Cultural Differences In Business: A Case Study

Importance of Responding to Cultural Differences in Business

In the modern world of business, companies are always searching for scopes to work together for efficient and productive outcomes. For corrective implementation of the respective outcome, responding to cultural differences stands as a prior objective that needs to be maintained and mitigated. Presently, it is one of the issues that has the potentiality to affect the organizational value. In the following case, Michael Sokolow, Director of Foreign Sales at Mustang Jeans, was observed to have a disagreement with the Vice President of PopWear, Norio Tukunaka. Moreover, due to Michael’s negligence of building relationship and other factors that influenced the scenario, Mr Tukunaka had refused to sign an important deal with Mustang Jeans.

The whole scenario has a cultural importance that needs to be studied. Moreover, the following study aims to provide deep-insights on the identification of the issues, approach to the issues and an appropriate solution, with respect to the following culturally diversified scenario. The final thoughts are summarized in the conclusion of the study.

According to a journal by Søderberg and Holden (2016), maintenance of cultural values and norms of an individual should not affect the business of the organization. An organization faces deep consequences when it involves/supports in any culture affecting activity (Hofstede, 2014). In the following context with respect to the dealing between Michael Sokolow and Norio Tukunaka, few relatable issues has been identified which needs to be evaluated for better clarification. They are-

• Long-term orientation unlikeness have been noticed to leave a major impact. The character of Norio Tukunaka has been identified as an individual who values a long-term approach of development and conduction in business, whereas Michael’s characteristic of short-term approach is relatively insulting to Mr Tukunaka.
• Michael’s pressurizing approach (“Let’s get the ball rolling”) to Norio for signing the agreement was not preferable to the former individual. Also, Mr Sokolow had other businesses to attend to; thus, creating a rushing situation for Mr Tukanaka.
• The whole meeting was a failure, since no individual supported firm relationship and henceforth, accomplishment of signing the deal had not been established.

The issues are identified in the previous sub-heading. However, the reason of such circumstance and behaviour are not justified. Thus, it is important to understand the role of characters to the following plot. Moreover, the identified issues are appeared to have significant impact on both the parties. To address the issues-

• Firstly, it is important for any business official to analyse and calculate the future scenario which might have a significant impact on the ‘Future of benefits’ to the respective company (Au, 2018).  Michael’s attitude and reaction during the conversation with Mr Tukanaka suggested that he was not well-prepared for the expected situation. Perhaps, it would have been a wise decision for Michael to gather the required information from Roger with respect to Norio’s character. This would have possibly created a better conversation and outcome between them. Also, Michael showed impatient behaviour which was too informal for Norio.
• Also, Norio was noticed to miss the presence of former partner, Roger Small. The deal was almost at ‘Completed’ stage. Moreover, Roger was expecting to develop a relationship with Michael, just like he did with Roger and, with other business associates. Yet, the situation turned out to be offensive and dispiriting to Mr Tukanaka.
• Further, no two ethnicities are exactly similar to themselves to any national, social and cultural standards (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2017). Here, the recorded cultural difference between Japanese and American can be understood as, Japanese being more attentive to building relationship before engaging in any business, whereas Americans are mostly identified to complete an agreement in quick succession. In the following context, Michael rushing to sign the deal in an unsocial and irrelevant event of conversation is inappropriate to the friendly environment that Norio was trying to build. His apology for the first meeting was appropriate and well-received yet non-convincing to Mr Tukanaka.
• Norio also indicated Michael of the on-going competition in the market whereas, Mr Sokolow misunderstood the expressed statement of Norio’s stay in New York and missed the opportunity of strengthening their relation with Norio. He kept on insisting the Japanese to sign the deal, which identified the impatient and pressurizing side of the American businessman.
• Both the parties were observed to be having a hard-time in communication. They, moreover, misunderstood each other, mostly due to the lack of sensitivity to each other’s cultural values and norms. 

In the discussed context, the cultural issue between Michael Sokolow and Norio Tukanaka has resulted with miscommunication and disagreement to an important deal. Both the characters are observed to stick to their cultural norms. The situation might have turned out to produce better outcome to improved choices of action from both the individuals involved. Thus, the probable solutions are discussed as-

(Source: Author)

• Johari’s model is a simple tool that can implemented in the following context. Application of Johari’s Window model is considered as the perfect tool to improve self-awareness and mutual understanding of an individual to themselves and others (Scholtens & Dam, 2017). Accordingly, when a relationship progresses, information about oneself becomes known and exchanged to others and themselves, too. Free flow of feedback and disclosure are subjected to enhance a relationship (Harris, Moran & Andrews, 2014). To the following scenario, Michael was completely seemed to disagree on ‘disclosure’. He was even unable to efficiently gather and interpret faint hints that were signalled to his feedback. Moreover, the approach was inconsistent to the expectations of Norio, as he become quite upset to find the personality of Michael unlike, Roger. Perhaps, the usage of the following model would have helped the targeted individual to reflect on his character and correct his actions, accordingly.
• Communication is considered to be the prime factor of conducting a business (Mehta et al.,2016). The style and tone of interaction builds the pavement of carrying a subjected action forward (Thomas, 2016). A friendly tone will create an easy flow of conversation, whereas a harsh tone will create fuzz and argumentative thoughts to the minds of the audience (Kaynak, Fulmer and Keys, 2013). In the above discussed scenario, Norio’s characteristic features and interaction style was friendly and supporting. Whereas, Michael was observed to keep a professional and demanding tone intended to the agreement of a specified deal. Moreover, Mr Tukanaka’s values and norms were observed to be the stronger than Michael’s. During the time of leaving New York, Mr Tukanaka was observed to make a statement of ‘hope’ of a good relationship in the future with Michael in the future. At this point, Michael’s appropriate reaction should have been to remain gracious and to re-evaluate his approach with Norio.  

Conclusion

Cultural values hold a high spot in the lifestyle and behaviour of an individual. A member of a culture is identified on the basis of how he gathers and responds to a circumstantial scenario. For the above discussed plot, the behavioural difference between the two characters have become the problematic matter to both the individuals. Alikeness in the strategies had convoluted the whole relation. The contrast of the characters of Michael and Norio was clearly distinct. Moreover, the correct identification and analysis of the scenario have paved the way to gain further knowledge of the issues and further, take steps to mitigate them. The implementation of Johari’s model and behavioural checks to Michael’s, have been concluded to the solution, as they have the probability of upbringing character change and reality-check to Michael’s character. However, the correction to the behaviours should be idealized to be followed in the future too, as it carries the potential to deliver better outcomes for Michael and his company, than his present state.

References

Au, K. Y. (2018). Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 799-812.

Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Andrews, J. (2014). Managing cultural differences (Vol. 3). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Hofstede, G. (2014). The business of international business is culture. International business review, 3(1), 1-14.

Kaynak, E., Fulmer, R. M., & Keys, J. B. (2013). Do cultural differences make a business difference? Contextual factors affecting cross-cultural relationship success. In Executive Development and Organizational Learning for Global Business(pp. 41-66). Routledge.

Mehta, R., Larsen, T., Rosenbloom, B., & Ganitsky, J. (2016). The impact of cultural differences in US business-to-business export marketing channel strategic alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 156-165.

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. (2017). Managing cultural differences (Vol. 4). Routledge.

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2015). Managing cultural differences: global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success. Routledge.

Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2017). Cultural values and international differences in business ethics. Journal of Business ethics, 75(3), 273-284.

Søderberg, A. M., & Holden, N. (2014). Rethinking cross cultural management in a globalizing business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(1), 103-121.

Thomas, D. C. (2016). Essentials of international management: A cross-cultural perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order