International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Business Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

Cultural adaptation and socialisation between Western buyers and

Chinese suppliers: The formation of a hybrid culture
Fu Jiaa,* , Christine Rutherfordb , Richard Lammingc
a
University of Exeter Business School, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK
b
School of Management & Languages, Dept. of Business Management, EF 29, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
c
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: We aim to examine culturally-influenced behavioural adaptation embedded in socialisation processes at
Received 23 September 2014 interfaces between Western buyers and Chinese suppliers in China. We conducted multiple case studies,
Received in revised form 16 December 2015 including four cross-cultural partnerships, exploring how interface teams hosting trans-cultural
Accepted 28 March 2016
boundary spanners at buyer-supplier interfaces socialise formally and informally and adapt
Available online 3 April 2016
behaviourally to three key cultural differences between Chinese Guanxi and the Anglo-Saxon form of
Western culture. Data collected from 36 interviewees are used to explore the process of cultural
Keywords:
behavioural adaptation and the emergence of a hybrid culture. We find that cultural adaptation is
Cultural adaptation
Socialisation
confined to those interface teams who interact routinely at the buyer-supplier interface and leads to the
Hybrid culture formation of a hybrid culture, which is a combination of Guanxi and western rules and procedures. The
Buyer-supplier relationship hybrid culture and cultural adaptation are two intermediary constructs between socialisation and
Case study relational capital, which enriches and explains this relationship in a cross-cultural context.
China ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction current supplier relationship management models (B–B market-

The role of national culture in the international buyer-supplier
relationship has attracted attention from researchers in the
International Business (IB) and Supply Chain Management
(SCM) and practicing managers these days (Cannon, Doney,
Mullen, & Petersen, 2010; Ketkar, Kock, Parente & Verville, 2012;
Liu, 2012). This is because cultural differences pose risks or
challenges to buyer-supplier relationship in an international
context (Trent & Monczka, 2003; Pagell, Katz & Sheu, 2005). In
SCM literature for example, Ribbink and Grimm (2014) found
cultural differences negatively influence joint profits and negotia-
tion outcomes. In the IB literature, authors argue that cultural
distance between business partners negatively influence the
building of mutual trust, subsequently impeding long-term
coordination (Sirmon & Lane, 2004; Smagalla, 2004). While some
advocate the need for cross-cultural supply chain research (Pagell
et al., 2005; Zhao, Flynn, & Roth, 2006), few studies examine
buyer–supplier relationships in the context of different cultures.
Giannakis, Doran, and Chen (2012) echo that the majority of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fu.jia@exeter.ac.uk, jeff_fujia@hotmail.com (F. Jia),
c.rutherford@hw.ac.uk (C. Rutherford), Richard.lamming@btinternet.com
(R. Lamming).
ing) are either developed in the context of western or Japanese
business cultures without sufficiently addressing cross-cultural
issues.
However, there are a few exceptions. Fang (2001) sees culture as
a driving force for inter-firm adaptation, using Chinese culture as
an example. Giannakis et al., 2012 go further and state that there is
a need for a global supplier relationship management paradigm,
including cultural elements from Western, Japanese and Chinese
cultures implying the formation of a hybrid culture. Jia and
Rutherford (2010) is among the first to propose conceptually that
international inter-firm learning or cultural adaptation as a way of
mitigating cultural differences between Western buyers and
Chinese suppliers may lead to the formation of a hybrid culture.
SCM authors (Cousins, Handfield, Lawson, & Petersen, 2006;
Cousins, Lawson, & Squire, 2008; Squire, Cousins, & Brown, 2009)
propose proactive socialisation between individuals in the buyer-
supplier relationship as a means to buyer-supplier relationship
success and find that socialisation leads to relational capital.
However, based on a comprehensive literature review, it is still not
clear first what the relationship is between adaptation and
socialisation at the cross border B–B context; second, what is the
outcome of socialisation and cultural adaptation in addition to
relational capital; third, what Giannakis’s (2012) global paradigm
or a hybrid culture entails.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.03.009
0969-5931/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
Building upon the IB and SCM, this paper engages with the
discussion around buyer-supplier relationship in a cross-cultural
context and focuses on behavioural adaptation (instead of
changing value or fundamental beliefs) following Schein (1992)
to address three research questions:
(1) How is a Hybrid Culture formed between a Western buyer and
Chinese supplier?
(2) What is the nature of a Hybrid Culture in this context?
(3) What is the role of hybrid culture in the relationship between
socialisation and relational capital?
This paper extends the cross border buyer-supplier relationship
of IB literature in the following ways: (1) we empirically support
the existence of a hybrid culture between a Western buyer and a
Chinese supplier and identify its nature extending the hybrid
concept (Borys & Jemison,1989) to a cross-cultural context; (2)
building on IB and SCM literature, we build a chain of causal links
between socialisation, cultural adaptation, hybrid culture and
relational capital and identify the two intermediary constructs of
cultural adaptation and hybrid culture between socialisation and
relational capital/rents; (3) we explain the mechanism of how
buyer-supplier interface individuals socialise formally and infor-
mally, then adapt culturally to each other and eventually form a
hybrid culture at the Western buyer-Chinese supplier interface.
This paper is structured as follows. First we review the
literature on socialisation and cultural adaptation as solutions to
address the challenges posed by cultural differences and the hybrid
culture concepts to inform our research questions. Our multiple
case study method is described, followed by research findings
before we develop an integrated conceptual model of hybrid
culture addressing the research questions. We conclude with
research contributions, implications for practice, research limi-
tations and suggestions for future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Socialisation and cultural adaptation
2.1.1. Socialisation
Contrary to the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP)
group’s perspective that buyers and suppliers can only adapt
passively to each other in order to form a hybrid and building on
the network governance perspective, Cousins et al. (2008) propose
that socialisation (informal and formal) in a B–B context plays a
significant role in enabling knowledge transfer and improving the
performance of buyer-supplier relationships. Socialisation enables
each party to learn about the other’s organisational culture and
therefore create social norms and shared understandings (Cousins
et al., 2006, 2008; Squire et al., 2009). Socialisation is the level of
interaction between, and communication of, various actors within
and between the firms, which leads to the building of personal
familiarity, improved communication and problem solving (Gupta
& Govindarajan, 2000). A formal socialisation process implies that
there are designated structures created to communicate expect-
ations and share useful information and knowledge between
buyers and suppliers (Cousins et al., 2006). Hence, we suggest that
the learning of Western rules and procedures by a Chinese supplier
(e.g., a Western step-by step approach to building business
relationships; lean production; six sigma; 5s), as defined by Jia
and Rutherford (2010), can only be attained through a formal
socialisation process e.g., formal meetings and workshops.
Mechanisms of informal socialisation include workers engaging
in social activities outside of the workplace, mostly focused on
entertainment e.g., dining (Cousins et al., 2006). The difference
between Chinese and Western informal socialisation is that
1247
personal relationships, resulted from informal social interactions,
can normally be sustained after one employee leaves a company
and be used to benefit other B–B relationships in China but is not
necessarily the case in the West (Jia & Rutherford, 2010). In a sense,
personal relationship and informal socialisation network are
prioritised over business relationships in China (Luo, 1997; Parnell,
2005).
In practice, both formal and informal socialisation mechanisms
are used. For example, Fu, Diez, and Schiller (2013) find that
Chinese firms interact via a combination of formal institution and
informal Guanxi networks among long term business partners to
exploit tacit knowledge in modularized industries like electronics.
Richardson, Yamin, and Sinkovics (2012) conclude that a lack of
informal social network between firms impedes the internation-
alization of a firm, which is considered a critical success factor for
suppliers in emerging economies such as Malaysia.
Linking socialisation to relationship performance, Cousins et al.
(2006) find that some mixture of formal and informal socialisation
mechanisms is important for the creation of relational capital,
which in turn creates a basis for learning (Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter,
2000). Relational capital refers to the degree of mutual respect,
trust and close interaction that exists between the partner firms
(Cousins et al., 2006; Kale et al., 2000; Sarmento, Simões, and
Farhangmehr (2015) also point out social interaction (informal
socialisation) at trade fairs generate bonds and commitment and
eventually enhance relationship quality. What is missing from
their findings is whether the conclusion holds true in a cross-
cultural context.
2.1.2. Cultural adaptation
A number of authors conclude that mutual adaptation between
partners mitigates the impact of cultural differences (Das & Teng,
2000; Kim & Parkhe, 2009; Parkhe, 1991). For example, Saka-
Helmhout (2007) claims that when firms extend their operations
into new institutional contexts they are highly likely to adapt their
existing structures and cultures. Cultural adaptation has been
studied from an individual level (Haslberger, 2005; Jassawalla,
Truglia, & Garvey, 2004; Jun, Gentry, & Hyun, 2001) but little has
been written at the organisational level (Boisot & Child, 1999;
Granner, 1980; Lin, 2004; Salmi, 2006). In this study, we adopt
Francis’ (1991, p. 406) definition of cultural adaptation as “An
attempt to elicit approval from members of a foreign culture by
attempting to become behaviourally more similar to members of that
culture.” The focus on behaviour rather than values or assumptions,
and the aim of eliciting acceptance, suggests that cultural
adaptation takes place at the ‘behavioural’ (or visible) level of
the three (behaviour, values/beliefs, underlying assumptions)
identified by Schein (1992).
Lin (2004) provides a useful process model of cultural
adaptation and claim that cultural adaptation process includes
three separate elements: understand, adjust and learn. First,
members of each culture need to understand the other culture
on its own terms. Second, cross-cultural adaptation requires a level
of adjustment necessary for smooth interactions. Third, the highest
level of adaptation occurs when a party makes a conscious effort to
learn from the other party; that is, to integrate elements of the
other culture into its own.
However it is not clear from these studies on first how both
parties of a China-West buyer-supplier relationship adapt to each
other; second what the outcomes of cultural adaptation are; third,
what the relationship between socialisation and cultural adapta-
tion is. Next, we review the literature on the hybrid concepts to
inform a likely outcome of cultural adaptation and cross-cultural
socialisation.
1248 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261

2.2. The hybrid national culture
Some scholars propose a hybrid national culture (e.g., a global
paradigm) between Western buyers and Chinese suppliers but
don’t provide details on its nature (Fang, 2001; Giannakis et al.,
2012). Griffith and Myers (2005) argue that national culture plays
an important role in the relational governance and propose a
concept of national cultural norms which are embedded in
bilaterally established relational norms. Here, national cultural
norms are considered as a part of hybrid organisational cultural
norms.
Articulating this further, Graen, Hui, and Gu (2004) propose a
“third culture bonds” model, defining the third culture as a culture
in which the different cultural backgrounds of the organisation or
group members are synthesized into a new culture that is
acceptable to members; the third culture is a mix of the business
partner’s cultures whereby the partners become cultural
“insiders”.
In the context of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) interna-
tionalising their operations. Morgen, Sharpe, Kelly, and Whitley
(2002, p. 114) propose a concept of hybridization and define it as,
“the creation of new management practices out of selective
adaptation, innovation and change”, which provides a useful
metaphor to describe the processes that take place when a firm
nurtured in one national context establishes a subsidiary in a host
country. Building on Morgan et al. (2002),Elger and Smith (2005, p.
362) observe that hybridization has been used most fruitfully to
describe not simply juxtaposition of “home and host country
effects but the emergence of distinctive configurations that may
depart from both home-based templates and local practices”.
Echoing this, Tolliday, Boyer, Charron, and Jürgens (1998) propose
that hybridization is not simply a process of compromise and
retreat but also an important dynamic of innovation and learning.
Tolliday et al. (1998) review research on the transfer of production
systems, including Fordism and the setting up of overseas plants by
Japanese firms, and conclude that hybridization is a learning
process, concerning success or failure in blending new elements to
achieve a coherent system. They all imply that adaptation leads to a
hybrid culture.
Summarizing above, it seems that cultural adaptation leads to
hybrid national culture, which may be a sub-set of hybrid
organisational culture (e.g., Griffith & Myers, 2005). We therefore
define hybrid national culture as a composite culture of the buying
and selling firms with a unique blend of the national cultures where
the firms come from that straddles the space between buyers and
suppliers, results from learning and adaptation by cross-cultural
partners and contain selective adaptation and distinctive config-
urations that may depart from both home and local cultures.
In a B–B governance context, Borys and Jemison (1989) propose
two constructs useful to this study, whose meanings are adapted to
the national cultural context in this study: boundary of hybrid,
denoting, instead of which resources and obligations belong to the
hybrid and which don’t in relationship governance, where the
cultural knowledge reside and propose the construct of boundary
permeability, instead of referring to the degree and nature of the
permeability of the hybrid boundary, denoting that the degree of
the cultural knowledge disseminated within an organisation.
3. Methodology
3.1. The case study approach and sampling
Our research is both exploratory and explanatory, focusing on
an adaptation process, (i.e. a “How?” research question) and
explaining the detailed mechanism/solution to the problem caused
by cultural differences between China and the West and its likely
outcome i.e., hybrid culture. We thus chose a ‘multiple case study’
method (following Yin, 2008). This was also appropriate as we
were developing and extending theories of socialisation and hybrid
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). We adopted
a retrospective perspective, exploring how both parties of a
partnership socialised and adapted culturally from the beginning
of the relationship up to the field research period. Our unit of
analysis was socialisation and cultural adaptation behaviours,
measured in terms of behavioural change at the interface of a
dyadic relationship. The focus includes the process of cultural
adaptation and its outcome.
Our sampling was purposive i.e., sampling in a specific locale
according to a preconceived but reasonable initial set of
dimensions (such as time, space, identity or power) worked out
in advance (Glaser, 1978). Four cases were selected, using three
criteria (Table 1. Note: WB represents Western Buyer; CS represents
Chinese Supplier):
1. WB was large-scale manufacturing Multinational Corporations
(MNCs): more likely to have an International Purchasing Office
(IPO) in China and a longer history of sourcing in China than
smaller firms (Jia, Lamming, Sartor, Orzes & Nassimbeni, 2014a;
Jia, Lamming, Sartor, Orzes & Nassimbeni, 2014b; Nassimbeni &
Sartor, 2006).

Table 1
Case description (all annual turnover for western buyers indicate that of the MNC globally. Unit: USD).

Descriptive variables Case A Case B Case C Case D

WB-A CS-A WB-B CS-B WB-C CS-C WB-D CS-D

(Western (Chinese Supplier A)
Buyer A)
Geographic location (Subsidiary/ US/US/ Yangzi river delta UK/US/ Yangzi river delta UK/UK/ Pearl river delta UK/ North
HQ/IPO) Shanghai (Near Shanghai) Shanghai (Near Shanghai) Shanghai (South China) Canada/ China
North
China
Ownership of Western buyers MNC Private MNC Private MNC State owned MNC State
and Chinese suppliers (Fortune (Fortune (public listed) (Fortune owned
500) 500) 500)
No. of employees 50,000 Over 100 34,000 1800 2000 Over 1000 28,000 15,000
Annual turnover $13 billion $7 million (2007) $14 billion $0.14 billion $0.38 billion $0.1 billion $9.7 billion No data
(2007) (2008) (2008) (2008) (2007) (2008)
Number of interviewees 3 3 5 5 5 4 8 3
Industry/product Mechanical Manufacturing/ Automotive/engine cooling system Printing/Printing machine power Aerospace/Fuselage
Mechanical precision parts supply
Duration of the relation Over 3 years 10 years Over 3 years Over 3 years

WB represents Western Buyer; CS represents Chinese Suppliers.

 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
2. WB with subsidiary/headquarters in the UK or US (Anglo-Saxon
branch of Western culture), dealing with Chinese supplier. This
reduces sampling variation among Western cultures (Bond,
1996; Pirie, 2007). “The West” has multiple meanings depend-
ing on context (Stearns, 2003). The Western culture indicated in
this paper refers to the Anglo-Saxon branch. This is a culture that
strongly features capitalism and Protestantism and is practised
in English-speaking countries (e.g., UK the USA) (Mitchell,
Muysken, & Veen, 2006).
3. Collaborative relationships: deemed more likely to gain mutual
benefits and form a hybrid culture. We selected cases with
relationship duration of between three and ten years. Inter-
viewees reported that it takes at least three years to develop a
relationship into a partnership.
Our sampling was also theoretical as we employed maximum
variation sampling strategy (i.e., selecting cases demonstrating
diversity in terms of the independent variable of cultural
adaptation) as a form of theoretical sampling (Fletcher &
Plakoyiannaki, 2011; Mahoney & Goertz, 2004; Patton, 2002;
Poulis, Poulis, & Plakoyiannaki, 2013). Two cases were selected
with higher levels of cultural adaptation and two with lower levels.
Western buyers A and B had achieved ‘learn’ level while Western
buyers C and D had achieved ‘adjust’ level. Chinese suppliers A and
B adjusted better than Chinese suppliers C and D. Therefore we
observed that both parties of Cases A and B had adapted better than
both parties of Case C and D.
This case selection allowed us to compare and contrast the
relational capital obtained from cultural adaptation, building two
causal relationships between socialisation and hybrid culture and
between hybrid culture and relational capital.
3.2. Data collection
We interviewed 36 interviewees in either English or Chinese
depending on their preference with each interview lasting from 60
to 90 min each. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed
(some of the interviewees were interviewed twice). Follow-up
interviews were carried out with selected key informants to check
the status and progress of the four partnerships. The interviewees
were asked to describe the relationship evolution between the two
companies; how they socialised with and adapted to the other
party illustrated by real life examples; and how they perceived the
outcomes were.
Piekkari, Welch, and Paavilainen (2009) suggest a careful
selection of informants to provide greater depth and multiple
perspectives and encourage the selection of multiple informants
who represent a range of hierarchical levels and multiple groups of
employees, such as expatriates and local personnel. Interviewees
were chosen from all three types of organisation: UK/US
headquarters of WBs, the same WBs’ IPO or equivalent in China
and the WBs’ CS (Appendix A). We also intentionally selected some
interviewees working away from the immediate buyer-supplier
interface to compare the level of cultural adaption between them
and those working at the interface. Individuals from both
managerial (IPO head) and operational levels (buyer; Supplier
Quality Engineer) were chosen to avoid the “elite” bias (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). At least one Western expatriate manager was
selected as interviewees because we realise that Chinese national
or Chinese foreign national employees of Western companies have
less difficulty adapting to Chinese culture.
We interviewed 6, 10, 9, 11 individuals for Case A–D
respectively. Some of the interviewees were interviewed twice.
A balanced number of WBs and CSs individuals were interviewed
with an exception of Case D, where eight were interviewed for WB;
three for CS due to the cautiousness of CS-D (see Appendix A).
1249
Western expatriate managers of Western buyers are indicated with
an asterisk in Appendix A.
To reduce the possibility of respondents not accurately recalling
events that happened years before, at least one informant for each
firm was selected who had been involved in the relationship
throughout its development. This allowed accounts to be
corroborated with those of at least one other informant.
Iterative efforts were paid to collect archival data (i.e., websites,
news coverage and company documents) for the four cases
including the profile of WBs (i.e., high profile large scale MNCs) and
CSs and their relationship evolution identifying the key stages to
triangulate with interview data.
Observational evidence is often useful in providing additional
information about the topic being studied (Yin, 2008). In this study,
direct observation at suppliers’ sites triangulates with interview
data by providing a different source of evidence on whether or not
the Chinese suppliers actually implemented any ‘modern’ pro-
cesses commonly adopted in the West, such as Six Sigma and lean
manufacturing, to differentiate the degree of ‘adjustment’ they had
made to Western rules and procedures.
The international team composition allowed the integration of
differing cultural perspectives, something that is seen as conducive
to cross-cultural research (Ghauri, 2004; Piekkari & Welch, 2004).
3.3. Data analysis
We use the three cultural differences between Western and
Chinese cultures, which have implications for buyer-supplier
relationship proposed by Jia and Rutherford (2010) and Jia and
Zsidisin (2014) to analyse how Western buyers and Chinese
suppliers adapt to each other over time:
 Family orientation vs. self-interest: family orientation is a form of
collectivism (Yang, 1995). Chinese tend to place group or family
goals and collective action ahead of self-interest, gaining
satisfaction and feelings of accomplishment from group or
family outcomes. In the West, self-interest is placed before the
interests of the group.
 Guanxi network vs. multiple institutions: Parnell (2005) sees
Guanxi networks as the most important informal institution in
the Chinese-speaking world. Xin and Pearce (1996) class them as
a substitute for formal institutional support. Western organ-
isations meanwhile are governed by multiple institutions i.e.
there are formal constraints over a market economy (Luo, 2000;
Xin & Pearce, 1996).
 Guanxi relationship-building process (GR) vs. Western relationship-
building process (WR). This difference is divided into four sub-
differences:
1. GR is very flexible. WR is typically linear or following a ‘step-by-
step’ relationship building process (e.g., from exploration to
expansion to commitment) (Jia & Rutherford, 2010).
2. GR is based on yin-yang principles; Strutton and Pelton (1997)
explore the dynamics of relational conflict and attempt to link
war strategies with the Yin-yang principle. The interpretation of
the Yin-yang principle is that when relationships conflict, only
two movements are available to either partner, to push or pull.
The Chinese would take a strategy called yielding, whereby
when the other party tries to attack or “push” the Chinese would
instead defend or “pull” and try not to confront the other party;
whereas Westerners tend to maintain their position (Hammell,
2006).
3. Guanxi is essentially personal and informal (Luo, 1997; Parnell,
2005) while western relationship building is based on economic
principles (Williamson, 1985). Networking in the West is
1250 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
normally associated with commercially based corporate rela-
tions—essentially formal (Luo, 2000).
4. According to Hofstede (1991), China scores high in long-term
orientation whereas Western countries score low. These
orientations have been observed in relationship building (Styles
& Ambler, 2003; Hwang, Chung, & Jin, 2013).
The within case analysis was carried out in two steps. First, we
divided the relationships into three stages based on the definitions
of exploration, expansion and commitment (Jia & Rutherford,
2010) for comparing the level of adaption of the same stage for
each relationship. This makes it possible for a time-ordered data
display and related explanation (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Precisely dividing the relationships into three phases was difficult.
We ensured validity in this by interviewing multiple informants
from both parties who had knowledge of the relationship’
development and triangulated this with archival data from news
coverage and company websites (all the Western MNCs and
Chinese suppliers are high profile companies.).
Second, behavioural indicators of cultural adaptation were
developed from literature, including the Development Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1993), behavioural indicators of
competencies for successful cross-cultural adaptation for expatri-
ates (Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004), cultural intelligence (Earley &
Peterson, 2004), cross-cultural adjustment (Black, 1988) and the
three levels of cultural adaptation (Lin, 2004). These various
models were used to define behavioural indicators (see
Appendix B) necessary to differentiate four levels of cultural
adaptation, i.e., ‘no adaptation’, ‘understand’, ‘adjust’ and ‘learn’. The
judgements made on the level of cultural adaptation for each stage
of the relationship were based on evidence corroborated by at least
two informants and checked by two native English speaking
academics i.e., co-authors to ensure construct validity.
The cross case analysis included also two steps. First, the
patterns of cultural adaptation and socialisation are tabulated and
presented. Second, a technique of ‘causal model’ (a set of integrated
relationships among constructs) was employed to identify the
relationship between socialisation, cultural adaptation, hybrid
culture and relational capital (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Iterative
efforts were paid between data, constructs and literature.
3.4. Validation of the research
Four validity tests were performed as advised by Yin (2008).
Construct validity was ensured by triangulating interview data for
the cultural adaptation process and outcome with field notes and
being corroborated by different perspectives of both parties in the
cases. Feedback on the transcripts was obtained from a number of
key informants. The English transcripts were translated back into
Chinese and compared with original Chinese recordings by an
academic expert. Our lead author is Chinese and is fluent in both
English and Chinese.
Internal validity was ensured by matching the pattern with the
predicted one, developed from a pilot case (Case A). Using multiple
cases enabled replication of the findings, providing external
validity. Reliability was ensured by rigorous use of the case study
protocol and developing a case study database.
4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Individual case descriptions
4.1.1. Case A: WB-A and CS- A
WB-A, a leading industrial and fortune 500 company, head-
quartered in Washington D.C., designs, manufactures and markets
innovative products, services and technologies with strong brand
names and significant market positions. The company sources
mechanical, precision machined parts in low volumes and high
product mix from CS-A.
The relationship between WB-A and CS-A started in early 2005.
CS-A was initially not interested in WB-A’s business due to its small
scale of orders but WB-A’s sourcing manager and sourcing project
manager repeatedly visited CS-A to persuade them to collaborate.
It was difficult for WB-A to find a qualified supplier in China: the
precision parts required significant investment in sophisticated
machine tools while the low volume requirements meant large
suppliers were not interested.
However, WB-A saw CS-A as a supplier with great potential and
CS-A realised that business with WB-A would help them improve
production skills and capabilities. The sourcing manager and
sourcing project manager from WB-A interacted frequently with
the management of CS-A (GM and Account Manager) through
weekly visits involving both formal (meetings at the workplace,)
and informal (evening dinners, bowling games and karaoke)
socialisation. Trust and personal relationships grew between those
individuals interacting frequently, especially between the sourcing
project manager and the account manager. They showed mutual
respect and gave ‘face’ to each other, based on the understanding
that it would be reciprocated. Friendship and trusting relationships
paid off: CS-A willingly adapted to WB-A’s formal procedures. WB-
A adapted to the more informal Guanxi relationship building
process.
By early 2006, CS-A saw a significant increase in the volume of
WB-A orders, due to the customer’s satisfaction with the supplier’s
performance. In 2008, WB-A became CS-A’s biggest customer in
terms of revenue, representing about 30% of CS-A’s sales income.
Both parties purposely engaged resources (a new factory built by
CS-A, a designated buyer at WB-A, and regular training provided by
WB-A) and the orders from WB-A continued. By 2008, their
relationship could be termed ‘interdependent.’
4.1.2. Case B:WB-B and CS-B
WB-B is a multinational, Fortune 500 company, headquartered
in the USA, manufacturing diesel engines and power generators.
Parts that WB-B sourced from the CS-B formed a new engine-
cooling system with high volumes, high product complexity, but
low variety.
The relationship was initiated by CS-B’s visionary leader, who
foresaw the potential of the overseas automotive market and
intended to direct the company toward a world class engine
cooling system manufacturer. WB-B and CS-B started trading in
1998. After a tedious and painstaking qualification process, CS-B
was successful in 2000. The WB-B’s Executive Purchasing Director
(head of the IPO), IPO Director, a Sourcing Manager and a Senior
Buyer had been interacting frequently with the CS-B top
management team (President, Chief Engineer, Chief Quality
Engineer and the Project leader). The Purchasing Director and
the President of CS-B dined together, communicated informally by
telephone and became personal friends. The Purchasing Director
considered this as ‘social capital’—of benefit to his company.
Important topics were discussed and issues settled around the
dinner table and in informal conversations. During formal meet-
ings there was no major disagreement and harmony could be
maintained. The following story told by WB-B’s Purchasing
Director (a British), demonstrates the power of their personal
relationship:
“A Chinese salesman of CS-B just graduated from university,
wanted to make a mark on sales. You know that a lot of people
want oil coolers for the after-market, he just advertised them
without seeking permission from us [WB-B]. As soon as the
President of CS-B was told, he shut the website down and fired the
guy immediately. That is the power of our relationship.”
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
The Purchasing Director said that if this had happened in the US
he would have taken it to court, potentially damaging the
relationship in the long term. In China, he could react differently,
bringing this to the notice of the President personally and saving
his ‘face.’ The Purchasing Director did a favour for the President,
who reciprocated by shutting down the website and sacking the
salesman. The exchange of favours was thus completed. This
exemplifies the Yin-yang principle. The Purchasing Director
‘pushed’ by asking CS-B to take responsibility, avoiding the need
to confront him directly through formal procedures. The President
then ‘pulled’ by sacking the salesman and shutting down the
website. As a result, harmony was maintained. A personal trusting
relationship had been built between the two key individuals in this
partnership.
Beyond 2001 WB-B significantly increased the orders placed on
CS-B. Their relationship became a partnership and WB-B
ultimately bought 90% of its supplies from CS-B. CS-B continued
to gain significant manufacturing process knowledge by working
with WB-B. CS-B became an exemplar supplier for WB-B in China
and was listed on the Shenzhen stock market in 2007. Four years
into the relationship CS-B had adapted to Western rules and
procedures and began to use their improved capability to serve
other multinationals, including WB-B’s competitors.
Both formal and informal socialisation mechanisms were used
appropriately by both parties. WB-B adapted to the more informal
processes of GR and CS-B successfully adapted to WB-A rules and
procedures.
4.1.3. Case C: WB-C and CS-C
WB-C, a MNC headquartered in the UK, is a world leader in
inkjet and laser technologies, providing coding and printing
systems. The relationship between WB-C and CS-C started in early
2005 when the previous WB-C sourcing director (reporting to the
British global sourcing director, based in the UK) initiated the
relationship through a personal introduction. CS-C, an expert in
manufacturing and developing lightweight power supplies for the
telecommunications market, had never made industrial power
supplies before trading with WB-C.
WB-C was attracted by and satisfied with the R&D and
manufacturing capability of CS-C, and decided to transfer its
contracts for power supplies from a Hong Kong based company to
CS-C in 2005. The relationship was immediately ‘interdependent’
as their business scale requirements were similar and both were
motivated to enter into the relationship. Volume production grew
within CS-C for WB-C’s three new models of power supply and as
the relationship developed they became increasingly reliant on
each other (R&D capabilities and new market knowledge) and
remained interdependent for the duration of this research.
WB-C’s Global Sourcing Director based in the UK visited China
every three months, but interacted more frequently with the
Marketing Director of CS-C by email and telephone. The newly
recruited Sourcing Director (Chinese, based in Shanghai) however,
did not get along with the Marketing Director. The Marketing
Director would hang-up during phone calls from the Sourcing
Director when discussing production volumes. CS-C was not
satisfied with the slow pace of transferring production orders from
other suppliers to them. The Global Purchasing Director (a British)
reported:
“It was clearly the way, when we visited China; it was very
important for them to be a good host; to take us out, to have a big
lunch and a banquet during the evening . . . [Researcher: ‘Have
you built the personal relationship with CS-C?’] Yes, this is very
encouraging . . . I think the biggest difficulty is that the Marketing
Director of CS-C clearly felt an obligation to [our previous
Sourcing Director in China]. We in the UK were very slow to
1251
increase production orders with CS-C. The Marketing Director was
in a difficult position”.
At one point the CS-C Marketing Director gave the Global
Purchasing Director the impression that CS-C want to end the
relationship. However, he later retracted this suggestion in a very
apologetic e-mail. He applied ‘Yin-yang principle by “pushing” in
the first place (asking for more orders) and then ‘pulling’ because
he did not want to damage the relationship. The Global Purchasing
Director’s analysis of this is clearly illustrated in the following
statement:
“I just realised that the Marketing Director was in that situation. He
was pushing. This isn’t a Western style. I realised that this is the
pushing of Yin-yang strategy. But I think there was adaptation
from us; we didn’t try to push back, we pulled back. If this had been
a Western relationship, there would have been much more
argument over who was right.”
The Global Purchasing Director reported that eventually a good
level of trust was established and a personal relationship
developed between her and the Marketing Director.
In Case C resources were complementary in the sense that WB-
C represented an attractive new market, while CS-C could bring
WB-C low-cost benefits and R&D capabilities. However the
relational capital between WB-C and CS-C built slowly perhaps
due to the infrequent visits by the Global Purchasing Director, but
also the WB-C manager who initiated the relationship had left and
his replacement was a new recruit. These factors impeded the
socialisation and cultural adaptation processes between the two
companies. In 2009, the Marketing Director of CS-C left the
company and WB-C started withdrawing business from CS-C
gradually due in part to the loss of personal relationship and trust.
4.1.4. Case D: WB-D and CS-D
WB-D is a North American aerospace corporation and a world
leader in the design and manufacture of commercial aircraft. CS-D
is a subsidiary of a large, state-owned aerospace corporation in
North China. The relationship between WB-D and CS-D began in
early 2005 when WB-D signed a contract with CS-D to supply
aircraft doors. Later this was extended to supplying fuselages.
CS-D’s parent company signed a memorandum of understand-
ing with WB-D’s parent, developing the relationship into strategic
long-term cooperation, based on equipment for a new aircraft
project in June 2007. The relationship at that point entered the
‘Commitment’ stage and was considered interdependent for the
duration of the research. WB-D relied on CS-D to reduce
production costs in order to maintain competitiveness in the
international civil aerospace market (most competitors were
sourcing from China). CS-D was pursuing its goal of becoming a
major international structural supplier by working with WB-D and
other large global companies.
Cultural adaptation between both parties was slow for two
reasons: (1) the strong Guanxi culture of the state-owned
aerospace enterprise constrained CS-D’s capacity to learn from
WB-D; and (2) WB-D’s interface team, of more than 20 individuals
located within CS-D, was made up of westerners with no Chinese
members. This constrained the ability of the team as a whole to
adapt to Chinese culture.
According to WB-D’s interface team, CS-D had problems with
production planning and lacked a clear understanding of their
capacity. The project manager of the interface team (a British)
stated that:
“They have plans to have new facilities but it is all like a dream, you
know. They are aspirations. We like making very detailed plans and
operationalising plans on time. They always say ‘No problem! No
problem!’ We constantly helped them, it’s like looking after your
1252 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261

children . . . In fact they didn’t have any concept of capacity. So we
asked how many parts you can make in one week. They had no
idea. They answered: our boss tells us to make 50, we make 50; our
boss tells us to make 50,000, we make 50,000. CS-D always said
“No problem!”, but eventually they did not do it . . . .”
In response to this, the project director of CS-D said:
“Western people are not like us. They don’t normally devote their
full efforts to the company. We Chinese, especially people in the
aerospace industry, have the spirit of devotion. We devote
ourselves to the company and the country. For example, we could
work, day-in and day-out, continuously for months, to finish a
project. During that period, we don’t normally go home at all and
we stay at the temporary factory dormitory overnights. Westerners
can’t do that.”
WB-D interviewees complained that they were frustrated with
CS-D’s lack of planning. The interface team leader lost his temper
several times during meetings with CS-D. Nevertheless CS-D had
been a good host, frequently inviting WB-D managers for dinner,
playing ball games together and arranging other entertainment.
The WB-D team leader commented that “there was too much of this.
We should really be focused on the work we do.” Clearly the core team
did not appreciate the importance of informal socialisation and
had not adapted to the Guanxi culture by cultivating personal
relationships. This impeded the degree of cultural adaptation
achieved by both parties. Eventually, due to the long delay of
delivery of some key components from CS-D, WB-D had to buy
them from a supplier in Europe.
4.2. Cross-case analysis: the cultural adaptation process
The three-stage model (Exploration, Expansion and Commit-
ment) presented by Jia and Rutherford (2010) was used to divide
the duration of each case relationship. Interviewees were asked
how each party adapted in terms of the three cultural behavioural
differences and at which level have they reached for each of the
three stages of the relationship. We looked for evidence on how
and to what extent both parties adapted i.e., whether adaptation
involved understanding, adjustment, learning or no adaptation at
all. We found all the interface teams members, those who tend to be
the key members and representatives of purchasing function of a
western buyer and account management team of a Chinese
supplier, interact at the B–B interface adapted; while those away
from the interface showed ‘no adaptation’. Although we use the
company code in table below, the adaptation was made by the
interface informants of each party.
Table 2 (Cases A and B) and Table 3 (Cases C and D) are
juxtaposed to show the findings of the cultural adaptation process.
The differences between Cases A and B as a group and Cases C and
D as a group are shown in bold.
For some cultural differences, WB-A Interface team informants
‘understand’ at the exploration stage and ‘learn’ at the expansion
stage apparently leapfrogging the ‘adjust’ level in the adaptation
process. This can be explained by the fact that WB-A employed
Chinese nationals to work at the buyer-supplier interface. These
individuals could adapt to any specific feature of Guanxi practised
by CS-A’s Interface team informants more quickly than Western
Interface team informants.
Although all the Chinese suppliers’ interface team informants
reached the “adjust” level in adapting to Western rules and
procedures, they achieved different degrees of adjustment. A
cross-case comparison of degrees of adjustment to Western
procedures by Chinese suppliers is provided in Appendix B.
The results show that adjustment to western rules and
procedures by the their senior management teams of Cases A
and B was more extensive than that in Cases C and D; this was
represented by CS-A and CS-B’s implementation of ‘six sigma’, ‘lean
manufacturing’ and 5s indicating a good degree of adaptation,
whereas CS-C & D, (large-scale manufacturers similar to CS-A and
CS-B) did not implement such tools. It should be noted that the
implementation of these quality management tools was superficial
according to WB-A and WB-B interviewees as they were aware that
the processes (e.g., six sigma) were not closely followed and
sometimes even just for face value. When the auditors/quality
control from Western firms left, the Chinese suppliers went back to
their normal practice (no quality control or loosely followed part of
the procedures). There are two reasons for this: (1) the senior
management realised the importance of these tools and tried to
change but the shop floor level managers and workers did not; (2)
senior management did not care much about the tools but played
face value to satisfy Western buyers. However, to some extent,
these tools did help improve the product quality. Hence, we claim
that CS-A & B’s senior management teams were forced to adjust
their behaviour, however they achieved a higher degree of
adjustment than CS-C and D, who did not bother with even the
face value in terms of following Western rules and procedures.

Table 2
Cases A and B data display matrix of cultural adaptation (NA: No Adaptation).

Cultural Relationship Development Stage Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Commitment

Differences Exploration Expansion
1. Family orientation vs. Self interest WB-A,B: WB-A,B: Adjust WB-A,B: Adjust
Understand
CS-A,B: NA CS-A,B: Adjust CS-A,B: Adjust
2. Guanxi network vs. multiple institutions WB-A, B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn
CS-A,B: Adjust CS-A,B: Adjust CS-A,B: Adjust
3. Guanxi building (GR) vs. Western relationship building Progressive v WB-A,B: WB-A,B: Adjust WB-A,B: Adjust
(WR) Flexible Understand
CS-A,B: Adjust CS-A,B: Adjust CS-A,B: Adjust
Yin-yang vs. dualistic thinking WB-A,B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn
CS-A,B: CS-A Understand CS-A,B: Understand
Understand
Personal/informal vs. formal/corporate to WB-A,B: WB-A,B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn
corporate Understand
CS-A,B: CS-A,B: CS-A,B: Understand
Understand Understand
Long vs. short term orientation WB-A,B: WB-A,B: Learn WB-A,B: Learn
Understand
CS-A,B: NA CS-A,B: NA CS-A,B: NA
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261 1253

Table 3
Cases C & D data display matrix of cultural adaptation.

Cultural Relationship Development Stage Stage 1: Exploration Stage 2: Stage 3:

Difference Expansion Commitment
1.Family orientation vs. self interest WB-C,D: Understand WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
CS-C,D: No adaptation or CS-C,D: Adjust CS-C,D: Adjust
Understand
2.Guanxi network vs. multiple institutions (Western rules and procedures) WB-C,D: Understand WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
CS-C,D: Adjust CS-C,D: Adjust CS-C,D: Adjust
3.Guanxi building (GR) vs. Western relationship Progression v WB-C,D: Understand WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
building (WR) Flexible CS-C,D: Adjust CS-C,D: Adjust CS-C,D: Adjust
Yin-yang vs. dualistic thinking WB-C,D: Understand WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
CS-C,D: Understand CS-C,D: CS-C,D:
Understand Understand
Personal informal vs. formal corporate to WB-C,D: Understand WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
corporate CS-C,D: Understand CS-C,D: CS-C,D:
Understand Understand
Long vs. short term orientation WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust WB-C,D: Adjust
CS-C,D: No Adaptation or CS-C,D: CS-C,D:
Understand Understand Understand

4.3. Hybrid culture between Western buyers and their Chinese
suppliers
It can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that interface team
informants from both parties in each of the four cases adapted to
each other and both parties (WB and CS) corroborated with each
other in terms of items adapted for each party. All the interface
team informants believed that a hybrid culture had been formed
between both companies in their respective relationships due to
cultural adaptation (see Table 3). It seems that their behaviours
converged significantly in terms of the cultural differences
between China and the West. A converged or hybrid culture
seems to be a selective composite culture of the western buyers
and Chinese supplier and consist of all the elements of Guanxi (to
which Western buyers adapted and Chinese suppliers stick)
combined with Western rules and procedures (to which Chinese
supplier adapted and Western buyer stick). The hybrid culture
straddles the space between the buyers and suppliers of the four
cases and shows a distinctive configuration and selective adapta-
tion, which are different from both home and local cultures (in line
with our working definition proposed in section). For example,
WB-B’s Purchasing Director revealed his understanding of a hybrid
culture in the following statement:
“I’ve got to make sure that our processes are applied in this
relationship so we integrate Guanxi into conference meetings and
use objective indicators to go through a structured agenda using
presentations . . . We blend these two together.”
The objective indicators and formal conference meetings refer
to the Western rules and procedures, which were used by WB-B
interface team informants; Chinese instead settle deals at dining
tables. The Western purchasing director said to us that he and his
interface team (i.e., IPO) dined out regularly with the top
management team of CS-B to maintain the Guanxi relationship,
which is unusual in the west. The Chinese account management
team also told us that they had to adapt to the Western rules and
procedures represented by various management systems (e.g., six-
sigma and 5s) and other performance measures (indicators).
Norms were established that the hard measures and management
systems must be implemented through the formal socialisation
process and are not negotiable but for the informal socialisation
process, both follow Guanxi rules, a blend of the two national
cultures. According to above analysis and our observation, we
conclude that there is a hybrid culture formed between the
interface informants from both parties.
The hybrid culture can vary in ‘strength’ due to different levels
of cultural behavioural adaption in the various stages of relation-
ship development. WB-A & B reached the “learn” level and WB-C &
D achieved the “adjust” level in terms of ‘Yin-Yang principle’,
‘personal and informal relationship’ and the ‘long-term orienta-
tion’ of Guanxi-building process. The level of adjustment to
Western rules and procedures of CS-A and B is higher than that of
CS-C and D. In general, Cases A and B reached higher level of
cultural adaptation than Cases C and D for both Western buyers
and Chinese suppliers.
This indicates that the hybrid culture in the commitment/
partnership stage is not necessarily characterised by the highest
level of cultural adaptation i.e., ‘learn,’ and as such the hybrid
culture may not be as strong despite the maturity of the
relationship.
5. Development of an integrated conceptual model and
propositions
In this section we use the findings obtained from within and
cross case analyses and prior knowledge in the literature to
develop a model of causal relationships between socialisation,
cultural adaptation, hybrid culture and relational capital/rents.
5.1. Transcultural boundary spanner and hybrid boundary and
permeability
At the four buyer-supplier interfaces, we observed that the
teams of individuals, including interface team informants from
both parties, routinely socialised informally and formally across
the dyadic interface. These team members typically belong to the
WB’s IPOs and account management teams from the CS. The
composition of each case interface is presented in Appendix A.
These interface teams exhibited varying degrees of understanding
of cultural differences, attained different levels of cultural
adaptation, negotiated on behalf of their own company and were
for the most part inclined to adapt culturally. In this way, the group
members exhibited characteristics of boundary spanners (Levina &
Vaast, 2005; Stock, 2006). We label them Transcultural Boundary
Spanners (TBS), defined as:
Those individuals who routinely socialise formally and infor-
mally at the buyer-supplier interface and who have varying
degrees of understanding of the cultural differences between
buyers and suppliers and who attain some level of cultural
behavioural adaptation.
1254 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
The TBSs also exhibited the characteristics of knowledge
brokers (Hargadon, 1998) in the sense that they provided cultural
knowledge to the rest of their organisations where needed. Since
TBSs hosted by the interface teams are the individuals within the
organisations who adapted culturally and cultural adaptation is
considered to mitigate the impact of cultural differences (Kim &
Parkhe, 2009), TBSs are likely to create a hybrid culture and reduce
inter-organisational tension caused by cultural differences.
In interviews with non-interface informants (non-TBS), who
did not socialise frequently with the other party and were away
from the interface, we discovered that they did not understand
many of the cultural differences (i.e., no adaptation) and saw no
reason to adapt their behaviours culturally. Hence we can
conclude, in this research context, that the case companies as a
whole did not learn. As Simon (1991) argued, it was groups of
individuals rather than organisations that learnt. TBSs and non-
TBSs are also indicated in Appendix A.
In this sense, the boundary of the hybrid culture is confined to
the interface formed by the two groups (IPOs and account
management teams) of TBSs and doesn’t permeate into the rest
of the organisation i.e., those who are further away from the buyer-
supplier interface. The hybrid culture permeability (Borys &
Jemison, 1989) is low because the western TBSs were frequently
rotated back to home country carrying with them some cultural
knowledge. However they find it difficult to disseminate the
cultural knowledge further in their home country due to a lack of
the ground of Chinese informal socialisation environment, which is
the basis for cultural adaptation.
A salient finding is that the cultural behavioural adaptation of
groups of TBSs is embedded in formal and informal socialisation
processes. Socialisation and cultural adaptation processes are
intertwined in a way that socialisation is visible and explicit at the
surface level while cultural adaptation is more invisible and
implicit at a deeper (close to cultural value) level. It was also
apparent in the findings that adaptation of IPOs hosting western
buyer TBSs to the Guanxi relationship building process was seen as
informal socialisation; while the adaptation of account manage-
ment teams of Chinese suppliers to the multiple institution of
western culture was achieved through a more formal socialisation
process. It is therefore concluded that socialisation may be a pre-
requisite to cultural adaptation because without socialisation and
interaction, it is impossible for people to understand each other’s
Table 4
Representative quotes to support the existence of a Hybrid Culture.
Case A Case B
Western “For CS-A, they study modern “I’ve got to make sure that our
Buyer enterprise system. For us, we processes are applied into this
understand the Chinese culture, relationship so we integrate Guanxi,
adjust to Guanxi critically and respect
conference meetings, objective
Chinese suppliers.” (Senior Buyer of indicators to go through a structured
WB-A’s IPO) agenda using presentations, data on
charts. We blend these two together.”
(Purchasing Director, WB-B’s IPO)
Chinese “What I got to know from WB-A is “I reckon that the key to success is
Supplier that companies require rules, mutual adaptation. There is a mixed
regulations and procedures. This is culture between WB-B and CS-B. We
the biggest difference between have adapted a lot to WB-B such as its
Western and Chinese companies . . . planning, personnel management
There are some changes of the WB-A. and its procedure of product R &
Sometimes they follow our way of D . . . WB-B has also changed and
doing things. They learn from us the adapted to Chinese culture. No one
way to deal with Chinese such as how can change Chinese culture
to build up Guanxi.” (Account Manage, completely. WB-B has to adapt to it
CS-A) and builds Guanxi with us.”
(President, CS-B)
cultural values and then adapt accordingly if necessary. We
therefore propose that:
P1. The combined informal and formal socialisation leads to
cultural adaptation.
P1a. Interface teams (IPOs and account management teams)
hosting trans-cultural Boundary Spanners (TBSs) who socialise
formally and informally at the interface between Western
buyers and Chinese suppliers are the most likely to adapt
culturally.
P1b. TBSs acting as boundary spanners and cultural knowledge
brokers and setting the boundary of the hybrid culture reduce
cultural tension between a buyer and a supplier.
5.2. An integrated conceptual model of hybrid culture
Based on the argument that cultural adaptation leads to hybrid
national culture (e.g., Griffith & Myers, 2005), individual case
descriptions and the cross-case analysis (Tables 2–4), we found the
hybrid culture is an outcome of cultural adaptation embedded in
informal and formal socialisation between interface teams. This is
in line with the working definition of hybrid culture proposed at
Section 2.2. The nature of the hybrid culture is a combination of
Guanxi elements and western rules and procedures. The strength of
the hybrid culture can be measured by level of cultural adaptation
(e.g., understanding, adjustment or learning). Companies achieved
varied levels of cultural adaptation, for example, in the commit-
ment stage a higher level of cultural adaptation were achieved by
Cases A and B as a group than that of Cases C and D as a group
showing a stronger hybrid culture was formed is for Cases A and B.
We therefore propose that:
P2. The higher the level of cultural adaptation attained through
informal and formal socialisation the stronger the hybrid
culture between a Western buyer and a Chinese supplier.
Our findings suggest that Cases A and B achieved higher level of
cultural adaptation and a stronger hybrid culture which leads to
greater relational capital. However for Cases C and D, cultural
adaptation reached a lower level (e.g., adjustment) and hence a
weaker hybrid culture, the relational capital accrued either slowly
or lost due to the turnover of an interface account manager of CS-C.
Therefore, we propose that:
P3. The stronger the hybrid culture in a cross border buyer-
supplier relationship the greater the relational capital obtained.
Case C Case D
“To deal with Chinese suppliers like“There is definitely a hybrid culture.
CS-C, you need to build Guanxi with We adapted a lot to Chinese culture.
them however we can’t be flexible on CS-D also made their attempt to study
our quality requirements. We make what we do in the west, following the
sure they understand our stringent rules and procedures of the
requirements at the very beginning.”aerospace industry.”
(Group Sourcing Director, WB-C) (Core Team Leader, WB-D’s core
team)
“We have learned from WB-C the “There is a hybrid culture. What we
management systems like six sigma attempt to learn from WB-D is the
and 5s. We emphasize more on the procedures and risk evaluation and
personal capability. They (WB-C) management


What they try to learn
adapted on how to deal with Chinese from us is our devotion. We could
suppliers like us and Chinese work until very late and sacrifice our
culture.”(Marketing Director, CS-C) holidays as long as we can achieve our
goal. They have also adapted to the
Chinese culture i.e. how Chinese deal
with each other.” (Procurement
Director, CS-D)
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261 1255

Kale et al., 2000 conclude that relational capital creates a basis
for learning implying that if people do not see any benefits from the
relationship, there is no incentive for them to learn. Aligned with
Kale et al. (2000), our research found that when both parties saw
benefits from the relationship in the form of either relational
capital or business performance, they were more willing to engage
and socialise with each other, adapt culturally and achieve a
stronger hybrid culture. Cultural adaptation is considered a form of
dyadic learning in an international context (Jia & Lamming, 2013).
We also found that cultural adaptation is embedded in the
socialisation process. Based on above arguments, it is therefore
logical to infer that relational capital incentivises socialisation
activities in which cultural adaptation is embedded.
P4. Greater relational capital obtained through cultural
adaptation further encourages deeper socialisation between
both parties of a relationship.
answering the three research questions stated at the beginning of
the paper, we draw the following conclusions:
6.1.1. Research question 1
To answer the first research question on how hybrid culture is
formed, the interface teams hosting TBSs in both organisations in a
partnership socialise formally and informally and adapt to one
another gradually in terms of three fundamental cultural differ-
ences between China and the West as the relationship matures,
resulting in the formation of a Hybrid Culture. Cultural adaptation
process is embedded in and is more invisible than the socialisation
process and is achieved by the trans-cultural Boundary Spanner
(TBSs), people who exhibit the characteristics of cultural brokers
and boundary spanners, set the boundary of the hybrid and play a
vital role in reducing cultural tension between Western buyers and
Chinese suppliers.

Fig. 1 presents our integrated conceptual model of hybrid

6.1.2. Research question 2
culture bringing together the four constructs and the four
To answer the second research question regarding the nature of
propositions that explain the relationships between socialisation,
hybrid culture, the Chinese-Western Hybrid Culture is charac-
cultural adaptation, hybrid culture and relational capital/rents. In
terised by the elements of Guanxi identified in the literature and
this model, we show how a cross-cultural buyer-supplier
Western rules and procedures and contain selective cultural
relationship obtains relational capital/rents through socialisation
adaptation and distinctive configurations that depart from both
and embedded cultural adaptation processes, which lead to the
home and local cultures. The interface teams of Western Buyers
formation of a hybrid culture. A stronger hybrid culture in turn
adapt behaviourally (adjusted or learned) to all elements of
helps create greater relational capital.
Guanxi; whereas the adaptation of interface teams of Chinese
Cousins et al. (2006) provide evidence to support the causal
suppliers reach a partial level of adjustment to Western rules and
relationship between mix of formal and informal socialisation and
procedures. The boundary of the hybrid culture is confined to the
relational capital, which the former leads to the latter; while Jia
buyer-supplier interface and the permeability of the hybrid culture
and Lamming (2013) support the argument that the higher the
to the rest of the companies is low.
level of cultural adaptation the more the relational rents or capital
obtained. However, both don’t identify the intermediary construct
6.1.3. Research question 3
of hybrid culture, which we believe is an important one explaining
To answer the third research question, hybrid culture is an
the chain of causal relationships and the closed loop in which
intermediary construct between cultural adaptation embedded in
greater relational capital leads to deeper socialisation, which in
socialisation and relational capital/rents (Fig. 1). Hybrid culture is a
turn help achieve higher level of cultural adaptation and stronger
result of cultural adaptation embedded in socialisation process
hybrid culture.
between a Western buyer and a Chinese supplier. The more
Hybrid culture is identified as an intermediary construct
integrated and stronger the hybrid culture is, the greater the
between cultural adaptation embedded in socialisation process
relational capital obtained. However there is also a closed loop in
and relational capital/rents. Cultural adaptation is an embedded
which greater relational capital leads to deeper socialisation.
intermediary construct between socialisation and hybrid culture
as it is closely interrelated with the socialisation process in which
6.2. Theoretical contributions
socialisation leads to cultural adaptation. Relational rents do back
influence cultural adaptation and hybrid culture as well but the
We propose that this research contributes to the existing cross
relationship is not direct but through the construct of socialisation.
border buyer-supplier relationship of IB literature in the following
Socialisation is more visible while cultural adaptation is less visible
ways.
as it is embedded in socialisation process. Hence, there is no direct
First, we have extended and enriched the buyer-supplier
effects of relational rents on cultural adaptation or hybrid culture.
relationship literature specifically to the causal relationship
between socialisation and relational capital in a western context
6. Conclusion
to a Chinese-Western context and proposed that interface teams of
buyers and suppliers’ informal and formal socialisation leads to
6.1. Synopsis
cultural adaptation which in turn helps form a hybrid culture
between the TBSs of both parties. To our best knowledge, this is the
The aim of this paper was to explore how hybrid culture is
first study to empirically support the existence of Hybrid Culture
formed; its nature and the role of Hybrid Culture in the
construct without which there seems to be a theoretical and logic
relationship between Western buyers and Chinese suppliers. In
gap for the relationship between socialisation and relational

P1 Cultural P2 Hybrid P3 Relational

Socialisation
Adaptation Culture Capital / Rent

P4

Fig. 1. An integrated conceptual model of hybrid culture.

1256 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
capital. In another words, cultural adaptation embedded in
socialisation process enhance relational capital through the
intermediary construct of hybrid culture.
We identify and explicate the mechanism that underlies an
observed relationship between an independent construct (social-
isation) and a dependent construct (relational capital) via the
inclusion of two explanatory constructs (i.e., cultural adaptation
and hybrid culture). This significantly enriches our understanding
of the mechanism between socialisation and relational capital. We
also explicitly identify Guanxi relationship building as an informal
socialisation process in a Chinese context and provide a set of
dimensions for such a process, this deepens our understanding of
this construct and provides a more systematic way of measuring it
than previous researchers (Cousins et al., 2006). This is an
extension of theory on socialisation.
In the literature on socialisation it is agreed that learning
creates relational capital (Cousins et al., 2006), while Kale et al.,
2000 support the argument that relational capital creates the basis
for learning. Our research extends this reverse loop to a cross-
cultural context in which relational capital leads to socialisation.
Second, Giannakis et al. (2012) and Fang (2001) propose a
concept of hybrid national culture but none has indicated how a
hybrid national culture is formed or examined its nature in the
Western-Chinese context. We enriched and extended this and
provided an operational definition for hybrid culture (Section 2.2)
and told a whole story of how the hybrid culture is formed.
Third, we have proposed the ‘Trans-cultural Boundary Span-
ners’ term to capture the dynamic nature of the interface within
Chinese-Western buyer-supplier relationships. We have explained
the roles of TBSs as cultural knowledge broker and boundary
spanner and argue that through cultural adaptation they reduce
interfacial cultural tensions. Previous research (e.g., Borys &
Jemison, 1989) on B–B relationship marketing has assumed that
dyadic adaptation takes place at the individual, group or corporate
levels, carried out by one organisation. Our study, however,
indicates that cultural behavioural adaptation happens at a group
level between two interface teams of TBSs of Western buyers and
Chinese suppliers. This adaptation and resultant hybrid culture is
not necessarily permeated through to the rest of the company; we
have shown that non-TBSs further away from the interface do not
understand cultural differences and do not adapt.
6.3. Managerial implications
This research can be used to help Western buyers and their
Chinese suppliers by increasing awareness of cultural differences
and by providing a framework for practical and deliberate cultural
adaptation to the process of Guanxi relationship building, i.e., the
Chinese way of informal socialisation. This could be developed by
industrial marketing and purchasing managers for use in assessing
the development of relationships with Chinese suppliers.
Most important of all, the support to the existence of a hybrid
culture between China and the West and its positive effects on
relational capital/rents has significant implication to industrial
marketing and purchasing managers of Western buyers and
account managers of Chinese suppliers as it motivates them to
compromise/adapt to each other while socialising with each other
on a daily basis on purpose. The purposes include creating
relational capital for better performance, forming hybrid cultural
norms and reducing cultural tension/clash.
The practical development of our models, and the use of the
mechanisms of cultural adaptation at each stage in the relation-
ship-building process, could help industrial marketing and
purchasing managers to develop, re-evaluate and revise role
definition within supply relationships more effectively, perhaps
creating specific TBS management roles in practice. Armed with an
understanding of cultural adaptation and the importance of both
formal and informal socialisation, these TBSs could be tasked with
solving defined cultural behavioural differences thus reducing
interfacial cultural tension and improving trust and commitment
between individuals.
Explicit adoption and operationalization of the TBS concept
could provide industrial marketing and purchasing managers with
clearly positioned individuals in relationship, equipped with an
understanding of the knowledge to be transferred, cultural
behavioural adaptation and the need to relieve cultural tension.
This also has implications for Western buyers in selecting the right
individuals, capable and willing to assimilate foreign culture, to
recruit for their international purchasing teams. The importance of
localisation also needs to be considered when constructing teams
of TBSs.
The findings from our research also help managers from both
parties better realise the necessity to the informal socialisation in a
Chinese context. Some expatriate managers don’t like informal
dinning outs and complain time spent on it is too much (e.g.,
Western buyer D). However, our research indicates that the time
spent on it is rewarding and helps improve working relationship
and build trust with the Chinese suppliers. To the Chinese
suppliers, they should understand and adapt to the formal
socialisation of Western companies and learn from the Western
companies the modern operations management tools such as lean,
six sigma and 5s without focusing too much on Guanxi.
6.4. Limitations and suggestions for future research
We recognise that our research has limitations. Interviewees
may not have recalled important events and when they did so
their recollection might be subject to bias (Voss et al., 2002). A
longitudinal study is preferred to address this issue. Further, the
case-based method has limitations in terms of generalizability;
future research using alternative approaches that allow a larger
and more diverse population such as survey research would
address this. Another limitation lies in the selection of inter-
viewees. In the four cases, no western expatriate representing the
transcultural boundary spanners was interviewed for Case A, and
only one interviewee is western expatriate who represents the
transcultural boundary spanners for each of Cases B and C. The
Chinese national TBS may not be able to fully represent a western
culture.
The research opens a number of potential avenues of research
and we have developed four propositions that we hope may be
useful. Several broader points are worth raising. First, the model
(Fig. 1) is subject to empirical test with a different method (e.g.,
survey).
Second, it is not clear what the antecedents to cultural
adaptation embedded in socialisation are except for the local-
isation of TBSs. Future research could explore the contextual
variables such as ownership of Chinese suppliers (e.g., private
owned or state owned enterprise).
Third, we believe it would be valuable to test our model (Fig. 1)
at different cultural interfaces, such as at the Western buyer—
Indian supplier interface, and in service offshore outsourcing
relationships to test its generalizability.
Fourth, the model could be extended to include buying and/or
selling company’s financial performances as an outcome variable
and other antecedents to the outcome variables to rank the
importance of hybrid culture comparing to others to the business
performance.
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261 1257

Appendix A. Four Western buyer-Chinese supplier interfaces

(Red: TBSs; Blue: Non-TBSs) Note: The job titles with an asterisk
indicate Western expatriate managers.
1258 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261

Western Buyer C Chinese Supplier C

Production/
GROUP Sourcing* Sourcing* Quality
SOURCING Engineer Director OVERSEAS
MARKETING
Engineer
DEPT. (UK)
DEPT.

Logistics/
Other Buyers/SQEs Logistics
Engineer
Marketing
Sourcing
Director
CHINA Director
SOURCING
TEAM (China) Senior Finance
Buyer Marketing
Executive
SQE
R&D

Case C interface

Western Buyer D Chinese Supplier D

UK INTERFACE MIDDLE Top

SUBSIDIARY TEAM MANAGEMENT Management
Other members TEAM

Programme*
Manager Project Manufacturing
Team Leader* Director Department
Sourcing*
Manager Lead Buyer*
Procurement
Quality* Director
Quality* Marketing
Manager Manager
Department

Quality* Quality
Logistics* Inspector Director
Head

Case D interface

Appendix B. Cultural adaptation behavioural indicators (Continued)

Cultural Distinct Character Behavioural Indicators
Cultural Distinct Character Behavioural Indicators adaptation
adaptation
U2: Show one’s understanding
No Do not understand cultural NA1: Think they behave in a of the cultural behavioural
Adaptation behavioural differences natural and normal way; differences (Lin, 2004).
(NA) represented by denial and different ways are wrong and U3: Cultural differences are
minimization of cultural misguided (Bennett, 1993). acknowledged and accepted
differences. NA2: As different as people are, (Bennett, 1993).
they are still more similar than U4: Do not normally adopt
dissimilar (Bennett, 1993). many of these behaviours of
opposite culture or adjust their
Understand Understand and accept the U1: Understand another own behaviours to be more
(U) cultural behavioural culture on its own terms (Lin, culturally sensitive but are
differences. 2004; Yamazaki & Kayes, tolerant and have a
2004). sympathetic attitude (Bennett,
1993).

(Continued)
Cultural Distinct Character
adaptation
Adjust (A) Require a level of adjustment
for smooth interaction. Mimic
behaviours of other cultures.
Learn (L) Make a conscious effort to
integrate elements of the other culture proactively (Lin, 2004)
culture into one’s own
Appendix C. Adjustment to Western procedures by Chinese
suppliers
Western Buyer
Case “Of course, we call these rigid
A requirements, which are not
negotiable. They must accept. They
have studied a lot of technical as
well as managerial skills from us
and adapted quite well.”(Senior
Buyer, WB-A’s IPO)
Case “We push them toward lean
B manufacturing, Toyota production
system, volatile cycle time. We
have a framework which will apply
with our suppliers. Eventually they
will realize the conventional
organisational structure or
recognize that is inefficient. If you
go in a Western company, you can
go into another working level.”
(Sourcing Director, WB-B’s IPO)
Case “They are in the process of “We basically follow their
C improvement. Sometimes they requirements.” (Marketing
still can’t follow our requirements Director, CS-C)
closely then we have to explain
requirement to CS-C people one by
one. (Senior Buyer, WB-C CST)
F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
Behavioural Indicators
A1: Adopting the behaviours
consistent with a target culture
reactively because they ‘feel
right’ (Bennett, 1993).
A2: Temporary shift behaviour
more appropriate to the other’s
culture however may feel
uncomfortable interacting
with the other party (Earley &
Peterson, 2004; Lin, 2004).
A3: Interact with the other
party if needed only (Black,
1988).
A4: Use knowledge of opposite
culture without realizing it
(Earley & Peterson, 2004).
L1: Use knowledge of opposite
L2: Interact with personnel of
the opposite culture regularly
and willingly (Yamazaki &
Kayes, 2004).
L3: Express interest and
respect for the other party’s
culture spending time
observing reading about and
studying the other party’s
culture (Yamazaki & Kayes,
2004).
L4: Become bicultural,
effortlessly adjusting
behaviour to suit the culture of
the people they are with-style
switching (Bennett, 1993).
Chinese Supplier
“I feel we adapted to WB-A in this
aspect. What we have learned is to
use the procedure and rule to
manage the company.” (GM, CS-A)
“WB-B is world class engine
manufacturer. If we don’t follow
their requirements, we can’t do
business with them. When we
started trading with WB-B, they
have a 121-requirements and 21-
stages; we followed the stages and
requirements closely. WB-B gave
us a lot of help, helping us learn
their procedures. I feel this is the
biggest problem facing Chinese
enterprises . . . when we traded
with WB-B, we started adjusting to
their requirements.”(President,
CS-B)
1259
(Continued)
Western Buyer Chinese Supplier
‘The individuals decide what to do “In fact, we adapt to WB-C. They
next not the procedures. They are very strict on their
started adapting to us at the very requirements and procedures. We
beginning however we are not very would cooperate with them. We
satisfied with them even now. adapted to them right from the
They have made great beginning. I feel their
improvements.’ (SQE, WB-C’s CST) requirements are very strict and
they sometimes are satisfied with
our work.” (Marketing Executive,
CS-C)
Case “We find it was so frustrating . . . “We must follow their
D The senior management and some requirements. We were not so
middle level management of CS-D good at it. We did not follow
have adapted to our procedures procedures. Now we train our
and rules to some degree but the employees on the procedures and
operation as a whole doesn’t. It cultivate the culture to follow the
depends on where they have procedures closely.” (Quality
worked before. For example, the Director, CS-D)
Procurement Director has worked
in America some time, therefore
has adapted to Western thinking
well.” (Team Leader, WB-D’s core
team)
References
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: a developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural
experience (pp. 21–71).Yarmouth, ME: International Press.
Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: a study of American expatriate managers in
Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 277–294.
Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1999). Organizations as adaptive systems in complex
environments: the case of China. Organization Science, 10(3), 237–252.
Bond, M. H. (1996). Chinese values. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of chinese
psychology (pp. 208–226).Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances:
theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management
Review, 14(2), 234–249.
Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, P. K. (2010). Building long-term
orientation in buyer–supplier relationships: the moderating role of culture.
Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 506–521.
Cousins, P. D., Handfield, R. B., Lawson, B., & Petersen, K. J. (2006). Creating supply
chain relational capital: the impact of formal and informal socialisation
processes. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 851–863.
Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Squire, B. (2008). Performance measurement in strategic
buyer-supplier relationships: the mediating role of socialisation mechanisms.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(3), 238–258.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal
of Management, 26(1), 31–61.
Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural
intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 100–115.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Elger, T., & Smith, C. (2005). Assembling work: remaking factory regimes in Japanese
multinationals in Britain. OUP Catalogue.
Fang, T. (2001). Culture as a driving force for inter-firm adaptation: a Chinese Case.
Industrial Marketing Management, 30(1), 51–63.
Fletcher, M., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2011). Qualitative research methods in
international business. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case study
in international business and management research (pp. 171–191).Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Francis, J. N. P. (1991). When in Rome? The effects of cultural adaptation on
intercultural business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 22
(3), 403–428.
Fu, W., Diez, J. R., & Schiller, D. (2013). Interactive learning: informal networks and
innovation: evidence from electronics firm survey in the Pearl River Delta.
Research Policy, 42, 635–646.
Ghauri, P. (2004). Designing and conducting case studies in international business
research. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
methods for international business (pp. 109–124).Edward Elgar Publishing.
Giannakis, M., Doran, D., & Chen, S. (2012). The Chinese paradigm of global supplier
relationships: social control, formal interactions and the mediating role of
culture. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 831–840.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. California: Sociology Press.
1260 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261
Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Gu, Q. L. (2004). A new approach to intercultural cooperation.
In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Granner, B. (1980). Cross-cultural adaptation in international business. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 9(3), 101–108.
Griffith, D. A., & Myers, M. B. (2005). The performance implications of strategic fit of
relational norm governance strategies in global supply chain relationships.
Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 254–269.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational
corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.
Hammell, K. (2006). Perspectives on disability and rehabilitation. UK: Elsevier.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous
innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.
Haslberger, A. (2005). Facets and dimensions of cross-cultural adaptation: refining
the tools. Personnel Review, 34(1), 85–109.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organisations: software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hwang, J., Chung, J.-E., & Jin, B. (2013). Culture matters: the role of long-term
orientation and market orientation in buyer-supplier relationships in a
Confucian culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(5), 721–744.
Jassawalla, A., Truglia, C., & Garvey, J. (2004). Cross-cultural conflict and expatriate
manager adjustment: an exploratory study. Management Decision, 42(7), 837–
849.
Jia, F., & Lamming, R. (2013). Dyadic learning in an international context: evidence
from Sino-west supply relationships. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 33(5), 528–561.
Jia, F., Lamming, R., Sartor, M., Orzes, G., & Nassimbeni, G. (2014a). International
purchasing offices in China: a dynamic evolution model. International Business
Review, 23(3), 580–593.
Jia, F., Lamming, R., Sartor, M., Orzes, G., & Nassimbeni, G. (2014b). Global purchasing
strategy and International Purchasing Offices: evidence from case studies.
International Journal of Production Economics, 154, 284–298.
Jia, F., & Rutherford, C. (2010). Mitigation of supply chain relational risk caused by
cultural differences between China and the west. International Journal of
Logistics Management, 21(2), 251–270.
Jia, F., & Zsidisin, G. A. (2014). Supply relational risk: what role does Guanxi play?
Journal of Business Logistics, 35(3), 259–267.
Jun, S., Gentry, J. W., & Hyun, Y. J. (2001). Cultural adaptation of business expatriates
in the host marketplace. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2), 369–377.
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and assets in strategic alliances:
building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237.
Ketkar, S., Kock, N., Parente, R., & Verville, J. (2012). The impact of individualism on
buyer–supplier relationship norms, trust and market performance: an analysis
of data from Brazil and the U.S.A. International Business Review, 21(5), 782–793.
Kim, J., & Parkhe, A. (2009). Competing and cooperating similarity in global strategic
alliances: an exploratory examination. British Journal of Management, 20(3),
363–376.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in
practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.
Lin, X. H. (2004). Determinations of cultural adaptation in Chinese-u.S. joint
ventures. Cross-cultural Management, 11(1), 35–47.
Liu, C. L. E. (2012). An investigation of relationship learning in cross-border buyer–
supplier relationships: the role of trust. International Business Review, 21(3),
311–327.
Luo, Y. (1997). Guanxi: principles, philosophies, and implications. Human Systems
Management, 16(1), 43–51.
Luo, Y. (2000). Economic perspective of Guanxi. In Y. Luo (Ed.), Guanxi and
businessSingapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2004). The possibility principle: choosing negative cases
in comparative research. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653–669.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mitchell, W., Muysken, J., & Veen, V. T. (2006). Growth and cohesion in the european
union: the impact of macroeconomic policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Morgan, G., Sharpe, D. R., Kelly, W., & Whitley, R. (2002). The future of Japanese
manufacturing in the UK. Journal of Management Studies, 39(8), 1023–1044.
Nassimbeni, G., & Sartor, M. (2006). Sourcing in China: strategies methods and
experiences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pagell, M., Katz, J. P., & Sheu, C. (2005). The importance of national culture in
operations management research. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 25(4), 371–394.
Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in
global strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(4), 579–
601.
Parnell, M. F. (2005). Chinese business Guanxi: an organisation or non-
organisation? Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 2(1), 29–46.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2004). Qualitative research methods in international
business. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
methods for international businessEdward Elgar Publishing.
Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. (2009). The case study as disciplinary
convention: evidence from international business journals. Organizational
Research Methods, 12(3), 567–589.
Pirie, M. (2007). The Anglo-saxon model of capitalism. Adam Smith Institute [http://
www.adamsmith.org/. Retrieved 7.03.07.
Poulis, K., Poulis, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2013). The role of context in case study
selection: an international business perspective. International Business Review,
22(1), 304–314.
Ribbink, D., & Grimm, C. M. (2014). The impact of cultural differences on buyer–
supplier negotiations: an experimental study. Journal of Operations
Management, 32(3), 114–126.
Richardson, C., Yamin, M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2012). Policy-driven clusters, interfirm
interactions and firm internationalisation: some insights from Malaysia’s
Multimedia Super Corridor. International Business Review, 21(5), 794–805.
Saka-Helmhout, A. (2007). Unravelling learning within multinational corporations.
British Journal of Management, 18(3), 294–310.
Salmi, A. (2006). Organising international supplier relations: an exploratory study
of Western purchasing in China. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
12(4), 197–208.
Sarmento, M., Simões, C., & Farhangmehr, M. (2015). Applying a relationship
marketing perspective to B2B trade fairs: the role of socialisation episodes.
Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 131–141.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organisational culture and leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organisational learning. Organisation
Science, 2(1), 125–134.
Sirmon, D. G., & Lane, P. J. (2004). A model of cultural differences and international
alliance performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 306–319.
Smagalla, D. (2004). Supply-chain culture clash. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46
(1), 6.
Squire, B., Cousins, P. D., & Brown, S. (2009). Cooperation and knowledge transfer
within buyer-supplier relationships: the moderating properties of trust,
relationship duration and supplier performance. British Journal of Management,
20(4), 461–477.
Stearns, P. N. (2003). Western civilization in world history. New York: Routledge.
Stock, R. M. (2006). Inter-organisational teams as boundary spanners between
suppliers and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(4), 588–599.
Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. (1997). Scaling the Great Wall: the yin and yang of resolving
business conflicts in China. Business Horizons, 40(5), 22–34.
Styles, C., & Ambler, T. (2003). The coexistence of transaction and relational
marketing: insights from the Chinese business context. Industrial Marketing
Management, 32(8), 633–642.
Tolliday, S., Boyer, R., Charron, E., & Jürgens, U. (1998). Introduction: between
imitation and innovation: the transfer and hybridization of productive models
in the international automotive industry. In R. Boyer, E. Charron, U. Jürgens, & S.
Tolliday (Eds.), Between imitation and innovation: the transfer and hybridization of
productive models in the international automobile industry (pp. 374–381).Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Trent, R. J., & Monczka, R. M. (2003). Understanding integrated global sourcing.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33(7),
607–629.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations
management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22
(2), 195–219.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free
Press.
Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: connections as substitutes for formal
institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1641–1658.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural
learning: a review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate
adaptation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 362–379.
Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: an integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S.
Tseng, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health: the chinese
experience (pp. 19–39).Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: design and methods, 4th ed. London: Sage.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B. B., & Roth, A. V. (2006). Decision sciences research in China: a
critical review and research agenda, foundations and overview. Decision
Sciences, 37(4), 451–496.
Dr. Fu Jia is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Exeter Business School, England.
His research interests include supply relationship management in a cross cultural
context, global sourcing, supply chain learning and innovation and sustainable
supply chain management. Dr Jia is currently involved in a number of projects
related to supply chain learning/innovation and sustainable supply chain
management. Prior to his academic career, he had worked in the 3PL sector in
Beijing, China.
Dr. Christine Rutherford is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Heriot Watt University.
Her research interests include supply chain risk and resilience as well as demand
forecasting and inventory systems focusing on slow moving items. She teaches
extensively on MBA and MSC programmes and directs a number of executive
development courses. She has worked in the chemical industry and obtained a PhD
in Physical Chemistry from Hull University.
Professor Richard Lamming has worked in, managed, researched, advised, and
taught about purchasing, supplier relationships and supply chain management
 F. Jia et al. / International Business Review 25 (2016) 1246–1261 1261

throughout his working life. Following practice and consultancy work in production
engineering and purchasing, he gained his doctorate at the Science Policy Research
Unit at the University of Sussex in the UK. His research work in supply chain
management and innovation began twenty five years ago and he was a Research
Fellow in the 1980s MIT-based International Motor Vehicle Program, which
developed the concepts of lean manufacturing and lean supply. His research focuses
on radical innovation in supply chain relationships and sustainable supply
management. For eight years he was Director/Dean of two Business/Management
schools in the UK (at the Universities of Southampton and Exeter) before returning
full-time to his subject as a Visiting Professor at Manchester Business School in the
UK. He now teaches MBA/master classes, presents keynotes around the world, and
conducts research and publishing with a wide network of academics and
practitioners.