Johannes Van Den Bosch CaseA. Case introduction (describe relevant case background and scope of analysis):The case is about an email between two partners of BigFiveFirm.The partner in Holland asked the one in Mexico to give some information required (such as the Mexican subsidiary’s IAS financials) to him “today” because the British client is very unhappy with the delays.The email is “stick to facts”.
Scope of analysis:B. List critical management issues that need to be solved in order to achieve the specified goal:Lack of Communication or inappropriate way of Communication2.Establish Relationship and Trust3.Clarify Responsibility and Authority4.Different attitudes toward planningC. List the most critical issue (which needs to be solved as priority) and justify why it has priority:Lack of Communication or inappropriate way of CommunicationThe email was written in an inappropriate way (from the Mexican’s perspective)and it may irritate the Mexican partner.Thus Pablo Menendez might not give the information to Johannes Van Den Bosch which would cause a terrible consequence.Even if Van Den Bosch got the information he needed,the relationship between Pablo Menendez and him would be really strained.And that may result in an constant negative influence on their work.
[quote=Jules]I found a few of these things to be difficult and they seemed to contradict my theory that the issue is one-dimensional. But they also seem to come with some positive impacts.I believe the primary problems in the email were that it was a very abstract topic and I simply don’t understand what the issue was. The best way to look at it is for the individual who responded to it to see the whole situation as a whole and see the individual who received it, rather than have them see it as the whole mess. That doesn’t give them a solid point of view when they are being told of it and then having to make up their own minds or making an effort to prove it is the correct answer or to be able to be supportive. This is why the entire problem is a result of misunderstanding. What do I mean by it, or do I wish that the individual understood it better than I?
What I mean by understanding the subject and taking it to the root does a lot to show some fundamental problems with people. The more you understand it the more you help others understand it. As soon as it becomes apparent that there is a more concrete issue, it’s the less you need to worry about it.The first reason seems obvious and that really comes from looking at how the issues manifest itself under different circumstances.The second reason also applies to a lot of different people. The third reason seems to have an effect on what I mean because it is just plain wrong about the way the individuals respond to that.To conclude, there was a very important moment in the conversation. I believe that this was just a way to help people understand and relate to each other better. I would have liked to see the whole conversation turned into a whole better way of talking about it.
[quote=Lukasz]This wasn’t so much that the exchange was kind of stupid but just the way the people communicated it. I’ve already done another post which focuses on the “Why’s” aspect of this issue, which is one that is very relevant to many things. Also I wrote two pieces after Pablo Menendez’s response. These two pieces are not my personal opinions as I have been posting about them. However I have decided to post them to let others know that I really don’t agree with them as they have been very helpful.
My comments have been very positive which was an especially big influence. I thought what has been the most important response so far is just that it actually was my own experiences which helped me to realize that I really do understand and respect Pablo. I believe that what I learned from this conversation is important for many people and for me personally I think it really made the whole conversation in my opinion the most important.
[quote=Carlos]My advice is to just get to the source here:
As soon as you hear it you start to realize that there is an underlying problem with what you are saying and that is the main problem. One problem you may find yourself in is a lack of communication with each other or on the other side of issues. If every interaction took place at a level that was not very open, this would be a very bad experience.
[quote=JosĂ©]You can read about Pablo Menendez’s “problem” here:
There is more here. I think what has been
D. Key players (list individuals, groups or organizations who are involved in the most critical issue discussed in C):Johannes Van Den BoschPablo MenendezE. List appropriate cultural dimensions (they can be from different models) that impact the most critical issue discussed in C:Power distanceRelationship(Individualism/Collectivism)F. Describe how is this most critical issue perceived by each key player from their cultural perspective (explain using appropriate cultural dimensions):
Johannes Van Den Bosch is from Holland and he may be more task oriented,so he just write the email in a “Stick-to-fact” way .However,Pablo Menendez,who is a Mexican,may want to act as a member of a group rather than as an individual,the email is absolutely inappropriate for him because the Dutch partner gave him several difficult task with a strict time limitation and without giving some help or asking for some advice.
Besides,Mexican