Part B: Research Report Question 2: Read the Case below (30 marks) As a cross-cultural consultant, prepare a research report for the current Chairman of Melarose Inc. Board of Directors using information from the case below entitled Ouch, Isit the Culture that Makes it Different? Working with Global Teams. In your report, you are required to identify the key issues of the case, analyse those identified issues, and develop a set of justified recommendations. Organise your research report under the following two headings:

1. Identification and analysis of TWO key issues based on the multicultural global teams to work together effectively. Apply Trompenaars dimension and support it with relevant examples to describe the possibilities of culturally-rooted challenges. (20 marks)

Case 2.0 : Ouch, Is it the Culture that Makes it Different?

Working with Global Teams On Sunday, as the Human Resource Director, Manal Krishan led a department meeting with five other multicultural team members two Filipinos, one Indian, one Australian, and one British. The CEO of Melarose Inc. in Manila wanted us to sit together as a team and discuss the subject of professional certification for Human Talent Management and whether or not we should take it up for our training program. Although the meeting only lasted about thirty minutes, it was amazing to observe the communication and team dynamics between these two distinct cultures that of the Asians, including the two Filipinos and two Indians and that of the two Westerners. As a cross-cultural consultant, I was asked to be an observer during the meeting, hence I noted a significant difference in working and communication styles. The Indians used a cautious way of suggesting ideas. I saw the way they nodded to each other and looked the other person in the eye when they agreed on something. Both of them seemed to display unspoken gestures of yes. The Westerners, on the other hand, offered their points directly without affecting or agreeing with one another, straightforwardly stating their points in a concise manner. No facial expressions appeared on any of their faces, making it difficult for me to assess what was on their minds. Content was important to them, meaning what was said, yet the Asians relied on context, meaning how things are said, i.e. using non-verbal cues. The Asians also expressed their collectivistic nature, placing the need for the goal of the group as a priority over their own selves. The Westerners, however focused on their own opinions. The story took an interesting turn, however, right after the meeting. The two western managers approached Manal to further discussed on what transpired in the meeting. They bombarded with more facts to strengthen their arguments. First of all, Sandra, from Australia, pulled him aside to share June 15, 2021 | MGNT210- FINAL ASSESSMENT SPRING 2021 4 | P a g e information on the subject of certification which she had kept to herself, stating clearly that she wanted no one else to know except Nathan and asked for clarification. Anna, from Britain, mentioned to him privately that she was the one who had worked on the background of the certification and had a great deal of knowledge. Like Sandra, she disclosed new facts to Manal directly, frankly, and straightforwardly about the likely outcome of our decision and want to take actions promptly. Manal felt uncomfortable to be confronted with the matters and pushed for solutions because the other two Filipino colleagues are his best buddies and they had more than 10 years of relationships. He preferred to discuss collectively and come into a consensus and retain the friendship as well. Also, Manal was surprised at this turn, as both Sandra and Anna raised the issue individually and demand for action immediately. This put into question on the importance of different styles of negotiations through different cultures, which indicates that Westerners are different from Easterners. Nathan faced a dilemma on how to make plans about the certification program. Some question arises: How do the lack of information sharing among the team in the meeting will impact the goals and outcomes of the implementation of the program? Evidently, both Sandra and Anna dont seem to be patient to solve the problems together, each of them has their own stand. Yet, the other member from India is the Director of Finance, and Manal as the Director of Human Resources, they both report directly to the CEO and were always supportive of each other. What Sandra and Anna suggest seem to be contradicting with the rest of their opinions in the meeting. At the end, Manal was torn on what and how to proceed. I begin to ponder and reflect on a common phrase we often hear which is Actions speak louder than words. As such, sometimes, you dont even need to know the person in order to understand what he means when he makes a certain expression. I face it daily at work, I do it and everybody does it. Yesterday, we were at a brain storming [session] with our chairman in order to find a creative idea and turn it into a profitable project. We were six people around the table. He started explaining the idea and elaborated for about an hour, trying to tell us the point that he was trying to explain. Once he was done, he looked at us, seeking responses. He didnt say, Now it is your turn. We just understood that he was done and started to respond. From my side, I told him what I thought, and he was shaking his head like saying, Good, you got it, which encouraged me to speak even more and elaborate on the subject. Once I reached the end, he started to look to the others. I knew that I had started right, but now I was going wrong; he wanted someone to interrupt me and correct me, while he couldnt. So, I looked to my colleague, and he proceeded with his thinking until we reached an agreement about the overall idea. The bottom line is that we dont need to speak at all. Its very hard for women though. Did you even wonder why we have two eyes, two ears, but only one mouth? It means we need to see, hear and then, if necessary, talk. Or if you dont understand what you hear or see, we can talk. We have a saying: If the words are worth silver, then the silence is worth gold, which is stressing that silence is sometimes worth more than saying words or commenting on something. We are living in a big world, with many people in different families, in different countries, different cultures, in different contexts, and it does make sense that we will be different in our communication styles and the way we send messages to each other. Could the confrontations made by the western colleagues suggest a cultural behavior? If yes, what is the nature and values uphold by them? If members of a group have certain cultural orientations, does that mean that the outcomes of a meeting may be biased towards ones cultural values? Furthermore, when working with a culturally diverse work group, how do you choose a communication style that allows you to understand the real minds and feelings of the members? Is this even possible? Should we then just take what is said upfront at face value, without assessing the impact of cultural values? Perhaps people need to fully understand the way team members communicate and collaborate in teams virtually can be equally challenging during face-to-face encounters.