ggg
oday’s business world is very globalized, and being able to deal with cultural differences is the skill that distinguishes a good international company from a bad one. As such, in the observed case of American and Sharahadan businessmen, there are two extremely different approaches to communication. As I suggest, any productive business relationships between these two companies are merely possible.
Applying some dimensions of the Trompenaars’ cultural dimension theory to this particular case would allow to make a clear comparison of the American and Sharahadan companies. First of all, an obvious mismatch is evident when comparing these two in terms of the degree of involvement. As such, the American culture typically refers to the former type, with its aspiration to keep personal and professional lives separated, while the Sharahadans obviously adopt the latter approach, with their inclination to establish personal relationships before discussing business matters (“A journey…” 2). While that aspect in itself cannot be said to make business relationships doomed, I think it would inevitably create some degree of distrust for the second party and create discontent for the former one.
Another dimension which would contribute to communication difficulties between the companies’ representatives is the degree of feelings expression. Thus, American businessmen would be not likely to allow their genuine feelings to be shown, belonging to the neutral culture. Sharahadans, on the contrary, tend to “speak expressively” and, though being humble, like to convey messages nonverbally (“A journey…” 2). For this reason, they can be referred to the affective culture. For Americans, this type of behavior will inevitably be considered as “pushy and loud” while their counterpart will presumably think they are dealing with insincere partners (“A journey…” 3). This will as well complicate possible relationships.
Finally, certain complications may emerge due to these cultures’ different views regarding the importance of rules and relationships. In the American universalistic culture, rules are typically given higher priority than any personal connections. For Sharahadans, on the other hand, such an approach will seem strange, since they tend to view each particular relationship as a criterion to their behavior and emphasize the significance of close personal linkage (“A journey…” 2). It will therefore create certain misunderstandings between the parties during their negotiations. Overall, being different in so many aspects, the discussed companies are very unlikely to establish close business relationships and make a mutually beneficial deal unless specifically aimed at solving this potential issue.
As I believe, both companies’ representatives certainly have an opportunity to find a common ground in their negotiation. What could be of huge significance in this case is the application of cultural intelligence theory. Being specifically developed for considering the cultural component of motivation, this theory addresses one’s capability to adapt to different cultural contexts when interacting with people (Browaeys and Price 127). According to the cultural intelligence theory, confidence, persistent, and affinity with a new culture are actually able to improve a manager’s performance effectiveness in an international context (Browaeys and Price 127). Indeed, it seems quite reasonable that by understanding the influence of your counterpart’s cultural background on their behavior you become provided with an essential and effective business tool, helping successfully engage in that particular environment.
To be more specific, in the observed case, the Sharahadan representatives are actually mentioned to demonstrate some sort of cultural intelligence, since they are predisposed to treat American guests with respect and communicate with them even in case they are rude (“A journey…” 2). As to the American company’s representatives, a lot of signs are described in the observed case that allow to suggest their cultural intelligence score is not the highest one. As such, all they know about the counterpart’s culture is unpleasant rumors, and their approach of “getting right down to business” certainly does not reflect the appreciation and respect for the host’s traditions. Thus, it is highly recommended to the American representatives to pay much more attention to this aspect of meeting.
To sum up, the observed case is a very illustrative example of how cultural differences may negatively affect business relationships. I suppose, the above-mentioned discrepancies regarding cultural dimensions of American and Sharahadan representatives will not allow the potential deal to be closed on desired terms. Nonetheless, I am sure that by increasing cultural intelligence, which is especially significant for the American company’s representatives, both parties may conduct quite successful negotiation resulting in a long-term partnership.