The China Vortex

On this blog, I have been a frequent critic of the view that China is a threat to the rest of the world as a rising superpower. Most of the time, these critics have a clear agenda to sell with regard to fear of China, or are journalists who have very little understanding of China. If the latter group, their articles are really rehashes of “If China were a rising superpower like US/Britain etc. this is what China would be plotting to do.” For someone who has never been to China and does not understand the country and people, the argument makes sense. But for someone who has been in China for some time, it’s ridiculous.

The reason for this is very simple. Running a country of 1.3 billion people is a very tough job, and this is something these China newby articles invariably overlook. In simple terms, the daily challenges are huge and are much bigger than the rulers of the US and UK have to deal with. For the most part, Chinese are not nearly as docile as Americans and Britons, and are much more “creative” about the ways they express their unhappiness. The knife hiding behind the smile or 笑裏藏刀 is a useful phrase to be aware of in business and politics in China.

In recent days a new theme has popped up, and that is the government incentives from the Chinese government are beginning to show positive results in the Chinese economy. Some of the articles are:

• Differences Between Chinese and US Economic Recoveries
• China’s Stimulus Plan Ignites Economy

The Chinese government has acted forcefully, much more so than western governments, in fighting the effects of this recession which has turned into a depression. Compared to the west, the Chinese government has been the model of efficiency.

Sources in Beijing have told me that the Chinese government has offered companies full salary subsidies for company positions. That is, they have offered to reimburse companies full salary for positions in companies, especially positions for new university graduates. I am not sure if this applies to SOEs or if it also extends to the private sector. I am not aware of the full details of how it is implemented, but it does have the ring of truth. This has created a favorable market for employers, as many companies routinely lay off 80-90% of students following the three-month probation period.

Coming back to the rising superpower theme, this serves as an excellent illustration of a major point of mine: to become a superpower, you really don’t need to have a plan for world domination. You only need to be the last man standing when everyone else has already collapsed.

It will be very interesting to find out how long China will stand? The Chinese government is running the distinct risk of using all its bullets too early, and not having any left if the depression continues over a prolonged period. If that happens, the only thing China can do is inflate its way out. Another article point out the risk of this approach:

• Is China Pulling An Alan Greenspan?

If the depression is long and this scenario plays out, then China will become a very short-lived superpower, and will only be standing a very short time before it collapses on top of the heap with the other former superpowers.

You only win when you can walk away after the battle. Otherwise it is just a pyhrric victory.

(Trouble is, pyhrric victory is a western term which does not an equivalent in Chinese.)

UPDATE Feb. 20, 2009: Knowledge@Wharton has an article about the possible ramifications of the surge in lending by Chinese banks.

In previous articles, I have voiced some of my criticisms and predictions re globalization here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer by the day that globalization was largely a fraud where Americans could endlessly consume and Chinese factories could endlessly manufacture without any adherence to economic fundamentals and creating a false and bloated version of prosperity and rising living standards. The brilliant minds of Wall Street came up with “risk management strategies” (irony alert) so that derivatives could endlessly build a never-ending Ponzi scheme which would go on forever and ever.

We are now entering a very painful period of unwinding of what economist Niall Ferguson called “Chimerica”. Now, China and America are entering a dangerous period of deglobalization, where they have come to the realization that after the bubble pops and the deleveraging begins, their interests are really quite different. Instead of China and America being two sides of the same economic coin, they need to play or pander to their own constituencies. The blame game will begin.

And their native constituencies are confused, hurt and angry. But they are not nearly as angry now as they will be in the near future when they have figured out what has happened to their wealth. When that happens, there will be hell to pay, and there will be blood in the streets.

The reason for this is because the leveraging which occurred is simply too big and too complicated. Taking all the bad leveraging out of the system and replacing it with cash and credit liquidity is like trying to rebuild the engines of an aircraft in flight. It cannot be done. This means that there can only be a crash.

The bright side is that crashes can be managed. You can go into a death spiral which is impossible to pull out of, but a smart pilot will look for a stretch of land and try to glide in for a crash landing. So far, the political leadership worldwide is pursuing policies which more closely follow the former path of the death spiral. This is because everyone is acting in what they perceive in their own interests, instead of keeping their heads and thinking through what needs to be done. It is a deadly panic move.

The problem is that we are now entering a phase where the crisis has spread from subprime mortgages, to derivatives, and then on to currencies. In the beginning the patient suffered from a lack of credit liquidity (constipation), so the central banks are going to provide liquidity (the enema). This did not work, and the patient has become bloated. There is the very real chance that this will eventually cause runaway inflation (dysentery) and the patient will then die of dehydration. When this happens, the currency becomes worthless and society falls apart until a new dictator imposes his will on the society, as Hitler did at the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany. In China’s case, runaway inflation led to the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek’s loss of support in the cities, and directly contributed to the establishment of the People’s Republic.

Sounds really really really bad, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

But there are survival and prosperity strategies. I will talk about them in 2009. But you will have to be really really tough.

For a long time, I have been telling my friends that China is not going to use its foreign exchange reserves to bail out the US and the rest of the world. Aside from the fact that China does not feel like a superpower, it is becoming apparent with each passing day that China has very real problems of its own, and is going to have use its own reserves to help itself.

Another popular argument is that the newly rich Chinese consumers will go out and spend their yuan, helping the newly poor west out of its self-made predicament.

I have a few stories to tell you which make me doubt this.

Recently, at an apartment in Beijing, I went out to take the garbage, which is in the common area of the building near the elevators. Shortly after going into this area, I noticed that the only lights in the area, which has no windows, were two low-energy consumption bulbs on the other side of the area. Nothing else was on except for those two bulbs, including the stairwell, which was completely black and did not have any lights on. Obviously, the building management company, in an effort to save electricity, had turned off the lights to less than what I would consider safe.

So these are the same guys who are going to bail out western consumers from their problems? Hmmm….

Anyone who has stayed in China for any length of time will find small cards which have a photo of an attractive young woman smiling prettily, with a rate card and mobile phone number on the back. On these cards, the young woman will offer “massage services” with services called 西班牙骑士 and 综合保健 offered. Sometimes the cards mention that the young woman is a university student.

Now, what caught my attention recently was that their rates had gone down! The most expensive package 综合保健 or Total Healthcare Package had gone down from 398 yuan to 298 yuan. My guess is that the market was pulling back, and these young women were asking for less, at least according to my completely informal China Masseuse Index.

Then yesterday I flew from Beijing to Shenzhen. On arrival at Shenzhen airport, I took a small 20+ person bus to downtown Shenzhen. During the ride, as we were going downhill, I noticed that the bus mysteriously went silent. Then, it occurred to me that the bus driver had turned off the engine to save gasoline/petrol costs and was coasting downhill until we reached the toll booth. After we reached the toll booth, he restarted the engine, and we were on our way.

Taken in isolation, I would have said that each would at most, have been an interesting and amusing anomaly. Taken together, they paint a picture of a society which is indeed worried about the future, and is doing its best to cut expenses.

So that, from the street, is my reasoning for thinking why China will not help the west. It has too many problems of its own.

UPDATE: Caijing, the leading economics and business magazine in China, has a short report which supports my observations about falling energy demand from Chinese consumers. (h/t to Bill Bishop)

If there is one thing which most western companies coming into China miss out on is the idea of “trial spots”, or as they are called in Chinese 试点。

So what is it? Basically, it’s a city, place, province or region which is used to try out something experimental which has not been tried before. When China first opened up, Shenzhen was a trial spot for opening up the economy to foreign manufacturing investment. When the experiment succeeded, it was pushed out to the other parts of China. Shanghai and Beijing were opened as tier one cities to foreign companies and employers, mostly in the service sector. When these experiments worked, the opening up gradually started. In most cases, the trial spots were selected by the central, provincial or municipal governments.

Now, there is another little secret. Large SOEs (state-owned enterprises) also often have their own trial spots. Most of the time, these are used to put some of the rising senior-level managers in to try new management practices. They are usually given a city, and a long leash, and are encouraged to try new ways of management. Often these managers are people who have made it to a certain level in a state-owned enterprise, but will not or cannot rise higher because they are somewhat non-conformist, and shall we say, less interested in politics. (Remember that in SOEs, the party also has a say in the selection of candidates for senior positions.)

Frequently, the Chinese way of handling these non-conformists is to give them a “trial spot” where they can experiment in a city or provincial division on their own. If something goes wrong with their experiment, then the damage is limited to their immediate market. If, on the other hand, the experiment was successful and includes practices which can be used on a larger scale, then that person may be promoted to a higher position with greater responsibility. This is how the current leadership of China has been groomed, just to cite an example.

The interesting thing is that many western companies, even consultants, are completely unaware of these practices. They look at their choice of investment areas in western terms, which usually means that which is clear, and out there, in the open.

They don’t study the people.

Instead, they should ask where the different “trial spots” are, and the backgrounds of the people they are dealing with. The right questions to ask for SOEs are:

• “How did this person get to this position?”
• “What is he trying to do?”
• “How is he different?”
• “What do his employees think of him?”
• “What are his goals and his definition of success?”

If it sounds like questions an intelligence agency would ask when examining the new leadership of a country, then it does because it is just like that. I call this “due diligence with Chinese characteristics”.

And how do you get this information? I find the best way is walk in and ask (In Chinese, of course. Speak English and you only get the official line.)

For the most part, you will never find these people in Beijing or Shanghai unless they have been very successful. These are two highly conformist politically-charged cities, and the only way they make it to these cities is if they are in very senior positions, and their views have been vindicated.

Generally speaking, Chinese, even including the party, are more tolerant of non-conformists. Just don’t look for them in Beijing and Shanghai. Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China’s reforms, was for many years considered a non-conformist and was punished repeatedly for his views. Eventually, his policies became the mainstream.

So, how will the recent economic problems affect things? Basically, we are going through the collapse of an old world order, and nothing new to replace it has come up yet. The Chinese government, the party and Chinese SOEs will be looking for answers on what comes next to restore order, growth and stability. After all, this is what Chinese social stability depends on.

For Chinese government and party officials, it will be a good time to be something of a maverick. But these mavericks will only survive and prosper if they can come up with the right answers to some very tough questions.

The story of western social network sites losing out to local Chinese competitors continues; this time MySpace China joins the list as its CEO Luo Chuan makes it official that he is going to leave to join a local online video startup.

Although it is a well-known fact that local management teams need to be empowered to compete successfully in the Chinese market, western tech companies continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. I believe that the reasons for this are:

• While there is much talk about diversity, there is the firm belief that “brands” must be protected with a unified set of features and look all over the world;
• Most VPs of marketing are not fluent in other languages and cultures, and try to dictate from headquarters. When they visit the local office, they appear sympathetic, but when they return to HQ, everything learned from visits to local subsidiaries is quickly forgotten;
• Local Chinese competitors are unrestricted by these considerations; they just do what they need in order to win users. There is very little if any discussion of “brand” and “look and feel”. These are the horses VCs like to bet on;

When you come right down to it, there is little a global brand can bring to the table in China. Most add a burden of a faraway headquarters without empowering the local management team to be more competitive. This is not a problem which is unique to China, it is also happening in the social networking market in Japan.

My conclusion: The problem does not lie with China, but instead lies with the reluctance of western social networking sites to empower their local management to do whatever they need to win users and market share. By trying to force common features, standards and branding too early from their headquarters way before the market is mature, they cripple their local companies’ chances of success, and cede the market to the local competitors.

That is why the successful local competitors get such high valuations; they make ideal acquisition candidates and give their founders a good exit strategy.

Ask Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay.

China is a nation of entrepreneurs, and according to statistics, has 85 million businesses compared to the US’s 25 million. Considering that China has about four times the population of the US, the proportion is about right. These numbers reveal that China is in fact, not a socialist nation, but is instead one which has a very capitalist heart. Or as the Chinese government would say, has “market characteristics”.

There are many Chinese university graduates who when choosing a job, prefer to go to a western company over a Chinese company. For many, American companies are the most preferred. Why is this?

For many of them, it is because that they will get good training, learn management, and work within large organizations about how to get a job done. They get a chance to work with people from many different cultures and countries.

These are significant advantages which most Chinese companies, which have not yet gone global, are not yet able to offer. But I believe that there is another perhaps more important reason.

That is, they know that they will be judged more on performance and merit than on personal relationships with the founder and/or CEO. When it comes to relationships, Chinese founders and CEOs are still very reluctant to trust people outside their own inner circle, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone outside to make it into this inner circle, no matter how good they are. I’m convinced that this attitude has put a natural ceiling or limit on how successful Chinese companies will be in globalizing. When people discover that no matter how smart they are or how hard they work, that they will not make it into the inner circle, they will either move to a company where they know that they are respected, or they will start their own company.

In contrast, Americans and American companies have a different approach. They put value on developing management talent, especially local management talent in a major market like China. They identify rising stars and put them on a management training track soon. Most importantly, they promote them without regard to who they know or are related to.

Most Chinese companies do not do this. This gives American companies human talent scaleability when going global which Chinese companies do not have. Successful American and western companies which have gone global tend to be meritocracies, while Chinese companies are still stuck at the plutocracy stage.

In his book Managing the Dragon, Jack Perkowski stresses how his company ASIMCO is a Chinese company. Technically and legally it is. The important thing is that he was pragmatic about bringing in the best people in their fields as senior and executive management, without regard to who they were related to. This is a very American characteristic, and in China, it works. Ironically, if there is an outsider advantage in China, this is it.

The Chinese government and the management of most Chinese companies have figured this out, but have not been able to apply this lesson to their own organizations yet. This is one of those things which cannot be solved by a government order or administrative guidelines, which the Chinese government likes to use to solve complex problems.

If Chinese companies successfully resolve this problem, there will be no limit to their growth.

Several days ago, Sam Flemming of CIC, a Shanghai-based online reputation management company pointed me to a news article on Business Week called “Inside The War Against China’s Blogs”.

The article specifically highlighted a company called Daqi.com (in Chinese the name means “Big Flag” which has a certain nationalistic appeal), and cited a case in which it helped Toyota satisfy a customer who had not received his car after three months. According to the company’s CEO, her company, an Internet online reputation management company, helps its customers, mostly western multinationals, to monitor their online reputations and help put out fires with users in China.

Out of curiosity, I then entered Daqi.com into my browser address bar so that I could visit the site and learn more about the company and what they do.

What I found, and what I did not find, were very interesting.

First of all, I thought I was going to find an online reputation management company, or public relations company, or whatever buzzwords they are using now to lure in corporate business.

But I found nothing of the kind. Instead, I was confronted with what I would call a typical Chinese portal website, complete with channels for “Homepage”, “Society”, “Military”, “Strange and Curious”, “Autos”, “Digital”, “Women’s Makeup”, “Pictures”, and “Reputations” (in beta).

(I have uploaded the screenshots of the pages mentioned below to Picasa and you can access them here.)

Aha, I thought to myself, I’ll click on “Reputations” and see what I find. When I went there, I found that it was full of forums divided into the categories “Cars”, “Cameras”, “Notebooks”, “Digital Cameras”, “MP3″, and “MP4″. The page is very long, and like most Chinese pages, scrolls on quite a distance with recommended products in each product category. This page, like the rest of the website, was designed very much to lure Chinese visitors. To visit the page, you can go to http://exp.daqi.com/

My next question was whether they took advertising? The only banner advertising I saw was for Dell, which ran on the two pages I visited. But it would be foolish to think that their only revenue came from banner advertising. Looking at how the page was designed, and the way some of the products were given larger photos and highlighted, it was easy to see that some makers were paying for higher rankings for higher visibility.

But nowhere did I see anything about their online reputation management services. So I thought to myself, “Surely the person who wrote the Business Week story, Dexter Roberts, could point to a website where Daqi offered their online reputation management services, in either Chinese or English.”

I could find nothing of the kind.

Daqi claims that it regularly searches 500,000 forums daily for its corporate clients. I’m sure that it works on many sites which are not related to Daqi. However, it also raises the very uncomfortable possibility that it may actually manipulate online reputations by starting flame wars over product reputation, then charging their corporate clients money to put them out. (I’m not claiming that Daqi does, but the very fact that they run their own portal under their own company name and URI means that they have very little respect for their non-Chinese corporate clients and western journalists’ capability to conduct online research in Chinese.)

The clash of interests which arises from revenue from makers for higher rankings on their own portal site, and then revenue from non-Chinese corporate clients for “research insights” and “firefighting services” into Chinese online behavior is obvious to anyone. The temptation to use their own forums to “seed” opinions must be very great. These seeded opinions would then quickly proliferate to other sites.

There is a simple way to find out, and that is to check timestamps of postings. All forum software includes a posting timestamp, and it’s easy to check the timestamps on a subject to push it back in time to where and when a rumor started. What is harder to find out is the identity of the poster, but this can sometimes be done by checking the IP address of the poster if IP cloaking is not used. Different online identities sharing the same IP would most likely be the same poster.

I wonder how many corporate clients do this kind of checking?

I find the whole practice of hiring Chinese and paying them to post favorable comments on a per posting basis to be an unethical PR practice. According to the BW article, this is a common practice. A Beijing-based PR professional, William Moss, talks about this in more detail.

Online public relations firms will have to draw up and aggressively publicize clear guidelines on what they do, and what they don’t do when it comes to monitoring online behavior in China. Playing multiple roles as player and referee doesn’t make it in my book. I have talked about some of the skills needed in a previous posting.

This is part of the problem which actually slows down Internet growth in China. In spite of it all, there are healthy groups for product discussions.

Of course, each corporate client will have to make its own call as to what it is most comfortable with. And so will their VC backers. (I wonder if they read Chinese?)

But if someone does do an article on a Chinese company, at the very least, the URI mentioned should include, in either Chinese or English, the business they are in which is mentioned in the article.

Nobody likes bait and switch tactics, and I’m no exception.

Is that too much to ask for?

More frequently now, US-based (mostly Silicon Valley) tech and business professionals are contacting me, asking how to find work in China. The business people usually want to get paid US salary to stay in the US and do some BD work for a US or Chinese company. The technology people usually want to find work in China.

For the most part, it’s very hard to find work which requires that you stay in the US paid at US salary. I have never heard of a Chinese company hiring someone on the recommendation of a senior recruiter without first meeting senior and executive management over a period of time. I know of one VP in a gaming company who came back to China, was hired and worked in China for nearly a year, and was then sent to open up their new US west coast office. Of course, a job like this requires working with a very Chinese company, which means that you need to know Chinese. And you need to prove yourself in the home office before you will be sent to the US. So, it is not easy…

For technology pros with 10+ years’ experience, my advice is that they take a few months off to come to China, and network as much as possible. Paul Graham puts it very well in this article about web startups. Beijing is a very vibrant startup hub and its tech grads from Tsinghua University offer the cream of the crop; generally speaking people are very friendly and open about what they are doing.

Shanghai is a more western style city, and the mentalities of the people are very different from Beijing. A rough analogy would be to say that Beijing is like Silicon Valley + Washington DC, and Shanghai is like Los Angeles or New York when it comes to mainstream media.

If you are a tech pro with 10+ years working in Silicon Valley, you really should be thinking more in terms of startup than about joining a company as an employee. There is an upfront sacrifice in terms of time, but in the end you will be happier, and at least you will own a piece of a company. If you are younger, you can afford to make a few mistakes in your early startups; if you are older, you want to choose more carefully. The good thing about doing a startup is that even if it fails, you are likely to make excellent acquaintances which will help you in the future.

One reader of my previous article Is It Possible For A Western-Managed Company to Succeed In China? mentioned that I made it sound very hard for a westerner to succeed in China. Well, yes and no.

Over the weekend, I came across an interesting announcement on Danwei from Praxis Language, the parent company of Chinesepod, an online Chinese-language learning program. The company is based in Shanghai and is headed by Ken Carroll. I met Ken in 2005 at the first Chinese blogger conference, which was held in November of that year in Shanghai. I have never used Chinesepod, but I have heard many favorable comments about it from westerners who want to learn Chinese.

The announcement, which is on Ken’s blog, mentioned that the Chinese government agency in charge of the government-operated Confucius Institutes, had approached his company about partnering to create an online presence for their institutes and helping to teach Chinese to non-Chinese using the Internet.

Think about it. The Chinese government partners with a non-Chinese headed company in Shanghai which knows something about language teaching online to help them promote the teaching of Chinese online around the world.

So, if you are good in your field, of course there are opportunities for western-owned startups in China.

One of the most popular cliches in the west about China is that Chinese are generally good and reasonable people, but when it comes to nationalism, they are unreasonable. On the political level, national sovereignty is not negotiable, and when it comes to business, you need to realize that nationalism is a wildcard, and can throw a monkey-wrench into your best-laid plans. Put into this context, the 2008 Beijing Olympics is all about righting past wrongs, and showing that China is now an equal, maybe even a leader, in the world stage.

Like all bad cliches, this cliche contains a kernel of truth.

In my previous article, I mentioned why it’s so important for any business to be successful in China, decisions must be made locally by local management; it cannot be micromanaged from the US or anywhere else. Established business sectors such as finance, banking, retail, and fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), all understand this very basic rule of international business.

In the venture capital field in China, there has been a large influx of companies and partnerships which have opened offices and partnerships in Beijing and Shanghai. These companies understand that good investment decisions must, for the most part, be made in China where the local partners can understand the business environment, the competition and perform the due diligence to make the right decisions. Smart decisions cannot be made outside China.

And even that is not necessarily enough. Now more companies are going into the Chinese tier 2 and 3 cities and they are realizing that Beijing and Shanghai have more in common with New York, London or Tokyo than with other Chinese cities.

So why do so many US technology companies continue to try to second-guess and micromanage their China local management?

This is a mystery to me, and I continue to be befuddled by it. How can intelligent people continue to make and repeat over and over again mistakes which others have made before?

And then, when the Chinese local management complains that they are not empowered, sometimes they dismiss it as the Chinese “going nationalistic”. Never mind that the people questioning the Chinese management in the US do not speak, read or write Chinese; never mind that the people coming into China spend only a few days on the ground in China and think that they have China “all figured out”, yet they continue to do this over and over again.

Does this make sense? Any sense at all? And should there be any surprise that leading US companies including Yahoo!, eBay and AOL have failed in China?

And yet, these people control the budget and resource allocation for China. Should there be any surprise at all that US Internet companies have not been able to be successful in China?

What value do these people contribute to the success of the business in China? I can’t see any. Then when the company fails, it isn’t because headquarters slowed down the decision loop; it’s because of “poor performance by local management”!

They have set up Chinese local management to be the fall guy even before they started!

If this thinking were only confined to Internet companies and startups in China, it would be bad, but in the overall economic picture, it wouldn’t be that important.

The problem for the west is that it isn’t.

It has affected the west’s popularity in Africa because China offers aid without strings attached. In the mainstream media in the west, this is depicted as a cynical attempt by the Chinese to curry favor with regimes which behave badly.

But could there be more to it than meets the eye?

Could it be that the Africans don’t like to have someone dictate loan and development terms from Washington DC, London or Paris, and setting performance benchmarks for them without understanding the context of development in their own countries and region?

And could it be that the real reason for the popularity of the Chinese is that for better or for worse, they have gone local, setting up their own businesses and factories in Africa instead of trying to dictate terms from Beijing?

Definitely this is something worth pondering…

For many westerners and western companies, it’s hard to figure out why some Chinese have gone to the US for their graduate degrees, worked at name technology companies such as Intel and Microsoft, then come back to China, their homeland, start their own businesses, and fall flat on their faces.

How is this possible? They had everything going for them; they had the best education the US had to offer, worked in a great company, were smart and entrepreneurial, know the language, have connections, and they failed.

More often than not, these people have been away from China for a long time. Over time, they have become used to the American way of life, and while they keep up with what is going on in China, their knowledge and understanding of the country has gone stale. Gradually, they are more at home in America than in China. They jump on the China bandwagon because it is in the media all the time, and they hope to strike it rich.

Then they return to China and discover a country which is not the China which they grew up in. Compared to when they left, the role of the government is much smaller, the country has become more market-oriented in most sectors, and they may have lost many of their former connections. Worst of all, they look at the country through American-tinted glasses and use American society as a point of reference, something which does not work in China at all.

For any business or individual to succeed in China, you must understand China on Chinese terms.

This failure to understand China on Chinese terms is, in my opinion, why so many western Internet companies have failed in China. Moreover, the constant need of local management to report to headquarters outside of China, and to report every purchase they make, and more often, to explain what they are doing, puts a fatal hindrance on the decision-making process because the management is constantly tied up in knots educating someone in headquarters about China.

This makes for another very important point: No successful company in China can be successfully run from outside China; the key decisions and decision-makers must live, breathe, work and sweat in China every single day to make it work.

The single most important bad decision western companies make in China is to force the local China management to consult with headquarters about every matter; this makes the local management look weak in the eyes of their own staff. After all, what is the point in staying with a company if they do not have the power to make decisions even if they are sitting in the corner office?

It all comes down to how empowered people are to make their own decisions, and to be held responsible and accountable for them.

It makes much more sense for them to break out and start their own company, often taking the idea the western company had, but was not able to implement in China because they were constrained by headquarters’ indecision. In the Internet sector, where change is happening so fast, it makes no sense to sue and countersue; that would only make the lawyers happy and not solve the basic issues.

This just scratches the surface of why being Chinese is no guarantee of success in today’s China. Put simply, the society has changed too much too fast, and unless outsiders live here and deal with local Chinese who have never been outside China and speak only Chinese on a daily basis, they will fail.

In business, success cannot be guaranteed, but failure can…