The importance of Culture in the success of Joint ventures Project

1. Introduction:

The primary purpose of this paper is to investigate how business games help

harmonizing joint venture project team culture. It deals with the relations among the degree

and intensity of conflict, trust, and the performance of a joint venture project and its

development, if dependency asymmetry exists between partners. While the impact of culture

and value perceptions in joint business has received much attention, the current work tries to

investigate whether general dimensions of culture is influenced by serious or business game

simulations in building a strong project team and has a positive impact on the team’s

performance.

Project teams comprising of members from different cultures are a representation of a

standard team composition nowadays. Today, multinational organizations seek new staff on

the global labour front rather than appointing staff solely on the local job market sector.

These multinational corporations constitute members from different cultural background

altogether. Arguably, joint multinational teams have the ability to develop a higher degree of

team performance driven by synergy effects forked from complementary skills and cultural

diversity. Despite the heightening popularity of joint ventures, a vast variety of research have

reported problems that seem to be inevitably linked to these alliances, collaborating with a

partner belonging to a different national culture. In fact, approximately 37% to 70% of

national and international joint ventures are reported to have encountered performance

problems, due to partners and team members deprived of effective trainings. To address this

problem, experts such as Horak (2010) and Kemp et al (2001) recommend using state-of-the-

art simulation techniques such as Econotos and Bafa-Bafa to help build team harmony and

ultimately a stronger background for joint ventures associations. As far as problem solving is
concerned, this may theoretically lead to more creativity because of the broader horizon of

perspectives involved.

Although several causal elements have been suggested, but most studies refer to

issues in regards to cultural differences. Many cases show substantial dissatisfaction with

their performance, and cultural differences can be accounted for these performance related

issues. Clearly, cultural differences largely influence the way partners in joint ventures make

decisions and resolve problems. Therefore, cultural differences tend to generate ambiguities

in the relationship, resulting in conflict and even dissolution of the venture (Conchúir 2010).

This project also attempts to examine the importance of culture for the effective

project team building for the success of joint ventures, which has been viewed as a hybrid of

two different national and business cultures ,and emphasizes on the fact that business games

or simulations is the ultimate way forward for string culture. Additionally, the paper reviews

what the prior literatures have proposed concerning issues of conflict and cooperation

throughout the life-cycle of joint ventures. The rules of the business game are deduced from

the overview of the empirical joint venture literature. Following this, the timing and the

sequence of the play depict the difficulties rising from information asymmetries.

Additionally, the paper offers a robust framework to prepare the literature regarding the

games played in a JV such as common agency, bargaining, and iterative games (Simon &

Murray-Webster).

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Introductory Remarks:

 This chapter illustrates the research tool user for data collection, analysis and

interpretation; as well as the rational for selecting the same.

2.2 Methodology:

In approaching the examination of this subject matter, the study shall be conducted by means

of secondary sources. Patzer (1995) suggests that research on market relies on secondary data

to complement primary data. However, secondary data are being employed increasingly as

the exclusive information for assisting users of marketing research in their decision-making.

Secondary research also represents a means to gather information regarding procedures and

techniques, along with strategies, rationales and the reasons behind courses of action and/ or

circumstances. Secondary sources are plentiful and as such present the ways to explore a

broad range of subject matter as a means to glean the accuracy regarding the paper objective.

The primary attraction of secondary sources is its easy accessibility, and the ability to

examine large-scale trends. The shortcomings are that there is a possible lack of perspective

consistency, and that biases and inaccuracies cannot be readily checked.

Both quantitative research and qualitative research will be conducted in this project.

Silverman (2006) advocates that quantitative research is difficult and unyielding; symbolizing

a fixed approach which, in general, tends to be abstract as well as hypothesis testing. He

advises that in the instance of qualitative research, the methodology is relatively flexible,

speculative and grounded. Saunders (2006) states that using the both techniques aids in

achieving more balanced approach.

2.2.1 Application of Quantitative , Qualitative Research Analysis in Project

Management: Serious Games for building joint team culture, using Deductive

and Inductive Techniques

The quantitative study supposes that the context in which it relates to provides truthful

analysis and that this is stable over time and backgrounds. On the other hand,

qualitative study supposes that facts are assembled in the pattern of meanings and

interpretations, but these are inclined to be situational and transitory.

The prevailing quantitative evidence supplies with the quantitative set that interprets

characteristics by considering numerical facts and numbers on behaviors observed.

Further, the trials conducting in this method provide statistical analysis which can be

graphically observed and interpreted through charts in a variety of pretexts.

Quantitative methodology is usually acquired by analyzing facts and figures, which,

for the current work, has been extracted via the use of questionnaire. However,

questionnaires are primarily in the realm of qualitative approach in order to establish

opinions. Principally, quantitative data is acquired through published statistics and

journal papers, usually from projects like academic and government studies.

2.3 Research Strategy:

Research can some in a variety of guises and forms, in both managerial as well as

artistic spheres. In terms of managerial research (as is the case with Project team

building), we observe that historical data in often useful. Factually, historical

information is applied when managerial research is the main purpose. Another prime
 justification for managerial research is analysis of project management is the need to

systematically investigate and expand upon established facts.

Artistic approach would be inappropriate here, as the techniques used in artistic research

would fail to provide the evidence sought into the nature of Project Management and the

context wherein it is applied. Additionally, artistic research is considered to be based on

a “practice” rather than facts, figures, history etc. Therefore, this proposal will make

extensive use of quantitative, qualitative methods to establish appropriate facts about

how harmony can be maintained in joint venture project teams, despite the cultural

background of its partners, by using Inductive and Deductive reasoning as the vessel

upon which this is achieved (Kemp & Ghauri 2001).

Additionally, deductive and inductive research is also valuable measures to employ as

summarized by the following:

Table 1: Deductive Research vs. Inductive Research

Deductive Research Inductive Research

Uses scientific principles Gains an understanding of

events

Moves from theory to data Provides an understanding

of the

research context

Uses quantitative data Uses qualitative data

Uses controls to aid in the validity Is more a flexible structure

of data

Is highly structured

2.4 Methods and Analysis:

A survey pertaining to the Masters degree Research Project was conducted in the form of

survey by the trainers from the project participants. The survey composed of 30 sets of

questionnaires. From 27 completed questionnaires, 18 respondents could identify cultural

differences as the most critical factor that might affect the project team performance.

Regardless of the small size of the sample, it indicated that if this factor was to be dismissed,

the project managers as well as the stakeholders would end up suffering from project failure

or some forms of undue conflicts. The identified issues that tend to adversely affect the team

performance have been presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Identified issues affecting team performance (Kemp & Ghauri 2001)

For the schematic, it is clear that cultural differences make the maximum impact with an

approximation of 66%, as against contractual management with 19% and least effect caused

by legal matter with 15%, on the overall performance of the project team.

When a global team engages in a project environment, conflicts become detrimental to the

team performance. One of the most important causes of cross-cultural drawbacks is the
miscommunication on cultural lines in joint venture projects, and typically multinational

projects.

Participants were questioned about the primary sources of conflicts that were likely to

have a profound impact on the team performance in a project environment. The results of this

questionnaire showed that joint venture project team performance was affected due to

differences in:

1. Decision-making process

2. Degree of trusting one another

3. Problem-solving approach, and

4. Communication techniques

The impacts are directly proportional to communication and human resource management. In

essence, communication on performance of multicultural team is a significant prerequisite of

efficient management. Human resource management is the strategic and consistent approach

to the management of the most valued assets of the multi-cultural team.

When multi-cultural team partners are involved in a project, all kinds of conflicts arise

but naturally. The sources of conflicts are a result of various forms of approaches due to

cultural beliefs and ways in which tasks are done.

The above concepts have been illustrated in Figure 2 and Table 2, along with the cultural

impacts realized by the respondents and the risk level of likelihood on project performance
 Figure 2: The degree of Risk of cultural impact (Kemp & Ghauri 2001)

Impacts of cultural differences Respondents Extreme High Medium Low

1. Decision-making 14 0 8 6 0

process
2. Degree of trusting one 11 0 3 8 0

another

3. Problem-solving 14 0 8 6 0

approach, and

4. Communication 12 0 7 6 0

techniques

Table 2: impact of culture and risk degree of impact and likelihood

2.5 Background of Framework and Use of Simulation:

Past three decades have witnessed multinational enterprises as one of the emerging strategic

tools to enter newer market

 In order to develop new products and manufacturing processes

 To curb the risks involved in cross-border transactions

 To bridge the gap between different and diverse cultures

The scope of national and international joint ventures ranges from renowned parents such as

Toyota and General Motors to Hewlett-Packard and Ericsson, commonly known to be

NUMMI-joint venture and EHP Telecommunications, respectively, to joint ventures with

partners heading from less developed nations and several different combinations. On the

basis of the parent’s contributions, characteristics and expertise, the JV attempts to provide

the partner firms with the result of the value-creating process. Although, the JV literature

dealt with the past decades on the cooperative factors, the failure of the joint enterprises was

purely a minor issue addressed by assumptions about motives and success factors. Therefore,

it is essential to stress more on the dichotomy of cooperation as well as conflict in the triangle

of players (Adnan 2008) (De Freitas & Jarvis 2006).

At one end of the scale professionals need to acquire intercultural training courses for coping

with these complexes and dynamic intercultural situations, while in a joint partnership. At the

other end, trainers at all levels and belonging to all branches claim they have adequate means

for preparing young candidates, employees and citizens for tackling possible difficulties,

uncertainties, misunderstandings, etc resulting from such intercultural conflicts(Conchúir

2010).

Today, there are a variety of intercultural training modules in business studies that can

be systemized with respect to Brislin’s well known matrix (1989:"445). According to this

matrix, training modules are based on “cognition”, “affect” and “behaviour” on one side, as
targets of training, and evoke “low”, ”moderate”, or “high” on the other side, as involvement

of the learner. Modules do include lectures from “old hands” who have been living in the

given culture and who have been dealing with likewise problems as the ones faced by the

trainees. Further, modules also include group discussions in regards to topics such as

prejudice, sexism, racism, and discrimination. Other forms of training courses also employ

plays and simulations, such as the famous games Bafá, Econotos, where the trainees are

trained to realize that familiar patterns of communication, behaviour, etc. do not apply for

alien cultural settings (Simon & Murray-Webster).

A good practical example of such a situation is when the son of a senior-level official

in the Electricity Department who is an employee of an Indo-German international joint

venture was caught stealing, the electricity supply was terminated. The nature of a joint

venture creates not only benefits for both parties engaged but also disputes of interest that

may result into deception, fraud and low-effort level (Ott 2003). Thus, it becomes

increasingly necessary to address conflict and cooperation and develop appropriate solutions.

Although several authors have tried developing theories for joint ventures project

management and tools in order to manage this crucial form of national and international

business, the literature on joint ventures rather appears to be a patchwork of difference

viewpoints and angles.

Empirical studies looked into matters pertaining to performance measures, motives,

success, stability factors, as well as partner nationalities. Furthermore, eclectic frameworks

were developed by some authors for further analysis. Emphasis was also given on the

cooperative side of life cycle of joint ventures and the dynamics of inter-organizational

relationships, particularly on the driving forces of the development. Therefore, is can be

noted that the degree of ambiguity and appropriateness, the differences in interpretation and

interaction by two primary parties, and the degree of perceived differences were related to
various stages of a joint venture life-cycle. The importance of creation of an analytical basis

was also framed, mainly for the dynamics within joint venture project management.

Even though the aforesaid framework for joint ventures provides insights into the

various driving forces of a joint project life cycle, the triangle of players consisting of local,

foreign and international joint venture project teams itself, initiates information asymmetries

and communication problems; this becomes an important source of failure that is likely to

occur throughout various stages. Therefore, the existing study presents the development of an

analytical basis for a multi-person decision making throughout the stages of team building.

The reintegration can be addressed by application of game-theory reasoning. Game theory is

chosen as a concept mathematical tool chosen to study the other players’ behaviour. It is used

for developing the consequences of behaviour that is derived from cooperation and self-

interest across a robust analytical basis (Wu et al 2006).

On the basis of a survey, this paper offers a framework for organizing the joint

venture-literature into the element of joint projects, by linking to multi-person decision

making in a game theoretical viewpoint.

For the development of intercultural competence, Taxonomy is a tool based on three

domains, namely, knowledge, attitudes and skills. It presents three levels of development,

which are awareness rising, understanding and lastly, autonomy. Essentially, the domains and

levels of development are often of those seen in the literature, even though it is typically

found in the literature entailing that there is not ultimate consensus as the range, definition of

the ‘areas’ or factors of cultural sensitivity, competency or awareness (Adnan 2008) (Hogan

2007).

The taxonomy was developed with the sole intention of behaving as an explanatory

device for assisting easy engagement for business professionals and senior management of a
joint organization or project with developing intercultural competence. In our study,

taxonomy has been employed mainly to develop learning activities as well as assessment

criteria. Assessment tasks are aligned parallel to learning objectives. In other words, because

learning activities are a prerequisite formal step prior to assessment, learning activities are

linked to different stages of development and domains. For instance, a class quiz which

judges understanding of global as well as local knowledge and cultural variations may be

constrained to analysing knowledge outcomes. As a contrast, an in-depth case study or

simulation can be developed which aims to facilitate higher degree learning objectives and

assess varying attitudes, skills and knowledge of participants (Wu et al 2006).

Bafá- and Econotos-like simulations will be used for overcoming shortcomings such

as mistaken behaviour in foreign nations leading to extensive negative consequences,

misinterpretations and interruptions taking place within mergers and acquisitions-

negotiations, low satisfaction due to training courses in larger enterprises, and tensions in the

workplace among employees from diverse cultural backgrounds that hinder efficient working

(Hogan 2007).

A framework is developed to integrate the “mindful identity negotiation” approach

and the “expansive learning” approach. These approaches were first proposed by Ting-

Toomey and Engeström, respectively, which was then extended by Webber (2001) and de

Freitas (2006). The “mindful identity negotiation” scheme is an integrative theory which

draws inspirations from four main scholarly disciplines:

 Theory of social identity

 Symbolic interaction

 Relational dialects, and

 Identity negotiations
“Expansive learning”-approach by Engeström, is referred back to social-cultural and

historical learning theories.

By employing the model of “mindful identity negotiation”, elements, relationships as well

as communication processes of local and international encounter events can be isolated,

demonstrated and examined. However, just by learning about these findings does not

automatically give rise to an “intercultural competence”. Furthermore, successful working of

joint ventures needs to have an explicit and conscious integration of the issues raised into

teaching and learning processes (Ott 2003). Efficient teaching-learning procedures have been

organized as interplay between:

1. Knowledge acquisition: This is initiated through various learning approaches such as

self-organized learning, anchored instruction, cognitive apprenticeship, etc.

2. Acculturation processes: which is initiated via “community of practice” (CoP)

approaches

3. Negotiation processes: initiated via collective and social-cultural learning

approaches, in order to develop common understanding between peers and meaning.

These different types of learning are able to foster a) individual knowledge b) collective

knowledge c) individual / collective knowledge.

In essence, the analysis moves from concept of knowledge transmission to that pertaining to

an active learner, advanced by social interactions as well as common negotiations. This is

directly termed as “expansive learning” (Hogan 2007).

Following are the processes of inter-cultural learning with respect to this framework:
 During intercultural encounters, partners in joint venture notice that their familiar

patterns of behaviour, beliefs, value systems, symbols, and practices in doing business,

together with other related artifacts fail to function anymore. Their counterparts fail to

understand them correctly, they themselves are not that efficient in reaching their targets, but

moreover they feel uncertain, neglected, helpless, vulnerable, etc. There are some people who

do not link such problems to cultural issues; rather they attribute these conflicts to wrong

behaviour or personal failure. Other individuals evaluate their own behaviour as being

superior and ignore otherness or tag the unfamiliar behaviour as “unfair”, or “bad”. Such

people are said to be ethnocentric and do not get acquainted with the learning processes, as

described above. Such cases demand other preparatory measures to be taken in order to help

open up and sensitize minds of those individuals. This being a normative goal, is discussed

and legitimized, in sections that follow (Simon & Murray-Webster) (Dafoulas & Macaulay

2001).

At another end, individuals keen to solve these problems of misinterpretations, and wish to be

understood by their partners or counterparts, often find themselves in such intercultural

clashes within an object-oriented activity systems that is mediated by rules, instruments,

labour of joint practice division, a lingua-franca, non-verbal interaction, facilitators, etc.

Limitation:

Although this study covers dependence issues, cultural and relationships aspects of joint

project teams, and role of business games or simulations in aiding team members to run a

joint project harmoniously, the findings must be evaluated in the light of the limitations given

below.
The research uses cross sectional data, thereby prohibiting the investigation of the dynamic

effects of conflict, trust, performance and inter-dependency. The study does not involve

formulation of hypotheses. This is because the strategies of business games are laid on the

basis of the fact that if a joint project gives good performance and is very successful, the

partners will become more dependent on the joint venture as well as their partners in the JV.

Also, good performance has been married to trust; i.e. good performance creates an

environment wherein trust can develop. However, a longitudinal research is needed to give

proof of this causal relationship. Secondly, research is urged to replicate the study in a

diversified setting (Kemp & Ghauri 2001).

2.6 Application of the framework in a simulated business game:

Intercultural competence interpreted as “mindful identity negotiation”, as aforementioned,

is known to be a long term project, in the sense of life-long learning. It involves various

classes of knowledge, individual as well as collective knowledge, cultural knowledge, skills,

self-knowledge, etc. reached through different learning tasks and initiated by different

approaches, such as acquisition of facts, self-reflection, negotiation and socialization

processes, etc (Wu et al 2006) (Hogan 2007).

The very first step involves conducting a developmental study as a learning course for

partners from various nationals, background and cultures. The major aim was to generate a

learning and simulation environment for triggering a “mindful identity negotiation” process

for intercultural learning. Therefore, the idea of the simulation Econotos can be used for
playing a role with a business case study. In this simulation, the course was sub-divided into

three categories, each consisting of 5 to 10 candidates. Cultural role cards were handed to

every group along with the task to “acculturate” to their new fictitious culture. In addition,

they obtained the first part of the business case study in order to solve as members of the new

fictitious culture, as mono-cultural group activity. Further, the groups’ fictitious cultures were

mixed to simulate the “intercultural clashes”. Within these clashes, the candidates needed to

solve the second part of the given business case study, now called the “intercultural” group

activity (Simon & Murray-Webster). Next, they were informed to not to instantly adapt one

particular opinion or agree on a bad compromise, but were asked to engage into a healthy

dialogue and to tactfully negotiate a commonly shared understanding as well as solution

concerned to the problem. In fact, the tasks and problem given to the candidates in the case

study corresponded to their commercial business proposal which they were asked to jointly

carry forward as a business project and work together as an organization (Weber 2001).

Shortlisted episodes that demonstrate the effects of this first experimentation together with

the tools and instruments use to analyze the processes:

The simulation operates as a mediating tool or mirror presenting and experiencing typical

intercultural misunderstandings, prejudiced decisions, and other communication problems in

intercultural clashes.

When the negotiations were stuck in a group and the participants got very upset and

dissatisfied about the conduct and the interaction development, one member passed a remark

saying:
“We have been discussing the entire time and focussing only on our objectives and content-

related arguments. I strongly feel that we are talking at cross-purposes.

We are totally unaware of your cultural background (pointing towards foreigners). What

important aspects associated with your culture supporting this issue? ”

Here, a candidate with a very dominant “culture” identifies that they were not giving much

attention to the other foreign culture, and this proved to be a point of concern when they

started to figure out the main problem and misunderstanding. Such verbalization depicts that

they acquired sensitivity to as well as awareness of the need to broaden the situation and,

therefore, acting satisfactorily, efficiently and adequately. In other words, the conversation

pointed out at the necessity to open up and acquire knowledge regarding the views of their

foreign partners including their backgrounds (Simon & Murray-Webster) (Wu et al 2006).

Furthermore, during the subsequent reflection phases, the tutor facilitates the participants to

learn and sensibly comprehend from their experiences. Following statements provide

examples and discussions on the reflection phase

 Tool 1: Flipcharts:

Participants were asked to:

a. Reflect on behaviour they observed occurring throughout the negotiation process

b. Read the positive and negative emotions that arose and corresponding reasons

c. Reflect on strategies that fostered and obstructed the negotiation process

In order to visualize their findings, the participants required to fix them on a flipchart.

Table 1 illustrates participant notes as response to these questions:

Observed and Experienced foreign behaviour

 Candidates of the foreign culture did not take the arguments on board

 They could manifest an attitude of direct rejection

 They could stick very close together

 They tended to interrupt the discussion partners

 They responded very energetically

 They were narrow-minded and dull

Emotions Read
 Rage, due to permanent interruptions while speaking

 Uncertainty while facing other foreign participants

 Pride while realizing own goals

 Uncertainty due to shortage of good arguments

 Certainty due to powerful, convincing, and clear arguments

Strategies fostering (+) and hindering (-) the negotiation process
 Powerful and wining over arguments (+), (-)

 Openness and open to compromise of any kind (+)

 Persistence (-)

 Unrevealed strategies (-)

 Interruptions while other members are talking (-)

 Restricted to only own opinion (-)

 Understanding (+)

 Listening to others (+)

 Interviewing others (+)

 Interpretations / Analysis:

Evidences produced from these flipcharts indicate that:

 Participants were capable to sharpening their views over aspects and factors of the

interaction when helped

 Participants experienced “intercultural interactions” that not only evoke positive,

but also negative emotions; they felt hurt due to the behaviour and reactions of

their counterparts even though the latter had an adequate and proper way of

behaving from their foreign perspective and did not have any negative purposes;

they also realized at the same time that members of other culture were hurt by

their behaviour even though they tried to be gentle and nice towards them, i.e.

they figured out that their ways of behaviour did not work in their favour anymore

or worked in an unpredictable pattern (Xiong & Deng 2008).

 Next, they also realized and got conscious of their behaviour as well as strategies

that influence the intercultural negotiation process in a negative or positive way

while approaching a common meaning and an adequate result as a result of which

they tend to feel understood and greatly respected. The primary and most crucial

issue was to listen to what others say and to allow every member to actively

participate with their opinions and suggestions (Weber 2001).

 Tool 2 Questionnaire:

As stated in section 2.4, a questionnaire based on 17 most crucial aspects was

employed in regards to the “mindful identity negotiation”. This questionnaire proved

 to be a robust tool in determining what kind of experiences participants had while

using the simulation. In short, the questionnaire posed questions on member such as:

 Did you feel vulnerable or firm throughout the process?

 How would you analyze and pass a judgement about the behaviour of

members with foreign culture: satisfactory or inadequate?

 Were you able to interview your counterparts for obtaining information

regarding their cultural background?

 Were you a good listener when the discussions were being carried out?

These responses were obtained when they were still playing the role of a member in a

fictitious culture.

 Situation:

The participants, when answering this questionnaire are already reflecting on the important

matters that influence the “intercultural” communication, or “mindful identity negotiation”

processes:

“When actually thinking about our group discussion session: I hardly tried to gain

knowledge of or enquired about the foreign culture which other members belonged to,

including their views and background, since it was clearly mentioned in the questionnaire”
Following this, after gathering the responses of respondents to all questions, the following

patterns of the simulated intercultural communication procedure was produced. Moreover,

these schematic interaction patterns acted as a foundation for discussion and reflection.

Figure 3: Estimation of the simulated “intercultural” communication with respect to

central dimensions of the “mindful identity negotiation” scheme (Horak 2010).

 Tool 3 Fortune Lines:

In addition to the tools described above, another tool was used, for drawing “fortune lines”.

The participants were told to map out the entire intercultural communication process in a

graphical form. Therefore, they were asked to extensively judge as many as ten events

occurring during the interaction process with respect to the scale “I liked it very much” and “I

did not like much”

The resultant fortune lines are shown by the schematic as follows:

Figure 4: Fortune Lines (Horak 2010)

3. Findings

Based on the cultural framework explained above, an analysis of how business games

determine the impact of cultural aspects on relationships among team members of a joint

project, cultural behaviour patterns of the team, task complexity, and lastly, team experience

was conducted.

The following section provides the results and their interpretations, obtained from the tools

used in this project.

o Pattern 1 in Figure 3
 Pattern 1 in Figure 3 depicts the outcome of the aforementioned questionnaire on 17

crucial factors of the “mindful identity negotiations”. The pattern highlights the reflections of

participants when asked questions regarding the issues that influence intercultural interaction

or mindful identity negotiation procedure (Weber 2001).

“The participants of culture C strongly felt that they were not properly understood by

their counterparts, as per question 7, throughout the intercultural interaction, and that they

were not addressed with equality and did not get the same opportunity to equally take part

within the discussion, for question 8, that neither their participation nor their contributions

were judged to a great extent by the partners of the other cultures.

Further, the members of culture A experienced the same feeling that their contributions were

not highly appreciated and acknowledged by their counterparts.

In contrast, the participants belonging to culture B had the belief that their contributions

were greatly identified and accurately judged”.

o Interpretation of pattern 1:

As shown by Pattern 1, the participants were able to learn about their own as well as other

members’ basic human needs: such as, of inclusion, self-respect and self-esteem. Moreover,

members of the culture C particularly were not given enough support in these identity needs.

Rather, they were omitted, not given respect and their activities were not fully valued. This

Pattern is a phenomenon which gave an insight into what frequently occurs during

intercultural encounters. These findings were then discussed with the participants (Xiong &

Deng 2008).

o Pattern 2 in figure 3:
“The majority of participants in culture B notified that they were given equal chances to

demonstrate their opinions sufficiently at any time while in discussion. They also felt

confident about the outcome of the negotiation process, in contrast to the other cultures in

discussion even though they were aware of the fact that they did not arrive at a common

understanding over their cultures. This pattern further showed that the minorities werenot

able to reach their desired goals.”

o Interpretation of pattern 2:

Regarding this intercultural group an additional factor needs to be taken into account which is

the structural dominance associated with culture B. The simulation can also be reconstructed

to explicitly include “minority-majority”-groups so as to enable the group members to

experience the dimension of “power”. In this context, the results depicted in figure 2 illustrate

that the simulation generated this imbalance. Furthermore, the perceived dominance as well

as exclusion of the majority culture B was actively discussed with the participants (Adnan

2008) (Weber 2001).

o Pattern 3 in figure 3:

Yet another extremely crucial phenomenon is presented by the behaviour of culture A. The

findings prove the following evidences:

The participants judge themselves to be very open during the entire interaction process as

stated by the members belonging to the foreign culture; however, they did not mindfully study

nor interview their foreign counterparts as a concern to gather their cultural background

and relating information on their behaviour, even though they at times judged the others’

behaviour insufficiently and were hence very surprised”.

 o Interpretation of pattern 3:

In the following discussion, the participants were able to realise that only by perceiving

oneself as an “open” person does not fully ad actually suffice. In order to interact in an

adequate, efficient and satisfactory manner it also becomes very important to “observe”, to

“listen”, to “enquire”, to “interview”, etc. all this done mindfully. It is possible to construct

the interaction/ communication situation more holistically, solely depending on an extended

and strong background or context information. Further, this basis becomes necessary for

carrying out interpretation, evaluation as well as passing judgement about unfamiliar

behaviour in a satisfactory manner, and is essential while studying and implementing an

intercultural competent behaviour (Weber 2001) (Payne).

o Patterns generating within the fortune lines:

The graph indicated in Figure 4 presents generation of fortune lines when the aforesaid

framework was applied to help respondents solve the questionnaire.

“The participants as members of a given fictitious culture like to present their points of view

about the other cultures, to bring forth their own arguments and opinions as part of the

discussion, and to represent the thoughts and standpoints as part of the negotiation, and to

summarize the results at the end of the discussion. Additionally, problems as well as

disagreements are born very explicitly whenever they want to show interest in or to tackle

issues of the foreign culture participants/ people.”

o Interpretation of these patterns:

The above stated phenomena typically appear during intercultural negotiation

processes. After discussing these patterns with all the participants, they were able to
recognise and draw a conclusion that flexibility and empathy are two most important

capacities for coping with intercultural issues properly, effectively and satisfactorily or rather

as an inter-culturally competent individual.

All these findings generated by the simulation and accurately visualized by the various tools

were successfully interpreted throughout the reflection phases in the following ways:

 At one end of the scale, following the theoretical dimensions of “mindful identity

negotiation” scheme, to deal with “cultural knowledge”, “communication skills”, and

“identity needs”.

 “Cultural knowledge” stands for various communication styles, different techniques

of handling conflicts, and different time orientations. “Communication skills” stand

for mindful observation and study, listening, management of facework. Lastly,

“identity needs” entails connection, security and trust.

 At another end, through certain research findings as well as pertaining to day-to-day

life interactions (Ott 2003).

The research project makes intensive use of robust approaches based on activities for

facilitating participant autonomy in regards to intercultural competence. Simply put,

advanced level activities offering opportunities for business partners to reflect on their

behaviour, to pursue self-evaluation, and to employ knowledge as well as intercultural

skills include activities like:

 Intercultural games such as online collaborations and online discussions

 Advanced level case studies

 Advanced level simulations, such as Bafa-Bafa game, Econotos game simulation, cross-

cultural negotiation, and cross-cultural discussion and debates

 Systemic use of self analysis tools such as taxonomy

 Intercultural learning journals

 Advanced level group-activities within a business context and cultural script writing, that

are assessable

 Advanced level role-plays for practising and applying intercultural knowledge, skills and

understanding (Dafoulas & Macaulay 2001)

The confrontation between the different interpretations, practices as well as identities is likely

to result into some sort of reflection and self-reflection. Indeed, it has been recognized that

there are alternative ways of managing a situation and the personal option in only one

possibility in several others. Every person has within him or herself, several types of layers of

identities that become relevant in a certain given intercultural situation. Nonetheless, every

individual has similar canonical human needs for self-affirmation. These human needs

include security, trust, stability and connection. Additionally, their existing practice can be

studied and compared, at the same time. Most often than not, a discussion wherein both

partners/ parties evoke their own individual identities and goals and take to challenging or

supporting the other’s identities is not carried out in harmony (Weber 2001). Although the

participants of the activity have a common agreement on the surface level they often

determine huge contradictions at a deeper level. However, an inter-culturally competent

partner will communicate in a way that makes all participants feel respected, supported, and

most importantly, understood (Thomas et al 2002) (De Freitas & Jarvis 2006).

In general, the findings supported the asymmetric information viewpoint in regards to

resource combination via joint project team building. However, the complexity of joint
ventures combining technological know-how, if not anything else, of one partner with market

knowledge holds a limitation of providing the right incentives to disclose the information

essential for the success of the joint venture, and mostly to harmonize its execution.

The findings also illustrated the evidences that through an effective simulation, team

members of joint projects are able to answer questions such:

1. What was the impact of differences in organizational culture on project success?

2. What was the impact of difference in national culture on project success?

3. What were the impact of personal needs as well as preferences of individual

participants or team members over project success?

4. Till what extent did business games help them in acquiring information about

different cultures?

5. Till what extent did business games incorporated into them nature of working in

cooperation to sustain harmony in a given project?

For the only purpose of this research paper, culture is said to the bundle of attitudes,

memories, perceptions, prejudices as well as other guides to activities and actions that are

identifiable as features of a given group and that conditions the direction of change for that

group (Kemp & Ghauri 2001).

Significant findings show the confirmation of presence of systematic differences in the

capability to withstand and employ high levels of change and uncertainty within the

environment. It also showed that trust needs to be grown in relationships prior to any

members of the team preparing to trust others. Also, new data was obtained which illustrated

that substantial difference in the perception existed among primary team members or

participants with the desire to make progress, make decisions and carry forward the project

because of the variation in energy levels as well as openness in emotional behaviour shown.
 4. Discussion and Conclusion:

The primary intentions of the first step in a broader training program were:

 Development of a general awareness regarding the complexity as well as

misunderstandings of and during the intercultural clashes

 Identification of the influence of culture on “day-to-day” behaviour and reactions

 To experience positive and negative emotions associated with the intercultural clashes

 To experiment with communication skills in order to achieve a satisfactory and

efficient interaction behaviour

 Learning to construct strategies in order to avoid or reduce misunderstanding

 To handle negotiation processes and to create new extensive solutions

 To develop fun and interest during interactions with people coming from other

business cultures (Thomas et al 2002).

Furthermore, the second step of the simulation program involves reconceptualising the

concept of culture by deriving the notion from”community of practice”. This is done by

conducting a shared discussion with the participants and motivating them in their daily

operations and life practice, in order to help isolate the “misunderstandings” they bear

with member from other cultures, such as smokers vs. non-smokers, elder vs. younger

generation, veg. vs. non-vegetarian, and so on, and to negotiate this cultural encounter, by

conducting a so called “practice activity” (Xiong & Deng 2008).

 With the help of the business game simulated for this project, each simulation depicts

a ‘survival’ challenge. Through the business game, team members worked individually and

then as a group in order to assess the value of series of elements with respect to their

importance to ‘survival’. Then, the score were generated by making a comparison between

individual and team responses to those provided by the actual trainers or experts when in that

given situation. This intensive use of survival experts, together with simulations, lent a high

level of credibility as well as interest to the activities (Kemp & Ghauri 2001).

This concept was adopted while developing business simulations, for extending the

simulation process at the workplace. Purely business oriented content was provides and

increasingly focused on challenging individual respondents and teams to resolve given on-

the-job problems. Apart from the process of group decision-making, another added attraction

of the business games was a more formal discussion centred on an area of business expertise.

This involved enabling team members to help work in collaboration so as to avoid project

delays and failures.

The results were drawn by comparing project team members’ individual and team scores with

the proposed rankings, they notably started developing an understanding of this aspect of

joint business.

Game theory attributes strategies, unlike actions, as unperceivable and only mental.

The order of the play comprises of actions players take such as offering share ratios, offering

contracts, acceptance and rejection of offers, and lastly, selecting effort levels and other game

theoretical steps (Ott 2003) (Adnan 2008).

 A simple case depicts strategies having conflicting and cooperative factors during the

negotiation period of a joint venture. Based on either long standing business observation or

newer initial contacts, the players represent different bargaining behaviour during the

negotiation stage. The outcomes can be obtained in terms of the contract, ownership and

control patterns. Further, the outcomes could also be reliant on the contributions of every

player. It can be noted that substantial parental strategies in a joint venture, national or

international, are growth in local and global markets, attain accessibility to new markets,

diversification, developing brand names and trademarks, acquiring production or

management techniques, and lastly, acquisition of technological knowledge (Xiong & Deng

2008) (Thomas et al 2002).

Business simulation is used for this project because it enables learners and managers to

engage in a virtual environment for assessing the one another’s cultural and business

background while engaging in joint ventures. The management of an organization is both a

science and an art that needs active engagement of its management team. Since simulations

are responsible for stimulating competitiveness, they are considered as an ideal way of

enticing partners in the learning process and to reinforce and exercise business course

knowledge. Through simulations, game players get an opportunity to see how the theory they

acquired is effectively applied, rather than passively reading books and reports or listening to

seminars (De Freitas & Jarvis 2006). A business game situation provides to the learners a

virtual feel of what it means to operate an organization, yet it does so in extremely safe

environment. Furthermore, by employing game simulation for our current project, players

were able to try out varied ideas, express viewpoints, actively participate to study their own

as well as their counterparts’ level of understanding business, and learn from their mistakes

without the soaring expenses and investments associated with strategic mistakes involved in

real-world business(Xiong & Deng 2008) (Thomas et al 2002).

 In essence, the controlled environment produced by the business simulation has

enables the instructor as well as the participants, to study and carefully observe the

behaviours shown by the student on different occasions, and the effects of those behaviours

on the management teams’ intermediary results. The instructor is able to control the pace of

the entire exercise and the outcomes of the student actions are accessible instantly after every

decision round (Adnan 2008) (Dafoulas & Macaulay 2001).

The action profiles are different from one game to another and from one stage to another.

Furthering the negotiation stage of the current project, it would be observed that one partner

tends to offer a split of the equity pie on the basis of the contribution or of the host

government practices and the other partner may either accept or reject that offer. This will

show a simple bargaining behaviour. Further, during the management stage of the life cycle,

the partners may offer incentives approaches with the management of the joint ventures may

either accept or reject such schemes. The next player may now decide either to cooperate or

back off and misuse the offer. A low level or high level of effort in the different management

tasks can be added to the joint enterprise on the basis of the self-interest of the partner firms

or on the assumed gained of the joint venture. Lastly, the players are able to learn in the joint

association, and for this reason they are capable of re-negotiating contract terms or make a

decision to resign from the joint venture. Another set of action may take place during the last

stages of the cycle, where players can willingly cooperate or cheat, to punish or to reward.

The results obtained were surprising, since students were likely to prefer competitive exercise

instead of courses consisting purely of reading assignments and lectures. Through the current

simulation as part of the analysis course, a healthy environment is built, thereby allowing for

better evaluation of results from participants (Ott 2003) (Xiong & Deng 2008).
 The order of the play of a joint venture game involves a mix of various stages ranging

from the construction till the termination of the enterprise. The periods are integrated within a

bargaining game, a contracting game, and lastly, a repeated game. Such games are related to

extensive the negotiation on the ownership shares, the exploitation of incentives in adverse

selection scenarios, and lastly, the players’ learning and reputation. Nonetheless, the

abstraction of the project problem provides a robust framework to allow for proceeding in

different configurations (Payne) (Thomas et al 2002). Furthermore, the asymmetry of

partners is an important issue within the establishment phase of the joint venture and effects

the overall management process. Throughout the actual process of value adding of the joint

venture issue pertaining to coalitions as well as the players’ reporting behaviour generate

tension among the partners and their subsidiaries, which in turn results into the use of

incentives. Repeated cheating or learning leads to penalties and punishment, and reward

scenarios, respectively. It also has an impact on the success and the failure of a joint venture

project, and is employed for maintaining the harmony in joint enterprises (De Freitas & Jarvis

2006).

References:

Ott, U 2003, ‘GAMES INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES PLAY DURING THEIR

LIFE CYCLE: KEY FACTORS FOR CO-OPERATION AND CONFLICT’, Journal of

International Business Studies, no. 2, pp. 1-16.

Conchúir, D 2010, Overview of the PMBOK Guide, Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,

London.

Simon, P & Murray-Webster, R, THE RELEVANCE OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES TO

PROJECT SUCCESS –THE CASE OF A RUSSIAN/BRITISH JOINT VENTURE, Lucidus

Consulting.

Adnan, H 2008, ‘An Assessment of Risk Management in Joint Venture Projects (JV) in

Malaysia’, Asian Social Science, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 99-106.

Xiong, S & Deng, H 2008, ‘Critical Success Factors for Effective Knowledge Sharing in

Chinese Joint Ventures’, 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, vol. 3, no.5,

pp. 1089-1098.

Weber, S 2001, ‘A framework for teaching and learning “intercultural competence’, Institute

for Economics, Business Education and Management Training Faculty of Economics and

Business Studies, vol. 22, no. 05, pp. 1-25.

Wu, S, Lin, C & Lin, T 2006, ‘Exploring Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams: A Social

Exchange Theory Perspective’, IEEE: Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, available at

<http://www.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/01/250710026b.pdf?

template=1&loginState=1&userData=anonymous-IP%253A%253AAddress%253A

%2B180.215.167.222%252C%2B%255B172.16.161.5%252C%2B180.215.167.222%252C

%2B127.0.0.1%255D>.

Hogan, C 2007, Facilitating multicultural groups: a practical guide, Kogan Page Limited,

United States.
Payne, N Cross Cultural Solutions for International Business, StreetDirectory, viewed 18

August, 2010,

<http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/693/business_and_finance/cross_cultural_solut

ions_for_international_business.html>.

Thomas, R, Marosszeky, M, Karim, K, Davis, S & McGeorge, D 2002, ‘THE

IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT CULTURE IN ACHIEVING QUALITY OUTCOMES IN

CONSTRUCTION’, Proceedings IGLC-10, Available at

http://www6.ufrgs.br/norie/iglc10/papers/98-ThomasEtAl.pdf>.

Horak, S 2010, ‘Does The Individual’s Culture Play A Role In The Value Perception Of

Members Of Small Multinational Teams? An Empirical Analysis Based On Hofstede’s

Cultural Dimension Model’, Business and Economics Journal, vol. 2010: BEJ-8, pp. 1-8.

Kemp, R & Ghauri, P 2001, ‘Interdependency in joint ventures: the relationship between

dependence asymmetry and performance’, Chain and network science, 101-110.

De Freitas, S & Jarvis, S 2006, ‘A Framework for Developing Serious Games to meet

Learner Needs’, Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference

(I/ITSEC), no. 2742, pp. 1-11.

Silverman, J. 2006. What is Qualitative Research? Viewed 21 August, 2010,

<http://www.sagepub.co.uk/upm-data/11254_Silverman_02.pdf>.

Saunders, M. 2006. Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall, New York,

United States.

Dafoulas, G & Macaulay, L 2001, ‘Investigating Cultural Differences in Virtual Software

Teams’, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 7, no. 4,

pp. 1-14.
Questionnaire Template:

Apart from the survey questions mentioned in sections 2 and 3, the additional sample

questions asked throughout the project are as follows:

Content Analysis:

In order to derive the participants’ experience, three particular open-ended questions were

asked as part of the simulation survey:

1. What according to your experience influences whether your contribution in a joint

project was successful?

2. What factors are crucial for the workings of a joint venture project that has an impact

of the success of the venture?

3. What element of potential partners, which are evident before formation of joint

venture, can predict a successful joint venture?

All three questions were critiqued to code issues, stated as important to any participant, into

common factors. Then, each response was coded as per the instant of mention of these

concepts.

Apart from these questions, three Linkert scale questions were also posed concerning the

outcomes of the joint ventures. Two of them dealt with short-term gains and one question

enquired whether the partner or team member experienced gain in market position.

The first three questions were

1. Did the joint project collaboration as a whole gain the revenues expected from the

customer?

2. Did the individual member receive the revenue they expected from the joint venture?

Initial stages of the simulation saw questions like:

1. How many joint projects are you currently engaged in?

2. What kind of industry or activity have you involved in, into joint ventures?

3. What is the nature of your participation in the incorporated/ unincorporated

partnership?