Assignment 2 MDMA:

Szenario: Firma aus Schweden will weltweit skandinavische Kultur

etablieren

Zeynep aus DE: based in Shanghai

Anna aus Brasilien: based in Singapore (evtl europäischere Kultur?)

Problem: lokale Mitarbeiter wollen nicht mitmachen bei kreativen

Diskussionen in Workshops (weniger Formal, wichtig für die Firma sveab).
Die werden sogar als Teil der Unternehmenskultur angesehen  auch um
Kunden etc zu engagen sollen bunte, interaktive Workshops benutzt
werden.

Problem für Zeynep: Mitarbeiter zu passiv. Zeynep denkt, dass die

Mitarbeiter erraten wollen, was Zeynep von ihnen erwartet. Sie denkt,
dass das wegen der hierarchischen Kultur in China ist, da sie eine
Vorgesetzte ist. Sie denkt nicht, dass das veränderbar ist.

Anna: kein rein kulturelles Problem, sondern eher ein Problem, dass
Zeynep noch kein Mittel gefunden hat, um auf die kulturellen Probleme
von den MAs einzugehen. Dies liegt vielleicht auch daran, dass Zeynep
denkt, dass es nur „deren“ KUlture ist, während sie ja eigentlich im selben
Unternehmen arbeiten

• China: Balances between masculine traits (competition,

achievement) and feminine traits (cooperation, care).
• Germany: More masculine, focusing on achievement and
success.
• Implication for Zeynep: The expectation for competitive
creativity may not resonate with the local employees’ cooperative
tendencies.

Draft 2:

Zeynep, a German expatriate working as a divisional manager in

Shanghai, faces significant challenges as she tries to introduce a
Scandinavian work culture into a vastly different environment in Shanghai.
Her role at the Swedish company “Sveap” requires her to lead creative
workshops that promote teamwork and innovation - key aspects of the
company’s culture. However, the local employees seem passive and
hesitant during these sessions. When talking to her colleague Anna, who is
based in Singapore, she doesn’t seem to understand Anna’s points and
appears quite irritated. Anna advises her to adapt to the Chinese culture,
otherwise she’ll have no chance of building a relationship with her
employees.

Cultural Values & Assumptions:

At the core of Zeynep’s frustration is the disparity between her
background’s lower power distance and individualistic nature and the high
power-distance, collectivist Chinese workplace culture. According to
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the GLOBE study, China ranks much
higher in power distance compared to Germany and Scandinavia. Chinese
employees typically defer to authority, waiting for explicit instructions
from their superiors rather than actively participating in discussions.
Zeynep’s team likely views her as an authority figure, believing it’s not
their place to offer unsolicited ideas. In contrast, Zeynep, influenced by
Germany’s relatively low power distance and Scandinavia’s flat
hierarchies, expects her team to contribute openly, regardless of their
position within the hierarchy. At the same time, Chinese employees tend to
depend on clear instructions due to the high power-distance which also
influences their behavior in workshops.

We can also apply Trompenaars’ theory of Universalism and Particularism:

Zeynep adopts a universalist approach as she expects the company's rules
and expectations to be applied uniformly, regardless of cultural context
which is a typical German behavior. She believes that workshops should
function the same way everywhere, including China, and gets frustrated
when that doesn't happen. Anna on the other hand is more particular: she
tries to adapt her approach, understanding that rules cannot be rigidly
applied in every culture. This is why she suggests that Zeynep shouldn't
try to "change" the Chinese but should instead find a way to encourage
their opinions, respecting cultural particularities.

Another significant cultural contrast is Hofstede’s individualism versus

collectivism dimension. While Zeynep comes from an individualistic culture
where personal achievements and autonomy are highly valued, China is
much more collectivist. In collectivist cultures, the success of the group is
prioritized over individual contributions, and employees may be more
concerned about how their actions affect the team. Zeynep’s workshops,
which emphasize personal creativity and innovation, might inadvertently
clash with her Chinese employees’ desire to maintain group harmony.

Communication styles further compound the misunderstanding. According

to Edward Hall’s theory, China is a high-context culture, meaning
communication is often indirect, relying on subtle non-verbal cues and
shared understandings. This indirect communication style can be
confusing for someone like Zeynep, who comes from a low-context culture,
where communication tends to be explicit and direct. What Zeynep sees
as a lack of response may be the employees communicating in a way she
isn’t picking up on. In a high-context culture like China’s, silence often
signifies attentiveness or deference, not disengagement.

Although China scores lower in uncertainty avoidance than Germany, this

doesn’t necessarily imply that Chinese employees are comfortable with
taking risks, especially in front of others. The concept of “face” (miànzi) is
crucial in China, where preserving face is vital for maintaining one’s
reputation and social standing. Making a mistake or presenting an idea
that isn’t well-received can lead to a loss of face for both the individual
and their superiors. Zeynep’s European background, where failure is often
seen as a part of the creative process, does not align with her Chinese
employees’ cautious approach. Their fear of losing face might cause them
to hold back during workshops, especially when they are uncertain about
how their contributions will be perceived.

Trust is another critical aspect to consider. In Scandinavian and German

workplaces, trust is assumed from the outset, and everyone is expected to
contribute equally. However, in China, trust needs to be built over time,
especially with an outsider like Zeynep. Studies show that in Asian
countries including China, trust toward strangers or individuals outside
one’s immediate circle tends to be lower than in Western cultures.
Zeynep’s struggle to engage her team may stem from the fact that her
employees haven’t yet developed the level of trust needed to contribute
openly to her workshops.

Intercultural Bridging Practices & Tools:

To become a more effective leader in this environment, Zeynep will need
to focus on developing her intercultural competence. According to
Trompenaars, culturally competent individuals exhibit empathy, flexibility,
and adaptability. First, she should focus on building stronger personal
relationships with her employees. Not only does Chinese work culture
require trust, but it is also highly diffuse. This means that work
relationships highly emphasize interpersonal relationships and context.
She could challenge this by organizing informal activities like team lunches
or social outings, which would help build comfort and trust and is very
common in China. These activities can reduce hierarchical pressure and
create an environment where employees feel more comfortable expressing
their thoughts freely.

Adjusting her leadership style will also be crucial. The GLOBE study
suggests that Chinese employees respond better to leaders who display
Team-Oriented, Self-Protective and Humane leadership styles. These styles
emphasize group cohesion and protect the team from failure or external
blame. In contrast, Zeynep may be accustomed to a more Participative
and autonomous leadership style, encouraging autonomy and individual
contributions. To adapt, she should shift her focus to fostering group
success rather than individual achievements, which aligns with the
collectivist values of her team. Zeynep should also be mindful of
protecting her employees’ reputations, shielding them from external
criticism or failure to maintain face and encourage risk-taking in a
controlled environment. At the same time, she should still be perceived as
the clear leader to align with the high power-distance in China.

Furthermore, Zeynep should restructure her workshops to better fit the

Chinese work environment. Instead of large, open discussions, she could
divide her team into smaller groups, allowing employees to share ideas in
a less public, more comfortable setting. Providing clear instructions and
defined roles within these groups will help reduce uncertainty and give
employees a sense of security about what is expected of them. Offering
feedback in a culturally sensitive way is another key step. In China’s high-
context culture, direct criticism in public can be perceived as
confrontational. Zeynep should avoid public critiques and instead offer
feedback in private, such as through one-on-one meetings or even
anonymously. This approach would respect the cultural importance of face
while still providing the necessary guidance.

Finally, Zeynep could draw more inspiration from Anna, who has thrived in
a similarly complex cultural environment. Anna’s Brazilian background,
where personal relationships are highly valued, may have helped her
foster trust and engagement within her team. Zeynep can adopt some of
Anna’s relationship-building strategies, focusing on creating personal
connections with her team and ensuring they feel supported both as
individuals and as a group which could finally lead to a gradually higher
engagement of her co-workers.

Draft 3:
Zeynep, a German expatriate working as a divisional manager in Shanghai
for the Swedish company “Sveap,” has been leading creative workshops
aimed at fostering teamwork and innovation—values deeply embedded in
the company’s culture. However, the local employees appear passive and
hesitant during these sessions. Zeynep, whose management style is
heavily influenced by German and Scandinavian work cultures, finds this
lack of participation frustrating. She sees it as a barrier to achieving
Sveap’s goals of encouraging openness and creativity. Yet, this visible
behavior from her team stems from deeply ingrained cultural values, not a
lack of engagement.

Cultural Values & Assumptions:

The key challenge for Zeynep lies in understanding the cultural values that
shape her team’s behavior. In China, a high power distance culture,
employees tend to defer to authority, waiting for clear instructions from
their superiors before contributing. This contrasts with Zeynep’s own
background, where low power distance in both German and Scandinavian
work cultures encourages open dialogue and equal contributions from
employees, regardless of hierarchy. Chinese employees, however, see
Zeynep as a figure of authority and might feel it’s inappropriate to offer
unsolicited ideas. The hesitation is compounded by China’s collectivist
nature, where group harmony and avoiding conflict are more important
than individual expression. Employees may fear that voicing an idea that’s
wrong could lead to loss of face—not just for them, but for their superior.
In contrast, Zeynep comes from cultures where speaking up is a sign of
initiative and where failure is often seen as a step in the creative process.

Communication is another area where these cultural differences manifest.

China’s high-context communication style contrasts sharply with the low-
context, direct communication Zeynep is used to. In high-context cultures,
much of the meaning is conveyed through non-verbal cues, shared
understandings, or what is left unsaid. Zeynep may interpret her team’s
silence during workshops as disengagement, but it may be a form of
attentiveness or deference. In China, silence can communicate respect,
particularly in hierarchical relationships, whereas in Zeynep’s cultural
context, it might be seen as a lack of contribution or interest.
Intercultural Bridging Practices & Tools

To address these challenges, Zeynep needs to develop intercultural

competence—an ability to recognize, understand, and adapt to these
cultural differences. One effective tool is fostering anonymous
participation in the workshops. By allowing employees to submit their
ideas anonymously, perhaps by writing short notes, Zeynep can reduce
the fear of losing face while encouraging them to share their thoughts
more freely. This simple but culturally sensitive practice can help bridge
the gap between her expectations of open dialogue and her team’s
reluctance to speak up.

Building trust is another critical step for Zeynep. In China, trust is

developed gradually through personal relationships, especially when
dealing with someone seen as an outsider. Zeynep should invest more
time in informal interactions with her employees, organizing team lunches
or social outings to create an environment where employees feel
comfortable with her. Trust-building in these informal settings can reduce
hierarchical pressure and create a space where employees feel safe to
express their thoughts without the fear of judgment. Studies suggest that
reducing formality encourages more open communication, which could be
beneficial in Zeynep’s case.

Adjusting her leadership style will also be crucial. The GLOBE study
suggests that Chinese employees respond better to leaders who display
Team-Oriented and Self-Protective leadership styles. These styles
emphasize group cohesion and protect the team from failure or external
blame. In contrast, Zeynep may be accustomed to a more Participative
leadership style, encouraging autonomy and individual contributions. To
adapt, she should shift her focus to fostering group success rather than
individual achievements, which aligns with the collectivist values of her
team. Zeynep should also be mindful of protecting her employees’
reputations, shielding them from external criticism or failure to maintain
face and encourage risk-taking in a controlled environment.

Additionally, cultural self-awareness is a key characteristic of an

interculturally competent leader. Zeynep needs to reflect on her own
cultural biases and recognize how her expectations are shaped by her
experiences in Germany and Scandinavia. By becoming more aware of
these biases, she can adjust her approach and better empathize with her
team’s cultural context. She can also seek continuous learning, perhaps by
engaging in cultural training or consulting with local colleagues for advice
on improving her leadership style within the Chinese work environment.

Visible Actions
Finally, Zeynep should draw on intercultural tools and insights from her
colleague Anna in Singapore. Anna, who has successfully managed similar
challenges, could provide useful advice on how to create an environment
that fosters both trust and participation. Anna’s success likely stems from
her ability to build strong personal connections with her team, something
Zeynep could also benefit from by focusing on relationship-building strateg

4.
Zeynep, a German expatriate working as a divisional manager in Shanghai
for the Swedish company “Sveap,” has been leading creative workshops
aimed at fostering teamwork and innovation—values deeply embedded in
the company’s culture. However, the local employees appear passive and
hesitant during these sessions. Zeynep, whose management style is
heavily influenced by German and Scandinavian work cultures, finds this
lack of participation frustrating. She sees it as a barrier to achieving
Sveap’s goals of encouraging openness and creativity. Yet, this visible
behavior from her team stems from deeply ingrained cultural values, not a
lack of engagement.

One core reason for this disconnect lies in the communication styles
between high-context and low-context cultures, as theorized by Edward T.
Hall. Zeynep’s German background emphasizes a low-context
communication style, where messages are direct, explicit, and the focus is
on clarity. This is in stark contrast to the high-context communication
common in China, where much of the meaning is embedded in the
context, body language, or unspoken cultural cues. In such an
environment, employees may be reluctant to voice their opinions openly,
especially in a public forum like a creative workshop. From Zeynep’s
perspective, their silence can appear passive, but for her Chinese
employees, this may be a way of maintaining harmony and avoiding direct
confrontation, which could be seen as disrespectful.

Moreover, the power distance dimension, a concept defined by Hofstede,

also plays a crucial role. Zeynep’s leadership approach aligns with the
relatively low power distance of Germany and Scandinavia, where
hierarchy is less pronounced and employees are encouraged to engage in
open dialogues with their leaders. In contrast, China has a high power
distance culture, where hierarchy is more accepted and even expected.
Employees may see leaders as the primary decision-makers and hesitate
to speak out or challenge authority in fear of undermining their status.
Zeynep’s workshops, intended to promote equality and open dialogue,
may unintentionally conflict with the expectations of her Chinese team,
who might be waiting for clearer guidance or approval from her before
participating.

Another significant cultural contrast is Hofstede’s individualism versus

collectivism dimension. While Zeynep comes from an individualistic culture
where personal achievements and autonomy are highly valued, China is
much more collectivist. In collectivist cultures, the success of the group is
prioritized over individual contributions, and employees may be more
concerned about how their actions affect the team. Zeynep’s workshops,
which emphasize personal creativity and innovation, might inadvertently
clash with her Chinese employees’ desire to maintain group harmony.
Instead of promoting individual expression, Zeynep might need to reframe
her approach to emphasize group success and collective problem-solving
to better align with her team’s values.

Beyond these dimensions, the GLOBE study’s cultural leadership analysis

highlights that Chinese employees tend to respond positively to leadership
styles that are team-oriented and self-protective. These styles emphasize
collective success and a cautious, protective stance that shields the group
from external pressures. Zeynep’s current approach may lean towards
charismatic and participative leadership, more in line with German and
Scandinavian expectations, where leaders are seen as facilitators of
discussion and personal initiative. However, in China, her employees might
expect a more directive, team-centered leader who clearly outlines group
goals and provides strong, authoritative guidance to achieve them.

Understanding the differences between monochronic and polychronic time

orientations can further clarify the struggles Zeynep is facing. Germany
tends to favor a monochronic approach, where time is structured, and
tasks are completed sequentially with a clear focus on deadlines and
efficiency. Zeynep’s creative workshops, designed to encourage free-
flowing ideas and multiple simultaneous tasks, may feel disorienting to her
Chinese team, who might prefer more structured and goal-oriented
sessions that align with the broader group objectives. Incorporating clearer
timelines and structured feedback loops could help make her workshops
more accessible and comfortable for her team.

To become a more effective leader in this environment, Zeynep will need

to focus on developing her intercultural competence. According to
Trompenaars, culturally competent individuals exhibit empathy, flexibility,
and adaptability. Zeynep can demonstrate these qualities by actively
learning more about the cultural assumptions that influence her team’s
behavior. For example, she could take steps to understand the importance
of “face” in Chinese culture, where maintaining one’s dignity and avoiding
public embarrassment is crucial. Encouraging anonymous feedback
mechanisms could help her Chinese employees feel more comfortable
contributing ideas without fear of losing face. Additionally, adjusting her
leadership approach to be more directive, especially in decision-making,
may provide her team with the clear guidance they expect, while still
leaving room for open contributions once trust has been established.

Zeynep could also introduce strategies that account for the varying
communication preferences of her team. One potential solution is to
establish more private, one-on-one conversations with her Chinese
employees, where they may feel more comfortable expressing their ideas
without the pressure of a public setting. These conversations could also
serve as opportunities for Zeynep to give feedback in a more personalized,
context-sensitive manner. Moreover, instead of expecting spontaneous
contributions during workshops, Zeynep could provide detailed agendas
and allow time for her team to reflect on ideas before sharing them, giving
them the space they need to feel confident in their responses.
An important part of Zeynep’s journey toward intercultural competence is
recognizing that different cultural backgrounds require different leadership
approaches. In China, adopting a more hierarchical leadership style, where
she asserts her role as the decision-maker and provides clearer guidance,
might align more closely with her team’s expectations. This doesn’t mean
she has to abandon her participative values but rather balance them with
a more authoritative stance, particularly at the outset of projects. Over
time, as trust builds, she can gradually encourage more open
participation, ensuring her team feels safe and respected in the process.

Zeynep should also take a more structured approach in her workshops to

align with her team’s preferences for order and clarity. By setting clear
goals and providing step-by-step instructions, she can help bridge the gap
between her polychronic, more flexible style, and her team’s potential
preference for monochronic, sequential task management. This could be
done by clearly outlining the desired outcomes of the workshop at the
beginning, then following up with periodic check-ins to ensure that
everyone is aligned with the process.