In discussing the role of leaders in collective action, Samuel Popkin writes, “The importance of the leader as a political entrepreneur – someone willing to invest his own time and resources to coordinate the inputs of others in order to produce collective action or collective goods – should not be underestimated.”Footnote 1 In social movements and protests, leaders “use contention to exploit political opportunities, create collective identities, bring people together in organizations and mobilize them against more powerful opponents.”Footnote 2 In other words, leaders play multiple and crucial roles in social protests, such as inspiring commitment, mobilizing resources, creating and recognizing opportunities, devising strategies, framing demands and influencing outcomes.Footnote 3
Precisely because of the importance of leaders, a number of studies have examined the reasons why people become leaders. Some studies suggest that individuals will only assume the role of leader if they receive an additional benefit from the action.Footnote 4 However, given that there is no guarantee they will benefit more than the others, non-material interests can also be important: “a leader might derive some pleasure (utility) simply from being the head of the administrative apparatus required to make collections and supply collective goods.”Footnote 5 In scenarios where collective action carries risks, some people become leaders for “irrational” reasons. As Dennis Chong writes, “What is typically required is a core of highly dedicated, extremely moral – some might say extremely ‘irrational’ – individuals who are willing to assume leadership roles and to constitute in effect the critical mass that instigates the growth of collective action.”Footnote 6
Research on popular contention in China has similarly pointed to the importance of leaders.Footnote 7 There are a variety of reasons why individuals assume leadership, including personality, a sense of moral responsibility, community pressure, and a personal stake or self-interest in the collective goal,Footnote 8 but existing studies tend to suggest that individuals are driven by a particular reason. This may not be accurate in explaining the behaviour patterns of leaders because the reason why a person takes on a leadership role can be different from his or her reason for maintaining their leadership position. Therefore, explanations of leaders' behaviour based on a particular motivation tend to be static and fail to adequately capture the dynamic interaction between the leaders and other participants, especially in sustained collective action. Understanding the dynamics of interaction is important because the dynamics bear directly upon the group solidarity that is crucial for sustained collective action.
In this article, we show that individuals may have mixed or multiple motivations when they assume the leadership. In non-political or interest-based collective action, these motivations can be centred on community and personal interests. More specifically, these motivations include pursuing individual rights which may be the same as the collective goal, seeking social status, community reputation or social capital, or reaping other benefits arising from the leadership position. In the course of collective action, leaders can be adaptive in the sense that, at a particular time, certain motivations figure more pre-eminently than others because the environment at that time is more conducive to the pursuit of certain goals, although other motivations remain. Hence, leaders' adaption implies that they may re-prioritize or adjust their objectives owing to the changes in the environment, and begin to pursue benefits that were previously not sought or not available. Their adaption becomes known to other group members when it shapes the leader's behaviour, which in turn affects the interaction between the leader and other group members.
This article demonstrates how leaders with mixed motivations pursue different goals through the case of homeowners' collective action in Beijing. It shows that some homeowners become leaders to pursue both community and personal interests. When changes in the environment occur, these leaders become adaptive and adjust their objectives accordingly. Their adaption bears directly upon the group solidarity because it alters the interaction between the leaders and other homeowners. While the leaders' pursuit of certain objectives may contribute to the collective goal and enhance their reputation in the community, their pursuit of other objectives can lead them to lose the trust of the community. In collective action, group members, cognizant of the importance of their role, protect their leaders. However, when members lose trust or confidence in their leaders, they may either fall away from the collective action or attempt to replace the leaders. Similarly, when leaders become dissatisfied or disappointed, they may cease their leadership or become self-centred by taking advantage of their leadership positions. The interaction between leaders and community members reveals an important dimension of collective action and citizens' self-governance in China: how leadership, and therefore collective action, can be sustained in the absence of tangible benefits officially granted to the leaders.
This research is based on secondary sources, in-depth interviews and participative observations. In-depth interviews were conducted with 25 activists from 12 communities in Beijing in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012. Some activists were interviewed more than once in different years, allowing us to trace the dynamic changes in their motivations. The other interviewees include two secretaries of homeowners' committees, an official in a sub-district administrative office, a director of a residents' committee, a journalist and two researchers. Participative observation was conducted when the activists or leaders organized community activities, including homeowners' rights protection activities, annual meetings of homeowners' associations, workshops, internal meetings and homeowners' conventions.
Conflicts and Activists in Chinese Urban Neighbourhoods
The late 1980s saw the introduction of housing reforms and the commercialization of China's urban housing provision system. Urban residents began to buy homes on the housing market, and a large number of people now live in new neighbourhoods that are not administered by their work units or by government agencies. National statistics show that, in 1991, the total floor space of commercial residential buildings sold was only 27.5 million square metres. However, in 2010, it had soared to 1,043.49 million square metres, an increase of almost 38 times,Footnote 9 indicating the rapid emergence of new residential communities.
Nevertheless, the housing market boom has been accompanied by numerous conflicts between residents on the one hand, and developers, property management companies, and even the government on the other.Footnote 10 These disputes often arise when developers, property management companies or local governments ignore or violate residents' interests. Unsurprisingly, the number of these disputes has increased drastically in recent years. In Beijing, for example, the number of lawsuits brought over such disputes increased from 1,050 in 2002 to 9,050 in 2004, and then to 13,280 in 2007.Footnote 11 Needless to say, many other disputes have not been filed in court.
The homeowners' high stakes in their properties mean that they are strongly motivated to defend their interests; however, they often encounter serious difficulties in doing so. Developers and property management companies have an advantage over the homeowners in that they have access to more resources. Furthermore, because of their interest alignment, local governments often side with the developers.Footnote 12 Accordingly, homeowners' successful resistance is usually highly conditional. Consider the use of lawsuits as an example. Available statistics show that the chances of homeowners winning a lawsuit against a developer or property management company are slim: between 2003 and 2006, the District Court of Chaoyang 朝阳 in Beijing accepted more than 7,000 lawsuits concerning property management disputes, of which homeowners lost 90 per cent.Footnote 13
However, homeowners have been successful in some cases. A common determinant of successful resistance action seems to be the presence of capable and strong leaders.Footnote 14 As mentioned earlier, leaders take on multiple roles when making collective action possible. In the case of homeowners' resistance, collective action with leaders does not ensure success, but a knowledgeable and skilled leadership can certainly increase the odds.
Li and O'Brien find that protest leaders in rural China lead and organize collective action, frame issues or claims, and mobilize participants.Footnote 15 Leaders in the homeowners' collective action assume a similar range of leadership roles. First, they can be the first to uncover the encroachment of interests by developers, management companies or government agencies, and raise awareness among their fellow homeowners. Second, they serve as initiators and organizers who inspire and mobilize homeowners to participate in rights-defending activities or homeowners' organizations. Third, they make strategic decisions and devise strategies to fight more effectively against the homeowners' adversaries. Good strategies contribute directly to success. Fourth, they represent other homeowners when negotiating with the opposing parties. Some of these leaders have studied law and government regulations and therefore have knowledge of property management and homeowners' self-governance. They understand the use of legal channels and can represent homeowners when hiring lawyers, filing lawsuits or contacting government departments.
Activists or leaders play a pivotal role when establishing homeowners' committees. Under government regulations, homeowners are given the rights of self-governance, but these rights must be exercised through an officially sanctioned organization. In 2003, the State Council issued the Regulations on Property Management in order to regulate the rights and responsibilities of homeowners. According to this directive, the homeowners' convention represents the interests of homeowners in a neighbourhood. The convention is responsible for the election of the members of the homeowners' committee, and the committee is therefore the executive body of the convention.
The 2003 regulation specified several responsibilities for the homeowners' committee. One is that the committee is responsible for hiring and dismissing the property management company on behalf of the homeowners and homeowners' convention.Footnote 16 The committee is also responsible for overseeing the management company and ensuring that it performs its duties as stipulated in the contract. The responsibility of raising and managing the earmarked funds (for instance, the maintenance fund paid by the homeowners for maintaining the buildings) is assigned to the homeowners' convention. In practice, this responsibility is often entrusted to the neighbourhood's homeowners' committee.Footnote 17 The homeowner's committee also performs other duties assigned by the homeowners' convention.
Despite government regulations, the role of homeowners' committees in the homeowners' self-governance should not be overstated. Homeowners' committees can be set up by developers or property management companies and therefore may be heavily influenced by those parties. In addition, the Party-state has not relinquished its influence or control over organization building.Footnote 18 For example, the homeowners' committee is expected to be formed under the supervision of pertinent administrative agencies, such as the residents' committee, the street office, and the housing administrative bureau. The power of the homeowners' committee is strictly confined to the public affairs related to property management issues within the community. Aware of the state's suspicion, homeowners' organizations often exercise self-censorship to ensure that their collective actions do not cross the bottom line of the government's tolerance.Footnote 19
Despite these limitations, the homeowners' committee remains an important – and the only official – channel through which homeowners interact with the developers, management companies and the government. Given that the formation of the committee may increase the bargaining power of homeowners in their negotiations with the developers and management companies, or in their lobbying activities targeting government agencies, some businesses and even grassroots governments may be reluctant to see the formation of an independent and strong committee. Hence, although homeowners are allowed to establish committees, a functional committee is not always readily available in residential communities. In Beijing, by the end of 2009, only 21.7 per cent of new neighbourhoods had established homeowners' committees.Footnote 20
Our fieldwork and existing research show that an important factor affecting the formation and operation of the homeowners' committees is the presence of capable and devoted activists or leaders.Footnote 21 Homeowners need to be mobilized to participate in the election for the committee to be legally formed. Occasionally, the conflicts between residents and the local government or property management company make the establishment and operation of the committee a difficult endeavour. In this circumstance, leaders need to adopt appropriate strategies to mobilize homeowners to form the committee and resist external pressures. In addition, the operation of the committee requires time, energy and financial resources. All of these entail constant efforts on the part of the leaders. Given the importance of devoted leaders, it becomes necessary to examine why they are willing to assume the leadership.
Activists and their Motivations
Research on social movements in Western societies has found that factors such as affluence, leisure and discretionary time are positively correlated with socio-political participation.Footnote 22 Similar features have been found to be true for activists in China. One shared characteristic of these homeowner leaders is that they are relatively wealthy and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. According to our fieldwork and other reports, many of these people are successful businessmen, white-collar managers or professionals. Some are freelancers who can afford enough time and energy to engage in the activities they enjoy. In some other cases, the leaders are housewives or retired. These people are able to dedicate time, energy and financial resources to the homeowners' rights-protection activities.
Another common characteristic among these leaders is that most of them have a high level of education as well as good communication and organizational abilities – attributes that are often necessary for mobilizing participants in collective action.Footnote 23 These leaders have extensive social networks and rich life experiences. Personal connections or networks play an important role in China's informal politics. Having a good relationship with state authorities can help to create political space for social groups to pursue their interests. Finally, these leaders also tend to have a higher level of rights consciousness and political efficacy.
Our fieldwork suggests that these people are willing to become leaders because they hope to serve the community interests, their personal interests, or both. It is often a combination of factors that leads a person to become a leader. In other words, the motivations behind individual homeowners becoming leaders are mixed or multiple. Community-related motivations include a sense of responsibility, community interests (same as their own interests), community expectation, personal reputation or social status, and pressure arising from network embeddedness. Other motivations are related to personal interests in seeking control over community affairs and public funds, business opportunities, and other benefits derived from the leadership position.
Community interests and community pressure
Serving the public and a sense of social responsibility were frequently cited by our interviewees as their reasons for assuming the leadership in homeowners' rights activism. Sometimes, similar to their counterparts in the collective action of peasants or workers, homeowner leaders do not necessarily enjoy more benefits than the other participants or non-participants. On the contrary, these leaders have to make sacrifices in terms of their time, energy and financial resources. They may even run the risk of violent assault, harassment or even repression.Footnote 24 Under these circumstances, those assuming the leadership roles are not driven by a desire for personal gain or self-interested calculations. One homeowner, Mr B, explained his reasons for assuming the directorship of the homeowners' committee:
As we know, being a director of the homeowners' committee is voluntary work that does not bring you any income. On the contrary, we have to pay all the expenditures related to this job, such as transportation fees, phone bills, and so on … Thus, a “good” director of the homeowners' committee must have lofty ideals, beliefs and a dedicated spirit.Footnote 25
In another interview, one community leader described the sense of social responsibility that encouraged him to organize the homeowners' committee:
I belong to the generation that experienced the 1989 movement and that has a very strong sense of social responsibility. The cohort effect on me is so strong that I believe that establishing an independent homeowners' association is a great mission for me. The purpose of our action is not only to protect the legitimate rights and interests of homeowners in just one neighbourhood, but also to promote the development of democracy and the rule of law to build a civil society and to make the rights written in the Constitution come true in daily life in our country.Footnote 26
Some people become leaders because of emerging community pressure. Given that residents in new neighbourhoods come from different parts of the city or even from other parts of the country, they do not know each other at the very beginning. Furthermore, the segregated nature of the new neighbourhood is an obstruction to socialization among homeowners.Footnote 27 Thus, in most cases, community expectation or network embeddedness does not generate community pressure on the participants at the initial stage of the homeowners' collective action. The pressure arises only when homeowners frequently interact with each other and become familiar with each other. Common grievances are catalysts for the homeowners to form a union to protect their public interests, providing an opportunity for homeowners to transform from a group of anonymous individuals to an organized cohort of neighbours. During this process, some homeowner activists will exhibit their strength of character, outstanding organizational abilities, communication skills and in-depth knowledge. Those activists are then more likely to be expected by other homeowners to take on a leadership role in their rights-protection activities.
Mr B is such an example. As he was quite active in the homeowners' collective action in his neighbourhood, he was recommended by other homeowners to stand for election to the homeowners' committee. Eventually, he won the election by an overwhelming majority (84 per cent of the votes). At that moment, he found it difficult to resist such community expectations. “I was like a ‘hero’ who was pushed by other people into a pool full of crocodiles, and the only way is to swim to the other side of the pool,” he jokingly recalled.Footnote 28
In recent years, active homeowner leaders have been in touch with other leaders within the same city or even in other cities. They exchange information and strategies as well as offer each other encouragement, help and support. They have formed a network that may “lock” them into a homeowners' collective action. Some leaders believe that they will lose their reputation if they withdraw from the rights-defence activities before achieving any success. In the property management dispute in M neighbourhood, Mrs L, the director of the homeowners' committee, received a lot of support from other leaders and her fellow homeowners. This support put heavy pressure on her and even made her anxious:
After being reported widely by media, the dispute that arose in our neighbourhood attracted so much attention from the public. The directors of the homeowners' committees of other neighbourhoods generously provided us with help. However, the more attention and support I received, the more pressure I felt … Being a leader was so stressful, but I told myself that I must withstand all the pressure until the end. We must win the lawsuit. Otherwise, I would disappoint my supporters and lose their trust. If I quit, the opposition faction in our neighbourhood would perhaps slander me by saying I was bought off by the property management company. My reputation would then be destroyed.Footnote 29
For some, it is their awareness of their rights or their sense of political efficacy that pushes them into a leadership role. Previous studies on political participation suggest that people with a higher level of political efficacy are more likely to participate in political activities such as voting and joining social movements.Footnote 30 The cases we collected seem to suggest that, compared with most homeowners, these leaders not only have a stronger sense of political efficacy, but also have a higher level of awareness about rights and rules in the sense that they are usually the first to know about the violations of their rights and which action to take.Footnote 31 Mr W is an example:
Sometimes, ordinary homeowners do not even realize that their interests have been violated … In fact, we [the leaders] are often the first to be aware of this violation of interests. If we don't stand up to tell the homeowners what has happened and mobilize them, the encroachment will continue. Therefore, to become leaders, we should first have a higher level of awareness of our rights and know the relevant policies, regulations and laws.Footnote 32
Previous experience of political campaigns has also been found to boost a sense of mission in some homeowners to fight against social injustices. Some leaders reported in the interviews that their experiences of living in developed countries also influenced their decision to become organizers.Footnote 33
Personal interests
Not all leaders have completely altruistic motives. Activists and leaders do not receive any formal payment or subsidies for their collective action and self-governance work. However, given the time, energy, and sometimes money, leaders have to contribute to the community, some do consider their personal interests. When pursuing personal interests, these leaders are not necessarily rational individuals who never seek “socially defined goals for their own sake but only insofar as they can be used as stepping-stones to private goals.”Footnote 34 Instead, they may try to accommodate both community and personal interests, or strike a balance between these two types of interests.
The homeowners' committee is responsible for a range of issues including the management of the neighbourhood's common property, public facilities and public funds. By influencing the committee's decision making, the leaders of the committee can create opportunities to pursue personal gains, and so, in order to take control of the homeowners' committee, leaders sometimes attempt to manipulate the election of committee members. For example, in M neighbourhood in 2008, the director of the homeowners' committee, Mrs L, took advantage of her leadership position to send messages to other homeowners, urging them to vote for the eight candidates she had recommended. However, the rivalry between the two factions of homeowners caused the other homeowners to lose confidence in community affairs, and the turnout rate was lower than required.Footnote 35
One of the most important tasks for a neighbourhood community is the appointment of a property management company. Leaders can pursue their own interests by attempting to manipulate the selection process to have their preferred company chosen. In one case, the director of one homeowners' committee arbitrarily dismissed his community's property management company and employed an unqualified company in its place without permission from the homeowners' convention. It was discovered that the director had a close personal relationship with the unqualified company, and when the homeowners also found out that the newly-hired company was not qualified, they dismissed that company.Footnote 36
Some homeowners' committees are responsible for managing the funds allocated for the maintenance of their buildings. Funds can range from hundreds of thousands of yuan to millions of yuan: one community we visited had reserves of seven million yuan; another had about 20 million yuan.Footnote 37 Some homeowners' committee leaders attempt to use the money to generate profit for themselves, and there have been cases where the funds have been embezzled by the directors of homeowners' committees.Footnote 38
There are also cases where leaders provide help to homeowners with the expectation of being rewarded. For example, after the Beijing homeowners' cross-neighbourhood association helped one group of homeowners to dismiss their unqualified property management company, a convener of the association recommended his own property management company as a replacement. This was viewed by the homeowners as the convener seeking a payment in kind and, in the end, because of this suggestion, the convener withdrew his proposal.Footnote 39
A position of leadership provides people with the reputation and credentials to help them engage in market activities outside of their communities. As some leaders have knowledge and experience of defending homeowners' rights and community governance, they are able to provide a consultancy service to other homeowner groups, or to help these groups initiate, organize and lead homeowners' rights protection activities. These services are not provided for free. For example, Mr W charged a service fee of between 50,000 to 70,000 yuan for helping some homeowners to establish a homeowners' committee.Footnote 40
Leadership creates business opportunities for leaders because the position offers them the opportunities to interact with internal and external actors, which may, in turn, bring them benefits. These benefits spring from several sources. One source is the homeowners' group itself. Leadership of a homeowners' organization entails that the leaders have more contact with other homeowners. These connections, or guanxi 关系, can sometimes provide unexpected benefits for the leaders. For example, a woman who was the manager of a foreign insurance company actively participated in the public affairs of her neighbourhood. In the process, she befriended many of her neighbours, most of whom were company managers. Consequently, the ensuing good relationships enabled the woman to sell them insurance for their companies, bringing her considerable gains. She later volunteered to become a member of the homeowners' committee in her neighbourhood.Footnote 41
Another potential lucrative relationship for the leaders is with the real estate developers and property management companies. In a neighbourhood, it is the homeowners' leaders who come into contact with the developer and the property management company most frequently. In some cases, these companies may offer extra benefits to the leaders or “buy them off” to build or maintain a good relationship. Such perks can include discounts on management fees, clubhouse membership cards at subsidized prices, employment opportunities for the leaders' family members, or a better service.Footnote 42 Clearly, these favours are mostly secret deals between the leaders and the companies. The risk is that once such deals are disclosed to the public, the reputation of the leaders will be besmirched, their social trust will disappear, and the legitimacy of their leadership will be challenged.
Finally, leaders of homeowners' committees can derive further benefits from external commercial organizations. Given that many new commercial housing neighbourhoods in Beijing are gated,Footnote 43 commercial organizations cannot enter these neighbourhoods to do business without first gaining permission from the homeowners' committees. This situation presents the leaders with an opportunity to gain financially from these businesses. For instance, a commercial tourism website company wanted to promote its business in some of Beijing's new neighbourhoods but was unable to obtain permission to enter these gated communities. This company then invited the homeowners' cross-neighbourhood association to organize a joint promotional activity in these neighbourhoods. With the cooperation of the cross-neighbourhood organization, the website company was able to distribute advertisements to the homeowners inside these gated communities. In return, the company gave 40,000 yuan to the cross-neighbourhood organization. Given that this organization's financial accounts are closed to the public, its leaders had near total discretion over the use of its funds.Footnote 44
In the above discussion, leaders' motivations are divided between serving the community and pursuing personal gain. This categorization is made for the sake of analytical convenience, and the actual picture is more complex because the leaders' motivations can be mixed. In the course of collective action, motivations weigh differently on the leaders' behaviour. When self-interested motivations exert more influence on the leaders' behaviour, or when the leaders begin to pursue personal benefits that were previously not sought, they are likely to lose the trust of the community.
Mixed Motivations and Community Politics
In collective action, the context in which the leaders interact with group members is unlikely to remain unchanged. Changes in the environment affect leaders' motivations because they re-shape their incentive structure and the group members' assessment of their leaders. Factors such as risks imposed by state actors or business, costs of time, energy and money, personal interests, public interests and community pressures can all affect a leader's calculations. These factors tend to be reassessed by leaders when changes in the environment occur as leaders interact with other group members and external actors. As a result, leaders may re-prioritize their objectives and take action accordingly. They may choose to withdraw, or they may choose to stay and employ new tactics to deal with the situations. Similarly, group members may reassess their leaders and choose to withdraw support from them or replace them.
In the case of the collective action of homeowners, leaders seem to have been driven by different considerations at different stages of the homeowners' activities. Our fieldwork shows that the interaction between homeowners and their leaders often undergoes three stages, resulting in varying effects on the leaders' motivations or calculations.
The first stage occurs when the homeowners' interests are violated by either the developers, property management companies or government agencies, and the homeowners engage in rights-protection activities to defend their rights. More often than not, individual resistance proves to be futile. With more knowledge about the pertinent policies and other residents' problems in a community, homeowners begin to realize that the issue they face is a problem for the community or a group of people in the community. In these circumstances, activists and other residents realize that collective action, rather than individual action, will prove more effective. However, collective action often requires orchestration and mobilization, which in turn entail leadership. Some activists believe that their leadership will make collective action possible and successful, and so they are willing to take the lead and serve their interests as well as those of the community.
Once they have engaged in collective action, activists become aware that they have to continue their leadership to sustain their action and succeed. This is the second stage. It requires the leaders to make sacrifices for the greater good in terms of their time, energy, and even financial resources, in the course of their collective action. However, despite these sacrifices, they do not benefit from the action more than the other homeowners. Moreover, the leaders may face other problems, such as threats or risks imposed by developers, property management companies or local government agencies. At this stage, homeowner leaders assume and continue with the leadership mainly owing to their sense of responsibility and community pressure.
The third stage begins with the conclusion of the homeowners' conflict with the external parties either because they have won their dispute or because they have failed and have become so disappointed that they would rather be silent. Leaders make different choices in successful communities where conflicts have been resolved and the homeowners' committee has been established. Some leaders may decide to stop making sacrifices for the sake of the community and thus quit what is perceived to be a thankless and unrewarding job. One scenario is that, as time goes on, some leaders become frustrated as not only do they receive no benefit from their work, they may even be blamed or criticized by some residents who have demands that are difficult to meet. Exit then becomes a natural choice to some leaders.Footnote 45
Others who may have encountered less frustration may choose to continue in their leadership roles; some frustrated leaders may also choose to stay but may begin to think more about their personal gains. Some changes in the environment may not have been anticipated by the leaders. Commonly, when these leaders stay in position long enough, internal and external opportunities for profit making will emerge. Internally, these leaders begin to reap unexpected benefits from developers, property managers or other commercial enterprises. Furthermore, the management of community finance provides an opportunity for some leaders to seek personal gains. Externally, there has been a demand for the services and professional assistance of capable leaders from communities that hope to establish and operate their homeowners' committees. These emerging opportunities tend to strengthen the leaders' incentives to continue with the leadership.
Leaders and community politics: the cases
This section illustrates the changes in the motivations of leaders by presenting several cases of homeowner leaders. The first case concerns Mr W, a well-known expert on homeowner issues in Beijing. On 22 March 2008, the homeowners in his community held a competitive election to form their homeowners' committee. Mr W, who had served as the director of the homeowners' committee since 2001, failed to be re-elected. Despite his previous contributions, the homeowners in his community voted him out. The newly-elected director of the committee, who used to be a strong supporter of Mr W, explained the election outcome: “An important reason that stopped me from supporting him is that since he has become well known, he has devoted much time and energy to helping other neighbourhoods organizing rights-defending activities and making money out of it. In doing this, he cannot serve our community wholeheartedly anymore.”Footnote 46
Before he actively participated in the homeowners' rights-protection activities, Mr W was a businessman running his firm in Hong Kong. Mr W purchased an apartment in C neighbourhood in 1999 only to discover, like many other homeowners, that there were many problems with the housing quality. He then became involved in disputes with the real estate developer. Having failed to address his problems by negotiating with the developer, he began to study the government policies, regulations and laws covering this area. He found that the public interests of the homeowners in C neighbourhood had been seriously violated by both the developer and the property management company. The residents in his neighbourhood had to deal with poor quality decoration and construction as well as poor management services. Mr W realized that he could not solve these problems by himself and that he needed to mobilize the other homeowners. However, many of the homeowners in C were unaware of their rights or that their interests had been violated. Consequently, Mr W had to make public the encroachment issue and attempted to establish the homeowners' committee. At that time, according to his own account, he put himself forward as an initiator and organizer in the rights-protection activities because he was motivated by his desire to defend his interests. However, he also recognized that an interest alignment existed between him and the other homeowners:
To be honest, I had selfish motives rather than great motives at that time. My motivation was simple: I bought an apartment, but my interests were violated by the developer. I was not satisfied with the services provided by the property manager. I paid for these services, but the quality was so poor. So, I had to take action to protect my interests. At the beginning, I did it only for my own purpose. However, after engaging in these rights-protection activities, I gradually realized that if I did not care about public interests and did not align my own interests with the public interests, then my own interests could not be really protected.Footnote 47
Having taken on a leadership role, Mr W considered other public interests in his neighbourhood. There were several reasons for this move. First, he realized that it was not always possible to separate private and public interests. In other words, individual rights could hardly be protected if community interests were not protected. Second, he considered defending the public interests of the homeowners to be a leader's responsibility. The high expectations of the other homeowners pressured him into performing his duty well. He explained that, “It is the responsibility of a director. As an old saying goes, ‘one has to perform his duty if he assumes the position.’ If I fail to perform the duties of a director, the homeowners can vote me out of this position.”Footnote 48
Mr W took on the responsibilities and performed well as a leader of the homeowners in his neighbourhood. He spent 18 months establishing the homeowners' committee, which obtained official approval in 2001. He then voluntarily served as the director of this committee for seven years from 2001 to 2008.Footnote 49 He organized a series of successful actions to oppose the developer and the property management company and to protect the homeowners' interests. Some of these activities were reported in the media, which boosted his reputation among the homeowners in Beijing. His increased popularity meant that he was often invited by homeowners in other neighbourhoods to assist them in their rights-protection activities. In the process, he gained more knowledge about property management and acquired more experience of self-governance and rights protection issues. Through his deepening involvement in homeowners' activism, he eventually became a professionalized leader.
From then on, Mr W dedicated almost all of his time to homeowner issues. He made a particular effort with institution building within the community. He established a set of rules and regulations for the homeowners' committee in C neighbourhood to institutionalize the operation of the committee. These rules and regulations were widely disseminated among other homeowners' committees. He also attempted to influence the policy making within state agencies. Prior to the Property Management Regulations being promulgated by the State Council in 2003, Mr W drew up a proposal on property management and submitted it to the pertinent government departments in 2002. In 2003, he nominated himself as an independent candidate in the election for deputy of a district people's congress in Beijing. His plan was to bring up the homeowners' demands through this institutionalized channel once he became deputy.Footnote 50 However, he failed all in three attempts in 2003, 2006 and 2009. In 2004, he represented the homeowners in Beijing at the Symposium on Property Law held by the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
Apart from providing consultancy work to other homeowners' groups and assisting them in rights protection and self-governance, Mr W also attempted to raise awareness of homeowners' rights and the defence of their interests through the media and various other forums. He accepted invitations from influential media, such as CCTV, and other homeowners' associations to talk about his experiences in homeowners' rights protection and self-governance. He went on to preside over an online forum called “The Federation of Homeowners' Committees.”Footnote 51 This forum served as a platform for communication among homeowners, but not as an online mechanism for mobilization.
Although Mr W initially undertook most of these tasks voluntarily, these activities brought him recognition, reputation and popularity. These important assets proved invaluable when he engaged in profit-making activities later on: Mr W learned lessons from his own experiences and from those of other leaders: that is, if there were inadequate incentives for the leaders and activists, the development of homeowners' organizations and activism could fade out. Thus, he strongly supported the idea of providing material incentives for the homeowners' leaders. He, himself, began to engage in profit-making activities from the early 2000s. As early as 2002, one year after he became the director of the homeowners' committee in his neighbourhood, Mr W began to offer services for which he charged. Upon the recommendation of a lawyer, Mr W became an advisor to a homeowners' committee in another neighbourhood. As stipulated in his contract, Mr W received an annual fee of 60,000 yuan for his advice. After 2005, he began to provide more advisory and training services to different parties, including homeowners' committees, developers, property management companies and local governments. Unsurprisingly, these services provided him with a decent income.
Mr W was frank about the necessity of offering monetary incentives to those willing to serve the community, as he reported in an interview:
Is enthusiasm sufficient for people to serve the homeowners' group? Can sacrifice alone make long-term and sustainable development of homeowners' organizations possible? Definitely no. Property management and self-governance in new neighbourhoods is a professional job. Enthusiasm alone cannot solve practical problems. Relevant knowledge and skills are very much required … Activists contribute their efforts, and they deserve rewards in light of the principle of “obtaining payment based on the work they do.” Economic benefits are a necessary condition for maintaining human resources … Now, it's time for us to think about this issue. It is everybody's responsibility in the neighbourhood to provide some money to protect our public interests, to maintain the operation of our own organizations, and to reward the people who serve us.Footnote 52
Homeowner leaders like Mr W can increase their popular standing through blogging or by being interviewed by the mainstream media. Nevertheless, there is still an incentive to assume leadership in their neighbourhoods because the position enhances their reputation and credentials, and provides them with the resources and opportunities to seek extra benefits in and outside their communities. However, as Mr W began to spend more time focusing on his profit-making activities, his services to his community were affected, and he distanced himself from the community. This led the other residents to doubt his integrity and commitment to the community. Some homeowners were also jealous of his profit-making activities. Against this background, he lost the re-election in 2008.
The Mr W's experience is not an isolated case. Similar instances have occurred in the other communities we visited. For example, Mr Q, a successful businessman, began to participate in community affairs in 2004, and became the elected director of the homeowners' committee. He gave several reasons for assuming leadership:
I was recommended and encouraged by other homeowners. They believed that I could do a good job. If I did not do it, no one else would do it … I belong to the first generation of university graduates after the reform and opening up. After graduation, I was assigned a job in the government. In the early 1990s, I quit my job and began to do business. I own several companies now, and I believe that I am among those who have benefited the most from the reform and opening up. It is my belief that I should do something for society and the public in return.Footnote 53
Mr Q did a good job despite the amount of work being much more than he had anticipated. During his term, he solved a number of problems for his community through a series of negotiations with the developer. He admitted that he once wanted to quit his leadership post, but he continued because of his sense of justice and responsibility. He reported that in his interactions with government agencies, he found that homeowners were seriously disadvantaged by the existing policies. For example, the street committee often ignores the homeowners' rights and intervenes in the affairs of the homeowners' committee. “Everyone has a sense of justice. People like us want to do something for the public. When we know these problems, we cannot pretend that we do not know them. We have benefited greatly from society, and thus we should also be responsible to society.”Footnote 54
Nevertheless, despite the work he had done for the community, Mr Q was removed from his office in 2008 because of a self-serving action. In that year, he wanted to engage in discrete dealings with the property management company in his neighbourhood. He told the company to offer one of his people the job of programme manager and threatened not to re-hire the company if it refused to do what he had asked. When the other homeowners learned of this, they lost trust in him and decided to remove him from his post. Mr Q also owned a property management company and had recommended his own company to the communities that had received his help. These activities damaged his reputation.
Other homeowner leaders have attempted to serve their communities whilst also seeking benefits from outside sources. In 2002, Mr Z, a successful businessman, became the director of the homeowners' committee in his community. He extended serious efforts to redress the problems in the community and significantly reduced the number of conflicts between the homeowners and the property management company. He also sought personal benefits without sacrificing the community's interests. In 2006, Mr Z, together with several homeowner activists in other neighbourhoods, utilized the networks and the influence of the homeowners' cross-neighbourhood association in Beijing to publish a newspaper and a magazine, and to run a website. They turned a profit by charging those who advertised in the publications and on the website.
Mr Z also sought business opportunities by establishing a good relationship with the city government. He became the director of a civil organization designed to help the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban–Rural Development to promote the formation of homeowner's committees and to provide consultancy and advice to homeowners. This organization was a commercial entity, and as such charged for its services. For example, the organization charged homeowners 50,000 yuan for the establishment of each homeowner's committee, and received 10,000 yuan in subsidy from the government.Footnote 55 He managed to protect both his standing in the community and his position until recently when this fieldwork was conducted.
There are those homeowner leaders who focus on community needs instead of their own personal benefits. Understandably, these leaders will lack the incentive to sustain their leadership if they become frustrated by their community members. In 2003, Mr B was elected director of the homeowners' committee in his problem-stricken community.Footnote 56 After he was elected, he left his other work and devoted all his time to community affairs, becoming a full-time, but unpaid, director. Owing to his efforts, the management of his community improved. However, he resigned in 2005 because he was left frustrated by the unsupportive homeowners. In one instance, a homeowner pulled down a wall when carrying out renovation work in his apartment, which could have affected the safety of the entire building. Mr B, on behalf of the homeowners' committee, filed a lawsuit against this homeowner. However, he found the other homeowners in that building to be indifferent to his efforts on their behalf, and even unsupportive. On another occasion, he tried to convene a homeowners' meeting to vote on issues regarding the adjustment of the management fee and the hiring of a new property management company. However, his attempts to convene a meeting failed twice, and he was unable to obtain a quorum.
In all of these cases, homeowner leaders have attempted to balance their own interests with those of the community, but the balance is difficult to achieve. As they are expected to serve the community, they risk losing the trust of homeowners when they seek personal gain. The cases presented in this article do not suggest that these leaders are only interested in pursuing personal interests; indeed, they continue in their duties serving community interests. Therefore, although some homeowner leaders, such as Mr W and Mr Q, failed to be re-elected as committee leaders, they still actively participated in the homeowners' activities. They provided consultancy and assistance to homeowners in their rights-protection activities in or outside their communities, sometimes without charging any fees.
Conclusion
Joseph Schumpeter states that “collectives act almost exclusively by accepting leadership – this is the dominant mechanism of practically any collective action.”Footnote 57 Whereas research on collective action by Chinese citizens has similarly emphasized the importance of leaders, this research focuses on the motivations of the leaders and their reasons for maintaining the leadership. It finds that some people have mixed motivations when they assume leadership in non-political collective action in that they wish to serve both their own and their community's interests. Mixed motivations also imply that leaders can be adaptive and re-prioritize or adjust their personal objectives in the course of collective action. This is because changes in the environment re-shape their incentive structure, strengthening certain motives of the leaders. As a result, the leaders may begin to pursue personal benefits that were previously not available or not sought.
Our finding that leaders may have multiple motivations sheds important light on the issue of group solidarity in collective action and in community governance. The effectiveness of collective action by a group is impacted by, among other things, the group's solidarity and strength, the power of its target (if there is one), and the groups' ability to seek external support.Footnote 58 Group solidarity has much to do with the interaction between the leaders and other group members. Leaders with multiple motivations affect group solidarity because their pursuit of certain personal objectives may deviate from the expectation of the community. As a result, group members become disappointed in their leaders and lose trust in them. In these circumstances, conflicts arise in the community. Either leaders or group members or both may choose to exit. It is partly for this reason that leadership often proves to be crucial for sustained collective action.Footnote 59
The relationship between leaders' motivations and group solidarity has important implications for citizens' self-governance in China. In the case of homeowners' self-governance, despite its limited power, the homeowners' committee is the only official organization created for homeowners' self-governance, and it is operated by voluntary homeowners or leaders. If these people fail to receive any benefit from operating the committee, be it legal or illegal, there will always be the issue of incentives. Without compensation, voluntary leaders will lack the incentive to devote their time and energy consistently. However, if they see the leadership position as a profit-making opportunity, they may distort the operation of the organization. Market forces can be an option, as mentioned in this research. Certainly, if the state is reluctant to see the involvement of market forces, it needs to extend more efforts in institution designing and building to help urban residents with their self-governance.
