GeekChic

Order Description
DEFERRAL RESIT Assignment Brief 2016 CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Comparison exercise exploring theory and empirical evidence and relating this to a practical critical
incidents in cross-cultural settings . This assignment is worth 30% of the overall unit mark
THE BRIEF Scenario “GeekChic” You work for an international company, which provides management advice to a number of multinational organisations, such as Al Jazeera,
Google and a new App developing company called GeekChic. Your company has been invited to tender for a contract to deliver cross-cultural training to this major new
client GeekChic. The client is expanding its international activities and needs to send a manager from the Netherlands to Japan for a 2-year assignment. The manager to
be transferred is female and in her mid-thirties. She joined the company four years ago and has performed exceptionally well, earning two promotions in that period.
Company evaluations (which you have been permitted to read) indicate that she has the right skills-set and that she would be an ideal candidate for this assignment.
However, no formal training has been carried out, and this would be her first international work assignment. Your company has been invited by the client to deliver a
cross-cultural briefing report to this new manager from GeekChic. The report should include the following sections:
Section A (25% – these are indicative of the length required) 1. a brief introduction of the aim of the report on behalf of GeekChic (I.e. NOT your class at Middlesex
University) and globalisation 2. a brief overview of macro-level facts of Japan (e.g., climate, currency, GDP, etc.) that are relevant for an executive to know. 3. a
brief value description of the country of Japan compared to the Netherlands based on Hofstede’s work, using a country from Table 1 as a benchmark. You could also
include a graph as shown in class. Section B (45%) 4. an analysis of the international business and management culture, integrating appropriate cross-cultural theory
and evaluating the challenges the manager is likely to face in a globalized world. Make sure you give generic advice – don’t carry on with the Japan vs the Netherlands
comparison – so, use the textbook. Your subheadings must relate to seminar topics  Values & globalization  Decision Making  Negotiation & Communication  Leadership
& Cultural Intelligence Section C (15%) 5. a conclusion and three key points of advice
Professional delivery Max word count 2000. Over or under 10% allowed. More than that, you are subject to the critique that you cannot focus (over) or read to little
(under) and this will affect your grade. Ensure you do a grammar & spell check, use a
professional lay out with subheadings, include an accurate reference list incl. at least 5 articles from the reading list. (15%) Marking Criteria Evidence that you
have systematically researched the assignment and covered required areas to the expected standard. Comprehensiveness (breadth and depth) of information. Evidence that
you have understood key issues and been able to effectively integrate theory and practice. Relevance and balance of contents. Integration and coherence of component
parts. Evidence of effective use of a range of relevant resources. Coherence, synthesis and integration of contents. Creativity and innovation.

The assessment schedule may be used as a guidance to understand how the report is evaluated.
Grade Introduction Analysis of culture Conclusion Presentation
First A clear introduction of the purpose of the report, written up as a professional consultant, not as a student (i.e., avoid ‘for my course work I had to… ‘) and
includes a contextual description of the globalised world as it stands.
Inclusion of relevant macro-level information that facilitates a basic understanding of The Netherlands. Student included benchmarks to illuminate information (e.g.,
GDP comparisons and other indices using statistics).
Evidence that you have understood key issues and been able to effectively integrate theory and practice, using Hofstede’s dimensions as a starting point and comparing
a choice of country with The Netherlands. Student included a graph as shown in class. Includes critique relevant to an executive which is that they’re a guide at macro
level with an example from textbook, or better, found in media. Clear analysis on the following topics (sub headed): Value differences and Person-Organisation fit,
Decision Making, Negotiation & Communication, Leadership. Examples are the use of articles on globalisation and values and relate this to political and social
challenges such as religion. The student may mention that there is a colonial link too.
Evidence of comprehensiveness (breadth and depth) of information. Any evidence found of cultural difference is relevant to the brief and is balanced. Not
stereotypical. Student avoids ‘The Dutch do this or that’ and instead is able to synthesize materials from seminars to provide sound cross cultural advice that is
culturally intelligent and useful for any bi-cultural/mixed cross cultural situation, not just with the Dutch.
Student included excellent practical examples, i.e., cross referenced theory with facts from media such as Financial Times. Coherence, synthesis and integration of
contents: The summary must reflect good business sense that is useful for a manager and reflects cultural intelligence and sensitivity to the complex, globalised
environment.
Personal experience/anecdotes are not written up as a diary but are formatted as examples that can be found in current affairs outlets. If stating facts, these are
referenced.
Included key recommendations that are presented using bullet points and reflect the introduction and analysis. No new information should be presented in this section.
Conclusion is kept brief and could be used on its own by the reader if need be. References at the end of the report are reliable, more than 5 sources. Student included
additional, academic or reliable resources (e.g., recommended news sources such as FT, broadsheets). Limited use Wikipedia and other non-academic sources, unless they
are reliable and for anecdotal purposes or current affairs.
Grammar and Spelling is correct. References in Harvard Style.
Overall structure is well presented: introduction, info, conclusion, using subheadings for clarity.
Writing style: Student ensures to guide the reader by making one point per paragraph, linking sections and explaining how to interpret the information. Examples are
creative and illuminate the points made.
No appendices. Word count is only +/-10%

60-69% Includes a brief introduction of the aim of the report on behalf of the company (I.e. NOT the class at Middlesex University)
Includes a brief overview of macro-level facts of The Netherlands (e.g., politics, GDP, etc.) that are relevant for an executive to know.
Includes a brief value description of the country of The Netherlands based on Hofstede’s work, benchmarked against country of origin. Includes critique relevant to an
executive which is that they’re a guide at macro level. Clear analysis of the following topics (sub headed): Value differences and Person-Organisation fit, using the
materials from the seminar with some critical points vis a vis issues such as gender and religion.
Evidence of comprehensiveness (breadth and depth) of information. Any evidence found of cultural difference is relevant to the brief and is balanced. Not
stereotypical. Some practical examples. Provides sound cross cultural advice that is culturally intelligent and useful for any bi-cultural/mixed cross cultural
situation, not just with the Dutch. Coherence, synthesis and integration of contents: The summary must reflect good business sense that is useful for an executive and
reflects sensitivity to the complex, globalised environment.
Personal experience/anecdotes are not written up as a diary but are formatted as examples that can be found in current affairs outlets. Facts are referenced.
Included key recommendations that are presented using bullet points and reflect the introduction and analysis. No new information should be presented in this section.
References at the end of the report are reliable, more than 5 sources. Student included additional, academic or reliable resources (e.g., recommended news sources such
as FT, broadsheets). Some use Wikipedia and other non-academic sources acceptable, unless they are reliable and for anecdotal purposes or current affairs.
Grammar and Spelling is correct. References in Harvard Style.
Overall structure is well presented: introduction, info, conclusion, using subheadings for clarity.
Writing style: Student ensures to guide the reader by making one point per paragraph, linking sections and explaining how to interpret the information. Examples are
creative and illuminate the points made.
Appendices used appropriately. Word count is only +/-10%

50-59% Includes a brief introduction of the report on behalf of the company (I.e. NOT the class at Middlesex University) but the aim isn’t clear.
Includes a brief overview of macro-level facts of The Netherlands (e.g., politics, GDP, etc.) but facts are irrelevant.
Includes a brief value description of the country of The Netherlands based on Hofstede’s work, benchmarked against country of origin but it’s descriptive with a
definition of each dimension but no analysis. Includes critique relevant to an executive, which is that they’re a guide at macro level but student cannot relate this
to the executive. Some analysis of the following topics (sub headed): Value differences and Person-Organisation fit, sticking strictly to the reading in class.
Somewhat descriptive.
Some evidence of comprehensiveness (breadth and depth) of information. Any evidence found of cultural difference may be stereotypical. Brief not mentioned or work is
not very well applied. Some examples.
The student didn’t quite manage to consider what if basic advice on business conduct in The Netherlands (Hofstede) seems to fall short or turn out to be limited (i.e.,
didn’t provide cultural intelligent advice). He/she may discuss decision making etc in light of Hofstede results again, which was JUST critiqued so doesn’t make sense.
Coherence, synthesis and integration of contents: The summary must reflect good business sense that is useful for an executive and reflects sensitivity to the complex,
globalised environment.
Personal experience/anecdotes are too much written up as a diary. Facts are referenced. Some current affairs mentioned/
Included basic recommendations that are presented using bullet points and reflect the introduction and analysis. No new information should be presented in this
section. References at the end of the report are reliable, more than 5 sources. Student included additional, academic or reliable resources (e.g., recommended news
sources such as FT, broadsheets). Some use Wikipedia and other non-academic sources acceptable, unless they are reliable and for anecdotal purposes or current affairs.
Minor errors in grammar and spelling.
Overall structure is unclear: introduction, info, conclusion, using subheadings for clarity.
Writing style: Student ensures to guide the reader by making one point per paragraph, linking sections and explaining how to interpret the information. Examples are
not always relevant.
Appendices used appropriately. Word count is only +/-10%

40-49% Includes a brief introduction of the report with macro level information on The Netherlands that is somewhat relevant to a travelling person (tourist) but with
some errors. Hofstede’s analysis is descriptive but includes a comparison with a benchmark country. Some critique but irrelevant (for example, about Hofstede’s
methodological issues, not the critique relevant to an executive which is that they’re a guide at macro level). Basic description (not analysis) on the following
topics (sub headed): Value differences and Person-Organisation fit. May have left out one (not more).
Evidence of some understanding (breadth and depth) of information. Some evidence found of cultural differences. Somewhat stereotypical but still referenced. Sources
are academic journals and books but also reliant on websites.
The student provided some cultural intelligent advice but limited, such as ‘the manager should take into consideration cultural differences’ Some integration of
contents: The summary reflected some business sense that is somewhat useful for an executive and reflects some sensitivity to the globalised environment. Mainly
descriptive.
Personal experience/anecdotes are written up as a diary. Facts are referenced. No use of current affairs/news.
Included key recommendations and did not reflect the introduction and analysis. New/irrelevant information is presented. Advice is generic. References are reliable and
mainly the ones provided in class but no more than that or some websites.
Some grammatical and spelling errors.
Some basic structure: Introduction, main section and conclusion with a separate reference section.
Examples irrelevant.
Student relies too much on providing information in appendix but these additions are carefully explained in the main report.
Word count is only +/-10%. Appendices not adequately used.
39% or lower Introduction of the purpose of the report and The Netherlands is limited or wrong, using stereotypical information and mostly from websites. Hofstede’s
comparison is descriptive only or absent. Comparison country may be missing. No critique. Basic or wrong descriptions of definitions of Value differences and Person-
Organisation fit. Sections are missing.
No evidence of understanding (breadth and depth) of information. Any evidence found of cultural difference isn’t relevant to the brief and isn’t balanced.
Stereotypical. Sources are not academic journals or books. Does not provide cross cultural advice that is culturally intelligent and useful for any bi-cultural/mixed
cross cultural situation. Lack of ability to synthesize information presented in the analysis and macro section.
Student presented new and irrelevant information.
Key recommendations are missing. Grammatically incorrect and contains spelling mistakes.
References are websites only or missing. Information is cut and pasted from websites.
No structure, no subheadings and no clear introduction nor conclusion.
Writing style is informal, like a diary or a chat.
Too many appendices. Too long or too short (word count).