Understanding the differences between Chinese and Western business practices: insights into Confucian philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confucian philosophy, which lies at the root of Chinese culture, has been attracting attention from both business practitioners and academia due to China's tremendous influence on the global economy. In this paper, we review the historical development of Confucianism and its managerial implications in China. We first identify key differences between Confucian and Anglo-American culture in terms of values and beliefs, power distance, cognitive patterns, social orientation, trust, communication, expression-orientation and social environment. We then highlight managerial implications of the five constant virtues inherent in Confucian philosophy, namely, benevolence ('ren'), righteousness ('yi'), rites ('li'), wisdom ('zhi') and trustworthiness ('xin'). A deep understanding of differences between Confucian and Anglo-American culture forms the foundation for mutually acceptable behavioural communication codes encompassing values and norms, cognitive patterns, social orientation patterns, modes and expression-orientation models. Finally, a case study is presented to illustrate how these principles are embedded within customer relations and organisational management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".