How Chinese And Western Managers Work Essay

Business leaders in the US may rely more on formal policies and processes, while Chinese business leaders may stress people orientated practices of loyalty and trustworthiness. These ethical concepts are not necessarily incompatible (many may actually overlap), but do highlight the importance of understanding perceptions from each culture.

When decisions are necessary, especially risky ones, Americans do things differently than Chinese people do. Americans like to get involved and, if possible, make the decisions themselves. They are less likely to avoid the situation for fear of embarrassment or uncertainty. If they are uneasy about their authority to make a decision, they are content to defer or delegate. The Chinese are more likely to make decisions in groups where many people participate. This is somethine to consider when doing business with the Chinese because the way we would handle things in America might make them feel slighted or

While in China during my study abroad trip I realized that I gained a new insight on culture and the unique differences in others; overcoming various challenges such as adapting to cultural differences, learning Mandarin, and even eating various traditional delicacies such as chicken feet. However, the cultural differences captivated me – the understanding of power distance and uncertainty avoidance in the Chinese culture allowed me to comprehend the complexity and beauty a different culture can possess. There were many unique sociocultural characteristics, however from an accounting student perspective; the noticeable cultural business differences were fascinating.

     On the other hand, Chinese worker are centered on relationship. Chinese focus on relationship with others and live in the world of trust. Chinese trust people around them in their work place. Often, Chinese did not require signing contract in every agreement unlike American where all agreement must be in contract. By trusting others credibility, it helps create a friendly working environment and promotes intimate relationship among the workers. However, their main weakness is their business culture, where they are quiet and reserved which will reduce their credibility when dealing with American. They weakness also made them a weak immediate decision maker. As for interpersonal problem, Chinese are very concern about the good relationship, and hold it as their top priorities. Chinese would not do any agreement or trade that could harm their relationship with others. Lastly, Chinese are very polite and indirect. They try as hard to prevent the relationship from

Cultural differences between countries have strong effects on individual personality and behavior, as well as on organizational culture (Hofstede 2001). These differences can be a significant barrier for an international business leader. Failure to understand and adapt to these differences may

Chinese workers believe that close personal relationships are imperative to effective communication. American companies don’t share the same views and some organizations have even related this to workplace fraternization, which can result in disciplinary action. Since we don’t believe that these relationships are necessary, or even appropriate, we don’t form them and this could affect a bi-national workplace and possibly even carry over to business dealings outside of the company. The Chinese believe that, when conducting business with other people, a relationship must first be formed to gain the trust of business partners.

Another value that is very important in Chinese culture is trust. Trust lies at the heart of successful long-term intercultural business relationships. Therefore, Oldtown employee must be prepared in gaining the Chinese Manager in China trust to deal with business. In China, the cross-cultural business relationships, trust plays an indispensable role since partners from different cultures don’t always have the same values or assumptions about how business works. When trust is developed, partners can navigate difficult issues over time by fostering a candid exchange of ideas, issues and agendas. Developing trust can significantly reduce what Westerners often complain of in their dealings with Chinese counterparts: unpredictable behavior and a lack of transparency. As a Chinese executive at Google put it, “In China, your success depends on how well a person trusts you.”

Mismanaging cultural differences can render otherwise successful managers and organisations ineffective when working across cultures. As stated byOsland (1990, p. 4) ``The single greatest barrier to business success is the one erected by culture''. Hofstede (1983) defines culture as "the mental programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede 1983 p. 25). Through the comparison of Chinese culture and Australian culture using Hofstedes five cross-cultural dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, individualism, and long-term orientation an insightful view into the differences and similarities of the cultures can be obtained (Chong & Park 2003). Human Resource Management

With the unstoppable trend of globalisation, it becomes extremely significant for international businesses to have a thorough understanding of different cultures. Hofstede (1980, pp. 21-23) defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another’. This essay examines Hofstede’s cultural framework and suggests that Hofstede’s cultural framework is an outstanding and authoritative tool to analyze culture differences. In this essay, cultural frameworks will be discussed firstly, following by a discussion of my cultural scores and background. Finally, recommendations on cross-cultural management between China and Australia will be provided.

Scott, Bishop and Chen (2003) researched how well Chinese employees perform under western management principles and practices. They stated that the traditional Chinese culture might have conflicting influences on the success of programs that involve employees. They examined components that underlie participative management efforts in the U.S., which include the nature of the tasks individuals perform in Guangzhou, China. According to their results, perceived group support and

Both the authors have taken descriptive approach to elaborate in detail their respective areas of cross cultural management. As per article, “Rethinking Cross Cultural Management in a Globalizing Business World” by Soderberg & Holden (2002), due to globalisation and its increasing trend, the organisations and its environment has gone through significant changes. Thus the traditional way of defining the cross cultural management needs amendments. Further the author has elaborated that in this commitment the authors are contending for a split far from the conventional method for considering and portraying diverse administration for two fundamental reasons. To begin with, the winning idea of society as-substance, which in this logical connection is vigorously connected with national societies (and, by augmentation, country states) is distant with the hypothetical improvements of conceptualization of society and character. Moreover a conceptualization of hierarchical and national society’s too characterized and homogeneous substances is out of stage with the new economy, with its accentuation on systems administration, hierarchical learning and information as the fundamental hierarchical asset, which rises above firm, industry, and national limits. Second, the new economy requires not simply new skills and 'worldwide education but also needs to adopt 'the worldwide attitude'. A globalizing business world too needs suitable calculated apparatuses and expository methodologies of advantage to both analysts besides, specialists. Consequently the article “Cross cultural Differences in Management” by Amman & Jordan (2012) has concluded that due to cross cultural environments, the managers can encounter different impact on different areas of management. These impacts can create many limitations and barriers on different areas of business. Therefore, managers of the

The United States and China boast the two largest economies in the world but, despite this fact, these two countries have very little in common. At first glance, this may seem very obvious to most people but, what exactly is it that makes these two countries so different? How is it that such different perspectives and approaches can both lead to great success? Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture are an attempt to answer these questions and more. Dr. Geert Hofstede, studied employees of the computer firm IBM in over fifty different countries. When he examined his findings he found “clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions” (Manktelow, Jackson Edwards, Eyre, Cook and Khan, n.d.). The fact that he focused his research on solely IBM employees allowed him to eliminate company culture as a differentiating factor and “attribute those patterns to national and social differences” (n.d.). He used his findings to originally identify four dimensions, later expanded to six, that could “distinguish one culture from another” (n.d.). The six dimensions all on a scale from 0 to 100 are:

Whenever a company is entering a new market it has to take into consideration the cultural differences between countries. Based on the case study analysis, the difference between the two countries in terms of eating out habits and eating preferences seem not to be understood by the Denver headquarter. Denver headquarter believes that it can enforce the same business model applied in the U.S to its stores in China, regardless of local preference. In addition, Foster seems to lack knowledge about the Chinese culture because she was not familiar with the market in China, as she had no experience working internationally. There was a lack of cross-cultural communication between Chen and Foster; even though, Chen had experienced both cultures while studying abroad in the U.S.

This paper is a report on cross-cultural management, with the issues related to cross-cultural management being discussed in the paper. Additionally, the report has produced the future way of cross-cultural management, including how it can be improved in offices relying much on this strategic approach.

Answer: At present, HRM is frequently underestimated in a large portion of Chinese undertakings. They frequently see HRM pretty much as a method for enrollment, yet this is a misconception. The thought ought to be to consider HRM to be a key driving and main thrust to both later and future advancement. That is on account of HRM will rouse organizations to