Executive Summary
The primary issue manifested in the impasse between Mr. Wright and BBT is deceit. Mr. Wright disguises as a manufacturer of lecithin and declines to issue an apology after failing to honor a contract. This article uses Hofstede’s value dimensions theory and Hall’s theory to analyze the problem. The problem entails numerous cultural features, which include individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and time orientation. The paper suggests various approaches that may help to resolve the problem. They include hiring a mediator, organizing for a meeting to iron out the current issues, and issuing an honest apology. The article recommends hiring a broker as the best way to resolve the impasse.
Summary of the Major Issue
The issue between Beijing Bio-Tech (BBT) and Mr. Wright Wright elaborates the challenges of not being honest in a business transaction. It also elucidates the problems associated with dealing with unscrupulous intermediaries who are out to enrich themselves at the expense of the manufacturers. BBT expressed its interest in dealing directly with the manufacturer of lecithin. However, since the company did not know any reliable manufacturer, it opted to contract the services of a consulting company, Asia-Pacific Consulting Group (APCG), to help in identifying an American producer.
Edward Tang, the leader of APCG, sought to use Mr. Wright as an intermediary to facilitate trade between BBT and NutriNex. Mr. Tang and Mr. Wright used this as an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of BBT and NutriNex. The greed for money clouded their judgment, making it difficult for Mr. Wright to anticipate possible challenges. They conspired not to tell the leadership of BBT that it was not dealing with the manufacturer directly.
NutriNex assured Mr. Wright that it could deliver lecithin to BBT within 30 days. However, after Mr. Wright committed to providing lecithin within the stipulated period of time, the worst happened. Torrential rains that resulted in floods in the mid-western states made it difficult for companies to ship their products. Thus, it was hard for NutriNex to honor its promise. Mr. Wright had no option but to deal with BBT as he had not signed a contract with NutriNex that would compel the company to deliver lecithin on time.
He regretted having signed an agreement with BBT. He was in trouble and his associate in the conspiracy, Mr. Tang, was not in a position to assist. BBT wrote to Mr. Wright, complaining of contract violation and demanded compensation and apology. However, he tried to justify his mistakes by blaming bad weather and delayed communication from Mr. Tang. BBT was not happy with Mr. Wright’s response and threatened to initiate a lawsuit against him. Mr. Tang’s wife, Joyce tried to mediate between BBT and Mr. Wright, but the company demanded the latter to issue an honest apology for his mistakes. The communication between Joyce and Mrs. Kuo led to the latter learning that she has not been dealing with the real manufacturer.
Cultural Theories
Hofstede’s Value Dimensions Theory
Hofstede’s value dimensions theory and Hall’s theory are two cultural theories that help to understand the behaviors of different cultures and facilitate trade agreements. Hofstede’s value dimensions theory considers five essential topics that influence societal behaviors. They are power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and long-term orientation. Alkailani, Azzam, Jordan, and Athamneh (2012) posit, “Within the five ranges, there are high or low figures to represent the meanings with each of them” (p. 74).
The power distance holds that people are organized in a pecking order based on their influence in the society or organizations. Individual groups comprise decision makers who influence the resolutions made within a group. Bergiel, Bergiel, and Upson (2012) define power distance as “the extent to which the less powerful members of the society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (p. 71).
In the organizational or societal setting, people agree to a significant level that they are different. Despite their cultural differences, individuals agree that managers, tribal heads, teachers, parents, and the elderly have great influence. Alkailani et al. (2012) allege that whenever two people are put in a room, it is easier to find a junior and a senior, based on their degree of experience. Even though all societies believe that some people should be superior to others, individual communities have different levels of approval, ranging from low to high level of acceptance.
Bergiel et al. (2012) state that it is imperative to understand that power distance “as a value does not mean “power” in the abstract sense, but rather how people look at power” (p. 74). It focuses on the society’s discernment of clout. For instance, two individuals working under the same manager may have different perceptions of the gap between them and their leader. One of the employees may exhibit high reverence to the manager, and respect all the decisions that the head makes (high power distance). On the other hand, the other employee may question some decisions made by the manager (low power distance).
According to Hsu, Woodside, and Marshall (2013), people are born with a discriminating mind, which prompts them to associate with the first cultural group that they meet. As people grow, they become integrated into various in-groups like family and workplaces and start to view themselves as integral components of the groups. Hsu et al. (2013) argue, “The tendency for humans to form different groups is because cultural diversity is a critical strategy to protect collective knowledge and heritage” (p. 31). Collectivism enables people to understand who belongs to their in-groups, thus defining the individuals that they can share ideas with or trust.
According to Bergiel et al. (2012), societies differ in the degree of meaning that they place on individualism. Some communities expect people to establish a secure attachment to their in-groups and encourage a high level of collectivism. On the other hand, some communities allow people to observe a particular degree of autonomy and establish a loose attachment to their in-groups, thus encouraging individualism.
Confrontation and unwillingness to obey order and stability are some of the features of individualism. In an individualistic society, people are free to use the word “no” even though it sounds confrontational. Hsu et al. (2013) allege that in an individualistic setting, people speak without considering the interests of the parties involved in a discussion. Hsu et al. (2013) posit that the society perceives face as public poise of an individual or group, and goes together with the desire for harmony. Individualists do not consider losing face as a grim personal insult, and can easily lie for self-benefits. In an individualistic setting, people do not care about the nature of their statements when negotiating for business deals. In other words, individualists are not concerned with being projected negatively.
In the contemporary world, people do not distinguish the responsibilities of men from women. Bergiel et al. (2012) allege that a high number of men are engaged in professions that were previously a reserve for females and vice versa. Mazanec, Crotts, Gursoy, and Lu (2015) aver, “Thanks to culture, we do not entirely rely on genes but develop accumulated knowledge and technology to reach the most optimal labor specification” (p. 300).
Nevertheless, the dichotomy of masculinity and femininity still influences people’s ways of thinking such that they assign unique cultural traits to each gender. For instance, masculinity is associated with aggressiveness and competition, while femininity is related to loving and caring. Masculinity/femininity shows how particular motives and behaviors are associated with either men or women. It takes into account the cultural behaviors that are stereotypically attributed to men or women.
Mazanec et al. (2015) argue that different facets of society can be related to masculine and feminine behaviors. Some countries have a degree of association with masculinity while others are firmly attached to femininity. Communities associated with femininity “have feminine trails prevailing among both men and women, with male roles tending to overlap with female responsibilities” (Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012, p. 332). They expect men and women to be kind, caring and modest. Additionally, many men engage in female professions like teaching, secretarial jobs, and nursing, and women participate in male careers such as soldiers.
Hsu et al. (2013) argue that in masculine society, women observe behaviors and jobs that are customarily associated with the feminine. They are expected to be kind, loving, and humble. Many American films depict girls as spectators for games played by boys. In masculine society, women who break cultural norms and assume professionals regarded as masculine tend to be aggressive, independent, and dominant.
Taras et al. (2012) maintain that particular societies observe different levels of masculine and feminine virtues. A female-dominated culture emphasizes on modesty and discourages antagonistic behaviors. On the other hand, a male-dominated society encourages aggressiveness and competitiveness. Employees who exhibit masculine features consider remuneration, job opportunities, and promotion as key drivers in the search for employment. On the other hand, feminine employees consider pleasant working conditions as critical in the quest for a job.
According to Taras et al. (2012), human instinct endeavors to anticipate and circumvent dangers. People have an inherent fear that protects them from danger. They come up with rules to help them avoid uncertainties. Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz (2013) define uncertainty avoidance as “how rules are imposed in society to deal with ambiguity and the unknown” (p. 203). The society operates under institutional and social rules. Institutional rules include standardized procedures, structured guidelines, and written laws that dictate how people relate to one another. Social rules refer to informal regulations that promote good values, motives, and virtues in society.
Uncertainty avoidance differs in different cultures. Some cultures have many laws, which enable them to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Countries with many regulations exhibit high uncertainty avoidance while those with limited rules demonstrate weak uncertainty avoidance. As per Yoo et al. (2013), individuals develop uncertainty avoidance at childhood. Most families have precise and stern regulations, which they use to evaluate everything that happens around them.
People from such families exhibit high uncertainty avoidance. Conversely, some parents allow their kids to make free decisions in uncertain situations. Such families show weak uncertainty avoidance. In the business environment, “a high uncertainty avoiding customer would prefer a sales approach that emphasizes historically trustworthy quality judged by formal experts, attractive insurance policies, and excellent customer care” (Yoo et al., 2013, p. 207). Conversely, a weak uncertainty avoiding client would not mind trying new products even if they have limited knowledge about the goods.
Yoo et al. (2013) argue, “Societies have always been organized within space and time” (p. 208). According to Yoo et al. (2013), time orientation is a common value, which is attributed to how people interpret the impact of past, present, and future on their existence. It determines the level of preparedness amid people. Individuals who pay a lot of attention to the past and present exhibit short-term time orientation, while those who concentrate on the future demonstrate long-term orientation.
Confucianism inspired time orientation. It is a Chinese philosophy that advocates acquisition of skills, hard work, education, flexible spending, and perseverance among other virtues. According to Confucianism, the attributes are essential in human life. The significance of time orientation depends on how people interpret future planning. Business people with long-term time orientation do not pay attention to short-term financial rewards. Instead, they consider the benefits of establishing lasting business relationships with trade partners.
Hall’s Theory
According to Clarke (2015), culture refers to “the way of life of people: the sum of their learned behavior patterns, attitude and material things” (p. 279). Culture is intuitive, and people become conscious of it through exposure to diverse cultural practices. People use low and high context to distinguish different cultures. Hall’s theory recommends classification of cultures into low and high contexts to appreciate their major disparities in communication styles.
The intimacy of human relations, strong behavioral standards, and well-organized social hierarchy influence communication style in high context cultures. In such a culture, the internal meaning is engraved with the message such that people do not require speaking explicitly. The audiences are expected to use background experience to decipher what is being communicated and understand the concealed message.
Clarke (2015) posits, “A high context communication or message is one in which most information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while little is in the coded, explicit, or transmitted part of the message” (p. 282). The speaker is given ample time to pass across his/her message. The communication is harmonious, understated, reserved, ambiguous, and indirect. The speaker and audience pay attention to non-verbal cues. In high context culture, individuals value long-term relationships.
In a low context culture, people communicate explicitly and make clarifications in areas that the audiences do not understand. Hall’s theory holds that the transmitted message carries a lot of the intended information to enable the viewers to understand the context. Linear and direct communication coupled with the steady use of words characterizes a low context culture. The communication is open, direct, emotional, precise, vivid and genuine to objectives.
According to Storey (2015), the high context culture is organized, unified, unwavering, and opposed to change. Individuals in this culture interpret events based on historical experience. Conversely, the low context culture values individualism. People strive to achieve personal goals at the expense of societal needs. They are less committed to relationships and prefer getting the job done.
Cultural Characteristics
Numerous cultural features are at play in the deadlock between BBT and Mr. Wright. They include individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and time orientation. The Chinese believe in the significance of human relationships (guanxi). It underlines the reason they emphasize establishing a good rapport with trade partners. Pitta, Fung, and Isberg (2013) allege that Chinese prefer working in groups to achieve certain objectives, and thus discourage individualism.
On the other hand, the American culture values individualism as people no longer rely on old ways of thinking. In the United States, entrepreneurs strive to achieve personal goals at the expense of their business associates. The Chinese believe in the “rule of man”, and business people endeavors to establish and maintain guanxi. Moreover, they do not like confrontations with business associates and strive to maintain an active face. A slight mistake in the negotiation process may lead to the Chinese not having trust in a business associate. According to Albaum et al. (2013), the concepts of face and guanxi are significantly circumstantial and reciprocal. Chinese expect business partners to fulfill their end of the bargain once they honor theirs. They do not anticipate one to give excuses for not honoring his/her pledge.
Pitta et al. (2013) argue that Americans “gain identity through individual achievements and behaviors, although relationship does play a role” (p. 247). They establish and maintain contact networks for business purposes only. In other words, they do not mix personal and trade relations since legal agreements tie business transactions. Americans establish and dissolve friendships quickly based on the circumstances. Individualism is manifested in the case of Mr. Wright and BBT. Beijing Bio-Tech Company is keen to build a healthy relationship with Mr. Wright, which would result in both parties benefiting from a business transaction.
The deceitfulness that Mr. Wright exhibits is a result of individualism. He does not care about his connection with BBT. Mr. Wright is after making money by pretending to manufacture lecithin. He seems unperturbed even after failing to honor the contract that he signed with BBT. Individualism contributed to Mr. Wright and Mr. Tang striking a deal without considering all possible contingencies. They did not care about what will happen if BBT realizes that it is not dealing with the manufacturer of lecithin directly.
According to Pitta et al. (2013), high level of individualism in the United States has taught people to be self-reliant. While the Chinese prefer doing business with people that they understand, the Americans are not afraid to approach strangers as long as they are assured of benefiting from the relationship. It underlines the reason some Americans engage in shady deals since they do not care about their dealings with business associates.
The leadership of BBT consulted Asian-Pacific Consulting Group because it knew the owners of the company. Mrs. Kuo believed that Mr. Tang would help her to identify the reliable manufacturer of lecithin. On the other hand, Mr. Wright agreed to do business with BBT because he was to benefit from the relationship. He did not care about preserving his reputation or ruining the relationship. It underlined the reason he disguised as a manufacturer of lecithin and declined to issue an honest apology after failing to honor the contract.
The United States scores low in uncertainty avoidance. According to Albaum et al. (2013), Americans react based on the context and pay limited attention to cultural beliefs and practices. They do not shy away from trying new ideas and embracing technology. They are liberal to views or ideas from other parties and encourage people to express themselves freely. Additionally, the Americans do not prefer to operate under a lot of regulations and know how to hide their emotions.
On the other hand, China scores high in uncertainty avoidance and are afraid of the future. Fan and Zihang (2014) posit that the Chinese are opposed to changes and exhibit a high degree of anxiety. It underlines the reason China has developed numerous regulations to govern social behaviors. In China, competition and confrontation are unwelcome. The Chinese shun engaging in business transactions with strangers.
Fan and Zihang (2014) maintain, “They consider relationships among various parties as one of the most important factors in business” (p. 83). It underlines the reason the Chinese endeavor to preserve face in any business dealing. According to Fan and Zihang (2014), Chinese do not consider financial benefits of a business relationship. Instead, they value emotional attachment and mutual understanding. They encourage constant communication with business associates to establish a friendship.
Uncertainty avoidance is manifested in the case pitting Mr. Wright against BBT Company. The company had previously expressed interest in dealing with a lecithin manufacturer directly. The objective was not to only minimize the cost of importing the product but also establish a real and lasting relationship. The leadership of BBT was cautious about the future and wanted to build a healthy relationship with an American manufacturer.
Moreover, the company signed a contract to ensure that it protects its interests from unforeseeable circumstances. On the other hand, NutriNex and Mr. Wright did not care about the future. NutriNex had struggled to venture into the Chinese market for a long time without success. The company’s chief executive officer (CEO) understood the enormous potential of the Chinese market and therefore was eager to exploit it at all costs. When Mr. Wright told Dr. Fisher, chief executive officer of NutriNex that he would serve as an intermediary between his company and BBT, he agreed to his terms without hesitation.
Dr. Fisher did not consider the challenges that might arise in the future due to dealing with an intermediary. On the other hand, the greed for money clouded Mr. Wright’s judgment such that he entered into a verbal agreement with NutriNex. There was no document showing that the two had agreed to do business and to honor their ends of the bargain. Mr. Wright had never done business with Mr. Tang or BBT before. However, he did not take the time to understand them or project future challenges. He signed an agreement with BBT blindly, which obliged him to supply the company with lecithin at all costs.
The stalemate witnessed between Mr. Wright and BBT is a result of the latter opting to do business without considering potential challenges that might arise in the future. Had he considered all possible problems, he would have ensured that the contract considers potential contingencies.
The United States and China score high on masculinity. The Americans believe that individuals should dedicate their time and effort to becoming the best. Additionally, they believe in the “winner takes all” principle, which nurtures individualism. It explains why the Americans are not afraid of discussing their achievements with colleagues. The ability to display one’s success motivates the Americans. American companies appraise employees based on set targets, which determine if a worker is industrious. Pitta et al. (2013) allege that a “can-do” attitude drives the Americans, and encourages them to be innovative and try novel ideas.
As per Pitta et al. (2013), “Americans live to work so that they can obtain monetary rewards, and as a consequence attain higher status based on their potential”(p. 254). A majority of the white color employees keep on relocating from one residential area to another and do not turn down any significant promotion. The need to be “the winner” and conflict in an organization brings out the best of American workers. High degree of masculinity has contributed to increased inequality amid the Americans due to heightened power distance.
In China, people define success based on personal achievements. Many Chinese opt to work for long hours or move away from families in pursuit of success. Additionally, the Chinese encourage their kids to work hard in schools because they use examination results to gauge success (Fan & Zihang, 2014). Masculinity has contributed to the problem between Mr. Wright and BBT Company. Mr. Wright and NutriNex made their judgments based on the voracity for success.
NutriNex viewed Mr. Wright’s proposal as an opportunity to establish its influence in the Chinese Market. The company believed that dealing with Mr. Wright would enable it to exploit the Chinese market and grow its revenue base. Thus, it did not care about knowing the Chinese company that purchased its lecithin. The NutriNex would have established a lasting relationship with BBT had it used other means to get contacts with the Chinese company. On the other hand, Mr. Wright believed that he could create a business deal with both NutriNex and BBT. Consequently, he signed a contract with BBT even before having an explicit knowledge of the cultural and economic environment in China.
The financial rewards associated with the deal dictated his decisions, and all he thought about was getting rich. He made sure that BBT did not establish a direct contact with the lecithin manufacturer in the United States. Mr. Wright and Mr. Tang refused to divulge to BBT’s leadership that it was dealing with intermediaries because the move would have denied them an opportunity to benefit financially.
The determination by the Chinese company, BBT to establish a source of lecithin from the United States forced it to exploit all possible avenues. The company took time before signing a contract with Mr. Wright to enable it to evaluate all alternatives. BBT went to the extent of contracting Beijing International Trading Co. Ltd to facilitate the importation procedures. Mrs. Kuo opted to establish the trade relationship based on personal trust. It showed that BBT was determined to build a relationship with an American producer and hoped that the manufacturer would be ready to honor the terms of the contract. Failure to include legal measures in the contract contributed to the standoff. The absence of legal rules in the contract shielded Mr. Wright from taking blame for not delivering lecithin on time as agreed.
The United States scores low regarding time orientation in both business and social culture. According to Loiacono and Lin (2012), the Americans have a penchant for pursuing short-term goals and seeking immediate outcomes. They do not care about the future of the economy as long as it helps them to realize their immediate needs. Loiacono and Lin (2012) claim that in the United States, “there is a mentality of “living in the moment” that is only perpetuated by a steady stream of corporate advertising” (p. 59).
Americans are known to live a lavish life and to spend wastefully. In the business environment, the urge to strike instant business deals reflects the American’s culture of short-term orientation. They believe that “time is money”, and therefore business negotiations ought to be rushed. The Americans do not put a lot of importance on establishing lasting business relations. Loiacono and Lin (2012) aver, “The primary goal of a negotiation is to arrive at a signed contract; building relationships or determining long-term benefits may not compare in importance to the immediate deal” (p. 62).
Chinese observe a pragmatic culture and scores high in long-term orientation. The culture of guanxi encourages the Chinese to establish lasting relations with their associates and to assist them according to their capacity. Khairullah and Khairullah (2013) argue that the Chinese value the realization of long-term goals. It underlines the reason they strive to establish a healthy relationship with their friends. The Chinese prefer to make decisions without rush, and patience is essential amid them.
They encourage self-discipline and try to conceal emotions that might ruin a relationship. In a society that is long-term oriented, people are forgiven for lying to save a group. Khairullah and Khairullah (2013) hold that the Chinese do not prefer to strike business deals with strangers no matter how attractive they might appear. They are patient in a negotiation process and will never walk out. Moreover, they value honesty, and cannot sever a relation for personal benefits.
The disparity in time orientation between Mr. Wright and BBT Company contributed to the standoff. The leadership of BBT is long-term oriented and keen to establish a lasting relationship with an American supplier. It underscores the reason they preferred to engage with a manufacturer directly. BBT took time before agreeing to do business with Mr. Wright. They took adequate time to evaluate the merits and possible demerits of their relationship. Failure to include legal measures in the contract was meant to preserve face and establish a healthy relationship with the manufacturer. Unfortunately, the company’s focus on long-term relationship cost it dearly. It did not ensure that the contract protected it from future problems like deceit on the side of the manufacturer.
Mr. Wright understood the long-term benefits of establishing a business relationship with BBT. Thus, he persuaded NutriNex to allow him to act as the manufacturer. Nevertheless, his short-term oriented mindset led him to enter into a verbal agreement with NutriNex without anticipating future disagreements. It became hard for him to force the company to deliver lecithin as stipulated in the contract.
Solution
Numerous approaches can help to resolve the current standoff between Mr. Wright and BBT. However, the adopted solution should consider the interests of both parties. The two sides can hire a mediator to facilitate the realization of an amicable solution. They can also meet and try to resolve the disagreement by paying attention to the solution and not the setback. Mrs. Kuo demands that Mr. Wright gives a proper and honest apology for failing to deliver lecithin as promised. In a way, the current standoff may be resolved if Mr. Wright shows remorse for failing to meet the terms of the contract. Mrs. Kuo and Mr. Wright may hire a mediator to end the disagreement.
Currently, the situation seems to be beyond their control. The two parties are not willing to relinquish their positions to reach an amicable solution. Seeking the help of mediator would assist them to understand their rights based on the contract. Beijing Bio-Tech has already incurred a loss due to delay in shipment of lecithin. Terminating the contract would not help the company to recover the lost money. Additionally, the two parties have already spent a lot of time negotiating, drafting the contract and reaching an agreement. Terminating the contract at this point would mean losing the time they spent to broker the deal.
Hiring a mediator would benefit both parties in numerous ways. They would get an opportunity to present their concerns in a non-confrontational manner, thus arriving at a productive outcome, which might help to rebuild their relationship. Additionally, the mediator would make sure that the disagreeing parties shelve their emotions during the discussion. Angouri (2012) alleges that most negotiations fail to bear fruit because individuals make decisions based on emotions.
A mediator may help to temper the emotions of the aggrieved parties, therefore concentrating on the real problem between them. The parties would have a reasonable opportunity to air their concerns and suggest possible solutions. Organizations do not hire mediators without experience in dispute resolution. According to Angouri (2012), negotiators use their experience to suggest possible solutions to a current impasse. Thus, hiring a mediator would enable BBT and Mr. Wright to resolve the current problem and forge a relationship that is mutually valuable.
Hiring a broker would require both parties to part with a substantial amount of money. The move would be costly, particularly to BBT as it has already incurred a significant loss. Mr. Wright has already ruined his face before BBT, and using a mediator to resolve the problem does not guarantee that Mr. Wright will not be dishonest in the future. Thus, hiring a broker may help to resolve the current impasse but cannot rebuild trust amid the parties. BBT would still be doubtful of engaging in further deals with Mr. Wright.
Mrs. Kuo and Mr. Wright can organize for a meeting and try to reach a compromised position that would benefit the two parties. The meeting should focus on finding a solution to the stalemate. Trading accusations would not result in a productive outcome. Working together to find a lasting settlement of the current problem may help Mrs. Kuo and Mr. Wright to establish a lasting relationship. The parties would get an opportunity to share ideas on the adjustments that should be made in the contract to cater for their interests and potential contingencies.
The primary disadvantage of meeting to discuss the problem at hand is that the parties may not be able to control their emotions. Beijing Bio-Tech Company is aggrieved as the delay in delivery has impacted its business negatively. On the other hand, Mr. Wright cannot accept to bear the blame as he attributes the delay to bad weather. The two parties are unwilling to listen to each other. Thus, a meeting intended to reach an agreement on how to end the standoff may end acrimoniously ruining the relationship altogether.
Mrs. Kuo alleges that Mr. Wright is arrogant and does not accept his mistakes. Previously, she ordered Mr. Wright to apologize, compensate the incurred loss, and suggest the changes that should be made in the contract to guarantee smooth operations. Nevertheless, Mr. Wright was not willing to apologize or compensate the company. Mrs. Kuo relaxed her conditions after talking with Joyce Tang, Edward’s wife. She demanded that Mr. Wright issues an honest apology before they can amend the contract and engage in business in the future. Therefore, Mr. Wright can end the standoff and initiate contract negotiations. Mr. Wright should accept that he made a mistake by not delivering lecithin on time.
His sloppiness led to him not signing a contract with NutriNex that would have obliged it to provide lecithin despite changes in weather condition. Thus, the blame should lie squarely on him for his carelessness. Mrs. Kuo had expressed her wish to deal with a manufacturer direct. However, Mr. Wright and Mr. Tang conspired not to tell her that she was dealing with intermediaries. Going against the will of a business associate is a grave mistake, and Mr. Wright owes her an apology.
One of the advantages of this approach is that it would help to rebuild trust between Mr. Wright and Mrs. Kuo. In the end, the two would resume doing business, thus benefiting financially. Mr. Wright has already ruined his face, and the only way to rebuild it is by showing remorse for his actions. Issuing an honest apology would result in the two establishing a lasting relationship. Apologizing does not mean that one is weak. Instead, it shows that an individual is courageous enough to admit his/her mistakes, correct them, and vow never to repeat them in the future. Angouri (2012) claims, “Apology can disarm others of their anger and to prevent further misunderstandings” (p. 1568).
Even though apologizing may not compensate the damage that BBT has incurred, it may serve as a relief to the company’s leadership. Apologizing may have adverse impacts on Mr. Wright. Accepting the mistakes may result in him losing significant power, thus not being influential in the subsequent negotiations. Angouri (2012) claims, “Whenever a person apologizes, the balance of power shifts from the offender to the offended” (p. 1572). Therefore, BBT may have the upper hand in the subsequent negotiations and use the advantage to exploit Mr. Wright.
Recommendation and Action Plan
The ultimate solution to the current stalemate is to hire a third party to serve as a mediator. The two sides should think about the benefits of establishing a lasting relationship and cede their hard-line positions. Hiring a broker will result in the parties reconsidering their positions, thus accepting to meet and resolve the impasse. The two sides should agree to look for a neutral party to facilitate mediation. The party should be a person with experience in the negotiation process.
After identifying the right person, they should ask them to organize a meeting. The meeting should be held at a neutral location to ensure that all parties are comfortable. The parties should be given time to present their concerns and be allowed to suggest the possible solutions. The mediator should help them to select a solution that will meet their interests.
References
Albaum, G., Yu, J., Wiese, N., Hersche, J., Evangelista, F., & Murphy, B. (2013). Culture-based values and management style of marketing decision makers in six Western Pacific Rim countries. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(1), 139-151.
Alkailani, M., Azzam, I., Jordan, I., & Athamneh, A. (2012). Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: Ungeneralized, reevaluating the Jordanian culture. International Business Research, 5(4), 71-80.
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1565-1579.
Bergiel, E., Bergiel, B., & Upson, J. (2012). Revisiting Hofstede’s dimensions: Examining cultural convergence of the United States and Japan. American Journal of Management, 12(1), 69-79.
Clarke, J. (2015). Stuart Hall and the theory and practice of articulation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(2), 275-286.
Fan, P., & Zihang, Z. (2014). Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China. Singapore Management Review, 26(1), 81-90.
Hsu, S., Woodside, A., & Marshall, R. (2013). Critical tests of multiple theories of cultures’ consequences: Comparing the usefulness of models by Hofstede, Inglehart and Baker, Schwartz, Steenkamp, as well as GDP and distance for explaining overseas tourism behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 23-41.
Khairullah, D., & Khairullah, Z. (2013). Cultural values and decision-making in China. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 3(2), 1-9.
Loiacono, E., & Lin, H. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and Chinese website customers. Journal of International Information Management, 14(1), 53-71.
Mazanec, J., Crotts, J., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48(1), 299-304.
Pitta, D., Fung, H., & Isberg, S. (2013). Ethical issues across cultures: Managing in the differing perspectives of China and the USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 240-256.
Storey, J. (2015). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329-341.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2013). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 193-210.