, the third highest derailer is the Reserved scale. Compared to global executives, Chinese executives score 12 percentile points higher.
Leaders who score high on Reserved seem professional and objective but under stress may act socially withdrawn, uncommunicative, or indifferent toward the moods or feelings of others. These leaders appear tough, aloof, remote, and unconcerned with the feelings of the teams they manage.
According to Nancy Zhang, in times of stress, Chinese executives may seem mysterious. Combining low Interpersonal Sensitivity with high Reserved, Chinese leaders may tend to focus on tasks more than people. This can be great for getting work done and for establishing clarity of purpose but could also lead to these leaders seeming unsympathetic to those they manage.
In stressful or difficult times, these leaders may use self-protective coping mechanisms, such as becoming emotionally unavailable, keeping others at a distance, and neglecting to offer feedback.
Dutiful
Another noteworthy trend we see for Chinese executives is higher Dutiful scores. Compared to global executives, emergent Chinese executives score 11 percentile points higher on the Dutiful scale.
This indicates that Chinese executives may be reluctant to make independent decisions without seeking permission, may not manage upward, and may seem overly deferent to authority, not sticking up for the teams they manage. The emergence of high Dutiful executives in China suggests that individuals who tend to agree with and listen to authority are more likely to gain positions of power. This is indicative of social structures that reward compliance over dissent. In this way, the mainland Chinese market differs from other markets that may reward leaders who are more willing to challenge authority.
MVPI
Altruistic
The MVPI has three scales related to people and relationships. One scale in particular stands out: Altruistic.
Leaders who are motivated by the Altruistic scale tend to enjoy helping others, coaching, and providing a meaningful service in their work. They are likely to create an Altruistic work culture in which people care about others and prioritize welfare and well-being. Compared to global executives, executives in China are more highly motivated by altruistic endeavors. In fact, Chinese executives score 15 percentile points higher than the global benchmark on Altruistic.
Chinese executives may feel obligated to act like the parent of the team members they manage and take responsibility for the holistic development of their team. While this care and support for the morale of their team members can be a positive strength that balances out the risk of high Reserved, Yang notes a potential unconscious bias for these leaders. These leaders may assume they know what is best for their employees and think their employees want their input on both professional and personal matters. While Chinese executives may be motivated to develop and coach their employees, their low Interpersonal Sensitivity and high Reserved may inadvertently hinder their engagement in behaviors that provide them significant motivation at work.
Despite these potential challenges, Chinese executives’ drive to help others offers the opportunity to boost staff morale and support subordinates in navigating and enhancing their careers. Their high Altruistic remains a powerful asset in fostering a development-oriented work environment.
Overall, Hogan’s Chinese leader emergence data show unique trends for Chinese executives’ preferred ways to get along at work. Against our global benchmarks, Chinese leaders score low on Interpersonal Sensitivity, with a tendency to speak clearly and directly. In stressful times, they maintain an air of professionalism but may seem aloof, detached, or stoic to their direct reports and may fail to provide emotional support to their teams. When it comes to work motivation, Chinese executives feel responsible for those they lead, and they tend to want to provide direction and coaching in all areas of their team members’ lives.
Chinese executives have unique ways to get along, a product of the dynamic context in which they lead. Executives in China tend to be motivated to provide parent-like support, development, and coaching for their teams. They tend to prioritize action and efficiency over diplomatic communication. In times of stress, disengagement, and when not self-monitoring, they may cope by disengaging socially and becoming aloof, reclusive, and distant from their teams.
Finding Meaning
The MVPI provides specific and unique insights into how leaders try to find meaning and what they value at work. Chinese executives exhibit an interesting pattern. Across all ten MPVI scales, Chinese executives have higher percentile scores compared to our global executive benchmark—between one to 18 percentile points higher. These data suggest that individuals rising to the highest echelons of leadership in Chinese organizations are passionate individuals who are strongly motivated by many values.
According to Nancy Zhang, the past 30 years in China’s market have been a golden age for the growth and success of both organizations and individuals in China. Chinese executives have perceived a direct correlation between hard work and results. Chinese leaders have had the opportunity to climb the hierarchy of needs and find meaning in a variety of ways. Leaders see opportunities at every turn, and they tend to believe that they can be successful in the opportunities they pursue. According to Alex Zhang, these leaders are motivated by a wide range of personal values and can fit within a variety of organizational cultures, resulting in a strong alignment with an organization’s values.
Vivian Yang shared the downside to high scores across a wide variety of motivators: Leaders can seem confused or unfocused. When they try to prioritize everything, nothing is a priority. Alex Zhang has also seen his coaching clients feel dissatisfaction in their career development. These leaders feel pulled in many directions, resulting in an inner concern for their professional achievement and personal sense of meaning.
MVPI
Aesthetics
One noteworthy emphasis among Chinese leaders’ data is reflected in the Aesthetics scale. Chinese leaders score 18 percentile points higher than the global executive benchmark.
Chinese leaders may tend to value opportunities to use their imagination and creativity. They may constantly focus on what’s new and what’s next, turning their attention to changing market conditions or new industry directions. They will tend to make decisions that are in line with their appreciation for quality and design. However, to those they lead, this value may cause them to seem unpredictable or unfocused if they are constantly chasing after new trends.
Overall, when the market is turbulent, leaders have a responsibility to reflect on and consider what is important to them. Their values affect how they will lead their organizations and teams, what kind of culture they will create, and what they will reward in their employees. For Chinese leaders with higher MVPI scale scores, it is especially important to carefully consider and prioritize what is important and what environment they desire to create as a leader. This will help them set a clear vision for their teams to align.
Conclusion
Considering the overall snapshot of emergent leaders in China, those who are rising to the C-suite and board levels have unique trends specific to their markets. While these characteristics help describe the current leadership in Chinese organizations, we must point out that this is not a static state of leadership.
As the political, commercial, and economic contexts change in an environment, we expect that the trends for how leaders are getting ahead, getting along, and finding meaning will also evolve. Over the course of years or decades, we expect to see changes in who emerges to lead Chinese organizations. For now, however, understanding current leader characteristics offers a deeper understanding of organizational leadership and environments in mainland China.