Cultural differences refer to the differences among people in terms of their beliefs, values, convictions, behaviors, definitions of right and wrong, ethics etc. Such differences can make the same action or activity to be considered as good in one society while offending and selfish in another society (Price, 2013). Culture is something, which can be seen as a consequence of civilization of people, mythical stories, folk tales and continuous history. And cultural differences arise between countries as different countries share different histories, evolution and mythical stories (Verbeke, 2010). It is very important to study and understand these differences because of its wide applications in different aspects of life and growing popularity. Business corporates need to understand cultural differences to formulate their strategy in different countries. Historical studies make references of cultural differences to validate and research on history (Vianelli, 2013). Marketing activities need to understand cultural differences so as to make advertising more appealing in different countries without hurting any community. Cultural differences are also important area of research for Phycologists. Such differences have wide application in political, economic areas of any country (Abdullah, 2009). They are used to establish peach also. The objective of this report is to discuss the cultural differences between China and USA.

It is also very important to know the strengths and weaknesses of each culture, their diversity and how they can be leveraged in the betterment of the society as a whole. Also, some cultures converge in some of the areas raising a question if the cultures share same history.  In course of this report, cultural differences the top 2 economies of the world i.e. between China and US will be compared (Meissner, 2012). Hofstede’s develops a very powerful model to study and understand cultural differences. Initially, this model has 4 dimensions to study the cultural differences but it has been refined over a period of time and now it has 6 dimensions. This model is accepted worldwide. China and USA countries will be compared based on the 6 dimensions suggested by Hofstede.

Power distance Index

Power distance refers to the degree to which people accepts the unequal power distribution in the society. This index actually suggests society’s level of inequality, which is endorsed and accepted by both followers as well as leaders. Power distance in China is very high i.e. 80 as compared to 40 in US. World’s average of this power index is 55.

High power index for China simply means that high level of inequality is accepted by society in China. It means that people are influenced by the formal authority and nothing much can be done in case of power abuse by those having higher powers. It can also imply a hierarchical structure. People also liked to be led by the leaders (Bos, Brockner, Oudenalder, Kamble, & Nasabi, 2013). This is quite high as compared to power index of US, which is very low. Low power index in US means that there is higher degree of equality among people in government, business organizations and families. This means the structure is flat and there are not many rules and regulations prepared separately for different sections of society.

This refers to the degree of interdependence among people in a society. In individualistic societies, people generally think of themselves above the group and are not concerned much about society. In collectivist societies, people cooperate with each other in-group, socialize together and share strong bond between them (Razak, 2016). China has very low score of 20 compared to US, which has very high score of 91. This means that people in US are much more professional and task oriented while in China, people are relationship oriented. Also, people in china have huge social circle because of collectivism and prefers to celebrate festivals with their families and friends while in People in US have very limited social circles and prefer to celebrate with their direct families. People in US keep their professional and personnel life separate while this is not the case in China. An ALs, US person stress more on privacy and individual achievements and does not care much about reputation and their image in society (Beck, 2014). On the other hand, people in china are too much concerned about their image in the society and take reputation very seriously.

Masculinity

Masculine attributes are strength, achievements, success, competitions, assertiveness and Feminine attributes are relationship oriented, quality of life, caring, showing concern for others. Masculine societies prefer to manage the conflicts through war and force while feminine societies prefer negotiations.  Societies having higher masculine score generally have higher masculine attributes and there is not much overlapping between the males and females section of society. There are roles and responsibilities clearly defined for males and females. On the other hand, Feminine societies have higher level of overlapping between males and females.

This index is high for both China and US. That means people in China and US identified themselves with the words like Success, competition. This score is higher for China as compared to US which also implies that Chinese works more to earn more and achieve success and sacrifice their leisure to spend time at work. Masculine dominated societies also have strong feelings of egos and competition and concerned about their career.

It refers to the degree to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and try to control the uncertainty by controlling it. The score of China for uncertainty avoidance index is very low as compared to US. This means that china societies have less sense of urgency and comfortable in dealing with unknown. Chinese are open to embrace change and inclined towards open-ended decision-making. Also, Titles are not given much importance and showing off should be avoidable. US have higher score and they try to control life. Societies with higher score uncertainty avoidance tend to be more stressful as people tends to control everything no matter it is in their control or not. In US, people tend to be more logical, scientific and reasonable in accepting the various ideas while in china it is not the case. People in US will not believe in historical truths, spirituality unless they see the logic in that. They are more scientific in their approach and always look for a reason (Talhel,, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan, & Kityama, 2014). Such societies are more innovative because they question the status quo. People in China are more traditional and conservative in believing the folk tales and trust their ancestors.

Long-term orientation

It refers to degree to which society maintain and uphold its traditions in past in dealing with the future situations. This score is very high in china and very low in US. Societies having high long-term orientation score tend to be more pragmatic and believe that truth depends on time and circumstances. People are modest; ask questions and more willing to compromise. They avoid self-obsession. US have very low score on long term orientation which means that people take themselves very seriously and always ready to oversell themselves which means they are self obsessed.  Also, People are not much willing to compromise, as compromise is perceived as an attribute of weak. In US, people are more concerned with quick profits and short term gains as compared to long term gains while in China, there is culture of saving quite popular as people tends to think about long term.

Indulgences refer to the degree to which people try to control whims and desires and instant gratification. US have a very high score of indulgence while China score low on this parameter. This means that people in US have less control over their whims and desires while people in China have more control over their desires and does not believe much in instant gratification (Heslop, 2014). This is the reason people in US tend to enjoy leisure more, went to travel around world more, enjoy their food and drinks in pubs and does not save much money for future. It can also be said that US people not able to save because of weak controls and their inability to control themselves. People in china do not give much importance to leisure time and control their desires and gratification (Bishop, Hoang, Bone, & Steinberg, 2016). Chinese have the ability to save money for future and thus does not spend much in leisure and enjoyment activities.

Apart from parameters defined by Hofstede’s model, there are other cultural differences also. Let’s look at few:

Empathy

People in China are very empathetic towards the needs of others. People will put themselves in shoes of each other to understand the situation from other’s point of view. They treat other people well and also like to be treated well (Valencia, 2011). However, culture in US is not very empathetic towards the needs of others. This can also be explained by Individualism Vs collectivism parameter of Hofstede model. In china, People prefer to be a part of group (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). In US, People look for high IQ (intelligence quotient) while in China people prefer to have high EQ (Emotional intelligence).

Time sensitivity

People in US are very professional and committed to their deadlines much more than Chinese. Chinese have little laid back attitude in this respect. If someone joins the meeting late by 10, 15 minutes, it is perfectly acceptable in China unlike US (Ahadi, Rothbart, & Ye, 1993).

People stay with their elders in China while it is not the case in US. From the early age, everyone prefers independence and people generally don’t stay with their parents after 18-19 years of age (Frost, 2011). There are many traditions in China where people respect their ancestors, visit the grave of dead people once a year and pay their honor.

Desire to showoff and consumerism: In chine, People are not ostentatious as compared to the people in US. That is why; Consumerism is very high in US as people have the nature to buy the things to show off even when they don’t need it (Rallapalli, & Montgomery, 2015). Also, buying by taking loans is more common in US as compared to Chinese society. In chine, there is a culture of saving and people buy once they save enough is more common. In US, people easily take loans because of their inability to control their whims and desires and also show off. This can also be explained by the parameter of Indulgence of Hofstede’s model.

Brand trust

Organizations in China have faced lot of quality issues in the past and hence lose their credibility. Though, Chinese products are cheap but there is often substandard, cheap raw material copied and influenced by something expensive. Chinese have copied all the expensive US brands and selling them at very cheap price in local markets. Chinese tends to imitate (Rallapalli, & Montgomery, 2015). In US, Innovation is more and also quality is also really very high.

Health Conscious

People is US are not very health conscious and eats lot of processed foods. Obesity and Diabetes is very common in US. In China, People don’t prefer to eat processed foods. Instead they cook fresh food every time. They are more health conscious and believe in living balanced life.

Divorce rates

Divorce is much more popular in US culture as compared to China. In US, people don’t hesitate to take divorce if there is any trouble since people don’t care much about their reputation and image in the society. However, in china, divorce rate is very low (Meisel, Ning, Campbell, & Goodie, 2016). People generally avoid their decisions to take divorce in small matters. They take divorce unless it is absolutely necessary. People who are divorced are looked down in the society and Chinese people are very much conscious about their reputation and image in the society.

In china, political and social structure is hierarchical and formal and people generally socialized with the people in their structures while in US, it is not uncommon to see people socializing with anyone as there are not many rules and structure is more loose and informal. In China, even on business organizations, families and corporations, there is strict hierarchical structure. Parents make decision for their children on their behalf however in US, the structure is more kind of flat and there is greater comfort level between parents and children, management and employees. All the decisions involve discussion. In US, parents do make decisions for their children. In fact, rules are very strict in US, children can complain to police also if parents are trying to force their decisions on children (Su, Li, Lin, Xu, & Zhu, 2013). In organizations, also management involves employees in discussion before taking decisions.

Conflict Management

In US, People manage conflict by confronting each other face to face. Debates and arguments are very much possible. However, this is not the case in China. In China, lot of things like power, position, and respect goes along with the conflict management. People tend to avoid conflicts with those who have higher power and position no matter what the truth is.

Business relations

In US, business meetings tend to focus more on agenda and business problem rather than socializing. In China, people socialize with each other, spends time with each other even in business relations. In US, while hiring, merit and skills are given much more importance. In china, referrals and contacts are also required to get a job along with a good feedback from previous employers (Bedford, 2016).

Morals

Chinese are high on morals be it religious or ethical. There are not rules but inherent in society due to reputation that dating is not much encouraged at young age. In American culture, there is complete freedom about dating, marriages and divorces. People generally don’t care about society while taking decisions.

Based on the above discussion it can be said that both USA and China have different cultures. USA is a developed nations and China would have a lot of benchmarking to done against the cultural factors or cultural attributes of USA that make it an advanced nation. The global markets and international trade has emerge as a platform where the cultural gaps could be minimized. It is expected that the culture of these two countries would see some convergence as the global market continues to expand and international trade continue to increase.

Alon, I., Jaffe, E., & Vianelli, D. (2013). Global marketing: contemporary theory, practice, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, c2013. xxi, 602 pages: illustrations, maps; 26 cm.

Ali, H., Azimah Chew Abdullah, N., & Subramaniam, C. (2009). Management practice in safety culture and its influence on workplace injury: An industrial study in Malaysia. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 18(5), 470-477. Retrieved form: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09653560911003660

Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children’s temperament in the US and China: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality, 7(5), 359-378.

Bedford, O. (2016). Crossing Boundaries An Exploration of Business Socializing (Ying Chou for Guanxi) in a Chinese Society. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 290-306.

Bishop, H., Hoang, D. T., Boone, C., & Steinberg, D. H. (2016, January). CUSTOMER SERVICE & HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS IN CHINA & THE USA AMONG ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS. In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Management Information and Decision Sciences. Proceedings (Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 2). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.

https://www.geert-hofstede.com/

Meisel, M. K., Ning, H., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2016). Narcissism, Overconfidence, and Risk Taking in US and Chinese Student Samples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(3), 385-400.

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.

Meissner, H. G. (2012). Strategic international marketing. Springer Science & Business Media.

Martin, J., & Frost, P. (2011). The organizational culture war games. Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships, 315.

Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55-72.

Ochieng, E. G., Price, A. D. F., Ruan, X., Egbu, C. O., & Moore, D. (2013). The effect of cross-cultural uncertainty and complexity within multicultural construction teams. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,20(3), 307-324.

Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. A. (2014). Product-country images: Impact and role in international marketing. Routledge.

Rallapalli, K. C., & Montgomery, C. D. (2015). Marketing Strategies For Asian-Americans: Guidelines Based on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. In Minority Marketing: Research Perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 73-77). Springer International Publishing.

Samaha, S. A., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). The role of culture in international relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 78-98.

Shafaei, A., & Razak, N. A. (2016). International Postgraduate Students’ Cross-Cultural Adaptation in Malaysia: Antecedents and Outcomes.Research in Higher Education, 1-29.

Su, S., Li, X., Lin, D., Xu, X., & Zhu, M. (2013). Psychological adjustment among left‐behind children in rural China: the role of parental migration and parent–child communication. Child: care, health and development, 39(2), 162-170.

Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014). Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344(6184), 603-608.

Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies,41(8), 1259-1274.

Van den Bos, K., Brockner, J., van den Oudenalder, M., Kamble, S. V., & Nasabi, A. (2013). Delineating a method to study cross-cultural differences with experimental control: The voice effect and countercultural contexts regarding power distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 624-634.