Successful direct impact on how successfully business is conducted

business negotiations between two countries rely on many factors, with one
major factor being cross cultural awareness between the two companies.  The US and India, has major cultural
difference, that has a direct impact on how successfully business is conducted
between the two counters. One such example is the business communication
between US and India. The cultural differences between these two countries have
resulted in various setbacks when negotiating business transactions. To make
calculated investments, the US has to be informed on the real India by setting
aback their perceptions of India’s culture. This paper focuses mainly on
cross-culture business transactions, that is, the business culture,
communication, and stereotypes related to India challenges faced and what the
US should know when doing business transactions with India.

is a country that has faced numerous challenges economically and politically
over the past years. Many international investors have tended to avoid doing
business in India for they consider it as a nation with low infrastructural
investments and high in religious superstitions. In recent years, however,
countries across the world have started viewing India as a productive
destination for business ventures. The main reason behind this is because India
is determined to become one of the world’s largest economies as economic
liberalization kicks in after decades of stagnation in its political system.
For the US to successfully do business in India, it has to not ignore the
cultural aspects of India by understanding the cultural drivers and the
expectations of the people they’ll aspire to work. To understand the business
culture of India, US investors need to look at the business backgrounds,
management styles, their meeting styles, and communications styles.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

business culture description is archaic in its corporate structures. Often they
incorporate their socio-religious hierarchical organizations in their
workplaces in addition to having proprietorial attitudes towards their
superiors (Sebastian, Yahya, &
Paramenshwaran, 2006). Mostly, companies in India had a lower
degree of delegations compared to firms in the US with their management being
hierarchical and centered towards individual’s personalities. Another culture
in India’s business is that the employees are often unwilling to accept
responsibilities and cannot cope in times of uncertainties. The reason as to
why this is so is because the less privileged individuals associated with being
powerless in India’s society have accepted and expected the distribution of
power unequally. This perception is to mean that these companies’ structures
are hierarchical with their managers being generous despots. Managers in the
lower levels of firms avoid making decisions and taking responsibilities about
the companies for which they work. Indian employees have transferred their
socio-religious hierarchical structures in their professions. This action
places their managers in tight spots as they cannot make decisions befitting
their firms due to their inabilities to merge their roles in a formally
organized system with their commitments to traditional caste-based social
structures (Sebastian, Yahya, &
Paramenshwaran, 2006). Managers in these organizations relish
in their conventional operations in all their aspects of life as they do not
feel comfortable with managerial cultures of the global business world such as
immediate feedback, high performance, and empowerment of employees.
Furthermore, companies that are owned by families are reluctant to adopt
practices termed as professional in areas of their management.

in Indian business revolves around their negotiation, organizations and
leadership styles. When delving into negotiation styles, issues that are
perceived to be of little significance are usually emotionally charged because
individuals tend to express their feelings to others. It is because some
Indians point out that relationships are sometimes more important than getting
contracts or good business. The negotiation style used by Indians is a Win-lose
with them being flexible negotiators (Ville-Pekka & Sakkinen). Their hierarchical
structures enable them to use their dominant party’s resources to obtain the
outcomes they need. In all this, however, they are more relationship centered
in this hierarchy structure hence are more flexible and superior when
negotiating in business deals. Furthermore, the negotiation styles stem from
fatalism, a notion of Karma that everything happens for a reason. They use this
to define their decision-making processes in addition to influencing time in
India. This action results in more extended negotiation periods as they cannot
rush negotiations.

communication styles involve the use of high verbal and non-verbal techniques
when expressing their emotions. In addition to this, their culture has
instilled in them a mentality of doing everything themselves. This notion has
made them be experimenters and high-level risk takers.  For Indians, negotiation is a game of
problem-solving with the belief that there is a solution for which they are
willing to go to any extent to discover. They believe that solutions to any
problem are transactions in which at the end, all parties will benefit. When it
comes to making deals and contracts, Indians think of them regarding
relationships and fairness. This way of thinking is not so with US investors
who view contracts as obligations. For Indians, an ideal solution to a deal be
one that will benefit all parties involved (Ville-Pekka & Sakkinen). On organizational
and leadership styles, Indians hierarchical culture influences their corporate
structure to be centrally coordinated. All the decision making is left to the
top management of the firm, in that team decision making is not at all favored.
Everyone in Indian businesses has their positions in the hierarchies which
determine their duties and privileges. In the case of US, the amount of
responsibility an employee has will mean that they are to be more accountable
whereas in India, a worker’s accountability towards his or her work, is related
to their hierarchical status (Rebecca, 2011). Their
communications are often in an indirect manner.

nation has been stereotyped in different ways. Outside multinational US
corporations looking to invest in India often associate the country to have low
infrastructure although this is not as bad as they think. The reason is that
the costs of labor are small, while project management skills and technological
sophistication are high. This aspect makes India a good market for outsourcing.
Another element that foreign investors stress on is that they view the Indian
government as frustrating because of their highly regulated natures.
Furthermore, the labor market in India is perceived to be of lower cost and highly
skilled, thus has encouraged multinational corporations to set up branches in

cultural analysis of India

Power distance

Hofstede cultural study
of India indicates a large power distance society. It is ranked 77 in
comparison with the world’s average of 56.6. The reason for this is because
people in India have accepted inequality as the everyday norm of life. Although
a majority of Indians approve this, it has an adverse outcome in that, wealth
and power is distributed unequally within their society and furthermore
encourages the formation of hierarchies. 

Uncertainty of avoidance

Another aspect of this
analysis is the uncertainty of evasion. On the scale of one to a hundred,
Indians average at forty compared to the worldwide average of sixty-five. The
explanation for this is that Indians have accepted uncertainty and unstructured
systems. They do not avoid situations meaning that Indians have set up few
rules and standards to control future conditions although this could improve
improvisation skills (Country Comparison).


When it comes to
individualism, India’s society ranks 49 compared to global average of 43. The
reason is that the nation of India is wholly individualist in that both
individuals and teams are essential to them.


The masculinity of Indies
society is at 56 compared to world average of 51. This is because men are given
more privileges than women when it comes to employment and professions. Men
tend to act more masculine while women act feminine (Country

Long-term versus
short-term orientation

societal aspect of India is ranked 61 while the global average is at 48. This
high ranking for India means that they value situations that benefit them for a
more extended period as compared to those benefits that run only for shorter
times. When negotiating in business transactions, they focus mainly on building
relationships that will benefit them for years to come, in that connections to
them is more important than winning contracts (Country Comparisson).

compared to the US, Hofstede’s model indicates a nation centered on hierarchy.
US companies make their decisions by involving all employees. No one has to
pass through a chain of commands to talk to the top management. This action is
the opposite of the organizational structure of India. Governance in India
doesn’t empower their employees while in the US employee empowerment is number
one priority in improving their businesses (Rebecca, 2011). As a result of this
differences in the way Indians and US carry out their activities, US
entrepreneurs looking to do successful companies in India should adjust to fit
with the culture of India in the following ways;

making business deals with Indian businessmen, they should not rush the
business transactions but instead take it slowly. The reason behind this is
because negotiations by Indians are often thoroughly considered and thought
before they make their final decisions. Additionally, US investors looking to
do successful business in India should consider the religions, region, and
background of their counterparts. This action is because India is highly
diversified when it comes to this aspects hence behave differently. Due to
this, US must customize their approach for them to succeed. Lastly, US
investors should strive not to miss the social nuances associated with India.
It’s a rule in India to not say no hence they should consider this when trying
to bring out their points to avoid instances of misreading one’s response. 

conclusion, International business communication between India and US has for
the past periods been expanding at a rate that couldn’t have been achievable
without making sacrifices and compromising each other’s cultural differences.
India’s population is the most abundant consumers of US goods and services
whereas the US is the number one consumer of their raw materials. For this
reasons, they should strive to maintain good relations by going beyond their
cultural differences for the greater good of both their businesses and