cross-culture business report

Cross-cultural management:Business report

Executive summary

In the multicultural cooperation, the important point was full of understand partners

cultural background, because order to avoidance some conflict happen and achieve

the cooperation successful in the cooperation, better to do the researching the culture

background was necessary. Therefore we are the leader company (UK Company) will

understand our partners (USA and Japan) culture before and put forward some

suggestion in the meeting according the research result to increase the rate of

international cooperation.


ContentsBackground 1

Methodology 1

1.0 Introduction2

2.0 Culture 2

2.1Hall 2

2.2 Hofstede 3

2.3 CPAS 5

3.0 Recommendations8

4.0 Conclusion 9

References 10


Background

Our companies (UK) need to win a international project, in this situation we need a

international team to help us win this project, therefore as the leader company, we

choice Japan and USA company become our partners, so UK company CEO will

prepare a report to solve some problem and improve development in the multicultural

cooperation. In the end, I will put forward some my mind to improve communication

and cooperation for this meeting and development.

Methodology

In this report, I will use Hall, Hofstede and CPAS to analyze three countries’ culture,

and then I will compare that culture different to put forward some problem in this

cooperation.

Because the Hall dimension was very important theory to explain the culture profiling

and express the people will influence country’s culture. Because the Robert was

commented that hall’s research was reflecting the deep regard for culture and using

describe method to express most of culture profiling. Therefore I will use Hall

dimension to analyze this report. (Shuter Robert 2008)

Hofstede (1980) have some clearly figure, therefore it became a good way to express

my mind in this report and Hofstede was very famous, because “using the Hofstede

framework as a foundation, a conceptual model of the effect of culture and

interpersonal orientation on countries business to business relationship” ( J Busn Res

1998 135-143). In the Hofstede (1980) 5 dimensions ： Power

Distance， Individualism， Uncertainty avoidance，Masculinity and Long term

orientation。Every different score will express the different culture in country.

1 / 10


Cultural Profiling and Analysis System (CPAS) was including 12 dimensions, it was better than

Hofstede 5 dimension, therefore it will make more clearly and easily to analyze different cultural

profiling, the information was coming Northampton Business School Cross-Culture management

Student Book.

1.0 Introduction

In this report, I will use Hall (1960), Hofstede (1980) and CPAS (2000) to analyze

UK, USA and Japan Culture profiling, it will help the meeting successful hold up and

put forward some suggestion according the result for the meeting and improve the

cooperation development. It was the important way to set up our international

relationship to achieve the first international cooperation in this international project

in our company.

2.0 Culture

2.1 Hall

UK USA JAP

Context Low context Low context High context

Time Monochronic time Monochronic time Polychronic time

Space High territoriality High territoriality Low territoriality

Table 1 Hall's model

In these three dimensions, I will clearly to explain what they mean and their express.

1.1.1 Context: UK and USA is Low context, JAP is High Context, it

was mean that UK will keep more reticent when they finish some

introduce, and American like positive put some ideas in their

mind and using some body language sometime, compare USA,

Japan would be more euphemistic give some suggestion.

1.1.2 Time: UK and USA is Monochronic time, JAP is Polychronic

2 / 10


time. They were mean that UK and USA have a stronger time

review, and put their jobs as the first important thing in their life,

and compare that, the relationship was the Japanese important

point.

1.1.3 Space: UK and USA is High territoriality, JAP is Low

territoriality. It was mean that the contract was very important for

UK and USA, but Japanese think about contract just a

relationship’s expression. In this situation, we need take care

about the cooperation relationship with Japan and USA.

According this information, as the result about some problem will happen in the

meeting, for example, USA will add some body language when they put forward their

suggestions, and UK will direct their opinion when the Japan expresses their mind.

Therefore we need prepare some ways to solve these problems to achieve successful

in the future.

2.2 Hofstede

UK USA JAP

Power Distance 35 40 54

Individualism 89 91 46

Masculinity 66 62 95

Uncertainty avoidance 35 46 92

Long term orientation 25 29 80

Table 2 Hofstede's model

I will one by one to explain this figure.

1.1.4 Power Distance：UK score was 35, USA score was 40, Japan

score was 54.According this figure analyzes, the UK and USA

was quite same, and Japan was higher than others, it was mean

3 / 10


that UK and USA haven’t fix level policy. It was less the manager

power and makes it to share every employer and respect

employers’ suggestion. Compare that, Japan have a lot of level

policy in the company, the manager will stronger their position

and control the company development.

1.1.5 Individualism：UK score was 89，UKS score was 91， Japan

score was 46。Japan was lower than others in the figure. It was

mean that UK and USA was more respect personal suggests and

employers’ attitude in the working. But Japan was thought about

team work as much as the important in the working.

1.1.6 Masculinity：UK score was 66，USA score was 62， Japan

score was 95. Compare these figures, Japan was the highest and

UK and USA was quite same. Therefore, late to close was normal

phenomenon in Japan, they think about successful was the

important, but UK and USA was the complete opposition.

1.1.7 Uncertainty avoidance： UK score was 35， USA score was

46，Japan score was 92.It was mean that UK and USA was easily

to receive the UN-know things happen in the future. The

uncertainty cannot influence their working plan, but Japan was

made more clearly plan to avoidance the Uncertainty happened.

1.1.8 Long term orientation： UK score was 25， USA score was

29，Japan score was 80.It was mean that the UK was take care

the tradition, they favor according the plan to achieve the

4 / 10


development, and USA was take care efficiency, they favor to

challenge something to make them successful, but Japan was very

attention development in the future and take care the cooperation

In this situation, Japan have a high power distance maybe will have some conflicts

with UK and USA, because UK and USA was favor working in the low pressure,

therefore Japan would be think about UK and USA have not really attitude to face the

international cooperation.

2.3 CPAS

UK USA JAP

Strategic horizon 18 24 88

Expression of emotion 78 20 78

Hierarchical orientation 46 20 53

Relationship orientation 9 10 64

Status orientation 27 0 90

Profit orientation 31 11 100

Systems orientation

Ambiguity orientation 32 45 100

Rule orientation 40 11 58

Control orientation 53 0 100

Gender orientation 32 37 0

Group orientation 29 8 71

Table 3 CPAS's model

1.1.9 Strategic horizon：UK score was 18，USA score was 24，Japan

score was 88. The Japan was the highest, because Japan was take

care the long time benefit in the business negotiation, by the way,

5 / 10


the High-Uncertainty Avoidance give them more pressure in the

working, therefore they need a clearly plan to help them, but UK

and USA was complete opposition.

1.1.10 Expression of emotion ： UK score was 78, SA score was

20， Japan score was 78. UK and Japan was the same figure

because they both take care the relationship in their country,

differently, UK think about the working successful was the first

point in the business, but Japan was think about relationship was

the key point to improve the business cooperation, The USA was

the lowest country, it was mean that USA do not set more

relationship in the business, they favor the individual working in

the business.

1.1.11 Hierarchical orientation：UK score was 46，USA score was

20，Japan score was 53。This analyze as same as the Hofstede

(1980) power distance.

1.1.12 Relationship orientation： UK score was 9， USA score was

10，Japan score was 64. It was meaning that UK and USA was

take care about working, but Japan was attention relationship.

1.1.13 Status orientation：UK score was 27，USA score was 0，Japan

score was 90. It was mean that Japan has a high power distance in

the company, but UK and USA was different Japan.

1.1.14 Profit orientation：UK score was 31，USA score was 11，Japan

6 / 10


score was 100. It was mean that Japan thought about company

benefit should be important everything. But UK and USA thought

about corporation image should be put in the first.

1.1.15 Ambiguity orientation: UK score was 32，USA score was 45,

Japan score was 100.It was mean that UK and USA was direct

express their mind but Japan was not. on the other hand, UK will

direct express their mind on the face, maybe it will make the

conflict with Japan, therefore we need pay attention this point and

let our partners will put their suggestion in the meeting or

negotiation. Because it will avoidance the conflict in the working.

1.1.16 Rule orientation: UK score was 40，USA score was 11，Japan

score was 58. it was mean that Japan was High-Uncertainty

Avoidance ， they favor to put a clearly plan to help them

development, and USA was Low-Uncertainty Avoidance, they

respect personal suggestion and working in low pressure, and UK

was like according rule to working.

1.1.17 Control orientation: UK score was 53，USA score was 0，Japan

score was 100. It was mean that Japan was take care the benefit in

the long-term cooperation, therefore, Japan was like to put a long

and clearly plan to help them to control the development

programs. But USA and UK was attention personal express in the

working.

1.1.18 Gender orientation: UK score was 32，USA score was 37，Japan

score was 0. These figures were not cross the 40, therefore they

have same methods to solve this problem.

7 / 10


1.1.19 Group orientation: UK score was 29，USA score was 8，Japan

score was 71. It was mean that Japan was favor working in the

group, but USA and UK was more individual, therefore they

would like working by personal.

This model talks about more clearly culture profiling between Japan, UK and USA.

Therefore we need give them some time to fit in this cooperation. By the way, we

need a correct method to improve the communication in this international cooperation

to win the international project, we will keep in the advantage location in the earlier

time compare our other competitors.

3.0 Recommendations

According these methods statement that the serious problem can’t ignore between

different cultural. These problems may be result in fail in this meeting. Therefore I

will put forward some suggestion for this meeting and development. They include 8

points to show that:

3.1 As the leader company. UK should be told that some rules about this

cooperation, it will avoidance some conflicts happen in the future.

Therefore, we hope that we can understand some behaviors and attitude in

this meeting.

8 / 10


3.2 We should make a clearly plan before this meeting for USA and Japan

have a good environment in this cooperation, and then, I suggestion we

should less the content and increase the opportunity for the negotiation in

this cooperation.

3.3 We should respect Japanese long-term cooperation and plan suggestions.

3.4 We need search some method which solves some conflict in this meeting,

if we don’t agree with Japanese suggestion; we should respect their

opinions and put forward our suggestion.

3.5 We should suggest our partners to change some knowledge order to

complement each other’s advantages. Therefore we should let UK and

USA make some short times plan and Japan will do some long term plan

for the company development.

3.6 We should let Japan understand our mind if Japan just consider company

benefit without social influence and corporate image.

3.7 We should do some better service to welcome our partners.

3.8 In the working time, we need take care about partners' employers, because

it will good for us setting up our international relationship in this

international cooperation

4.0 Conclusion

The different cultural became the inevitable problem, therefore our company should

make a perfect plan to improve our cooperation for this international team. According

analysis and compare different cultural, we need prepare some ways to avoidance

some problem happen in the future. but in first time, we need improve our behaviors

and attitude to face this cooperation, because we are the leader company, we need to

control the international cooperation development, in the same time we need increase

the content with our partners working, therefore we are have some core common

9 / 10


goals for this cooperation. As far as my point we should according really method to

share our information and technology to achieve the cooperation successful.

Finally I hope we can have a good and successful cooperation in this international

project.

10 / 10


References

1. Jerome D. Williams, Sang-Lin Han and William J. Qualls. (1998). A conceptual

Model and study of cross-culture Business relationship 135-143

2. Shuter, Robert. (2008). the centrality of culture. In Molefi Kete Asante,

Yoshitaka Miike, & Jing Yin (Eds.), the global intercultural communication

reader (pp. 37-43). New York: Routledge

3. Hofstede (1980), searching for the website:

www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php

11 / 10

cross-culture business report

Documents