American vs. Chinese Business Culture: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction to Business Culture and Hofstede's Framework

Though there is no universally accepted definition, culture denotes a set of values, beliefs, traditions, practices, attitudes, and behaviors shared by a given group of people (Rodrigues, 2009). Culture defines a people's way of life — how they do things, communicate, behave, relate with one another, and so forth. Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory illustrates that cultures tend to vary from country to country or region to region (Hofstede, 2001). These differences imply that norms, behaviors, attitudes, and other elements of culture differ across countries or regions. For instance, the culture of Americans tends to differ from that of the Chinese, Africans, or Arabs.

Culture permeates every aspect of society — from organization and social relationships to communication and business. Business is especially influenced by culture. Culture affects how organizations are structured and managed, how employers relate with employees, how decisions are made, how authority is exerted, how negotiations are conducted, and so on (Luthans & Doh, 2012). This means that business cultures commonly vary across countries or regions. Two countries that exhibit remarkably different business cultures are the United States and China. According to Hofstede's model, the two countries have different national cultures: the US is an individualistic society and China is a collectivist society (Hofstede, 2001). This explains the difference in business cultures between the two countries. This paper compares the American and Chinese business cultures, contrasting their assumptions and characteristics as well as their negotiation styles and techniques.

The theoretical framework underpinning this paper is Hofstede's cultural dimensions model. According to Hofstede, national cultures are characterized by six major dimensions: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, long-term orientation versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede, 2001). These dimensions define how societies view group identity, authority, ambiguity, success, time, and human desires. Full description of all six dimensions is beyond the scope of this paper. The paper mainly focuses on the individualism versus collectivism dimension to explain business culture differences between the US and China.

Individualism versus collectivism defines the extent to which members of a society identify with groups (Hofstede, 2001). An individualistic society is one in which members value the self and the immediate family, placing emphasis on individual happiness and autonomy. On the contrary, a collectivist society values interdependence — members emphasize group belonging and strong relationships with the extended family. Based on this dimension, the US is a highly individualistic society (scoring 91 on individualism), while China is a highly collectivist society (scoring 20 on individualism) (Geert-hofstede.com, n.d.). These contrasting scores explain the strikingly different business cultures between the two countries.

American Business Culture

As members of an individualistic society, Americans place relatively little value on personal relationships in business contexts (Cook, 2012). This does not necessarily mean Americans are opposed to strong relationships; rather, it means that in business transactions, Americans prioritize the matter at hand along with speed and efficiency. It is uncommon for Americans to focus on personal matters during business transactions or meetings (Rodrigues, 2009). In fact, Americans often interpret questions about personal matters as disrespectful or an intrusion of privacy. For Americans, one's personal life and professional life are distinct entities that should not mix (Luthans & Doh, 2012). Colleagues may participate in office parties and similar events to get to know one another, yet individuals may not necessarily wish to socialize beyond such gatherings.

Since Americans value individuality more than interpersonal relationships, they tend to communicate in an explicit manner (Cook, 2012). It is normal for Americans to openly show disagreement or frustration — including raising their voices during meetings. When a person disagrees, they will directly express their thoughts with little or no concern for interpersonal relationships. This makes Americans quite different from the Chinese in terms of expressing thoughts or emotions, and the Chinese may find this aggressive communication style offensive or unprofessional.

How Americans express their thoughts often does not depend on who the audience is. Irrespective of age, position, or authority, it is normal for subordinates or younger people to openly disagree with their seniors (Luthans & Doh, 2012). At the workplace, an employee can question the decisions or instructions of their supervisor or manager. In collectivist cultures, such behavior is generally viewed as disrespectful, since hierarchy and authority typically determine how people relate with one another (Hofstede, 2001). For Americans, however, equality is important, and authority is not determined by age, position, or social status alone.

Additionally, self-promotion is relatively acceptable in American business culture. It is considered normal for people to talk about their successes and accomplishments (Rodrigues, 2009). Some cultures may view this as pride or a lack of humility, but Americans broadly believe that individuals can openly celebrate and showcase their personal achievements, creating a sense of personal gratification that is culturally valued.

Regarding gifts, Americans may treat a potential client to dinner with the aim of discussing business matters, but gifts within the context of business are not heavily emphasized (Rodrigues, 2009). If one has dinner with a prospective client or business partner, discussions would mainly center on business. In other words, the dinner is a means to a larger goal — conducting business — rather than a goal in itself.

The degree of individualism also shapes accountability within the workplace. Being a highly individualistic society, the US places emphasis on individual accountability (Althen, 2003). Tasks are delegated to specific individuals, who are responsible for performing them as expected. Accountability is monitored at the individual level, and disciplinary action can readily be taken if a delegated task is not completed as required.

Chinese Business Culture

Whereas Americans value individuality and autonomy, the Chinese value relationships — not only in social circles, but also in business (Yui-tim, 2001). It is common for the Chinese to ask questions about personal matters during business transactions. The Chinese do this because they want to better know who they are dealing with; they view this as trust-building (Alon, 2003). They tend to be more comfortable doing business with someone they trust. Therefore, asking about personal matters is typically an indication of interest and warmth, not disrespect or impoliteness.

Owing to their drive to build strong interpersonal relationships, the Chinese tend to communicate in a somewhat indirect or implicit manner (Alon, 2003). During a business meeting, for instance, a Chinese person may prefer to show disagreement or frustration by remaining silent rather than saying "No" outright. Similarly, saying "Yes" may not necessarily indicate agreement. By contrast, Americans will say "No" directly when they disagree and "Yes" when they agree. For the Chinese, saving face and remaining calm during business transactions is important; they believe that expressing thoughts too bluntly may damage relationships, and therefore strive to maintain positive emotions.

The way the Chinese express themselves is also highly dependent on whom they are addressing. While Americans are not strongly authority-oriented, the Chinese place great emphasis on authority (Alon, 2003). A manager would feel disrespected if their instructions were directly challenged by a subordinate. If disappointed or in disagreement, a subordinate is culturally expected not to express that openly (Hofstede, 2001). This norm is seen as essential for fostering healthy superior–subordinate relationships. An American is likely to find such expectations difficult, as Americans value collaborative decision-making and it is common to see managers and employees engage in heated debates before reaching consensus.

The Chinese maintain collective harmony by also fostering humility. While Americans may freely discuss personal accomplishments, the Chinese are likely to avoid doing so (Yui-tim, 2001). For the Chinese, humility is a virtue and self-promotion is likely to be frowned upon. Accordingly, the Chinese tend to display modesty during business transactions and generally prefer to work with partners who are similarly modest.

In China, gift-giving is more valued than in the US. It is common for business people to entertain or gift clients and business partners (Alon, 2003). While Americans may not view gifts and entertainment as ends in themselves, the Chinese place immense value on them. Giving small tokens is a prevalent practice in the Chinese business context, and gifts or entertainment may be offered even without any business discussion. A Chinese business person may invite a potential client to dinner without expecting the guest to discuss business if they prefer not to. The Chinese view such gestures as symbols of care and respect — important values in Chinese business culture.

As for accountability, the Chinese typically emphasize group accountability (Alon, 2003). Unlike Americans, the Chinese tend to establish responsibility at the team level rather than the individual level. Individuals are judged as part of a group rather than in isolation. This emphasis on group accountability is rooted in the collectivist value of group harmony and happiness over individual achievement.

Conclusion

Overall, though factors such as globalization have increased cultural similarity or cultural convergence, remarkable cultural differences between countries still exist. This is particularly true for the US and China. The US is an individualistic society, while China is a collectivist society — an indication of substantial cultural differences between the two countries. These differences have crucial implications for business, especially in areas such as communication, business relationships, negotiations, and superior–subordinate dynamics.

Understanding these differences is vital for Americans doing business with the Chinese. Without such understanding, business deals and transactions may not yield the anticipated outcomes, to the disadvantage of one or both sides. The importance of this understanding is especially underscored by the growing business ties between the US and China. In recent decades, China has experienced tremendous economic growth, becoming the world's second-largest economy. From a business perspective, there has been growing interest among American organizations in doing business in China. If American organizations are to fully benefit from China's rising prominence in the global business arena, they must understand Chinese culture — including how the Chinese communicate, think, behave, negotiate, and interpret situations.

References

Alon, I. (2003). Chinese culture, organizational behavior, and international business management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Althen, G. (2003). American ways: A guide for foreigners in the United States (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Cook, G. (2012). The influence of national culture on American business people: Managerial implications for central Europe. Central European Business Review, 1(2), 46–51.

Geert-hofstede.com. (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html

Graham, J., & Lam, N. (2003). The Chinese negotiation. Harvard Business Review, October Issue. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-chinese-negotiation

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luthans, F., & Doh, J. (2012). International management: Culture, strategy, and behavior (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palich, L., Carini, G., & Livingstone, L. (2002). Comparing American and Chinese negotiating styles: The influence of logic paradigms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(6), 777–798.

Rodrigues, C. (2009). International management: A cultural approach. Los Angeles: Sage.

Yui-tim, E. (2001). The Chinese at work: Collectivism or individualism? HKIBA/WPS/040-001. Retrieved from