CASE 1: Two Weeks until Project Deadline
(India/US) Analyze according to Hofstede’s
intercultural dimensions
Rajiv is a team leader for software development. His team is working for a
US client and Rajiv talks daily with his counterpart, Robert. An important
project is to be completed in two weeks. Time is critical. The time
difference with California is 13.5 hours. They talk at 7 AM California time
which is 8:30 PM in Delhi for about ½ hour. Then Rajiv makes some notes
for the next day and finally leaves the office at about 9:30 PM. During
Robert’s day, he sends Rajiv a summary email to be sure that
communication has been clear.
When Rajiv gets to the office at 9 AM, he reads Robert’s email. He realizes
that one point isn’t clear. But it is already 7:30 PM in Calif. He tries the office
just to see if Robert is there, but he isn’t. His team does what they can, but
Rajiv has to wait until the night call to ask his question. When they talk,
Robert seems frustrated that not enough work got done that day. Robert
reminds Rajiv that time is running out and everyone should be working hard.
Rajiv promises that they are doing their best and asks for the clarification.
Then they discuss the work for tomorrow. Before hanging up Rajiv asks
Robert if he could have a cell or home phone number to contact him. Robert
is surprised by this request and says that he doesn’t take work calls after
office hours. Robert remarks, “Until now there hasn’t been a problem and
each day I send you an email, so everything should be clear.” Rajiv doesn’t
push for a phone number but is surprised that Robert doesn’t seem more
concerned about getting the project done in the 2 weeks left.
Are both Robert and Rajiv committed to the project?
Why is Robert reluctant to give Rajiv his cell number?
What adjustment can each side make so that the project will finish on time?
CASE 2: Equali-Tea
(India/US) – analyze according to the intercultural
dimensions, Hofstede
“I think it’s very important to establish equality and respect in the
workplace,” Sanjeev explained as he leaned forward in his office chair.
“That’s why I’ve decided to make my own tea. I want the staff to know that
we are all on the same level.”
Sanjeev had just moved from the US to Delhi to assume the role as country
director for a prominent NGO. While he was born in India, he had spent most
of his adult life studying and working in the US.
On Sanjeev’s first day in the office, Rahul, one of the administrative staff,
prepared tea for him and other executives during a break in meetings.
Feeling uncomfortable about being served by a co-worker, Sanjeev
reluctantly accepted the tea. The next day at the office, he decided to make
his own tea in order to show the staff that everyone in the office was equal. It
was important to him to model the values of equality that his organization
stood for. He knew he was new to the office, but what could go wrong?
What Sanjeev didn’t realize was that Rahul took great pride in serving tea to
a person in such a prominent position. He had worked diligently for years to
establish himself in a position of significance. He felt particularly satisfied
when the executives entrusted him with the smooth operation of the office
and would often drop hints about the importance of his work to other
colleagues.
Questions for consideration
1. What cultural values are being expressed by Rahul? Are these
necessarily in conflict with Sanjeev’s value of equality?
2. Would you advise Sanjeev to continue to make his own tea?
3. How would you advise Sanjeev to proceed with changes he wants to
make in the office?
CASE 3: The Evaluation
(India/US) Analyze according to low/high context -
Hall
Bob is an American trainer who works extensively onsite with two team
leaders, Vivek and Rajiv, on how to train agents in effective customer service
delivery. Over the course of many weekly sessions, Rajiv consistently
implements the training he receives. Vivek never really understands what
Bob is training (though he thinks that he does). At the close of the project,
the Customer Service Manager, Ankit, asks Bob for an evaluation of his team
leaders.
Ankit: “Tell me, Bob, what is your final analysis of my team leaders?”
Bob: “Well, Rajiv does everything I tell him to do; he welcomes input and
then practices it. Best of all, he then mentors all his reps positively and
clearly…”
[silence]
Ankit: “And Vivek?”
Bob: “Hmmm… as I’ve mentioned before, Vivek struggles on a basic level of
understanding. He tries to implement what we talk about, but it doesn’t last
very long because he really doesn’t ‘get it’. Frankly, I don’t think he can do
the mentoring that these agents need.”
Ankit: “Ohhh. Well, he’s a good man, Bob. He’s been doing this for a long
time. I like him a lot.”
Both Ankit and Bob become silent. Both of them look tense.
What values is Bob evidencing in his analysis of Vivek’s performance and
competency?
What values is Ankit evidencing in his response to Bob’s evaluation?
From the conversation above, what action(s) would Bob prefer? What
action(s) will Ankit take regarding Vivek? What do they think about each
other’s respective decision?
CASE 4: Monsooned
(India/US) Analyze according to low/high context -
Hall
Rebecca works with United Technologies, a Chicago based company. She is
talking on the phone to Abhinav, the manager of one of United Technologies
vendors for customer service outsourcing.
Rebecca:We really need to get all of the customer service representatives
trained on our new process in the next two weeks. Can you get this
done?
Abhinav:That timeline is pretty aggressive. Do you think it’s possible?
Rebecca:I think it will require some creativity and hard work, but I think we can
get it done with two or three days to spare
Abhinav:Ok.
Rebecca:Now that our business is settled, how is everything else?
Abhinav:All’s well, although the heavy monsoons this year are causing a lot of
delays getting around the city.
Two weeks later…
Abhinav:We’ve pulled all of our resources and I’m happy to say that 60% of
the customer service representatives are now trained in the new
process. The remaining 40% will complete the training in the next two
weeks.
Rebecca:Only 60%? I thought we agreed that they all would be trained by
now!
Abhinav:Yes . The monsoon is now over so the rest of the training should go
quickly.
Rebecca:This training is critical to our results. Please get it done as soon as
possible.
Abhinav:I am certain that it will be done in the next two weeks.
Reflection questions
Did Abhinav agree to the initial timeline requested by Rebecca?
What might Rebecca be thinking about Abhinav?
What might Abhinav be thinking about Rebecca?
How will this incident affect their future interactions?
Our thoughts
After the first conversation, Abhinav feels that he clearly communicated to
Rebecca that the training would not get done in the time she requested. On
the other hand, Rebecca feels that Abhinav clearly communicated that he
would meet the deadline. How can this be?
This is an example of miscommunication due to differences in
communication styles. Abhinav prefers high-context communication, relying
heavily on the context of the situation to communicate meaning. In this case,
he hints that the timeline is too aggressive and implies that monsoons are
causing work delays. Most Indians in Rebecca’s position will understand
Abhinav’s message loud and clear.
Rebecca, however, is used to low-context communication, relying heavily on
the precise meaning of the words exchanged. From her perspective, Abhinav
agrees to the timeline when he responds “ok”. Most Americans in Abhinav’s
position would understand that Rebecca is still expecting the training to be
completed on time.
Both Rebecca and Abhinav need to seek to understand the aspects of their
communication styles which are impacted by culture. Rebecca needs to be
careful not to judge Abhinav as ‘unreliable’ and Abhinav needs to be careful
not to judge Rebecca’s response as rude and inconsiderate.
