Read below case study$1$ on international knowledge transfer:

The Company:

Alpha Beta Company $($ABC$)$ is a medium$-$sized Swedish company with about $200$ employees at its headquarters. The firm is specialized in office appliance manufacturing, and is a market leader in its industry in Europe. ABC owns several subsidiary companies in other countries, one of which is in China. This Chinese branch is located in Shanghai, one of the fastest developing regions in China, and has about $400$ employees. The Shanghai branch previously was a state$-$owned factory, and had a good reputation in the local office appliance industry. Back in $1998,$ when the Swedish company bought $51\%$ share of the Chinese company, it became a Sino$-$Swedish joint venture. Later, in $2002,$ the Chinese subsidiary was totally bought out by the Swedish company and became a wholly owned foreign enterprise.

In Sweden:

It is $9$:$00$ a$.$m$.$ on Monday in Sweden. The technical product manager of ABC sent an email about the new design of a product to its subsidiary company in China. He would like to have a production ready model of the new design by Friday, when he flies to China. An email came on Thursday saying that there was a $1$mm error in the product the Chinese subsidiary made, and asking the manager what they should do$.$ The product manager finds himself confused: $$Do they need to ask such a question? They could simply adjust the error and give me the model on Friday. Why are they waiting for orders instead of taking initiatives?$$

In China:

It is $15$:$01$ Monday in Shanghai. The Chinese R&D manager in Shanghai received an email from the parent company in Sweden. The parent company asked for a production ready model of the latest design in five days. The R&D manager called the production manager immediately, and $3$ days later he got the new model $$ but with a $1$mm error. He knew it would be better to provide a standard model, but nevertheless decided to notify the Swedish manager first and let him to decide what to do$.$ It is$,$ after all, the Chinese way of showing respect to their superior by asking the latter$$s opinion on everything.

Analyse the above case and identify the cross$-$cultural differences between the Swedish firm and its Chinese subsidiary in terms of a$)$ management style, b$)$ staff behaviour, and c$)$ communication system in relation to Hofstede$$s dimensions of national cultures.

For each of the statements below, mark which country $($China or Sweden$)$ they apply to$,$ and which dimension of national culture they reflect $.$ Copy the tables into your answer booklet and complete accordingly. $(30$ marks$)$

Statements:

Staff behaviour

$11.$ Individual ideas are expected and are shared within the whole organization; a bottom$-$up approach is common, with high expectations for team work.

$12.$ Long term success is preferred, in which the present situation may be considered a necessary sacrifice for future success.

$13.$ Initiative is encouraged, and independent actions are the norm; a pro$-$active stance is taken in light of problems.

$14.$ An immediate outcome to current problems and issues is expected.

$15.$ Great distance with superiors is maintained; staff are very subordinate in behaviour and expression.

$16.$ Work$/$life balance is cherished; work for fulfilment is the goal.

$17.$ Individual initiative is shunned; fear of blame stimulates risk avoidance; staff take a passive stance in light of problems.

$18.$ Ideas are cautiously disclosed and stay in the group, while strong in$-$group orientation hinders multi$-$disciplinary team work.

$19.$ There is high pressure for performance and success; work for living is even less common than live to work.

$20.$ Staff are considered equal with superiors; they demonstrate frank and open, direct communication.