From Van den Bosch’s point of view, what was his intention in sending the email?

Van den Bosh was upset from the lack of progress from his Mexican Colleague regarding a

report on the financial statements of an important client. He has been sending his counterpart in

Mexico several emails with no response at all.

After being exposed to an angry verbal abuse by the customer, Van den Bosh wrote his

Mexican partner an email of equal emotional intensity. However, he decided later on to edit the

email from emotional bitterness and reverting to only facts.

The purpose of the email was to get prompt, clear and tangible facts about the progress on the

report. Van den Bosch’s intention was to get as fast a response as possible and he thought that

the best way to achieve that goal was to be direct an clear about what steps were necessary to

meet the client’s needs. He simply wanted quick action to solve the issue and laid out the hard

facts and what he believed were the necessary steps to promptly solve the problem. Due to his

task oriented nature, his intentions were purely focused on getting the job done and the problem

with the client solved.

What was the effect of editing the email to “stick to the facts”?

When Van de Bosh started his email, it was filled with emotional frustration and anger.

However, Van de Bosh was a professional and did want to allow any emotional factors to affect

his ways of professionally resolving conflict in the workplace. As a result, he edited his email to

“stick to the facts” version, so that he would not appear blunt, unprofessional, and inappropriate.

However, I believe his task oriented tendency in addition to his individualistic approach, blinded

him from the cultural implications that this type of email might trigger when read by his Mexican

counterpart.

A hard fact, almost “filled with orders” email will not be well accepted by the Mexican

counterpart that might insulted by this approach. “Sticking to the facts” is completely

professional and accepted in the individualistic Dutch society but might be completely

misunderstood by the Mexican collectivist society, especially since the email mode of

communication might not have been the proper method of communicating conflict between the

two partners. Due to the sensitivity and complexity of the issue and the fact that the two

counterparts come from different cultural backgrounds, using email as the mode of

communication might result in a higher level of misunderstanding.

How do you think Menendez will react to the email? Why?

I believe Menendez will not be happy with the tone of the email and he will probably react

emotionally and not comply with the demands of Van den Bosh. Van den Bosh appears that he

only cares about getting the work done and does not show any interest or sympathy about what

might be triggering the delay in the Mexican subsidiary. He did not ask any questions to

understand the situation from the point of view of the Mexican partner.

On the to other hand, Van den Bosch’s insistence on having the information today and laying

out an action plan that needs to be followed by Menendez is going to be perceived as totally

inappropriate by the Mexican. The latter might conclude that Van de Bosh is insulting his

intelligence and disrespecting his position. At the end of the day, Menendez is not an intern or a

regular employee; he is also a partner at the firm and an equal to his Dutch counterpart.

What cultural assumptions underlie Van den Bosch’s email and your prediction of

Menendez’s response?

The main issues underlying the implications of this email and the possible response stem from

the cultural differences between the Mexican and Dutch societies.

On one hand, Dutch Van de Bosh is influenced by the task oriented behaviors of the

individualistic Dutch culture. Van de Bosh is interested in getting the job done and solving the

current issue rather than establishing a relationship with the Mexican counterpart and

understanding the reasons behind the delay. He might also be subjecting Menendez to the

famous “Always late” Latino stereotype.

On the other hand, the Mexican culture is relationship oriented meaning that establishing a

relationship is a step that comes before addressing work. Thereby, Menendez might

misunderstand Van de Bosch’s task oriented email and no prior effort to establish personal

exchange as inadequate and unacceptable especially between equal counterparts.

Additionally, the Dutch culture is an individualistic low context culture that does not attribute as

much importance to hierarchy as the collectivist high context Mexican culture. This difference in

beliefs towards respecting hierarchy will be at the heart of the conflict and misunderstanding

that might result from this email. Van den Bosch moves directly in his email to what he wants

and needs, which is perfectly acceptable in his culture. However, this tendency is not at all

considered appropriate in the Mexican culture; As a result, Menendez will probably assume that

his Dutch colleague is not respecting his position in the company by addressing him with this

tone.