The Australia China green steel collaboration offers a compelling case to examine leadership through the lens of place and non Western leadership paradigms. The Australian Government positions this collaboration as a strategic economic and environmental priority (Rauso, 2025), however current leadership approaches reflect predominantly Western assumptions of market transparency, open competition, and regulatory driven innovation (Javidan et al., 2006). Applying a non Western Confucian relational leadership paradigm, reveals alternatives for cross border sensemaking, collaboration, and place based industrial transformation.
Place as Relation Flows
Massey (1994) argues that place should be understood as a site of relational flows rather than a fixed location. This framing repositions heavy industrial hubs such as Port Kembla and Whyalla in Australia, and Hebei Province in China, as interconnected nodes in a global socio industrial narrative about decarbonisation. Leadership, then, is not only enacted through strategic policy statements but embodied through the physical infrastructures, supply chains, and material transformations occurring in these places (Ropo et al., 2013).
The Australian government’s leadership stance has emphasised competitive advantage, ESG transparency, and innovation clusters (Buckley et al., 2025). This aligns with Western leadership that prioritises measurable accountability and market coordination (Javidan et al., 2006). From a sensemaking perspective, Australian leaders engage in a process of framing and acting in the unknown by interpreting the green steel opportunity through established cognitive frameworks (Ancona, 2011). Weick et al. (2005) define sensemaking as a retrospective process of creating plausible understandings to enable action. The Australian plausible story is that market mechanisms and transparent governance are the most effective drivers of innovation.
Privileges Transactional Relationships
This approach privileges transactional relationships and assumes that shared economic and environmental goals will naturally overcome cultural and political differences. However, this fails to adequately account for the cultural and political dissonance in cross cultural contexts (Karacay et al., 2019). In contrast, Confucian leadership emphasise harmony, continuity of industrial employment, and national rejuvenation through green modernisation, where prioritisation of relational stability and long term moral obligation over transparency (Ma & Tsui, 2015).
Sensemaking, Place Leadership & Confucianism
This divergence represents a clash in leadership sensemaking. Australian leadership constructs place as a site of innovation led capability building, while a Confucian lens situates place as an extended relational community bound by historical and hierarchical obligations. Australian leadership responses risk reproducing narratives that position place as a resource frontier rather than a relational ecology. Massey’s (1994) critique of place narratives warns against treating industrial geographies as passive backdrops. Instead, leadership must facilitate sensemaking processes where stakeholders actively re-narrate these steelmaking places as sites of shared responsibility.
Furthermore, the Australian emphasis on public accountability and market driven incentives could give the perception of a lack of respect for established diplomatic hierarchies and a potentially disruptive force to social and political harmony (Ma & Tsui, 2015). A Confucian informed approach places greater emphasis on building trust through private, protracted diplomacy, and demonstrating respect for internal governance structures. This aligns with the concept of relational placemaking, where collaboration is seen as an ongoing process of building networked political and social relationships (Pierce et al., 2011).
Recommendations
When engaging with Chinese counterparts, Australian leaders must couple their demands for transparency with demonstrations of respect for hierarchy and seniority (Ma & Tsui, 2015). Communications should emphasise mutual benefit, long term vision, and the moral purpose of the project (By, 2021), framing it as a shared contribution to global harmony and future generations well being, aligning with Confucian virtues.
Allocate dedicated resources and time for leaders to build relationships. This could involve exchange programs, joint cultural and technical workshops, mentorship and boundary spanning collaboration, fostering interpersonal connections at multiple organisational levels, which builds the social capital necessary to withstand political or market shocks.
Place Leadership & Confucianism
Leaders should explicitly facilitate sensemaking processes that account for the geopolitical and cultural dimensions of place. This involves using tools like deep listening (King’s Business School, 2020) to understand the Chinese narrative and employing strategic foresight to anticipate how changes in the geopolitical place could impact the collaboration. Cultivating systems leadership attuned to the complex ecosystem in which the partnership operates (Senge et al., 2015).
Conclusion
In conclusion, examining the green steel collaboration through place based leadership theory reveals that leadership is not abstract but materially and symbolically embedded in industrial landscapes. Confucian relational leadership offers an alternative paradigm focused on harmony, continuity, and guardianship of place. For Australia to lead effectively in this context, it must move beyond policy rhetoric to enact leadership that honours place as a relational ecology.
References
• Ancona, D. (2011). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, and being (pp. 3–19). SAGE.
• Buckley, T., Jonson, A., & Pollard, M. (2025). Landmark China green steel talks must be followed by action. PV Magazine Australia. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2025/07/17/landmark-china-green-steel-talks-must-be-followed-by-action/
• By, R. T. (2021). Leadership: In pursuit of purpose. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861698
• Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410
• Karacay, G., Bayraktar, S., Kabasakal, H., & Dastmalchian, A. (2019). Role of leaders as agents of negotiation for counterbalancing cultural dissonance in the Middle East and North Africa region. Journal of International Management, 25(4), 100668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2019.100704
• King’s Business School. (2020). Deep listening: Sensemaking practical course [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrZWPiQxXxI
• Ma, L., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.008
• Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. University of Minnesota Press
• Pierce, J., Martin, D. G., & Murphy, J. T. (2011). Relational place‐making: The networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(1), 54–70. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00411.x
• Ropo, A., Sauer, E., & Salovaara, P. (2013). Embodiment of leadership through material place. Leadership, 9(3), 349–372. http://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013485858
• Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 27–33. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership
• Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Green Steel Collaboration as a Place-Based and Confucian Leadership Approach was written in October 2025 as a critique to the leadership approach arising from a collaboration between Australian and Chinese steel producers as discussed in the article below.
Rauso, A. (2025). ‘Green’ iron ties stronger after meeting between China and Australia’s four biggest iron ore miners, says Albo. The West Australian.Join the conversation by leaving a comment below or using the contact page. The previous article is also on place based leadership titled Crisis Leadership at Optus through a Kaizen Lens at a Digital Place. Or click the button below for more leadership posts.
Leave a Reply