Executive Summary:

This study provides an analysis and rating of an intercultural dialogue between USA’s Brown Casual Shoes and China’s Chung Sun Manufacturing. provides a literature reappraisal of a outstanding theory from the field and suggests recommendation to better the procedure of intercultural communicating between these two states and companies.

As the Case Study was identified as subpar dialogue. all issues from the Case Study were allocated into Intercultural. Verbal and Nonverbal.

Following this. Hofstede’s Cultural Model was introduced in the literature reappraisal and critically analysed. This theoretical account included five dimensions:

1. Uncertainty Avoidance
2. Power Distance
3. Masculinity vs. Femininity
4. Individualism vs. Collectivism
5. Short Term vs. Long Term

Some strengths of the theoretical account included a big sample size. indexes for all states and easy formulated hypotheses. Alternatively. some restrictions were an alleged sample deceit. non adequately analyzing people on an single degree and a clip oversight since dimension preparation.

Major issues from the dialogues were so farther investigated and included:

Rushing the dialogues and neglecting to organize an equal relationship Causing offense by giving a gift to the Chinese representative Not esteeming the hierarchy of the

Chinse civilization
Failing to engage an translator for the dialogues
Touching the Chinese associates unsuitably

Recommendations suggested forestalling farther intercultural issues and repairing current issues as noted above included:

Hiring an translator and cultural advisor
Translating all written stuffs into Chinese
Making transparence within the dialogues procedure by inquiring for a joint scheme

1 Introduction

Intercultural communicating is going progressively of import within a planetary context for concerns. In one survey within China – the state being analyzed. all respondents to a study agreed that it is critical to the success of the organisation ( 73. 9 strongly & A ; 26. 1 reasonably ) ( Goodman & A ; Wang. 2007 ) . In the undermentioned study. the success of an intercultural dialogue between China and USA will be assessed to determine all issues happening across intercultural. verbal and gestural and how they can be fixed. This will be done by supplying recommendations based on current literature in the field. Additionally. The issues of the instance will be identified and analysed and a literature position will be undertaken of a relevant outstanding theory in the field.

2 Designation of Problems/Issues

Within the dialogues between Brown Casual Shoes and Chung Sun Manufacturing. there were several intercultural communicating issues that offended the Chinese through what appeared to be a blazing neglect for their cultural barriers. These issues have been partitioned into three subdivisions general. verbal and gestural.

1 Intercultural Issues

The first mistake in their intercultural interaction was the missive given by Mr Brown to Mr Deng. In add-on to endow giving in the Chinese concern civilization being unacceptable due to it being seen as graft ( UONI. 2011 ) . it is particularly violative for a gift to be wrapped in white paper – as ruddy is the norm ( Kwintessential. 2013 ) . The fact that Mr. Deng refused the gift three times before opening it aligns with the fact that Chinese may decline a gift three times before opening it – but non a 4th ( Kwintessential. 2013 ) . Another lending factor is the point that Chinese don’t like to state no. and will frequently state yes merely to salvage face ( World Business Culture. 2013 ) . The undermentioned error made by Mr. Brown was offering the first toast of the eventide. In Chinese cultulre. it should ever be the host who makes the first toast of the eventide ( Kwintessential. 2013 ) .

Additionally. Mr Brown’s deficiency of cognition on who should go forth the meeting foremost may hold caused offense. As per Chinese civilization. the alien should ever go forth foremost when a meeting is finished ( UONI. 2011 ) . Mr Browns misinterpretation of this could hold caused uncomfortableness for the Chinese. Mr Brown’s perceptual experience that the initial meetings with the Chinese would hold resulted in a dialogue early was a cardinal misinterpretation – as he failed to gain that the Chinese frequently forge relationships with persons before partaking in concern ( Goodman. 2013 ) .

2 Intercultural Verbal Communication Issue

Although Mr Brown and his squad participated in tonss of little talk with Mr Deng. farther little talk could be encouraged to avoid doing offense and giving the feeling that the negotiants merely care about clip – and non hammering a lasting relationship ( UONI. 2011 ) . An extra verbal mistake made by Mr. Brown was his failure to engage a translator. In China. this is frequently viewed as a mark of discourtesy for their civilization ( Fang & A ; Faure. 2010 ) . This deficiency of an translator and an overall deficiency of comprehension of English could hold been the ground for the big sum of inquiries instead than the feeling formulated by Mr. Brown that they were non serious about the concern ( World Business Culture. 2013 ) . Furthermore. the fact that Mr Brown and his squad didn’t do the attempt to larn any Chinese at all for the dialogue might give off the feeling that they are ethnocentric about their civilization ( Goodman. 2013 ) .

3 Intercultural Nonverbal Verbal Communication Issues

Although there were non many gestural communicating mistakes. one cardinal gestural communicating mistake made by Mr. Brown was his touching of the arm of Mr. Deng. Culturally. Chinese dislike being touched by aliens ( Gao et al. 1996 ) . As they were merely merely meeting and non yet decently acquainted. this may hold been perceived as violative.

3 Literature Review

Hofstede’s theoretical account has been used as it was utilized a starting point for many extra cultural theoretical accounts. Below. figure one shows the convergence of this theoretical account with other noteworthy 1s from the field of cultural communicating surveies. It can be deduced from this that Hofstede’s theoretical account is the most diverse and complete model as it encompasses all factors of other relevant theoretical accounts and shows grounds for the theoretical relevancy. Figure 2: Comparison of Hofstede’s cultural model with other theoretical accounts

Beginning: Soares. Farhangmehr & A ; Shoham. 2007. p. 281

One premise of this theoretical account is specifying individuality through state. Many bookmans ( Steenkamn et al. 1999l Hofstede. 1984 ; Parker. 1994 ; Hoover et Al. . 1978 ) support this attack.

1 Literature Review

Hofstede’s cultural dimension is a theoretical account crafted to place the key differences across different cultural workplace values. Gert Hofstede formulated this theoretical account through complex statistical analysis on more than 100. 000 IBM employees across the universe. The consequences of this suggested that five dimension ground tackles could be used to depict most of import differences among civilizations worldwide. These ground tackles provide points of comparing for each civilization and let different states civilizations to be contrasted and their temperament measured based on cardinal traits ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011 ) . These anchor points are: Individualism/Collectivism. Power Distance. Masculinity/Femininity. Uncertainty Avoidance and Short Term/Long Term. Figure 1 below shows how this is normally measured.

Figure 1:

Beginning: Hofstede. 2001

The first dimension of the theoretical account is Power Distance. Power distance reflects the attitude a society holds on power inequality and authorization dealingss in society. This ground tackle can act upon hierarchy. dependance relationships and organisational context ( Soares et al. 2007 ) . A low mark is declarative of a society with small regard for unevenly distributed power and determinations are frequently spread through the administration with feedback to stamp appropriate. Alternatively. a high mark shows that the society depends extremely on hierarchal constructions and may concentrate determination devising at the top ( Hofstede. 1980 ) . Uncertainty turning away is the 2nd dimension of this model. This dictates the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainness and ambiguity and due to this avoid state of affairss that may do these feelings to happen ( Hofstede. 1991 ) . Peoples with high uncertainness turning away frequently have good defined regulations for prescribed behaviors ( Soares et al. 2007 ) and if these are non in topographic point for new state of affairss. they will endeavor to instantly travel towards set uping them. Alternatively. those with low tonss on this ground tackle will be less affected by state of affairss that may be equivocal ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011 ) .

The following dimension – individuality vs. Bolshevism. describes the relationships people have in each civilization ( Soares et al. 2007 ) . In individualistic societies. people tend to move independently and look after merely themselves and their direct households. In collectivized societies. members of the society hold a big grade of mutuality ( Hofstede. 1980 ) and take attention of their group in exchange for trueness.

Masculinity vs. Feminity is the scale ground tackle that differentiates societies where accomplishment and success is overriding ( high – masculine ) and those where caring for others and quality of life is more of import ( low – feminine ) ( Hofstede. 1994 ) . Feminine societies are 1s where quality of life is frequently more desirable than standing out from the crowd ( Hofstede. 2014 ) . Last. Long-run vs. Short Term is the dimension. which shows states penchant towards future wagess and doggedness or towards short-run addition and carry throughing yesteryear or present traditions ( Hofstede and Bond. 1988 ) .

2 Strengths

Some strengths of Hofstede’s theoretical account is the thoroughness and clip points of his research – which includes 116. 000 empirical questionnaires from over 60. 000 respondents across 70 states in assorted decennaries ( Hofstede. 1984 ; Hofstede. 1991 ; Hofstede. 2001 ) . This is the most robust theoretical account in footings of sample size and assortment ( Smith et al. . 1996 ) . He links his dimensions with assorted external and internal factors. such as demographic. geographic. economic and political. and assigns indexes to every state – a characteristic unmatched by other models ( Kale & A ; Barnes. 1992 ) .

In add-on. the model is extremely utile in explicating easy hypothesises across a scope of intents and it continues to be the norm used in international selling. psychological science. direction and sociology surveies ( Engel. Blackwell & A ; Miniard. 1995 ; Sondergaard. 1994 ) .

3 Failings

Although some critique Hofstede’s research due to its alleged sample prejudice and its deficiency of inclusivity of the profusion of civilizations due to its sample size being based merely on those working at IBM ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011 ) . they fail to take into history farther alterations of the theoretical account by Hofstede. At the International Institute for Management Development Hofstede administered the trial to international directors from over 30 states from a assortment of both private and public administrations. The consequences yielded in these proved significantly similar to those in his original sample – solidifying his original hypothesis ( Geert. 2008 ) . Another outstanding review is the fact that in both of these instances. there was a disproportional degree of males. members of the in-between category were over represented and instruction degrees were much higher than norm ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011 ) . Additionally. some argue that in the theoretical account state differences merely account for 2 to 4 per centum of discrepancy in single values. go forthing at least 96 percent- if non more. unexplained.

One bookman from the Academy of Management suggested that the theoretical account was incongruent with his ain cognition on psychological phenomena and suggests that an alternate methodological analysis be drafted ( Ailon. 2008 ) to account for this 96 per centum. Some faculty members claim that Hofstede’s civilization dimensions are flawed due to their classifications of people into national stereotypes instead than single character. This is particularly applicable for people populating in ethnically diverse states. ( Venaik & A ; Brewer. 2013 ) . Lenartowicz and Roth ( 1999 ) . nevertheless. postulate that no individual methodological analysis across any theoretical account is able to turn to the inclusive set of standards relevant to cultural appraisal in concern surveies. Last. it could be suggested that due to the clip that the initial dimensions were formulated was so long ago they may be out-dated and no longer relevant. Others argue that the alteration in civilizations occurs so slow that important alterations would non likely affect the theoretical account for a long period ( Sivakumar and Nakata. 2001 ) – possibly until 2100 ( Hofstede. 2001 ) .

4 Case Analysis

Five issues have been chosen out of the initial 1s identified and have been linked up with their relevant theories.

1 Issue 1

The first issue is Mr Brown’s haste to finalize the dialogue and his concluding remark proposing restlessness with the dialogues. As China’s civilization is preponderantly long-run orientated ( 87 V USA’s 26 ) the Chinese representatives may take longer to finalize the dialogues due to holding a temperament towards long term relationships ( Zhang & A ; Toomey. 2009 ) . In add-on to this. Chinese negotiants frequently need to organize a relationship due to their low disposition to individualism – 20 V USA’s 91 ( Hofstede. 2014 ) . This hastiness showed great discourtesy for the Chinese’s attempts to organize a long-run relationship with the company. an aspect normally necessary for concern agreements to win in China ( Fang & A ; Faure. 2010 ) .

2 Issue 2

As China is a extremely peculiar civilization on Trompenaars seven dimensions of civilization theoretical account ( Luthans & A ; Doh. 2009 ) . intending that make up one’s minding on what is right and incorrect or acceptable and unacceptable is extremely dependent on the exact state of affairs and relationships involved ( Trompenaars. 1997 ) it was a sedate issue non to engage a transcriber to assist get the better of this barrier. Hofstede provides support for this theory by ranking China really low on the uncertainness turning away graduated table ( 30 ) . intending that their regulations may be really flexible and alone culturally ( Hofstede. 2014 ) .

3 Issue 3

As China is a high context society ( Hall. 1985 ) . the failed gift-giving incident could match with a clang of this high context. Hall notes that within a high context civilization messages are frequently covert and inexplicit. there is much non-verbal communicating and the look of reaction is often reserved and inward. The message that Mr. Deng did non desire to accept the gift was most surely covert and non-verbal and his reaction to the incident stayed reserved and inward – most likely to salvage face ( Goodman. 2013 ) .

4 Issue 4

Hall’s theory to boot links to an of import issue within the dialogue procedure. As Mr. Brown continually touched Mr. Deng’s arm during dialogues. this may hold been perceived as breach of Space ( Hall. 1985 ) . The proxemics of the Chinese civilization dictates that touching is seldom acceptable ( Communication Studies. 2014 ) .

5 Issue 5

Another issue originating from the dialogues is both Mr. Brown crispening foremost at the dinner and him non go forthing the dinner foremost. What he failed to see when making this was China’s high power distance ( 80 V USA’s 40 ) ( Hofstede. 2014 ) . This suggests that China strongly values hierarchal establishments. Crispening first and disrespecting the Chinese cultural norm of the invitees go forthing dinner foremost could be perceive as disrespectful to the order of the Chinese leading and their subsequent authorization.

5 Recommendations

Three recommendations have been suggested to better Brown’s Casual Shoe’s dialogue with China in analysis of the Case Study

1 Recommendation 1

The first and most of import recommendation for Mr. Brown would be to engage a corporate communicator or translator. Although it would non be wise to engage a complete agent – as it may take away from the personal relationship necessitating to be crafted between both parties for successful concern projects. USA negotiants should engage an translator at the least or a cultural advisor at best to cut through the high context civilization of the Chinese. demo the Chinese that they care about their civilization and to offer invaluable advice on the dialogue procedure to guarantee an optimum result for both parties ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011 ) .

2 Recommendation 2

The USA negotiants should in future hire a transcriber to succinctly interpret all of their written stuff including concern cards. selling presentations. concern proposals. company history. merchandise information and anything else relevant to the trip to Chinese utilizing simplified characters ( Fang & A ; Faure. 2010. p. 138 ) . This takes off room for misunderstanding on any component of concern and eliminates any construct of ethnocentricity that could hold been perceived every bit good as demoing regard for their civilization and linguistic communication ( Kwintessential. 2013 ) .

3 Recommendation 3

The concluding recommendation is to place whether either parties or both parties will set their manner of dialogue to the other parties cultural manner. Confusion can sometimes originate when both parties are seeking to set to the others negotiation manner ( Lewicki. Saunders & A ; Barry. 2011. p. 245 ) . A simple avowal of whether this will be done can salvage much confusion and make an air of transparence. In many instances a secure center land ( sometimes called joint scheme ) can be agreed upon. This could be asked through an electronic mail or missive prior to dialogue beginning. or if this is non appropriate. they could inquire to talk in private with the highest authorization of the Chinese party to esteem their hierarchal establishments. To make this. you could merely remain about after a meeting and inquire personally to talk with the leader to assist him salvage face ( Goodman. 2013. p. 177 ) .

6 Mentions
Ailon. G. ( 2008 ) . Mirror. mirror on the wall: culture’s effects in a value trial of it’s ain design. The Academy of Management Review. 33 ( 4 ) . 885-904. Communication Surveies ( 2014 ) . Proxemics. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. communicationstudies. com/communication-theories/proxemics Dawar. N. . & A ; Parker. P. ( 1994 ) . Marketing universals: consumers’ usage of trade name. name. monetary value. physical visual aspect and retail merchant repute as signals of merchandise quality. J Mark. 58 ( April ) . 81-95. Engel. J. . Blackwell. R. . & A ;
Miniard. P. ( 1995 ) . Consumer Behaviour. n. p. : The Dryden Press. Fang. T. . & A ; Faure. G. O. ( 2011 ) . Chinese communicating features: A Yin Yang position. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 35 ( 3 ) . 320-333. Department of the interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx. Department of the Interior. org/10. 1016/j. ijintrel. 2010. 06. 005. Gao. G. . Toomey. T. S. . Gudykunst. W. B. . & A ; Bond. M. H. ( 1996 ) . The Handbook of Chinese Psychology – Chinese communicating procedures. New York. New york: Oxford University Press. Goodman. M. B. ( 2013 ) . Intercultural Communication for Managers. New York. NY: Business expert imperativeness. Goodman. M. B. . & A ; Wang. J. ( 2007 ) . Tradition and invention: the China concern communicating survey. The Journal of Business Strategy. 28 ( 3 ) . 34-41. Department of the interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx. Department of the Interior. org/10. 1108/02756660710746256 Hall. E. T. ( 1985 ) . Concealed Differences: Surveies in International Communication. Hamburg. GE: Grunder and Jahr. Hofstede. G. ( 1984 ) . Culture’s effects: international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park. Calcium: Sage Publications. Hofstede. G. ( 1991 ) . Cultures and organisations – package of the head. New York. New york: Mcgraw-Hill. Hofstede. G. ( 2001 ) . Cultures Consequences: Comparing Valuess. Behaviours. Institutions & A ; Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Hofstede. G. ( 2014 ) . China. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //geert-hofstede. com/china. hypertext markup language Hofstede. G. ( 2014 ) . Geert. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. geerthofstede. com/geert. aspx Hofstede. G. ( 2014 ) . United States. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //geert-hofstede. com/united-states. hypertext markup language Hoover. R. . Green. R. . & A ; Saegert. J. ( 1978 ) . A cross-national survey of perceived hazard. J Mark. ( July ) . 102-108. Kale. S. . & A ; Barnes. J. ( 1992 ) . Understanding the sphere of cross-national buyer-seller instructions. Journal of International Business Studies. 23 ( 1 ) . 101-109. Kwintessential. ( 2013 ) . China – linguistic communication. civilization. imposts and etiquette. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. kwintessential. co. uk/resources/global-etiquette/china-country-profile. hypertext markup language. Lewicki. R. J. . Saunders. D. M. . & A ; Barry. B. ( 2011 ) . Necessities of dialogue ( 5th erectile dysfunction ) . New York. New york: Mcgraw-Hill. Luthans. F. . & A ; Doh. J. ( 2009 ) . International Management. New York. New york: McGraw-Hill Rubin. J. Z. . & A ; Sander. F. E. A. ( 1991 ) . Culture. Negotiation and the Eye of the Beholder. Negotiation Journal. 7 ( 1 ) . 249-254. Doi ; 10. 1111/j. 1571-9979. 1991. tb00620. ten Sivakumar. K. . & A ; Nakata. C. ( 2001 ) . The stampede toward Hofstede’s model: avoiding the sample design cavity in cross-cultural research. The Journal of International Business Studies. 32 ( 3 ) . 555-574. Smith. P. . Dugan.
S. . & A ; Trompenaars. F. ( 1996 ) . National civilization and the values of organisational employees – a dimensional analysis across 43 states. The Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 27 ( 2 ) . 231-264. Soares. A. M. . Farhangmehr. M. . & A ; Shoham. A. ( 2007 ) . Hofstede’s dimensions of civilization in international selling surveies. Journal of Business Research. 60 ( 3 ) . 227-284. Department of the interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx. Department of the Interior. org/10. 1016/j. jbusres. 2006. 10. 018. Sondergaard. M. ( 1994 ) . Research note: Hofstede’s effects: a survey of reappraisals. commendations and reproductions. Journal of Organisational Studies. 15 ( 3 ) . 447-456. Steenkamp. J. ( 2001 ) . The function of national civilization in international selling research. International Market Review. 18 ( 1 ) . 30-44. Trompenaars. F. . & A ; Hampden Turner. C. ( 1997 ) . Riding the moving ridges of civilization: Understanding Diverseness in Global Business. New York. New york: Mcgraw-Hill. University of Northern Iowa. ( 2011 ) . Business Communication with China. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //business. uni. edu/buscomm/internationalbuscomm/world/asia/china/china. hypertext markup language Venaik. S. . & A ; Brewer. P. ( 2013 ) . Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national civilization theoretical accounts. International Marketing Review. 30 ( 5 ) . 469-482. World Business Culture. ( 2013 ) . Chinese concern communicating manner. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. worldbusinessculture. com/Chinese-Business-Communication-Style. hypertext markup language Zhang. H. . & A ; Toomey. S. T. ( 1998 ) . Communicating Efficaciously with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publication.