Questions 1: ‘Individualism’ and ‘Uncertainty Avoidance’ are two dimensions proposed by Hofstede which are mentioned in the text as influential factors in international collaboration. The text gives the ‘score’ of the UK, USA, Germany, and Japan on these dimensions to illustrate the differences.What were the scores of these same countries on the remaining cultural dimensions?How could score differences on these other dimensions also influence collaboration between for cultures mentioned? Give concrete examples, if possible. How could the scores help them to work together? Explain and provide 4 hypothetical examples?Question 2: The text mentions that within the same organization wider cultural gaps can exist between, say R&D and finance as between the R&D teams of two partners. To what extent can Hofstede’s cultural dimensions be used to explain such cultural gaps.Question 3: Now Hofstede ha proposed a new dimension (Indulgence Versus Restraint), what added value does it offer when analyzing this article? Masters of collaborationBy Tom LesterAnts, those masters of collaboration, have madetheir species some of the most successful on theplanet. In contrast, tigers walk alone, and arein grave danger of extinction. The message forbusiness is this: in the modern world, we mustcollaborate or die.at board level, but the hoped-for results will onlymaterialize if operating staff at all levels inBirmingham are ready and able to work withtheir opposite numbers.Nationality, religion or corporate culture maybe the big hurdle, but it is important to alsorealize that even within the same organizationwider cultural gaps can exist between, say,Too often, however, in many UK companies, suc-cessful collaboration – both internal and externalhappens by accident rather than design, con-trasting vividly with many overseas rivals.R&D and finance as between the R&D teams of-two partners. Wherever it occurs, the failure tounderstand can be disastrous. Rover is a tragicThere are good reasons why effective collabora-tion is growing rapidly. Business operations example. Back in the 1980s, when shop-floor col-are becoming steadily more flexible at everylevel of the organization. Non-core activitiesare outsourced, and procurement has become aworldwide activity centred on China. Satisfyingcustomers at home demands an unprecedentedlevel of co-operation unimpeded by rigid hierar-chies and departmental boundaries.laboration in the UK car industry was near zero,Rover nonetheless managed to form a partner-ship with the Japanese group Honda to fill itsvital new model programme.But the arrogance of the Rover managers and thelack of a learning culture prevented them fromobtaining the real benefits of the relationship,Flatter organizations depend not on authority according to Professor Lord Bhattacharyya, headbut on teamwork for effective action, andnetworks of individuals may stretch halfwayround the globe and connect only electronically.The truly multinational executive, able to workeffectively anywhere in the world with anynationality, remains a rare beast, and ordinaryof the Warwick Manufacturing Group. Later,in 1992, when BMW bought the Rover business,communication with the German managers waseven worse (exacerbated by political infightingon the German side).Failure was the inevitable and bitter result. Nostaff therefore need to understand and learndoubt, ex-Rover patriots today will see the some-what similar collapse of the DaimlerChrysler linkas salve for wounded pride. Rather like Rover,A foreign joint venture or alliance, for example, DaimlerChrysler was dogged by poor collabora-tion and infighting, which stemmed in partfrom different cultures to achieve the right levelof collaboration.may be agreed in Mumbai with great enthusiasm from national cultural differences and traditionsmain factory, may have made the BMW teambetween German and US managers.uncomfortable from the outset.The cultural guru's great contribution may lieless in detailed analysis of deeply held culturalattitudes and more in helping companies anti-cipate and understand behaviour patterns thattheir foreign managers may display in their hometerritory, and the different patterns that they dis-play when transferred to the UK.The outcome in both cases will have come as nosurprise to Professor Geert Hofstede, who 30 yearsago pioneered the study of cultural diversity in56 countries using IBM's worldwide database. Hehas since been joined by others, notably a fellowDutchman, Fons Trompenaars, and the American,Craig Storti.As immigration grows, and London expandseven further as an international financial centre,it becomes an important skill to be able to workeffectively with and through executives of widelydifferent backgrounds. Nationality, however, isnot the only cause of non-communication, andnot even the main cause, points out Kris Wadia,Accenture's executive partner for global sourcing.Interest in their work is currently reviving aftersome big companies, including IBM, found thattrying to impose a single corporate culture aroundthe globe did not lead to better collaboration.Two of the five 'cultural dimensions' that Prof.Hofstede derived from his database go some wayto explaining the difficulties faced by Honda,BMW and Daimler-Benz managers in collaborat-ing with their opposite numbers at Rover andChrysler respectively."Put five English-speakers in a room to agree a setof tasks, and each will come away with a slightlydifferent perspective', he says. Add in personalfiefdoms, ancient IT systems and complex andinappropriate organization and reward structures,and effective collaboration will sink rapidly.One is individualism, defined as the degree to whichties between individuals – family as well as busi-ness colleagues – are loose or tight. The UK scoreas assessed by Prof. Hofstede is 89 out of a possible100, indicating a high degree of individualism,exceeded only by the US with 91. Germany is alittle above the European average at 67, but JapanAccenture's Mr. Wadia finds that with moderntechnology, companies can set up the infrastruc-ture and telecommunications links betweenunits relatively easily. What is more difficultand time-consuming are the soft issues, suchas training UK managers to work together, andwith foreign counterparts, and vice-versa.scores 46.On another dimension, uncertainty avoidance –the degree to which individuals feel uncomfortablein unstructured environments – the Japanesescore 92, the Germans 65, the Americans 46 andthe Brits 35. In real terms, the lack of precise systems, the more room there is for misunder-rules and procedures at Longbridge, Rover'sThe more sophisticated the communicationsstanding. Ants have no such problems.ET Source: adapted from 'Masters of collaboration', Financial Times, 29/6/2007, p. 8 (Lester, T.) , © The FinancialTimes Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Answer 1 : The scores of these same countries U.k, U.S.A , Japan, Germany on the remaining cultural…

Answered: Questions 1: ‘Individualism’ and…

6th Edition

ISBN:9781337406659

Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.

Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.

Chapter2: Introduction To Spreadsheet Modeling

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 20P: Julie James is opening a lemonade stand. She believes the fixed cost per week of running the stand...