The current process of globalization touches upon numerous multinational organizations and proves the importance of cultural differences’ identification (Favier-Townsend & Lister 2010). It is necessary to admit that the norms of one culture may contradict the norms of another culture and leads to inabilities to develop strong professional relations between countries.
Differences between cultures are all about generalities, and Luger (2009) admits that it is very important to “be aware of expectations that every individual will behave in a manner consistent with those generalizations, because even within cultures, people differ from each other” (p. 3).
In this paper, three models are taken into consideration to compare the achievements of the USA and China: Hofstede dimensions of time (LTO) and power (PDI), Trompenaars’ value dimensions like universalism versus particularism, and GLOBE dimensions which evaluate gender and uncertainty avoidance.
As different “cultural attitudes to space influence demands for work space” (Mead 2005, p. 27), it is necessary to evaluate the environment and compare the expectations of the USA and China in regard to the above-mentioned dimensions in order to promote appropriate relations.
Variety of Cultural Dimension Models: Hofstede, Trompenaars, and GLOBE
The choice of the countries for the analysis is predetermined by the positions these countries take in the world market. In fact, China and the USA are one of the most successful examples of how it is possible to integrate cultures and demands and achieve positive results in the chosen spheres. Still, the cultures of these two countries differ considerably; this is why it is not only interesting but also challenging and educative to study Chinese and American perspectives.
Hofstede in China and the USA. Hofstede dimension model defines culture as “a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Falkenreck 2010, p. 59). PDI stands for Power Distance and is considered to be one of the dimensions according to which less powerful organizations may define the extent to which it is possible to expect unequal power distribution.
The results of the comparison of the USA and China show that the USA has lower power distance (40); it means that this country should try to imply greater empowerment that it is now. And China’s PDI is 80, and it proves that the control of this country is more centralized. The dimension that is called Long-versus Short-term Orientation (LTO) evaluates the extent to which the country may invest in future. Under the current conditions, China leads this type of dimension (118), and the USA is 29 only.
Trompenaars in China and the USA. Though some value orientations which are regarded in the chosen dimension model are similar to the one of Hofstede (Gooderham & Nordhaug 2003), it still helps to focus on inter-personal relations and some work-related issues.
The results (China – 47, and the USA – 93) show that the USA us a universal society where much attention is paid to formal rules and definite contracts, and China is regarded as a particularistic society where business is based on relations and circumstances which help to define where truth is. In China, a legal contract performs the function of a starting point for any kind of agreement. And in the USA, a contract is a powerful means to define the terms of any agreement and the nature of relations.
GLOBE in China and the USA. According to Rosenhauer (2009), the main purpose of GLOBE research is “to connect the new measures to organizational culture and leadership” (p. 24).
The results of the comparison the USA and China show that gender egalitarianism is higher in the USA (5.03) than in China (3.73). It means that American women are in positions of authority, this is why they may accord a kind of equal status in society, and Chinese women have fewer rights in business, and the possibilities for women to achieve success are lower than in the USA.
According to the uncertainty avoidance dimension (USA – 5.34 and China – 3.99), it is clear that social interactions are formal among the Americans, and Chinese people prefer to develop informal social interactions and trust each other’s word. On the one hand, it is easier to create a contract and be less concerned with order and legalisation; on the other hand, rules and formal policies have to be considered as it is demonstrated by the representatives of the American culture.
Conclusion
In general, the comparison of two great countries, the USA and China, show that it is possible to achieve success in business in a variety of ways. Attention to order, legalisation, and formal communication is inherent to American culture, this is why it is always possible to define the shortages of the chosen method be means of courts and law.
Informal relations which are observed in China may become a powerful means to develop powerful tendencies and take leading positions in the world market. Each country is free to choose any method to develop business relations, and it is not always possible to consider the traditions of each culture. Still, such dimension models like Hofstede, Trompenaars, and GLOBE help to identify the differences and choose the most appropriate way to develop strong business relations.
Reference List
Falkenreck, C 2010, Reputation Transfer to Enter New B-to-B Markets: Measuring and Modelling Approaches, Springer, New York.
Favier-Townsend, A & Lister, J 2010, Global Perspective in Business, Pearson, London.
Gooderham, PN & Nordhaug, O 2003, International Management: Cross-Boundary Challenges, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Luger, E 2009, Hofsteede’s Cultural Dimensions, GRIN Verlag, München.
Mead, R 2005, International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Rosenhauer, S 2009, Cross-Cultural Business Communication: Intercultural Competence as a Universal Interculture. GRIN Verlag, München.