中国的商人渴望发展与人民的关系，他们从事采购或销售。虽然美国商人并不反对建立更牢固的关系，但交易价值是最初产生的。然而，对中国人来说，关系通常更重要。这就是为什么来自中国的商人更喜欢与他们做生意的人打交道，更喜欢面对面的自然互动(Ghauri and Rosendo-Rios, 2016)。然而，这可能会导致商业节奏放缓，但在中国的商业文化中，信任是视觉的核心。在中国，如果一家公司的合伙人问起另一家公司的个人生活，甚至是财务状况，都不足为奇。这只是兴趣的表现，而不是粗鲁的表现。然而，在美国文化中，这可能被认为是粗鲁甚至无礼(Aslani et al.， 2016)。
虽然已经建立了各种系统来执行基于文化的分析，但是全球化业务中使用最多的流程是Geert Hofstede在1970年代开发的流程。这五个文化维度也被用来分析我们的文化(Kim et al.， 2016)。虽然Sullivan(2002)在中国文化的5个维度中有4个维度没有提供Hofstede维度的得分，但仍然可以将其描述为以下范围(Adekola and Sergi, 2016):
权力距离:主要部分的就业人口在农业领域内,这个进球并没有太大的相关性,但企业的官僚和国有领域,得分将在更高的一个极端,因为层次的本质在中国(李et al ., 2016)。
The business people in China aspire towards developing relationships the people, they are engaged in either purchasing from or selling to. While US businessmen do not oppose stronger relationships, the transaction value comes initially. For Chinese, however relationships are in general more significant. This is the reason why the business people from China prefer knowing the people they are engaged in doing business with and have a tendency towards preferring interactions of face to face nature (Ghauri and Rosendo-Rios, 2016). This however might result in slowing down business pace but within the business culture of China, trust is at the visual core. It is not surprising in China if partners in a business ask about another business person’s personal life or even about their financial conditions. This simply is an indication of interest and does not depict rudeness. However in the US based culture, this might be considered as rude or even disrespectful (Aslani et al., 2016).
In United States, business people often are proud over being dominant but in China aggressive style is not followed. The business people of China prefer having time to go through contracts thoroughly. They also prefer to talk over the risks as well as significances to consult with the parties interested instead of dealing with negotiations in a tough manner (Henson, 2016). The style of communication from US is aggressive with unlikeliness of being perceived in a favourable manner in China and this can be viewed as unprofessional highly. In China, communication of blunt nature with lesser description is considered as problematic and viewed as wrong. In order to reflect, China prefers silence and they do not believe in exaggerating. From the perspective of US, silence gives them discomfort. Exaggeration is alright from their perspective.
While various systems have been founded to perform culture based analysis, the process mostly utilized within the globalized business is the one developed within the year 1970s by Geert Hofstede. The five cultural dimensions have been utilized for analysing the culture of US as well (Kim et al., 2016). Even though Sullivan, (2002), has not provided scores for the dimensions of Hofstede for 4 out of the 5 for the Chinese culture but still it can be depicted that they fall in the range as follows (Adekola and Sergi, 2016):
Individualism degree: Such a score would be historically on the lower end considering the focus of China on collectivism and the focus of US on individualism.
Distance of power: With major portion of the employed population within the domain of agriculture, this scoring is not much of relevance but for the businesses in the bureaucratic and state owned domain, the scoring will be over the higher end of the spectrum because of the nature of hierarchy in China (Li et al., 2016).
Uncertainty Intolerance: Such a score would be over the high end stemming again from the bureaucracy owned states. This has been exemplified through inadequacy in risk or uncertainty. However this is moving at a probable low as external influences start creeping within culture and businesses start becoming privatized (Luo, 2016). The same is also the case in United States as uncertainty is not fostered in the nation.
Orientation in the long term: The focus of both the cultures, US and China is over long term orientation but in this regard also China ranks higher on the spectrum.