Shui Fabrics: A Critical Analysis of a Global Problem

Shui Fabrics: A Critical Analysis of a Global Problem
Introduction
In this paper we will discuss the Shui Fabrics Case Study and its implications on managing in a global environment. The research of case studies gives us the opportunity to understand and apply the lessons we have learned in the course.
The case explains that for 10 years, Shanghai Fabric Ltd., a Chinese fabrics company, and Rocky River Industries, a United States textile manufacturer, have been part of a 50-50 joint venture to produce dye and fabric. This venture, called Shui Fabrics, produced dye and coat fabric for domestic and international sportswear markets. Ray Betzell, general manager for five of
Analysis
The GLOBE project value dimensions identified five dimensions that global managers can use to explain cultural differences between countries. Based on the case details we can we can identify several differences.
The first difference deals with the humane orientation dimension, because it relates to caring for the people. The Chinese have a high unemployment rate, which means they are concerned with job creation. The joint venture has been successful in their minds because it has created about 3,000 jobs, which is a big contribution to the local economy. On the other hand, the Americans think they should lay off workers to earn a higher profit. Therefore, the Americans are more concerned about making money than providing the jobs that are helping the people (Daft, 2012, pp. 106-107, 119).
The second difference deals with the performance orientation dimension. The Chinese and the Americans have different performance expectations. Chiu Wai, the Chinese deputy general manager, believes that the 5% ROI that the Americans are earning is appropriate because earning more than that would not be viewed well by the government. The American president of Rocky River thinks the 5% ROI is unacceptable because he was expecting to me making around 20% (Daft, 2012, pp. 106-107, 119). Both companies have very different performance expectations.
The third difference