Cross-Cultural Management: Analyzing Brett Jones's Actions in Tanzania

This report analyzes a case study focusing on cross-cultural management issues arising from Brett Jones's work in Tanzania. The report includes a podcast script and a reflective report examining the conflict between Jones's operational approach and the expectations of his company, HG. The primary conflict stems from Jones's integration with local culture and his use of collectivistic work methods, which contrasted with the company's preference for individualistic approaches and adherence to a specific organizational culture. The Face Negotiation Theory is employed to analyze the cultural differences and communication styles. The reflective report outlines the group's process, the selection and application of the Face Negotiation Theory, and the challenges of managing expatriate managers and navigating cultural differences. The report argues that Jones's approach, though unconventional, was effective in achieving project goals and integrating with the local community. The report also critiques the company's expectation of a uniform cultural approach, highlighting the importance of adapting to local contexts and the benefits of a collectivistic approach in a foreign environment. References are provided to support the analysis.

Running Head: CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Cross cultural management
Student’s Name
University Name
Author Note

2
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
1. Podcast and Script
In this podcast, today, I am going to speak about the issues regarding the concerned beliefs and
traditions in the case study. The issues arising in the case study are generally emphasized on the
personal culture and reflection of personality of Brett Jones. We observe that the Vice President
of the company is slightly hesitant regarding the re-appointment of Brett Jones with the operation
phase of a major dam project. I have located that the major issue in the case study is that there
was a little concern regarding the ways that have been adopted by Jones to achieve his
professional targets. There is a specific organizational culture that the management of HG
expects that their employees would be reflecting in their personalities and status quo. In this
context, the inherent culture and status quo that Jones had reflected during his tenure in Tanzania
is under close scrutiny. On one hand he was irreplaceable due to his professional expertise and
experience and also to consider his familiarity with the host country.
In the context of explicitly analyzing the issues regarding culture and tradition that
became the source of conflict between the management and Jones, I would like to highlight the
principles of The Face Negotiation theory. There are two types of personality fabric as surfaced
by the theory. The first one is the collectivist approach and the other one is the individualistic
approach (Bird and Mendenhall 2016). In this regard, it is worth mentioning that Jones had
followed the collectivistic mode of operations. After Jones was assigned with the assignment and
when the project was coming to an end, the management made a review of the performance of
Jones and it was reflected that there had been some anomalies with the collective status quo that
he represented for himself and for the company in the face of the locals. The company
particularly disliked his practices like participating in the local tribal occasions and so on. The
company wanted him to put up a personality of working with a prosperous international

3
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
organization. However, I have observed that allocation of resources, capital and manpower and
proper distribution of taskforce had been some of the basic postulates of the work of Jones. In
this context, the Face Negotiation theory says that collective personality displays the basic trends
like avoiding conflicts through communication, which have been observed in the attitude and
culture of Jones. The other two important aspects that I have observed in the culture of Jones are
integrating and obliging. I believe that more than the essential Christian aspects or sophisticated
multinational approach, the culture and tradition that Jones had displayed, had been of great help
to the organization in realizing their targets in Tanzania.
2. Reflective Report
In the group project, we had split our responsibilities while identifying the issues. At first
we identified the issues in the case study. All of us individually identified different issues
regarding the appointment of Jones for the project at Tanzania. After we had collected the issues
identified by each of us, we held a group meeting to identify the most specific issues. This was
the part that was of maximum help for the group project. There was fabulous synchronization
among us and that is why we were able to understand the perceptions and beliefs that could have
been evoked by the issues identified by us from the case study.
In this part I would discuss why I had selected the Face Negotiation Theory and how it is
intertwined with the issues, beliefs and traditions that I have identified for this case study. In the
first place, I should justify my selection of the Face Negotiation Theory. This theory is of utmost
importance for depicting the societal differences among the various cultures (French 2015). Face
negotiation refers to the conception of holding on to the idea of maintaining a face on the basis of
the culture that an individual have been following. Based on the theory, it can be commented that

4
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
the face of the representative in the society is a reflection of the inherent culture and values of the
organization, itself.
In this context, it needs mention that one important issue that have been identified from
the case study is that the Vice President had guessed that some of the actions of the Jones, could
have had some unforeseen repercussions for the projects of the company at Tanzania. Jones was
also responsible for establishing an operating structure that was intended to spare incoming
managers the difficulties of such mundane start-up activities as obtaining licenses, installing
telephones and utilities, and finding local people to hire for the wide range of jobs that would be
needed. In addition, although HG is a specialized power plant (it had built plants in 16 countries
and retained ownership shares in about half of them), the Tanzanian Project was its first African
venture.
The management had perceived that it would be appropriate for the company to place
Jones since he was having the home country advantage and also profound knowledge regarding
the economic, politics as well as culture of the country. Although there was no grievance within
the management regarding the work or achievements of Jones, they were particularly unhappy
with the way he carried certain aspects of his lifestyle, which included the likes of participating
in the regional tribal festivals. However, I have observed in the case study that the organization
HG did not have any formal guidelines regarding the lifestyle for the expatriate managers. In this
context, the organization could only expect from their end that he would maintain a living
standard that would complement the values of a prosperous international firm. However, from
the perspective of Face Negotiation Theory, it can be argued that since Jones had been displaying
a culture of collectivism, his integration with the aspects of the local culture actually helped the
community of expatriates from the organization to be comfortable with the alien environment in

5
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Tanzania. This is a crucial factor, emphasizing on the fact that in order to ensure the completion
of the project work, the foreign managers as well as the mangers were able to move in with their
families.
Analyzing the above facts, it is worth reinstating that Steinberg had been ready to admit
that the business in the country of Tanzania had been moving at an actually leisurely pace before
the intervention of Jones. Considering the critics to this theory of Face negotiation, it can be
highlighted that the companies in the western countries prefer to demonstrate individualism in
their culture along with individual autonomy, responsibility as well as achievement (Ting‐
Toomey 2015). They expect their peers as well as other stakeholders to follow the same specially
when working in foreign environment.
However, the achievements of Jones in his professional field have been accomplished so far, by
the dint of his collective culture and tradition. Therefore I clearly objective five zones to be
following the collectivistic proposition of the face negotiation theory. In this context I would also
like to highlight here that Jones have been appointed for this project work in Tanzania because of
his integrity with the local culture, his compassion with the local stakeholders as well as his
ability of helping the other expatriates to get synchronized with the work process and culture of
Tanzania.
Hence, driving from the above discussion, I would like to put up that generalization of culture
that is preferred by the organization or its vice president cannot be imposed in the case of Jones.
It is impractical to expect zones to put up the sophisticated International attributes of the
organisation. On the basis of the face negotiation theory, it is evident that the organization
wanted Jones to maintain an attitude and tradition of self preservation as well as domination.

6
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Nevertheless, if Jones had been pressurized to do so, he would have needed to migrate from his
collective culture. In this case, I would also like to highlight that it is will evidence that Jones is
not deviating from the basic postulates of the organizational culture. It is the uniqueness of his
integrity and collaboration with the local culture, being a person working in his home
background, that makes him communicate with the local stakeholders so well. Naturally there is
no reason to perceive that he has been involved in some form of misconduct by means of the
activities like participating in local tribal festivals and so on.
In this context, it requires mention that Steinberg had already admitted that business had not been
progressing at a good pace in Tanzania before Jones moved in. Problems like delay in
installation of telephonic communication, delivery of supplies, operating license issue and so on
were come on for the expatriates working in Tanzania.
Jones made A Remarkable Exhibition of collectivistic culture so far as the aspects of face
negotiation theory is concerned. The local life is far from high-end technology and still job
searches in Tanzania generally done by word of mouth. Under these circumstances, Jones
developed the practices like professional job openings for employment of local people in this
project. Employment of appropriate workers help to Foster the process of working in this project
and this would not have been possible without a good integration with the local culture and
traditions.
Another important allegation of Steinberg against the working methodology of zones is that he
had promulgated the culture of family connections and preference in hiring people. The
argument provided by Jones in this context was that if hiding the needs of one high ranked
officer in customs could have helped in getting easy import clearances, then it is worth for the

7
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
business. Although, the management of the organization argued that such practices where
unethical considering that it was an US based organization, it was quite normal as well as legal
for business dealings in Tanzania. Again, based on the findings of Ting‐Toomey (2015), and
analyzing the aspects of the face negotiation theory we observe that obligation and avoiding are
the two most important aspects of this theory. Collectivism tends to avoid conflict by all possible
means and also oblige to any collectivistic approach preferred by the local culture.
In the end it can be communicated that the business dealings and practices of zones in Tanzania
where all faceted in favor of best interests of the organization and fast processing of the business
project in the country.

8
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Reference List and Bibliography
Aslani, S., Ramirez‐Marin, J., Brett, J., Yao, J., Semnani‐Azad, Z., Zhang, Z.X., Tinsley, C.,
Weingart, L. and Adair, W., 2016. Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation
strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), pp.1178-
1201.
Bird, A. and Mendenhall, M.E., 2016. From cross-cultural management to global leadership:
Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1), pp.115-126.
French, R., 2015. Cross-cultural management in work organisations. Kogan Page Publishers.
Jackson, T., 2018. Sorting the Indigenous from the Endogenous in Cross-cultural Management
Research.
Luo, Y., 2016. Toward a reverse adaptation view in cross-cultural management. Cross Cultural
& Strategic Management, 23(1), pp.29-41.
Oetzel, J.G., 2017. Effective intercultural workgroup communication theory. The International
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, pp.1-5.
Stahl, G.K., Miska, C., Lee, H.J. and De Luque, M.S., 2017. The upside of cultural differences:
Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in cross-cultural management research. Cross
Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(1), pp.2-12.
SVANE, C.C.C.M., Gergerich, E. and Boje, D.M., 2016. Fractal change management and
counter-narrative in cross-cultural change. In Counter-narratives and Organization (pp. 137-162).
Routledge.

9
CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Ting‐Toomey, S., 2015. Identity negotiation theory. The international encyclopedia of
interpersonal communication, pp.1-10.
Tran, B., 2016. Communication (intercultural and multicultural) at play for cross cultural
management within multinational corporations (MNCs). In Handbook of research on impacts of
international business and political affairs on the global economy (pp. 62-92). IGI Global.