Effective leadership communication is essential in the business world since it allows for a clear and solution-oriented exchange of information for proper performance management. The importance of adequate communication in organizations increases in cases when intercultural differences occur that might hinder the effectiveness of cooperation efforts. The selection of context-appropriate communication strategies, techniques, and channels might be decisive for the overall organizational performance.
This business brief presents an analysis of a case study exemplifying the implications of poor organizational intercultural leadership communication and the possible ways of solving the problem. The case under discussion deals with the multinational company’s Christmas sale of a newly designed toy with high demand which faces supply difficulties due to the Mexico-based subsidiary’s failure to meet the manufacturing and shipment deadlines. Chuck Moore, the New York company representative, needs to re-establish functional communication with Vicente Ruiz, a manufacturer from Mexico, to avert the crisis and ensure a timely supply of toys.
Differences in Cultural Attitudes Toward Communication
Communication is essential for interpersonal cooperation in general and in corporate performance in particular. The communication between Chuck Moore and Vicente Ruiz indicates that these representatives of American and Mexican cultures respectively have different views on communication. As the actions taken by Vicente demonstrated, he did not consider the problem urgent if it was discussed over an email. Chuck, on the other hand, perceives conventional corporate email exchange as a meaningful and appropriate means of communication at all times. This cultural difference signifies that for American culture, the content of the message is essential, while Mexican culture prioritizes the channel of communication, which predetermines the urgency of the issue under discussion.
Moreover, the case indicates the difference between individualistic and collectivistic approaches to communication embedded in the two cultures. American individualism is opposed to Mexican collectivism, which complicates the understanding of the problem of Chuck and Vicente. Indeed, research findings demonstrate that “Mexicans (wishing to achieve some of their own personal goals while also maintaining harmony) would use collaboration or accommodating styles, while Americans (who would pursue their own needs over those of others) would use more competitive and collaborative styles” (Gomez & Taylor, 2018, p. 37). Thus, Chuck referred to Vicente personally to hold him accountable for the delays, while Vicente was offended by Chuck’s disclosing the failure of communication to the head of the company because he prioritized relationships over individual goals.
The implications of intercultural communication addressed in the case demonstrate the essential role of cultural sensitivity and intelligence in leadership communication. Research shows that the lack of cultural intelligence or the basic awareness of cultural differences might cause significant complications for the parties involved in the interaction, as well as cause uncertainty in the cooperation of intercultural teams (Presbitero & Attar, 2018). In particular, specific differences between the US and Mexican cultures and attitudes toward communication should be researched and applied to the crisis management in Hunter-Worth company.
Purpose of Communication and Factors Influencing Communication Channel Choice
Chuck’s communication with Vicente was influenced by the collision of two factors, namely the unexpected overflow of demand for the toy and the failure of the supplier to deliver the toys on time. In such a manner, as evident from the content of the email, the purpose of Chuck’s communication to Vicente was to obtain information about the reasons for the delay with the orders. The purpose of Chuck’s communication to his boss Michael Sato was to receive advice on how to influence Vicente in order to facilitate the supply.
When choosing the channels of communication with Vicente, Chuck should have considered several factors, including the cultural context, cultural differences in communication, the awareness of the Mexican subsidiary about the problem with delays, and the structural implications of communication inside Vicente’s department (Deft, 2018). These factors would differ in the selection of communication channels with Sato since Chuck and Sato are both representing the American cultural context. Therefore, when communicating with Sate, Chuck should have considered his relationship with Vicente’s boss, the leadership strategy used by Sato, and his decision-making approaches.
Action Plan for Solving the Issue
To ensure that the issue is communicated clearly and effectively, Chuck should have selected a different strategy of interaction with Vicente. Firstly, the selection of the communication channel was wrong since email was not perceived by the supplier as a means for discussing urgent issues. A phone conversation between the two representatives would have clarified the issue and enhanced its solution. Moreover, the analysis of Chuck’s email to Vicente informs a content-related consideration of communication failure. Indeed, Chuck started his email with conventional information requests without clearly emphasizing the problem; instead, the delayed information was inquired about at the end of the email (Deft, 2018).
Since Vicente did not attend to his email correspondence personally, his secretary did not pay much attention to Chuck’s message. Thus, it would have been more effective if Chuck not only chose a phone call to communicate the delay reasons with Vicente but also start his conversation with a clear and tactful explanation of the demand level and the expectations from the supplier (DuHadway et al., 2018). Indeed, personal interaction would have been the most effective approach to communication with Vicente.
Furthermore, the style of communication that Chuck should have used should have been more relationship-directed. Given the cultural differences in communication approaches, Chuck should have applied his cultural intelligence to connect with Vicente and establish a trustworthy relationship for more effective cooperation (Gomez & Taylor, 2018). In addition, Chuck should have used his emotional intelligence to balance his power and deliver his message from a leadership position to guide the supplier through the actual state of affairs with the toy demand and the short deadlines (Miao et al., 2018).
Thus, to ensure that the delays are eliminated and Vicente supplies toys on time, Chuck should have discussed operational and financial issues in a trustworthy manner by including Vicente in the context of the problem. Research shows that for more organizations to handle crises properly, they should adhere to effective network management, which is based on effective communication of common goals (Johansson & Back, 2017). In such a manner, being aware of and involved in the issue, the supplier would have recognized the urgency of the orders, their long-term implications for the relationship with Hunter-Worth, and the importance of solving the problem urgently.
Conclusion
In summation, as the case study analysis demonstrates, the issue of misunderstanding and poor cooperation between the US-based company manager and the supplier from Mexico stems from the ineffectiveness of intercultural communication management. Firstly, the integration of cultural intelligence and awareness of cultural differences between the USA and Mexico would have helped construct a meaningful dialogue. Secondly, the consideration of influential factors and the selection of functional communication channels would have averted the crisis. Lastly, the adherence to relationship-based communication strategies in face-to-face or phone conversations between the representatives would clarify the urgency of the issue and help find an effective solution.
References
Deft, R. L. (2018). The leadership experience (7th ed.).
DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Kannan, V. R. (2018). Organizational communication and individual behavior: Implications for supply chain risk management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(4), 3-19.
Gomez, C., & Taylor, K. A. (2018). Cultural differences in conflict resolution strategies: A US – Mexico comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 18(1), 33-51.
Johansson, C., & Back, E. (2017). Strategic leadership communication for crisis network coordination. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(4), 324-343.
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 463-474.
Presbitero, A., & Attar, H. (2018). Intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing: Extending anxiety-uncertainty management theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 35-43.