Q&A Frank Gallo

Frank Gallo has been a human resources professional and consultant for nearly 20 years, spending half that time in China. Before that, he was a mental health counselor in the US , the basis for work with individuals as an executive coach. While coaching is not therapy, it requires the formation of trusting client relationships, interpreting spoken meanings, listening carefully, and extreme self-awareness. Gallo has a Ph. D. in organizational behavior and a Masters in Social Work (MSW ) specializing in clinical social work from Boston University. He also has a B.A. from Hofstra University in New York. In 1980, he was awarded a National Health Sciences research grant to conduct his doctoral research.

He gave this exclusive interview to Victor Fic, our special correspondent for economics and politics.

Frank, summarize your experience in China’s business world and with the society and culture overall.

I am an American who has lived in Beijing for the past 10 years. I work as the Chief Leadership Consultant for HR consulting giant Aon Hewitt and I am the former Greater China managing consultant for Watson Wyatt Worldwide. In 2004, I retired from Watson Wyatt, but soon started my own company in China called Calypso Consulting. When I joined Hewitt Associates in 2009, Calypso became dormant. This year Hewitt merged with Aon to become Aon Hewitt.

You claim to be a coach whose input can improve the quality of business leaders in China among Westerners and locals. What specific objectives do you have?

My mission in life and motive for work is to help raise the level of business leadership in China. My book, Business Leadership in China: How To Blend Western Best Practice with Chinese Wisdom, is a key ingredient. I conduct leadership workshops and executive coaching for foreign and Chinese leaders to improve leadership style and often use psychometric tools for assessment.

What are psychometric tools?

These surveys assess the work style or personality. Some require feedback from others while others are self-assessments. The Myers-Briggs (MBTI ) and the DIS C, (an acronym for Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Conscientiousness) are common. I often use the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI ) to measures leadership style. This requires 360 degree feedback. Another is the Facet5, for a personality profile.

Give us some details on how some of these tools actually test the person.

As for LSI , it compares the leaders intended styles described in the self-assessment with what others perceive based on 360 degree responses. These often differ and surprise the leader who thought he was helping people to achieve higher goals, a constructive style, when he was actually viewed as too much of a perfectionist with an aggressively defensive and destructive style.

The Facet5 does not require feedback. Rather, the person answers several questions on line that measure his personality. There are no good or bad ones -- just differences. So the Facet5 is best where team members can see what drives them and compare results for better understanding.

What concerns do you raise in your monthly column?

My monthly columns are CHO Magazine on human resources and Forbes China on leadership and work in China from a foreigner’s perspective. I also offer pragmatic tips for managers.

The word wisdom is rare in business -- why do you use it?

It means understanding Chinese culture based on the classical Chinese philosophy and writings from Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Sun Zi, Lao Zi, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and others. The best manager both understands and applies this philosophy consciously or sub-consciously in daily life. Foreigners ignorant of Chinese wisdom can fail.

What are some Chinese leadership styles and what is unique about them?

In my book, I identify new material such as wu. Wu is Buddhist and implies very deep insight, i.e., people who use all five senses to understand an issue based on the holistic thinking that most Asians use. Westerners use a more logic-based linear thinking, handling matters in sequence. Some Asian leadership experts claim that Westerners struggle to practice wu and so are incomplete leaders.

That is a good, but vague idea. Introduce a more practical one.

Zhong yong is a Confucianist concept that literally means “in the middle”. Leaders must not go too far “out on a limb” before more facts are known, but must get it just right by listening to all sides and not jumping to a conclusion like many Western leaders.

Many Westerners encounter tensions when they learn that the locals are not as candid.

Yes, another Chinese leadership style, useful for Westerners, is learning when and how to be indirect. Chinese leaders know when to be direct or indirect. Westerners, as a rule, are direct, even though the truth hurts. While this works in the West, it causes loss of face here and sometimes the victim resigns, often the opposite of the leader’s intent.

Kipling said that the East and West cannot meet, but you think these contradictions can be blended, correct?

The sub-title, How to Blend Best Western Practice with Chinese Wisdom, alludes to the primary theme. The most successful leaders in China blend skillfully and that requires understanding the best Western leadership practices. Anyone succeeding as a leader in the West has this. The problem is gaining Chinese wisdom.

My book offers numerous examples of contradictions between Western best leadership practice and Chinese wisdom and how to defuse tensions. I also address individualism versus collectivism, the rule of man versus the rule of law, innovation and risk-taking, decision-making and employee motivation.

Let’s return to those specific ideas. Tell us what sorts of leadership failures can occur?

To start, in the West, empowering employees is a leadership best practice and given in service and customer focused organizations. Empowering workers improves performance and enriches job satisfaction, meaning employee retention. In China, empowerment is also valuable and common. But first recall the Confucian saying, jun jun, chen chen, fu fu, zi, zi (君君臣臣父父 子子). ‘Order exists when the king is king, the minister is minister, the father is father and the son is son’ -- everyone in his place. Disruption causes chaos. Imagine a leader here who empowers unprepared people, but they do not understand the concept or suspect the leader is shirking responsibility -- problems arise.

Can you cite real world examples of failure and the remedies?

A very successful American senior executive was sent here to run a large manufacturing division. His first task was to empower the team to provide answers to problems -- disaster occurred! The team froze because it did not understand the objectives or why the leader passed the task directly to them. Instead, he should specifically instruct them on answers.

What was the solution?

After coaching, the leader understood how a Chinese workforce might first receive empowerment and modified his practice accordingly. He worked closely and directly with the team, demonstrating his own competency and explaining why he empowered them. He shared research showing how empowerment benefits all. They became comfortable and one told me that she would never take a job if it did not permit empowerment.

That is the sort of lesson that our readers like to learn. Tell us more about the nitty gritty of daily interaction....

Both Western and Chinese cultures espouse truthfulness and courtesy. But a Westerner will often choose truth over courtesy while the Chinese person will select courtesy. So Chinese employees often leave the firm under false pretenses like “I must leave to get my MBA in Canada” but actually go to a competitor. A Westerner would directly say that he is to work there, but the Chinese person would worry about being courteous to colleagues, especially the bosses who might lose face.

What are the differences for teamwork? Does the Chinese way ensure conformity and bureaucracy?

Employee research shows that teams in China are more cohesive and loyal than Western ones, but are less likely to cooperate with other teams in the same firm. Cross-functional teamwork is harder here. My hypothesis is that the very close family relationship in Chinese culture causes closeness within work teams that substitute for the family or home village. But just as Chinese families are insular and unwilling to share time and resources with outsiders, Chinese employees are the same -- a silo mentality.

How can it be overcome?

Traditional team building with crossfunctional teams is most often tried; however, this often fails because the teams just compete, reducing cross-functional teamwork more. A better approach is to rotate team members periodically, especially the leader. Companies may protest it involves costly new learning curves for rotated employees. But having people comfortable in several teams will greatly improve relations between the former and current teams of the person rotated.

As for motivation, is it true that Westerners act for self-advancement and Confucianists for the group?

I believe that you cannot “motivate” another, but you can influence issues intrinsically important to someone. At work, for example, some are primarily motivated by security or reward or collegiality or opportunities for development and advancement. The psychologist Maslow rightly talked about the hierarchy of needs, which is very relevant in China. Some employees come from poor families so that income and security are paramount, but those richer and already secure may pursue self-actualization through work.

As for Western individualism versus Chinese collectivism, business leaders must understand the importance of the team here as in a joint venture. Often times, the Western part will identify key employees for rewards and development, but the Chinese side will prioritize the impact on the group.

For decision-making, amplify the “fuzzy logic” versus the Western linear logic idea because it arises often in social or commercial interaction.

Some Westerners think the Chinese approach is “fuzzy” because it is often illogical, endlessly retreating over material covered earlier. But the holistic thinker feels he is learning new things from the time when he made earlier decisions. Here, decision -making is an iterative, not a linear, process. But when deadlines require a decision now, the Chinese call this pai ban 拍板 which literally means ‘to rap the gavel’ like a judge handing down a verdict.

And the role of the individual rather than the rule of law?

The law in China is not as developed as it is in the West. There is relatively little case law and the decisions are not yet generalized across China. So instructions in Shanghai and Beijing may differ, as with employee benefits. In the US , a company with operations in multiple states can have one omnibus benefits plan. In China, a company needs several different plans to satisfy local requirements.

As for the contract, in the West, it is a final document for all parties or they face legal penalties. In China, the contract is often a memorandum of understanding and changeable by either party as the situation changes. This often frustrates Westerners.

All tags:

None

Login or register to tag items