CROSS CULTURE MANAGEMENT

The focus of this assignment is to draw upon your analysis of national culture of two countries in Assignment 1 to develop an assessment of
similarities and differences in managerial processes and organisational culture which an international manager can expect to encounter in these
two countries.
Issues you may wish to examine could include how culture affects individualism versus group orientation, communications, decision-making,
autocratic versus delegated leadership, superior-subordinate relationships and managing teams. In the report utilise appropriate academic
theories about cross-cultural management to create frameworks to support your proposals. Utilise similar information sources that were utilised
in Assignment 1.You may find some added benefit in obtaining information of the operations, and possibly any international activities, of major
organisations in the two countries that are being compared

Assessment Rubric PRBM016 ASSESSMENT 2: Cross Cultural Management The focus of this assignment is to draw upon your analysis of national culture of two countries in Assignment 1 to develop an assessment of similarities and differences in managerial processes and organisational culture which an international manager can expect to encounter in these two countries. Issues you may wish to examine could include how culture affects individualism versus group orientation, communications, decision-making, autocratic versus delegated leadership, superior-subordinate relationships and managing teams. In the report utilise appropriate academic theories about cross-cultural management to create frameworks to support your proposals. Utilise similar information sources that were utilised in Assignment 1.You may find some added benefit in obtaining information of the operations, and possibly any international activities, of major organisations in the two countries that are being compared. Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Accessing and summarising resources Evidence of broad, systematic and creative research. Demonstrates skilful use of high quality, credible, relevant sources. Selection of sources goes beyond the mainstream literature. An excellent summary of relevant data. Evidence of controlled and systematic research. Demonstrates selection of credible, relevant sources from relevant, quality literature. Accurate summary of relevant data Evidence of good research skills. Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources. Information is gathered from a good range of electronic and nonelectronic sources. but could be extended. Summary of data could be improved. Research conducted demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources. Information is gathered from a limited range of electronic and nonelectronic sources Some capacity to summarise data Limited research skills demonstrated. Very limited range of sources utilised. Lack of demonstrated ability to summarise data. Acknowledging resources Wide range of sources accurately reference. Good range of sources with minor errors in Reasonable range of sources, some referencing errors. Limited resources with a number of errors in Major errors in referencing. referencing. referencing. Analysis Excellent ability to interpret complex data, to appraise evidence , evaluate arguments and to formulate and express very sound conclusions. Good demonstration of the capacity to critically analyse information, formulate own conclusions and express own ideas. Reasonable analysis of information. Able to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations and demonstrate some original thought. Limited ability to interpret data, appraise evidence or evaluate arguments. Conclusions need improvement and need to express own ideas. No critical analysis of information, poor conclusions and no original thought. Application An extensive analysis of the influence of national culture on managerial practices across a wide range of issues An excellent application of academic theories and clearly articulated dimensions of national cultural which provided a strong frame work A good analysis of the influence of national culture on managerial practices . A satisfactory range of issues examined.. A sound application of academic theories on national culture which provided a good frame work for analysis of national cultures A reasonable attempt to compare the influence national cultures on managerial practices Adequate range of issues examined A reasonable application of academic theories as a framework for analysis Some comparison of the influence national cultures on managerial practices however, limited range of issues examined Some reference to a theoretical frame work but not adequately applied to the task Ineffective comparison of the influence of national culture on managerial practices and organisational culture in the two countries being studied. Limited or no theoretical frame work defined Synthesis • Structure • Logic • Mechanics Well-constructed assignment: appropriate, clear, and smooth transitions; arrangement of organizational elements seems particularly apt; uses sophisticated sentences effectively; usually chooses words aptly; observes professional Well written and presented assignment: distinct units of thought in paragraphs; clear transitions between developed, coherent, and logically arranged paragraphs; a few mechanical difficulties or stylistic problems; may make occasional problematic word Reasonably written and presented: some awkward transitions; some brief, weakly unified or undeveloped paragraphs; arrangement may not appear entirely natural; contains extraneous information. more frequent wordiness; unclear or awkward sentences; imprecise Not consistently logically structured: narrates; digresses from one topic to another; awkward use of words, numerous errors in style and presentation including spelling punctuation and grammar. Simplistic, tends to narrate or merely summarize; illogical arrangement of ideas some major grammatical or proofreading errors; language frequently weakened by clichés, colloquialisms, repeated inexact word choices. conventions of written English and report format; free of spelling, grammatical, punctuation and typing errors choices or syntax errors; a few spelling or punctuation errors or a cliché; uses appropriate report format. use of words or over-reliance on passive voice; some distracting grammatical errors; some spelling, punctuation and typing errors.

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………….. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 3.0 NEGOTIATION STYLE ……………………………………………………………………………. 1 3.1 NEGOTIATING GOAL: CONTRACT OR RELATIONSHIP …………………………. 2 3.2 NEGOTIATING ATTITUDE: WIN-WIN OR WIN-LOSE ……………………………… 2 3.3 PERSONAL STYLE: INFORMAL OR FORMAL ……………………………………….. 2 3.4 COMMUNICATION: DIRECT OR INDIRECT …………………………………………… 3 3.5 SENSITIVITY TO TIME: HIGH OR LOW …………………………………………………. 3 3.6 EMOTIONS: HIGH OR LOW …………………………………………………………………. 3 3.7 FORM OF AGREEMENT: GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ………………………………… 3 3.8 BUILDING AN AGREEMENT: BOTTOM-UP OR TOP-DOWN……………………. 4 3.9 TEAM ORGANIZATION: ONE LEADER VERSUS CONSENSUS /LEADERSHIP STYLE ……………………………………………………………………………….. 4 3.10 RISK TAKING: HIGH OR LOW …………………………………………………………….. 4 4.0 DECISION MAKING ………………………………………………………………………………… 4 5.0 COMMUNICATION STYLE ………………………………………………………………………. 5 6.0 PROTOCOL …………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 7.0 COMPANY LOYALTY ……………………………………………………………………………… 8 8.0 GENDER ROLES ……………………………………………………………………………………. 8 9.0 REWARDS …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 10.0 WORK DISCIPLINE ………………………………………………………………………………. 9 11.0 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9 REFERENCE LIST……………………………………………………………………………………… 11 APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to gain better understanding for manager to access international market by analysing business operation style in the United States and China. It will describe how culture affects national negotiation styles, business decision making, communication style, business protocol, and company loyalty as well as the gender roles in workplace by reviewing international literatures. This report indicates that American business men are straightforward and direct, do not prefer to spend long time on making decisions or gain the deals. Informal and simple communicating styles are embedded in society and individuals truly express emotions. In the comparison with China, Chinese emphasize the prestige (mien-tzu) of others, so an indirect communication approach is adopted. Decision making is a time consuming process for Chinese. Formal and complex communication styles are rooted in society because the words might not truly mean what they are heard. 2.0 INTRODUCTION As a result of the economic globalization, it contributed to the multinational business to increase customer demands, financial market, share the knowledge of research and development and global sourcing. Although the advanced technology abridges the distance between nations, management practice has been restricted by the culture boundary. In virtue of the involvement of joint ventures or prolonged negotiations in partnership with foreign countries, the knowledge of cultural diversity provides hints of reaction in others’ behaviour (Lewis 1996). Thus, in order to successfully access the global market, organisations should gain a better understanding of the cultural diversity before planning business strategies. This report will analyse the first two largest economic countries around the world, the United States (US) and China respectively, which was predicted that the rank of those two countries will swap in 2020 (Euromonitor International 2010). It will refer to Geert Hofstede’s five dimensions of national culture and various academic theories to identify their national management style. To recall the Hofstede’s five dimensions of national culture in US and China, Appendix-1 shows the grades of each dimensions and briefly descriptions. 3.0 NEGOTIATION STYLE Cross-national negotiations are most commonly based on business interaction between sellers and buyers and the partnership between two countries. For the sake of meeting an acceptable agreement, negotiation is an essential approach for two or more parties (Bandias 2012). This report will focus on general culture factors to measure US and China’s negotiating style, although Falcao (2008) claimed that conducting a national negotiation must take the consideration for not only national culture but some other individual influences, such as negotiators’ cultures of age, race, religious, gender, education, background etc. Salacuse (1991) identified ten PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 2 traits that are commonly encountered in cross-cultural negotiations (as cited in Cellich& Jain 2004, Salacuse 1998).The ten negotiating traits and the ranges of possible cultural responses to each are illustrated in Appendix-2. The result of Salacuse’s (1998) survey is showed in Appendix-3. 3.1 NEGOTIATING GOAL: CONTRACT OR RELATIONSHIP American negotiators are more likely to state their goal on a signed contract. A short-term orientation and lower uncertainty avoidance in US supports this outcome. The purpose of a business negotiation is to arrive at a signed contract between the parties. The signed contract is a definite set of rights and obligations which strictly binds the two sides. Americans tend to be bound by law, not by relationships, tradition, religion or culture (Martin 1997). Americans focus on achieving their objectives and goals, and do not like the task ‘hanging around’. Chinese negotiators prefer having good understanding of counterparty before making a decision. A long discussion delivers information to negotiators offers time to understand each other. The Chinese do not treat the signing of a contract as signalling a completed agreement, but just the start of a relationship (Martin 1997).The long-term orientation contributes the goal of building relationships for their negotiators which will be supportive in any future negotiation (Bandias 2012), as a result from Confucian principle: maintaining social harmony which is always appeared by well-behaviours and good manners for the purpose of building a good relationship (quanxi). 3.2 NEGOTIATING ATTITUDE: WIN-WIN OR WIN-LOSE The negotiators from China shows stronger win-win attitude than whom from US because Chinese cultural perspective illustrates a social harmony that enables a responsibility of maintaining peaceful negotiation environment. Furthermore, the higher individualism leads more independent and self-reliant in Americans’ characteristic. They might only concern about them and gain the benefit from other party during the negotiation process. 3.3 PERSONAL STYLE: INFORMAL OR FORMAL The result of this survey indicates an informal style at the negotiators who come from US. Lower power distance and short-term orientation present informal communication in American organisation. Americans prefer a small and informal talk to quickly develop relationship with the others, even toward counterparts, quickly use first name and discuss contract detail. Conversely, Chinese tend to be formal. They prefer to address members of counterparty by their titles and aim the conversation at business rather t
han talk personal anecdotes or private in formal negotiation table. This is reflected by the principle of Confucianism, protecting others’ mien-tzu (dignity, self-respect, prestige). Nevertheless, Chinese also like to socialize with business partner in informal place, such as a restaurant, night club for the sake of showing their hospitality, building relationship as well as negotiate business contacts. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 3 3.4 COMMUNICATION: DIRECT OR INDIRECT Appendix-3 indicates that the percentage of negotiating communication way in the America is more likely to be direct than Chinese. American prefers to directly receive a clear and definite response to proposals and questions. They tend to fast settle things and leave no loose ends to the bargain. The direct saying like “Tell me yes, or tell me no- but give me a straight answer.” is a cultural value in their boardrooms and negotiation table (Graham & Sano, 1989). However, Chinese has the tendency of communicating indirectly. Salacuse (1998, p. 230) asserted that those who with an indirect style of communication often make assumptions about the level of knowledge possessed by their counterparts; to a significant extent, they communicate with oblique references, circumlocutions, vague allusions, and figurative forms of speech, facial expressions, gestures, and other kinds of body language. 3.5 SENSITIVITY TO TIME: HIGH OR LOW US is short-term oriented and individualistic country. American loves to achieve short-term goals, accomplish the task quickly, and then spend time with family instead of work. Graham and Sano (1989, p.8) stated that the best statement to summarize American negotiation style is “Shoot first, ask questions later.” They fast meet the deadline and do not like to devote large amounts of time to negotiation process. Nevertheless, Chinese culture has long-term orientation which leads to the circumstance of consuming significant amount of time to understand the situation and build the relationship with counterparts. Some Chinese find that the greater the time spent negotiating, the greater is the probability of attaining success at the negotiation table (Bandias 2012). 3.6 EMOTIONS: HIGH OR LOW The outcome of the survey shows that US and China have almost same percentage in negotiating emotion trait. However, according to Hofstede’s theory, collectivism in China illustrates that they tend to suppress feeling and emotions to maintain peaceful business environment. 3.7 FORM OF AGREEMENT: GENERAL OR SPECIFIC Americans tend to agree with detail contracts which attempt to predict all potential circumstances and eventualities, even the chance is only slightly to occur. They believe that the “deal” is the contract itself, and one must refer to the contract to handle new situations that may arise in the future (Salacuse 1998). In contrast, Chinese prefer general principles instead of detailed rules. Martin (1997) claimed that Chinese seek agreement on generalities, dwelling on overall considerations and avoiding specific details as much as possible, leaving the concrete arrangements to later negotiations. It refers to their negotiating goal, relationship because they claimed that the essence of the deal is the relationship between the parties (Salacuse 1998). PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 4 3.8 BUILDING AN AGREEMENT: BOTTOM-UP OR TOP-DOWN The approach of building an agreement is based on the form of the agreement which can be created in the methods of either bottom-up (inductive) or top-down (deductive). Bottom-up method is that the agreement begins with specifics items, such as price, delivery date, and product quality, and then sum of which becomes the contract. Top-down method is that negotiators begin with agreement on general principles and proceed to specific items. Appendix-3 shows that American negotiators tend to seek agreement first on specifics then sum up as a contract. While in terms of Chinese negotiators, the essence is to agree on basic principles that will guide and indeed determine the negotiation process afterward (Salacuse 1998). 3.9 TEAM ORGANIZATION: ONE LEADER VERSUS CONSENSUS /LEADERSHIP STYLE The outcome shows both counties prefer to one-person leadership, but China has greater percentage of one leader negotiating style than American. Americans often pride themselves in enabling full authority to make a decision. This phenomenon demonstrates “John Wayne-style of negotiations” which combines American typical attitudes expectations and habitual behaviours (Graham & Sano 1989). Additionally, Chinese prefer one-person leadership, a reflection perhaps of the political traditions from Communism, even though China is a collectivistic society which stresses on group’s responsibility for each individual. Generally, Chinese workers are proud of their team’s achievements. The individuals in the group would avoid making an individual decision (Martin 1997). Although most organisations in China have hierarchical structure, they work as a group with high trust relations to generate a good deal in negotiation table (Bandias 2012). 3.10 RISK TAKING: HIGH OR LOW Appendix-3 shows that US and China are high risk-taking countries, but China is slightly higher than US. America is low uncertainty avoidances societies; people enjoy the challenge in their life and have bigger range of tolerant to undertake unstructured situations. Americans do not need to implement and follow stable rules in negotiation. Contrasty, China has higher uncertainty avoidance. Negotiators prefer stability, structure, and precise managerial direction. They tend to search and negotiate for a better trade-off between price and value in negotiation table (Bandias 2012). 4.0 DECISION MAKING Vroom and Yetton (1973) identified a long-standing framework the “normative decision model” which has utilized to examine the degree of employee participation allowed or encouraged in organizational decision making. Vroom and Yetton distinguished three levels of employee participation, which are Centralized, Consultative and Collaborative decisions, allowing for variations around each (Steers et al. 2010). Both of US and China adopt centralized decisions approach to process PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 (see Figure-1 below) the decision making. The definition of Centralized decision is “managers may or may not seek advice or input from subordinates and others, and then make the decision largely unilaterally” (Steers et al. 2010). In US, managers and supervisor who are highly responsible to identify the problem, often ignore subordinators’ opinions or not offer them in the first place. They are also accountable to analyse and resolve it. The assistances often get from senior managers or outside specialists and consultants instead of first-line subordinators. The participation of this process for subordinators is only receiving the decision from managers and then implements it (Steers et al.2010). America has lower power distance culture; decision making is more likely to spread throughout the organisation. High individualism in America also contributes the fact that too many managers make the decision individually in decentralized organisation. Nevertheless, it is argued that decentralized organisation with many decision makers might make a bad outcome from a large number of good decisions. Bad personal chemistry, ineffective leadership, failed group processes, groupthink and the overconfidence of decision makers might come out improper decisions that against organisational objective (Bandias 2012). Meanwhile, China has the same decision process as America but in different representation, since most Chinese firms are either family-based or built under guanxi (relationship) which constrain a single leader’s ability to change the organizational culture and widen the scope of cultural change (Dong &Liu 2010) . Despite being a collectivistic country, the decision-making is led by the hierarchical and centralized power which is affected by the political philosophies of Communism (Steers et al. 2010, Dong &Liu 2010). The problem identification is
recognized by supervisors or owner-managers with rigid management and production control system. The problem discussion and analysis are conducted by owner-managers who obtain assistance from family members or guanxi relationships. Chinese managers exchange information, negotiate with planning authorities and accelerate decision-making processes according to their personal guanxi (Wong et al. 2003). 5.0 COMMUNICATION STYLE Communication is the method to exchange information and convey meaning from one’s words, messages, formalities, body language, status, and so forth (Steers et al. 2010). It is distributed into verbal and non-verbal/visual communication. Communicating styles focus on message context and non-verbal/visual communication which are high/low context. Hall (1981) suggested that by analysing the silent language can reveal concealed culture more effectively. Problem Identification Problem Analysis and Decision Decision Implementation Figure-1 The Process of Decision Making (Steers et al.2010) PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 6 In order to understand communication, Hall suggested that recipients must concentrate on the meaning, context, and the code (the words themselves) all together (Samovar et al. 2012). Individuals should learn how to behave and acquire elements of value and beliefs systems from these three main areas. Hall (1976, p.79) identified a “high-content communication or message as one in which more of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person”; a lowcontext message “is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Kapoor et al 2003). In low-context cultures, US, the verbal communication is direct. Americans communicate straightforwardly with no doubt for recipients. The low-context message has meaning invested in the words themselves, in the “explicit code”. Their non-verbal message provides little information associating with intended message. Thus, communication must aim of speaking precision message for speaks (Steers et al. 2010). This is reflected by its individualism and short-term orientation. They focus on themselves and prefer talking straight to the point which also facilitates their short-term achievement. In high-context culture, China, the verbal communication is indirect for the sake of maintaining Confucian principle- social harmony. Chinese do not reject others directly and prefer telling a reason with high meaningful non-verbal message because they consider others’ face (Steer et al. 2010). Individuals look for social information about others’ background or “context” (Kapoor et al. 2003).The actual words that come from one’s month might not as meaningful as non-verbal message. Thus the recipients should pay attention to read facial expression and body language of speakers. Therefore, when their true feeling are involved, the non-verbal message might expose to recipients camouflage and conceal speakers’ true intentions and not like American showing true feeling in non-verbal message (Kapoor et al 2003) especially in facial expressions. American love to express emotions more openly in their true fleeing. However, collectivistic cultures in China, people prefer concealing emotions and not engage in animated facial expression and often being polite and showing manners to maintain guanxi. Other nationals need to understand them while building the relationship. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 7 6.0 PROTOCOL Table-1 is introduced by a consultation that provides professional cross-cultural trainings in UK. Table lists some of the example that needs to be noticed in crosscultural workplace in terms of business greeting and meeting. Table-1 The Comparison of Business Etiquette and Protocol of US and China (Kwintessential 2012a,b ) The United States China Business Greeting  The hand shake is the common greeting.  Handshakes are firm, brief and confident.  Maintain eye contact during the greeting.  In most situations, you can begin calling people by their first names.  Most people will insist that you call them by their nickname, if they have one.  In formal circumstances, you may want to use titles and surnames as a courtesy until you are invited to move to a first name basis, which will happen quickly.  Business cards are exchanged without formal ritual.  Greetings are formal and the most senior position is always greeted first.  Handshakes are the most common form of greeting with foreigners.  Many Chinese will look towards the ground when greeting someone.  Address the person by an honorific title and their surname. If they want to move to a first-name basis, they will advise you which name to use. Business Meeting  Time and punctuality are extremely important, as late is a sign of disrespect. But Southern and Western states, people may be a little more relaxed, you may have to wait a little.  Meetings may appear relaxed, but they are taken quite seriously.  Agenda is followed if there is one.  If you make a presentation, it should be direct and to the point. Visual aids should further enhance your case.  Use statistics to back up your claims, since Americans are impressed by hard data and evidence.  Use statistics to back up your claims, since Americans are impressed by hard data and evidence.  Expect very little small talk before getting down to business.  The relationship may develop once the first contract has been signed.  You should arrive at meetings on time or slightly early. The Chinese view punctuality as a virtue. Arriving late is an insult and could negatively affect your relationship.  Pay great attention to the agenda as each Chinese participant has his or her own agenda that they will attempt to introduce.  Send an agenda before the meeting so your Chinese colleagues have the chance to meet with any technical experts prior to the meeting. Discuss the agenda with your translator/intermediary prior to submission.  Meetings require patience. Mobile phones ring frequently and conversations tend to be boisterous. Never ask the Chinese to turn off their mobile phones as this causes you both to lose face.  Guests are generally escorted to their seats, which are in descending order of rank Senior people generally sit opposite senior people from the other side.  Presentations should be detailed and factual and focus on long-term benefits. Be prepared for the presentation to be a challenge. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 8 7.0 COMPANY LOYALTY Employee’s loyalty is not only influenced by company’s motivation system, but also one’s national culture. It can be measured by Hofstede’s theory. The dimension of power distance in China (80) is twice as much as that in US (40). The autocratic leadership style causes a combination of loyalty to the team leader and fear of the consequences on non-compliance are led by the the value of harmony and group development in Chinese society (Steers et al. 2010). While, low power distance culture in America, the employee would confront the challenge with authority. They are willing to speak opinions which might create conflict to the company. Furthermore, collectivist values with high degree of cohesiveness in a group to protect them through their lifetimes in exchange for loyalty in China (Bandias 2012). People often identify themselves as part of group, and believe that group will take care of them if they show loyalty and devotion. On the contrary, US as an individualistic society, people tend to take care of themselves and emphasise ones’ own achievement. They enjoy time along and place a high value on selfsufficiency. Therefore, American is not as royal as Chinese in last two point. 8.0 GENDER ROLES To begin with Hofstede’s theory, a higher sense of human equality has always mentioned in US due to low power distance and high individualism in a masculine society. Individuals share information, opinion and challenge authorities that represent a sigh of equality between two genders. However, it is argued that in spite of a decrease gender wage gap over last three decades, gend
ers in similar jobs with similar experience still have different earning and different authority roles (Kolesnikova & Liu 2011, Rudman &Kilianski 2000). Unsurprisingly, the Chinese exhibited the strongest tendency to type work-roles according to gender due to the customs, Communism and government policy. Confucianism created gender preferences in contemporary China- woman is inferior; compromise and softness are not acceptable (Mihalca 2004). Males in China are tend to be assigned to bureaucratic and administrative positions which still holds great sway in the minds of the Chinese. Although the number of female contributing to careers is growing, it will be some time before women hold significant managerial posts (Simeon et al. 2001). To sum up gender roles in these two counties, although there are still some inequality between two genders in America, a study showed that the degree of gender inequality in America is much lower than China (Simeon et al. 2001). 9.0 REWARDS Rewards system is a motivational element and mainly depended on an organizational culture. It should clearly show the balance between effort and performance. According to Expectancy theory, employees’ effort, performance and rewards associate with each other (Bandias 2012). The organization should PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 9 penetrate workforce’s ability and performance; understand their personal objective to provide the opportunity of individual development (Robbins et al. 1994). However, the rewards system is not only related to Expectancy theory, but also associate with other work motivation theory such as Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy. The individuals’ needs vary among the factors of cultural background, genders, education and personal value, etc. and it is changed time by time. Generally, Americans might pursue non-financial rewards like promotion and holiday leaves for the purpose of meeting short-term achievement and spending more time on private life according to short-term oriented and indulgent culture. While, Chinese might pursue financial and non-financial rewards in order to demonstrate their social status according to the principle of mien-tzu. 10.0 WORK DISCIPLINE Lower work discipline in US is reflected in low power distance in individualistic society. Americans are more independent and self-cantered which might cause more work conflicts then Chinese. They do not stress on regulation and work discipline. Confucianism in China, obviously, Chinese significant imply with work discipline and acknowledge the power from hierarchies. People are taught to respect the rules at home, school, company and society since they were young. 11.0 CONCLUSION This report analyse the approaches of business operating in cross-cultural negotiation, making decision and communicating with foreign clients or partners as well as what business protocol should be noted, how employees’ representing their company loyalty and gender roles in US and China. The findings are: Firstly, in cross-cultural negotiation table, American negotiators tend to aim at signed the contract and the win-win attitude is not as strong as China. They talk informally but straightforward to the point. Though they do not like spend much time on long negotiation process, a specific agreement is often bargained first, and then concluding a general contract. A leader represents their group or company to make decisions and they like to take the challenge. Chinese negotiators prefer aiming at building relationship with counterparty. Confucian principle leads to showing good manners with formal communication style of the Chinese. A long-negotiated process will be held to build the relationship. They emphasize a general agreement initially and then discuss specific items after. A leader in the group might take time to converse or discuss to group members to reduce the risk before decide the deal. Secondly, both countries adopt centralized decision approach to make decision. However, Chinese are more likely to obtain the recommendation from family or friends, who have greater quanxi (relationship), while the suggestions are required from senior managers or outside consultants. Thirdly, Americans communicate in low-context approach. Outside of words tend to no hinting more information, due to their directness. When non-verbal message is sent, recipient can effortlessly pick up the true meaning of emotion. On the other hand, China is long-context culture, the words recipient heard might not as PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 10 meaningful as speaker’s body language or facial expression. And they have never rejected others directly. Fourthly, Chinese might have higher company loyalty then American due to the responsibility of maintaining harmony for Chinese. Fifthly, the gender roles in both countries are still not even yet. Two gender work in the same position with similar experience, women earn lower wage and obtain lower authorities than men. Yet, the degree of difference is considerably smaller in US than that in China. Finally, the rewards system varies among organizations in different cultures and Chinese employees are more likely to imply with work discipline then American workers. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 11 REFERENCE LIST Bandias, S 2012, Student Study Pack: PRBM016- Cross-Cultural Management, Charles Darwin University, Darwin. Cellich, C & Jain S.C. 2004, Global Business Negotiations: A Practical Guide, 1st edn, South-Western, Thomson, USA. Dong, K &Liu, Y 2010,’Cross-cultural management in China’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 223-243, via Emerald. Euromonitor International 2010, Top 10 largest economies in 2020, Euromonitor International, viewed 22 August 2012, . Falcao, H 2008, Social Media in Cross-culture negotiations: Avoiding the pitfalls, INSEAD, viewed 12 September 2012, Graham, J.L & Sano, Y 1989, Smart Bargaining-Doing Business with the Japanese, Revised edn, Ballinger Publishing Co. USA. Hall, E. T 1976, Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York. (as cited in Kapoor 2003 et al.) Hall, E.T 1990, The Silent Language, Anchor, New York. (as cited in Steers et al. 2010) Hofstede, G, Hofstede, G J & Minkov, M 2010, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York. Kapoor, S, Hughes, P.C, Baldwin, J.R & Blue, J 2003, ‘The relationship of individualism–collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and US’, International journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 683-700, via Science Direct. Kolesnikova, N.A & Liu, Y 2011, Gender wage gap may be much smaller than most think, The Regional Economist, viewed 07 October 2012, . Kwintessential 2012a, USA- Language, Culture, Customs And Etiquette, Kwintessential, viewed 06 October 2012, . Kwintessential 2012a, China – Language, Culture, Customs And Etiquette, Kwintessential, viewed 06 October 2012, . Lewis, R 1996, When Cultures Collide: Managing successfully across cultures, 2 ndedn, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 12 Martin, D 1997, ‘Contractual aspects of cross-cultural negotiations’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 19-27, via Emerald. Mihalca, Matei 2004, Feminine India, masculine China, Rediff Business, viewed 7 October 2012, Robbins, S, Waters-marsh, T, Cacioppe, R& Millett, B 1994, Organisational behaviour: concepts, controversies and applications: Australia and New Zealand, 1 stedn, Prentic Hall of Australia, Australia. Rudman, L.A & Kilianski, S.E 2000, ‘Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Female Authority’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1315- 1328, via SAGE journals. Salacuse, J.W 1991, Making Global Deals: Negotiating in the International Marketplace, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. (as cited in Cellich& Jain 2004) Salacuse, J.W 1998, ‘Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 221-240, via WILEY Online Library. Samovar, L. A, Porter, R.E & McDaniel, E.R 2012, Intercultural communication : a
reader, 13th edn, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA. Simeon, R, Nicholson, J.D & Wong, Y.Y 2001,’Comparisons of Asian and US workplace gender roles’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 47-59, via Emerald. Steers, R. M, Sanchez-runde, C. J, Nardon, L 2010, Management Across Cultures Challenges and Strategies, 7th printing, Cambridge University, New York. Sun, W.P 2012, PRBM016- Cross Cultural Management: Assignment 1, Charles Darwin University, Darwin. U.S. General Accounting Office 2003, Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings, GAO, Washington D.C, viewed 07 October 2012 < http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf >. Vroom, V & Yetton, P 1973, Leadership and Decision-making, Wiley, New York.(as cited in Steers et al. 2010). Wong, C.S, Tinsley, C, Law, K.S & Mobley, W.H 2003, ‘Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of guanxi’, Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 43-69 via Taiwan National Central Library. PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 13 APPENDIX Appendix -1 Comparison of Five Dimensions of Hofstede’s Model between US and China (Sun 2012) US Grade China PDI Strong equal right Legitimately in decentralization Flatter structure organization Intimate relationship between subordinates and superiors Informal communication 40 80 High loyalty towards leader Uneven income distribution Centralized with strong hierarchies Acknowledge leaders’ power Polarization relationship between subordinates and superiors IDV Highest concern of individual right Independent and self-reliant Effort decides success Have open mind to share opinions 91 20 Collectivist society Group harmony Suppress feeling and emotions for peaceful work environment High trust relations in a group MAS Share value Assertiveness Work hard and expect monetary rewards and promotion 62 66 Women is inferior Women should looking after family members Men should focus on agricultural work and earn income UAI Enjoy challenge from new ideas More creative Flexible regulation Higher tolerant to receive positive and negative information Short-term strategy for decision maker 46 80 Informal business attitude Emphasize quanxi (Relationship) and mutual trust Polite and honest Adaptable Flexible regulation LTO Focus on personal achievement and material possessions Love small and informal talks Pursue objectives and goals Quick decision makers Optimistic and opportunistic Short-term performance is more important than long-term one 29 118 Emphasize mien-tzu (dignity, selfrespect, prestige) Social harmony Well-behaviour Authority belongs to men and seniors Success belongs to oneself and family IND More happy people Less stress in flexible rules Higher involvement of leisure activities 68 24 More unhappy people Higher stress Follow by numerous norms and ethics Lower involvement of leisure activities Power distance (PDI), individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus femininity (MAS), long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO), and indulgence versus restraint (IND) PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 14 Appendix- 2 The Impact of Culture on Negotiation (Salacuse 1991) Appendix- 3 The grades in the Impacts of Culture on Negotiation in US and China (Salacuse 1998) Appendix- 3 The grades in the Impacts of Culture on Negotiation in US and China (Unit: per cent) US China Goal 54 45 Attitudes 71 82 Personal Styles 17 46 Communications 5 18 Time Sensitivity 15 9 Emotionalism 74 73 Agreement Form 22 27 Agreement Building 47 54 Team Organization 63 91 Risk Taking 78 82 Appendix-2 The Impact of Culture on Negotiation Negotiation Factors Range of Cultural Responses Goal Attitudes Personal Styles Communications Time Sensitivity Emotionalism Agreement Form Agreement Building Team Organization Risk Taking Contract Win/Win Formal Indirect Low High Specific Top-Down One Leader High Relationship Win/Lose Informal Direct High Low General Bottom-Up Consensus Low

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!