Comparative Analysis of the United States and Chinese Cultures - Case Study Example

Cross-Cultural management: Comparative Analysis of United s and Chinese Cultures Introduction Globalization has led to increased interaction between people from different cultures especially because many organizations that were operating on a domestic scale have sought to increase their presence into foreign territories. Operating in a foreign country requires the understanding of host nations’ culture for the business organizations to develop policies that align to the expectations of the society. Failure to adapt to the host nation’s culture has a detrimental effect on the success of the business, as the targeted market might not relate to the concept introduced by the new business. This essay studies the function and importance of cross-cultural management for business operating in international environment by focusing on the cultural differences and similarities of the United States and China. The essay presents a brief literature review on how researchers perceive culture, the function of culture and strategies that have been used to study and practice cross-cultural management. This is then followed by comparison of similarities and differences between in the cultures of the United States and China with the changes that have taken place over the two or three decades also being discussed. Lastly, the essay presents a simulated business environment based on the activities of Starmart, a United States business enterprise that has recently entered the Chinese market. 2. Literature Review a. Culture Although researchers have not agreed on a single definition of what cultures is there is a collective perception that culture encompasses a number of social characteristics that belief knowledge, law, art, morals, custom in addition to other characteristics acquired and practiced by an individual as a member of a particular society (Froese, Peltokorpi and Ko 2012). Based on the iceberg model of culture, these characteristics and capabilities are both implicit (norms, values and mental states and cognitive processes) and explicit (language, institutions, knowledge). Culture is also a product of long-term practice as the shared understandings, values, assumptions and goals are passed on from earlier generations, maintained by current members and transmitted to subsequent generations. Individuals draw their cultural outlook from the social environment, which makes it different from human nature that is inherited and universal for everyone regardless of social background. Culture plays a significant role in the conscious and unconscious efforts by members of a social group to establish mechanisms of satisfying their physical and social needs on individual capacity or as a group and in this case as a nation (Gullestrup 2001; Kawar 2012.). Therefore, culture functions as glue that holds the society together it allows them to identify common areas of interest. This study adopts Hofstede’s Four-Dimension Theory of Intercultural Communication as a theoretical framework to be used to study culture. Hofstede’s theory is based on his perception of culture as “collective programming of the mind” and therefore can be universally attributed to a given group of people or country (Jameson 2007, p. 203). The four dimensions of intercultural communication based on Hofstede’s findings are discussed below. Large versus small power distance dimension Power distance in cultural studies based on Hofstede’s model relate to a particular society’s perception of inequalities generated by difference in possession of wealth and power within the society. This dimension focuses on how the less powerful in society accept existing inequality as normal and desirable and argues that some societies act to reduce inequalities while others will maintain the inequalities as an aspect of their social reality. Therefore, every society has inequality, but the extent to which it is allowed to develop differs from from society to another (Ming-xiang 2012; Froese, Peltokorpi, and Ko 2012). Individualism versus collectivism Individualism and collectivism in Hofstede’s dimensions refers to perceptions on how individuals relate to those around them and the kind of relationships that are formed. Hofstede perceived this dimension as being related to wealth and geographical locations with people living in countries located far from the equator having individualistic characteristics. Cultures that promote individualism are perceived as those where seek to promote self-interests, which can be seen in their concern with how to look after themselves and their members of their immediate families. Individualist society will seek to increase individual freedom while members will have loose ties. This is opposite for those living in a collective society as collectivism advocates for close ties. Members of a collective society favour membership to in-groups such as cult, villages, tribes and extended families, which motivates them to look after the rests of others. Individuals who show loyalty to the group are also rewarded by social protection that ensures cover for social, economic, physical and other afflictions (Ming-xiang 2012). Masculinity versus femininity dimension This dimension focuses on socially directed roles for male and female members. The dimension does not address biological aspects of these differences but addresses them in terms of how society is set up to believe about how male or female members should approach and adopt different social values. For masculine societies, it is expected that they will be attracted by values that promote success, competition, money, and performance seen in more dominant, competitive, rational and assertive roles characterized by male members. Feminine societies view relationships as a core element for success with people demonstrating their apprehension for quality of life. Such societies develop mechanism to support members perceived as weak based on their chances of accessing recourses existing in society. Further, feminist societies do not prescribe strict roles for male and female members as they are permitted to share existing social roles (Ming-xiang 2012; Froese, Peltokorpi, and Ko 2012). Strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance dimension Uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s theory relates to the extent to which individuals are willing to embrace or feel threatened by unpredictable situations. Some societies will develop social security measures to guard against situations they perceive as being unpredictable (Ming-xiang 2012; Froese, Peltokorpi, and Ko 2012). b. Cross-cultural Management There exist cross-cultural management study and practice frameworks; one of the strategies developed to tackle intercultural communication is Varner’s model. This strategy seeks to include context as an important aspect to consider when making an analysis of how individuals are likely to be behave under different circumstances (Lauring 2011). According to Jameson (2007), cross-cultural management can also be studied and practiced in terms of ethnography, which is based on a communicator’s study and analysis of components of a different culture. This strategy explores a number of variables including existing social organizations, authority, conceptions of time, technology, contesting and nonverbal behaviour. These variables are perceived as important indicator of how to adapt to particular cultures (Spencer-Oatey 2002). Imahori and Lanigan (1989) studied cross-cultural management in terms of generating competencies when interacting with natives of a given culture. Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) note the importance of adjusting communication to ensure the non-native individual can adapt to the new culture. The relational model of cross-cultural communication is based on the belief that during the interaction process, “a highly competent sojourner not only adapts his/her behaviour to the host-nationals but also helps the host-nationals to adjust their behaviours” Imahori and Lanigan (1989, p. 274). 3. Case studies Comparison of power distance index (PDI) between the United States and China indicates a greater difference between the two countries. Hofstede’s index locates China’s power difference at a score of 80 while the United States is at an index of 40. China’s high PDI ranking indicates society in the country considered inequality among members as an acceptable trend. Additionally, the relationship between subordinates and their seniors is polarized in addition to lack of defence between when superiors abuse their powers. The Chinese society is also characterized by existence of members who are increasingly being influenced by existing formal authority, as there is general optimism about people’s capability to lead and take initiative. There is also a tendency for people in Chinese society to conform to their social ranks, as high level of aspiration to achieve what is beyond one’s rank is not encouraged. The society in United States has a different perception of power distance as senior members of society have a closer connection with their juniors while subordinates are increasingly adopting strategies that will position them to take advantage of opportunity to gain higher ranks (Hofstede 2001). For individualism versus collective, Chinese society is characterized by increased embrace of in-groups, which makes a collective society. The Chinese index for this dimension is 40, which means it is a collective society with members acting in the interest of others in the group and not necessarily for personal gain. The individualism index (91) positions the United States as the highest-ranking country with individualistic culture factors such as concepts of personal liberties and justice for all experienced the United States works to support the individualistic tendencies in the country (Hofstede 2001). Masculinity versus femininity index also indicates the two countries as being on relatively similar level when this dimension is compared for both countries. The masculinity index in China indicates a score of 66, which means the society is success oriented and driven. This index means members of the Chinese society are more likely to sacrifice family responsibilities such as leisure activities in order to prioritize their workplace engagement. While the masculinity index puts China at a high of 66, the united states diverts slightly with a masculinity score of 62 (Hofstede 2001). Although both the united states and China have a high score in their masculinity index, society in the united states combines this with high individuality score to mean people express their masculinity at a personal level not as a social group. In dealing with the fact that the future can be unknown in uncertainty avoidance dimension, the Chinese society has a low score of 30 with the score indicating the Chinese might be comfortable with situations that exhibit ambiguity. The low score on uncertainty avoidance contributes to high adaptability and entrepreneurial culture in the Chinese society, as people are not afraid of taking risks to explore new areas of interest. Therefore, Chinese culture positions members not to fear ambiguity. The uncertainty avoidance score for the United States is also below average at 46 (Hofstede 2001). However, being almost at the average mark, American society’s reaction to uncertainty is influenced more by the context than what their culture would determine. Therefore, this uncertainty score means Americans have an average submission to new ideas, always positive in trying out something new, different or creative products. This submission relates to business practices, technology, and food among others. Most Americans tend to tolerate new ideas and opinions from people; they believe in freedom of expression. With their low scoring traditions and cultures, they are not pleased with many rules and various societies consider them poor in expressing emotions. Security issues such as the 9/11 terror attack has resulted in some level of social change in the united. The United States government has increasingly sought to intensify the county’s security resulting in rigorous security measures being taken to screen both citizens and non-citizens in the country. Since the government monitors everyone through government agencies such as NSA, FBI and CIA, the American people are more precautious and fearful (Hofstede 2001). This is among the changes that have had a far-reaching consequence in the manner in which people interact with strangers and those perceived as having questionable conduct. The Chinese society has also had several changes in the past decades with the country opening its economic potential to embrace global economy. Some businesses that were previously considered as local or domestic enterprises have taken this opportunity to expand their operations in order to tap into foreign markets leading economic expansion and rural-urban migration. Therefore, the Chinese society has has continued to experienced low levels of collectivism as people move from their original in-groups in order to look for personal gains. In this respect, individualism score will tend to increase going forward as people begin to live in estates where there are no ties with the next-door neighbour (Hofstede 2001). Scenario for managing mixed group of employees from the United States and Chinese culture Starmart Retailers, headquarter in California, USA has recently opened a number of stores in China to capitalize on the new market. Part of the strategy in Chinese for Starmart is to employ both American and Chinese workers as the organization seeks to gain from the Chinese worker’s knowledge of their business environment. The business organization wants to avoid the adoption of self-reference criterion when interacting with the Chinese employees as relating to them in terms of American culture would result in a breakdown in communication. This strategy will help Starmart break into the Chinese market, as employees of Chinese background will enable the organization gain the new perspective of the market while American workers will ensure consistency in the operations of the business organization especially since the organization wants its customers in China to experience similar services as those in the American market. As noted by Bargiela-Chiappini et al (2003) dealing with multicultural group provides an opportunity for integration through by” introducing both perspectives and incorporating them into a sound theoretical framework” (88). However, since the United States and China have aspects of national culture that varies from one country to the other, the management wants to identify areas that need to be addressed in order to avoid negative outcomes due to culture clash between employees from, the two countries. The management needs to know the best approach to adopt under these circumstances to ensure employees from both the American cultural background and those from Chinese cultural background collaborate in meeting organizational objectives. From the analysis of the two cultures, areas that can lead to increased conflict when employees from Chinese culture interact with those from the American culture are individualism and perception of power distance. These two are the areas with greater margin in the noted scores; therefore represent aspect of national culture that requires the organization to device effective measures to ease potential tensions. The differences in power distance will have a far-reaching implication in how the organization deals with conflict. While having only United States as citizens implied the employees and the management established a closer link, which supported communication during times of conflict, having employees from the Chinese culture means the organization should change its strategy of handling conflicts. Employees of Starmart Retailers from the Chinese culture might not be willing to approach the management to express issues that arise in the course of organizational operations (Hua, Wei and Yuan 2000). Further, delegation of duties is also affected as workers favouring collectivism and individualism will not have the same approach to the tasks particularly when working groups (Kawar 2012). However, they might feel free communicating their dissatisfaction to employees holding similar ranks as them. The management should therefore encourage employees from the American culture to be keen in such circumstances for purpose of improving organizational performance. Failure to address such issues when they arise might lead to low productivity, as disgruntled employees will exercise retaliation through passive resistance instead of presenting their reservation to the management. Individualism versus collectivism is another area that the management must deal with the new working environment. Operating in the Chinese market presents the best opportunity for the management to enhance the level of loyalty and commitment to the organization. Having a team that comprises employees from both the American and Chinese culture means the organization can find it easy to influence workers’ commitment to meet organizational objectives instead of seeking to meet personal interests (Hua, Wei and Yuan 2000). 4. Conclusion Cross-cultural management is an aspect of organizational operations that managers cannot afford to ignore. The current business environment calls for managers to introduce policies that would lead to taking full advantage of the potentials that multicultural employees have. Taking full advantage of the potential requires managers to respond to the needs that each employee might have in order for them to perform at their optimum level. References Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L., 2005. Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137-163. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Bulow-Moller, A. M., Nickerson, C., Poncini, G., & Zhu, Y., 2003. Five Perspectives on Intercultural Business Communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(3), 73-96. Froese, F. J., Peltokorpi, V., & Ko, K. A., 2012. The influence of intercultural communication on cross-cultural adjustment and work attitudes: foreign workers in South Korea. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 331-342. Gullestrup, H., 2001. The complexity of intercultural communication in cross-cultural management. Aalborg East Denmark: Aalborg University. Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Hua, Z., Wei, L., & Yuan, Q., 2000. The sequential organisation of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of pragmatics, 32(1), 81-103. Imahori, T. T., & Lanigan, M. L., 1989. Relational model of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 269-286. Jameson, D. A., 2007. Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 199-235. Kawar, T. I., 2012. Cross-cultural Differences in Management. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6),105-111. Lauring, J., 2011. Intercultural organizational communication: The social organizing of interaction in international encounters. Journal of Business Communication, 48(3) 231-255. Ming-xiang, L., 2012. Comparison of the Studies on Intercultural Communication. US-China Foreign Language, 10(5), 1207-1213. Spencer-Oatey, H., 2012. What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf Read More