Cross-Cultural Comparison of Business Values Found in the United

States vs. China

Tim Breyfogle and Danielle Sanlaeid
The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
Abstract
Purpose - The aim of this article is to compare and contrast the values found in business
cultures in the United States compared to China. This article investigates motivating
forces, reward structures, employee relations, and other areas of management in which
behaviors and outcomes are indicators of underlying values and can be used to highlight
cultural similarities and differences.
Design/Approach - This article uses the Hofstede model, Rokeach Value Survey, and the
Musser and Orke Matrix to draw conclusions from existing scholarly articles.
Findings The Rokeach value survey and Hofstedes model are two of the most widely
used tools for constructing a profile of a respondents values. These profiles can be used
as a basis for comparison not only between different individuals, but also as a means of
highlighting differences and similarities of cultures. By applying both the Rokeach value
survey and the Hofstede model, one can find ways to assist expatriate managers and
expanding multinational companies by identifying cultural values in an attempt to
mitigate any potential negative effects stemming from cultural differences.
Originality/value This article analyzes the different qualities considered admirable in
the United States and China by analyzing various scholarly articles already published.
Keywords Hofstede Model, China, USA, Communism, Rokeach Value Survey,
Expatriates, Musser and Orke. United States, America, Cultural Values

Introduction
With its economy steadily growing at nearly 10% a year, China is one of
the fastest growing economies in the world and many multinational companies are
looking to reach Chinas 1.2 billion people with goods and services by expanding
operations into the country (Stephen, 331). One challenge facing expatriate
managers and multinational companies is ensuring that local customs and values
are adhered to and expatriates are assigned to countries and regions where they
will be successful. Much research has been done on the differing values held
within different countries when it comes to business. This research has helped
develop surveys and models to help study and analyze cross-cultural differences
and similarities. The Rokeach Value Survey and Hofstedes Model are two of the
more widely used models today.
Rokeach (1973) defined a value as an enduring belief that a specific mode
of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an
opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. To measure an
individuals value system, the Rokeach Value survey utilizes two lists, both
arranged alphabetically with short definitions included. One consists of 18
terminal values, or beliefs that deal with the desired end state of existence; the
other consists of 18 instrumental values, or beliefs that outline a desirable mode
of conduct (Venkat, 2001). Respondents rank each set of values by arranging
them in order of importance as guiding values in their life. Patterns have been
observed in the underlying value systems of different leadership styles (Lehr,
1987).
The terminal values listed in the Rokeach Value Survey (1973) are as follows:
A comfortable life (a prosperous life), Equality (brotherhood
and equal opportunity for all), an Exciting Life (a stimulating, active
life), Family Security (taking care of loved ones), Freedom

(independence of free choice), Health (physical and mental wellbeing), Inner harmony (freedom from inner conflict), Mature love
(sexual and spiritual intimacy), National Security (protection from
attack), Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life), Salvation (saved;
eternal life), Self respect (self esteem), Sense of Accomplishments (a
lasting contribution), Social recognition (respect and admiration),
True Friendship (close companionship), Wisdom (a mature
understanding of life), a World at peace (a world free from conflict),
and a world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts).
The instrumental values in Rokeach (1973) are as follows:
Ambitious (hardworking and aspiring), Broad-minded (openminded), Capable (competent; effective), Clean (neat and tidy),
Courageous (standing up for your beliefs), Forgiving (willing to
pardon others), Helpful (working for the welfare of others), Honest
(sincere and truthful), Imaginative (dating and creative), Logical
(consistent; rational), Intellectual (intelligent and reflective),
Independent (self-reliant; self-sufficient), Loving (affectionate and
tender), Loyal (faithful to friends or the group), Obedient (dutiful;
respectful), Polite (courteous and well-mannered), Responsible
(dependable and reliable), Self-controlled (restrained; selfdisciplined).
Hofstedes work became widely known after he published of his Cultures
Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Hofstede,
1980). Slowly, Hofstedes model evolved to include a more comprehensive set of
cross-cultural data. This is significant; with the dimensions set up across nations as
opposed to across individuals or companies, comparisons that had previously been
explained away as simply cultural differences could now be analyzed much

more closely (Minkov, Hofstede, 2011). Hofstedes dimensions were all

constructed in such a way that they addressed basic problems and values that
affect all societies. In Hofstede (1991, pp. 13-14), they were formulated as
follows:

Power distance. Social inequality, including the relationship with

authority.

Individualism-collectivism. The relationship between the individual

and the group.

Masculinity-femininity. The social implications of having been born

as a boy or a girl. (Later editions of the book replaced the word
social by emotional).

Uncertainty avoidance. Ways of dealing with uncertainty, relating to

the control of aggression and the expression of emotions. (Later
editions of the book refer to the extent to which the members of a
culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations).

Using these models, Musser and Orke (1992) constructed a matrix for
identifying value systems and then classifying and comparing individuals
by values. The main classifications in Musser and Orke (1992) include
Virtuous Advocates, Independent Maximizers, Honorable Egoists, and
Effective Crusaders. Virtuous advocates, also referred to as Virtuous
leaders, show more concern for the success of the organization as a whole
as opposed to their own personal goals. Virtuous advocates tend to be be
more sensitive towards other individuals needs and feeling. This behavior
instills trust and shows integrity to the team, allowing the virtuous advocate
to be more innovative and risk taking. Musser and Orke identified
Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa as examples of virtuous advocates. In
contrast, the Independent maximizer is more focused on his or her own

goals as opposed to the overall success of the whole organization or team.

Because of this behavior, independent maximizers are often mistrusted and
viewed with suspicion and often cause lessened risk taking among their
teammates. Donald Trump and Ivan Boesky fit the independent maximizer
value system in the Musser and Orke study. At the midway point between
the virtuous advocate and the Independent maximizer, the Honorable Egoist
tries to be sensitive to the teams needs but often looks to reach his or her
own goals first. This reduces the teams risk taking, though this effect is
not as severe as the independent maximizer. Talk how host Arsenio Hall
fits the honorable egoist value system. A combination of the more extreme
values of both the Virtuous advocates and the Independent maximizers, the
Effective Crusaders are often in a love-hate relationship with their team.
While focused on the organization or teams goals as opposed to their own,
the approach does not take into consideration the feelings or needs of the
team. Oliver North was found to fit the effective crusader value profile
according to Musser and Orke.
Cultural Values in China and in the Chinese workplace.
Even though China is vast and complex, some cultural values and
characteristics remain continual. One cannot help sense Chinas collectivism,
the influence of group norms, and the role of guanxi, a unique forms of social
capital (Wright 2008). Subsequently, research in Chinese groups by survey models
alone does not provide all needed information to explain the range of feelings
experienced by Chinese people in the workplace. These feelings can be so wideranging that in particular settings could be opposing (Mo and Berrell, 2004).
Wright and co-authors discuss that system-based framework like
Hofstedes cannot be completely viewed and represented in Chinese workplace
behavior. While Hofstedes approach obtains many aspects of Chinese cultural

architecture, items such as self-interest, self-esteem and self-vanity are not

expressed in Hofstedes structure and these notions drive Chinese workplace
behavior (2008). Chinese need to deal with specifics of a situation, their
inclination for long term relationships, and contentment they find in dealing with
family distinguish Chinese culture (Adler, 2002: Hall, 1976). In the study
conducted by Tony (2003), it was concluded that China is more of a persistent,
relationship oriented culture. In a culture with a high score such as China,
pragmatism and striving for long-term aims prevail as well as the idea that one
should work and study to improve oneself (Hofstede, 2012).
Keyong Dong Ying Liu (2010) stated in his research that studies have been
done on Chinese cultural values by both Chinese and Western researchers.
Chinese from different areas such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore were
included in Hofstedes (1980) original studies. Studies established that these
specific areas of Chinese people are unified in their high power distance, low
individualism, low uncertainty avoidance and medium masculinity ratings.
Researches conducting cross-national generality of the Big Five factors failed to
find traits that match those found in China. Chinese, who expect self-discipline
from those with elevated instruction and high social stature, may suggest selfdirected managing approaches rather than requesting assistance from others
(Cheung et al., 2003).
In a recent study done based on the Rokeach Value Survey (Akers,
Giacomino, Xin, 2013), the terminal values with the top three median scores were
health, family security, and freedom, respectively. The three terminal values with
the lowest median score from Chinese respondents (16th-18th) were an exciting
life, a world of beauty, and salvation, respectively. The terminal values that had
the lowest mean scores (16th 18th) were an exciting life, a world of beauty, and
salvation, respectively. The three instrumental values that had the highest mean
scores were responsible, broad-minded, and honest. The three instrumental values

with the lowest mean scores (16th 18th) were helpful, clean, and obedient. When
Akers, Giacomino, and Xin (2013) applied the Musser and Orke matrix, it was
found that 53% of Chinese respondents fit the effective crusader value profile.
Following the effective crusader, 23% of respondents fit the independent
maximizer value profile, 14% fit the virtuous advocate, and lastly 12% fit the
Honorable egoist value profile followed this score. It was also noted that there
were very few differences in responses between the genders of Chinese
respondents.
Cultural Values in U.S and in the American Workplace.
It is generally acknowledged that individualism is emphasized as a core
value in American culture (French 2010). This idea is backed when Hofstede
(1980) categorizes the American sample at the high end of individualism
dimension. He attributes this to the mobility and affluence found in the USA. In
diverse societies are often found to be individualistic (Trandis, 1995).
Americans show some values of embeddness, which reflects collectivist
perspective and hierarchy, which reflects verticality. With these values, Americans
main concerns are about the weak in the society. Americans have concern for the
welfare of other people especially those unprivileged or disadvantaged. Instead
of the in-group being close immediate family as referenced before in the value
collectivism for Chinese, Americans believe their sense of belonging is linked to a
larger group than their immediate family (Hsu, 1981).
Williams (1970) notes that the Americans tend to adopt the horizontal or
collegial approach to interpersonal relations, which means that Americans relate
to their colleges instead the feeling above or below their colleges. There is not a
denial of social hierarchy in the workplace, but Western societies see it as more
illegitimate and not deserving (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Wheeler et al., 1989).
Guanxi (relationship that may result in the exchange of favors or connections) is

not a dynamic that is seen in American work places. Networking in American

organizations is not seen as potential relationships but as transactional purposes
rather the affect of friendship (Michael 1997).
In a recent study done based on the Rokeach Value Survey (Akers,
Giacomino, Xin, 2013), the top three terminal values from US respondents were
family security, true friendship, and pleasure, respectively. The terminal values
with the lowest median scores (16th-18th) were an exciting life, a world at peace,
and a world of beauty, respectively. On the set of eighteen instrumental values,
the top three median scores were honest, ambitious, and responsible. The lowest
median scores (16th 18th) were obedient, imaginative, and clean. When the
Musser and Orke (1992) value classifications were applied to the U.S.
respondents, 39% fit in to the Effective crusader value system and an identical
amount also fit into the Independent maximizer. It was found that 14% fit the
Virtuous advocate value system and 12% fit into the Honorable egoist profile
Cultural Values comparison between U.S. and China differences.
Goodman (1995) did a comparison on Americans and Chinese on Western
and Eastern cultural values. Chinese received higher scores on dogmatism, which
signifies an unyielding personality. They also received higher scores on external
locus of control, which this indicates a presence of being managed externally. The
Chinese received low scores in Machiavellianism, which is a measure of
preference to use command to meet an anticipated goal. The other item they
received low scores in is tolerance of ambiguity. Ambiguity shows a yearning for
more assurance. Eastern characteristics include human-heartedness, moral
discipline, integration and Confucian dynamism. The relations of Eastern
characteristics to Western concepts are: human-heartedness is similar to
masculinity; moral discipline is similar to collectivism; and integration is similar
to power distance. Confucian dynamism is a measure of long-term orientation

(Hofstede, 1991). Chinese have higher values compared to Americans (Goodman

1995). A study performed by the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) indicates that
Chinese can be characterized as extreme on identification with in-groups. This
characterization means that Chinese incline to maintain harmony amongst ingroups. According to Hofstedes IBM Survey (1991) and Bonds Chinese value
survey, it suggests Chinese likely choose long-term orientation decisions rather
than Americans who are more likely to choose short term decisions. Additionally,
Chinese are more particularistic than Americans or other Westerners (Tsui et al.,
2000). Keyong (2010) adds from Friedmans journal that Chinese were more
likely to avoid confrontation and conflict than Americans.
A recent study done based on the Rokeach Value Survey (Akers,
Giacomino, Xin, 2013), highlighted many gaps in both terminal and instrumental
values between U.S. and Chinese business students. The largest gap in the
terminal values was Freedom. The US respondents median score came back as
14, while their Chinese counterparts had a median score of 3. Oddly, the second
largest gap in the terminal values was in National Security. While the U.S.
respondents had a median score of 6, the Chinese respondents median was only
11. One explanation offered by the study was that the last war that involved China
was the Vietnam War, which concluded in 1979 while the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 were still a very recent event in the lives of the respondents.
Another glaring difference in terminal values was found in the median scores of
the terminal value Health. The Chinese respondents medina score came back
as the number one most important terminal value; the median US score was only
8. Inner Harmony, salvation, mature love, and wisdom all came back with a
variance of 6 points in the median scores between the US and Chinese
respondents. Inner harmony ranked 6 for US respondents and only 11 for their
Chinese counterparts. For Chinese respondents, salvation ranked last (18th) in the
list of terminal values while the US respondents had a median score of 12. The
study also noted that a majority of the Chinese students who responded identified

as atheist while many of the U.S. respondents had gone to Catholic institutions.
Mature love came yielded a median score of 9 for the Chinese respondents and
only 15 for their US counterparts. Wisdom had a median score of 13 for the U.S.
respondents and 7 for the Chinese respondents.
The same study also revealed some rather large gaps in the instrumental
values list as well. The largest gap by far was in the ambitious instrumental value.
While this ranked as the number 2 median score among U.S. respondents, it
ranked only 13th for Chinese respondents. Based on the median scores, Chinese
respondents valued forgiveness and broad-mindedness considerably more than the
US respondents. They ranked seventh and third, respectively, for Chinese
respondents and fifteenth and seventh, respectively, for US respondents.
Cultural Values comparison between U.S. and China similarities.
America and China both rate high on masculinity according to Hofstedes
cultural dimensions. This means that both countries cultures support gender
equality, which indicates that both females and males should have equal
opportunity for success (Garcia 2014). Overall, these two countries all have one
similar characteristic in that individuals all seek to gain profit and/or assist family
members at all costs.
The USA seeks ambition, which relates with China so at the moment, American
and Chinese individuals are making movement with international business trades
and working fluently (Villatoro 2014).
The study conducted by Akers, Giacomino, and Xin (2013) highlighted
many similarities in both terminal and instrumental values between Chinese
respondents and their US counterparts. Both groups rated a comfortable life as the
fourth most important terminal value and also ranked an exciting life as the
sixteenth most important terminal value. Family security was near the top for both
groups, first for US respondents and second for Chinese. A sense of

accomplishment ranked tenth and eleventh for Chinese and US respondents,

respectively, resulting in a gap of only one point. There were also some close
similarities in the instrumental values section. Both U.S. and Chinese respondents
ranked intellectual at number 5 and loving at number 9. Both groups of
respondents ranked honesty and responsibility within their top scored values.
Future Research
Though there has been much research done on studying specific cultures
with the application of the Rokeach Value Survey, Hofstedes model, and many
others, one area that could yield helpful data would be specific to the area of
expatriates. Applying these models and surveying managers both before and after
their assignments could make observing the lasting effects of being expatriates
possible. In addition, comparisons of expatriates, flexpatirats, and virtual
expatriates based on these value surveys could potentially identify which form of
expatriatism would be most successful from a cross-cultural perspective. By
mitigating any potential issues by utilizing the most effective methodology,
multinational companies could reduce assimilation time at both the beginning and
end of the expatriates assignment and therefore maximizing both the individuals
and the companys success. This could potentially have a positive effect on
ensuring that expatriates remain in their position with the host country and not end
the assignment early due to using a less effective model.
Another opportunity for future research lies in on how foreigners need to
study host countries cultures and business practices and undertake these practices.
Americans that want to do business in China need to understand the values of
relationships between people not just business relationships, but also personal
relationships (Mujtaba 2013). Chinese hold status to high regard, so Americans
working in this host country must follow through with their stature and placement
as superior and not lax on the idea of the structure in China. Li (1999) suggests to

not disregarding Chinas traditional ways of accomplishing duties in the work

place.
Chinese placement in America, being the host country, need to understand
bases of Western managers. While Chinese managers construct their decisions on
traditional values and preserving harmony, Americans make decisions for the
concern of goal achievement (Li, 1999). Chinese will also have to understand that
by doing favors for colleagues does ensure a guaranteed friendship (Michael
1997).
Lastly, another future research that is beneficial would be to evaluate on an
individual level. Garcia (2014) states that the Rokeach Value Survey elaborates on
individual levels, but it evaluates both at a persons terminal and instrumental
values which intertwined information from different age groups and generations.
This information made analyzing difficult to decipher studies on the individual
aspect.
Conclusion
America and China are major trading partners, therefore it is important to know
the different behaviors of the individuals in the workplace of the countries. US managers
are more individualistic than Chinese managers. The managerial values of the USA are
lower in PD, UA and work ethics than China. Over the past several of years, China has
become one of the fastest growing economies in the world (Chinta and Capar, 2007).
The country China has become a crucial economic player in the process of globalization;
it is currently number three in GDP. It is also the number three exporter in the global
economy (Wang and Hong, 2012). An organizational problem that is faced by these types
of companies is the inconsistency between the structural culture and the values of the
national culture. Thusly, it is important for companies to have the correct systems applied
in different countries with different national cultures. Not just one system can work
across the world. More knowledge of each countries values and difference will only bring
more success to business.

Works Cited

Adler, N. (2002), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed.,

South West College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Akers, Michael, Giacomino, Don, Li, Xin, An Examination of Persponal Values
and Value Systems of Chinese and US Business Students, Journal of
Business Education, Vol. 6, No. 1 (January/February 2013) pg. 119-128.
A.S. and Weldon, E. (Eds), Management and Organizations in the Chinese
Context, Rowe, Chippenham, pp. 225-44.
Cheng, Y. and Stockdale, M.S. (2003), The validity of the three-component
model of organizational commitment in a Chinese context, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol.62, pp. 465-89.
Chinta, R. and Capar, N. (2007), Comparative analysis of managerial values in
the USA and China, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 212-224.
Fredi Garcia Diana Mendez Chris Ellis Casey Gautney , (2014),"Cross-cultural,
values and ethics differences and similarities between the US and Asian
countries", Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp.
303 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JTMC-05-2014-0025

Friedman, R.A., Chi, S.C. and Liu, L.A. (2006), An expectancy model of
Chinese-American difference in conflict-avoiding, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 76-91.
Goodman, M. (1995), Working in a Global Environment, Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY.
Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor-Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work
Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw
Hill, Maidenhead.
Hofstede, G. and Tipton Murff, E.J. (2012), Repurposing an old game for an
international world, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 34-50.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1981), American and Chinese: Passage to Differences, University of
Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.
Keyong Dong Ying Liu, (2010),"Cross-cultural management in China", Cross
Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 223
243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601011068333
Lehr, K.A. (1987), A Descriptive Study of Contemporary Transformational

Leadership, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Union for

Experimenting Colleges and Universities.
Li, Stephen T.K. (1999),"Management development in international companies in
China", Education + Training, Vol. 41 Iss 6/7 pp. 331 336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400919910285417
Michael, James (1997),"A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ALIGNING
MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORS WITH CULTURAL WORK VALUES",
International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 7 Iss 3/4 pp. 81
101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb047357
Michael Minkov Geert Hofstede, (2011),"The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine",
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 10
20.
Mo, H. and Berrell, M. (2004), in Laurenceson, J., Tang, K. and Waldron, S.
(Eds.), Chinese cultural values and workplace behaviour: implications for
continued economic growth, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference
of the Association for Chinese Economics Studies, Australia (ACESA),
Brisbane, Queensland, 19-20 July.
Mujtaba, G. (2013), Negotiation with modern Chinese professionals: a review of
cultural considerations and cyberspace communication, Journal of

Technology Management in China, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 190-202.

Musser, Steven J. and Eric Orke. 1992. Ethical Value Systems: A Typology.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28(3): 348-362.
Rokeach, M. (Ed.) (1979) Understanding human values: Individual and social.
New York: Free Press.
Tony, F. (2003), A critique of Hofstedes fifth national culture dimension,
Tsui, A.S., Farh, J.L. and Xin, K.R. (2000), Guanxi in the Chinese context, in
Li, J.T., Tsui,
Wang, H. and Hong, Y. (2012), Globalization and its impact on Chinas
technology innovation system, Journal of Technology Management in
China, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Wright, Phillip C., Mike Berrell Marianne Gloet, (2008),"Cultural values,
workplace behavior and productivity in China", Management Decision,
Vol. 46 Iss 5 pp. 797 812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810873770
Venkat, R. Krishnan (2001),"Value systems of transformational leaders",
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 126
132.
Villatoro, Johnny, John Chang Samuel Lane , (2014),"Research of ethics, values
and cross-cultural differences on China, Mexico or the United States",

Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 133 154.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JTMC-08-2014-0052