AN EXAMINATION OF NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION IN GLOBAL BUSINESS

Victoria Cheng, Anna Peev, and Shuruk Saleh

University of Texas at Dallas

Abstract
Purpose Our purpose is to evaluate the significance of nonverbal messages in a global
business perspective and inform business professionals the importance of efficient cross-cultural
interactions through nonverbal communication. This paper examines Hofstedes Six
Dimensional Model and the significance of nonverbal messages in high-context cultures and
low-context cultures with information gathered from online scholarly databases. Looking into the
different cultures of the United States and two of its largest trading partners, China and
Germany, we will interpret the meaning behind acts of interaction, such as greetings, eye contact,
and body language, and identify the importance of appropriate global business conduct.
Design/methodology/approach The data for this research paper were collected from the
Hofstede model. The main sources used for this research were the EBSCO and Emerald Insight
database.
Findings The research found that America and Germany share many cultural and nonverbal
communication values, while China slightly differs from them both. We found that research on
the culture of nonverbal communication is not very well represented.
Originality/value This research aims to guide business professionals to make sensible
decisions when dealing with business partners outside of their own country. It does so by
gathering data about culture and nonverbal communication from numerous sources.
Keywords Hofstede, USA, China, Germany, Trade, Ethics, Values, Culture, Dimension,
Nonverbal Communication
Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Assumptions are consistently being made when communicating in a business setting. The culture
of a society defines the perspective through which people perceive the messages they receive.
However, in the context of global business, where business people from various cultures interact,
it is important for individuals to be aware of the appropriate verbal and nonverbal messages that
are being communicated (Peterson, 2005). In a meeting between an American and Chinese
business executive, both individuals must be aware of communication differences. Those who
deal interact with individuals from various cultures bust heighten their cultural intelligence and
educate themselves on acceptable etiquette and behavior in order to further their success. It is
easier for people to be aware of what to say and what not to say, than how they say it or how
they control their body language. Understanding the difference between the high-context culture
and low-context culture contributes to successful global business. High-context cultures rely
heavily on implied knowledge and the context of the culture and the situation. Low-context
cultures, however, rely on specific verbal communication and body language. Body language
could include anything from greetings to eye contact; from facial expressions to posture.
Effective professional interaction is dependent upon the understanding of fundamental
differences between the two cultures. Hofstedes Six Dimensional Analysis provides allows
people to gain a deeper understanding of these dimensions and recognize the areas that must be
approached more delicately. Businesses that stress the importance of such cultural intellect are
better able to communicate and conduct business with cultures that greatly diverge from their
own. However, in order to better understand the body language of people from other countries, it
is essential that business individuals look at their own nonverbal communication patterns. One
way to understand why certain nonverbal communication is prevalent while other body
behaviors are forbidden is to look deeper into the historical context of that country. Many times,
the influence of generational understandings, government oppression, or traditional education
creates the foundation for what the accepted norm in society is.

Hofstedes Six Dimensional Analysis

It is known that peoples subconscious tendencies toward cultural orientations affect daily
interactions (Tuleja, 2016, p. 114). Proving the effects of cultural value within the workplace,
Hofstede conducted cultural value surveys within the IBM workplace in 1967 to 1973, which led
to the development of Hofstedes Six Dimensional Model. Through this model, Hofstede
explains these cultural orientations as six dimensions. The dimensions include power distance,
individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence. The
scores are determined based upon the extent of the culture and its fitting to the dimensions.
Higher scores indicate that the cultures tend to carry traits of the dimension, whereas lower
scores indicate that the culture carries opposite traits of the dimension. In the table below, the
descriptions of the dimensions are provided.

Table 1: Hofstedes Six Dimensions

Power Distance: expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept
and expect that power is distributed unequally
Individualism: a society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether peoples self-image
is defined in terms of I or we.
Masculinity: a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material
rewards for success
Uncertainty Avoidance: expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel
uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity
Long-Term Orientation: how every society maintains some links with its own past while
dealing with the challenges of the present and the future
Indulgence: stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural
human drives related to enjoying life and having fun

Descriptions derived from https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

Understanding this model gives professionals an advantage as the model identifies the cultural
differences and reveals how dimensions shape a countrys business ethics and values. Being
aware of the level of context within a culture and knowing how to interact within the
environment contributes to success. For example, when comparing a high-context culture like
China to a low-context culture like the United States, there is a significant difference in terms of
power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence. The
only dimension that is similar between China and the United States is masculinity. Figure 1
below demonstrates the differences between the two cultures based upon the dimensions.

Figure 1: China in Comparison with United States based on Hofstedes scale

In terms of power distance, China ranks 80 on the power distance index, which indicates
that inequality between the authority figure is commonly accepted and not challenged.
Individualism ranks with a low score of 20, meaning the Chinese have a collectivist culture and
are more group-oriented. Masculinity ranks 66 and indicates that the society will be driven by
competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner (Hofstede and
Hofstede, 2010). As for uncertainty avoidance (46) , the Chinese tend to be comfortable with
ambiguity and are adaptable. Due to the shortage of qualified employees, many of the Chinese
population are employed in jobs they arent qualified for. This, consequently, is endangering the
economic growth in (Cheng and Waldenberger, 2013). Long term orientation (87) indicates that
the society is able to plan accordingly for the future. Seen as a restricted society, people are not
focused on indulgence. They are not impulsive nor do they put a strong emphasis on leisure.
Compared to the United States, with a score of 40 on the power distance scale, it is more
common to question authority. Scoring 91 on the individualism index, Americans have a self-
image of I and advancing further on as individuals, Masculinity ranks 62, demonstrating the
same drive for achievement and success. Given the uncertainty avoidance (46), Americans are
more tolerant and accepting of new ideas. Long term orientation (26) indicates that Americans
are accepting of societal change and plan on a short-term basis. As for a high indulgence of 68,
Americans tend to follow the work hard, play hard motto and indulge in their urges. Figure 2
provides the differences and similarities between the United States and German cultures
(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2010).

Figure 2: Germany in Comparison with United States based on Hofstedes scale

The German society, like many other societies, live and abide by a very distinct culture
(Richardson, Millage, Millage, and Lane, 2014). Hofstedes 6D model helps understand their
distinct culture. Germany, with a score of 35, and the United states, with a score of 40, have very
similar views on power distance according to Hofstedes model. This score indicates that the
German society believes people are equal no matter how powerful different members of an
institution are. Considering Germany is supported by the middle class and is decentralized, this
should be expected. Although Germany (67) is not as individualistic as the United States (91), it
still is considered a highly individualistic country. This is because the German population tries to
incorporate ideal self actualization in their society. In terms of masculinity, Germany (66) and
the United States (62) are both fairly masculine. In the German culture high performance is
expected from everyone starting from young children at school to professionals at work.
Germany (65) has a higher score in uncertainty avoidance than the United States (46).
Germany prefers to avoid uncertainty by planning the future, applying deductive approaches to
problems, and using research for more advanced uncertainty. A recent study found that Germans
are typically know to be perfectionists, they try to control aspects of their lives to reach
perfection because they are not comfortable with uncertainty. (Schneider and Littrell, 2003)
Long term orientation is the dimension that Germany (83) and the United States (26) differ the
most. Germany has a very high score in long term orientation because it exceptionally utilitarian,
they are very big on setting goals, achieving goals, determination, investing, and they can adapt
easily. Another dimension that Germany (40) and the United States (68) are not congruent to is
indulgence. Germany posses a restrained culture that occupies most of its time on work and
school and does not focus its time on leisure.
The work conducted between Germans and Americans are distinguished based upon the
different uncertainty avoidance rankings. Since the German are more reluctant to take risks and
the Americans tend to go for risks, the German tend to be more likely to carefully analyze
problems and critically evaluate possible alternatives, whereas Americans may spend less time
analyzing problems and therefore may produce solutions more quickly (Lehmann-Willenbrock,
Allen, and Meinecke, 2013).

Why is Hofstedes model important?

Recognizing the cultural differences when conducting business is essential to the success of
business affairs. Avoiding offensive situations, eliminating confusion between personnel and
clients, and improving the quality of relationships between individuals within the organization
and with the external environment are all skills that can augment communication in the global
workplace (Kienzle and Husar, 2007). Cultural awareness, which can be obtained through
Hofstedes 6D model, can help professionals obtain these skills. The differences between the
Chinese and American culture as previously mentioned before indicate that the Chinese are
typically a group-oriented society that does not question authority, adapt easily, plan in a long-
term basis, and restrict on indulgences, whereas, Americans are more individualistic and
question inequalities, tolerable, plan in a short-term basis, and indulgent. Being able to
recognize the the cultural differences based upon the dimensions determine whether values are
seen in Chinese business etiquette. As a group-oriented society, the Chinese tend to find
importance in building up relationships rather than tasks at hand (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2010).
Holding long-term orientations as a high value, the Chinese are more invested on keeping
a long-term relationship and sacrificing short-term goals as a method of investment for the
future. The difference between the Chinese and Americans are significant when one culture
seeks out long-term goals, whereas the other has to sacrifice short-term measures in achieve
success in Chinese markets (Yen, D. A., & Barnes, B. R., 2011). With the time commitment of
establishing a relationship in the Chinese business world, otherwise known as guanxi, the
network of trust is built and is seen as beneficial to both parties as the relationship can extend
into a more personable, rather than being just strictly business. With this trusted relationship,
obvious insider groups are created and treated differently from the outside groups (Ranker, G.,
Huang, D., & Mcleod, M., 2014). Although Germany and the United States are commonly
ranked on the dimensions of Hofstedes scale, the differences on the uncertainty avoidance, long
term orientation, and indulgence, the German are more focused on planning on a long-term basis,
setting goals, and occupying their time with work and school.
Proper business etiquette and understanding the cultural differences based upon
Hofstedes Six Dimensional Model play important roles in business conduct; cultural values and
their differences are the underlying mechanisms that could drive to corruption (Chandler, J.D. &
Graham, J.L. J Bus Ethics, 2010). It is noted that between the Chinese and Germany were the
most dissimilar than the international average in terms of business goals. The Chinese prioritized
five goals: respecting ethical norms, patriotism, national pride, power honor, face, reputation,
and responsibility towards society in general. The German prioritized five goals: responsibility
towards society in general, responsibility towards employees, creating something new, profits ten
years from now, and respecting ethical norms (Hofstede, 2009). Respecting the cultural
differences based upon the six dimensions creates a friendlier bond between the two cultures and
prevents poor business etiquette. For example, cultural competence, otherwise known as a
persons ability to act and think in an intercultural manner, helps manage uncertainty between
people from low context cultures and high context cultures (Fellows and Liu, 2013).

History of American Culture and the Effect on Nonverbal Communication

This diversity of culture is an advantage that managers can use when they are culturally and
emotionally intelligent. Recognizing, accepting, and valuing differences in cultures is essential in
increasing business competency (Jada U., Jena L.K., 2014). This diversity could be in the way
that employees verbally communicate, the way they work, or their nonverbal indications. Cross-
national differences in management are important to recognize and understand when considering
the global marketplace (Elenkov, 1998). Looking into a cultures history and analyzing it against
Hofstedes Six Dimensional Analysis, global business leaders can better understand the body
language and nonverbal cues of various people.
Historically, the United States is referred to as a melting pot; A combination of self-
driven individuals that step foot into America in hopes of a brighter future. Many times,
individuals risk jobs, security, and stability in order to invest years of dedicated labor for the
interest of their families. Successfully establishing roots in the United States requires willingness
to succeed, individualism, self-reliance, and independence (Rose, D., Carausu, D., Crone, B., &
Sengupta, S., 2014). Due to the diversity of the cultures that define America, The Business
Culture in the United states framed by these characteristics. Employees are encouraged to be
bold and action driven in order to reap the fruits of individual achievements. Exhibition of
personal strength, sacrifice, and hard work are largely valued. These components show why
individualism in the United States is 91. Americans display a more prominent individualistic
self and lean towards direct independent communication skills (Cho, H., Rau, P. P., Liu, J., &
Jiang, C., 2017). Furthermore, America scores high in self-expression and traditional values
(Hofstede G., 2013)(Igumnova L., 2011).
 Additionally, Americans have proven to be far from risk-averse especially where
opportunities for great rewards are eminent. There is a consistent urge to push and test
boundaries in order to obtain results that appear improbable. These characteristics are an
illustration of why the United States is 46 for uncertainty avoidance. This is why there are so
many small businesses in the United States. Individuals are willing to invest their life savings
into a restaurant or car repair business even when odds of success do not seem favorable.
The hyper-competitive nature of the United States market is characterized by businesses
chasing massive profits and cutting corners. Companies appear to be highly invested in short run
accomplishments, potentially exposing their companies to the risk of a downfall. This eagerness
for success, however, is sometimes obstructed by the over-indulgence of unnecessary goods and
poor management of disposable income. This behavior is reflected in Hofstedes analysis where
the United States is 68 in indulgence and 26 in long-term orientation.
Finally, the United States scored 40 on Power Distance. Historically, Americans have
regularly questioned authority and challenged powerful entities such as large government
organizations. In the business environment, individuals want to be given reasons and
justifications before they complete an assignment. Americans want to be given room to be
innovative and question if there is a better method of completing a project. Greater emphasis is
placed on the individual rather than the corporation. The goal is equal opportunity, placing
leverage in the hands of every employee.
This analysis of Hofstedes six dimensional analysis is indicative of the nonverbal
communication and behaviors prevalent in Americas business culture. The body language and
the non-verbal communication of the American business person is confident and dominant.
Consequently, informal body language during greetings is not intended to show a lack of respect,
but rather reflects the view that individuals are equal and respected (Cultural Etiquette, 2017).
Another indication of equality is that Individuals stand when they are being introduced; also
demonstrating equality. Handshakes are firm, brief, and assertive. Additionally, personal space in
business interactions is important. It is important for individuals to stay in their own personal
bubble to avoid uncomfortable interactions. However, there is a degree of physical contact with
which Americans are comfortable with. An example might include a light tap of the back as a
friendly gesture. However, physical contact is kept as a minimum and distance is considered
professional.
Furthermore, facial and emotional expressions will vary depending on the values and
norms determined by various cultures and passed down among generations (Mcduff, D., Girard,
J. M., & Kaliouby, R. E., 2016). Cultures such as that of the United States, that are high in
individualism, rely on interpersonal interactions and expressions for success in communication.
This greatly contrasts with collectivism cultures that rely on solidarity to norms for successful
communication. Companies that invest in understanding the various cultures and methods of
communication within their organization, start to develop a sense of trust among their
employees. Trust strengthens an organization, increasing employee productivity and
organizational commitment (Muhammad, A. H., 2011). It also greatly benefits conflict resolution
and diminishes limitations. The level of trust within an organization is also highly revealing of
how long an organization will remain viable. Therefore, understanding these dimensions of
people within an organization is essential in the progress and success of a business engaged in
global trade.
In high context cultures, businesses prefer to have trusting relationships with other
businesses over just having business transactions. High context cultures rely heavily on multiple
communication means including contextual factors, oral agreements, situational cues, and
nonverbal behaviours (Fujimoto, Bahfen, Fermelis, Hrtel, 2007).When business professionals
are dealing with other professionals outside of their country, it is important to be aware of the
appropriate nonverbal communications and body language one should use. Considering the
United States encounters a great deal of its trade from China and Germany, it is very important
that the United States understands what is socially acceptable in these countries.
One form of nonverbal communication that is sometimes overlooked is body language
such as facial expressions, gestures, and posture. Physical expressions reveal many things about
the person using them. Body language gives us messages about the other person that we can
interpret at an intuitive level (Teodorescu, 2013). Not only does body language identify as
information about the other person, but it could be misinterpreted between different cultures as
cultures attach different meaning to gestures.
Nonverbal communication is a vital factor in communication for the Chinese. The tone of
voice a person uses, facial expression one may have, and posture are all taken into account while
communicating. Eye contact is seen as an invasion of ones privacy. When speaking to a Chinese
person, it is very crucial to try to avoid eye contact because it is seen as a sign of disrespect. In
China, the elder must be greeted first. Greetings are very formal, Chinese tend to look towards
the ground while greeting a person, and handshakes are common. In the Chinese culture, there
are also various meanings behind the Chinese smile. The classification for the Chinese smiles
varies between the compensating smile or peixiao (), bitter smile or kuxiao (), and the
gentle smile (weixiao, ), which can be misleading between Chinese and Western
interactions since the Chinese smile does not always come off as a sign of happiness or
cheerfulness (Vargas-Urpi, 2013). The compensating smile reestablishes harmony in
uncomfortable situations, the bitter smile presents good feelings during difficult times, and the
gentle smile demonstrates the connection between the speaker as they are actively listening or
empathizing for them.
In the German culture, it is very important to make a good first impression, especially for
business relationships. Eye contact in Germany, unlike China, is a very important gesture, it
displays respect and is expected when speaking. Public behavior in Germany is usually very
reserved and formal, loud and exaggerated greetings are looked down upon. German people very
polite and prefer not to display affection in public. When greeting a German, one should always
shake his or her hand. Business relationships are professions, orderly, and formal; there is
usually no display of affection in a business relationship. When dealing with the German
population, a professional must try to use a direct communication style because indirect
communication is interpreted as dishonesty.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

Globalization is becoming more commonly widespread among businesses around the world.
Running a successful globalized business requires numerous different capabilities and skills. Due
to the rapid expansion of globalization, it is imperative that businesses acquire cultural and
nonverbal intelligence. In this literature review, Hofstedes Six-Dimensional model was utilized
to acquire knowledge on the cultural differences between two countries the United States
exchanges a great deal of trade with, China and Germany. The table below indicates the different
scores each country received on each of Hofstedes Six Dimensions. We also analyzed the
different accepted norms of nonverbal communication between these three countries but suggest
that more research on nonverbal communication should be composed.
Hofstedes 6D Comparison Results
Power Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Long Term Indulgence
Distance Avoidance Orientation

United 40 91 62 46 26 68
States

China 80 20 66 30 87 24

Germany 35 67 66 65 83 40

Journal of Critical Globalization Studies (2009) indicates that globalization has a variety
of different and overlapping perspectives. These perspectives include economic, political,
philosophical, cultural, geographical, social, and historical aspects. Hofstedes 6D model did a
great job identifying the cultural differences between the Unites States, China, and Germany, but
for a more in-depth understanding of their cultures, we believe that researchers should analyze
the political and historical values of these countries. The understanding of the history and
political values a country can help business professionals avoid bringing up sensitive topics
while speaking to other professionals outside of their country.
Another suggestion we believe would make useful research is to evaluate the cultural
aspect of how people dress, researchers should attempt to tackle down what are accepted
clothing norms of different societies. For example, in many Middle Eastern countries it is
prefered that women dress more conservatively and wear clothing that wont reveal the curves of
their bodies. With this knowledge a company can avoid disrespecting any future business
partners in the Middle East by asking its female employees to avoid wearing low cut blouses and
skirts while dealing with other professionals in the Middle East. Analyzing this aspect of culture
can, not only help a profession present himself in a suitable manner, but also provide businesses
acceptable marketing and advertising strategies.
We encourage researchers to focus on finding what types of virtual means of
communication are appropriate for different countries. Due to emergence of personal computers,
smartphones, commercial software, multi-user networks, and mass globalization, business
professionals need to understand the interdependent role of culturally diverse end-users and
online input/output (Martinsons and Chong, 1999). A 2012 study on virtual teams conducted by
Chang, Hung, and Hsieh, focused on cultural adaptation, communication quality, and
interpersonal trust concluded that virtual team members must trust each other. In order to build
trust, team members must overcome cultural differences such as cultural inconsistencies of
communication skills, work ethics, and approaches to problem solving through a dynamic
process within a virtual team where changes are predicted to fit the norms, values, and behaviors
of another culture (Chang, Hung, and Hsieh, 2012). To manage these cultural differences and
achieve trust within the team, members must develop a deep understanding of the culture to
strengthen communication quality and boost interpersonal trust. Communication quality involves
maintaining communication between members and facilitating communication from leaders to
team members to remain on track and not fall behind on schedule. Through cultural adaptation
and communication quality, trust within the team is built as beliefs and expectations are
followed. Trust within a team leads to a positive team climate, opportunities for regular
communication, active learning, and personal growth of team members (Chang, Hung, and
Hsieh, 2012).
Keeping up with the rapid growth of technology in the conduct of business becomes a
challenge as gaining trust between different cultures and maintaining strong communication
quality is still a barrier in international business. For further advancement in the technological
world, we suggest further research on different techniques to strengthen business partnerships
with international firms and new technology. Communication technology is increasingly similar
across the world, cultural patterns do affect the day-to-day usage of mobile phones, according to
the literature of cross-cultural comparisons of information and communication technologies
(Yun, 2012). As texting revolutionizes communication, it should also be considered that texting
may be viewed as an acceptable method of communication for business purposes in the near
future.

References:

1. Business communication. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from

http://businessculture.org/western-europe/business-culture-in-germany/business-
communication-in-germany/
2. Chandler, J. D., & Graham, J. L. (2009). Relationship-Oriented Cultures, Corruption, and
International Marketing Success. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 251-267.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0152-7
3. Chang, H. H., Hung, C., & Hsieh, H. (2012). Virtual teams: cultural adaptation,
communication quality, and interpersonal trust. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 25(11-12), 1318-1335. doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.704274
4. China Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://www.commisceo-
global.com/country-guides/china-guide
5. Cho, H., Rau, P. P., Liu, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). Expectation of Manager-Subordinate
Communication: A Comparison between Chinese, Korean and American Students .
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal. Global Business
and Management Research: An International Journal, 9(1), 1-11. Retrieved from
http://gbmr.ioksp.com/pdf/vol.%209%20no.%201/V9N1-1.pdf
6. Elenkov, D. S. (1998). Can American management Concepts Work in Russia? A
CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARATIVE STUDY. California Management Review,
40(4), 133-156.
7. Fellows, Richard, and Anita M.M Liu. "Business Goals for a New World Order: Beyond
Growth, Greed and Quarterly Results." Construction Management and Economics 31.5
(2013): 401-22. EBSCO. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.
8. Hofstede, G. (2009). Business goals for a new world order: beyond growth, greed and
quarterly results. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15(4), 481-488.
doi:10.1080/13602380903102029
9. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
10. Hofstede, G. (2013). Dimensions of national cultures. Retrieved from
https://saylor.longsight. com/ handle/1/10250
11. Igumnova, L. (2011). Russia's strategic culture between American and European
worldviews. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 24(2), 253-273.
doi:10.1080/13518046.2011.572729
12. Jada, U., Jena, L. K., & Pattnaik, R. (2014). Emotional Intelligence, Diversity, and
Organizational Performance: Linkages and Theoretical Approaches for an Emerging
Field. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 3(1-2), 46-57.
doi:10.1177/2278682115627240
13. Kienzle, N. and Husar, S. (2007), How Can Cultural Awareness Improve
Communication in the Global Workplace?, Journal of the Communication, Speech &
Theatre Association of North Dakota, pp. 81-85, available at:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=dbd2e350-7433-
43d2-bbfa-8f295dd5338f%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4101
14. Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture:
Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 17(2), 252-271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066
15. Martinsons, M.G. and Chong, K.C. (1999), The influence of human factors and
specialists involvement on information practices success, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No.
1, pp. 123-51.
16. Mcduff, D., Girard, J. M., & Kaliouby, R. E. (2016). Large-Scale Observational Evidence
of Cross-Cultural Differences in Facial Behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(1),
1-19. doi:10.1007/s10919-016-0244-x
17. Muhammad, A.H. (2011) The effect of organisational trust on employees attitudes and
behaviours, J. Global Business Advancement, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.217.
18. Peterson, R.T. (2005), An Examination of the Relative Effectiveness of Training in
Nonverbal Communication: Personal Selling Implications., Journal of Marketing
Education. Vol. 27 Issue 2, p143-150. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0273475305276627
19. Ranker, G., Huang, D., & Mcleod, M. (2014). Navigating U.s. And Chinese Business
Cultures Using Global Mindset Leadership. Leader to Leader, 2015(75), 23-30.
doi:10.1002/ltl.20162
20. Richardson, J., Millage, P., Millage, J., & Lane, S. (2014). The effects of culture on
leadership styles in China, Germany and Russia. Journal of Technology Management in
China, 9(3), 263-273. doi:10.1108/jtmc-08-2014-0047
21. Rose, D., Carausu, D., Crone, B., & Sengupta, S. (2014). A CROSS CULTURAL
EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA USING MULTIPLE
MODELS. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(5), 459-470. Retrieved from
http://universitypublications.net/ijas/0705/pdf/H4V1015.pdf
22. Schneider, J. and Littrell, R.F. ( 2003 ), " Leadership preferences of German and English
managers ", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 130 - 148,
available
at:http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/026217103
10459694
23. Teodorescu, A. (2013). Non-verbal communication in intercultural business negotiations.
Quality - Access to Success, 14(2), 259-262.
24. Tuleja, Elizabeth A. (2016). Intercultural Communication for Global Business : How
leaders communicate for success. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
25. United States - Cultural Etiquette - e Diplomat. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2017, from
http://www.ediplomat.com/np/cultural_etiquette/ce_us.htm
26. Vargas-Urpi, M. (2013). Coping with Nonverbal Communication in Public Service
Interpreting with Chinese Immigrants. Journal Of Intercultural Communication
Research, 42(4), 340-360. doi:10.1080/17475759.2013.838985
27. Yen, D. A., & Barnes, B. R. (2011). Analyzing stage and duration of Anglo-Chinese
business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management,40(3), 346-357.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.08.003
28. Ying Cheng, Franz Waldenberger, (2013) "Does training affect individuals' turnover
intention? Evidence from China", Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management,
Vol. 4 Issue: 1, pp.16-38, doi: 10.1108/ JCHRM-10-2012-0024 avaiable at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-10-2012-0024
29. Yuka, Fujimoto., Nasya, Bahfen., Jan, Fermelis., Charmine E.J. Hrtel., (2007),"The
global village: online crosscultural communication and HRM", Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 7 - 22, available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13527600710718804
30. Yun, X. (2012). Chinese Use of Mobile Texting for Social Interactions: Cultural
Implications in the Use of Communication Technology. Intercultural Communication
Studies, 21(2), 131-150.