Business Consulting – The Model To Practice Dialogues MTPD™

When Directness Collides with Hierarchy: Decoding The Culture Clash Inside A Global Tech Giant

MTPD Culture — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:01:16 +0000

Overview
In today’s connected global market, working effectively across cultures is not just a soft skill but a strategic necessity. This paper examines the daily friction inside a leading multinational technology conglomerate, focusing on how its Western Euro-pean regional subsidiary navigates its relationship with an East Asian global head-quarters.
The central tension is a stark contrast in working styles, and it is a contrast with real operational consequences. The regional workforce defaults to an explicit, low-context communication style, prioritizing structural efficiency, speed, and direct dia-logue. Global leadership, by contrast, operates within a high-context, hierarchical culture, where preserving harmony, reading between the lines, and following top-down directives take precedence over speed. These are not simply different prefer-ences; they actively shape how decisions get made, how feedback travels through the organization, and how much unseen effort employees put into managing the gap between the two.
Through an in-depth interview with a marketing trainee at the regional subsidiary, this case study examines how these opposing cultural foundations create friction in practice, and, more importantly, what that friction costs the organization. Beyond describing how communication styles differ, this paper looks at the strategic and human cost of that difference: the extra administrative labor required to soften direct messages, the risk that hierarchical buffering suppresses valuable feedback before it reaches senior leadership, and the trade-offs between speed and stability that emerge from each culture’s default approach. By examining daily interactions such as budget discussions, work-life balance expectations, and the pace of communica-tion, this paper argues that bridging this divide requires more than awareness of cul-tural difference — it requires organizations to confront the specific inefficiencies and emotional labour that difference generates.

Hofstede Dimensions

The friction between the regional subsidiary and the global headquarters can be sys-tematically analyzed through Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. The divergence be-tween these two cultures across multiple dimensions fundamentally explains the root causes of their operational and communication challenges.
The most significant point of friction manifests in Power Distance (PDI). The regional subsidiary operates within a low Power Distance culture characterized by a flat or-ganizational structure, a strong valuation of consensus, and an environment where employees routinely engage in open dialogue with managers regarding the feasibility of targets. Conversely, the global headquarters operates on a rigid high Power Dis-tance model. As noted by an internal source, “higher management consists exclu-sively of leadership from the headquarters, meaning all critical decision-making pow-er is concentrated at the very top.” This centralized authority demands strict compli-ance and a performative, formal respect, creating a stark contrast to the regional office’s consensus-based structure. Consequently, when senior management from global HQ mandates a strategy, it is rarely challenged, even if it contradicts local market realities. While regional middle management attempts to act as a “cultural translator” to ensure local teams achieve targets without appearing insubordinate, this buffer role ultimately stifles innovation. By heavily filtering upward communica-tion to preserve the hierarchy, middle management inadvertently prevents critical, diverse feedback and local market insights from reaching global decision-makers.
This structural tension is further exacerbated by contrasting approaches to Uncer-tainty Avoidance (UAI), Masculinity (MAS), and Individualism (IDV). Global leader-ship displays characteristics of high Uncertainty Avoidance by emphasizing clear re-sponse expectations, strict KPI targets, and rapid communication to mitigate ambi-guity. For example, the expectation of immediate email responses—where delays are viewed negatively—illustrates a rigid control mechanism. These performance expectations also reflect high Masculinity (MAS), emphasizing success, competition, and measurable achievements. The practice of continuously comparing regional subsidiaries and heavily scrutinizing underperforming markets highlights this compet-itive drive.
In stark contrast, the Dutch subsidiary demonstrates a highly individualistic (IDV) culture. Employees value independence, openly express dissenting opinions, and prioritize a healthy work-life balance. This fundamentally clashes with the collectivist culture at headquarters, which prioritizes organizational harmony, teamwork, and unwavering dedication to the company above individual autonomy.
Finally, these cultural disparities directly impact strategic decision-making and Long-Term Orientation (LTO). Interestingly, the interview reveals that Long-Term Orienta-tion varies significantly even within different departments of the regional subsidiary. The sales department, for instance, operates with an extreme short-term focus, evaluating results on a weekly basis and rapidly discarding strategies that fail to de-liver immediate growth. Conversely, the marketing department is afforded the flexi-bility to focus on long-term brand building. Viewed comprehensively through Hof-stede’s framework, the systemic challenges between the regional subsidiary and the global headquarters are not merely isolated misunderstandings, but the predictable outcomes of fundamentally misaligned values in Power Distance, Individualism, Un-certainty Avoidance, Masculinity, and Long-Term Orientation.
However, these cultural differences should not only be viewed as sources of conflict. During periods of organisational uncertainty or crisis, the hierarchical structure at the global headquarters can provide stability, consistency, and faster implementation of strategic decisions across global markets. Likewise, the Dutch subsidiary’s prefer-ence for consensus encourages employee participation and the sharing of ideas but may also slow decision-making when immediate action is required. This suggests that neither cultural approach is inherently superior. Instead, their effectiveness de-pends on the organisational context and the ability of both sides to adapt to one an-other.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions

Outcome
The work culture within this multinational conglomerate is really a mix of two very different cultural approaches. When the Western European regional subsidiary works together with the East Asian global headquarters, this mix leads to clear cul-tural limitations in how people behave on the work floor, and, more importantly, to real operational costs that are easy to overlook if you only look at the surface-level clash. Using Weaver’s Communication Theory, we can break these limitations down into two categories: inhibitive and prohibitive behavior, each linked to a different kind of cultural difference. The interview with our interviewee, a marketing trainee at the regional subsidiary, provides evidence base for both categories and shows how these differences play out in daily practice, not just in theory.
The regional team communicates in a low-context style, meaning things are said directly and clearly instead of being implied. According to Weaver’s theory, this di-rectness isn’t just a personal habit; it’s simply how low-context communication works: things need to be said out loud and confirmed, because you can’t rely on people picking up on hints. Our interviewee illustrated this clearly, explaining that if something is bothering an employee, they will simply walk up to a colleague’s desk and say, “okay, let’s solve this right now.” This direct, face-to-face problem-solving works fine within the regional office, but it becomes a problem (inhibitive behavior) when interacting with the global headquarters. The East Asian HQ works in a high-context style, where meaning is often read between the lines, tone and hierarchy matter a lot, and keeping group harmony is a top priority. Because of this, the direct and fast approach from the regional team doesn’t just seem unfamiliar to them, it can genuinely come across as blunt, rude, or even aggressive, which makes it hard-er to keep things comfortable and harmonious the way the global side expects.
This friction does not stay theoretical; it shows up as extra, unpaid labor, and our interviewee’s own account of her work routine is the clearest evidence of this. She described routinely verifying her emails with colleagues before sending them to the global headquarters, checking that the tone was soft enough and the phrasing indi-rect enough before anything went out. On paper, this looks like a small, harmless step. Taken as a data point rather than an anecdote, though, it means that every message crossing the cultural divide requires a second round of work: writing the message, then re-writing it, then having it checked by someone else, to survive a different cultural filter. What she described as “communication being different” is, in practice, communication becoming more expensive, since time that could go toward the actual task instead goes toward managing how the task will be perceived. This is not just an efficiency problem either, it is an emotional one: constantly monitoring your own tone to avoid being read as blunt or disrespectful requires a kind of vigi-lance that culturally homogenous teams simply do not need, and over time this steady self-editing adds up to a form of emotional labor that her account suggests is never formally named or accounted for in how employees’ workload is assessed.
Another example of inhibitive behavior that came directly out of the interview is the speed at which people are expected to communicate. Our interviewee noted that the global HQ expects replies almost immediately, and that waiting a week to respond to an email is seen in a negative light. Since speed itself carries meaning in a high-context culture, being slow can look like you don’t care or aren’t taking things seri-ously. This creates friction with the regional team’s slower, more relaxed pace, even though, as she was careful to point out, there is no bad intention behind it. Read to-gether, her comments on tone-checking and response speed point to the same un-derlying issue: the regional team is not just working but constantly managing how their working style is perceived by the other side.
The massive difference in how both cultures view power dynamics leads straight to prohibitive behavior, and again, our interviewee’s account supplies the concrete evi-dence. Over in the European office, the organizational structure is very flat, and it is completely normal to talk casually with your manager. As she mentioned, regional employees feel very comfortable speaking up or sharing their own opinions if they disagree with their local manager. On the flip side, the global headquarters maintains a very strict, top-down hierarchy; she noted that new employees are already explicit-ly warned during their job interviews that it is a very hierarchical company, which sig-nals just how central this expectation is to the organization’s culture from day one.
Over there, showing absolute respect for senior management is a basic, unbreaka-ble rule. Being too relaxed or jovial with higher-ups, which she described as standard practice in the regional office, is seen as prohibitive behavior by global leadership. Openly disrespecting the strict management structure goes completely against their core cultural values. She gave a specific example: when a senior business manager from the global headquarters dictates that a certain strategy must be executed, al-most nobody dares to go against it, because the decision comes straight from the top.
Because of these huge differences, the teams are constantly forced to find a middle ground, and much of that middle ground is currently held together by middle man-agement acting as an informal cultural buffer, softening messages, timing communi-cations carefully, and shielding the regional team from being read as disrespectful. But this buffer solves the symptoms, not the source. It allows the organization to keep functioning day to day, while leaving the underlying mismatch between low-context and high-context expectations completely intact. Our interviewee’s account of budget negotiations is a clear data point for where this buffer breaks down: the global headquarters often demands more revenue and tells the regional subsidiary that they have to hit all their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and show growth, but somehow with less budget. According to her, the regional team pushes back, arguing that it is practically impossible to achieve that without the budget going up, but the final choices from the global HQ are usually still leading, even when it is not necessarily the smartest choice for the local market. This is arguably the buffer fail-ing in real time: the same manual translation and softening that smooths over day-to-day communication cannot fully absorb a direct disagreement over resources, and the regional team’s practical objections still get overridden.
Put together, these examples, all grounded in our interviewee’s own account rather than general assumptions about cultural difference, show that the friction here isn’t just random misunderstanding. It’s the predictable result of two cultures that each make total sense internally, but clash when they meet, and the current coping mechanism, informal buffering middle management, treats the symptoms without addressing the root mismatch. Every new hire, every new project, and every new email still needs the same manual translation, because the system itself has not changed, only the workaround around it. Once you separate the inhibitive issues (communication style and speed) from the prohibitive ones (challenging hierarchy and authority) and use the interview to trace the ongoing cost of managing both, it becomes much easier to see not just where the friction comes from, but why relying on individual employees to quietly absorb it is not a sustainable long-term solution.

Possible solutions

Based on what came up in the interview, there are a few best practices that could help the company bring these two working styles closer together and close the gap between the regional and global teams.

Enhanced facilitation for global meetings: The company already uses culturally fluent facilitators to keep messaging consistent and avoid language-related confusion dur-ing international meetings. For example, marketing presentations meant for regional markets are often given by presenters with fluent American English, which helps get the message across clearly across different regions. This approach reduces misun-derstandings and allows employees from different regions to focus more on the con-tent of discussions rather than language barriers.

Diplomatic communication integration: Regional management acts as a kind of buff-er between junior regional staff and senior global leadership. As mentioned in the interview, direct cultural clashes rarely happen between these two groups because regional managers translate the direct, low-context concerns from the regional side, such as KPIs and budget discussions, into the more harmony-focused communica-tion style expected by headquarters. This helps prevent unnecessary conflict and keeps communication running smoothly. However, this solution does not fully solve the problem. Because managers do most of the translating, employees have fewer opportunities to develop their own intercultural communication skills. Over time, this can make the company too dependent on a small group of people to bridge cultural differences instead of helping everyone communicate more effectively across cul-tures.

Cross-cultural competency development: The company already provides new em-ployees with one intercultural training session during onboarding, but the interview shows that communication challenges continue long after that. For example, em-ployees often think carefully about how emails will be interpreted before sending them to headquarters. While this helps avoid misunderstandings, it also takes extra time and effort that could otherwise be spent on productive work. Offering regular intercultural workshops throughout the year, focusing on communication styles, hier-archy, feedback, and decision-making, would help employees become more confi-dent in working with colleagues from different cultural backgrounds. Instead of learn-ing about these differences only once, employees would continue developing the skills needed to communicate more effectively and collaborate across cultures.

These recommendations focus on solving the cause of communication challenges instead of only reducing their effects. While the current approach helps avoid conflict in the short term, helping employees develop stronger intercultural communication skills would improve collaboration, support better decision-making, and strengthen the relationship between the regional subsidiary and the global headquarters.

Authors
Sude Korca (Sude Korca)
Student: Sude Korca , AMSIB, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, 2026
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sudekorca/

Tishana Bertad (Tishana Bertad)
Student: Tishana Bertad , AMSIB, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, 2026
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tishana-bertad-1a9794387/

Lawa Gurgy (Lawa Gurgy)
Student: Lawa Gurgy , AMSIB, Amsterdam University of Applied Siences
Block 4, Semester 2, 2026
www.linkedin.com/in/lawa-gurgy-4b119b218

Biography/references

Anonymous. (2026). Interview transcript – Intercultural communication within a global technology conglomerate[Transcript of interview conducted 17 June 2026].
Google. (2026). Gemini (Large language model). https://gemini.google.com/
Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P. B., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring cultures: Exercises, sto-ries, and synthetic cultures. Intercultural Press.
iStock. (2021). Moderne zaken jonge gerichte ernstige bedrijfsvrouwen en mannen die in een vergadering werken [Stock photograph]. https://www.istockphoto.com/nl/foto/moderne-zaken-jonge-gerichte-ernstige-bedrijfsvrouwen-en-mannen-die-in-een-gm1313265074-401812457
Weaver, G. (2013). Intercultural relations: Communication, identity, and conflict. Pearson Learning Solutions.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the use of Google Gemini (June 2026 version) for text editing, paraphras-ing, and improving the grammatical and professional tone of this manuscript. The final content was reviewed, edited, and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the integrity of the work.

Navigating how to understand other’s and how to be understood

MTPD Culture — Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:38:59 +0000

Overview

Nearly everyone has experienced struggles when communicating with another individual, leading to misunderstandings, frustration or even hurt. Every individual has a different mode of communication, set of values, work-ethic or perspective on relationships, often originating from their primary culture and environment. When working in an international setting this can become an obstacle or it can be exploited as a strength. Gaining an intercultural competence by understanding, empathising and adjusting to interpersonal differences will not only lead to personal development but also foster ideas, innovation, and broaden perspectives on the subject at hand.

In the following case model an international consultancy firm was examined to understand how cultural differences are experienced and handled within the company. An interview was conducted with a consultant who focuses on “advising companies and IT transformation” (personal communication, 2024). Some of the interview inquiries focused on: What cultural limitations are present in the work environment? How is the right of fairness exercised in the multicultural environment? How is miscommunication mitigated? How is the decision process influenced due to differences in the Hofstede Value Dimensions? What are best practice examples of the organisation to ensure intercultural communication?.

To effectively analyse the interview findings, the Geert Hofstede Model and the Erin Meyer Culture Map have been used. The Geert Hofstede Model compares cultures across six dimensions: power distance, individualism, motivation towards achievement and success, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence (Hofstede Insights, 2024). The Erin Meyer Culture map is a system of 8 scales including: confrontation, evaluating, persuading, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing, and scheduling (Read, 2021). Every culture can be placed somewhere along the spectrum, thereby identifying how their tendencies may influence communication. Lastly the knowledge acquired at the International Criminal Court (ICC) concerning the Requirements of Fairness, will be applied to this case model. The Requirements of Fairness refer to the ICC ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and for the victim. In this case the notion of fairness will be examined in the organisation context.

The following case model will first examine the interview findings according to the Hofstede Model and Erin Meyer Culture Map, outcomes on how the organisation has addressed cultural differences and lastly the case will display possible solutions to intercultural communication issues within the company.

Hofstede Dimensions

The Hofstede country comparison (Fig 1) includes the Netherlands (green), as the interviewee resides and works in the Netherlands. The Dutch culture will be compared to the Indian culture (blue), as the interviewees current communication focuses on consulting a Indian business client.

Fig 1. (Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM, 2024)

Power Distance:
Visible in Fig 1, the Netherlands display a low power distance (38) and India a high power distance (77). The interviewee’s Indian business client is a large customer with a rigid company structure, with a “very authoritarian working method” and formal power positions which are “difficult to break” (personal communication, 2024). From the onset the two parties are used to a different working environment when it comes to decision-making and leadership. Our interviewee claims his Dutch colleagues to be more “comfortable with a certain piece of their own authority and do not necessarily have to be dependent on someone else” (personal communication, 2024). According to Hofstede the Indian attitude within a corporate environment can be described as “dependent on the boss or the power holder for direction, with a acceptance of unequal rights between the power-privileged and those who are lesser down in the pecking order”, meaning that employees anticipate directions on their functions and responsibilities (Hofstede Insights, 2024). It is inhibitive for Indians to diverge from the instruction given to them from authority figures. Whilst the Dutch corporate culture is characterised by decentralisation, reliance on the team, managers consulting their employees and participative communication (Hofstede Insights, 2024). It is inhibitive for the Dutch to not consult their team before making a decision.

Individualism:
The Netherlands and our interviewee, exercises a high level of individualism (80), while India is focused on group orientation (48) (Fig 1). Our interviewee states that his Dutch colleagues are more likely to “take ownership” and “contribute new ideas” by offering ideas without being asked. This displays their tendency and appreciation for working alone on a task or project, making plans and taking action independently of their teammates or colleagues. According to Hofstede the Indian culture has a collectivist side with a “preference for belonging to a larger social framework”, being rejected by social groups leaves them “with a sense of emptiness” (Hofstede Insights, 2024). Therefore the recruitment within an organisation is often based on the relationship between individuals.

Time Orientation & Uncertainty Avoidance:
Hofstede describes Indian culture to be forgiving when it comes to punctuality whereas Dutch culture favour a long-term orientation with a score of 67 (Hofstede Insights, 2024). This goes hand in hand with the country’s uncertainty avoidance, India has a tolerance for ambiguity (40) and the Netherlands a need for certainty (53) (Fig 1). It is inhibitive for the Dutch to steer away from a plan or framework. Indians do not fear circumventing rules or plans and possible unknowns emerging after the fact, whereas Dutch individuals favour rigid codes and are intolerant to a lack of security (Hofstede Insights, 2024). This theory is reflected by our interviewee, who claims “one of the biggest challenges we have is setting certain deadlines and setting a time period in which a project must be completed” creating a “barrier that occasionally causes it to take a lot of time” (personal communication, 2024).

Erin Meyer Culture Map

Confrontation:
To further illustrate the differences in Dutch and Indian culture the Culture Map by Erin Meyer is used, specifically illustrating the type of communication. The Dutch are confrontational whereas Indians avoid confrontation. Our interviewee has indicated that consultancy projects are often impacted by the Indian “yes culture”, meaning they “will never really say no” (personal communication, 2024). Our Interviewee claims “If I ask if this could be done within 2 weeks, they will never say no, while in reality that 2 weeks is very difficult.” (personal communication, 2024). It is inhibitive for Indians to disagree, contradict or confront another individual. The underlying reason being that Indians believe it is inappropriate and possibly damaging to a groups dynamic to be confrontational (Kua, 2024). Contrastingly the Dutch colleagues tend to view disagreements or debates as positive and beneficial for an organisation’s culture.

Fig 2. Erin Meyer Culture Map – Confrontation (Kua, 2024)

Communicating:
According to Erin Meyer the Netherlands operates with a low context communication characterized by being “precise, simple and clear”, and the Indian culture with a high context communication that is “layered and nuanced” therefore “messages are often implied but not plainly expressed” (Kua, 2024). The interviewee reinforces this claim displaying an issue of miscommunication between the Dutch consultant and Indian client. The interviewee claims that statements (verbal/written), may result in multiple possible interpretations.

Fig 3. Erin Meyer Culture Map – Communicating (Kua, 2024)

Outcome

As evident in the previous analysis there are a multitude of cultural differences between the Dutch consultant and the Indian client. The interviewee has revealed their awareness for these differences and several strategies to address these differences in order to mitigate misunderstandings.

Empowering Fairness
The French consultancy firm favours a low power distance and welcomes individualism, in order to foster an equal and fair working environment. Their strategy is to lower the threshold of decision-making and authority by having informal conversations including questions “how are you or how was your weekend” (personal communication, 2024). This fosters an environment in which all parties feel comfortable. Likewise the interviewee divides the project “into short pieces, ensures that the organisation is more agile and that people simply take more authority themselves” fostering individualism by encouraging the client to take ownership (personal communication, 2024). Thereby the company ensures that everyone is able to contribute to the project regardless of their perception on authority, decision-making rights or procedures.

Stimulating effective Planning:
Furthermore the company is able to stimulate effective planning, although the two countries have different approaches to meeting deadlines. The interviewee’s strategy is to make 4 week plans of what should be achieved instead of a year-long plan, allowing to quickly respond to developments and enhance the ability to generate short term wins (personal communication, 2024).

Clarifying Communication:
Lastly the consultancy firm has experienced miscommunication due to low vs. high-context communication. The interviewee’s current solution is to “try to understand each other”, through continuous iterations of written or spoken text. The consultant describes this as “time-consuming”, thus a “framework for them so that they can do their work well” is the most efficient (personal communication, 2024).

Possible solutions

Although the international consultancy firm uses strategies to ensure an effective intercultural collaboration, there are aspects that could lead to a more efficient and fair working environment for all individuals involved.

Interpretation & Understanding:
The unsolved issue that the interviewee mentioned is that clients’ first language is often a different one than English, although their communication takes place in English clients often have a strong accent “which sometimes makes it very difficult” (personal communication, 2024). A translator or interpreter for the consultant and client communication is not available. A possible solution to understanding clients acoustically and the underlying meanings of their statements is to utilise an interpreter. Interpreters would be able to provide an accurate translation without altering the meaning or tone of the client as well as providing the information in a neutral and objective manner. This could enhance other areas which the interviewee struggled with such as setting deadlines and empowering individuals to take ownership.

Trust and Comfort:
Another method can be to organise a virtual ice breaker at the beginning of the project. Although the consultant and client are not physically present they can learn about their personalities via team with question rounds or mini activities. This will create a comfortable and trustworthy environment, enhancing decision-making and understanding amongst each other.

Authors

Dorothea Maria Rest
International Business Administrations (fast-track), Semester 4

Emma Misaljevic
International Business, Semester 2, Block 4

Natasja Vestering
Accountancy, Semester 2, Block 4

Fariq van der Stede
International Business, Semester 4

Zino Veldt
Bedrijfskunde, Semester 2, Block 4

Maximus Walther
International Business, Semester 2, Block 4

Cultural Diversity at a top-notch consultant in The Netherlands

The Model To Practice Dialogues — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:57:22 +0000

An interview was conducted with a council member from a globally operating consultancy firm for the purpose of the anonymous case model. The interviewee, originally from France, has a diverse cultural background due to extensive travel and living experiences around the world. The objective of this interview was to explore the cultural differences that arise within the consultancy bureau and how they are effectively managed in the context of cultural diversity.

During the interview, the interviewee was asked about various aspects related to cultural differences within the organisation, including issues that could be perceived as either prohibitive or inhibitive and the extent of masculinity vs. femininity within the organisation. The responses to these questions will be analyzed in this case study, along with an examination of the Hofstede dimensions applicable to both the Netherlands and the selected consultancy firm. The findings will be discussed further in the subsequent sections.

Hofstede Dimensions

The Hofstede dimensions are a framework developed by Geert Hofstede to measure and compare cultural differences between countries (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). They include six dimensions: Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation (LTO), and Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND). PDI reflects the acceptance of unequal power distribution, IDV examines the balance between individual and collective interests, MAS focuses on gender roles and values, UAI measures tolerance for uncertainty, LTO reflects future-oriented thinking, and IND explores the gratification of desires. These dimensions help understand cultural values and behaviours in different societies, aiding in cross-cultural analysis and interactions (SimplyPsychology, 2023).

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions (Netherlands) (Source: Shayesta Global Citizenship, n.d.)

Power Distance

Hofstede’s power distance dimension focuses on the recognition that individuals are not treated as equals, both in society and within organizations. Power distance refers to the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations in a country anticipate and accept unequal distribution of power (Hofstede-insights, n.d.). This can manifest in situations where leaders hold significantly more authority than the average person, leading to a hierarchical structure where decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a select few individuals. Subordinates rarely have the opportunity to share or be assigned such authority within this centralized framework.

As a country, the Netherlands exhibits a relatively low rating (38 out of 100) on the power distance dimension. This suggests that promoting equality for all is a central goal. In a low power distance society, independence, accessibility of leaders, coaching, and hierarchy based on personal convenience are commonly observed. High levels of monitoring and control are generally disliked, while direct, honest, and participatory communication is preferred. Within the context of a consultancy bureau, collaboration is encouraged, and there exists a close and unhurried connection between the individual and their supervisor. The supervisor continuously monitors the employee’s performance and provides encouragement to improve. This demonstrates a clear connection between the consultancy bureau and the low power distance culture in the Netherlands.

Masculinity versus femininity

Feminism seeks to promote gender equality in all spheres of life. It also includes the workplace, where the roles of gender often limit women’s opportunities for advancement. Masculinity can reinforce harmful stereotypes and create barriers for men who don’t conform to those norms, leading to a lack of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Embracing feminist principles can create a more inclusive and equitable work environment for every person, regardless of their gender. On the other hand, Masculinity can reinforce harmful stereotypes and create barriers for men who don’t conform to those norms, leading to a lack of diversity and inclusion in the workplace (Hofstede, B. & Meulenbelt, A. 2019).

As it delved into the topic of masculinity and feminism, it came forward that although most of the men interacted with, were male. There was not a belief in pushing for more females on teams. There is a belief in fair performance evaluations, regardless of gender, weight, or culture; everyone in the case is male driven.

Although there are many women in a building, it didn’t change the fact that the majority of the colleagues were male. However, it was not noted that it tended to work better with women on teams, as it was an individual preference, not gender based. These played a role in showcasing the values and suitability for a company.

So, if someone walks into the building, there are a bunch of females. It was not the case to push more females for teams; it is what it is, so be it. It could be that in other parts of the company there is a form of positive discrimination, but not in all cases.Performance tends to be nicer with ladies, but it is not based on gender in the company. It has no point to get a different evaluation because it is about how you perform.

Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Individualism refers to the practice of self-sufficiency and independence, where the freedom of thought and action of each individual takes precedence over teamwork and shared responsibility (SimplyPsychology, 2023). In contrast, collectivism emphasizes prioritizing the group over the individual.

In the Netherlands, there is a high score of 80 for individualism, indicating a strong preference for a loosely-knit social structure where individuals are expected to primarily take care of themselves and their immediate families. In individualistic societies, causing offense leads to guilt and a decrease in self-esteem. The employer-employee relationship is viewed as a contractual arrangement based on mutual benefit, with hiring and promotion decisions being merit-based. Management focuses on the needs and development of individuals.

Within the business environment, this cultural orientation encourages individuals to strive for personal growth and advancement. The relationship between employers and employees is also characterized by mutual prosperity and beneficial outcomes.

During the interview, the interviewee expresses a notable observation regarding the consultancy bureau, highlighting a substantial level of collaboration and the presence of collectivist behaviours. This finding is understandable considering that consultancy bureaus typically engage in collaborative work with multiple parties simultaneously. Employees frequently work together to achieve shared goals. While there are specific areas and tasks that allow for individual work, there are also opportunities for individualism. It appears that the bureau recognizes the importance of promoting collectivism as a strategic approach within the competitive industry, aiming to foster innovation, and sustainability, and gain a competitive edge.

Outcome

In this organisation, as mentioned earlier, people from a wide variety of cultures communicate daily in order to resolve problems, meet deadlines and make sure that a high-quality product is being delivered. During these meetings many cultural miscommunications can occur, which can be severely damaging to the company. Within the organisation several strategies are implemented to mitigate the risk of cultural miscommunications, one of which is selective hiring. At this level in the organisation’s hierarchy, there is an implicit expectation that employees have the necessary competence and skills to deal with people from diverse cultures. Given that the company is in its essence meritocratic, and hires people based on their competence shown in other (usually international) organisations, a certain level of autonomy is granted to the employees to handle cultural differences. There is an expectation that employees are able to pick up on social cues and understand unspoken social norms. Additionally, the organisation offers a range of training sessions to increase cultural awareness and build on the skills that employees already possess.

Possible solutions

One potential problem for the consultancy bureau is cultural adaptation. Operating as a multinational company, the bureau may encounter difficulties in adapting to the diverse cultural backgrounds of its clients. Each culture possesses distinct business practices, communication styles, and expectations. Failing to understand and adapt to these cultural differences can hinder effective collaboration, diminish client satisfaction, and impact the success of projects. To address this challenge, the bureau would benefit from investing in cross-cultural training initiatives and developing strategies to navigate cultural nuances. By actively acknowledging and accommodating cultural diversity, the company can foster stronger client relationships and ensure successful project outcomes.

Authors

Aryan Zaheer (LinkedIn)
International Business, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, 2023

Kenza Marroun (LinkedIn)
Bedrijfskunde, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Block 4, Semester 2, 2023

Daniël Borissevitch (LinkedIn)
Business Administration, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, 2023

Clément Lobjoie (LinkedIn)
Human resource Management, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Semester 2, 2023