The key competencies were missing thatcaused the venture to fail were:· First, theCanadians were not persuasive enough during the negotiation.
Persuading skillsare imperative in order for the Canadians to win the contract. For fear thatthey might reveal too much about information regarding technical issues, theCanadians chose to discuss in general instead of touching the main pointdesired by their counterpart. Undoubtedly, the Chinese would not be convincedto agree with the contract when there were still unsolved problems that theforeign partner were unable to provide solutions to. A suggested strategy forthe Canadian executives is that they state their argument firmly to convincethe Chinese; especially when the Chinese were afraid that they would be unableto fix the machines and required direct assistance from the Canadians.
· Anothercompetency that was missing which led to the Canadians unsuccessful was theirlack of cultural understanding of the Chinese. China is known as a high-contextcountry, where values of long-term relationship and trust are consideredimportant. The Chinese are willing to spend time and money in order to get toknow more about their partner in terms of personal life, and eventually to makesure that their partner is trustworthy. However, from the Canadian executives’point of view, the Chinese are wasting time and trying to prolong thenegotiation. Because of this, the Chinese chose to sign their contract with aJapanese company, who share more similarities with them and it would also beeasier for the Chinese to do business with the Japanese as they are not 2distant countries both geographically and culturally. · Canadiansfailed the deal also because of miscommunication and language barriers. Theywere not prepared enough and did not get needed information from the translatoras she/he seemed not to be a neutral participant when delivering contents ofthe discussion.
