Talk:Guanxi

"China however harmony is a higher value than equality" Harmony? Really?

Lack of Empirical Evidence

I think this article could benefit from including some empirical results. These don't have to be experimental studies, but perhaps the article could include information from scientific observational studies on the topic. Or, if such information is included, then clarify this by pointing it out within the text of the article. 10outta10 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalized by hindu extremist trolls employed by the Indian government

I'm from India and I was looking up Chinese terms when I came across this article. It's been defaced by Sanskrit preaching right-wing hindu extremist trolls with so much disinformation. We need Chinese authors to look into this and address this vandalism.

Laced with Western Bias

I don't think this article shows Western Bias now after the recent edits. Nice work. 10outta10 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This article needs serious work from the Chinese perspective, as it is laced with Western bias, and fails to go to the heart and importance of guanxi in China. Chinese values are very different than Western values. When Westerners write about Chinese, they apply value judgements that simply don't fit the very different culture. In China, it is said that business is war. Guanxi creates a condition of mutual obligation and trust in which one may conduct business safely. But it is more than business. It is education of ones children, advancement in politics, ability to get a job or buy a home, etc. From the western view, this looks like corruption because the West values equality. In China however harmony is a higher value than equality, thus guanxi provides the rules of mutual obligation in which harmony becomes enforceable. The rules of guanxi are exceptionally subtle, the bonds take years or even generations to build. The comment in the article about family is utter nonsense, for example. The strongest guanxi one has is based on familial bonds, and being born into the right family gives one a level of guanxi that for someone else is unobtainable except (possibly) by marrying into that family.

It is a problem that Wikipedia is a western originated web site that attracts a disproportionate number of Americans as volunteer editors. Western editors should be very careful before touching such a foreign concept... rather experts should be sought out who are both within guanxi and intellectually capable of explaining it in western terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.66.152 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't "western bias" to link guanxi to corruption -- this is regularly done in China, and to support this better in the article I've added references to that section with two Chinese academics talking about exactly this issue. The "criticism" section is completely unnecessary -- you can't "criticize" a word for its definition! Thanks for your comments, though, they've prompted two good citations. shannonr (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't know if this belongs in the main body of the article or not.

Locally, it seems the Chinese people use the term guanxi in two different ways. On the ones side is guanxi that is considered quite good. Parents and their offspring, for example, have guanxi with each other. Friends have guanxi between them. Classmates have guanxi with each other for years after leaving school. It's all a merry web of guanxi.

On the dark side, however, is guanxi that is bad. Here the same word is almost used as an epithet and a synonym for corruption. Someone (literally) gets away with murder because he "has guanxi". Another gets out of unpleasant work because she "has good guanxi".

It's almost as if the same word expresses two very, very different concepts here. Should this be worked into the main body of the article? -- Yan Jiahua 14:08 19 May 2003 (UTC)

This question - weather Guanxi expresses something "good" or "bad" (or both? or n/a?) - was exactly the question that came up in my mind when I read the article. It would be great if a knowledgeable person could elaborate on this in the article.

Linguistic complexity of 'Guanxi'

These types of words are called 'antagonyms' or 'contranyms'. JPF 06:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully that's much clearer in the current version. Shannonr 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still the one concept. It's just being used for either good or evil. LegendLength (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept of guanxi can get rather complicated. Guanxi simply means relationship - like any other relationship in the world. I guess people with high enough connections anywhere in the world could get away with murder! There is another concept called guanxi xue - this is the use of the relationship to get things done. This is where it can cross over into the realm of corruption and all things negative. For more information read a book by Yang, M - Gifts, Favors, and banquets (1994). This takes you into the complex world of guanxi!

In English usage, guanxi does not have the meaning as the relationship between parents and their offspring. In the wiki article, you can explain the other meanings of this term when used in Chinese though. --Hello World! 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view there seems to be a very good explanation of Guanxi in the book: "Inside Chinese Business. A Guide for Managers Worldwide" published by Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA 02163, USA, edited by Ming-Jer Chen. According to this book Guanxi does not simply means relationship as in western cultures. It´s a very specific chinese way of social network with lots of specific rules and roles to be recognised. Simply to translate to the western "relationship" could cause major misunderstandings of Guanxi.

Guanxi compared with Arabic Wasta

This piece should be re-organised under the title 'Linguistic complexity' and invite more discussions on comparing 'Guanxi' in other lanugage.

It seems to me that Guanxi is similar to "Wasta" (Arabic) in the Middle East. See http://isam.bayazidi.net/archives/2005/06/bel-wasta/. -Westonmr 07:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if that could be linked up in the new "Other Cultures" section, but I can't find a "Wasta" article on here! Can anyone help? --Shannonr 06:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On that note, it seems to me that the english word "rapport" is a better translation. -Harkannin

Having "good guanxi" would seem, on the surface, to have some of the same meaning as saying you had a good rapport with someone. However, rapport would be a poor translation. You could have excellent guanxi with someone you had poor rapport with, and vice versa. --Shannonr 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rapport is probably closer to ganqing. - Nick

Romanization and pinyin use

This piece should also put underneath the title of linguistic complexity. Please Shannonr reorganise it User:Next2apple Is there some page that lays down a standard on when pinyin with tone marks, pinyin w/o tone marks, and italicized pinyin terms should be used? The pages devoted to Chinese terms seem to be all over the map on this.--Daveswagon 06:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Template:Chinese does a good job of putting all the transliterations in one place, so I've incorporated it into the article. --Shannonr 07:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Guanxi in business

I just deleted the following paragraph, as it seems NNPOV and is unsourced: "Business Context of Guanxi: This concept has been often practised by modern corporates in Korea, Japan, Thailand and China. In the modern business world, Guanxi integrates all the supply chain partners of a business model, working towards efficient operations and effective offerings. A lot of learnings from Guanxi, subtly put in practice by the South East Asean companies (except India and Gulf countries) has been one of the main reasons why we get the most cheap and sophisticated products from these countries. The JIT and Kaizen models developed by Japanese can never be implemented unless there is a healthy Guanxi practice in the business environment." Motmot 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - good deletion. --Shannonr 06:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edit and sections

I've just completed a fairly major edit / shuffle / sectioning of this article. Hopefully it reads more clearly now, and includes more detail on some of the more interesting aspects of this cultural concept. Comments,謝謝！ --Shannonr 06:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural complexity of 'Guanxi'

I've altered the introduction to expand the description of Face. It is not just Lian, but a combination of both Lian (moral component) and Mian (the prestige component). I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm unsure how to link to existing articles. Feel free to help out there! - Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.97.246 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I've found two usages (both negative) in "big" newspapers, and added them as citations in the appropriate area. Would be great to have more... --Shannonr (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion in Hessler, Peter (March 31, 2008), "Letter from China: The Wonder Years Boom times in a Chinese village", The New Yorker: 68–76{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link), although it's not the focus of the article. It talks about the importance of exchanging cigarettes. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable

There is no indication of the Chinese use of the term apart from the obvious, simple meaning ("connections"). Is it actually used like this in China or is it just a Orientalist buzzword used by "China watchers"? The article cites few sources.

The discussion above about guanxi being interpreted both good and bad, suggests that the word itself is rather bland in the Chinese context. The terms "connections" or "friends" or "family" can take on sinister connotations in English when linked to corruption and criminality.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a large literature on the extreme importance of Guanxi in Chinese culture. The relations to "nepotism" and "connections" are basically what Guanxi looks like from the viewpoint of an American businessman who doesn't actually get that other cultures work differently, and thinks it is unreasonable that he has to establish a guanxi relation withsomeone in order for them to do business with him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I reccomend this one: [1]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Proposed edits to the article

Organize “Description and usage” section better

		Define it more specifically as a construct? (Gu, Hung, Tse)

Expand “usage examples” section New subheading: guanxi - performance link

               A. guanxi with business partners 
               B. guanxi with government authorities 

New subheading: Effects of guanxi on organizational performance

               A. Examples of companies counteracting guanxi’s effects: https://hbr.org/2004/04/when-good-guanxi-turns-bad#
               Note that parts of this article can be applied to Part II

New subheading: Positive and negative outcomes of guanxi practice

               A. Positive outcomes
               B. Negative outcomes
                      1. Reciprocal obligations
                      2. collective blindness 

Bibliography

Luo, Yadong, Ying Huang, and Stephanie Lu Wang. "Guanxi and Organisational Performance: A Meta-Analysis." Management and Organization Review 8.1 (2011): 139-72. Print. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00273.x/epdf

Chen, Ying, Ray Friedman, Enhai Yu, and Fubin Sun. "Examining the Positive and Negative Effects of Guanxi Practices: A Multi-level Analysis of Guanxi Practices and Procedural Justice Perceptions." Asia Pac J Management 28 (2009): 715-35. Print. http://search.proquest.com/docview/899141915?pq-origsite=summon

Yong Cao, Yang Xiang. "The impact of knowledge governance on knowledge sharing: The mediating role of the guanxi effect." Chinese Management Studies 7.1(2013): 36-52. Print. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/17506141311307587

Flora F. Gu, Kineta Hung, David K. Tse. “When Does Guanxi Matter? Issues of Capitalization and Its Dark Sides.” Journal of Marketing 72.4 (2008): 12-28. Print. http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkg.72.4.12

New subheading: guanxi and knowledge governance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracewong1 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits made on 10/25/15

Hey everyone! Gracewong1 and I made some edits to the article with regards to guanxi's application in a business setting. We expanded the "Description and usage" section such that there are two sections on guanxi's context inside and outside of business. We also added a new section and made some more edits to existing parts of the article.

We want to incorporate the "Usage examples" section into the "Description and usage" section, but currently we have not made concrete plans to do so. As we are new Wikipedia users, we are also still figuring out Wikipedia formatting so, at some point, we will make it so a source of ours that's used multiple times in the Guanxi article will be only listed once in the References section (rather than writing out multiple citations for a single source or using "Ibid." like what we did today).

We're planning on expanding this article more in the near future so if there's anything you want to discuss, feel free to let us know. --Yingooi —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Yingooi/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 07:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

10000rmb != 48 billion dollars

"A common example of unethical reciprocal obligation involves the abuse of business-government relations. In 2013, a CCP (Chinese Communist Party) official criticised the government officials for using public funds of over 10,000 yuan for banquets. This totals to approximately 48 billion dollars worth of banquets per year"

how ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.32.30 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Staying in contact with members of your network is NOT necessary to bind reciprocal obligations.

really? I thought the contact is crucial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjohn1970 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User draft page on Guanxi in business

Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:MGMT90018 2015S2 Guanxi (in Business)/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank the page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Asian American History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samanthasw (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Samanthasw (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)