cross culture business
fergamo
CrossCulturalBusiness1.docx
Case study
You work for accounting firm based in Barcelona. Recently there has been a joint venture with a UK company but working conditions have deteriorated with many complaints being made by both the Spanish and UK staff about the working styles of the others. Here are some examples of the complaints.
Spanish complaints about the British:
· “The bosses don’t act like managers, they don’t command authority – they want to consult their subordinates on everything, and I’ve even seen workers argue with the boss in meetings about ‘silly’ ideas – there is no respect!”
· “Some of the managers are so young! I don’t want to take order from a kid!”
British complaints about the Spanish:
· “There is so much inconsistency with the rules – they are always trying to make exceptions. Here, I have found it’s good to be friends with payroll department if you want to be sure to be paid on time! It shouldn’t be that way!”
· “They are incapable of making decisions without getting a group consensus- it makes everything so slow. Can’t they just make decisions for themselves sometimes?”
These complaints are symptomatic of two cultures that are distinct according to the findings of Hofstede and Trompenaars. Analyse the situation by not only identifying the dimensions that could be the cause of each complaint, but also examine what other difficulties they could cause and how the two cultures could work together better. You should back it up with evidence from Hofstede and Trompenaars.
Formalities:
· Wordcount: 600 - 800
· Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded of the total wordcount. Font: Arial 12 pts.
· Text alignment: Justified.
· The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in Harvard’s citation style.
Learning outcomes:
· Knowledge and understanding of Hofstede’s and/or Trompenaar’s cultural dimensions
· Ability to critically assess the effect of cultural factors on business operations
Rubrics
|
Learning Descriptors |
Fail Below 60% |
Marginal Fail 60-69% |
Fair 70-79 % |
Good 80-89% |
Exceptional 90-100% |
|
Purpose & Understanding
KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING
25 % |
Very poor coverage of central purpose, goals, research questions or arguments with little relevant information evident. Virtually no evidence of understanding or focus.
|
Minimal understanding of purpose of the study; factual errors evident. Gaps in knowledge and superficial understanding. A few lines of relevant material.
|
Reasonable understanding and clearly identifies the purpose, goals, research questions or argument. Reflect partial achievement of learning outcomes.
|
A sound grasp of, and clearly identifies, the purpose, goals, research questions or argument. Some wider study beyond the classroom content shown.
|
Effectively describes and explains the central purpose, arguments, research questions, or goals of the project; explanation is focused, detailed and compelling. Recognition of alternative forms of evidence beyond that supplied in the classroom.
|
|
Use of References
COMMUNICATION
25 % |
Little or no evidence of reference sources in the report. Content not supported and based on unsubstantiated views.
|
Most references are from sources that are not peer- reviewed or professional, and have uncertain reliability. Few if any appropriate citations are provided. Reader doubts the validity of much of the material.
|
Professionally legitimate references are generally used. Fair citations are presented in most cases. Some of the information/content/evidence comes from sources that are reliable, but more academic sources needed to be convincing.
|
Professionally and academically legitimate references are used. Clear and accurate citations are presented in most cases. The majority of the information/content/evidenc e comes from sources that are reliable.
|
Presents compelling evidence from professionally and academically legitimate sources. Attribution is clear and accurate. References are 75% from primarily peerreviewed professional journals or other approved sources.
|
|
Written Communication Skills
COMMUNICATION
25 % |
The written project exhibits multiple errors in grammar, sentence structure and/or spelling. Inadequate writing skills (e.g., weaknesses in language facility and mechanics) hinder readability and contribute to an ineffective research project.
|
The written project exhibits errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The written project comes across as untidy and not properly checked for mistakes. Errors present in written communication make readability frustrating.
|
Written research project displays good word choice, language conventions and mechanics with a few minor errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure and/or punctuation. Errors do not represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.
|
Readability of the project is good due to the clarity of language used. Grammar, spelling and punctuation is without error. Spelling and grammar thoroughly checked.
|
Readability of the project is enhanced by facility in language use/word choice. Excellent mechanics and syntactic variety. Uses language conventions effectively (e.g., spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, paragraphing, grammar, etc.).
|
|
Analytical / Critical Thinking Skills
CRITICAL THINKING
25 % |
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated, or its component elements are not identified or described. Research information is poorly organized, categorized and/or not examined; research information is often |
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated at times and confusing. Research information is badly organized, categorized, and/or only superficially examined; research information is often |
Adequately identifies and describes (or sketches out) the research problem, concept or idea and its components. Gathers and examines information relating to the research problem, concept or idea; presents and appraises |
Formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects information appropriate to addressing the research problem, concept or idea; accurately and appropriately |
Effectively formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects and prioritizes information appropriate to addressing the research problem, concept, or idea; accurately |
|
|
inaccurate or incomplete. Presents little if any analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents few solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are often not well supported, are inaccurate and/or inconsistent, and are presented in a vague or rudimentary manner.
|
incomplete. Presents limited analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents some solutions or conclusions but they are often not well supported, or logical.
|
research information with some minor inconsistencies, irrelevancies or omissions. Generally applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories although with inaccuracies. Outlines solutions or conclusions that are somewhat logical and consistent with the analysis and evidence; identifies and/or lists solutions or conclusions although not always clearly.
|
analyses and interprets relevant research information. Effectively applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are coherent, well supported and complete.
|
and appropriately analyzes and interprets relevant research information. Precisely and effectively applies appropriate research methods, employs advanced skills to conduct research. Uses techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are insightful, coherent, well supported, logically consistent and complete. Displays a mastery of complex and specialized areas. |
