Subject： International Business and Cultural Diversity
Case Study Assignment
You are required to consider the attached article and answer the questions below. Your answer should be in the context of the attached article. Each of the four questions should be approximately five hundred words and a total answer of 2000 words + – 10%.
Read case to Answer all four questions（ write like essay Structure）
1. What went wrong in terms of cultural awareness? 25 Marks
2. What should Chick Fil –A, do differently? 25 Marks
3. What problems could arise if your culture was communicating to a North American customer base? (Identify your culture) 25 Marks
4. How could these situations be minimised? The Economist writer, offers tips, but what advice have you learned in dealing with leadership and managing teams and differing values. 25Marks
Case：MUST read it
The Economist Aug 4th 2012 | ATLANTA |From the print edition Business and religion
Chick-fil-A
Speak low if you speak God
How to cope with divine intrusions on Mammon’s turf
A PLAQUE at Chick-fil-A’s headquarters in Atlanta says the company’s mission is to “glorify God”, which it does by serving chicken burgers and closing its 1,600 outlets on Sundays. The founder, Truett Cathy, once said that while “you don’t have to be a Christian to work at Chick-fil-A…we ask you to base your business on Biblical principles because they work.”
His son Dan, the fast-food chain’s current boss, is also devout, so it should have surprised no one when he told a Christian news organisation that he disapproved of gay marriage. Yet the reaction was swift and strident. Gay-rights groups called for protests and boycotts (see picture). On August 3rd gay couples planned to stage a “kiss-in” at selected Chick-fil-A outlets. The mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco all declared Chick-fil-A unwelcome in their cities—not because the firm refuses to hire or serve gays, but because its boss expressed an opinion that irks them.
Such dust-ups are not common, but they can hurt a business badly. Chick-fil-A could sue if a city actually blocked a restaurant because of its boss’s religious views. But customers can boycott a restaurant for any reason they please. So here are The Economist’s tips on how companies can avoid causing offence.
First, don’t discuss religion in public. Few people will buy your margarine just because you are Zoroastrian. Plenty may shun it if you loudly espouse dogma they find disagreeable. This tip applies doubly to global firms, which must serve customers of every faith and none.
Second, if you must discuss religion in public, keep it bland and woolly. Zhang Xin, one of China’s biggest property developers, is a devoted Baha’i. However, when she frets aloud about whether her country has lost its moral moorings, she does so in non-religious, or at most broadly spiritual, language. Such circumspection is the norm for public figures in China. The Chinese government is deeply suspicious of religion and professions of faith are not a regular part of public discourse.
Third, remember that something which seems trivial to you may be weighty for others. In early 2001 several executives of Ajinomoto, a Japanese company that produces monosodium glutamate, a flavour enhancer, were arrested in Indonesia and charged with breaking the country’s consumer-protection laws. Their mistake, and Ajinomoto’s, was to use a pork-derived enzyme to produce their seasoning, which had been labelled halal, or permissible for Muslims to eat. Ajinomoto switched to a soy-based enzyme, but not soon enough: its shares plummeted, and it had to recall thousands of tonnes of its products from Indonesian shelves.
Finally, ride out brouhahas over which you have no control. In the early 2000s, as the second intifada raged in Israel and Palestine, a group of Egyptians urged Arab consumers to boycott Ariel soap powder. It was named, they claimed, after Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, and its logo was a cleverly disguised Star of David. Procter & Gamble, the American multinational that makes Ariel, pointed out that the soap predated Mr Sharon’s tenure in office (it was launched in 1967, when he was still Major-General Sharon), and that the logo represented an atom, not a religious symbol. Still, sales suffered, as did those of many other American products in the Arab world. Danish goods endured the same fate a few years later, after a newspaper in Denmark published cartoons of the Prophet that upset many Muslims.
Out of such sentiments came a brief flowering of explicitly Muslim enterprise: Hero Chips (its bag depicting a young boy about to hurl a stone at an Israeli tank) and Abu Ammar Chips (named after Yasser Arafat’s nom de guerre) in Palestine, Mecca Cola and Muslim-Up in France, Qibla Cola in Britain.
As for Chick-fil-A, it will cope. Christians hate to see their co-religionists persecuted. Some Christian leaders are urging their followers to “affirm a business that operates on Christian principles” by eating Chick-fil-A’s delicious sarnies.
Source: The Economist Aug 4th 2012 | ATLANTA |From the print edition
http://www.economist.com/node/21559940
Learning Outcomes
• Critically analyse the workings of different international social groups
• Examine and analyse how different cultures affect one another
• Evaluate and analyse the influence of different cultures on the organisation of business
• Examine and analyse the impact of dominant cultures on emerging economies
• Evaluate different cultural business practices
Assessment Criteria
Students’ work at undergraduate level is graded according to the following assessment criteria.
90- 100 a quite exceptional and outstanding answer, providing insights, which would not be in
next section, this range is distinguished by superior organisation, economic use of language and totally comprehensive, given the conditions of the exercise.
80 – 89 an answer which demonstrates an excellent understanding of the questions and of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or the theoretical issues involved. Most of the important issues are dealt with in a detailed, specific and systematic way. There is either some measure of original thinking in the answer or an accurate and comprehensive account is given in a way which demonstrates understanding, for example by structuring the material such that it could not have been based just on reproduction of lecture notes and course material. Evidence of creativity, critical approach, and wide reading, beyond the core subject matter.
70 -79 As above but a slightly less consistently excellent level. Alternative, this range of mark may be given for an answer which, while not having original insights, gives comprehensive and accurate coverage of the issues at a high level throughout the answer, without significant omissions or errors.
60 -69 An answer which demonstrates a clear understanding of the questions and grasp of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or of theoretical issues involved, with few significant errors. The issues involved are dealt with in a systematic way. Some of the issues may be limited in critical approach, but organised to display a comprehensive understanding and factual information essentially complete.
50 -59 An answer which demonstrates an understanding of the major or basic issues in the question. There is a basis of factual knowledge and/or of relevant theoretical issues. Although some errors may be present, the overall framework of the answer is sensible and accurate. Most of all the issues may be dealt with at the level of obviously available course material given to the student. The answer shows planning in its construction, with a clear train of thought or development of argument present. Average competent performance, well presented, demonstrating understanding of most of the essential issues.
40 -49 An answer which demonstrates a limited understanding of the major or basic issues in
the question. There is some relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, but it is patchy. A few significant errors may be present. The answer is not well planned, with little development of argument, and often much irrelevant material is present. Lacks clarity of expression.
The lower range (40-45) would include an answer where relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues are poor and confused, but not absent. Many significant errors may be present. The answer is poorly planned, with little clear train of thought or development of argument, and much of the answer may be irrelevant.
38 -39 An answer which fails to demonstrate any appreciable understanding of the major issues or basic issues of the question. Relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, if present at all, is very poor and confused and very limited. Many significant errors may be present. Much or all of the answer may be irrelevant, poorly organised and very limited in scope.
30 -37 Attempts an answer, but relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues is very poor and confused, and very limited with many significant errors.
10- 29 Not clear that an answer is properly attempted. Only a few minor points made at all relevant to the answer and these may be superficial. Most material is irrelevant or incorrect.
1 -9 An answer that is so short or irrelevant that only a few marks are justified. For example, one or two points may be made which show some peripheral awareness of certain possibly relevant issues.
0 No answer is presented. A zero mark may also be warranted for unfair practice such as plagiarism or collusion.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|