Homework #2 for MGT3000

Organizational Management
HW # 2
Matthew Henderson

1. What do you think is your strongest component of cultural intelligence?  Your weakest?  How would you go about shoring up your weaknesses?

Personally, I think my strongest component of cultural intelligence is Mindfulness.  I generally find that if I am mindful of my culture, knowledge and skills often follow naturally.  My weakest component of cultural intelligence would probably be Knowledge.

I could probably improve my knowledge by being Mindful and paying attention to and taking note of cultural subtleties, while at the same time increasing my repertoire of cultural skills.

2. What steps could a company take to avoid making product design and marketing mistakes when introducing new products into India?  How would you go about hiring a plant manager for a facility you are planning to build in India?

A company can take the time to gain knowledge of the Indian culture.  For instance, if a company was knowledgeable of the Indian culture, they would not introduce beef as a product because most Indian cultures see the cow as a sacred animal.  In South India, meat of any kind would not be terribly appreciated because the majority of that culture is vegetarian.  Having that knowledge will save a company from making some very costly mistakes.

My first requirement for a plant manager in India would be that they have an in-depth knowledge of Indian culture… preferably someone who has lived in India for a given time and has been a part of its culture.  It would also be advantageous if they had experience with my culture so that they could be a bridge between the two cultures.  Other than that, they would also need excellent interpersonal, communication and organizational skills… and a good attitude.

3. How might the social value of low versus high power distance influence how you would lead and motivate employees?  What about the value of low- versus high-performance orientation

If I were to find myself managing a high power distance environment (which I would prefer to never do) I would probably lead and motivate employees by using intimidation, discouragement and fear (ie: “my way or the high-way”).  Military boot camp comes to mind as an example of a high power distance environment.  I think it would be a position delivering more negative than positive affirmation; more punishment than rewards.

If I were to find myself managing a low power distance environment I would probably lead and motivate employees by using rewards and encouragement.  I would probably have a closer personal relationship with the employees and acknowledge their achievements as well as giving them credit for the overall company achievements.  Likewise, I would share in the responsibility of failures and/or mistakes.  This would be an environment of positive affirmation, encouragement and rewards.

In a high performance oriented environment I would probably lead and motivate with blunt, direct, explicit and concise criticisms, directions and feedback.  I would encourage education and further education and I would reward those whose performance stands above the others.

In a low performance oriented environment I would lead and motivate by creating a culture of ideal performance.  I would have a closer personal relationship with the employees and encourage them to take the time they need for their personal affairs.  I would value creativity and innovation over performance.

4. Should a multinational corporation operate as a tightly integrated, worldwide business system, or would it be more effective to let each national subsidiary operate autonomously?

A multinational corporation should try to attain a balance of autonomy and integration.  Depending on the cultures of where the subsidiaries are located, too tight integration would most likely mean that the corporation adheres to only one culture and this could cause some disturbances in the internal and external environment of that corporation.  Too much autonomy could cause individual subsidiaries to develop their own internal cultures that might not meet the intended brand of the corporation.  I think a corporation should maintain a certain level of autonomy and allow some cultural differences, but they should also maintain a level of integration so that those autonomous cultures don’t veer too far off course.  In terms of effectiveness, subsidiaries will be more effective if they can develop their own autonomous cultures and/or environments, though not necessarily more efficient for the overall corporation.