Mianzi (Chinese) or Mentsu (Japanese): face, harmony and social structure.

Face or mianzi (面子 in pinyin: mian4 zi0) or lianzi (臉子 lian3 zi0) is an important concept in certain asian social relations.

There are two types of face in some eastern social relations: lian and mianzi. Lian is the confidence of society in a person's moral character, while mianzi represents social perceptions of a person's prestige. For a person to maintain face is important with social relations. A loss of lian would result in a loss of trust within a social network, while a loss of mianzi would likely result in a loss of authority.

When trying to avoid conflict, Chinese in general will avoid causing another person to loss mianzi by bringing up embarrassing facts in public. Conversely, when challenging authority and another person's standing within a community, Chinese will often attempt to cause a loss of lian or mianzi.

The concept of face is nicely explained in Akio Yabuuchi (2004)'s "Face in Chinese, Japanese and U.S. American cultures "(http://www.benjamins.nl/jbp/series/JAPC/14-2/art/0004a.pdf)

The main references to my comments above are:

Eastern ethics:
Hagen, S. (1997). Buddhism, Plain and Simple. New York: Broadway Books

His Holiness The Dalai Lama (1999). Ethics For The New Millennium. New York: Riverhead Books.

Western ethics:
Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weston, A. (2001). A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox. New York: Oxford University Press.

Other related references:

Adams, M et al (2000). Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. An Anthology on Racism, Antisemitism, Sexism, Heterosexism, Ableism, and Classism. New York: Routledge.

Council for Better Corporate Citizenship (May 21, 2002. Revised January 14, 2003). International Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Standards and Norms: Present Situations, Future Challenges. Retrieved on February 3, 2006 from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/CBCC/english/report/20030114report.pdf

Hopp, R. (1995). The Rice-Paper Ceiling: Breaking Through Japanese Corporate Culture. Stone Bridge Press. Retrieved February 3, 2006 from http://www.stonebridge.com/ricepaperceiling/koppfolder/kopp_column_10.95...

Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, C. E. (2005). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow, (pp305-306). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ralston, D., Stepina, L., Kai-Cheng, Y., Fadil, P., and Terpstra, R. (1995). The Relevance of Equity Values in Eastern Cultures. Whose Business Values, pp69-85. Stewart, S. and Donleavy, G., Eds. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Taka, I., and Davis, S. (nd). The ECS2000: A New Business Ethics Standard. Retrieved on February 3, 2006 from http://www.nd.edu/~isbee/papers/Taka.doc

Vitell, S.J., Nwachukwu, S.L., and Barnes, J.H (1993). The Effects of Culture on ethical decision-making: An Application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10). Springer Science+Business Media B.V. DOI: 10.1007/BF00881307

Yoshimura, and Anderson (nd). Inside the Kaisha: Demystifying Japanese Business Behavior. Retrieved on February 3, 2006 from http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/dye/book_reviews/book_review12.htm

While I do not contest the Japanese concept of "trust," I do question the possibility of trust within not only culturally different groups such as Japanese, American and others, but also within the generations of each group.

For instance, my experience with the Japanese group was not the most successful one in the long run, mainly because the group I worked with was from a very traditional Japanese corporate culture (Not to mention that although we were on American soil, most employees, myself included, were not from American background. However, we had all been in the States long enough to expect American ethics and business practices ). "Shinyo" (Japanese norm. see Yashima and Anderson, 1997) expects no contradiction and no question from subordinates on the boss' practices. Some aspects of such feudal thinking system (*based on the democratic American standards) easily develop into what is perceived as an abuse of power and privilege, including classism (rank), ageism (no questioning elders), sexism (patriarchal system), and racism (others than Japanese). Even different families of values such as the western theories of Utilitarianism, Kant's Right action, or Aristotle's Virtue, or the eastern approaches (Zen's dhukka and the 12 fold chain's causal sequence) seem insufficient in providing the necessary awareness to see diversity as a fact of wholesomeness from which trust would derive.

Other ethical theories such as Ethics of justice and equality consider concepts that are permeated with cultural history. And so, as we define the concept of fairness in its cultural context to understand all parties....we are still left with resolving practical issues resulting from favoring equality over equity and fairness, or attitude and expectation toward the "salaryman", or even fully understanding "mianzi" which itself is inexistent in American business practices and for U.S. employees.

I do not want to appear to be dismissing Japanese's concept of trust. I would like to add the "insider" fact to the equation. To be fair, this is a concept insider/outsider that can be found in most cultures. And when compared, everyone's definition seems similar....as long as it deals with individuals within that particular group.

If we were to follow the Dalai Lama (1999)'s advice to use our critical and imaginative powers to seek harmony -then trust in a cross-cultural setting- then awareness, analysis, action, and accountability can be used to understanding relative "truths" (or cultural understanding of "trust"). And coming full circle with this team's efforts, I'd say that this is what we are trying to figure out.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting that Diego.