When Trust Becomes Performance – Reflections on China’s People-Centered Leadership Philosophy

Dr. Aydah Almasri

* 您將在下方找到翻譯成英文和中文的兩個版本

Dr. Aydah Almasri: Researcher and media commentator on global governance and political economy, with expertise in conflict management and supply-chain resilience. Member of the International Federation of Journalists / Arab Writers – Friends and Allies of China.

In recent years, a series of crises have shaken the delicate bond between state and society: a pandemic that strained health systems, financial shocks that deepened distrust in institutions, and economic rivalries that redrew the global balance of power. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, institutional trust has become a rare currency—and the condition for the survival of political and administrative systems. While many governments turned to communication campaigns or reform pledges to restore confidence, China took a different path: it sought to make trust itself a product of performance, not persuasion.

In What and How the Chinese Leader Thinks, Xi Jinping’s philosophy of people-centered leadership emerges as the foundation of modern governance. He writes, 'No achievement of the state is complete unless it is felt in the daily lives of the people.” This is not a slogan but a managerial principle that transforms public policy into lived experience. Success is measured not by plans written but by outcomes delivered—by how policies reshape citizens’ quality of life. In this sense, leadership becomes not an exercise of authority but the management of social and economic impact.

This philosophy is translated into tangible policies: eradicating extreme poverty, expanding universal healthcare, and strengthening rural infrastructure. Each of these reflects a practical application of performance-based legitimacy, now one of the most influential ideas in Asian public administration. The Chinese government derives its legitimacy not from history or ideology, but from its ability to solve real problems. Trust, in this model, is dynamic—it is renewed through every concrete achievement and sustained through direct interaction between the state and its citizens.

China’s experience parallels those of other Asian success stories such as Singapore and South Korea, where the legitimacy of the state is tied to its efficiency in delivering public goods. Yet China distinguishes itself through the fusion of moral purpose and executive rigor. As the book explains, 'Justice is not measured by intentions but by results; accountability is not declared in words but demonstrated through the ability to improve people’s lives.” In this way, performance becomes a moral institution—turning administrative success into a measure of social justice.

What is remarkable is how this logic resonates with ethical traditions beyond China. Like the classical Islamic conception of governance that places justice at the heart of authority, China’s philosophy views leadership as a responsibility, not a privilege, and accountability as a pillar of stability, not a threat to it. The difference lies in China’s institutional translation of these values—transforming ideals into measurable indicators, principles into management systems. Here, justice is not invoked from podiums but tracked through performance charts and social metrics.

This pragmatic understanding of trust allows China to move beyond the old dichotomy between political legitimacy and administrative efficiency. Trust is no longer a contract renewed periodically—it is a process of continuous evaluation and refinement. The logic is straightforward yet profound: those who deliver earn legitimacy; those who fail lose it. In such an environment, trust becomes a national asset, as vital as economic resources.

Still, Chinese governance recognizes that maintaining trust is harder than earning it. Performance alone is insufficient without a disciplined framework that safeguards quality and prevents the erosion of integrity. For this reason, the book naturally transitions from people-centered leadership to the idea of discipline as reform—a concept that links supervision with improvement. In Xi’s vision, reform is not merely a corrective mechanism after failure but a preventive system designed to detect and resolve errors before they occur. When trust becomes a public resource, its protection becomes a structured institutional duty.

China’s experience offers a compelling lesson for public administrations worldwide: trust is not built through persuasion but through performance. A state that grounds its legitimacy in results has no need to justify itself; each tangible achievement renews its social contract.

Yet this formula endures only when complemented by its essential counterpart—discipline as a tool of reform. The next article in this series will explore how China’s administrative oversight evolved from a mechanism of control into a sustained framework for development.

* This article draws upon an analytical reading of What and How the Chinese Leader Thinks: Xi Jinping’s Strategies for Leading China by Chen Jie and Mohammed Zureiq (Zamkan Publishing, Beirut, 2025), further expanded through the author’s expertise in governance, conflict management, and global supply-chain systems.

中国式领导力的时代转型——解读习近平的综合治理模型

艾黛（Aydah Almasri）博士, 国际治理与政治经济领域的学者与媒体评论员，专长于冲突管理与全球供应链韧性。国际记者联合会及'阿拉伯作家——中国之友与伙伴”组织中国分会成员。

近年来，一系列危机动摇了国家与社会之间的微妙平衡：新冠疫情使公共卫生体系承受重压，金融冲击加深了公众对制度的信任缺口，经济竞争重新塑造了全球力量格局。在这种充满不确定性的环境中，'制度信任”成为一种稀缺的货币——也是政治与行政体系得以延续的前提。许多政府试图通过宣传或改革承诺重建信心，而中国选择了另一条道路：让信任本身成为绩效的结果，而非说服的产物。

在《中国领导人怎么想、怎么做》一书中，习近平以人民为中心的领导哲学被视为当代治理的基石。他指出：'国家的一切成就，只有当人民在日常生活中感受到时，才算真正完成。”这不仅是一句口号，而是一种将公共政策转化为现实体验的管理原则。成功的衡量标准不在于计划的数量，而在于结果的质量——在于政策如何改善民众的生活。由此可见，领导力不再是权力的运用，而是社会与经济影响的管理。

这种理念在一系列具体政策中得以体现：消除极端贫困、推进全民医保、加强农村基础设施建设。所有这些举措都体现了'绩效合法性（performance-based legitimacy）”这一在亚洲公共管理领域极具影响力的理念。中国政府的合法性并非源自历史或意识形态，而是源自解决现实问题的能力。在这一模式中，信任是动态的——每一次切实的成就都能更新信任，而这种信任又通过国家与公民的直接互动得以延续。

中国的治理经验与新加坡、韩国等亚洲成功案例在本质上相似：国家合法性与行政效率密切相关。然而，中国的独特之处在于将道德目标与行政理性相结合。正如书中所言：'公正不以意图衡量，而以结果衡量；问责不在言语中表达，而在改善民生的能力中体现。”由此，绩效成为一种制度伦理，行政成功成为衡量社会公正的标准。

值得注意的是，这一逻辑也与中国以外的道德传统产生共鸣。例如，伊斯兰政治思想同样将'正义”视为统治的核心。两种传统都把领导视为责任而非特权，把问责视为稳定的支柱而非威胁。不同之处在于中国对这些价值的制度化转化——把道德原则转化为可衡量的指标，把理想转化为精细的管理体系。在这种框架中，正义不是在讲台上被宣讲的概念，而是被纳入绩效表格与社会指标的现实标准。

这种务实的信任观使中国超越了传统的'政治合法性”与'行政效率”二元对立。信任不再是周期性更新的社会契约，而是一种持续的评估与改进过程。其逻辑虽简洁，却深刻：**能者得其合法性，不能者失其资格。**在这样的环境中，信任成为一种与经济资源同等重要的国家资产。

然而，中国治理理念亦认识到，维持信任比获得信任更为困难。单靠绩效不足以支撑体系，若无一套保障质量、防止廉洁流失的纪律机制，信任终将动摇。因此，书中自然地从'以人民为中心的领导”过渡到'以纪律促改革（discipline as reform）”的思想——将监督与改进相结合。在习近平的治理理念中，改革不是纠错的行为，而是一种持续的自我完善的纪律，这一原则从制度延伸至社会。

中国的经验为世界公共行政提供了一个深刻启示：**信任不是通过说服建立的，而是通过绩效赢得的。**一个以结果为基础确立合法性的国家，无需为自身辩解；每一次可见的成就，都是对社会契约的重新确认。

本文基于对陈杰、穆罕默德•祖雷克（Mohammad Zreik）合著的《中国领导人怎么想、怎么做：习近平治国理政的战略》（贝鲁特•Zamkan出版社，2025年）的分析性阅读，并结合作者在治理、冲突管理与全球供应链领域的研究经验，对书中思想进行了延伸与深化。

* 本文基于对《中国领导人怎样思考：习近平领导中国的战略》（陈杰、Mohammed Zureiq 著，贝鲁特：Zamkan出版社，2025年）的学术性阅读与分析，并结合作者在全球治理、冲突管理及供应链韧性方面的研究经验进行深化探讨。