Quicks, an American fast-food restaurant business, faces a succession of catastrophic issues in China. A freshly recruited American country manager is now juggling multiple pressing platform challenges with local Chinese business partners. Meng and Quicks have had a long and mutually beneficial relationship, especially since he was the first local business leader to stand up to the government bureaucracy on their behalf (Trendowski et al., 2018). Mr. Meng has recently experienced losses in his primary business and has begun to compensate by extracting more money from his franchisees than their agreement permits.
When faced with conflicts, Chinese leaders tend to use indirect forms of influence involving a third party, while Americans prefer to use direct and open layouts. It is important to note that Chinese executives tend to make less risky decisions than American managers. In addition, they pay more attention to building social and interpersonal relationships than Americans. Culture can significantly impact the success of doing international business and negotiations between companies in particular (Trendowski et al., 2018). The vast gap between Chinese and American culture, business, and negotiation practices. Cultures differ mainly in their philosophy, as well as strategy, tactics, and operational styles.
It is important to remember that the Chinese are not distinguished by directness, which often causes cultural misunderstandings. It is complicated for many Chinese to say or hear “no” directly because such a sharp refusal can mean a loss of face for a person. Instead of a simple and understandable “no,” the Chinese sometimes give vague answers that the interlocutor should be able to interpret correctly. In addition, the Chinese are not inclined to get straight to the point, unlike pragmatic Americans. The soft, harmony-oriented Asian culture requires a smooth and unhurried transition from the exchange of pleasantries to business. The “Quicks” needed to put long-established friendly relationships at the forefront in this case. The involvement of an outsider may cause distrust in Mr. Meng because trust serves as the core business of the partnership.
Personal-life inclusion (PLI) is a concept that encompasses behaviors such as combining work and personal connections, bridging professional and personal time frames, and mixing corporate and private venues. Employees’ interpersonal ties are crucial in other nations and the socially oriented Chinese workplace, where the PLI idea originated (Weiss et al., 2018). Researchers use the contrast between socially oriented and task-focused countries to speculate on the contextual contingencies of PLI repercussions. They predict the societal environment to impact the societal acceptability of PLI and its link to essential outcomes.
The findings have ramifications for the study on native notions such as PLI conducted outside of their original context. Team PLI is not limited to China, according to a cross-cultural analysis of Chinese and German teams, even if it is manifested to a greater extent in the Chinese setting (Weiss et al., 2018). The study expands earlier research by demonstrating that Team PLI has diametrically different effects on German and Chinese teams and complements current theory and data on contextual dependencies of team functioning.
When analyzing this case, it is necessary to note the difference that is reflected in the cultural interaction in the boss-subordinate context. For many cultures, building a vertical management system is the essential point at which the efficiency of employees’ work increases. In this case, this is also evident in the context of workers from China. For them, building personal relationships is one of the key aspects of culture, reflected in the relationship between people. However, such acquaintances should be observed in a purely working atmosphere. This is noticeable from the results of this case when employees have decreased their efficiency due to the introduction of personal life into the sphere of their partnership and working relationships.
The development of international business contributes to the process of restoring relationships, and the emergence of increasing cultural similarities in the organizational behavior of multinational companies. As a result, an international system of values is emerging — a cosmopolitan organizational culture linking various national cultures. The organization’s entry to the international level implies that managers are obliged to cooperate with representatives of different cultures. Consequently, there is a need to acquire skills in intercultural communication, perception of other countries’ cultural peculiarities, and adaptation to cultural differences necessary for work, both in the organization itself and outside of it. International business and corporate cultures closely interact with each other. Cultural differences manifest themselves in all spheres of organizational activity; therefore, managers should develop tactics for doing business.
References
Trendowski, J., Trendowski, S. D., & Stuck, J. M. (2018). ‘Burning platform’ consultants: American cross-cultural management in China. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 24(1), 1-11. Web.
Weiss, M., Salm, L. J., Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2018). Team personal-life inclusion in socially- versus task-oriented countries: A cross-cultural study of chinese versus german teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(7), 919-928. Web.