London and Beijing are talking again, and the US–Europe relationship is being recalibrated. It is tempting to read that as a signal that “China is back” as the obvious growth lever for European companies.

My view is more cautious. If there is an opening, it will be uneven, sector-specific, and paired with a longer list of constraints than many headlines suggest. The more useful question for operators is not “Is China a panacea?” but “What do we need to understand so we neither panic nor romanticise?”

Below is an English-language walkthrough of the core arguments from my German piece, written for Markus and the team at memocine, and aimed at leaders who want practical clarity rather than etiquette folklore.

China is not a spreadsheet with 1.4 billion identical consumers

A surprising number of China strategies still begin with what I call the “Coca-Cola theory”: if only every Chinese person bought one unit of X per day, then… The arithmetic is seductive, and almost always misleading. China is vast, dynamic and commercially sophisticated, but also highly heterogeneous and internally contradictory. Provincial variation matters. Sector regulation matters. Ownership structure matters. Timing matters. And “China” is not one market, but many markets stitched together by overlapping political, administrative and social systems.

The point is not that growth is impossible. It is that market size is not a strategy.

The wrong comfort blanket: checklists and etiquette trivia

When confronted with complexity, many “how to do business in China” guides reach for detail catalogues: how to hand over a business card, what to say at a banquet, which chopstick behaviour to avoid. These lists often have two negative effects:

1. They create the illusion that success is a matter of performing the right rituals.

2. They increase anxiety because the list never ends, and because many “rules” are situational, outdated, or not decisive in actual business decisions.

Deals are rarely won or lost because someone used the wrong chopsticks. They are far more often won or lost because expectations were wrong: about who decides, how agreement is signalled, what “fast” means, what “yes” means, and how status and respect are negotiated alongside substance.

So the alternative is not “more rules”, but “better mental models”.

A useful starting point: how Chinese counterparts often perceive Germany

For many European firms, the first interaction is shaped by a pre-existing Germany image. It is not the whole story, but it influences initial expectations long before the first formal meeting.

Common positives: engineering competence, reliability, process discipline, quality, long-term thinking. These associations can open doors and create baseline trust.

Common frictions: perceived slowness, bureaucracy, and—most sensitive—an occasional whiff of superiority. Even unintentionally, a “we know better” tone can trigger resistance, because China’s business environment is increasingly self-confident and internationally experienced. The old teacher–student dynamic is less and less tolerated.

Importantly, these criticisms are not one-sided. China can be extremely fast when there is will and political backing; it can also be slow when incentives are misaligned or responsibility is avoided. German bureaucracy may frustrate Chinese partners; Chinese administrative processes can be opaque and change pace depending on who is involved. The practical lesson is to avoid caricatures and prepare for variance.

Communication and decision-making: where misunderstandings multiply

Several recurring gaps show up in day-to-day work:

• Directness: a crisp European “no” may read as unnecessarily harsh or as a public loss of face for the other side.

• Detail orientation: European thoroughness can be interpreted as pedantry when it slows momentum.

• Professional distance: the European separation of “business” and “private” can feel cold in environments where relationships are an essential operating layer.

These are not moral judgements; they are different social technologies. But if you ignore them, you misread signals—and then you negotiate the wrong problem.

China’s self-understanding: civilisation, centre, and positioning

A deeper layer is China’s self-perception. Many Chinese interlocutors do not experience China primarily as a modern nation-state competing for status, but as a long-standing civilisation with historical continuity. This does not automatically translate into aggressiveness; it often manifests as a quiet assumption of centrality and permanence.

Two implications tend to matter in business contexts:

1. Positioning is part of negotiation. Beyond the term sheet, there is an ongoing assessment: “Do you respect us? Do you take us seriously? Where do you place yourself relative to us?”

2. Foreigners are not perceived as neutral. In historical narratives, “the outsider” appears in recurring roles (trader, threat, teacher, student, competitor). In practice, that means you may be pre-categorised before you speak—and your behaviour then confirms or reshapes the category.

For European companies, the task is to be deliberate about the role you project: competent, respectful, firm, and collaborative—without condescension and without deference.

Face, status, and the symbolic layer is not decoration

“Face” is often treated as exotic mysticism. In reality, it is a universal social mechanism: people do not like being publicly diminished. What differs is how systematically face and status are used as levers.

In negotiations, symbolic moves can change the power geometry without touching the contract. Examples I discuss in the German piece include patterns such as:

• Meetings postponed at the last minute in ways that place one side in the role of the waiting subordinate.

• Stakeholders bypassed (for instance, escalating directly to the other party’s senior leadership) in ways that reorder internal status and bargaining space.

• High-profile ceremonies not for operational necessity but to publicly mark hierarchy and alignment.

If you treat these signals as mere “culture”, you will miss their commercial function. They are often part of the negotiation.

Practical guidance: calm realism at the micro level

For leaders working with Chinese partners, a few principles reduce both panic and wishful thinking:

• Map the real decision system. Who owns the decision, who influences it, who can block it, and who needs to be seen to be involved?

• Separate speed from commitment. Rapid engagement can be exploration, not agreement. Conversely, slow processes can still end in decisive outcomes.

• Manage respect without theatrics. Avoid public cornering, avoid lecturing comparisons, and frame your expertise as an offer rather than a benchmark.

• Build robustness, not bravado. Governance, IP protection, compliance, supply-chain resilience, and exit options are not pessimism; they are professionalism.

• Treat China as a system, not a market trope. Your commercial plan must fit the institutional and political texture of the environment you are entering.

Where to read the original

The full German article is published with memocine here: