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

1.0 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 Hofstedes five dimensions of national culture and various academic theories
to identify their national management style.
To recall the Hofstedes 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 Chinas 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
1

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

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
Salacuses (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 than 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

3.4 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 Hofstedes 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

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
groups responsibility for each individual. Generally, Chinese workers are proud of
their teams 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
4

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

(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).
Figure-1 The Process of Decision Making (Steers et al.2010)

Problem
Identification

Problem
Analysis and
Decision

Decision
Implementation

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 leaders 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
ones 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.
5

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

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 ones 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

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.

Business Meeting

Business Greeting

Table-1 The Comparison of Business Etiquette and Protocol of US and China

(Kwintessential 2012a,b )
The United States

China

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.
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.

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.

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

7.0 COMPANY LOYALTY

Employees loyalty is not only influenced by companys motivation system, but also
ones national culture. It can be measured by Hofstedes 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 Hofstedes 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, genders 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
8

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

penetrate workforces 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 Maslows 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
9

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

meaningful as speakers 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.

10

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

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, <http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/07/specialreport-top-10-largest-economies-in-2020.html>.
Falcao, H 2008, Social Media in Cross-culture negotiations: Avoiding the pitfalls,
INSEAD, viewed 12 September 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GjC0ipJIA&feature=player_embedded>
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
individualismcollectivism 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,
<http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/pub_assets/pdf/re/2011/d/gender_wage_gap.
pdf>.
Kwintessential 2012a, USA- Language, Culture, Customs And Etiquette,
Kwintessential, viewed 06 October 2012,
<http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/usa.html>.
Kwintessential 2012a, China - Language, Culture, Customs And Etiquette,
Kwintessential, viewed 06 October 2012,
<http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/china-countryprofile.html>.
Lewis, R 1996, When Cultures Collide: Managing successfully across cultures,
2ndedn, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
11

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

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, <http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/jan/12guest3.htm>
Robbins, S, Waters-marsh, T, Cacioppe, R& Millett, B 1994, Organisational
behaviour: concepts, controversies and applications: Australia and New Zealand,
1stedn, 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. 13151328, 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.

12

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX
Appendix -1 Comparison of Five Dimensions of Hofstedes Model
between US and China (Sun 2012)

PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

LTO

IND

US
Strong equal right
Legitimately in decentralization
Flatter structure organization
Intimate relationship between
subordinates and superiors
Informal communication
Highest concern of individual right
Independent and self-reliant
Effort decides success
Have open mind to share opinions
Share value
Assertiveness
Work hard and expect monetary
rewards and promotion
Enjoy challenge from new ideas
More creative
Flexible regulation
Higher tolerant to receive positive
and negative information
Short-term strategy for decision
maker
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
More happy people
Less stress in flexible rules
Higher involvement of leisure
activities

Grade

40

80

91

20

62

66

46

80

29

68

118

24

China
High loyalty towards leader
Uneven income distribution
Centralized with strong hierarchies
Acknowledge leaders power
Polarization relationship between
subordinates and superiors
Collectivist society
Group harmony
Suppress feeling and emotions for
peaceful work environment
High trust relations in a group
Women is inferior
Women should looking after family
members
Men should focus on agricultural work
and earn income
Informal business attitude
Emphasize quanxi (Relationship) and
mutual trust
Polite and honest
Adaptable
Flexible regulation
Emphasize mien-tzu (dignity, selfrespect, prestige)
Social harmony
Well-behaviour
Authority belongs to men and seniors
Success belongs to oneself and
family
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)

13

PRBM016-CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

Appendix- 2
The Impact of Culture on Negotiation (Salacuse 1991)
Appendix-2
The Impact of Culture on Negotiation
Negotiation Factors

Range of Cultural Responses

Goal

Contract

Relationship

Attitudes

Win/Win

Win/Lose

Personal Styles

Formal

Informal

Communications

Indirect

Direct

Time Sensitivity

Low

High

Emotionalism

High

Low

Agreement Form

Specific

General

Agreement Building

Top-Down

Bottom-Up

Team Organization

One Leader

Consensus

Risk Taking

High

Low

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
US

China

Goal

54

45

Attitudes

71

82

Personal Styles

17

46

Communications

18

Time Sensitivity

15

Emotionalism

74

73

Agreement Form

22

27

Agreement Building

47

54

Team Organization

63

91

Risk Taking

78

82

(Unit: per cent)

14