The head of legal affairs and sustainability at a Finnish mobile device manufacturer oversees responsibilities related to governance, ethics, and long-term impact. The company emerged after taking over a well-known mobile phone business in the mid-2010s and operates as a global organization with a presence in more than 150 countries, serving highly diverse markets across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas.

The company’s mission is strongly rooted in huma-centric values, which are most of it is inherited from the company’s organizational culture. These values include respect for the individual, fairness, inclusiveness, diversity, and adherence to human rights principles. According to the interviewee, these values are reflected not only in internal company culture but also in how they conduct business globally, for example, through ethical manufacturing, protection of personal data, and providing affordable mobile devices for different socioeconomic groups.

Intercultural communication plays a crucial role in organization’s daily operations. He highlights that Finnish communication tends to be very direct, which can be effective internally but may be perceived as rude or confrontational in other cultures, especially Asian contexts where politeness, hierarchy, and indirect communication are more valued.

Hofstede Dimensions

Power distance refers to how much hierarchy and unequal power are accepted in a culture. The organization reflects a low power distance culture, influenced by Finnish and Nordic values, where leadership is democratic, and everyone is encouraged to share ideas. In contrast, many Asian mostly Chinese) operate with high power distance, where decisions are made by senior leaders, questioning authority is uncommon (Hofstede et al., 2010).  This contrast has led to misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions, particularly when his direct communication style was interpreted as disrespectful or as causing someone to “lose face”.

Their culture emphasizes respect for the individual and personal responsibility, aligning with individualistic cultures common in Europe. Employees are encouraged to express their opinions openly. However, in more collectivist cultures, such as those in Asia and Africa, maintaining group harmony and relationships is more important than direct disagreement. This requires a more indirect and careful communication style (Hegerova, 2024).

The organization demonstrates moderate to high uncertainty avoidance through its focus on clear legal frameworks, NDA, and bilingual contracts. However,  in some Asian markets, such formal legal protections are not always standard practice, and business relationships may rely more on trust and long-term relationships rather than formal legal structures, requiring HMD to adapt its processes. For example, the use of an NDA is not really common in China for the counterparties.

Finland is considered a feminine culture, valuing cooperation, equality, and quality of life. This is reflected in HMD’s focus on inclusiveness, fairness, work-life balance, and consensus-based leadership. A leadership approach that prioritizes collaboration and diverse perspectives aligns closely with this cultural dimension  (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Lastly, the company demonstrates a long-term orientation, shown through long-term contracts and a strong focus on sustainability. This aligns well with many Asian cultures that value long-term relationships. However, the interview also highlights that legal systems may vary by region. For example, Legal systems in Europe and India are generally more independent and predictable, whereas legal disputes involving large Chinese companies can be extremely difficult due to the close ties between companies and government institutions  (Hofstede et al., 2010.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions (Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM, n.d.)

Outcome

The interview suggests that the intercultural problems faced by the organization stem from differences in communication approaches and expectations regarding hierarchy, rather than from issues of respect and professionalism. Finland is known for direct and task-oriented communication. This is actually more common in low-power-distance situations. However, direct communication may be viewed as “too harsh and even disrespectful,” especially when addressing a person higher in the hierarchy, and there is a danger of “losing face,” as found in some Asian cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010).

The second result is that the legal approach to the company’s operations demonstrates the company’s strategy to avoid uncertainty through the use of formal contracts, agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. Interviewee argues that in other markets, the formal approach may not be the norm at the beginning of a cooperation, as market engagement is often based on trust and relationship-building. If the strategies are divergent, negotiations can take a long time and be challenging.

In conclusion, to communicate effectively across cultures in the company, one must strike a balance between clarity and cultural sensitivity, including the tone of legal and ethical standards and the style of feedback.

Possible solutions

Thus, the organization can facilitate easier intercultural collaboration by adopting effective behaviours to avoid confusion without compromising laws and regulations. For effective collaboration, a quick pre-task cultural scan should be conducted before engaging in crucial conversations to recognise the other party’s cultural background and communication patterns, particularly focusing on the context, whether it is a low- or a high-context situation, to ensure an effective and compatible initial engagement and response to the other party’s expectations and behaviours (EBSCO, n.d.; FutureLearn, n.d.). For a more effective and non-confrontational engagement in a face-sensitive and high-context situation, it is essential to avoid confusion and bluntness in corrections and criticisms by asking instead, “Do we want to adjust the way?” and “Could we explore another way?” rather than bluntly saying “Don’t do it” and “Change it,” considering that different cultures have different feedback expectations and blunt corrections could damage the relationship and collaboration process (Meyer, 2014). To avoid confusion and misunderstanding, a clarity-check process is required after calls and emails, rather than assuming understanding, by confirming understanding with a quick, easy-to-understand statement and ensuring clarity through a series of basic lines and phrases (EBSCO, n.d.).

Two other elements can be helpful in a hierarchical/relationship-first context: aligning the meeting processes with the level of the hierarchy being addressed and making the authority in decisions explicit, as power distance can influence who can speak up in a discussion or make decisions in a timely fashion, which can hinder progress on a case (Hofstede, n.d.). If the early formal legal approach seems inappropriate in some context, consider a staged approach in which a less formal initial agreement is used before proceeding to detailed contracts as trust is built in the relationship, in part because this can facilitate accommodation without “losing oneself” or compromising one’s standards in the process (Molinsky, 2013).

References

Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM. (n.d.). Culture in the WorkplaceTM. https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/?ode-country-selected=FI,CN,DE,JP,US

EBSCO. (n.d.). High-context and low-context cultures. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.ebsco.com/

FutureLearn. (n.d.). What is high-context and low-context culture? Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.futurelearn.com/

Hegerova, Z. (2024, November 28). Building relationships in collectivist workplaces. Headroom Mental Health. https://headroom.co.za/building-relationships-in-collectivist-workplaces/

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). The 6-D model of national culture. Geert Hofstede. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://geerthofstede.com/

Meyer, E. (2014, February 25). How to say “This is crap” in different cultures. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/how-to-say-this-is-crap-in-different-cultures

Molinsky, A. (2013, March 12). When crossing cultures, use global dexterity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/03/when-crossing-cult

Authors

Students:Block 2, Semester 1, 25-01-2026

Alma Eekhout Conde, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alma-eekhout-conde-5b22021b5/)

Karlo Koljonen, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlo-koljonen-626478390/)

Aisha Mohamed, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aisha-mohamed-208545257/)

Dain Yoon, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dainyoon/)

Yianna Reinking: (www.linkedin.com/in/yianna-reinking)

The interviewee stated that the British communication style was too high-context which made it difficult when receiving performance feedback. The interviewee felt that the ambiguous language hindered performance improvement due to that lack of explicit feedback and planning. In addition, certain workplace norms such as the expectation to work unpaid overtime, limited decision making at the lower end of the company hierarchy, and office etiquette such as the expectation to turn on one’s video camera during calls have roots in an American work culture which may conflict with non-American work values. Productivity and thoroughly completed work are at the core values of this company however the company’s structural focus of productivity may be eliciting complacency which may diminish innovations and ambitions from workers that could improve productivity.

Hofstede Dimensions

Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension entails the way in which the society of a culture deals with the future. It includes questions such as if the future should be controlled or if everything should just try to leave everything the way it is and not control what happens in the future. The ambiguity shows how a culture copes with fear and anxiety in different ways. Therefore, one can state that uncertainty measures the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened to ambiguous or unknown situations and create beliefs and institutions to avoid those. 

According to figure 1, Bulgaria (85) clearly has the highest score. This indicates that they strongly try to avoid uncertainty. Therefore, working hard with precision and being punctual. Furthermore, security is highly motivating members of the culture. UK (35) with the lowest score clearly shows the serenity of the culture concerning uncertainty, not having a problem within changing their path in case new information arises. This indicates a comfortableness with uncertain situations. This results in non-detailed planning and non-clear goal setting in the working environment. Netherlands (53) and U.S. (46) are more of the “middle players”. Whereas the Netherlands have a slight tendency to avoid uncertainty whereas the U.S. tends to be more comfortable with ambiguous situations.

Long-term vs. Short-term orientation

This dimension measures the extent to which a culture maintains links to the past while dealing with challenges in present and future. Either a society is long-term or short-term oriented. The culture with low scores i.e., prefers time-based traditions and norms during cultural change – long-term orientation. The culture with a high score i.e., is more pragmatic and encourages change and views change as a way to prepare for the future – short-term orientation.

As we can see in figure 1, the U.S. scores lowest (26) and is therefore rather short-term oriented, whereas Bulgaria (69) and Netherlands (67) score pretty high which indicates that they are rather long-term oriented and therefore have a more pragmatic view on the situations and therefore believe that truth depends on situation, context and time. American culture on the other hand is not pragmatic but rather practical. For example, new information is analysed and checked for its truthfulness. This is also shown in the short-term measurement of performance in American companies. It encourages individuals to strive for fast positive results. Though, the U.K. (51) has no clear tendency to either short-term or long-term orientation, therefore one can state that it is easier to align to either one of the two aforementioned spectrums.

In the interview, the interviewee told us about monthly meetings, where he discusses his achievements during the month, which represents a short-term view on the employees’ success, therefore again, we have a rather American management style.

Outcome

The relationship between power distance, individualism and masculinity

The interviewee explained that he is highly influenced by the Dutch culture after studying and working in the Netherlands for five years. Yet, he is working for an American company and his main colleagues are British.

Both the Netherlands and England score relatively low on the dimension of power distance (38 and 35 respectively) according to Hofstede’s Country Comparison tool.  Overall, this is noticeable within the interviewee’s direct team, as the communication is relatively informal and the British supervisor tries to implement an egalitarian leadership style (Meyer, 2016). On the other hand, when important decisions need to be made, it becomes clear that the company makes use of a top-down decision-making system and has a tall organizational structure. Possible changes need to be discussed with the manager of the interviewee, then with the manager of the manager, and so on. This is a result of the high level of individualism (91) and masculinity (62) that can be found in American society. Even though the United States scores fairly low on power distance (40), American organizations establish hierarchy for convenience and managers expect to be consulted on a regular basis. Moreover, the average American aims for the highest possible position and attaches value to status. Installing top-down decision-making systems is one of many ways to ensure that certain positions have more power than others. Contrarily, the company’s code of conduct also consists of feminine traits. The company states that sexism, racism or any other actions that strengthen inequality is prohibited behavior and for example shows this through including topics such as the significance of celebrating Pride Day in its weekly newsletter.

According to the interviewee, transparency and proactivity are two core values of the company (bottom of the iceberg model) which could be caused by the individualistic mindset of the supervisors who expect their team members to carry out their tasks independently and share information frequently (Weaver, 2014). This could also explain why the interviewee provided the example of switching off the camera during an online meeting as inhibitive behavior within the company, because it can be seen as a breach of trust.

A traditional organization with a top-down decision-making system makes sure that employees have less responsibility, as the degree of freedom they have in the decision process is limited. This can reduce the workload of the employees which can decrease their job stress levels (MacDonald, 2003). However, this degree of freedom in the decision-making process is also defined as autonomy value. Autonomy is an intrinsic motivational factor which increases skill sharing, creativity, innovation and organizational dedication (Belias, 2015). With a top-down decision-making system the autonomy level is relatively low, as it offers less flexibility in work procedures. The low autonomy level is not in line with the proactivity value the company claims to include in its business culture. The main reason for this is that proactivity is not triggered when employees are not allowed to participate in decision making. Because of this, it seems that proactivity is a minimal behavioural trait on the surface and is rather a false sense of having control / independence within one’s job, while docility is the actual core value. This contradiction causes role unclarity, which is a role stressor, as there can be confusion about what is exactly expected from employees. For example, the supervisor of the interviewee and his team members encourages them to develop innovative ideas. Yet, such an idea is almost never realized, even when the supervisor has acknowledged the relevance and beneficial aspects of it. This situation makes employees doubt what their responsibilities are and can negatively affect their intrinsic motivation and their level of productivity.’

Furthermore, autonomy can be influenced by how well messages are communicated between employees and supervisors. The interviewee’s supervisor organizes one on one meetings on a monthly basis to discuss the peer’s performance and provide feedback. These personal meetings are often informal and reflect the low power distance between the two parties.  On the other hand, the interviewee mentioned that the feedback is often vague and not constructive enough. The Netherlands has an explicit low-context culture, meaning that the ideal communication is precise and simple. When it comes to the British, they are more high-context and tend to speak between the lines. On top of that, while the Dutch are used to receiving direct negative feedback, the British provide negative feedback subtly and usually within positive feedback. Therefore, the chance exists that the supervisor’s feedback is misinterpreted by an employee who has a different cultural background and is not aware of the non-verbal signals or behaviour. This situation may result in misunderstandings and dissatisfaction among both parties, as the employee will not clearly comprehend what is expected from them and the supervisor will not see the desired changes that she asked for.

Possible solutions

The first small “problem” that could be solved is the formal and informal way of dressing and communication. The company could write guidelines about meetings with a dress code and topics to avoid when in cross-cultural situations. The guidelines should not be a way of telling how to dress but advice employees how to respectfully dress for business meetings. To improve even more the company could set up guidelines with cultural preferences for international business meetings with people of different cultures. Top-down management is proven to be inefficient most of the time (Kooten, 2019). Especially in businesses that drive on creativity and employee motivation or input. Ashby’s law of requisite variety states that decision makers or systems should have as much variety as the people that it manages. Without it the organization cannot function efficiently. So top-down management does not listen to employees within the business enough to make it successful and will guarantee miscommunication and a falling of the system. Ways to improve this is by deleting layers between the top and the bottom of the company. This would work with the situational leadership styles of Hersey and Blanchard, that will make sure that the span wide of managers is not exceed. Managers will give employees more room for input and creativity. A clear example where this happened is the reorganization of Vattenfall (Kooten, 2019).

Student Authors

Emmi Fens (LinkedIn)
Student – University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021

Daan Muilwijk (LinkedIn)
Student – University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021

Skylar Watt
Student – Auckland University of Technology
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021

Emilia Matthis (LinkedIn)
Student – Kozminski University
Block 2, Semester 5, 2021