There is a quiet assumption embedded in most workplaces, families, and friendships: when someone does well, the person with power gives them something – a bonus, a promotion, a kind word, a opportunity. The person who receives it is expected to feel grateful, and gratitude is expected to produce loyalty.
Han Fei, the third-century BCE Legalist thinker, thought this entire sequence was a structural error. His argument, developed most sharply in the chapter “饰邪 (Shi Xie, Exposing Superstition)”, is that reward is not a gift. It is a public statement about what the system values. And the moment reward becomes a private favour, the system stops governing behaviour and starts governing relationships.
The core claim is stated without ambiguity:
明主之道，必明于公私之分，明法制，去私恩。
The way of the clear-sighted ruler requires, necessarily, a clear distinction between public and private; making the legal system illuminating, and removing private favours.
It is the duty of the sovereign to make clear the distinction between public and private interests, enact laws and statutes openly, and forbid private favours. The Han Feizi is not opposed to kindness. It is opposed to kindness that functions as a governance mechanism, because that kind of kindness is unaccountable, unverifiable, and structurally corrosive.
What is “Removing private favours”
The phrase 去私恩 (removing private favours) is often mistranslated as “eliminate kindness” or “reject gratitude.” That is not Han Fei’s point. The text draws a distinction that is easy to miss:
夫令必行，禁必止，人主之公义也；必行其私，信于朋友，不可为赏劝，不可为罚沮，人臣之私义也。私义行则乱，公义行则治，故公私有分。
That ordinances are necessarily carried out and prohibitions necessarily halted – this is the public righteousness of the ruler. That one necessarily carries out one’s private interests, is trustworthy to friends, cannot be encouraged by reward, cannot be deterred by punishment – this is the private righteousness of the minister. When private righteousness prevails, disorder follows; when public righteousness prevails, order follows. Therefore public and private are distinguished.
The distinction is not between good people and bad people. It is between two systems of obligation. Public righteousness is the obligation that runs through rules and roles: the rule says this, so it is done; the rule forbids that, so it stops. Private righteousness is the obligation that runs through personal ties: loyalty to a friend, gratitude to a patron, the expectation that “he took care of me, so I take care of him.”
Han Fei’s claim is that a system cannot run on private righteousness, because private righteousness is invisible, unequal, and unenforceable. Two people with the same performance may receive different rewards because one is closer to the patron. The person who receives the reward learns to cultivate the relationship rather than improve the performance. And the person who does not receive it learns that effort is not the relevant variable.
The modern organisational analogue is what the Han Feizi scholarship calls opposition to rent-seeking behaviour: “If appointments to office are controlled by cliques, then men will work only to establish profitable connections”. The problem is not that connections exist. The problem is that connections become the currency, and performance becomes the decoration.
Five Rules for Keeping Reward Public
The user’s reflection distils the Shi Xie logic into a set of operating principles. Each has a classical anchor, and each translates directly into a structural rule.
1. Praise the Deed, Not the Person
Han Fei’s criterion for reward is not effort or talent. It is correspondence:
功当其事，事当其言，则赏；功不当其事，事不当其言，则罚。
When the achievement matches the task, and the task matches what was promised, then reward. When the achievement does not match the task, and the task does not match what was promised, then punish.
The object of reward is the match between word and outcome. This is why public praise of the deed matters more than private praise of the person. Private praise says: You are special to me. Public praise of the deed says: This is what the system recognises as good work. The first produces gratitude toward a person. The second produces a standard that anyone can aim at.
2. Make the Mandate Public
The second rule is about 名分(Names and duties) – the public assignment of responsibility. The Han Fei’s logic is that a task without a public name is a task without an owner. If you ask a friend to collect wedding gifts in private, the guests do not know whose authority they are dealing with. If you announce that this person is responsible, the authority is visible, and so is the accountability.
Han Fei calls this “holding actualities accountable to names” (循名责实). The name is not a title of honour. It is a binding: the credit for success and the liability for failure are assigned to the same public location. A system that does not do this produces diffuse credit and diffuse blame – which is to say, no accountability at all.
3. Do Not Monopolise the Glory
The third rule is that the person in power must not absorb all the visibility. If every honour, every spotlight, and every public recognition flows to the top, the people doing the work have no visible future. They cannot see a path in which their effort translates into public standing.
Han Fei’s reasoning is not sentimental. It is structural. A system that offers no visible advancement to its performers will lose its performers – not necessarily to rebellion, but to disengagement. The person who sees no path stops investing in the path.
4. Reward Thickly, Not Frequently
The fourth rule is stated in the Ba Jing (八经):
赏莫如厚，使民利之。
In reward, nothing is better than thickness, so that the people find it beneficial.
Han Fei’s argument is not about generosity. It is about signal clarity. Frequent small rewards become normalised, and normalised rewards stop functioning as signals. They become background noise – an entitlement rather than an incentive. A single substantial reward for a substantial contribution marks the contribution as substantial. The thickness is not the point. The differentiation is.
The Han Feizi’s institutional reading is that reward must be large enough to change the recipient’s calculation, and rare enough that it marks a genuine difference in performance. A system that distributes small rewards indiscriminately is not being kind. It is flattening the signal until no one can tell what the system actually values.
5. Reward Merit, Not Favour
The fifth rule is the one that most directly attacks the “gratitude” model. The Wai Chu Shuo states:
以功受赏，臣不德君。
When one receives reward on the basis of merit, the minister does not owe the ruler a personal debt of gratitude.
This is the sentence that modern managers find hardest to accept. The intuition is: I gave you the job. I approved your bonus. I recognised your work. Shouldn’t you be grateful? Han Fei’s answer is: No – because gratitude is the wrong currency for a public transaction. If the reward is owed on the basis of merit, then it is not a favour. It is the system paying its debt. The person who receives it does not need to be grateful to the individual who signed the paperwork. They need to be confident that the system will pay again if the merit is repeated.
The corruption enters when the signer of the cheque confuses the system’s obligation with their personal generosity. At that point, the performer learns to manage the signer’s perception of generosity rather than produce merit. The Han Feizi‘s conclusion is blunt: a system in which people work to be seen by the patron is a system in which the patron’s judgment becomes the only variable – and the patron’s judgment is exactly the thing that law and method exist to constrain.
The Case That Tests the Rule: Duke Wen of Jin’s Reward Order
The Han Feizi‘s own treatment of reward is not naive. It knows that “merit” is not always a clean category, and that the judgment of what counts as merit is itself a site of political struggle.
The Nan Yi chapter contains a case that every reader of the Han Feizi has to reckon with. Duke Wen of Jin (Jin Wen Gong) was about to fight Chu. He asked Jiu Fan for advice, and Jiu Fan said: In battle, there is no objection to deceit. He asked Yong Ji, and Yong Ji said: Burning the forest to hunt may yield many beasts now, but there will be no beasts later; deceiving the people may yield a temporary advantage, but there will be no recovery later. The duke used Jiu Fan’s plan, won the battle, and then – when distributing rewards – ranked Yong Ji above Jiu Fan. The court protested: The victory was Jiu Fan’s plan. The duke replied: Jiu Fan’s words were a tactic for one time; Yong Ji’s words were a benefit for ten thousand generations.
Confucius, in the story, praises the duke. Han Fei does not. His objection is precise: the duke rewarded Yong Ji for a fine saying, not for a contribution to the victory. “Yong Ji had no merit at all, yet was rewarded first”. The duke confused the moral quality of the advice with the causal contribution to the outcome. And by doing so, he taught the court that the way to be rewarded is to speak in noble generalities, not to produce results.
The lesson is not that deceit is good. It is that reward must be tied to a public, verifiable criterion of contribution, not to the rhetorical or moral glow of the person being rewarded. Han Fei’s standard is colder than Confucius’, but it is more institutionally stable: reward the deed that produced the outcome the system needed, not the sentiment that the rewarder finds admirable.
The Qi Xi Test: Public Righteousness Without Cruelty
The Shi Xie (Exposing Superstition) principle is sometimes read as a counsel of coldness – a demand that personal ties be severed in public life. The classical tradition offers a counter-example that clarifies the limits of “removing private favours (去私恩)”.
The Zuo Zhuan(《左传》) records that Qi Xi(祁奚), a minister of Jin, was asked to recommend a successor. He recommended his personal enemy, Xie Hu (解狐). When Xie Hu died before taking office, Qi Xi recommended his own son, Qi Wu (祁午). When his deputy died, he recommended the deputy’s son. Qi Xi recommended his enemy – not out of flattery; he recommended his son – not out of partiality; he recommended his subordinate – not out of protection.”
The point is not that Qi Xi ignored personal ties. He had personal ties – enmity, fatherhood, collegiality. The point is that the public criterion (who can do the job?) was the only criterion he applied. The private tie did not determine the recommendation. It was excluded from the decision procedure while remaining part of the person.
This is what “removing private favours” actually requires. It does not require you to feel nothing. It requires you to decide by a standard that is public and verifiable, and to refuse to let the private feeling become the reason for the public outcome. The Han Feizi is not asking for saints. It is asking for procedures that do not depend on sainthood.
Why This Matters Outside the Palace
Han Fei wrote for rulers. The modern reader is not a ruler. But the structure is portable because everyone who is responsible for outcomes that depend on other people is, in a small way, administering a reward system.
The parent who rewards one child’s effort and another child’s charm is running a private-favour system. The manager who gives the bonus to the person who is most visible in meetings rather than the person who produced the result is running a visibility system. The friend who lends money without terms is running a gratitude system, and discovering, later, that the borrower has learned to manage the gratitude rather than repay the loan.
The Shi Xie (Exposing Superstition) remedy is not “be less kind.” It is: separate the kindness from the consequence. Be warm in private. Be public and verifiable in the allocation of reward. Praise the deed, name the responsibility, share the visibility, make the reward thick enough to matter, and do not let the recipient’s gratitude become the system’s operating principle.
A system that runs on gratitude runs on the memory and goodwill of the person in power. A system that runs on public criteria runs on something that can survive the person in power. Han Fei’s bet – and it is a cold bet – is that the second kind of system is the only one that does not eventually eat itself.
Leave a Reply