Critique #1: (a) This abstract mindset stuff can’t possibly account for the dirty details of everyday business — (b) which makes it useless.

On (1a), absolutely. Mindset is one piece of a huge set of puzzles and challenges that have to be addressed in running a successful business anywhere in the world. Three brief blog posts are simply by necessity going to be somewhat abstract and vague. (And woe to the company that hires a consultant to write blog posts and do nothing else!) Any serious consulting engagement has to go way beyond mindset and into the organizational and operational nitty-gritty that real businesspeople face every day.

As for (1b), for the best chance at success you need both the abstract and the specific. To the extent that the day-to-day work of running a company can be informed by high-level principles like mindset, it is likely to be more effective. Unless one thinks the findings themselves are inaccurate, which is a separate conversation.

Critique #2: (a) Current political and social circumstances can explain all the relevant mindset differences. (b) Societies change over time (a form of evidence for (2a)).

I can’t do justice here to the volumes of statistically validated social science research that demonstrate the surprising stability of mindsets over time. For cultural issues generally, I’ll refer you to the work of Geert Hofstede and his team. For U.S. and China, pick up any of the 19th-Century works by U.S. missionaries in China (my favorite is Smith’s Chinese Characteristics. Or, better yet, read Lin Yutang’s 1935 classic My Country and My People, and see how well it’s held up over time.

Critique #3: Stereotypes may have some business use.

There’s a terminological distinction in the field of intercultural communication between stereotyping and generalizing. Generalizing is the act of making statements about a group of people, realizing that there is variation within any population. Stereotyping is taking a perceived characteristic of an individual and claiming, on the basis of this, that all people “like this person” share this characteristic (and probably other negative characteristics too). I simply don’t see the business value in this latter act. Generalizing, yes; stereotyping, no.

Critique #4: Don’t be too easy on the Chinese: they could in fact be out to mess you up.

True. No businessperson should act without a duly critical stance toward people with possibly competing interests. What I find disheartening is the certainty with which Westerners often attribute certain behaviors to this or that “Chinese characteristic,” which then often leads to broader, more negative generalizations, and ultimately to an unproductive, and ill-deserved, distrust.

There is no one best window through which to view the Chinese, or anyone. But the more possible windows we allow ourselves, the richer our set of cognitive tools for solving complex problems — intercultural and other.

In China you will be dealing with your own stereotypes of Chinese people. You could either pretend they’re not there and have them sink your business, or you can acknowledge them and re-frame them into more positive ways of thinking. It’s up to you.

Here are 9 common stereotypes you’re likely to have in whole or in part, and ways to re-frame them:

1. The Chinese are out to cheat me.

China has been through a lot of tough history, over thousands of years and even up to very recent times. Chinese people have had to make tough choices in a world of scarcity. This mentality has been passed down through the generations. No Chinese does anything a Westerner wouldn’t do if fighting for survival.

The upshot: Cross your T’s and dot your I’s. Be prudent, not paranoid.

2. The Chinese think they’re superior.

The Chinese are legitimately proud of their amazing cultural accomplishments. Think of the food, the monuments, the language, and on and on. Chinese give respect where it’s due: to Westerners for their advanced technology and social institutions, and to themselves for what they’ve done.

The upshot: Allow yourself to admire what there is to admire, while keeping your cool.

3. The Chinese lie.

People from every culture lie. What Westerners call “lying” in China is often just a more subtle form of communication than we’re used to. China is what’s known as a “high context” culture: information is assumed to be in the background — the context. The more you learn about the assumed context, the better you’ll get at seeing the meaning behind the words.

The upshot: Get trained on Chinese communication style. Learn as much as you can about the Chinese mindset, so that you know what background assumptions people bring to the conversation.

4. The Chinese go back on their word.

Shaped for millennia by a fickle, resource-poor environment rife with natural disasters, the Chinese see the world as constantly in flux. Circumstances change, and it’s foolish to set a plan in stone now for an imagined future, when it might not be a fit for the actual future. It’s best to remain adaptable and flexible.

The upshot: Be ready for your counterparts to ask for changes to contracts. Understand that in China the contract is often seen as the beginning of a relationship, not a fixed definition of reality.

5. The Chinese are always stalling for time.

Like any business counterpart anywhere in the world, the Chinese have strategies for getting what they want. A common one is to use home court to their advantage. It’s easier on the Chinese if things take longer than it is on you.

Upshot: Be ready and set reasonable expectations that things probably aren’t going to happen quickly.

6. The Chinese are stingy.

The Chinese are thrifty. Again, over millennia the Chinese have often had to scrape together meager livings out of a hostile, overcrowded environment. Every resource is precious, and could disappear at a moment’s notice if not carefully guarded.

The upshot: Negotiation is not viewed as a win–win proposition. Be thrifty with your resources too, and meet the Chinese on their own zero-sum terms.

7. The Chinese don’t care about quality.

Everyone cares about quality. But when it comes to priorities, sometimes it’s more important to the Chinese to save some resources than to make something that fits Westerners’ high standards. See above about precious resources.

The upshot: Be fastidious and unrelenting in your QC. Get feet on the street and keep them there.

8. The Chinese don’t care about their environment.

The world of the average Chinese person is relatively small. People are focused — narrowly, from a prosperous Western perspective — on day-to-day concerns like having enough to eat and a roof over their heads. It might be nice to have a cleaner environment, but for many Chinese that’s a luxury.

The upshot: Instead of complaining about the awful air, imagine what it would be like if you didn’t get to leave it in a week or two.

9. The Chinese hate Westerners.

In fact Westerners are much admired in China. What Westerners perceive as “hatred” is usually more a vague sense of suspicion. Like everything else, this results from the thought habits of the past, especially the past century and a half, which saw Westerners exploit and mistreat China. All this means is that you have to earn their trust.

The upshot: Behave in a way that is worthy of trust, and trust will come. With time.

Categories can be useful. Reasoned, informed judgment can be useful. Stereotypes have zero business value. Get savvy about your own stereotypes and re-frame them. Not only will you feel better and get along better, but your business will do better.

Here’s the post:

For archival purposes, I’m putting the post here as well.

The most common theme I witnessed was suspicion, on the part of some of the Americans, of the motives of the Chinese partners. I kept being reminded of the bugaboo of attributing intentions (usually erroneously) based solely on behavior. There was a particular kind of behavior observed by the Americans which made them uncomfortable, and it didn’t take long, as the Americans talked among themselves later, to create agreement about the (ill) intentions behind the behaviors. This is a savvy group of executives, though, and they were receptive to other interpretations of the behavior.

One thought that recurred frequently during the week was this: what about all the other organizations working in China, which either aren’t aware of intercultural issues, or which are aware but don’t want to invest in intercultural consulting? I thought of how intercultural misunderstanding grows over time, often without our noticing, until it’s too late. A former colleague once put forth the “fish poop” model of human relations: over time, a fish tank accumulates fish poop. From one day to the next, you won’t necessarily notice a difference. But over time you end up with a stinky, fetid mess of a place to try to live, let alone thrive. Human relations, like fish tanks, require constant attention to accumulating fish poop — especially in intercultural environments, where the poop is likely to come fast and furious.

My experience with this company left me with a profound appreciation for them and companies like them, who can see the importance of the intercultural piece for their future success.

It turns out, though, that it’s not just low-context Westerners misreading high-context Chinese. Chinese and English also differ fundamentally in how they structure information.

Linda W.L. Young’s fascinating book, Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication takes a deep dive into these differences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). She conducted several studies, recording and transcribing spoken language, to arrive at her conclusions. The main conclusion is that when presenting a case, Chinese move from the general to the specific, while Americans move from the specific to the general. For instance, where an American might say, “I think we should hire the guy. He’s right for the job,” (“the point” first, backup later) a Chinese person in a similar position might say, “I think the person is right for the job. I think we should hire him” (backup first, “the point” later). No problem for such a simple case, but in complex cases, when the reasoning can get intricate, Americans often get impatient, and wonder: will he ever get to the point? The American will ascribe evasiveness or indecisiveness to the speaker, leading to even more impatience, and impugning the character of the speaker in the eyes of the American. Little good will result.

It’s a familiar pattern. And once again, it’s brought about by the human tendency to imagine (usually incorrectly) the intentions behind a behavior, when all we really have to go on is the behavior itself. If the American listener were aware of the information pattern Young discovered, it would go a long way to taking the charge out of the conversation, and to keeping everyone’s eyes where they should be: on making the right decision for the organization.

Each of us is the only one with access to our intentions. In the moment we might not always know exactly why we’re doing something, but when pressed to introspect we’ve still got an infinitely clearer picture than anyone else does. When we do something that upsets someone else, we can easily take refuge in our intentions: we didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. If the people involved in this kind of upset are willing, dialog can happen, misunderstood intentions can be clarified, and relationships can deepen.

The rub is that we have no access to anyone else’s intentions. All we have to go on is behavior. We observe a behavior, and attribute an intention, whether it’s accurate or not. The result: we make a lot of mistakes, often assuming evil intent where intent was either good or, at worst, indifferent. Whether we like it or not, we are wired to judge those around us based only on their behaviors, while at the same time judging ourselves based mostly on our intentions. That’s the cold, hard logic I’m talking about: I can’t see a way around it.

This finding is not my own, nor is it new. And it’s a profoundly useful finding for intercultural understanding. Think of the staggering amount of miscommunication that happens every day among members of (roughly) the same cultural group speaking the same language. Now imagine a “typical” Westerner and a “typical” Chinese person. Both behave in ways deeply conditioned by their very different cultures; neither is familiar with the other person’s cultural habits; neither speaks the other’s language. How could they not judge each other? And what hope have they got of working things out, given the cultural and linguistic barriers?

My own answer is that they’ve got plenty of hope. What it takes, though, is hard work, commitment, and the involvement of experts with the tools to build the necessary bridges. It just won’t happen reliably on its own. It may happen here or there, but for most organizations that’s hardly what you’d want to stake your future on.

The caller said he had a “mechanical moral dilemma” with a neighbor. The caller, a doctor, had an agreement with his mechanic neighbor to barter services: health care for car care. Except the caller had noticed that his neighbor had been going about oil-changing in a needlessly cumbersome, even somewhat unsafe, way. He asked hosts Tom and Ray if he should tell his neighbor about a much easier way to change the oil.

My American mind expected a quick “yes” from Tom and Ray, especially given that the mechanic had burned himself twice doing it the hard way. Surely the learning to be gained, as well as the safety concerns, would outweigh considerations of ego.

I was wrong. They both gave a quick and unqualified “no.” They said the mechanic would eventually learn some other way, but in the meantime it would be an “affront” for the doctor to tell the mechanic directly. At the end of the call Tom and Ray praised the caller for his “sensitivity.”

Westerners often pride ourselves in our directness, and see matters of “face” as secondary, or even non-existent. The Car Talk example, though, shows that face can be as real a concern in the West as it is anywhere, given the right circumstances and the right individuals.

Today I met with the “ayi” who used to take care of our children when we were living in Beijing from 2004–2007. I hadn’t seen her since we’d left. I was eager to “get caught up” — a very American thing to do — and so I had invited her to a Starbucks not far from where she lives. I also wanted to give her some photos and artistic creations of my girls, though I didn’t mention that.

The conversation was wonderful. At one point, however, she asked, seemingly out of the blue, “Are you all moving back to Beijing?” I answered no. “Oh. I thought that might be why you wanted to meet.” No problem ensued, because we have a strong, and open, relationship that we developed over the years, but I still felt a bit of a heel for my blunder.

What’s the blunder? Edward T. Hall, anthropologist and giant in the field of intercultural communication, in his 1976 classic Beyond Culture, described what he called “low-context” and “high-context” cultures. People from low-context cultures spell everything out, say things directly and explicitly; high context cultures rely more on background information – context – and “reading signs.” I had told her that I wanted to see her and talk, which is exactly what I had intended. She, however, with her high-context background, thought there must be some underlying reason for my invitation that I hadn’t stated. Her best guess was that we were moving back to Beijing.

Now, even in a low-context culture, people “read signs” and infer; it’s just done with much greater frequency and consistency in high-context cultures. The difference, as always, is a matter of degree, not of kind.

This makes your life quite a bit more complicated than it might otherwise be as you navigate your way through your relationships with your Chinese partners and counterparts. Before you can begin to guess how someone might respond to something you say or don’t say, you have to have some way of knowing, or at least guessing, what the background context is. This requires a resourcefulness, alertness, and agility, as well as a vast knowledge base, which few possess. You’ll need to rely on many others to fill in the blanks for you.

But doing this difficult thinking before you blunder will reward you profoundly. You will be viewed as someone who “understands China,” and will generate the “good feeling” that is so crucial to successful partnerships in China — more on this in future posts.