INTRODUCTION
Guanxi is one of the most common terms used to describe social reality in Chinese culture. In recent years, it has been the focus of attention in both Western and Chinese scholarship, generating rich discussions (Bian, Reference Bian2018; Burt, Reference Burt2019; Chen, Chen, & Huang, Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Hwang, Reference Hwang1987; Li, Reference Li1998; Luo, Reference Luo2011; Xin & Pearce, Reference Xin and Pearce1996). Like the two key schools about social capital – the first emphasizing the relational substance of social ties as the unit of analysis at the level of dyads in terms of interpersonal ties between two parties, and the second focusing on the structure of social networks as the unit of analysis at the level of networks in terms of a portfolio of diverse dyads (for reviews, see Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002; Portes, Reference Portes1998; Woolcock, Reference Woolcock1998; see also de Pablos, Reference De Pablos2005) – current studies on guanxi can be divided into two streams. First, guanxi has been examined as a dyad consisting of familiarity, intimacy, trust, sentiment, and obligations (Bian, Reference Bian1997; Burt & Burzynska, Reference Burt and Burzynska2017; Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017). Second, guanxi has been studied at the level of networks that consist of multiple dyadic ties embedded in an egocentric network consisting of diverse and dynamic ties with an ego (Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012; Luo, Cheng, & Zhang, Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016). The current research on guanxi, at the level of dyads or of networks, has generated useful insights into this indigenous construct in China.
However, these two research streams about guanxi remain somewhat isolated from each other. Undoubtedly, guanxi can be framed as particular dyads, but how this tie is influenced and shaped in the network in which it is embedded is less clear. Meanwhile, how guanxi networks, as a special kind of social network, emerges and evolves with dyads also remains unclear. Although some similarities and differences between guanxi and social capital have been identified (e.g., Horak, Taube, Yang, & Restel, Reference Horak, Taube, Yang and Restel2019), few studies discuss the interaction between dyads and networks. Moreover, little is known about the cultural and historical roots of guanxi in China. Current studies on guanxi have fruitful results, but holistic and dynamic knowledge about guanxi is lacking, which limits further research on this construct not only in the context of China but also in the emerging global context.
In this study, we shed new light on the ongoing debates over guanxi by decomposing and interpreting it in light of its two dimensions: guan 关 [related with] and xi 系 [tied together]. This approach is compatible with the prevailing approach in research on social capital and consistent with the reality of Chinese practice. First, we distinguish guan and xi as the two core dimensions of guanxi: dyads and networks, respectively. Second, we combine these dimensions into one dynamic and holistic system to discuss their interplay and integration. This approach allows us to assess the current literature on guanxi more systematically by differentiating studies with a primary focus on guan (emphasizing the substance or content of dyadic ties) from those primarily devoted to xi (emphasizing the structure or pattern of network circles). It also enables us to explore a largely neglected area of research on guanxi: the interaction between guan and xi, so that we can truly understand guanxi as a holistic and dynamic construct with its duality-oriented features: contexts (e.g., the duality of uncertainty as risk and opportunity), bases (e.g., the duality of ascribed and achieved status), substance (e.g., the duality of instrumental/economic/weak and sentimental/social/strong content), structure (e.g., closure/density and structural holes; core and periphery; homophily and multiplexity), process-related mechanisms (e.g., trust transfer and trust conversion), and outcomes (e.g., positive and negative; change and continuity). In this way, we can reveal rich implications not only for China in particular but also for the world in general.
This study has two goals. First, we provide a systematic review of the current literature on guanxi, differentiating guan dyads from xi networks, as its two core dimensions. Second, based on this literature review, we propose a redirection of future research on guanxi. In particular, we posit that, although guan dyads and xi networks are two distinct dimensions of guanxi, they should not be examined in isolation. Related to such two goals, we make two contributions. First, we reconceptualize guanxi, so as to integrate the instrumental and sentimental logic of strong ties among friends, while considering both close kinship ties and stranger ties ‘non-guanxi’. Further, guanxi can be analyzed more effectively by recognizing guan dyads and xi networks as two distinct yet interdependent dimensions. Second, we propose a redirection of future research on guanxi to focus more on issues related to dynamic processes, especially holistic interactions between the substantive and structural dimensions of guanxi through four mechanisms: trust transfer, trust conversion, Buddha-face, and multiplexity. Specifically, we argue that it is logically impossible to have xi networks without guan dyads; guan dyads without xi networks not only are unusual in the Chinese context but also highly irrelevant in an organizational context. Hence, this study proposes a holistic and dynamic approach to both conceptualizing and operationalizing guanxi in a complex organizational context and across diverse cultures, as the most fruitful avenue for future research.
In the first section, we offer a systematic literature review on guanxi; then we present a reconceptualization of guanxi; afterward, we propose a redirection of future research on guanxi; and finally offer our conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The approaches to studying guanxi have evolved over the past three decades. At first, most research on guanxi concentrated on international business research. The analysis was related to practices at multinational corporations in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (e.g., Farh, Tsui, Xin, & Cheng, Reference Farh, Tsui, Xin and Cheng1998; Luo, Reference Luo1997; Xin & Pearce, Reference Xin and Pearce1996; Yeung & Tung, Reference Yeung and Tung1996). Later, research on guanxi focused increasingly on the practices of Chinese enterprises as an indigenous issue (e.g., Gu, Hung, & Tse, Reference Gu, Hung and Tse2008; Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2007; Luo, Reference Luo2011; Peng & Luo, Reference Peng and Luo2000). Despite the growing popularity of research on guanxi, it still has some conceptual ambiguities in terms of its substance and structure at various levels of analysis as well as its antecedents, processes, and consequences (for reviews, see Bian, Reference Bian2018; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Li, Reference Li2007).
Many scholars analyzed guanxi at the level of a dyad (e.g., Burt & Burzynska, Reference Burt and Burzynska2017; Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Hwang, Reference Hwang1987), but some have studied guanxi at the level of both dyads and networks (i.e., an egocentric network with oneself as the ego at the center of network) (e.g., Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2007; Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012). Few discussed guanxi at the level of an entire network (e.g., Fan, Reference Fan2002), as in mainstream network research in the West (e.g., Barabási & Albert, Reference Barabási and Albert1999; Watts & Strogatz, Reference Watts and Strogatz1998).
Finally, many theoretical concepts in the literature on guanxi have not been supported in empirical studies and remain merely propositions. For example, the related issues of face (mianzi) and favor (renqing) (e.g., Hwang, Reference Hwang1987) and the ethical challenges and negative effects of guanxi (e.g., Dunfee & Warren, Reference Dunfee and Warren2001) have rarely been empirically validated. Part of the reason is the lack of access to data because of the sensitivity of such issues, especially in the context of China (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016).
Definition of Guanxi
Regarding the definition of guanxi, scholars in different fields have formulated different concepts from diverse, sometimes conflicting, perspectives. At first, a group of scholars who studied Chinese issues defined guanxi as interpersonal connections based on familial or close kinship ties, which tend to be strong ties with primarily a sentimental or emotional role, especially in the context of China (e.g., Hu, Reference Hu1944; Liang, Reference Liang1986 [1949]). Later, some scholars noted the instrumental role of guanxi, so they defined it as particularistic instrumental ties (Jacobs, Reference Jacobs1979), but many others retained the sentimental basis as the unique nature of guanxi (e.g., Bian, Reference Bian1997; Hwang, Reference Hwang1987; Yang, Reference Yang1994). However, no consensus has been reached on whether family ties or close kin ties are part of guanxi or on how guanxi differs from social capital (Li, Reference Li2007). Recent studies by Burt and colleagues indicate that guanxi is a special type of strong tie among family members, close kin, and long-term friends that is independent from a network structure, so guanxi can serve as a cocoon to protect these network members from a hostile external context (Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018). In this literature review, we adopt the broadest definition of guanxi as an informal norm of interpersonal exchange that regulates and facilitates privileged access to sentimental or instrumental resources at the dyadic or network level (for reviews, see Bian, Reference Bian2018; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Li, Reference Li2007; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016).
Cultural and Historical Roots of Guanxi
Deeply rooted in the Chinese historical and cultural context, guanxi is a basic building block of Chinese society, in which the extent of ‘personalism’ (Redding, Reference Redding1990) between social actors varies according to the degree of personal closeness and social distance (Liang, Reference Liang1986 [1949]). Guanxi is salient in China for two reasons.
First, at the surface level, guanxi is important in China due to the lack of well-established formal institutions (cf. North, Reference North1990; Peng, Reference Peng2003). This perspective has been solidly established in the literature, so there is no need to elaborate further.
Second, at the deep level, guanxi historically emerged as a form of self-protection from two threats. The first threat is the hostile environment facing new migrants who fled their region of origin because of countless wars between the northern nomads and the southern Han 汉 ethnic group. Confronting unfriendly or even hostile attitudes from the existing communities in the new region, the Han people could rely only on their own immediate family members, close kin, and long-time friends for self-protection (Li, Reference Li1998; Redding, Reference Redding1990). The Chinese developed a common practice of turning close friends into pseudo-kin by informally ‘adopting’ parents or siblings (Bian, Reference Bian2018; Luo, Reference Luo2011; Yang, Reference Yang, Cheng, Cheung and Chen1993).
The second threat is corrupt formal institutions in China, especially government agencies at all levels. In this sense, guanxi has long been recognized as an informal force to counterbalance the grabbing hand of the state as a monopoly to extract rent from the Chinese, which has created a strong sense of insecurity among the Chinese over time (Redding, Reference Redding1990). The combination of the state as a monopoly without any balance of power and the rule of man at the expense of the rule of law has forced the Chinese to rely primarily on self-organized and self-managed social networks for their self-protection. This dynamic also led the Chinese to trust and rely mostly on informal practices, which have persisted over time.
The lack of the rule of law in China historically can reasonably be seen as deriving from overreaction to the extreme abuse of Legalism in the Qin dynasty over two thousand years ago.[Footnote 1] This may explain why the Chinese chose Confucianism, which favors the rule of man rather than the rule of law. This historical choice has had a long-term impact on China even down to the present. However, this preference is a double-edged sword (Li, Reference Li1998), and some signs have emerged that this preference in China may be shifting (Lin, Lu, Li, & Liu, Reference Lin, Lu, Li and Liu2015).
Finally, at an even deeper level is a third reason for the salience or prevalence of guanxi in China, which has been largely neglected but is deeply embedded in Chinese philosophical traditions. In general, most Chinese schools of philosophy value tacit knowledge and artistic skills over explicit knowledge and scientific skills. In particular, Daoism strongly tolerates and prefers holistic and dynamic paradoxes or dualities (rooted in the Chinese epistemology of yin-yang balance), and it also prefers complex ambiguities that are often expressed in terms of artistic metaphors that rely on intuitive imagination for insight, rather than rational logic and measurable constructs in scientific research (Li, Reference Li2016; Li & Xie, Reference Li and Xie2019). However, a balance between formal and informal factors is still the best for West-meeting-East balancing (Li, Reference Li2016).
An Overview of the Literature on Guanxi
To obtain an initial overview of the literature on guanxi, we used the Web of Science (WOS) database to search for relevant articles in management and business. We set the time range from 1980 to 2018, and the result yielded more than 500 relevant studies. We then analyzed the citation networks of these studies and conducted a cluster analysis (network modularity analysis)[Footnote 2] by identifying four major clusters in the literature on guanxi (see Table 1). It should be noted that only three of the ten highly cited empirical studies reported and discussed the effect size.
Table 1. Major clusters of research on guanxi (1980–2018)
Notes: a. No discussion of the effect size. b. Reported R2 for control variables separately from independent variables but did not discuss the effect size. c. Discussed the effect size but did not provide R2 of IVs separated from control variables.
Conceptual Studies on Guanxi
In the extant literature, conceptual studies on guanxi focus mainly on the basis (e.g., Tsang, Reference Tsang1998; Yang, Reference Yang1994), nature (e.g., Hwang, Reference Hwang1987; Lovett, Simmons, & Kali, Reference Lovett, Simmons and Kali1999; Tsang, Reference Tsang1998; Yang, Reference Yang1994), types (e.g., Hwang, Reference Hwang1987; Yang, Reference Yang1994), accumulation process (e.g., Yan, Reference Yan1996; Yang, Reference Yang1994), significance (e.g., Yang, Reference Yang2002) and dark side of guanxi (e.g., Dunfee & Warren, Reference Dunfee and Warren2001; Qi, Reference Qi2013). These studies emphasize the basis of trust and patterns of reciprocity in guanxi. By comparing theories on guanxi with existing theories, such as institutional theory and social capital theory, scholars demonstrate the uniqueness of guanxi and its popularity in China and build an analytical framework for studying it. Table 2 summarizes the key theoretical findings in these conceptual studies in the literature on guanxi.
Table 2. Summary of key conceptual studies on guanxi
Empirical Studies on Guanxi
The quantitative research on guanxi can be divided into studies at the interorganizational and the intra-organizational levels. The first type mainly uses the questionnaire-based survey method to obtain data; the second mainly adopts experiments and questionnaires to collect data. In general, they find that ownership, institutional and market environments, firm size, and managerial traits all have impacts on the strategy and implementation of guanxi (Lee, Pae, & Wong, Reference Lee, Pae and Wong2001; Li, Yao, Sue-Chen, & Xi, Reference Li, Yao, Sue-Chen and Xi2011; Luo, Reference Luo1997; Opper, Nee, & Holm, Reference Opper, Nee and Holm2017; Park & Luo, Reference Park and Luo2001). In addition, guanxi has a positive effect on performance indicators, but the impacts on different indicators differ (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Hung and Tse2008; Guo & Miller, Reference Guo and Miller2010; Park & Luo, Reference Park and Luo2001; Peng & Luo, Reference Peng and Luo2000). Different types of guanxi have different effects on business performance (Peng & Luo, Reference Peng and Luo2000; Xin & Pearce, Reference Xin and Pearce1996). To a certain extent, these studies incorporate research on guanxi into larger analytical frameworks, such as those on social networks and social capital (Bian, Reference Bian2018).
At the intra-organizational level, guanxi has an impact on trust between supervisors and subordinates (Chen, Chen, & Xin, Reference Chen, Chen and Xin2004; Farh et al., Reference Farh, Tsui, Xin and Cheng1998), which also affects employee performance and promotion (Chen & Gable, Reference Chen and Gable2013; Law, Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000; Taormina & Gao, Reference Taormina and Gao2010). Guanxi can promote collaboration among employees (Chen & Tjosvold, Reference Chen and Tjosvold2006) and has an impact on employees’ perception of fairness (Chen, Friedman, Yu, & Sun, Reference Chen, Friedman, Yu and Sun2011). Current studies find that employee similarity, values, and organizational environment affect the formation and maintenance of guanxi (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Pae and Wong2001; Taormina & Gao, Reference Taormina and Gao2010; Zhang, Deng, Zhang, & Hu, Reference Zhang, Deng, Zhang and Hu2016). The degree of trust in different types of guanxi within an organization varies (Luo, Reference Luo2011).
Table 3 summarizes the quantitative studies on guanxi in terms of relationships between guanxi and other variables, key findings, explained variance (R2), effect sizes (Fisher's z-transformation based on the correlation coefficients and sample sizes), and the 95% confidence interval with an upper and lower bound. The specific review sections on guan and xi offer detailed discussions on the empirical findings. However, some empirical studies did not provide a table on the correlation coefficients, so we did not include them, but they are discussed below. In response to criticisms of management that place too much emphasis on statistical significance and new findings, empirical researchers should adequately report their results, including effect size, explanatory power, and insignificant results (Lewin, Chiu, Fey, Levine, McDermott, Murmann, & Tsang, Reference Lewin, Chiu, Fey, Levine, McDermott, Murmann and Tsang2016). In Table 3, we can see that, although regression coefficients were provided and discussed in all studies, 13 out of 22 studies did not report or discuss the explained variance (R2) associated with the independent variables separate from control variables. Only 10 studies have clearly discussed effect size in the results section, six of which are at intra-organizational level. This makes it impossible to adequately compare the main findings of different studies, so we cannot clearly estimate the explanatory power of guanxi in these studies.
Table 3. Summary of key quantitative studies on guanxi
Note: a. Authors did not report R2 for control variables separately from independent variables.
Table 4 summarizes the main results of qualitative studies on guanxi. Qualitative studies on guanxi cover specific topics, such as dynamic changes and content and circles of guanxi.
Table 4. Summary of key qualitative studies on guanxi
In general, the conceptual and empirical studies on guanxi seem disconnected. The concepts, perspectives, and frameworks in the rich theoretical research on guanxi have not been adequately tested in the empirical research. The primary focus of the extant empirical research is the antecedents and effect of guanxi, and only a few empirical studies focus on the negative effects of guanxi and the process of building it. More noteworthy is that most research on guanxi is based on an analysis of dyadic ties between two individuals, but the network structure aspect of guanxi has been neglected (for exceptions, see Li, Reference Li2007; Luo, Reference Luo2011; Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016), especially in terms of centrifugal networks (i.e., a web-shaped network with the strongest ties at the core and weaker ties on the periphery, which is known as the differential mode of association (Fei, Reference Fei1992 [1947]). Other major debates and gaps in the literature on guanxi exist (see Bian, Reference Bian2018; Li, Reference Li2007, for reviews), which are addressed in the next section.
RECONCEPTUALIZING GUAN AND XI
In this section, we reconceptualize guanxi and explain its two different dimensions: guan (dyad) and xi (network). Guanxi is neither an individual-level nor a group-level construct; rather, it has both individual and group dimensions. The individual dimension has been discussed in terms of strong and weak ties, and the group dimension has also been well investigated in terms of centrality (peripherality) and density (structural holes). However, the dyad and network aspects have not been explored, so some opportunities for gaining new insights into guanxi may have been missed. Our reconceptualization adopts a narrower and more restricted notion of guanxi in two respects: it excludes blood-based family ties and close kinship ties as well as stranger ties. We do so for three reasons.
First, the relational closeness in guanxi is dynamic in nature, thus changeable over time. However, close kinship ties are not only ascribed but also fixed on the basis of blood relations. If guanxi can be built over time in a dynamic process, close kinship ties as given must be excluded from guanxi. Stranger ties are not yet guanxi because of the absence of any connection. Second, guanxi must be governed by a mixture of both instrumental and sentimental logic, but close kinship and stranger ties are governed by only one of them, so it is necessary to exclude them in the reconceptualization of guanxi. Third, the substance and structural dimensions of guanxi are inherently intertwined, but close kinship and stranger ties are not subject to the effect of network structure. For instance, Burt and colleagues posit that close kinship ties (and pseudo-kinship ties) constitute a cocoon independent of network structure (Burt, Reference Burt2019; Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018), but a new study (Prato, Kypraios, Ertug, & Lee, Reference Prato, Kypraios, Ertug and Lee2019) shows that ascribed and achieved status as different social positions in a specific social network are often intertwined with interactive effects.
In short, we focus only on familiar ties (pseudo-kinship and friendship ties) and regard distant kinship and stranger ties as potential sources of guanxi in a dynamic process.
Guan Dyad
The defining features of guan dyad
Guan literally means ‘related’[Footnote 4] and refers to a strong dyadic contact between two social actors. Through reciprocal guan, two parties can exchange favors, resources, and knowledge with each other. The nature of guan in Chinese society is strongly informal (Li, Reference Li2007). Both the rights and obligations of guan are implicit (in contrast to explicit resources, such as physical capital and financial capital), so it cannot be governed by any formal regulations or laws (Li, Reference Li2007). The research on the defining features of guan focus on one question: What constitutes a guan dyad, as the substance of an informal and personalized tie?
The central substance of guan is in having a complex mixture of instrumental and sentimental logic. It can be established via emotional interactions, but it also has an instrumental role in social life (Bian, Reference Bian1997; Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2007). Hwang (Reference Hwang1987) divided the governing logic of guanxi into three dimensions: affective, normative, and instrumental. The affective dimension consists of expressive or affective bonds, such as feelings of affection, safety, and attachment. The normative dimension indicates that guanxi must be built up from prescriptive ties such as pseudo-kinship and friendship. The instrumental dimension indicates that guanxi can bring some economic benefits to the parties involved, such as exchanges of favors.
However, in contrast to our reconceptualization, many scholars (e.g., Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013) posit that guanxi can be divided into affective versus instrumental ties, personal versus impersonal ties, and mixed ties; personal guanxi ties are more affective, while impersonal ties are more instrumental. Our reconceptualization explicitly suggests that guan is inseparably both sentimental and instrumental.
The underlying bases of guan dyad
In the Chinese context, the underlying basis of guan is multidimensional. Two essential bases are identified with respect to guan dyads: (1) ascribed bases (e.g., distant kinship, hometown, and attending the same university) and (2) achieved bases (e.g., non-kin friendship, education, profession, attending the same university, common workplace, and shared hobbies) (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Li, Reference Li2007; cf. Prato et al., Reference Prato, Kypraios, Ertug and Lee2019).
First, guan implies a reciprocal obligation between two people (Horak & Taube, Reference Horak and Taube2016). Reciprocity involves exchange behavior, unlike spot transactions in the market. It is critical to note that the notion of reciprocity in the Chinese context differs substantially from that in the West on the dimensions of value and time (Li, Reference Li2007). While the Western notion of reciprocity refers to an exchange of benefits at an equal value and at an immediate or a certain point of time, the Chinese notion of reciprocity highlights an exchange of benefits at an escalating value and at an unspecified point of time, just as an old Chinese proverb says: ‘if someone pays you an honor of a linear foot, you should reciprocate by honoring the giver with ten linear foot’ (滴水之恩, 当涌泉相报 in Chinese). Further, reciprocal exchange involves both instrumental and emotional behaviors (Luo, Reference Luo2011). Norms of reciprocity generate trust as an efficient enabling mechanism in a guanxi network. However, reciprocal exchange behavior rarely occurs between two strangers though is common between two friends. We discuss this in the following section.
Second, the frequency of guanxi interaction is based on social proximity and distance, and it varies among different dyads (Hwang, Reference Hwang1987; Luo, Reference Luo2011). The closer the relationship is, the more frequent are the interaction and resources exchanged. Strong ties involve the exchange of favors, which has a significant impact on status attainment in Chinese society (Bian, Reference Bian1997; Bian, Huang, & Zhang, Reference Bian, Huang and Zhang2015). These findings highlight the power of strong ties in China.
The process of building guan dyad
Building guan is a dynamic process, anchored in building trust – the basis of guan (Burt & Burzynska, Reference Burt and Burzynska2017; Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2007). Consistent with Li's framework on building trust (Reference Li2008), the building of guan dyads follows a similar process. Initially, non-guan ties between strangers have depersonalized bases, whereas guan dyads have personalized bases. The cultivation and maintenance of guan require repeated reciprocal actions, accompanied by the continuous accumulation of trust and commitment.
Guan can last for a long time, even a lifetime, resulting in growing cognitive trust based on instrumental outcomes and growing affective trust that forms life-long family friendships, pseudo-kin, or even new kin members through marriage. Hence, reciprocal actions based on guan are neither immediate nor symmetrical. Favors granted in a current exchange can be returned with other kinds of favors in the future. As Hwang (Reference Hwang1987: 947) pointed out, ‘in the process of interaction, either party in the dyad may interchangeably play the role of petitioner at one time and that of resource allocator at another’. In the process of building and maintaining guan dyads, this kind of exchange of favors could continue in a never-ending cycle.
The operating effects of guan dyad
The studies on the impact of guan can be divided between those on intra-organizational ties and those on interorganizational ties. On the first topic, using a high-tech firm in Taiwan, Luo (Reference Luo2011) empirically confirmed different types of ties, pseudo-kinship and acquaintance ties, in the research on horizontal guan dyads (relationships between actors or colleagues at the same level) at the intra-organizational level. Fu, Tsui, and Dess (Reference Fu, Tsui and Dess2006) also found that acquaintance ties and stranger ties have different effects on knowledge management and decision-making at various stages in a firm's development. Chen and colleagues (Reference Chen, Friedman, Yu and Sun2011) illustrated that interpersonal guan within a group may enhance employees’ perceptions of justice, while guan among different group managers may weaken employees’ perceptions of justice.
The supervisor-subordinate tie is a typical example of a vertical guan dyad, with the potential for transferring knowledge, resources, or favors between supervisors and subordinates (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Deng, Zhang and Hu2016). Empirical studies demonstrate that this dyad could affect employees’ work performance and even personal life satisfaction (Han & Altman, Reference Han and Altman2009; Law et al., 2000; Taormina & Gao, Reference Taormina and Gao2010), as well as enhance participatory leadership. For example, guan dyads between Chinese employees and foreign managers at foreign-invested firms are positively related to joint decision-making and constructive controversy (Chen & Tjosvold, Reference Chen and Tjosvold2006). In exploring which factors affect this dyad, Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Deng, Zhang and Hu2016) found that the motives for guanxi (career concerns, personal life, in-group, and social desirability) can account for the differences in the strength of the dyad. Other studies stress the role of personal characteristics in the development of this dyad (Han & Altman, Reference Han and Altman2009).
Guan dyads at the interorganizational level usually refer to social ties between managers of different organizations as either political ties or business ties to gain competitive advantage and achieve better performance (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Luo, Huang, & Wang, Reference Luo, Huang and Wang2012). Because guan is associated with trust, it can reduce the risk that organizations might confront in an uncertain environment. Through guan dyads, managers can obtain valuable information about the external environment, such as changes in government policies and market reforms (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Hung and Tse2008). Based on two interviews and a survey at 850 Chinese firms, Bian (Reference Bian and Wong2008) revealed that startup firms were more likely to grow out of the founders’ guan dyads. His data show that 97% of these firms used guan dyads to mobilize financial capital at the initial stage. The survey results show the importance of guan dyads in attracting the first business order and reducing the cost of contracts.
The positive relationship between guan dyads and firm performance can be moderated by some organizational factors, such as the quality of guanxi, industrial conditions, the market, and the institutional context (Guo & Miller, Reference Guo and Miller2010; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Pae and Wong2001; Opper et al., Reference Opper, Nee and Holm2017). After controlling for firm characteristics, Peng and Luo (Reference Peng and Luo2000) found that the positive influence of managerial ties on firm performance is much stronger at small firms, firms in service industries, and firms in industries with lower growth. The dynamic of guan dyads in the entrepreneurial process also needs to be noted. For example, Guo and Miller (Reference Guo and Miller2010) showed that in knowledge-intensive industries, guan dyads are more likely to be built and maintained through sharing information and knowledge, rather than through the exchange of gifts or favors. Bian (Reference Bian1997) also pointed out that the ties most mobilized in China were strong ties and indirect ties.
The dark side of guan dyad
Portes (Reference Portes1998) pointed out that social capital has a negative side, such as locked-in effects, and so does guan. First, guan requires investment but has uncertain returns (Peng & Luo, Reference Peng and Luo2000). During interactions, guan cannot guarantee returns, which may create burdens for operations (Opper et al., Reference Opper, Nee and Holm2017). In addition, after firms receive favors from other organizations via guan, they are expected to return these favors, following the rules of reciprocity (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Hung and Tse2008). Hence, using guan can also create risks for firm performance. For example, Opper and colleagues (Reference Opper, Nee and Holm2017) find that the risk aversion and risk perception of the CEO could affect their mobilization of guan dyads.
Second, guan dyads are specific personal assets (de Pablos, Reference De Pablos2005). Guan dyads are personalized because exchanges of favors are based on personal morals and affective trust (Li, Reference Li2007). Although all guan dyads have various positive effects, they are fragile and volatile. If individuals with valuable guan dyads are dismissed, the organization may lose its ability to sustain its competitive advantage (Tsang, Reference Tsang1998). Hence, Gu and colleagues (Reference Gu, Hung and Tse2008) point out that firms may be constrained or hindered by employees with valuable and strong guan.
Finally, guan dyads benefit only the people who use them but could be harmful to an entire community or society (Dunfee & Warren, Reference Dunfee and Warren2001; Lovett et al., Reference Lovett, Simmons and Kali1999). Intra-organization guan dyads may create organizational injustice, which impedes cooperation among organization members (Han & Altman, Reference Han and Altman2009). Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Chen and Xin2004) found that the negative effects of guan dyads on trust are due to the bases of these dyads. Guanxi between managers and certain employees based on kinship and a common hometown can reduce trust with these managers among other employees. In China, guanxi is often related to nepotism, cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking (Karhunen, Kosonen, McCarthy, & Puffer, Reference Karhunen, Kosonen, McCarthy and Puffer2018; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Huang and Wang2012;). However, little empirical work has examined the negative side of guan because of unwillingness and hesitation by respondents in answering questions about it.
Xi Networks
The defining features of xi network
Xi comprises the notions of both ‘factional groups’ and ‘strings in a knot’.[Footnote 5] In a way that is similar to the differential mode of association (Fei, Reference Fei1992 [1947]), the focal person (focal node, or ego) is ‘at the center of a series of concentric circles’ (Redding & Wong, Reference Redding, Wong and Bond1986: 284), but those who are related to this focal person (alters, or nodes) are connected in a differentiated pattern based on their proximity to the focal person (Chen, Chen, & Xin, Reference Chen, Chen and Xin2004).
Focal people come in two types, yielding two types of ego network: (1) elites with high social status and extensive resources, which we can call an ‘elite ego’ in an ‘elite ego network’, and (2) a non-elite with low social status and limited resources, which we call a ‘non-elite ego’ in a ‘non-elite ego network’. In this sense, xi can be represented by an ‘elite ego network’ with an elite at the center and other elites as well as non-elites on the periphery, as in a hub and spoke structure. However, a typical xi network consists only of an elite and his/her non-elite friends as followers or subordinates, a subset of a large ‘elite ego network’, which we call a direct xi network, whereas the other elites form indirect xi networks for that elite ego. Hence, we focus on this subset. In other words, a xi network is a particular type of egocentric network in the form of a small clique with strong guan dyads between at least one focal elite and at least two non-elite subordinates (Gu, Luo, & Liu, 2019).
Although each Chinese person, in principle, has an egocentric network, this differs from a xi network. The focal person in a xi network as an elite ego must control critical resources and play the role of a resource allocator. Hence, xi commonly emerges and evolves from an elite's egocentric network. For instance, Chiang Kai-shek and his Whampoa [Huangpu] Clique emerged from their teacher-student ties as guanxi, with Chiang at the center (Dickson, Reference Dickson1993).
The underlying bases of xi network
In general, xi is based on a combination of trust and assurance among individuals who have common acquaintances and interests in a multilateral relationship with constraints based on common social norms. To understand these two underlying bases, it is important to distinguish trust and assurance. Yamagishi and his colleagues argued that, in contrast to trust, which is based on knowledge about personal characteristics, ‘assurance’ is based on knowledge about the incentive structure (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, Reference Yamagishi and Yamagishi1994; Yamagishi, Yamagishi, Takahashi, Hayashi, & Watabe, Reference Yamagishi, Yamagishi, Takahashi, Hayashi and Watabe1995).
First, with regard to trust, xi is a network centered on a focal person and all those with strong ties with the focal person, including distant kinship ties and pseudo-kinship ties, as closer to the ego (the inner group) as well as regular friendship ties more distant from the ego (the outer group) (Li, Reference Li2007; Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012). Further, the inner group is much denser, with high closure with all members being interconnected, while the outer group is much less dense, with many structural holes between those members. Directly associated with tie strength, the underlying bases of xi networks are different levels of trust and obligation (Li, Reference Li2008; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, Reference Yamagishi and Yamagishi1994; Yamagishi, Cook, & Watabe, Reference Yamagishi, Cook and Watabe1998). Trust is rooted not only in a trustor's expectation of a trustee's capability but also in the expectation of the trustee's goodwill in terms of intent and commitment. Hence, trust among individuals in a specific xi network is such that all xi members are expected to engage in exchanges of favors with one another whenever necessary.
Second, not all members in a specific xi network know everyone else in it. So, assurance becomes another underlying basis of a xi network. However, when two members in the same xi network meet each other for the first time, even though there is no ‘personalized trust’ (because they do not know each other personally), they still bear each other goodwill that is ‘assured’ thanks to their membership in the xi network.
Assurance is rooted in the existence of a third party in a xi network, a fundamental characteristic. In a specific xi network, two members not only expect to share continuous ties but also anticipate that fellow members in the same network may know what is going on between the two members (Hwang, Reference Hwang1987). The ‘common third party’ will evaluate their interactions in accordance with the social norms of that xi network. Even though interactions between individuals may not last long, their reputations will stay for a much longer period of time (Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012). Because many individuals tend to be embedded in multiple xi networks, this reputation will not only be shared within one specific xi network but also spread to other xi networks. This kind of word-of-mouth reputation will further enhance or undermine each member's ability to leverage or use resources both within and across xi networks. Consequently, individuals must behave cautiously to maintain and enhance their reputation in a given xi network. Hence, maintaining a good reputation is highly relevant to xi networks. Because of the role of ‘common third party’ and the effect of reputation, all members of xi networks monitor one another's behavior (Luo, Reference Luo2011). Hence, members do not overuse or take advantage of other members in the same xi network, even when it is possible to do so. In this sense, transaction costs are lower in a xi network than without it, while transaction values are higher in a xi network than without it (Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2008).
The process of building xi network
Xi networks build up around an elite's egocentric network. The core members, who are often considered the inner group (Luo & Yeh, Reference Luo and Yeh2012), are those who share particularly strong ties with the focal elite. In this small clique, members are required to be loyal to the elite and to one another as a group, so the principles of loyalty and obligation are paramount. The strongest trust among these members is more sentimental than instrumental. They have strong commitment to the focal person and to one another, so the intentional certainty is extremely high. Hence, trust here refers to personalized trust as a choice (Li, Reference Li2008), similar to that for pseudo-kinship ties such as a cocoon (Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018). However, in the case of the outer group, which is composed of ordinary friends of the focal person, the level of trust is weaker than that for the inner group. Even though these people also have personalized trust with the focal person, such trust is more instrumental than sentimental.
As Hwang (Reference Hwang1987) pointed out, a dyadic tie without a third party is not sufficient to be considered guanxi. In his definition, two Chinese people need to share one or more acquaintances in common to form guanxi. Hence, we argue that the minimal xi network is a triad relationship, which is also the fundamental component of a xi structure. Simmel (Reference Simmel1950) provided a theoretical basis for the idea that social triads are fundamentally different in character from dyads. Following his argument, Krackhardt (Reference Krackhardt1999: 186) defined a ‘Simmelian tie’ as ‘two people are connected to one another when they are reciprocally and strongly tied to each other and they are each reciprocally and strongly tied to at least one third party in common’. In sum, the establishment of a xi network is not just a matter of any sort of repeated exchanges but a process of intensive interplay among three or more social actors.
The operating effects of xi network
Based on the empirical results, what we know as xi has critical impacts on individuals, especially entrepreneurs. As mentioned earlier, the xi network of an entrepreneurial ego plays the central role at the startup stage, as reflected in the metaphor of cocoon (Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018). The social contacts of entrepreneurs have been built and maintained for a long time, so they highly trust one another. Hence, members of a xi network tend to provide the startup with valuable support, especially at the founding stage and at the first significant event in the startup process (Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018).
It is not difficult to prevent and resolve conflicts within xi networks. As stated above, the very presence of a ‘common third party’ can moderate the conflict and reduce the risk of guanxi breakdown. As Simmel (Reference Simmel1950: 145) pointed out, ‘the appearance of the third party indicates transition, conciliation, and abandonment of absolute contrast’. Under some circumstances, the third party (especially the focal ego) does not even need to take serious actions to mitigate dissension between two parties who are in the same xi network. The mediation could occur in different ways, such as a gesture, a way of listening, and even the presence of that person, as sufficient for the other two to work toward consensus. Moreover, xi networks increase trust among all members, so self-interested behaviors will be regarded as unethical. Hence, xi networks have the characteristics of institutions in terms of normative rules to guarantee ‘proper’ behavior among the members of a xi network.
Further, xi networks also influence their members’ behavior based on their different positions within that network. Surprisingly, in contrast to the core members of a xi network, peripheral members usually need to work harder, such as taking on extra responsibilities and offering extra services. This is similar to when people with low ascribed status (even with high achieved status due to the low sense of security) tend to conform to conventional practices more than those with high ascribed status (Prato et al., Reference Prato, Kypraios, Ertug and Lee2019). As discussed before, building trust is critical in the developmental process of xi networks. Hence, all members of a xi network, especially those on the periphery, have to actively demonstrate their loyalty and commitment to the entire xi network, so as to gain personalized trust from both the focal elite and other members (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Luo and Liu2019; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016).
The dark side of xi network
In general, xi networks can have negative effects, or a dark side, in five ways. First, each xi network has great inequality due to the different status or position of the focal elite and the peripheral non-elite members. Larger xi networks consisting of multiple xi networks as constituent small cliques with unequal status and positions have a similar problem (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Luo and Liu2019). This problem is somehow related to the Confucian value of hierarchical status, in which non-elite members are expected to show deference to the elite that holds authority and power in a xi network (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen and Xin2004). Second, the unequal status or position within and across xi networks tend to persist and worsen over time, so the problem of inequality can be long term. This problem is exacerbated by the relatively high degree of exclusivity (related to clustering or assortativity for vertically differentiated status or position), a major barrier to change and openness (Ahuja, Soda, & Zaheer, Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Cheng and Zhang2016).
Third, the concentration of power in the hand of the focal elite with the most favorable status or position in a xi network often results in some forms of corruption simply because concentrated power is likely to be associated with corruption. Fourth, the focal elite and his/her core members in the inner group tend to shield one another in a xi network from the corruption and other types of wrongdoing. This is similar for all elites across different xi networks.
Last, despite a high-level internal harmony in a specific xi network, the harmony relies on the existence of a core member. If the core member disappears unexpectedly, xi network tends to break up into some sub-xi networks or a new core member will emerge. However, the transition period of xi network is often chaotic, such as the early period of post-Mao era (1976–1979).
Table 5 summarizes the core issues concerning guan dyads and xi networks.
Table 5. A comparison of guan dyads and xi networks
REDIRECTING FUTURE RESEARCH
In this section, we highlight the salience of studying the holistic and dynamic interactions between guan and xi in both directions in an iterative cycle, by discussing, first, why and how guan can shape xi and, then, why and how xi can also shape guan. We specify four mechanisms of interaction: the first set of two mechanisms (trust conversion and trust transfer) shows the impact of guan on xi, and the second set of two mechanisms (Buddha-face and multiplexity) shows the impact of xi on guan. Our proposed redirection of further research mirrors the call for more attention on why and how networks emerge and evolve over time, especially the potential role of active or proactive agency by network members in modifying network structure, representing a major shift from the static and passive or reactive views in the past (for a review, see Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012). We evoke the well-known notions of bridging ties and bonding ties in discussing the interplay between guan and xi (Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002; Putnam, Reference Putnam1993; for a more recent review, see Halevy, Halali, & Zlatev, Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019).
Expanding Xi Networks by Bridging New Guan Dyads
Once the initial xi network is formed, it can expand by taking on new members. Its process of expansion involves interactions between existing guan dyads inside and outside the xi network. For instance, a potential newcomer to a specific xi has no direct contact with the focal ego; otherwise, he or she would already be a member of that xi network. However, a newcomer can get in contact with the focal ego directly or indirectly by joining a guan dyad with at least one non-focal member in the xi network, who acts as a third-party reference for the newcomer to join the xi network. Because it is much harder for a newcomer to have direct contact with the focal ego, the most fruitful approach is through a non-focal member as a third-party reference. Further, even though the tie between the newcomer and the reference in a guan dyad is already strong, the initial trust between the newcomer and all other members of the xi network is rather weak, with high perceived intentional and behavioral uncertainty. In other words, although both the newcomer and other members of the xi network share mutual trust with the third party, little mutual trust exists between the newcomer and other members, which is also the case for the tie strength between the newcomer and the focal ego.
In this situation, a newcomer must demonstrate his/her loyalty and commitment to the xi network to earn trust from all or most of the members. This is generally a slow process, but it can be dramatically accelerated if the person who referred the newcomer plays a critical role in extending trust on behalf of the newcomer (Burt & Knez, Reference Burt and Knez1995), thus facilitating the expansion of interpersonal trust from the dyad domain to the network domain (Li, Reference Li2008). The mechanism of trust transfer can occur at the level of both the guan dyad and the xi network. At the level of the guan dyad, trust transfer helps two parties develop strong ties through the referral of a third party (Bian, Reference Bian1994); at the level of a xi network, trust transfer helps develop strong ties between three or more parties through the referral of one or more third parties (Shipilov & Li, Reference Shipilov and Li2012). Only after trust has been transferred from the unitary domain (i.e., the guan dyad between the newcomer and the reference) to the multilateral domain (with the xi network as a collective system) can trust transfer serve as a mechanism for expansion of a xi network. In other words, the process of expanding a xi network is enabled by trust transfer from existing members referring potential newcomers, which constructs an ever-larger social network (Karhunen et al., Reference Karhunen, Kosonen, McCarthy and Puffer2018). In this way, trust transfer is related to bridging ties more than to bonding ties (Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002; Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019; Putnam, Reference Putnam1993). More specifically, trust transfer is similar to a weak form of ‘moderation’ for a ‘reinforcing broker’ to span boundaries with information and trust so as to enhance the tie strength from non-ties to weak ties, thus bridging new ties in an open triad or network when two or more members are disconnected (Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019). In sum, trust transfer is salient for bridging new guan dyads in the process of xi expansion.
Consolidating Xi Networks by Bonding More Guan Dyads
As discussed above, the simplest and most fundamental xi network is a triad, and triads can be either open or closed. If a tie exists between any two persons in the triad, then the triad is closed; otherwise, it is open. When two of the three parties are not connected, a structural hole is found, and the network is not very dense. An open triad can become closed (Huang, Tang, & Liu, Reference Huang, Tang, Liu, Fu, Luo and Boos2017), though in ordinary contexts, this process is time-consuming and can often be disrupted or terminated. However, in the context of a xi network, the process of converting weak ties into strong ties can be accelerated by the trust between two or more parties within the same network via trust conversion – that is, the mechanism of transforming weak trust into strong trust (Li, Reference Li2008). In particular, trust conversion at the level of a xi network is achieved by connecting parties that were previously sparsely or loosely coupled to attain high density or closure on a sustainable basis.
This mechanism solves the problem in which members lack dense interconnected ties, because they rely on trust transfer to expand a xi network rapidly, by bridging the structural holes between newly added and existing guan dyads to make them as interconnected as possible. The benefit from structural holes is personal, whereas the benefit from closure or density is public (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012; cf. Burt, Reference Burt, Nohria and Eccles1992; Coleman, Reference Coleman1990).
Finally, the mechanism of trust conversion operates at both the guan dyad and xi network levels. Only when the basis of trust changes from depersonalized to personalized can this trust conversion help consolidate a xi network. In other words, trust conversion enables the consolidation of a xi network by interconnecting sparsely or loosely connected ties so as to bridge structural holes and create closure or density in it. So, trust conversion is associated with bonding ties more than with bridging ties (Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002; Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019; Putnam, Reference Putnam1993). In this way, trust conversion is similar to a strong form of ‘moderation’ for either ‘helpful brokers’ or ‘reinforcing brokers’ to span boundaries with assurance and facilitation so as to increase tie strength in a closed network between two or more members with weak ties (Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019). In sum, trust conversion is salient to bonding guan dyads in the process of xi consolidation.
Deepening Guan Dyads by Creating Xi Networks
As we discussed earlier, due to the presence of one or more third parties for two or more members within the same xi network, there is a greater assurance and facilitation at the level of xi network than that of guan dyad (Lomi & Pattison, Reference Lomi and Pattison2006; Uzzi, Reference Uzzi1996). In particular, as Hwang (Reference Hwang1987) mentioned, the Chinese tend to ‘take care of the Buddha's “face (mianzi)” before turning down a monk's plea’ (不看僧面看佛面 in Chinese). It is worth noting that the face of guan dyad is different from the face of a third party due to different roles. We have identified two major ways in which xi networks influence one or more guan dyads. First, we use Buddhas as a metaphor for the third-party elite social status in a xi network. The concept of ‘face’, which refers to a person's social status, achieved by successfully performing specific social roles that are well recognized by others within the same community (Hu, Reference Hu1944), is relevant here. This status can be measured on both personal and impersonal dimensions: personal traits (e.g., knowledge and ability) and impersonal forces (e.g., wealth and power), with both representing social achievements. Social connections are frequently invoked by social actors to judge or gauge a person's social status (Ho, Reference Ho1976; Jacobs, Reference Jacobs1979). It is widely recognized that social status is a measure of social influence, often in the form of bargaining power in social exchange (Lin, Reference Lin1999, Reference Lin2001).
We use three scenarios to illustrate how ‘face’ influences the role of xi networks in shaping guan dyads. In the first scenario, a monk does not belong to any xi networks of Buddhas. This monk usually has little ‘face’ and little bargaining power in social exchange, either inside or outside a given xi network because he has low social status on account of his social isolation. In the second scenario, the monk belongs to a xi network of a specific Buddha, but he is not closely connected with either that Buddha or any other elite members close to the Buddha in that xi network. Even though this monk still has a low status inside the given xi network, his status is much enhanced outside the given xi network due to the Buddha's ‘face’, resulting in a moderate bargaining power in social exchange. In the third scenario, the monk is closely connected with either Buddha or another elite member in that xi network, so he enjoys high social status both inside and outside the given xi networks, thus strong bargaining power in social exchange.
The impact of this kind of status was well documented in China by Bian (Reference Bian1997) with respect to a job search. For instance, the face of third-party referral with higher-status in a xi network (e.g., Buddha) is more powerful than the face of guan dyad with lower-status (e.g., monk). In a second paper, Bian (Reference Bian, Lin, Cook and Burt2001) revealed that Chinese banquets, in contrast to the typical banquet in the West, which is attended only by hosts and guests, have a third type of banquet attendees: accompanying guest (陪客 in Chinese). This third type neither seeks nor offers favors, but can be viewed as a critical part of the banquet because he enjoys strong relations with both the host and the invited guest, especially the latter so that the third type can be framed as a special type of Buddha because he could exert strong influence over the invited guest to provide the specific favor sought by the host. In sum, the so-called ‘face’ of Buddha can represent the role of high social status in shaping the power distribution both inside and outside a given xi network.
Second, we can also take Buddha as a symbol of the social status of a particular institution that is a legitimate force in a xi network in terms of impersonal forces beyond personal traits as discussed earlier. A highly legitimate institution can shape the behavior of social actors as a group (Powell & DiMaggio, Reference Powell and DiMaggio2012; Scott, Reference Scott2003). For instance, for two parties who do not know each other well (thus having no trust or only weak, depersonalized trust), a xi network can facilitate the development of mutual trust by offering a perception of control and security (Li, Reference Li2008). In this sense, xi networks have some properties of an institution and can provide an institutional basis for more rapid development of trust among network members. Because belonging to the same xi network creates a shared institutional context, trust conversion within that network accelerates the pace and enhances the quality of trust development (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, Reference Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo and Tucker2007; Li, Reference Li2007, Reference Li2008). For instance, the peer pressure exerted by a xi network creates social sanctions for network members to behave in accordance with the social norm or logic of that network (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, Reference Yamagishi and Yamagishi1994; Yamagishi et al., Reference Yamagishi, Cook and Watabe1998).
In sum, Buddha-face can facilitate the transfer of trust for the purpose of bridging disconnected parties within and beyond the same network in two ways. In the first way (in terms of high status or position in a xi network as personal traits) and in the second way (in terms of high institutional legitimacy or institutional assurance in a xi network as impersonal forces), they both play the role of bridging ties (Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002; Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019; Putnam, Reference Putnam1993).
Thickening Guan Dyads by Combining Xi Networks
As mentioned earlier, each guan dyad derives from somewhat shared bases, either ascribed, in terms of being assigned at birth or assumed involuntarily later in life, such as blood-based kinship, family status, gender, age, race, and hometown, or achieved, in terms of being socially acquired via effort and merit, such as non-kin friendship, education, profession, alumni membership, workplace, and hobbies (Li, Reference Li2007). Each of these bases can be framed as a ‘social string’ that connects two or more parties in both guan dyads and a xi network, whereas a set of these bases form multiple and diverse strings that can delineate the multiplexity of social ties. Multiplexity refers to the co-occurrence or overlapping of multiple bases of interaction (Verbrugge, Reference Verbrugge1979), which could be different roles in exchange (e.g., Chinese mentorship, with the teacher as an adopted father and student as an adopted son, in Zhou, Lapointe, & Zhou, Reference Zhou, Lapointe and Zhou2018; supplier as buyer, in Shipilov & Li, Reference Shipilov and Li2012), and different logics of exchange (e.g., instrumental logic for economic exchange and sentimental logic for social exchange; Uzzi, Reference Uzzi1996, Reference Uzzi1997) at either the dyadic or network level.
To a large extent, multiplexity suggests that one type of social ties can substantially shape the initial formation and subsequent change of another type (Shipilov & Li, Reference Shipilov and Li2012). Specifically, the effect of multiplexity is to expand and deepen the interaction between two (for a dyad) or more (for a network) parties, where multiple sets of roles or logics are superimposed (Verbrugge, Reference Verbrugge1979), so the tie strength between such parties is stronger when they are bonded and bridged by multiple reinforcing strings (Lomi & Pattison, Reference Lomi and Pattison2006; also Ferriani, Fonti, & Carrado, Reference Ferriani, Fonti and Corrado2013; Rank, Robins, & Pattison, Reference Rank, Robins and Pattison2010). In the Chinese cultural context, guan dyads and xi networks are more likely to be multiplex in nature because Chinese traditional culture takes a holistic, dynamic, and nonlinear approach to interaction, with a mixture and balance of diverse roles and logics (Li, Reference Li1998, Reference Li2008, Reference Li2016). In this sense, most guan dyads and xi networks can be bonded and bridged by their multiplex roles and logics, leading to ever-growing interconnectivity across multiple levels of analysis.
We describe this phenomenon as a ‘multicolored Chinese knot’. Each social base, norm, or logic is one type of monocolor string, and multiple strings can be tied together to form a large and strong multicolored knot. For instance, two or more people from the same hometown might graduate from the same university and then work at the same company. They thus share three bases of homophily, or three different ‘social strings’ that bond (at the dyadic level) and bridge (at the network level) them into a single knot.
Despite the salience of multiplexity, as Shipilov and Li (Reference Shipilov and Li2012: 474) pointed out, ‘when examining the determinants of dyadic relationships, many studies make a simplifying assumption that dyads arise from their members playing a single role … and as a result they are embedded in a single type of relationships only’. Future research should pay more attention to this largely neglected issue (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012). For instance, the metaphor of a cocoon can be fruitfully compared to that of multicolored Chinese knot (cf. Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018). It would be interesting to open the black box of how elites and non-elites interact in the emergence and evolution of xi networks (Gu et al., 2019) as well as of how different xi networks interact in the emergence and evolution of a large, dynamic ecosystem (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012).
Interplay between Bonding Ties and Bridging Ties
The four mechanisms mentioned do not work in isolation; rather, they work together in a reinforcing cycle. For instance, trust conversion and subsequent opportunities for conversion can be enhanced by trust transfer through broadening the scope of trust conversion, with new ties being bridged into a larger network via third parties, similar to the role of bridging ties (Li, Reference Li2007, Reference Li2008). Similarly, trust transfer and subsequent opportunities for transfer can be improved through trust conversion by deepening the level of trust transfer, with more ties bonded into a denser network, as in the role of bonding ties (Li, Reference Li2007, Reference Li2008). Both structural holes for bridging ties and density for bonding ties are necessary for effective innovation (Obstfeld, Reference Obstfeld2005).
Finally, if xi networks are open, there are never-ending opportunities to interconnect different xi networks via the mechanisms of trust transfer, trust conversion, Buddha-face and multiplexity – all with both bridging and bonding roles, in repeated interactions. From this perspective, the debate over the relative advantages of structural holes and structural closure can be easily settled, because the two approaches are equally necessary and effective (Li, Reference Li2007; also see Hite & Hestley, Reference Hite and Hesterly2001; Obstfeld, Reference Obstfeld2005; cf. Burt, Reference Burt, Nohria and Eccles1992; Coleman, Reference Coleman1990).
However, this is only half the story. The other half is that most structural holes are only temporary, for private advantage in the process of ‘intermediation’, while public benefits from networks as a whole can be shared, in various degrees, by most members of a network in the process of ‘moderation’ above and beyond the process of ‘intermediation’ for a holistic and dynamic ecosystem (Halevy et al., Reference Halevy, Halali and Zlatev2019; also see Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer2012); in-group public sharing in particular is rooted in the Chinese historical and cultural context (Gu et al., 2019; Li, Reference Li2007; Xiao & Tsui, Reference Xiao and Tsui2007). In contrast to the typical network in Japan and South Korea, which mostly has strong ascribed ties (Horak and Taube, Reference Horak and Taube2016), as well as the typical network in the West, which mostly has weak achieved ties, guanxi is a balance between the two, consistent with the Chinese tendency toward yin-yang balancing (Li, Reference Li2007, Reference Li2016).
DISCUSSION
In this study, we first provided a systematic review of the current literature on guanxi, especially by differentiating guan dyads in terms of substantial dimensions from xi networks in terms of structural dimensions. Second, based on this differentiation of its two core constituent dimensions, we proposed a redirection of future research on guanxi, in which guan dyads and xi networks are analyzed in terms of their holistic and dynamic interaction, rather than in isolation from each other. These are our main contributions to the literature.
Compared to other cultures, we believe that multiplexity and the flexibility in bonding and bridging are indigenous to the Chinese culture such as the capabilities of guan and xi to balance diverse roles and logics toward the multicolored Chinese knot. However, this is not generalizable to the entire East Asia. Recent studies have shown that in South Korea, for instance, bonding and bridging of so-called yongo ties outside the yongo network does not work due to the exclusive nature of yongo (Horak & Taube, Reference Horak and Taube2016).
Our study leads to several recommendations for future research on guanxi. First, it should build on our reconceptualization of guanxi in terms of first differentiating and then integrating ‘guan’ dyad and ‘xi’ network. This is consistent with the repeated calls to study why and how networks emerge and evolve holistically and dynamically, especially about network structure. The second recommendation is for research attention to shift toward process-oriented research as necessary, especially about the interplay between guan dyads and xi networks. In particular, the issue of multiplexity is the most salient, given the link between multiplexity and the logics of exchange as well as the link between multiplexity and the strengths of both guan dyads and xi networks. It would be interesting to study the process of evolution from xi networks as cocoons to xi networks as multicolored Chinese knots. The interaction between diverse xi networks could be studied, for example, by framing a large triad as consisting of three small triads, with one small triad as an elite clique at the center, and the other two small triads as non-elite cliques on the periphery. Further, other structural dimensions should also be examined around the central theme of structural openness-closure, including the dimensions of centrality, density (closure vs. structural hole for connectivity or distribution), diversity (heterophily vs. homophily), and assortativity (clustering for vertically differentiated statuses or positions).
The third recommendation is to open the black box of elite-subordinate interaction in the same xi network and the other black box of elite-elite interaction between distinct xi networks (cf. Gu et al., 2019). It is paradoxical that the elites in xi networks are the most powerful in resolving inter-network conflicts, but at the same time they seem to be the least effective in negotiating the truce between conflicting xi networks because they are tied too strongly to their own xi networks. The fourth recommendation is to compare different small-world networks, such as the six degrees of separation and the three degrees of influence (cf. Christakis & Fowler, Reference Christakis and Fowler2009; Watts & Strogatz, Reference Watts and Strogatz1998). The fifth recommendation is to differentiate between kinship and non-kinship ties, rather than combining these distinct types of ties in the same category (cf. Burt & Opper, Reference Burt and Opper2017; Zhao & Burt, Reference Zhao and Burt2018). The sixth recommendation is to provide empirical evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, necessitating both case studies and large-sample studies.
The last recommendation is adopting the Chinese cognitive perspective of yin-yang balancing could enable an understanding of guan dyads and xi networks in terms of the balance and interplay between strong and weak ties, instrumental (economic) and sentimental (social) logics, ascribed and achieved status, and positive and negative outcomes for guan dyads. Other aspects that could be explored through this lens include the balance between the structural elements of centrality and peripheral; density (closure with bonding ties) and structural holes (openness with bridging ties); heterophily (multiplexity) and homophily, equality and inequality in a xi network; positive benefits and negative benefits; and public gains and private gains.
We hope that our reconceptualization of guanxi and recommendations for future research on it will help advance work on this complex and multifaceted topic.
