Any business relationship works best when both sides understand what the other expects. For U.S. companies working with Chinese business partners, that understanding can be particularly difficult.
The problem is that each side comes to the partnership with very different cultural and economic perspectives. Americans tend to view a business relationship as a win/win proposition—a contract between two corporate entities designed for their mutual benefit in long-term profitability and growth. In China, personal relationships among business partners are far more important, and the benefits foreseen in entering a partnership often are broader and focused more on the near term—and not necessarily evenly balanced.
Any U.S. company that joins a Chinese partner without understanding these differences risks failure. The key to success is paying close attention to the relationship, both on a personal level and by implementing procedures to monitor the progress of the venture.
Stay In Touch
- The Danger: The promise of a U.S.-Chinese business relationship can be thwarted by a failure to appreciate the differences in the two sides' cultural and economic perspectives.
- The Differences: Personal relationships among business partners are far more important in China than in the U.S., and Chinese partners often have broader, more immediate goals than their American counterparts.
- The Key to Success: U.S. executives need to pay close attention to their personal relationships with Chinese business partners and have procedures in place to carefully monitor the progress of the venture.
Several years ago, one of the authors of this article worked with a U.S. company in a nonexclusive partnership with a Chinese motorcycle manufacturer. That venture is a case study in the difficulties of a Chinese-American business relationship, and the importance of understanding and overcoming those difficulties.
Different Priorities
In the mid-1990s, a U.S. export-management firm established an alliance to purchase small motorcycles made in China, for sale to consumer markets in Latin America and Africa. The Chinese manufacturer agreed to produce motorcycles at its facility for export, while the U.S. company took charge of quality control, sales, distribution and after-sale service.
The basis of the relationship seemed clear enough, but from the beginning there were unstated differences in what the two sides hoped to accomplish.
The U.S. executives assumed that their Chinese partners shared their focus on ensuring long-term profitability by pleasing the venture's distributors and customers with quality motorcycles. But from the Chinese perspective, the relationship with the U.S. firm provided multiple opportunities, some of which had nothing to do with the venture's long-term profitability.
Think back to the mid-1990s. China was desperately short of foreign currency. So, first and foremost the Chinese saw the relationship as a source of regular inflows of U.S. dollars. In addition, the Chinese executives were more interested in the venture for what they could learn than for what they could earn—they saw the Americans primarily as teachers. The Chinese managers knew nothing about selling their motorcycles outside of China. Through their affiliation, the Americans provided the Chinese with market insights and knowledge the Chinese would never have been able to acquire on their own.
These differences in focus between the American and Chinese sides would emerge later, much to the detriment of the venture.
Since the mid-1980s, the Chinese manufacturer had been producing about 450,000 motorcycles per year, all for its domestic market, under a licensing agreement with a Japanese auto company. But the performance of the motorcycles was poor. To ensure higher quality for this new partnership's motorcycles, the U.S. partner insisted on the use of Japanese imports for key engine components, in place of the inferior Chinese-made parts the manufacturer had been using. Both parties agreed that the U.S. partner would send an observer for the purpose of quality control, including confirmation that the Japanese components were being installed in the bikes.
Dr. Thomas is an assistant professor of marketing and the associate director of the Taylor Institute for Direct Marketing at the University of Akron's College of Business Administration, in Akron, Ohio. Dr. Wilkinson is an associate professor at the College of Business at Montana State University, Billings. Dr. Hawes is a distinguished professor of marketing and the director of the Fisher Institute for Professional Selling at the University of Akron's College of Business Administration. They can be reached at smrfeedback@mit.edu.