Source: Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey Recognising the differences Tips for doing business When managing or being managed Source: Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and Organisations. New York: McGraw Hill Summary of findings from Trompenaars research. Taken from: Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey 1 Universalism versus particularism (rules versus relationships) 2 Communitarianism versus individualism (group vs individual) 3 Neutral versus emotional (the range of feelings expressed) 4 Diffuse versus specific (the range of involvement) 5 Achievement versus ascription (how status is accorded) 6 Time (past/present, short/long term, sequential?) 7 Environment (internal vs external)  1 Universalism versus particularism (rules versus relationships)  2 Communitarianism versus individualism (group vs individual)  3 Neutral versus emotional (the range of feelings expressed)  4 Diffuse versus specific (the range of involvement)  5 Achievement versus ascription (how status is accorded) 6 Time (past/present, short/long term, sequential?)  7 Environment (internal vs external) Case study You work for accounting firm based in Barcelona. Recently there has been a joint venture with a UK company but working conditions have deteriorated with many complaints being made by both the Spanish and UK staff about the working styles of the others. Here are some examples of the complaints. Spanish complaints about the British: · “The bosses don’t act like managers, they don’t command authority – they want to consult their subordinates on everything, and I’ve even seen workers argue with the boss in meetings about ‘silly’ ideas – there is no respect!” · “Some of the managers are so young! I don’t want to take order from a kid!” British complaints about the Spanish: · “There is so much inconsistency with the rules – they are always trying to make exceptions. Here, I have found it’s good to be friends with payroll department if you want to be sure to be paid on time! It shouldn’t be that way!” · “They are incapable of making decisions without getting a group consensus- it makes everything so slow. Can’t they just make decisions for themselves sometimes?” These complaints are symptomatic of two cultures that are distinct according to the findings of Hofstede and Trompenaars. Analyse the situation by not only identifying the dimensions that could be the cause of each complaint, but also examine what other difficulties they could cause and how the two cultures could work together better. You should back it up with evidence from Hofstede and Trompenaars. Formalities: .

1. Source: Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding
the waves of culture. London:
Nicholas Brealey
Recognising the differences
Tips for doing business

3. When managing or being managed

4. Source: Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. 2010.
Cultures and Organisations. New York:
McGraw Hill
Summary of findings from Trompenaars research. Taken from:
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the waves
of culture. London: Nicholas
Brealey
1 Universalism versus particularism (rules versus relationships)
2 Communitarianism versus individualism (group vs individual)
3 Neutral versus emotional (the range of feelings expressed)
4 Diffuse versus specific (the range of involvement)
5 Achievement versus ascription (how status is accorded)
6 Time (past/present, short/long term, sequential?)

5. 7 Environment (internal vs external)
versus particularism (rules versus
relationships)
individual)

6. involvement)
6 Time (past/present, short/long term, sequential?)

7. Case study
You work for accounting firm based in Barcelona. Recently
there has been a joint venture with a UK company but working
conditions have deteriorated with many complaints being made
by both the Spanish and UK staff about the working styles of
the others. Here are some examples of the complaints.
Spanish complaints about the British:
· “The bosses don’t act like managers, they don’t command

8. authority – they want to consult their subordinates on
everything, and I’ve even seen workers argue with the boss in
meetings about ‘silly’ ideas – there is no respect!”
· “Some of the managers are so young! I don’t want to take
order from a kid!”
British complaints about the Spanish:
· “There is so much inconsistency with the rules – they are
always trying to make exceptions. Here, I have found it’s good
to be friends with payroll department if you want to be sure to
be paid on time! It shouldn’t be that way!”
· “They are incapable of making decisions without getting a
group consensus- it makes everything so slow. Can’t they just
make decisions for themselves sometimes?”
These complaints are symptomatic of two cultures that are
distinct according to the findings of Hofstede and Trompenaars.
Analyse the situation by not only identifying the dimensions
that could be the cause of each complaint, but also examine
what other difficulties they could cause and how the two
cultures could work together better. You should back it up with
evidence from Hofstede and Trompenaars.
Formalities:
· Wordcount: 600 - 800
· Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are
· Text alignment: Justified.
· The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in
Harvard’s citation style.
Learning outcomes:
· Knowledge and understanding of Hofstede’s and/or
Trompenaar’s cultural dimensions

9. · Ability to critically assess the effect of cultural factors on
business operations
Rubrics
Learning Descriptors
Fail Below 60%
Marginal Fail 60-69%
Fair 70-79 %
Good 80-89%
Exceptional 90-100%
Purpose &
Understanding
KNOWLEDGE &
UNDERSTANDING
25 %
Very poor coverage of central purpose, goals, research
questions or arguments with little relevant information evident.
Virtually no evidence of understanding or focus.
Minimal understanding of purpose of the study; factual errors
evident. Gaps in knowledge and superficial understanding. A
few lines of relevant material.
Reasonable understanding and clearly identifies the purpose,
goals, research questions or argument.
Reflect partial achievement of learning outcomes.
A sound grasp of, and clearly identifies, the purpose, goals,
research questions or argument. Some wider study beyond the
classroom content shown.
Effectively describes and explains the central purpose,
arguments, research questions, or goals of the project;
explanation is focused, detailed and compelling. Recognition of

10. alternative forms of evidence beyond that supplied in the
classroom.
Use of References
COMMUNICATION
25 %
Little or no evidence of reference sources in the report. Content
not supported and based on unsubstantiated views.
Most references are from sources that are not peer- reviewed or
professional, and have uncertain reliability. Few if any
appropriate citations are provided. Reader doubts the validity of
much of the material.
Professionally legitimate references are generally used. Fair
citations are presented in most cases. Some of the
information/content/evidence comes from sources that are
reliable, but more academic sources needed to be convincing.
Professionally and academically legitimate references are used.
Clear and accurate citations are presented in most cases. The
majority of the information/content/evidenc e comes from
sources that are reliable.
Presents compelling evidence from professionally and
academically legitimate sources. Attribution is clear and
accurate. References are 75% from primarily peerreviewed
professional journals or other approved sources.
Written Communication
Skills

11. COMMUNICATION
25 %
The written project exhibits multiple errors in grammar,
sentence structure and/or spelling. Inadequate writing skills
(e.g., weaknesses in language facility and mechanics) hinder
readability and contribute to an ineffective research project.
The written project exhibits errors in grammar, punctuation and
spelling. The written project comes across as untidy and not
properly checked for mistakes. Errors present in written
communication make readability frustrating.
Written research project displays good word choice, language
conventions and mechanics with a few minor errors in spelling,
grammar, sentence structure and/or punctuation. Errors do not
represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.
Readability of the project is good due to the clarity of language
used. Grammar, spelling and punctuation is without error.
Spelling and grammar thoroughly checked.
Readability of the project is enhanced by facility in language
use/word choice. Excellent mechanics and syntactic variety.
Uses language conventions
effectively (e.g., spelling, punctuation, sentence structure,
paragraphing, grammar, etc.).
Analytical / Critical
Thinking Skills
CRITICAL THINKING
25 %
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated, or

12. its component elements are not identified or described.
Research information is poorly organized, categorized and/or
not examined; research information is often
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated at
times and confusing. Research information is badly organized,
categorized, and/or only superficially examined; research
information is often
Adequately identifies and describes (or sketches out) the
research problem, concept or idea and its components. Gathers
and examines information relating to the research problem,
concept or idea; presents and appraises
Formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept
or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects
information appropriate to addressing the research problem,
concept or idea; accurately and appropriately
Effectively formulates a clear description of the research
problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be
examined. Selects and prioritizes information appropriate to
addressing the research problem, concept, or idea; accurately
inaccurate or incomplete. Presents little if any analysis or
interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies
research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or
theories to the analysis. Presents few solutions or conclusions;
solutions or conclusions are often not well supported, are
inaccurate and/or inconsistent, and are presented in a vague or
rudimentary manner.
incomplete. Presents limited analysis or interpretation;
inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods,
techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis.
Presents some solutions or conclusions but they are often not
well supported, or logical.
research information with some minor inconsistencies,
irrelevancies or omissions. Generally applies appropriate

13. research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or
theories although with inaccuracies. Outlines solutions or
conclusions that are somewhat logical and consistent with the
analysis and evidence; identifies and/or lists solutions or
conclusions although not always clearly.
analyses and interprets relevant research information.
Effectively applies appropriate research methods, techniques,
models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying
multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are
coherent, well supported and complete.
and appropriately analyzes and interprets relevant research
information. Precisely and effectively applies appropriate
research methods, employs advanced skills to conduct research.
Uses techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in
developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions;
solutions or conclusions are insightful, coherent, well
supported, logically consistent and complete. Displays a
mastery of complex and specialized areas.