| Generator | | | | |

|

When a company such as Generator decides to invest in a foreign market with distinctly nondomestic cultural norms such as China and Thailand, it would be well served to investigate and develop a negotiation and communication strategy that will mitigate these differences in a way that will not unduly jeopardize the success of its new endeavors. While they considered the differences in the legality of their overseas standing, it is obvious that Generator failed to develop a plan that accounted for the cultural hurdles before entering into these partnerships. By entering into these partnerships they effectively mitigate the limitations of corporate ownership in these countries. In contrast, their lack of understanding and adapting to foreign ways of thinking has resulted in the potential alienation and humiliation of their partners.
With their failure to proactively administer to these cultural differences Generator must now address these issues downstream. Ideally they would have fashioned their forward-looking communications in a manner that acknowledged the difference between Chinese and Thai culture and approached them from two different standpoints. By segmenting one country from the other they will have the opportunity to facilitate constructive negotiations that are culturally aligned with their intended audience. This would also encourage them to not group all Asian cultures together and repeat mistakes that they have made by using an ethnocentric approach to their prior dealings. Justification for the different approaches can be found in the research conducted by Geert Hofstede. Hofstede, a pioneer in the research of cross-cultural dynamics, developed a system for assessing and differentiating national and group cultures. He delineated these variables into five the following distinct categories Power