IBUS6002
Jun 1, 2026
All files
我拿到了一份我在上的课的考前宝典！你帮我拆解一下这节课，告诉我复习重点，我快final了
越详细越好，公式，定义，核心考点我都需要，救救孩子
- 当然可以。我先按你这份 IBUS6002（Cross-Cultural Management）考前宝典 把这门课“拆成一张期末复习地图”：考什么、怎么答、每块要背的定义/框架、最容易丢分的坑，你照着刷就不会跑偏。
- 你这门课期末 Final 是 40%，形式是 essay-type（论文式）案例/情境分析：不是选择题、也不是纯背诵定义。核心是“用框架做诊断 + 评估契合度 + 给行动建议”。[2]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf贯穿整门应用型课程的那一个分析动作 Master one move and the applied half of IBUS6002 collapses into a pattern. Whatever the domain - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - the answer is always: pick the framework(s), place each culture on the dimensions, explain the friction the gap creates, judge whether the imported practice fits, and recommend concrete action. Wrapped around it is the unit's reflex - "apply thoughtfully": a country score is a working hypothesis, not a label. Internalise the move and the guardrails and fresh exam scenarios cannot surprise you. 掌握一个动作,IBUS6002 的应用半壁就坍缩成一种套路。无论领域是什么 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 答案永 远是:选定框架、把每种文化放到维度上、解释差距制造的摩擦、判断引进的做法是否契合、并给出具体行动建议。包 裹在它外面的,是本课程的条件反射 -- “审慎应用”:一个国家分数是工作假设,不是标签。把这个动作和防护栏内 化,全新的考试情境就再也无法让你措手不及。 THE 6- STEP ANSWER SHAPE name framework → map case onto dimensions - compare cultures / explain friction → evaluate fit > recommend action > guardrails ! The most important strategic fact about IBUS6002 关于 IBUS6002 最重要的一条策略性事实 The final is essay-type case analysis worth 40%, and the case briefs all carry one standing instruction: apply at least TWO relevant frameworks. A single-framework answer is explicitly under-marked. The A+ habit is to stack frameworks on the same scenario - e. g. Hofstede power distance + Trompenaars achievement/ascription + Hall context all read off one negotiation - then critique the reading (within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). 期末是占 40% 的论文式案例分析,而案例简报都带着一条固定指令:至少应用两个相关框架。单一框架的答案会被明 确扣分。A+的习惯是在同一情境上叠加多个框架 -- 例如 Hofstede 权力距离 + Trompenaars 成就/归属 + Hall 语 境,全部从同一场谈判中读出来 -- 然后再批判这种解读(文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 这本书是如何编成的 -- 以及双层规则 Layer 1 (reproduced openly): the published frameworks are universal scholarship - Hofstede's six dimension names, Hall's high/low context, Trompenaars' seven continua, GLOBE's nine dimensions and clusters are facts, stated plainly. Layer 2 (paraphrased, never copied): the lecturer's purchased case studies are described only generically and every worked scenario here is our own invention. Book status: the final sits in the formal exam period - treat this as exam revision and verify all weights and dates on your own Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au). 第1层(公开复述):已发表的框架属于普世学术 -- Hofstede 的六个维度名称、Hall 的高/低语境、Trompenaars 的 七个连续谱、GLOBE 的九个维度与族群,都是事实,可以平铺直叙地陈述。第2层(转述,绝不照抄):讲师购买的案 例研究只作笼统描述,本书的每一个推演情境都是我们自己原创的。本书状态:期末安排在正式考试周内 -- 把它当作 考试复习,并在你自己的 Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au) 上核实所有权重与日期。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library THE BLUEPRINT - THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT FINAL 40% . APPLIED ESSAY 40% rides on an applied essay exam 40% 的成绩压在一场应用型论述考试上 Quiz 1 5% . Quiz 2 5% . Group case 30% . Individual written 15% . Final 40% . Participation 5% 测验 15% · 测验 2 5% · 小组案例 30% · 个人书面作业 15% · 期末考试 40% · 课堂参与 5% Your mark is built from six pieces, but the dominant single component is the 40% final exam, held in the formal exam period as essay-type questions on cases and scenarios provided. It is not multiple choice and not pure definition-recall: it tests whether you can take a fresh cross-cultural workplace scenario, name the right frameworks, and turn them into a reasoned recommendation. 你的成绩由六个部分构成,但占主导地位的单一组成部分是占40% 的期末考试,于正式考试周举行,形式为针对所提供案例 与情境的论述题。它不是选择题,也不是单纯的定义回忆:它考查的是你能否拿到一个全新的跨文化职场情境,点出正确的框 架,并把它们转化为一份有理有据的建议。 40% FINAL EXAM (ESSAY/CASE) 期末考(论文/案例) 30% GROUP CASE STUDY 小组案例研究 15% INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN 个人书面作业 2+ FRAMEWORKS PER ANSWER 每个答案的框架数 The six assessment pieces 六个考核组成部分[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[6]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfComponent Weight When / detail Final examination - essay-type, cases & scenarios 40% Formal exam period Group case study (present 18% + Q&A 5% + questions 2% + engage 3%) 30% In-semester Individual written assignment (~1200 words) 15% In-semester Quiz 1 (online) 5% Early semester Quiz 2 (online) 5% Mid semester Individual participation (simulations + discussion) 5% All weeks The recurring 3-part question architecture 反复出现的三段式题目结构 Part What the question asks 1 . Analyse Apply two or more frameworks to explain the cross-cultural issue; which is most relevant and why? 2 . Evaluate Was this approach suitable in this context? Would it suit a different context? Why / why not? 3 . Advise the protagonist: a short action plan (3-4 specific moves), each justified by a course concept Recommend IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The exam format - applied, essay, NOT multiple choice
- 每题至少要用 2 个框架（≥2 frameworks）；单框架答案会被明确扣分。[2]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf贯穿整门应用型课程的那一个分析动作 Master one move and the applied half of IBUS6002 collapses into a pattern. Whatever the domain - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - the answer is always: pick the framework(s), place each culture on the dimensions, explain the friction the gap creates, judge whether the imported practice fits, and recommend concrete action. Wrapped around it is the unit's reflex - "apply thoughtfully": a country score is a working hypothesis, not a label. Internalise the move and the guardrails and fresh exam scenarios cannot surprise you. 掌握一个动作,IBUS6002 的应用半壁就坍缩成一种套路。无论领域是什么 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 答案永 远是:选定框架、把每种文化放到维度上、解释差距制造的摩擦、判断引进的做法是否契合、并给出具体行动建议。包 裹在它外面的,是本课程的条件反射 -- “审慎应用”:一个国家分数是工作假设,不是标签。把这个动作和防护栏内 化,全新的考试情境就再也无法让你措手不及。 THE 6- STEP ANSWER SHAPE name framework → map case onto dimensions - compare cultures / explain friction → evaluate fit > recommend action > guardrails ! The most important strategic fact about IBUS6002 关于 IBUS6002 最重要的一条策略性事实 The final is essay-type case analysis worth 40%, and the case briefs all carry one standing instruction: apply at least TWO relevant frameworks. A single-framework answer is explicitly under-marked. The A+ habit is to stack frameworks on the same scenario - e. g. Hofstede power distance + Trompenaars achievement/ascription + Hall context all read off one negotiation - then critique the reading (within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). 期末是占 40% 的论文式案例分析,而案例简报都带着一条固定指令:至少应用两个相关框架。单一框架的答案会被明 确扣分。A+的习惯是在同一情境上叠加多个框架 -- 例如 Hofstede 权力距离 + Trompenaars 成就/归属 + Hall 语 境,全部从同一场谈判中读出来 -- 然后再批判这种解读(文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 这本书是如何编成的 -- 以及双层规则 Layer 1 (reproduced openly): the published frameworks are universal scholarship - Hofstede's six dimension names, Hall's high/low context, Trompenaars' seven continua, GLOBE's nine dimensions and clusters are facts, stated plainly. Layer 2 (paraphrased, never copied): the lecturer's purchased case studies are described only generically and every worked scenario here is our own invention. Book status: the final sits in the formal exam period - treat this as exam revision and verify all weights and dates on your own Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au). 第1层(公开复述):已发表的框架属于普世学术 -- Hofstede 的六个维度名称、Hall 的高/低语境、Trompenaars 的 七个连续谱、GLOBE 的九个维度与族群,都是事实,可以平铺直叙地陈述。第2层(转述,绝不照抄):讲师购买的案 例研究只作笼统描述,本书的每一个推演情境都是我们自己原创的。本书状态:期末安排在正式考试周内 -- 把它当作 考试复习,并在你自己的 Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au) 上核实所有权重与日期。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library THE BLUEPRINT - THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT FINAL 40% . APPLIED ESSAY 40% rides on an applied essay exam 40% 的成绩压在一场应用型论述考试上 Quiz 1 5% . Quiz 2 5% . Group case 30% . Individual written 15% . Final 40% . Participation 5% 测验 15% · 测验 2 5% · 小组案例 30% · 个人书面作业 15% · 期末考试 40% · 课堂参与 5% Your mark is built from six pieces, but the dominant single component is the 40% final exam, held in the formal exam period as essay-type questions on cases and scenarios provided. It is not multiple choice and not pure definition-recall: it tests whether you can take a fresh cross-cultural workplace scenario, name the right frameworks, and turn them into a reasoned recommendation. 你的成绩由六个部分构成,但占主导地位的单一组成部分是占40% 的期末考试,于正式考试周举行,形式为针对所提供案例 与情境的论述题。它不是选择题,也不是单纯的定义回忆:它考查的是你能否拿到一个全新的跨文化职场情境,点出正确的框 架,并把它们转化为一份有理有据的建议。 40% FINAL EXAM (ESSAY/CASE) 期末考(论文/案例) 30% GROUP CASE STUDY 小组案例研究 15% INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN 个人书面作业 2+ FRAMEWORKS PER ANSWER 每个答案的框架数 The six assessment pieces 六个考核组成部分[6]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfComponent Weight When / detail Final examination - essay-type, cases & scenarios 40% Formal exam period Group case study (present 18% + Q&A 5% + questions 2% + engage 3%) 30% In-semester Individual written assignment (~1200 words) 15% In-semester Quiz 1 (online) 5% Early semester Quiz 2 (online) 5% Mid semester Individual participation (simulations + discussion) 5% All weeks The recurring 3-part question architecture 反复出现的三段式题目结构 Part What the question asks 1 . Analyse Apply two or more frameworks to explain the cross-cultural issue; which is most relevant and why? 2 . Evaluate Was this approach suitable in this context? Would it suit a different context? Why / why not? 3 . Advise the protagonist: a short action plan (3-4 specific moves), each justified by a course concept Recommend IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The exam format - applied, essay, NOT multiple choice
- 贯穿整门课只有一个“万能动作”：选框架 → 映射维度 → 解释摩擦 → 评估是否适配/能否移植 → 给 3–4 条具体建议 → 写防护栏（别刻板印象、别只停在国家文化）。[2]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf贯穿整门应用型课程的那一个分析动作 Master one move and the applied half of IBUS6002 collapses into a pattern. Whatever the domain - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - the answer is always: pick the framework(s), place each culture on the dimensions, explain the friction the gap creates, judge whether the imported practice fits, and recommend concrete action. Wrapped around it is the unit's reflex - "apply thoughtfully": a country score is a working hypothesis, not a label. Internalise the move and the guardrails and fresh exam scenarios cannot surprise you. 掌握一个动作,IBUS6002 的应用半壁就坍缩成一种套路。无论领域是什么 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 答案永 远是:选定框架、把每种文化放到维度上、解释差距制造的摩擦、判断引进的做法是否契合、并给出具体行动建议。包 裹在它外面的,是本课程的条件反射 -- “审慎应用”:一个国家分数是工作假设,不是标签。把这个动作和防护栏内 化,全新的考试情境就再也无法让你措手不及。 THE 6- STEP ANSWER SHAPE name framework → map case onto dimensions - compare cultures / explain friction → evaluate fit > recommend action > guardrails ! The most important strategic fact about IBUS6002 关于 IBUS6002 最重要的一条策略性事实 The final is essay-type case analysis worth 40%, and the case briefs all carry one standing instruction: apply at least TWO relevant frameworks. A single-framework answer is explicitly under-marked. The A+ habit is to stack frameworks on the same scenario - e. g. Hofstede power distance + Trompenaars achievement/ascription + Hall context all read off one negotiation - then critique the reading (within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). 期末是占 40% 的论文式案例分析,而案例简报都带着一条固定指令:至少应用两个相关框架。单一框架的答案会被明 确扣分。A+的习惯是在同一情境上叠加多个框架 -- 例如 Hofstede 权力距离 + Trompenaars 成就/归属 + Hall 语 境,全部从同一场谈判中读出来 -- 然后再批判这种解读(文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 这本书是如何编成的 -- 以及双层规则 Layer 1 (reproduced openly): the published frameworks are universal scholarship - Hofstede's six dimension names, Hall's high/low context, Trompenaars' seven continua, GLOBE's nine dimensions and clusters are facts, stated plainly. Layer 2 (paraphrased, never copied): the lecturer's purchased case studies are described only generically and every worked scenario here is our own invention. Book status: the final sits in the formal exam period - treat this as exam revision and verify all weights and dates on your own Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au). 第1层(公开复述):已发表的框架属于普世学术 -- Hofstede 的六个维度名称、Hall 的高/低语境、Trompenaars 的 七个连续谱、GLOBE 的九个维度与族群,都是事实,可以平铺直叙地陈述。第2层(转述,绝不照抄):讲师购买的案 例研究只作笼统描述,本书的每一个推演情境都是我们自己原创的。本书状态:期末安排在正式考试周内 -- 把它当作 考试复习,并在你自己的 Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au) 上核实所有权重与日期。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library THE BLUEPRINT - THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT FINAL 40% . APPLIED ESSAY 40% rides on an applied essay exam 40% 的成绩压在一场应用型论述考试上 Quiz 1 5% . Quiz 2 5% . Group case 30% . Individual written 15% . Final 40% . Participation 5% 测验 15% · 测验 2 5% · 小组案例 30% · 个人书面作业 15% · 期末考试 40% · 课堂参与 5% Your mark is built from six pieces, but the dominant single component is the 40% final exam, held in the formal exam period as essay-type questions on cases and scenarios provided. It is not multiple choice and not pure definition-recall: it tests whether you can take a fresh cross-cultural workplace scenario, name the right frameworks, and turn them into a reasoned recommendation. 你的成绩由六个部分构成,但占主导地位的单一组成部分是占40% 的期末考试,于正式考试周举行,形式为针对所提供案例 与情境的论述题。它不是选择题,也不是单纯的定义回忆:它考查的是你能否拿到一个全新的跨文化职场情境,点出正确的框 架,并把它们转化为一份有理有据的建议。 40% FINAL EXAM (ESSAY/CASE) 期末考(论文/案例) 30% GROUP CASE STUDY 小组案例研究 15% INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN 个人书面作业 2+ FRAMEWORKS PER ANSWER 每个答案的框架数 The six assessment pieces 六个考核组成部分[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMAP A CASE -> A MARKED ESSAY 1 NAME the framework(s) that fit the case 2 MAP the case onto its dimensions 3 COMPARE the cultures . explain the friction 4 EVALUATE . critique the framework (limits) 5 RECOMMEND 3-4 concrete actions 6 GUARDRAILS . note what you'd watch Re-frame with the 4-layer model at step 1: national . organisational · interpersonal · personal - never only national culture. This recipe is the signature of a high- scoring essay answer. 20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target
-
1）先把“考试机器”背到条件反射（你拿分主要靠这个）
-
1.1 6 步答题骨架（每道 essay 都按这个写）
- Step 1：Frame & name ≥2 frameworks（点名框架，并说为什么用它）：先用最贴题的框架起手，再叠加第二个加深。[2]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf贯穿整门应用型课程的那一个分析动作 Master one move and the applied half of IBUS6002 collapses into a pattern. Whatever the domain - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - the answer is always: pick the framework(s), place each culture on the dimensions, explain the friction the gap creates, judge whether the imported practice fits, and recommend concrete action. Wrapped around it is the unit's reflex - "apply thoughtfully": a country score is a working hypothesis, not a label. Internalise the move and the guardrails and fresh exam scenarios cannot surprise you. 掌握一个动作,IBUS6002 的应用半壁就坍缩成一种套路。无论领域是什么 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 答案永 远是:选定框架、把每种文化放到维度上、解释差距制造的摩擦、判断引进的做法是否契合、并给出具体行动建议。包 裹在它外面的,是本课程的条件反射 -- “审慎应用”:一个国家分数是工作假设,不是标签。把这个动作和防护栏内 化,全新的考试情境就再也无法让你措手不及。 THE 6- STEP ANSWER SHAPE name framework → map case onto dimensions - compare cultures / explain friction → evaluate fit > recommend action > guardrails ! The most important strategic fact about IBUS6002 关于 IBUS6002 最重要的一条策略性事实 The final is essay-type case analysis worth 40%, and the case briefs all carry one standing instruction: apply at least TWO relevant frameworks. A single-framework answer is explicitly under-marked. The A+ habit is to stack frameworks on the same scenario - e. g. Hofstede power distance + Trompenaars achievement/ascription + Hall context all read off one negotiation - then critique the reading (within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). 期末是占 40% 的论文式案例分析,而案例简报都带着一条固定指令:至少应用两个相关框架。单一框架的答案会被明 确扣分。A+的习惯是在同一情境上叠加多个框架 -- 例如 Hofstede 权力距离 + Trompenaars 成就/归属 + Hall 语 境,全部从同一场谈判中读出来 -- 然后再批判这种解读(文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 这本书是如何编成的 -- 以及双层规则 Layer 1 (reproduced openly): the published frameworks are universal scholarship - Hofstede's six dimension names, Hall's high/low context, Trompenaars' seven continua, GLOBE's nine dimensions and clusters are facts, stated plainly. Layer 2 (paraphrased, never copied): the lecturer's purchased case studies are described only generically and every worked scenario here is our own invention. Book status: the final sits in the formal exam period - treat this as exam revision and verify all weights and dates on your own Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au). 第1层(公开复述):已发表的框架属于普世学术 -- Hofstede 的六个维度名称、Hall 的高/低语境、Trompenaars 的 七个连续谱、GLOBE 的九个维度与族群,都是事实,可以平铺直叙地陈述。第2层(转述,绝不照抄):讲师购买的案 例研究只作笼统描述,本书的每一个推演情境都是我们自己原创的。本书状态:期末安排在正式考试周内 -- 把它当作 考试复习,并在你自己的 Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au) 上核实所有权重与日期。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library THE BLUEPRINT - THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT FINAL 40% . APPLIED ESSAY 40% rides on an applied essay exam 40% 的成绩压在一场应用型论述考试上 Quiz 1 5% . Quiz 2 5% . Group case 30% . Individual written 15% . Final 40% . Participation 5% 测验 15% · 测验 2 5% · 小组案例 30% · 个人书面作业 15% · 期末考试 40% · 课堂参与 5% Your mark is built from six pieces, but the dominant single component is the 40% final exam, held in the formal exam period as essay-type questions on cases and scenarios provided. It is not multiple choice and not pure definition-recall: it tests whether you can take a fresh cross-cultural workplace scenario, name the right frameworks, and turn them into a reasoned recommendation. 你的成绩由六个部分构成,但占主导地位的单一组成部分是占40% 的期末考试,于正式考试周举行,形式为针对所提供案例 与情境的论述题。它不是选择题,也不是单纯的定义回忆:它考查的是你能否拿到一个全新的跨文化职场情境,点出正确的框 架,并把它们转化为一份有理有据的建议。 40% FINAL EXAM (ESSAY/CASE) 期末考(论文/案例) 30% GROUP CASE STUDY 小组案例研究 15% INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN 个人书面作业 2+ FRAMEWORKS PER ANSWER 每个答案的框架数 The six assessment pieces 六个考核组成部分[4]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf— Adjustment arc: honeymoon - crisis (shock) - recovery - mastery; a W-curve adds re- entry shock. Expatriate failure — Early return / under-performance; drivers = family non-adjustment, manager's inflexibility, low CQ. Repatriation — Re-entry home after an assignment - can shock too; plan re-entry roles early or lose the talent. Bamboo ceiling — Individual + cultural + organisational factors blocking Asian career progress into senior leadership (Hyun). Ethnic homophily — Bonding with same-ethnicity others - narrower networks - lower leadership emergence (Lu). Model-minority paradox — "Hard worker" image performed to survive yet reinforces being 'used' & blocks leadership recognition. Intersectionality — Multiple marginalised identities (gender x ethnicity) compound disadvantage. Polyculturalism — Individuals hold partial & plural cultural affiliations (a network), challenging the unitary- national-culture view. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用这份术语表 Terms are in teaching order - foundations, the four comparative frameworks, then the applied behaviour domains the exam scenarios sit in. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The ideas to over-learn for the essay are the four case-domain framework sets, the 4-layer context model, and the apply-thoughtfully critiques (ecological fallacy, stereotyping, polyculturalism) - they earn the nuance marks. 术语按教学顺序排列 -- 基础、四个比较框架,然后是考试情境所落在的应用行为领域。两遍:英文→释义(盖住右 栏),然后释义→英文(盖住术语)。为论文需要超量学习的概念是四个案例领域的框架组、四层情境模型,以及审慎应 用的批判(生态谬误、刻板印象、多元文化主义) -- 它们能挣到细分的分数。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE Q1-Q4 CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 40% ESSAY FINAL Train the essay, not the trivia 训练论述能力,而非死记零碎知识 Seven quick framework-recognition items + five fully-worked case essays in the exact exam shape 七道快速框架辨识题+五篇完全按考试形态写就的范例案例论述 The one-line takeaway. The IBUS6002 final is essay-type case analysis - you get a fresh cross-cultural scenario and must diagnose with frameworks, compare cultures, evaluate, and recommend. This bank gives you seven fast concept reps to make framework-recognition automatic, then five fully-worked case essays - the centrepiece - each walking the 6-step answer shape visibly. 一句话要点。IBUS6002 期末是论文式案例分析 -- 你会拿到一个全新的跨文化情境,必须用框架诊断、比较文化、评估、并 给出建议。本题库给你七组快速的概念练习,让框架识别变成自动反应,再给你五篇完整推演的案例论文 -- 这才是重头戏 -每一篇都清晰地走完六步答题骨架。 ★ The 6-step answer shape (every essay below performs it) 六步答题形态(下文每篇论述都照此演练) 1. Frame & name ≥2 frameworks (and why these). 2. Map the actors/cultures onto the dimensions (evidence from the scenario, not country cliches). 3. Compare & explain the friction - how the gap produces the behaviour (the analytical core). 4. Evaluate fit / would it transfer? 5. Recommend 3-4 specific actions, each justified by a named concept + a 'why this helps. ' 6. Guardrails: stack ≥2 frameworks, flag limitations (don't stereotype), note it's more than national culture (the 4-layer model), show cultural intelligence. 1. 框定并点名 ≥2个框架(以及为什么是这些)。2. 映射各当事人/文化到维度上(用情境里的证据,而非国家陈词滥 调)。3. 比较并解释摩擦 -- 差距如何制造出那个行为(分析的核心)。4. 评估契合度/能否移植?5. 给出 3-4 条具体 行动建议,每条都由一个被点名的概念+一句“为什么这有帮助”加以论证。6. 防护栏:叠加≥2个框架,点出局限(别 刻板印象),指出它不止是国家文化(四层模型),并展示文化智力。[13]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfDomination (mastery) . Harmony . Subjugation IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library 2. 8 Tightness-looseness (Gelfand) 2. 8 紧一松文化(Gelfand) A single, powerful axis. Tight cultures have strong norms and low tolerance of deviance (e. g. Japan, Singapore, Germany); loose cultures have weak norms and high tolerance (e. g. US, Australia, NZ, Netherlands). It predicts how strictly rules are enforced and how harshly non-conformity is judged - often the missing piece when two cultures look similar on Hofstede yet react very differently to a rule-breaker. 一条单一而有力的轴线。紧文化拥有强规范、对越轨行为容 忍度低(如日本、新加坡、德国);松文化则拥有弱规范、 容忍度高(如美国、澳大利亚、新西兰、荷兰)。它能预示 规则被执行得有多严格、违背常规会被多么严厉地评判 -- 当两种文化在 Hofstede 上看似相近、面对一个违规者却反 应迥异时,它往往就是那块缺失的拼图。 ✓ When to reach for tightness-looseness 何时该动用紧一松文化 Use it when a scenario turns on reaction to a norm violation - a maverick employee, an unconventional proposal, a missed protocol. A tight culture may punish it hard; a loose culture may shrug. It complements uncertainty avoidance without being identical to it. 当一个情境围绕对违反规范的反应展开时使用它 一名特立独行的员工、一个非常规的提案、一次失礼 的违例。紧(tight)文化可能严惩它;松(loose)文 化可能耸耸肩。它与不确定性规避互补,却并不等 同。 EX 2. 5 The maverick proposal - tightness explains the reaction Applied Scenario: the same unconventional, rule-bending product pitch is praised by the firm's loose-culture HQ and quietly buried by its tight-culture regional office. 情境:同一个不落俗套、敢于打破规则的产品提案,在公司松文化的总部受到赞扬,却被其紧文化的区域办公室悄悄束 之高阁。 1 Name + map: tightness-looseness - HQ loose (deviance tolerated, even prized), region tight (strong norms, low tolerance of stepping out of line). 命名+映射:紧一松 -- 总部松(容忍越轨,甚至推崇),该区域紧(规范强、对出格的容忍度低)。 2 Friction: what HQ codes as "bold innovation" the region codes as "reckless norm-breaking" - the idea isn't the problem, the deviation is. 摩擦:总部编码为“大胆创新”的,该区域编码为“鲁莽地破坏规范” -- 问题不在那个想法,而在那次越轨。 3 Recommend: in the tight office, introduce the change through existing norms and senior endorsement rather than as a maverick break - same idea, legitimised path. 建议:在那个紧文化的办公室里,通过既有规范和资深者的背书来引入这项变革,而非以特立独行的破坏方式 -- 同一 个想法,一条合法化的路径。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ Recap - how to deploy the canon in an essay 回顾 -- 如何在论述中部署这套经典框架 Stack at least two frameworks on the scenario (the briefs demand it). Lead with the one that fits the domain - Hofstede for a broad culture comparison, Hall for communication, Trompenaars for ethics/negotiation, GLOBE for leadership - then layer a second for depth. Map each culture, read the gap, evaluate the fit, recommend action, and close with the guardrails (ecological fallacy, within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). That is the whole exam, every time. 在情境上至少叠加两个框架(简报有此要求)。先用最契合该领域的那一个起手 -- 宽泛的文化比较用 Hofstede,沟通 用 Hall,伦理/谈判用 Trompenaars,领导力用 GLOBE -- 再叠加第二个以增加深度。把每种文化映射、读出差距、 评估契合、给出行动建议,并以防护栏收尾(生态谬误、文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。这就是整场考 试,每一次都是。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library COMPLEXITIES . ICEBERG TOPIC 3 - TOPIC 3 . COMPLEXITIES & CONTEXT Culture is more than a country score 文化不止于一个国家分值 Why a national-culture dimension is a working hypothesis, never a verdict 为何国家文化维度是一个工作假设,而绝非定论 Topic 2 hands you the frameworks - Hofstede, Trompenaars, GLOBE. Topic 3 immediately turns around and critiques them, and that critical move is exactly what the case-essay exam rewards. The A+ discipline of this unit is one sentence: apply a framework as a hypothesis, then question it. A score is country-level, point-in-time, sample-bound; the person in front of you is an individual living inside four nested layers of context.
- Step 2：Map（把情境里的双方/文化放到维度上）：用题干证据映射，不要靠“国家刻板印象”。[4]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf— Adjustment arc: honeymoon - crisis (shock) - recovery - mastery; a W-curve adds re- entry shock. Expatriate failure — Early return / under-performance; drivers = family non-adjustment, manager's inflexibility, low CQ. Repatriation — Re-entry home after an assignment - can shock too; plan re-entry roles early or lose the talent. Bamboo ceiling — Individual + cultural + organisational factors blocking Asian career progress into senior leadership (Hyun). Ethnic homophily — Bonding with same-ethnicity others - narrower networks - lower leadership emergence (Lu). Model-minority paradox — "Hard worker" image performed to survive yet reinforces being 'used' & blocks leadership recognition. Intersectionality — Multiple marginalised identities (gender x ethnicity) compound disadvantage. Polyculturalism — Individuals hold partial & plural cultural affiliations (a network), challenging the unitary- national-culture view. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用这份术语表 Terms are in teaching order - foundations, the four comparative frameworks, then the applied behaviour domains the exam scenarios sit in. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The ideas to over-learn for the essay are the four case-domain framework sets, the 4-layer context model, and the apply-thoughtfully critiques (ecological fallacy, stereotyping, polyculturalism) - they earn the nuance marks. 术语按教学顺序排列 -- 基础、四个比较框架,然后是考试情境所落在的应用行为领域。两遍:英文→释义(盖住右 栏),然后释义→英文(盖住术语)。为论文需要超量学习的概念是四个案例领域的框架组、四层情境模型,以及审慎应 用的批判(生态谬误、刻板印象、多元文化主义) -- 它们能挣到细分的分数。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE Q1-Q4 CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 40% ESSAY FINAL Train the essay, not the trivia 训练论述能力,而非死记零碎知识 Seven quick framework-recognition items + five fully-worked case essays in the exact exam shape 七道快速框架辨识题+五篇完全按考试形态写就的范例案例论述 The one-line takeaway. The IBUS6002 final is essay-type case analysis - you get a fresh cross-cultural scenario and must diagnose with frameworks, compare cultures, evaluate, and recommend. This bank gives you seven fast concept reps to make framework-recognition automatic, then five fully-worked case essays - the centrepiece - each walking the 6-step answer shape visibly. 一句话要点。IBUS6002 期末是论文式案例分析 -- 你会拿到一个全新的跨文化情境,必须用框架诊断、比较文化、评估、并 给出建议。本题库给你七组快速的概念练习,让框架识别变成自动反应,再给你五篇完整推演的案例论文 -- 这才是重头戏 -每一篇都清晰地走完六步答题骨架。 ★ The 6-step answer shape (every essay below performs it) 六步答题形态(下文每篇论述都照此演练) 1. Frame & name ≥2 frameworks (and why these). 2. Map the actors/cultures onto the dimensions (evidence from the scenario, not country cliches). 3. Compare & explain the friction - how the gap produces the behaviour (the analytical core). 4. Evaluate fit / would it transfer? 5. Recommend 3-4 specific actions, each justified by a named concept + a 'why this helps. ' 6. Guardrails: stack ≥2 frameworks, flag limitations (don't stereotype), note it's more than national culture (the 4-layer model), show cultural intelligence. 1. 框定并点名 ≥2个框架(以及为什么是这些)。2. 映射各当事人/文化到维度上(用情境里的证据,而非国家陈词滥 调)。3. 比较并解释摩擦 -- 差距如何制造出那个行为(分析的核心)。4. 评估契合度/能否移植?5. 给出 3-4 条具体 行动建议,每条都由一个被点名的概念+一句“为什么这有帮助”加以论证。6. 防护栏:叠加≥2个框架,点出局限(别 刻板印象),指出它不止是国家文化(四层模型),并展示文化智力。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.
- Step 3：Compare & explain friction（解释摩擦：差距如何导致行为）：这是得分核心。[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[11]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf2 2. Map. Subgroup A (Berlin) = low-context, monochronic, low-PD, fluent; subgroup B (Bangalore) = higher-context, higher-PD, less-fluent-on-call. The attributes align on one cleavage - a strong, dangerous faultline. 2. 映射。子群 A(柏林)=低语境、单向时间观、低权力距离、流利;子群B(班加罗尔)=较高语境、较高权力距 离、临场英语较不流利。这些属性沿一条裂隙对齐→一条强而危险的断层线。 3 3. Compare & explain the friction. The aligned faultline is converting potential process gains (diverse ideas) into process losses (low cohesion, 'us vs them'). Mechanically (SPLIT-Language): fluent Germans dominate airtime; less-fluent, higher-PD Indian members withdraw rather than challenge - their silence is misread (SPLIT-Identity) as disengagement, when it's fluency + deference. Missed deadlines reflect indirect high-context signalling, not defiance. 3. 比较并解释摩擦。这条对齐的断层线正把潜在的流程增益(多样的想法)转化为流程损失(低凝聚力、“我们vs他 们”)。从机制上看(SPLIT-Language 语言):流利的德国人主导发言时间;较不流利、较高权力距离的印度成员选择退 缩而非挑战 -- 他们的沉默被误读(SPLIT-Identity 身份)为不投入,而其实是流利度+恭顺。错过的截止期反映的是 间接的高语境信号传递,而非反抗。 4 4. Evaluate. Left alone, the faultline deepens - diversity here is currently a net loss because it is unmanaged (Stahl: the effect 'depends on how it is managed'). The same team, well-managed, could be high-creativity. 4. 评估。放任不管,断层线会加深 -- 此处的多元化目前是净损失,因为它未被管理(Stahl:效应“取决于它如何被管 理”)。同一支团队,若管理得当,本可以高创造力。 5 5. Recommend (4). (a) Cross-cut the faultline - re-form sub-tasks into mixed Berlin-Bangalore pairs so the cleavage no longer aligns (weakens the faultline). (b) Manage the language gap (SPLIT-L) - fluent speakers dial down dominance (slower, no idioms, check understanding); less-fluent members dial up engagement (comment goals); lead balances airtime. (c) BRIDGE / decentre - explicitly surface that silence # disengagement; build shared norms & goals (recentering). (d) Fix process & technology (SPLIT-P/T) - written agendas circulated ahead (helps non-native speakers), async channels, unstructured social time to rebuild trust. Each rec is named-concept justified. 5. 建议(4条)。(a)横切断层线 -- 把子任务重组为柏林一班加罗尔的混合配 对,使裂隙不再对齐(削弱断层线)。(b)管理语言差距(SPLIT-L) -- 流利的发言者调低主导(放慢、不用习语、确 认理解);较不流利的成员调高参与(发言目标);负责人平衡发言时间。(c) BRIDGE/去中心化 -- 明确点出沉默 ≠ 不 投入;建立共享规范与目标(重新归心)。(d)修复流程与技术(SPLIT-P/T) -- 提前传阅书面议程(有助于非母语 者)、异步渠道、非结构化的社交时间以重建信任。每条建议都由被点名的概念加以论证。 6 6. Guardrails. Don't stereotype 'Indians are quiet' (it's fluency + PD + a manageable structural effect, not a trait); recognise the organisational layer (virtual tooling, time zones) and personal layer (individual confidence); the lead must apply cultural intelligence - mindful, perspective-taking, actively engineering inclusion. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library 6. 防护栏。别把“印度人很安静”刻板化(这是流利度+权力距离+一种可管理的结构性效应,而非特质);认识到组织 层(虚拟工具、时区)和个人层(个体的自信);负责人必须运用文化智力 -- 觉察、换位思考、主动地工程化包容。 ✓ The pattern behind all five essays 五篇论述背后的共通模式 Every answer ran the same engine: pick frameworks from the design + cultures - map both sides onto the dimensions - explain how the gap causes the behaviour - evaluate fit/transfer - 3-4 named-concept recommendations - guardrails (stack ≥2 frameworks, don't stereotype, it's more than national culture, show CQ). Internalise the engine and any fresh scenario is answerable. 每个答案都跑同一台引擎:从题目设计+文化中选定框架→把双方映射到维度上→解释差距如何导致那个行为→评 估契合/移植→给出 3-4 条系于被点名概念的建议→防护栏(叠加≥2个框架、别刻板印象、它不止是国家文化、展 示CQ)。把这台引擎内化,任何全新情境都可作答。 Frameworks are working hypotheses, not labels. The marks live in step 3 (why the gap causes the friction) and step 5 (concrete, justified action) - not in naming the dimension. That is the whole exam. 框架是工作假设,不是标签。分数住在第3步(为什么差距会引发摩擦)和第5步(具体、有理据的行动)里 -- 而不 在点名维度这件事上。这就是整场考试。 - IBUS6002 . THE TAKEAWAY IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Dimension (pole -> pole) The question it answers Exemplars Sequential +> Synchronous time One thing at a time, or many at once? (echoes Hall's mono/polychronic) Internal +> External control Control nature, or live in harmony with it? Inner: US / Outer: many East-Asian i Universalism-particularism = the ethics tool 普遍主义一特殊主义= 伦理工具
- Step 4：Evaluate fit / transfer（评估：这做法在此情境是否适合？换个情境还行吗？）：一定要写“more than national culture”。[6]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfComponent Weight When / detail Final examination - essay-type, cases & scenarios 40% Formal exam period Group case study (present 18% + Q&A 5% + questions 2% + engage 3%) 30% In-semester Individual written assignment (~1200 words) 15% In-semester Quiz 1 (online) 5% Early semester Quiz 2 (online) 5% Mid semester Individual participation (simulations + discussion) 5% All weeks The recurring 3-part question architecture 反复出现的三段式题目结构 Part What the question asks 1 . Analyse Apply two or more frameworks to explain the cross-cultural issue; which is most relevant and why? 2 . Evaluate Was this approach suitable in this context? Would it suit a different context? Why / why not? 3 . Advise the protagonist: a short action plan (3-4 specific moves), each justified by a course concept Recommend IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The exam format - applied, essay, NOT multiple choice[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMAP A CASE -> A MARKED ESSAY 1 NAME the framework(s) that fit the case 2 MAP the case onto its dimensions 3 COMPARE the cultures . explain the friction 4 EVALUATE . critique the framework (limits) 5 RECOMMEND 3-4 concrete actions 6 GUARDRAILS . note what you'd watch Re-frame with the 4-layer model at step 1: national . organisational · interpersonal · personal - never only national culture. This recipe is the signature of a high- scoring essay answer. 20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target
- Step 5：Recommend 3–4 actions（给 3–4 条具体行动建议，每条都要“点名概念 + 为什么有用”）。[4]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf— Adjustment arc: honeymoon - crisis (shock) - recovery - mastery; a W-curve adds re- entry shock. Expatriate failure — Early return / under-performance; drivers = family non-adjustment, manager's inflexibility, low CQ. Repatriation — Re-entry home after an assignment - can shock too; plan re-entry roles early or lose the talent. Bamboo ceiling — Individual + cultural + organisational factors blocking Asian career progress into senior leadership (Hyun). Ethnic homophily — Bonding with same-ethnicity others - narrower networks - lower leadership emergence (Lu). Model-minority paradox — "Hard worker" image performed to survive yet reinforces being 'used' & blocks leadership recognition. Intersectionality — Multiple marginalised identities (gender x ethnicity) compound disadvantage. Polyculturalism — Individuals hold partial & plural cultural affiliations (a network), challenging the unitary- national-culture view. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用这份术语表 Terms are in teaching order - foundations, the four comparative frameworks, then the applied behaviour domains the exam scenarios sit in. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The ideas to over-learn for the essay are the four case-domain framework sets, the 4-layer context model, and the apply-thoughtfully critiques (ecological fallacy, stereotyping, polyculturalism) - they earn the nuance marks. 术语按教学顺序排列 -- 基础、四个比较框架,然后是考试情境所落在的应用行为领域。两遍:英文→释义(盖住右 栏),然后释义→英文(盖住术语)。为论文需要超量学习的概念是四个案例领域的框架组、四层情境模型,以及审慎应 用的批判(生态谬误、刻板印象、多元文化主义) -- 它们能挣到细分的分数。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE Q1-Q4 CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 40% ESSAY FINAL Train the essay, not the trivia 训练论述能力,而非死记零碎知识 Seven quick framework-recognition items + five fully-worked case essays in the exact exam shape 七道快速框架辨识题+五篇完全按考试形态写就的范例案例论述 The one-line takeaway. The IBUS6002 final is essay-type case analysis - you get a fresh cross-cultural scenario and must diagnose with frameworks, compare cultures, evaluate, and recommend. This bank gives you seven fast concept reps to make framework-recognition automatic, then five fully-worked case essays - the centrepiece - each walking the 6-step answer shape visibly. 一句话要点。IBUS6002 期末是论文式案例分析 -- 你会拿到一个全新的跨文化情境,必须用框架诊断、比较文化、评估、并 给出建议。本题库给你七组快速的概念练习,让框架识别变成自动反应,再给你五篇完整推演的案例论文 -- 这才是重头戏 -每一篇都清晰地走完六步答题骨架。 ★ The 6-step answer shape (every essay below performs it) 六步答题形态(下文每篇论述都照此演练) 1. Frame & name ≥2 frameworks (and why these). 2. Map the actors/cultures onto the dimensions (evidence from the scenario, not country cliches). 3. Compare & explain the friction - how the gap produces the behaviour (the analytical core). 4. Evaluate fit / would it transfer? 5. Recommend 3-4 specific actions, each justified by a named concept + a 'why this helps. ' 6. Guardrails: stack ≥2 frameworks, flag limitations (don't stereotype), note it's more than national culture (the 4-layer model), show cultural intelligence. 1. 框定并点名 ≥2个框架(以及为什么是这些)。2. 映射各当事人/文化到维度上(用情境里的证据,而非国家陈词滥 调)。3. 比较并解释摩擦 -- 差距如何制造出那个行为(分析的核心)。4. 评估契合度/能否移植?5. 给出 3-4 条具体 行动建议,每条都由一个被点名的概念+一句“为什么这有帮助”加以论证。6. 防护栏:叠加≥2个框架,点出局限(别 刻板印象),指出它不止是国家文化(四层模型),并展示文化智力。[6]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfComponent Weight When / detail Final examination - essay-type, cases & scenarios 40% Formal exam period Group case study (present 18% + Q&A 5% + questions 2% + engage 3%) 30% In-semester Individual written assignment (~1200 words) 15% In-semester Quiz 1 (online) 5% Early semester Quiz 2 (online) 5% Mid semester Individual participation (simulations + discussion) 5% All weeks The recurring 3-part question architecture 反复出现的三段式题目结构 Part What the question asks 1 . Analyse Apply two or more frameworks to explain the cross-cultural issue; which is most relevant and why? 2 . Evaluate Was this approach suitable in this context? Would it suit a different context? Why / why not? 3 . Advise the protagonist: a short action plan (3-4 specific moves), each justified by a course concept Recommend IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The exam format - applied, essay, NOT multiple choice[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.
- Step 6：Guardrails（防护栏/局限）：别刻板印象；承认文化内部差异；用四层情境模型把“国家文化之外”补上；展示 CQ。[2]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf贯穿整门应用型课程的那一个分析动作 Master one move and the applied half of IBUS6002 collapses into a pattern. Whatever the domain - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - the answer is always: pick the framework(s), place each culture on the dimensions, explain the friction the gap creates, judge whether the imported practice fits, and recommend concrete action. Wrapped around it is the unit's reflex - "apply thoughtfully": a country score is a working hypothesis, not a label. Internalise the move and the guardrails and fresh exam scenarios cannot surprise you. 掌握一个动作,IBUS6002 的应用半壁就坍缩成一种套路。无论领域是什么 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 答案永 远是:选定框架、把每种文化放到维度上、解释差距制造的摩擦、判断引进的做法是否契合、并给出具体行动建议。包 裹在它外面的,是本课程的条件反射 -- “审慎应用”:一个国家分数是工作假设,不是标签。把这个动作和防护栏内 化,全新的考试情境就再也无法让你措手不及。 THE 6- STEP ANSWER SHAPE name framework → map case onto dimensions - compare cultures / explain friction → evaluate fit > recommend action > guardrails ! The most important strategic fact about IBUS6002 关于 IBUS6002 最重要的一条策略性事实 The final is essay-type case analysis worth 40%, and the case briefs all carry one standing instruction: apply at least TWO relevant frameworks. A single-framework answer is explicitly under-marked. The A+ habit is to stack frameworks on the same scenario - e. g. Hofstede power distance + Trompenaars achievement/ascription + Hall context all read off one negotiation - then critique the reading (within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). 期末是占 40% 的论文式案例分析,而案例简报都带着一条固定指令:至少应用两个相关框架。单一框架的答案会被明 确扣分。A+的习惯是在同一情境上叠加多个框架 -- 例如 Hofstede 权力距离 + Trompenaars 成就/归属 + Hall 语 境,全部从同一场谈判中读出来 -- 然后再批判这种解读(文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 这本书是如何编成的 -- 以及双层规则 Layer 1 (reproduced openly): the published frameworks are universal scholarship - Hofstede's six dimension names, Hall's high/low context, Trompenaars' seven continua, GLOBE's nine dimensions and clusters are facts, stated plainly. Layer 2 (paraphrased, never copied): the lecturer's purchased case studies are described only generically and every worked scenario here is our own invention. Book status: the final sits in the formal exam period - treat this as exam revision and verify all weights and dates on your own Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au). 第1层(公开复述):已发表的框架属于普世学术 -- Hofstede 的六个维度名称、Hall 的高/低语境、Trompenaars 的 七个连续谱、GLOBE 的九个维度与族群,都是事实,可以平铺直叙地陈述。第2层(转述,绝不照抄):讲师购买的案 例研究只作笼统描述,本书的每一个推演情境都是我们自己原创的。本书状态:期末安排在正式考试周内 -- 把它当作 考试复习,并在你自己的 Canvas (canvas. sydney. edu. au) 上核实所有权重与日期。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library THE BLUEPRINT - THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT FINAL 40% . APPLIED ESSAY 40% rides on an applied essay exam 40% 的成绩压在一场应用型论述考试上 Quiz 1 5% . Quiz 2 5% . Group case 30% . Individual written 15% . Final 40% . Participation 5% 测验 15% · 测验 2 5% · 小组案例 30% · 个人书面作业 15% · 期末考试 40% · 课堂参与 5% Your mark is built from six pieces, but the dominant single component is the 40% final exam, held in the formal exam period as essay-type questions on cases and scenarios provided. It is not multiple choice and not pure definition-recall: it tests whether you can take a fresh cross-cultural workplace scenario, name the right frameworks, and turn them into a reasoned recommendation. 你的成绩由六个部分构成,但占主导地位的单一组成部分是占40% 的期末考试,于正式考试周举行,形式为针对所提供案例 与情境的论述题。它不是选择题,也不是单纯的定义回忆:它考查的是你能否拿到一个全新的跨文化职场情境,点出正确的框 架,并把它们转化为一份有理有据的建议。 40% FINAL EXAM (ESSAY/CASE) 期末考(论文/案例) 30% GROUP CASE STUDY 小组案例研究 15% INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN 个人书面作业 2+ FRAMEWORKS PER ANSWER 每个答案的框架数 The six assessment pieces 六个考核组成部分[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMAP A CASE -> A MARKED ESSAY 1 NAME the framework(s) that fit the case 2 MAP the case onto its dimensions 3 COMPARE the cultures . explain the friction 4 EVALUATE . critique the framework (limits) 5 RECOMMEND 3-4 concrete actions 6 GUARDRAILS . note what you'd watch Re-frame with the 4-layer model at step 1: national . organisational · interpersonal · personal - never only national culture. This recipe is the signature of a high- scoring essay answer. 20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target
-
2）你必须会背会画的“基础定义 + 结构”（Topic 1–3：杠杆最大）
-
2.1 Culture（文化）定义（一定会用在开头立场/铺垫）
- 文化（Thomas & Peterson）：共享的、习得的、系统化的价值观/规范/态度/信念与行为意义系统。关键特征：shared / learned（非天生）/ systematic。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)
- Hofstede：文化是“collective programming of the mind（集体心智编程）”，用来区分不同群体。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)
-
2.2 Iceberg & Onion（必考“可见/不可见”与“层次”表达）
- 冰山（iceberg）：表层可见（行为、器物、规范） vs 深层不可见（价值、信念、假设）。你在案例里看到的只是“行为”，要往下解释“价值/假设”。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)[12]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf5 stages · Meyer trust/expressiveness · Thomas-Kilmann (Case domain 3) → 7 Global leadership ILT . GLOBE CLT 6 dims . paternalistic . Pyramid model (Case domain 4) → Part 3 . Teams, individuals & emerging issues (Topics 9-11) 8 Global & multicultural teams MBI · SPLIT · faultlines . process gains/losses → 9 Multicultural individuals & the bamboo ceiling Vora 3 elements . frame-switching . brokerage . bamboo ceiling → Part 4 . Walk in ready 10 Cross-framework map & answer shapes which framework for which case . the 6-step template → 11 Practice bank & model answers invented scenarios in the four domains, fully worked → i Why this order 为何采用这个顺序 IBUS6002 builds strictly: first what culture is and the frameworks that map it (Topics 1-3), then those frameworks are applied to four behaviour domains - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership (Topics 5-8) - then to teams and multicultural individuals (Topics 9-11). We keep that order because the exam scenarios sit squarely in those domains. The two foundation chapters carry the most leverage: get the frameworks exactly right and every applied chapter becomes a re-run of the same move. IBUS6002 的搭建很严谨:先讲什么是文化以及映射它的那些框架(主题1-3),然后把这些框架应用到四个行为领域 - 激励、决策、谈判、领导力(主题5-8) -- 再应用到团队与多元文化个体(主题9-11)。我们保留这个顺序,因 为考试情境正好落在这些领域里。两个基础章节杠杆最大:把框架搞得分毫不差,每个应用章节就都变成同一个动作的 重演。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library WHAT IS CULTURE - CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF CULTURE TOPIC 1 You cannot manage what you cannot see 看不见的东西,你无法管理 Part 1 - Foundations . Topic 1 - what culture is, where it lives, and why it costs money to ignore 第一部分 -- 基础 · 主题1 -- 文化是什么、文化栖身于何处,以及为何忽视它会付出金钱代价 Before a single framework, one idea fixes everything that follows: most of culture is invisible to the people inside it. A manager who only sees behaviour - the meeting that ran late, the subordinate who would not disagree, the offer that was refused without a "no" - is reading the tip of an iceberg and missing the mass underneath. This chapter builds the conceptual vocabulary the whole unit assumes: what culture is, the levels it operates at, and the two metaphors (iceberg, onion) you will lean on in every case answer. 在接触任何一个框架之前,有一个观念为后续的一切定下基调:对于身处其中的人而言,文化的大部分都是看不见的。一位只 看得见行为的管理者 -- 拖延的会议、不肯表达异议的下属、没说“不”却被婉拒的提议 -- 读到的只是冰山一角,错过了底下 那块庞然主体。本章搭建起整门课所默认的概念词汇:文化是什么、它在哪些层级上运作,以及你在每个案例答案中都会倚重 的两个隐喻(冰山、洋葱)。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 划重点 -- 本章的四个动作 (1) Define culture - shared, learned, systematic values/norms/beliefs - and never confuse it with one person's personality. (2) Locate it at three levels: macro (national) - meso (organisation) - micro (family / individual). (3) Picture the visible vs invisible split (iceberg) and the layers from practices to core values (onion). (4) Name your goal: cultural intelligence (CQ) - knowledge + skills + mindfulness - and the analytic stance, emic and etic, that keeps you honest. (1) 定义文化 -- 共享的、习得的、成系统的价值观/规范/信念 -- 并且绝不要把它与某个人的人格相混淆。(2)把它 定位在三个层级:宏观(国家)→中观(组织)→微观(家庭/个人)。(3)想象可见 vs 不可见的划分(冰山),以及 从实践到核心价值观的层次(洋葱)。(4)说出你的目标:文化智力(CQ) -- 知识+技能+觉察(mindfulness) 一以及让你保持诚实的分析立场,主位(emic)与客位(etic)。 1. 1 What is culture?
- 洋葱（onion, Hofstede）：从外到内 Symbols → Heroes → Rituals → Values；外三层是 practices（更可见），核心 values 最隐形。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)
-
2.3 文化“住在哪”：层级与“四层情境模型”（超级高频、稳拿分）
- 文化层级：宏观（国家/社会）— 中观（组织/宗教/社群）— 微观（家庭/个人）。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)
- 四层情境模型（4-layer context model）：写 essay 时一定要用它把分析“从国家文化扩展开”。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002
Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD
CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam
SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ
EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE
Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002
0 . How to Use This READ FIRST
* The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations.
1 . What Is Culture? T1
Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. "
3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members.
Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity.
1b . Iceberg & Onion
T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE
Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour.
Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life.
1c . Levels of Culture
WHERE CULTURE LIVES
· Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms
· Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIndulgent = gratify desires, enjoy life, leisure, optimism (Mexico, US, Australia). Restrained = suppress gratification via strict norms, duty, pessimism (China, Russia, Egypt). - > Motivators: fun vs duty.
2b . Reading & Limits *T3 . LAYER
CRITIQUE
Originally 4 dims; the 5th (LTO) & 6th (IVR) were added via the East-Asian extension. Masculinity is now relabelled by the Culture Factor as "Motivation toward Achievement & Success. " A score of 38 = low-ish; "China 80 PD vs Australia 38" is the textbook contrast - always comparative, never absolute.
Limits (examinable, Topic 3):
· Whose values? - one company (IBM)
· Representative? - sales/service staff only
· Hides diversity - a national average masks subcultures & within-country variation
· Point-in-time - have values changed since?
· Validity - does it measure what it claims? labels are researcher-chosen
· Western perspective
> Apply thoughtfully. Topic 3 is essentially a structured critique of Topic 2 - examiners reward this critical layer in every essay answer.
3 . The 4-Layer T3 . SPINE
The single most important slide: "a CCM problem is beyond national culture. " Frame EVERY case answer through four layers: THE FOUR LAYERS
1 National & Cultural -
econ/political/social env, values, worldviews
2 Industrial & Organisational - competition, stakeholders, strategy, structure, org culture
3 Managerial & Interpersonal - role expectations, tasks, followers, power dynamics, urgency
4 Personal Characteristics - personality, experiences, personal values
Recipe every applied topic reuses: identify problem > analyse (which models? which cultural differences?) > recommend 3-4 concrete actions. Use frameworks as working hypotheses, not labels - this is the move examiners reward.
- 1 国家与文化层：价值观、世界观、社会环境
- 2 行业与组织层：战略、结构、组织文化、心理契约等
- 3 管理与人际层：角色期待、权力关系、任务、紧迫性
- 4 个人特质层：人格、经历、个人价值观
- 期末高分关键句：“跨文化管理问题不止是国家文化差异（more than national culture）。”[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity. 1b . Iceberg & Onion T2 . WHAT'S VISIBLE Culture iceberg. Surface = visible/tangible (behaviours, artefacts, norms). Deep = invisible, subconscious, rarely questioned ( values, beliefs, assumptions ). We only see the tip; values drive behaviour. Onion (Hofstede) - outer-> core: Symbols > Heroes > Rituals > Values . The outer three = "practices" (visible to outsiders); values are the invisible core, set early in life. 1c . Levels of Culture WHERE CULTURE LIVES · Macro - national/societal: political-legal institutions, education, societal norms · Meso - organisations, religion, communities (org culture)[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMAP A CASE -> A MARKED ESSAY 1 NAME the framework(s) that fit the case 2 MAP the case onto its dimensions 3 COMPARE the cultures . explain the friction 4 EVALUATE . critique the framework (limits) 5 RECOMMEND 3-4 concrete actions 6 GUARDRAILS . note what you'd watch Re-frame with the 4-layer model at step 1: national . organisational · interpersonal · personal - never only national culture. This recipe is the signature of a high- scoring essay answer. 20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIndulgent = gratify desires, enjoy life, leisure, optimism (Mexico, US, Australia). Restrained = suppress gratification via strict norms, duty, pessimism (China, Russia, Egypt). - > Motivators: fun vs duty. 2b . Reading & Limits *T3 . LAYER CRITIQUE Originally 4 dims; the 5th (LTO) & 6th (IVR) were added via the East-Asian extension. Masculinity is now relabelled by the Culture Factor as "Motivation toward Achievement & Success. " A score of 38 = low-ish; "China 80 PD vs Australia 38" is the textbook contrast - always comparative, never absolute. Limits (examinable, Topic 3): · Whose values? - one company (IBM) · Representative? - sales/service staff only · Hides diversity - a national average masks subcultures & within-country variation · Point-in-time - have values changed since? · Validity - does it measure what it claims? labels are researcher-chosen · Western perspective > Apply thoughtfully. Topic 3 is essentially a structured critique of Topic 2 - examiners reward this critical layer in every essay answer. 3 . The 4-Layer T3 . SPINE The single most important slide: "a CCM problem is beyond national culture. " Frame EVERY case answer through four layers: THE FOUR LAYERS 1 National & Cultural - econ/political/social env, values, worldviews 2 Industrial & Organisational - competition, stakeholders, strategy, structure, org culture 3 Managerial & Interpersonal - role expectations, tasks, followers, power dynamics, urgency 4 Personal Characteristics - personality, experiences, personal values Recipe every applied topic reuses: identify problem > analyse (which models? which cultural differences?) > recommend 3-4 concrete actions. Use frameworks as working hypotheses, not labels - this is the move examiners reward.
-
3）框架“工具箱”：你不需要背论文，但必须背“维度 + 何时用”
-
3.1 Hofstede（6 维）— 宽泛文化对比的起手框架
- 你要会把维度写成“高极/低极 → 预示什么管理后果”（别只报名称）。[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.
- 例子（题库示范）：下属不敢挑战上级、等明确指令 → Power Distance（高权力距离）；管理含义：更适合清晰的自上而下指派，而不是完全参与式。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.
- 常考“读分数的局限”（Topic 3 批判层）：
- 样本/时代限制（Hofstede 早期 IBM 样本；数据点在时间上可能过期）
- 国家均值掩盖国内差异/亚文化
- 西方视角、构念有效性等
- 结论：分数是 working hypothesis（工作假设），不是判决。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIndulgent = gratify desires, enjoy life, leisure, optimism (Mexico, US, Australia). Restrained = suppress gratification via strict norms, duty, pessimism (China, Russia, Egypt). - > Motivators: fun vs duty. 2b . Reading & Limits *T3 . LAYER CRITIQUE Originally 4 dims; the 5th (LTO) & 6th (IVR) were added via the East-Asian extension. Masculinity is now relabelled by the Culture Factor as "Motivation toward Achievement & Success. " A score of 38 = low-ish; "China 80 PD vs Australia 38" is the textbook contrast - always comparative, never absolute. Limits (examinable, Topic 3): · Whose values? - one company (IBM) · Representative? - sales/service staff only · Hides diversity - a national average masks subcultures & within-country variation · Point-in-time - have values changed since? · Validity - does it measure what it claims? labels are researcher-chosen · Western perspective > Apply thoughtfully. Topic 3 is essentially a structured critique of Topic 2 - examiners reward this critical layer in every essay answer. 3 . The 4-Layer T3 . SPINE The single most important slide: "a CCM problem is beyond national culture. " Frame EVERY case answer through four layers: THE FOUR LAYERS 1 National & Cultural - econ/political/social env, values, worldviews 2 Industrial & Organisational - competition, stakeholders, strategy, structure, org culture 3 Managerial & Interpersonal - role expectations, tasks, followers, power dynamics, urgency 4 Personal Characteristics - personality, experiences, personal values Recipe every applied topic reuses: identify problem > analyse (which models? which cultural differences?) > recommend 3-4 concrete actions. Use frameworks as working hypotheses, not labels - this is the move examiners reward.[26]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfStatus by merit vs birth Trompenaars ach/ascr Risk, detail in contracts Uncertainty avoidance Planning horizon, thrift LTO / future orient. Trompenaars neutral/affect GLOBE CLT; ILT; paternalistic "It's more than culture" 4-layer context model Don't over-apply a score Ecological fallacy SIA > In an essay, name the framework first, map the case onto its dimensions, then critique - examiners reward "apply then evaluate", never a bare label. Side 2 turns this index into the four worked case domains. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 1/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES T3 . THE "RIGHT ANSWER" SLIDE · Start with YOUR problem (negotiating vs motivating; one person vs whole workforce) · Culture matters more/less by level of analysis, outcome type & personal/environmental factors (Taras/Steel/Kirkman) · Focus on effects of values on outcomes, not raw scores This is the polyculturalist correction in practice: a country score is a starting hypothesis, refined by the four context layers and the individual in front of you.
-
3.2 Hall（高/低语境）— 沟通、反馈、冲突最常用
-
3.3 Trompenaars（尤其谈判/伦理：普遍主义-特殊主义、成就-归属等）
-
3.4 GLOBE（领导力、组织实践/价值观差异）
- 你至少要会一句“为什么 GLOBE 和 Hofstede 会不同”：样本、年代、测量不一样；GLOBE 区分 values（应然）与 practices（实然），甚至可能相反。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL
-
3.5 Tightness–Looseness（紧—松文化，Gelfand）：补强“对违规/越轨的反应”
- 紧文化：规范强、对越轨容忍低；松文化：规范弱、容忍高。用于“有人破坏规矩/流程/礼仪时两边反应差异巨大”的题。[13]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfDomination (mastery) . Harmony . Subjugation IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library 2. 8 Tightness-looseness (Gelfand) 2. 8 紧一松文化(Gelfand) A single, powerful axis. Tight cultures have strong norms and low tolerance of deviance (e. g. Japan, Singapore, Germany); loose cultures have weak norms and high tolerance (e. g. US, Australia, NZ, Netherlands). It predicts how strictly rules are enforced and how harshly non-conformity is judged - often the missing piece when two cultures look similar on Hofstede yet react very differently to a rule-breaker. 一条单一而有力的轴线。紧文化拥有强规范、对越轨行为容 忍度低(如日本、新加坡、德国);松文化则拥有弱规范、 容忍度高(如美国、澳大利亚、新西兰、荷兰)。它能预示 规则被执行得有多严格、违背常规会被多么严厉地评判 -- 当两种文化在 Hofstede 上看似相近、面对一个违规者却反 应迥异时,它往往就是那块缺失的拼图。 ✓ When to reach for tightness-looseness 何时该动用紧一松文化 Use it when a scenario turns on reaction to a norm violation - a maverick employee, an unconventional proposal, a missed protocol. A tight culture may punish it hard; a loose culture may shrug. It complements uncertainty avoidance without being identical to it. 当一个情境围绕对违反规范的反应展开时使用它 一名特立独行的员工、一个非常规的提案、一次失礼 的违例。紧(tight)文化可能严惩它;松(loose)文 化可能耸耸肩。它与不确定性规避互补,却并不等 同。 EX 2. 5 The maverick proposal - tightness explains the reaction Applied Scenario: the same unconventional, rule-bending product pitch is praised by the firm's loose-culture HQ and quietly buried by its tight-culture regional office. 情境:同一个不落俗套、敢于打破规则的产品提案,在公司松文化的总部受到赞扬,却被其紧文化的区域办公室悄悄束 之高阁。 1 Name + map: tightness-looseness - HQ loose (deviance tolerated, even prized), region tight (strong norms, low tolerance of stepping out of line). 命名+映射:紧一松 -- 总部松(容忍越轨,甚至推崇),该区域紧(规范强、对出格的容忍度低)。 2 Friction: what HQ codes as "bold innovation" the region codes as "reckless norm-breaking" - the idea isn't the problem, the deviation is. 摩擦:总部编码为“大胆创新”的,该区域编码为“鲁莽地破坏规范” -- 问题不在那个想法,而在那次越轨。 3 Recommend: in the tight office, introduce the change through existing norms and senior endorsement rather than as a maverick break - same idea, legitimised path. 建议:在那个紧文化的办公室里,通过既有规范和资深者的背书来引入这项变革,而非以特立独行的破坏方式 -- 同一 个想法,一条合法化的路径。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ Recap - how to deploy the canon in an essay 回顾 -- 如何在论述中部署这套经典框架 Stack at least two frameworks on the scenario (the briefs demand it). Lead with the one that fits the domain - Hofstede for a broad culture comparison, Hall for communication, Trompenaars for ethics/negotiation, GLOBE for leadership - then layer a second for depth. Map each culture, read the gap, evaluate the fit, recommend action, and close with the guardrails (ecological fallacy, within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). That is the whole exam, every time. 在情境上至少叠加两个框架(简报有此要求)。先用最契合该领域的那一个起手 -- 宽泛的文化比较用 Hofstede,沟通 用 Hall,伦理/谈判用 Trompenaars,领导力用 GLOBE -- 再叠加第二个以增加深度。把每种文化映射、读出差距、 评估契合、给出行动建议,并以防护栏收尾(生态谬误、文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。这就是整场考 试,每一次都是。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library COMPLEXITIES . ICEBERG TOPIC 3 - TOPIC 3 . COMPLEXITIES & CONTEXT Culture is more than a country score 文化不止于一个国家分值 Why a national-culture dimension is a working hypothesis, never a verdict 为何国家文化维度是一个工作假设,而绝非定论 Topic 2 hands you the frameworks - Hofstede, Trompenaars, GLOBE. Topic 3 immediately turns around and critiques them, and that critical move is exactly what the case-essay exam rewards. The A+ discipline of this unit is one sentence: apply a framework as a hypothesis, then question it. A score is country-level, point-in-time, sample-bound; the person in front of you is an individual living inside four nested layers of context.[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL
-
4）四大“案例领域”怎么复习（期末题干基本就落在这些域）
- 你的宝典明确说：考试情境会落在四个域：Motivation / Decision-making / Negotiation / Leadership，你要做的是“域内选框架 + 跨框架叠加”。[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[12]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf5 stages · Meyer trust/expressiveness · Thomas-Kilmann (Case domain 3) → 7 Global leadership ILT . GLOBE CLT 6 dims . paternalistic . Pyramid model (Case domain 4) → Part 3 . Teams, individuals & emerging issues (Topics 9-11) 8 Global & multicultural teams MBI · SPLIT · faultlines . process gains/losses → 9 Multicultural individuals & the bamboo ceiling Vora 3 elements . frame-switching . brokerage . bamboo ceiling → Part 4 . Walk in ready 10 Cross-framework map & answer shapes which framework for which case . the 6-step template → 11 Practice bank & model answers invented scenarios in the four domains, fully worked → i Why this order 为何采用这个顺序 IBUS6002 builds strictly: first what culture is and the frameworks that map it (Topics 1-3), then those frameworks are applied to four behaviour domains - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership (Topics 5-8) - then to teams and multicultural individuals (Topics 9-11). We keep that order because the exam scenarios sit squarely in those domains. The two foundation chapters carry the most leverage: get the frameworks exactly right and every applied chapter becomes a re-run of the same move. IBUS6002 的搭建很严谨:先讲什么是文化以及映射它的那些框架(主题1-3),然后把这些框架应用到四个行为领域 - 激励、决策、谈判、领导力(主题5-8) -- 再应用到团队与多元文化个体(主题9-11)。我们保留这个顺序,因 为考试情境正好落在这些领域里。两个基础章节杠杆最大:把框架搞得分毫不差,每个应用章节就都变成同一个动作的 重演。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library WHAT IS CULTURE - CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF CULTURE TOPIC 1 You cannot manage what you cannot see 看不见的东西,你无法管理 Part 1 - Foundations . Topic 1 - what culture is, where it lives, and why it costs money to ignore 第一部分 -- 基础 · 主题1 -- 文化是什么、文化栖身于何处,以及为何忽视它会付出金钱代价 Before a single framework, one idea fixes everything that follows: most of culture is invisible to the people inside it. A manager who only sees behaviour - the meeting that ran late, the subordinate who would not disagree, the offer that was refused without a "no" - is reading the tip of an iceberg and missing the mass underneath. This chapter builds the conceptual vocabulary the whole unit assumes: what culture is, the levels it operates at, and the two metaphors (iceberg, onion) you will lean on in every case answer. 在接触任何一个框架之前,有一个观念为后续的一切定下基调:对于身处其中的人而言,文化的大部分都是看不见的。一位只 看得见行为的管理者 -- 拖延的会议、不肯表达异议的下属、没说“不”却被婉拒的提议 -- 读到的只是冰山一角,错过了底下 那块庞然主体。本章搭建起整门课所默认的概念词汇:文化是什么、它在哪些层级上运作,以及你在每个案例答案中都会倚重 的两个隐喻(冰山、洋葱)。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 划重点 -- 本章的四个动作 (1) Define culture - shared, learned, systematic values/norms/beliefs - and never confuse it with one person's personality. (2) Locate it at three levels: macro (national) - meso (organisation) - micro (family / individual). (3) Picture the visible vs invisible split (iceberg) and the layers from practices to core values (onion). (4) Name your goal: cultural intelligence (CQ) - knowledge + skills + mindfulness - and the analytic stance, emic and etic, that keeps you honest. (1) 定义文化 -- 共享的、习得的、成系统的价值观/规范/信念 -- 并且绝不要把它与某个人的人格相混淆。(2)把它 定位在三个层级:宏观(国家)→中观(组织)→微观(家庭/个人)。(3)想象可见 vs 不可见的划分(冰山),以及 从实践到核心价值观的层次(洋葱)。(4)说出你的目标:文化智力(CQ) -- 知识+技能+觉察(mindfulness) 一以及让你保持诚实的分析立场,主位(emic)与客位(etic)。 1. 1 What is culture?[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
-
5）每个案例领域：你要背的定义、必用框架组合、最常丢分点
-
5.1 Domain 1：Motivation（激励）
- 三类动机（必会一句话）：
- 必用框架组合（高分常用堆叠）：
- SDT（自我决定理论）+ Equity（公平理论）+ Goal-setting（目标设定）
- 再叠加 1 个 Hofstede 维度（常用：PD、individualism/collectivism）做“文化连接组织”。[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
- 核心定义（直接可写进 essay）：
- SDT（Deci & Ryan）：三需要 Autonomy / Relatedness / Competence（自主、归属、胜任）。文化会改变哪一个更被强调、如何表达。[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
- Equity Theory（Adams）：人会比较自己与参照对象的 input:outcome ratio，感到不公会通过行为恢复平衡；不同文化对“公平=按贡献/按平等/按需要”偏好不同。[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.[15]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfGLOSSARY - - GLOSSARY 术语表 (CONT . ) The four case domains - motivation, decision, negotiation 四个案例领域 -- 激励、决策、谈判 The applied behaviour frameworks the exam scenarios live in 考试情境所栖身的应用型行为框架 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Motivation 激励(Case domain 1) Extrinsic / intrinsic / altruistic — Motivation from outside (pay) / inside (growth) / for others' sake (helping); culture shifts which dominates. Self-Determination Theory — Three needs - autonomy, relatedness, competence (Deci & Ryan); culture changes which is emphasised. Goal-Setting Theory — Specific + challenging + achievable goals + feedback - best performance (Locke); assigned goals fit high PD. Equity Theory — Compare own input/outcome ratio to a referent; equity vs equality vs need as the fairness norm varies by culture (Adams). Benevolence (Schwartz) — Caring for the in-group; ranks #1 value across nations - backs altruistic motivation. Decision-making 决策(Case domain 2) Rational Decision Model (RDM) — 6 steps: define - weight criteria - generate - evaluate - select - implement; culture bends each step. Bounded rationality / satisficing — Real decisions are constrained; pick "good enough," not optimal (Simon). Analytic vs holistic thinking — Western rules/categories in isolation vs East-Asian context/relationships/whole (Nisbett & Masuda). Meyer decision axes — Top-down+>consensual x hierarchical+>egalitarian - two independent axes of org decision style. Ringi-sei
- Goal-setting（Locke & Latham）：具体 + 有挑战 + 可达成 + 反馈优于“尽力就好”；高 PD 更适合“指派式目标”，低 PD 更偏好参与式；反馈表达还受高/低语境影响。[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.
- 高频陷阱（必背）：
- 只说“多发钱”没分：建议必须“具体 + 点名概念 + 为什么有效”。[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.
- 不要假设西方理论普世：例如 Maslow 次序、内在>外在、公平=按贡献，都需要加“文化调节变量”。[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.
- 别停在国家文化：要扫四层模型。[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIndulgent = gratify desires, enjoy life, leisure, optimism (Mexico, US, Australia). Restrained = suppress gratification via strict norms, duty, pessimism (China, Russia, Egypt). - > Motivators: fun vs duty. 2b . Reading & Limits *T3 . LAYER CRITIQUE Originally 4 dims; the 5th (LTO) & 6th (IVR) were added via the East-Asian extension. Masculinity is now relabelled by the Culture Factor as "Motivation toward Achievement & Success. " A score of 38 = low-ish; "China 80 PD vs Australia 38" is the textbook contrast - always comparative, never absolute. Limits (examinable, Topic 3): · Whose values? - one company (IBM) · Representative? - sales/service staff only · Hides diversity - a national average masks subcultures & within-country variation · Point-in-time - have values changed since? · Validity - does it measure what it claims? labels are researcher-chosen · Western perspective > Apply thoughtfully. Topic 3 is essentially a structured critique of Topic 2 - examiners reward this critical layer in every essay answer. 3 . The 4-Layer T3 . SPINE The single most important slide: "a CCM problem is beyond national culture. " Frame EVERY case answer through four layers: THE FOUR LAYERS 1 National & Cultural - econ/political/social env, values, worldviews 2 Industrial & Organisational - competition, stakeholders, strategy, structure, org culture 3 Managerial & Interpersonal - role expectations, tasks, followers, power dynamics, urgency 4 Personal Characteristics - personality, experiences, personal values Recipe every applied topic reuses: identify problem > analyse (which models? which cultural differences?) > recommend 3-4 concrete actions. Use frameworks as working hypotheses, not labels - this is the move examiners reward.
-
5.2 Domain 2：Decision-making（决策）
- 你要能写：决策风格差异（谁拍板、要不要共识、如何执行）来自哪些文化维度与组织层因素。[15]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfGLOSSARY - - GLOSSARY 术语表 (CONT . ) The four case domains - motivation, decision, negotiation 四个案例领域 -- 激励、决策、谈判 The applied behaviour frameworks the exam scenarios live in 考试情境所栖身的应用型行为框架 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Motivation 激励(Case domain 1) Extrinsic / intrinsic / altruistic — Motivation from outside (pay) / inside (growth) / for others' sake (helping); culture shifts which dominates. Self-Determination Theory — Three needs - autonomy, relatedness, competence (Deci & Ryan); culture changes which is emphasised. Goal-Setting Theory — Specific + challenging + achievable goals + feedback - best performance (Locke); assigned goals fit high PD. Equity Theory — Compare own input/outcome ratio to a referent; equity vs equality vs need as the fairness norm varies by culture (Adams). Benevolence (Schwartz) — Caring for the in-group; ranks #1 value across nations - backs altruistic motivation. Decision-making 决策(Case domain 2) Rational Decision Model (RDM) — 6 steps: define - weight criteria - generate - evaluate - select - implement; culture bends each step. Bounded rationality / satisficing — Real decisions are constrained; pick "good enough," not optimal (Simon). Analytic vs holistic thinking — Western rules/categories in isolation vs East-Asian context/relationships/whole (Nisbett & Masuda). Meyer decision axes — Top-down+>consensual x hierarchical+>egalitarian - two independent axes of org decision style. Ringi-sei[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
- 你至少要背出这些术语的一句话（宝典词汇表给的“可考术语”）：
- Rational Decision Model（RDM）：6 步（define → weight criteria → generate → evaluate → select → implement）。[15]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfGLOSSARY - - GLOSSARY 术语表 (CONT . ) The four case domains - motivation, decision, negotiation 四个案例领域 -- 激励、决策、谈判 The applied behaviour frameworks the exam scenarios live in 考试情境所栖身的应用型行为框架 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Motivation 激励(Case domain 1) Extrinsic / intrinsic / altruistic — Motivation from outside (pay) / inside (growth) / for others' sake (helping); culture shifts which dominates. Self-Determination Theory — Three needs - autonomy, relatedness, competence (Deci & Ryan); culture changes which is emphasised. Goal-Setting Theory — Specific + challenging + achievable goals + feedback - best performance (Locke); assigned goals fit high PD. Equity Theory — Compare own input/outcome ratio to a referent; equity vs equality vs need as the fairness norm varies by culture (Adams). Benevolence (Schwartz) — Caring for the in-group; ranks #1 value across nations - backs altruistic motivation. Decision-making 决策(Case domain 2) Rational Decision Model (RDM) — 6 steps: define - weight criteria - generate - evaluate - select - implement; culture bends each step. Bounded rationality / satisficing — Real decisions are constrained; pick "good enough," not optimal (Simon). Analytic vs holistic thinking — Western rules/categories in isolation vs East-Asian context/relationships/whole (Nisbett & Masuda). Meyer decision axes — Top-down+>consensual x hierarchical+>egalitarian - two independent axes of org decision style. Ringi-sei
- Bounded rationality / satisficing：现实决策受限，常选“够好”而非最优（Simon）。[15]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfGLOSSARY - - GLOSSARY 术语表 (CONT . ) The four case domains - motivation, decision, negotiation 四个案例领域 -- 激励、决策、谈判 The applied behaviour frameworks the exam scenarios live in 考试情境所栖身的应用型行为框架 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Motivation 激励(Case domain 1) Extrinsic / intrinsic / altruistic — Motivation from outside (pay) / inside (growth) / for others' sake (helping); culture shifts which dominates. Self-Determination Theory — Three needs - autonomy, relatedness, competence (Deci & Ryan); culture changes which is emphasised. Goal-Setting Theory — Specific + challenging + achievable goals + feedback - best performance (Locke); assigned goals fit high PD. Equity Theory — Compare own input/outcome ratio to a referent; equity vs equality vs need as the fairness norm varies by culture (Adams). Benevolence (Schwartz) — Caring for the in-group; ranks #1 value across nations - backs altruistic motivation. Decision-making 决策(Case domain 2) Rational Decision Model (RDM) — 6 steps: define - weight criteria - generate - evaluate - select - implement; culture bends each step. Bounded rationality / satisficing — Real decisions are constrained; pick "good enough," not optimal (Simon). Analytic vs holistic thinking — Western rules/categories in isolation vs East-Asian context/relationships/whole (Nisbett & Masuda). Meyer decision axes — Top-down+>consensual x hierarchical+>egalitarian - two independent axes of org decision style. Ringi-sei
- Analytic vs holistic thinking：西方更偏规则/类别切分；东亚更看关系/情境/整体（Nisbett & Masuda）。[15]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfGLOSSARY - - GLOSSARY 术语表 (CONT . ) The four case domains - motivation, decision, negotiation 四个案例领域 -- 激励、决策、谈判 The applied behaviour frameworks the exam scenarios live in 考试情境所栖身的应用型行为框架 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Motivation 激励(Case domain 1) Extrinsic / intrinsic / altruistic — Motivation from outside (pay) / inside (growth) / for others' sake (helping); culture shifts which dominates. Self-Determination Theory — Three needs - autonomy, relatedness, competence (Deci & Ryan); culture changes which is emphasised. Goal-Setting Theory — Specific + challenging + achievable goals + feedback - best performance (Locke); assigned goals fit high PD. Equity Theory — Compare own input/outcome ratio to a referent; equity vs equality vs need as the fairness norm varies by culture (Adams). Benevolence (Schwartz) — Caring for the in-group; ranks #1 value across nations - backs altruistic motivation. Decision-making 决策(Case domain 2) Rational Decision Model (RDM) — 6 steps: define - weight criteria - generate - evaluate - select - implement; culture bends each step. Bounded rationality / satisficing — Real decisions are constrained; pick "good enough," not optimal (Simon). Analytic vs holistic thinking — Western rules/categories in isolation vs East-Asian context/relationships/whole (Nisbett & Masuda). Meyer decision axes — Top-down+>consensual x hierarchical+>egalitarian - two independent axes of org decision style. Ringi-sei
-
5.3 Domain 3：Negotiation & conflict（谈判与冲突）
- 谈判 5 阶段（非常好用：用来结构化 essay）：
- 冲突风格：Thomas–Kilmann（TKI）两轴五型
- 两轴：Assertiveness（满足自己）× Cooperativeness（满足对方）→ 5 种：Competing / Collaborating / Compromising / Avoiding / Accommodating。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target 2. Relationship building - task-oriented "get down to business" vs relationship-oriented "establish the relationship first"; cognitive trust (head/competence) vs affective trust (heart/bonding) 3. Info & first offer - low vs high context ; extreme (Russia, Arab, China) vs moderate (US) opening 4. Persuasion - factual/logic (N. American) vs affective/emotional (Arab) appeals; expressiveness & confrontation tolerance vary (Meyer 2015) 5. Concessions & agreement - sequential item-by- item (N. America) vs holistic whole-contract (Asia); concession = weakness (Russia) vs reciprocated; is the signed contract final or renegotiable? (Doctrine of Changed Circumstances) Practical: location & physical arrangements (your place / neutral; round vs long table); participants & power (one vs many speakers; ascription vs achievement, Trompenaars - sending a 30-yr-old insults ascriptive cultures; real decider may be absent in Japan/Brazil); time frame (quick-in-quick-out vs long socialising). Set case: Americans Negotiating in China (Pudelko). AXES 13b . Thomas-Kilmann *TKI . 2 Conflict Two axes: Assertiveness (satisfy own needs) x Cooperativeness (satisfy other's needs) -> five styles: STYLE[24]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfA C USE WHEN Competing Hi Lo quick decisive; you're right Collaborating Hi Hi both vital; grow the pie Compromising Med Med equal power; time pressure Avoiding Lo Lo trivial; cool down Accommodating Lo
- 文化匹配提示（直接写进答案）：
- 高 PD/集体主义/重和谐：更偏 Avoiding / Accommodating；更强调面子与关系。更个人主义/更直接：更偏 Competing / Collaborating。[18]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfHi preserve harmony; you're wrong Cultural fit: high-PD/collectivist/harmony -> avoiding & accommodating; assertive/individualist -> competing & collaborating. Compromise = meet in middle; collaborate = invent a solution that fully satisfies both. Across cultures: know your own programmed style; expect the other party to adapt too; listen & empathise (culturally-intelligent negotiators build trust -> creative collaboration, Chua/Morris); set a personal limit on adaptation; be patient. SIA > For a negotiation case, walk the 5 stages and pick the cultural variation that bites hardest (usually first-offer or persuasion), then name the TKI style each party defaults to. 14 · Global Leadership exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 good luck. name . map . critique . recommend. IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 exam revision . 40% essay exam SIDE 1/2 WHAT CULTURE IS & THE FRAMEWORK CANON . Iceberg . Onion . Levels . 4-layer context model . Hofstede 6 . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE . Stereotyping & ecological fallacy . CQ EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * The 40% final = essay-type questions on cross- cultural cases & scenarios , sat in the exam period - exam revision; check the unit outline. Side 1 = the framework canon; Side 2 = applying it to the four case domains (motivation . decision-making . negotiation . leadership). Don't just label - apply, then critique. SIA > The A+ move is Dr Martin's refrain: a CCM problem is more than national culture. Frame every case with the 4-layer model (§3) and end with 3-4 concrete recommendations. 1 . What Is Culture? T1 Culture (Thomas & Peterson) = shared systems of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs & behavioural meanings , learned from previous generations. Hofstede: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group from another. " 3 features: shared . learned (not innate) . systematic & organised. Lao Tzu - "water is the last thing a fish notices": culture is invisible to its members. Why CCM matters: globalisation, MNEs & migration > diverse teams affect morale, productivity & profit; cultural competence navigates friction & leverages diversity.[19]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMed Med equal power; time pressure Avoiding Lo Lo trivial; cool down Accommodating Lo Hi preserve harmony; you're wrong Cultural fit: high-PD/collectivist/harmony -> avoiding & accommodating; assertive/individualist -> competing & collaborating. Compromise = meet in middle; collaborate = invent a solution that fully satisfies both. Across cultures: know your own programmed style; expect the other party to adapt too; listen & empathise (culturally-intelligent negotiators build trust -> creative collaboration, Chua/Morris); set a personal limit on adaptation; be patient. SIA > For a negotiation case, walk the 5 stages and pick the cultural variation that bites hardest (usually first-offer or persuasion), then name the TKI style each party defaults to. 14 · Global Leadership exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 good luck. name . map . critique . recommend.
-
5.4 Domain 4：Leadership（领导力）
- 你这份材料提示：领导力相关会用到 ILT、GLOBE CLT、paternalistic、Pyramid model 等（在目录/纲要里被列为考试应用域）。[12]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf5 stages · Meyer trust/expressiveness · Thomas-Kilmann (Case domain 3) → 7 Global leadership ILT . GLOBE CLT 6 dims . paternalistic . Pyramid model (Case domain 4) → Part 3 . Teams, individuals & emerging issues (Topics 9-11) 8 Global & multicultural teams MBI · SPLIT · faultlines . process gains/losses → 9 Multicultural individuals & the bamboo ceiling Vora 3 elements . frame-switching . brokerage . bamboo ceiling → Part 4 . Walk in ready 10 Cross-framework map & answer shapes which framework for which case . the 6-step template → 11 Practice bank & model answers invented scenarios in the four domains, fully worked → i Why this order 为何采用这个顺序 IBUS6002 builds strictly: first what culture is and the frameworks that map it (Topics 1-3), then those frameworks are applied to four behaviour domains - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership (Topics 5-8) - then to teams and multicultural individuals (Topics 9-11). We keep that order because the exam scenarios sit squarely in those domains. The two foundation chapters carry the most leverage: get the frameworks exactly right and every applied chapter becomes a re-run of the same move. IBUS6002 的搭建很严谨:先讲什么是文化以及映射它的那些框架(主题1-3),然后把这些框架应用到四个行为领域 - 激励、决策、谈判、领导力(主题5-8) -- 再应用到团队与多元文化个体(主题9-11)。我们保留这个顺序,因 为考试情境正好落在这些领域里。两个基础章节杠杆最大:把框架搞得分毫不差,每个应用章节就都变成同一个动作的 重演。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library WHAT IS CULTURE - CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF CULTURE TOPIC 1 You cannot manage what you cannot see 看不见的东西,你无法管理 Part 1 - Foundations . Topic 1 - what culture is, where it lives, and why it costs money to ignore 第一部分 -- 基础 · 主题1 -- 文化是什么、文化栖身于何处,以及为何忽视它会付出金钱代价 Before a single framework, one idea fixes everything that follows: most of culture is invisible to the people inside it. A manager who only sees behaviour - the meeting that ran late, the subordinate who would not disagree, the offer that was refused without a "no" - is reading the tip of an iceberg and missing the mass underneath. This chapter builds the conceptual vocabulary the whole unit assumes: what culture is, the levels it operates at, and the two metaphors (iceberg, onion) you will lean on in every case answer. 在接触任何一个框架之前,有一个观念为后续的一切定下基调:对于身处其中的人而言,文化的大部分都是看不见的。一位只 看得见行为的管理者 -- 拖延的会议、不肯表达异议的下属、没说“不”却被婉拒的提议 -- 读到的只是冰山一角,错过了底下 那块庞然主体。本章搭建起整门课所默认的概念词汇:文化是什么、它在哪些层级上运作,以及你在每个案例答案中都会倚重 的两个隐喻(冰山、洋葱)。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 划重点 -- 本章的四个动作 (1) Define culture - shared, learned, systematic values/norms/beliefs - and never confuse it with one person's personality. (2) Locate it at three levels: macro (national) - meso (organisation) - micro (family / individual). (3) Picture the visible vs invisible split (iceberg) and the layers from practices to core values (onion). (4) Name your goal: cultural intelligence (CQ) - knowledge + skills + mindfulness - and the analytic stance, emic and etic, that keeps you honest. (1) 定义文化 -- 共享的、习得的、成系统的价值观/规范/信念 -- 并且绝不要把它与某个人的人格相混淆。(2)把它 定位在三个层级:宏观(国家)→中观(组织)→微观(家庭/个人)。(3)想象可见 vs 不可见的划分(冰山),以及 从实践到核心价值观的层次(洋葱)。(4)说出你的目标:文化智力(CQ) -- 知识+技能+觉察(mindfulness) 一以及让你保持诚实的分析立场,主位(emic)与客位(etic)。 1. 1 What is culture?[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
- 我目前拿到的摘录里对这些领导力模型的“维度细节”不完整；如果你把你最担心的那一页（或你想复习的领导力章节截图/页码）发我，我可以按同样方式把它整理成“定义一句话 + 维度图 + 套题模板”。
-
6）“加分的批判段落”（很多人没写，所以这是你冲高分的突破口）
- 你在每题最后（或 Step 4/6）都要加 2–3 句批判/局限，直接用你材料里给的语言就很吃香：
- Ecological fallacy（生态谬误）：把国家层均值套到个人身上是错的。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL
- Stereotyping（刻板印象） vs Generalisation（概括）：概括是可修正的假设；刻板印象是僵硬套用。[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL
- Polyculturalism（多元文化主义）：个体往往是多重文化影响网络，不是“单一国别镜头”。[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL[23]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfCulturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL * The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation
- Values can invert practices（价值与实践可能相反）（GLOBE 的经典点）：因此不同框架/数据会出现“看似矛盾”，要解释方法差异而不是硬说谁对谁错。[17]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfSame country, different scores - because of different samples, time & measures : Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = middle managers pre- 2004. GLOBE also splits collectivism (institutional + in- group) & masculinity (assertiveness + gender egalitarianism), and values often invert practices (a society may practise low gender egalitarianism but value high). Not a contradiction - a method difference. Tightness-looseness (Gelfand): Tight = strong norms, low deviance tolerance (Japan, Singapore, Germany); Loose = weak norms, high tolerance (US, Australia, NZ). Predicts rule enforcement. 6 . Stereotyping vs * T3 Generalisation CRITICAL LAYER · Generalisation = a tentative group pattern, used as a working hypothesis & revised on contact. Stereotype = a fixed belief applied rigidly to every member (Hilton & Von Hippel). Ecological fallacy * = applying a country-level score to an individual. Dimensions describe groups, not persons. Reduce stereotypes: meaningful intergroup contact (Allport); inclusive recategorisation (Common In- group Identity); accumulate disconfirming info (Bookkeeping); situational-attribution training. 6b . Culturalist vs MORRIS/CHIU/LIU Polyculturalist Culturalism = a person has a unitary, uniform cultural affiliation (one lens) - what national-culture models assume. Polyculturalism = partial & plural affiliations, a network of influences (assimilative or contrastive). USyd pushes the polyculturalist critique hard. Emic vs Etic: Etic = outsider/comparative, universal categories (Hofstede). Emic = insider, culture-specific meaning. Good CCM blends both. 6c . Use Frameworks Better Emotional expression in talks What makes a "leader" here exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 flip - for side 2 . the four case domains & the exam answer-shape CASE Context Model IBUS6002 Cross-Cultural Management UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY . BUSINESS SCHOOL . POSTGRAD CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 the four case domains SIDE 2/2 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORKS . Motivation . Decision-making . Negotiation + Thomas-Kilmann . Leadership (CLT, paternalistic, Pyramid) . Teams (MBI/SPLIT) . Bamboo ceiling . U-curve . EXAM ANSWER SHAPE 10 . The 4 Case Domains * THE EXAM'S RAW MATERIAL[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.
-
7）最后给你一套“考前最省命的复习顺序”（按提分效率排）
- 第 1 轮（先救命：把写作骨架锁死）
- 背熟 6 步答题骨架（尤其 Step 3 摩擦解释 + Step 5 具体建议）。[5]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf考试形式 -- 应用型、论述题,绝非选择题 You write essays in response to provided cases / scenarios. You will be handed a short cross-cultural workplace situation and asked to diagnose it with the unit's frameworks, evaluate the fit and recommend action. The same machinery you rehearse all semester in the four tutorial cases - motivation, decision-making, negotiation, leadership - is tested cold on a new scenario. Walk the answer shape and you have walked the exam. 你针对所给的案例/情境撰写论文。你会拿到一个简短 的跨文化职场情境,要求你用本课程的框架诊断它、 评估契合度并给出行动建议。你整学期在四个辅导课 案例 -- 激励、决策、谈判、领导力 -- 中反复演练 的同一套机器,会在一个全新情境上被临场考查。走 完答题骨架,你就走完了考试。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的备考策略 Because the exam, the 30% group case and the 15% written assignment all run the same move, every hour you spend learning to map a scenario onto frameworks pays three times. Over-invest in the application reps: don't just memorise that China scores high on power distance - practise saying what that predicts for who speaks first in a meeting, and what you'd do about it. 因为期末考、占30% 的小组案例、以及占15% 的书 面作业跑的都是同一个动作,你花在学习“把情境映射 到框架上”的每一个小时,都会获得三倍回报。在应用 练习上要超量投入:不要只背“中国在权力距离上得分 很高” -- 要练习说出这预示了会上谁先发言,以及你 会就此采取什么行动。 i What the exam is really testing 考试真正考查的是什么 Three chains carry most marks: read the scenario - name the frameworks (22) and place each culture on the dimensions; explain the friction the cultural gap creates - judge whether the imported practice fits the context; recommend 3-4 concrete, justified actions - add guardrails (don't stereotype, allow within-culture variation, remember the other context layers). Every chapter in this book is built to make those chains automatic. 三条链条承载了大部分分数:读情境 →命名框架(≥2个)并把每种文化放到维度上;解释文化差距制造的摩擦→判 断引进的做法是否契合情境;给出 3-4 条具体且有理据的行动建议→ 加上防护栏(别刻板印象、容许文化内部差异、 记得其余的情境层)。本书的每一章都是为了把这几条链条变成自动反应而构建的。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library CONTENTS - CONTENTS Foundations - frameworks - cases 基础→ 框架 → 案例 Learn the models, then apply them to the four case domains the exam draws from 学会模型,再把它们应用到考试取材的四个案例领域 Ch Topic Core ideas Part 1 . Foundations (Topics 1-3) 1 Foundations of culture what culture is . 3 features . levels (macro/meso/micro) . iceberg . onion . → CQ · emic/etic 2 The framework canon Hofstede 6 dims . Hall . Trompenaars 7 . GLOBE 9 + clusters . K&S . → tightness-looseness Part 2 . Applying frameworks to cases (Topics 4-8) 3 Communication across cultures A-I-A · cultural screens . high/low context . downgraders/upgraders → 4 Motivation across cultures SDT · goal-setting · equity · job design by dimension (Case domain 1) → 5 Decision-making across cultures RDM 6 steps . Meyer top-down/consensual . ringi . ethics (Case domain 2) → 6 Negotiation & conflict[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMAP A CASE -> A MARKED ESSAY 1 NAME the framework(s) that fit the case 2 MAP the case onto its dimensions 3 COMPARE the cultures . explain the friction 4 EVALUATE . critique the framework (limits) 5 RECOMMEND 3-4 concrete actions 6 GUARDRAILS . note what you'd watch Re-frame with the 4-layer model at step 1: national . organisational · interpersonal · personal - never only national culture. This recipe is the signature of a high- scoring essay answer. 20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target
- 第 2 轮（框架识别训练：见题就知道用哪两个）
- 练“快速框架辨识”那种题：看到“沉默/不直接批评”→ Hall；看到“等指令/不挑战权威”→ Power Distance；看到“对违规反应差异”→ tight/loose；看到“领导气场/原型”→ ILT 等。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.[13]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfDomination (mastery) . Harmony . Subjugation IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library 2. 8 Tightness-looseness (Gelfand) 2. 8 紧一松文化(Gelfand) A single, powerful axis. Tight cultures have strong norms and low tolerance of deviance (e. g. Japan, Singapore, Germany); loose cultures have weak norms and high tolerance (e. g. US, Australia, NZ, Netherlands). It predicts how strictly rules are enforced and how harshly non-conformity is judged - often the missing piece when two cultures look similar on Hofstede yet react very differently to a rule-breaker. 一条单一而有力的轴线。紧文化拥有强规范、对越轨行为容 忍度低(如日本、新加坡、德国);松文化则拥有弱规范、 容忍度高(如美国、澳大利亚、新西兰、荷兰)。它能预示 规则被执行得有多严格、违背常规会被多么严厉地评判 -- 当两种文化在 Hofstede 上看似相近、面对一个违规者却反 应迥异时,它往往就是那块缺失的拼图。 ✓ When to reach for tightness-looseness 何时该动用紧一松文化 Use it when a scenario turns on reaction to a norm violation - a maverick employee, an unconventional proposal, a missed protocol. A tight culture may punish it hard; a loose culture may shrug. It complements uncertainty avoidance without being identical to it. 当一个情境围绕对违反规范的反应展开时使用它 一名特立独行的员工、一个非常规的提案、一次失礼 的违例。紧(tight)文化可能严惩它;松(loose)文 化可能耸耸肩。它与不确定性规避互补,却并不等 同。 EX 2. 5 The maverick proposal - tightness explains the reaction Applied Scenario: the same unconventional, rule-bending product pitch is praised by the firm's loose-culture HQ and quietly buried by its tight-culture regional office. 情境:同一个不落俗套、敢于打破规则的产品提案,在公司松文化的总部受到赞扬,却被其紧文化的区域办公室悄悄束 之高阁。 1 Name + map: tightness-looseness - HQ loose (deviance tolerated, even prized), region tight (strong norms, low tolerance of stepping out of line). 命名+映射:紧一松 -- 总部松(容忍越轨,甚至推崇),该区域紧(规范强、对出格的容忍度低)。 2 Friction: what HQ codes as "bold innovation" the region codes as "reckless norm-breaking" - the idea isn't the problem, the deviation is. 摩擦:总部编码为“大胆创新”的,该区域编码为“鲁莽地破坏规范” -- 问题不在那个想法,而在那次越轨。 3 Recommend: in the tight office, introduce the change through existing norms and senior endorsement rather than as a maverick break - same idea, legitimised path. 建议:在那个紧文化的办公室里,通过既有规范和资深者的背书来引入这项变革,而非以特立独行的破坏方式 -- 同一 个想法,一条合法化的路径。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ Recap - how to deploy the canon in an essay 回顾 -- 如何在论述中部署这套经典框架 Stack at least two frameworks on the scenario (the briefs demand it). Lead with the one that fits the domain - Hofstede for a broad culture comparison, Hall for communication, Trompenaars for ethics/negotiation, GLOBE for leadership - then layer a second for depth. Map each culture, read the gap, evaluate the fit, recommend action, and close with the guardrails (ecological fallacy, within-culture variation, change over time, the other three context layers). That is the whole exam, every time. 在情境上至少叠加两个框架(简报有此要求)。先用最契合该领域的那一个起手 -- 宽泛的文化比较用 Hofstede,沟通 用 Hall,伦理/谈判用 Trompenaars,领导力用 GLOBE -- 再叠加第二个以增加深度。把每种文化映射、读出差距、 评估契合、给出行动建议,并以防护栏收尾(生态谬误、文化内部差异、随时间变化、其余三个情境层)。这就是整场考 试,每一次都是。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library COMPLEXITIES . ICEBERG TOPIC 3 - TOPIC 3 . COMPLEXITIES & CONTEXT Culture is more than a country score 文化不止于一个国家分值 Why a national-culture dimension is a working hypothesis, never a verdict 为何国家文化维度是一个工作假设,而绝非定论 Topic 2 hands you the frameworks - Hofstede, Trompenaars, GLOBE. Topic 3 immediately turns around and critiques them, and that critical move is exactly what the case-essay exam rewards. The A+ discipline of this unit is one sentence: apply a framework as a hypothesis, then question it. A score is country-level, point-in-time, sample-bound; the person in front of you is an individual living inside four nested layers of context.
- 第 3 轮（每个域准备 1 套万能组合 + 1 套建议库）
- Motivation：SDT + Equity + Hofstede（PD/IDV）+ 3–4 条建议模板。[7]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf简报说“至少应用两个”。单一理论的答案会被明确扣 分。在同一情境上叠加 SDT+ 公平+一个 Hofstede 维度。 ! Trap 3 - stereotyping the individuals 陷阱 3 -- 对个体施加刻板印象 "They're Indonesian so they want group rewards" is the ecological fallacy. Write "the collectivist tendency suggests . . . which the scenario's behaviour confirms. " Generalise, then verify. “他们是印尼人所以想要群体奖励”是生态谬误。要写 “集体主义倾向暗示 . . . . . . 而这被情境中的行为所证 实”。先概括,再核实。 ! Trap 4 - assuming Western theory is universal 陷阱 4 -- 假定西方理论是普世通用的 Maslow's order, "intrinsic > extrinsic," and equity-as- fairness are Western defaults. Always add the cultural moderator - that is the topic. Maslow 的次序、“内在>外在”、以及把公平等同于 按贡献分配,都是西方默认值。永远要加上文化调节 变量 -- 那正是本主题。 ! Trap 5 - recommendations with no justification 陷阱 5 -- 给出毫无理据的建议 "Pay them more" earns nothing. Each rec must be concrete + tied to a named concept + carry a 'why this improves motivation. ' “多发点钱”什么分都挣不到。每条建议都必须具体+ 系于一个被点名的概念+带一句“为什么这能提升激 励” ! Trap 6 - stopping at national culture 陷阱 6 -- 止步于国家文化 Sweep the 4 layers: org (post-acquisition contract), interpersonal (new outsider manager), personal. "More than national culture" is a reliable mark. 扫过四层:组织(并购后的契约)、人际(新来的外来 管理者)、个人。“不止是国家文化”是一个稳拿的分。 - IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The motivation-case spine - commit to memory 激励案例的主干 -- 务必牢记 Frame + name ≥2 frameworks - map cultures onto dimensions (as hypotheses) - explain the motivation friction via SDT / equity / goal-setting -> evaluate fit across the 4 layers - 3-4 culturally-fitted, justified recommendations. SDT for which need, Equity for perceived fairness, the job-design table for what to recommend, Hofstede dimensions as the connective tissue. That is a full-mark motivation answer. 框定+点名≥2 个框架 →把各文化映射到维度上(作为假设)→通过 SDT/公平/目标设定解释激励摩擦→ 跨四层 评估契合度 →给出 3-4 条契合文化、有理据的建议。SDT 用于哪种需要,公平用于感知到的公平感,岗位设计表用于 该建议什么,Hofstede 维度作为连接组织。这就是一份满分的激励答案。 "Name the framework, map the dimensions, explain the friction, fit the fix to the culture. " “点名框架,映射维度,解释摩擦,让修复契合文化。” THE CASE-ANSWER REFLEX - REUSED IN EVERY DOMAIN IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA USYD BUSINESS SCHOOL / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Cross-Cultural Management 跨文化管理 LEARN EVERY FRAMEWORK COLD, THEN MAP A FRESH CASE ONTO IT - THE WHOLE COURSE AS ONE ANALYTICAL MOVE.[27]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf* The exam gives you a case in one of four domains; you analyse it through the frameworks. For each: the cultural variation + which framework to cite. DOMAIN CITE Motivation SDT; Hofstede indiv/coll & PD; equity vs equality Decision- making Meyer top-down/consensual; PD; K&S activity orient. Negotiation 5 stages; Hall context; Trompenaars; Thomas-Kilmann Leadership GLOBE CLT; paternalistic; ILT; Pyramid Always re-frame with the 4-layer model (Side 1 §3): it's never only national culture. The lecturer's recipe repeats on every applied topic - identify > analyse > recommend - and each domain reuses the same context slide. 11 . Motivation Across Cultures T5 DOMAIN 1 · 3 motivators: Extrinsic (pay, promotion) . Intrinsic (challenge, growth, autonomy) . Altruistic (for others - Schwartz: benevolence ranks #1 across nations; Grant: prosocial framing beats self-interest when the outcome is tangible & one's effort is seen as indispensable). Culture shifts which dominates: collectivist/humane -> altruistic; individualist -> intrinsic; hierarchical -> extrinsic compliance. SDT Deci & Ryan 3 needs - Autonomy . Relatedness . Competence; culture changes which is emphasised & how it's expressed (autonomy valued more in individualist cultures; what counts as "competence" shifts). GOAL-SETTING Locke & Latham Specific + challenging + achievable + feedback beats "do your best". Moderators: goal type (individual vs group; LT vs ST); assigned goals work better in high PD, low PD prefers participative; feedback delivery (high vs low context). EQUITY Adams Compare own input:outcome ratio to a referent; perceived inequity drives behaviour to restore balance. Norm varies: what counts as input/outcome, & equity (individualist) vs equality / need (collectivist) as the distribution rule.
- Negotiation：5 stages + Hall + Trompenaars/PD + TKI + 3–4 条建议模板。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdf20 . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE MARKS · Don't stereotype - scores are group-level; allow within-culture variation · Apply then critique - a bare framework label scores low; show its limits · Blend emic + etic; remember values can invert practices (GLOBE) SIA > Every strong answer ends with recommendations + guardrails. Naming Hofstede isn't analysis - mapping the case, explaining the friction, then critiquing is. Cite a named study where you can (Meyer, Stahl, Lu) for top marks. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ usyd-ibus6002 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES EXAM REVISION . CHECK THE UNIT OUTLINE Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the IBUS6002 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/usyd-ibus6002 Negotiation STAGES Cultural variation at each of 5 stages: 1. Preparation - competitive (win) vs cooperative (mutual interest); know your resistance point & target 2. Relationship building - task-oriented "get down to business" vs relationship-oriented "establish the relationship first"; cognitive trust (head/competence) vs affective trust (heart/bonding) 3. Info & first offer - low vs high context ; extreme (Russia, Arab, China) vs moderate (US) opening 4. Persuasion - factual/logic (N. American) vs affective/emotional (Arab) appeals; expressiveness & confrontation tolerance vary (Meyer 2015) 5. Concessions & agreement - sequential item-by- item (N. America) vs holistic whole-contract (Asia); concession = weakness (Russia) vs reciprocated; is the signed contract final or renegotiable? (Doctrine of Changed Circumstances) Practical: location & physical arrangements (your place / neutral; round vs long table); participants & power (one vs many speakers; ascription vs achievement, Trompenaars - sending a 30-yr-old insults ascriptive cultures; real decider may be absent in Japan/Brazil); time frame (quick-in-quick-out vs long socialising). Set case: Americans Negotiating in China (Pudelko). AXES 13b . Thomas-Kilmann *TKI . 2 Conflict Two axes: Assertiveness (satisfy own needs) x Cooperativeness (satisfy other's needs) -> five styles: STYLE[19]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMed Med equal power; time pressure Avoiding Lo Lo trivial; cool down Accommodating Lo Hi preserve harmony; you're wrong Cultural fit: high-PD/collectivist/harmony -> avoiding & accommodating; assertive/individualist -> competing & collaborating. Compromise = meet in middle; collaborate = invent a solution that fully satisfies both. Across cultures: know your own programmed style; expect the other party to adapt too; listen & empathise (culturally-intelligent negotiators build trust -> creative collaboration, Chua/Morris); set a personal limit on adaptation; be patient. SIA > For a negotiation case, walk the 5 stages and pick the cultural variation that bites hardest (usually first-offer or persuasion), then name the TKI style each party defaults to. 14 · Global Leadership exam revision · check the unit outline · 中英双语 study bible available . © 2026 good luck. name . map . critique . recommend.
- Teams/多元化（如果考到）：SPLIT / faultlines + 语言/权力距离解释 + 工程化包容建议。[11]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf2 2. Map. Subgroup A (Berlin) = low-context, monochronic, low-PD, fluent; subgroup B (Bangalore) = higher-context, higher-PD, less-fluent-on-call. The attributes align on one cleavage - a strong, dangerous faultline. 2. 映射。子群 A(柏林)=低语境、单向时间观、低权力距离、流利;子群B(班加罗尔)=较高语境、较高权力距 离、临场英语较不流利。这些属性沿一条裂隙对齐→一条强而危险的断层线。 3 3. Compare & explain the friction. The aligned faultline is converting potential process gains (diverse ideas) into process losses (low cohesion, 'us vs them'). Mechanically (SPLIT-Language): fluent Germans dominate airtime; less-fluent, higher-PD Indian members withdraw rather than challenge - their silence is misread (SPLIT-Identity) as disengagement, when it's fluency + deference. Missed deadlines reflect indirect high-context signalling, not defiance. 3. 比较并解释摩擦。这条对齐的断层线正把潜在的流程增益(多样的想法)转化为流程损失(低凝聚力、“我们vs他 们”)。从机制上看(SPLIT-Language 语言):流利的德国人主导发言时间;较不流利、较高权力距离的印度成员选择退 缩而非挑战 -- 他们的沉默被误读(SPLIT-Identity 身份)为不投入,而其实是流利度+恭顺。错过的截止期反映的是 间接的高语境信号传递,而非反抗。 4 4. Evaluate. Left alone, the faultline deepens - diversity here is currently a net loss because it is unmanaged (Stahl: the effect 'depends on how it is managed'). The same team, well-managed, could be high-creativity. 4. 评估。放任不管,断层线会加深 -- 此处的多元化目前是净损失,因为它未被管理(Stahl:效应“取决于它如何被管 理”)。同一支团队,若管理得当,本可以高创造力。 5 5. Recommend (4). (a) Cross-cut the faultline - re-form sub-tasks into mixed Berlin-Bangalore pairs so the cleavage no longer aligns (weakens the faultline). (b) Manage the language gap (SPLIT-L) - fluent speakers dial down dominance (slower, no idioms, check understanding); less-fluent members dial up engagement (comment goals); lead balances airtime. (c) BRIDGE / decentre - explicitly surface that silence # disengagement; build shared norms & goals (recentering). (d) Fix process & technology (SPLIT-P/T) - written agendas circulated ahead (helps non-native speakers), async channels, unstructured social time to rebuild trust. Each rec is named-concept justified. 5. 建议(4条)。(a)横切断层线 -- 把子任务重组为柏林一班加罗尔的混合配 对,使裂隙不再对齐(削弱断层线)。(b)管理语言差距(SPLIT-L) -- 流利的发言者调低主导(放慢、不用习语、确 认理解);较不流利的成员调高参与(发言目标);负责人平衡发言时间。(c) BRIDGE/去中心化 -- 明确点出沉默 ≠ 不 投入;建立共享规范与目标(重新归心)。(d)修复流程与技术(SPLIT-P/T) -- 提前传阅书面议程(有助于非母语 者)、异步渠道、非结构化的社交时间以重建信任。每条建议都由被点名的概念加以论证。 6 6. Guardrails. Don't stereotype 'Indians are quiet' (it's fluency + PD + a manageable structural effect, not a trait); recognise the organisational layer (virtual tooling, time zones) and personal layer (individual confidence); the lead must apply cultural intelligence - mindful, perspective-taking, actively engineering inclusion. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library 6. 防护栏。别把“印度人很安静”刻板化(这是流利度+权力距离+一种可管理的结构性效应,而非特质);认识到组织 层(虚拟工具、时区)和个人层(个体的自信);负责人必须运用文化智力 -- 觉察、换位思考、主动地工程化包容。 ✓ The pattern behind all five essays 五篇论述背后的共通模式 Every answer ran the same engine: pick frameworks from the design + cultures - map both sides onto the dimensions - explain how the gap causes the behaviour - evaluate fit/transfer - 3-4 named-concept recommendations - guardrails (stack ≥2 frameworks, don't stereotype, it's more than national culture, show CQ). Internalise the engine and any fresh scenario is answerable. 每个答案都跑同一台引擎:从题目设计+文化中选定框架→把双方映射到维度上→解释差距如何导致那个行为→评 估契合/移植→给出 3-4 条系于被点名概念的建议→防护栏(叠加≥2个框架、别刻板印象、它不止是国家文化、展 示CQ)。把这台引擎内化,任何全新情境都可作答。 Frameworks are working hypotheses, not labels. The marks live in step 3 (why the gap causes the friction) and step 5 (concrete, justified action) - not in naming the dimension. That is the whole exam. 框架是工作假设,不是标签。分数住在第3步(为什么差距会引发摩擦)和第5步(具体、有理据的行动)里 -- 而不 在点名维度这件事上。这就是整场考试。 - IBUS6002 . THE TAKEAWAY IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Dimension (pole -> pole) The question it answers Exemplars Sequential +> Synchronous time One thing at a time, or many at once? (echoes Hall's mono/polychronic) Internal +> External control Control nature, or live in harmony with it? Inner: US / Outer: many East-Asian i Universalism-particularism = the ethics tool 普遍主义一特殊主义= 伦理工具[29]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfMBI Lane & Maznevski . co-located Map (systematically describe characteristics, dispel stereotypes, use a framework when forming) > Bridge (right attitude; decentre to other's POV; recentre on shared goals & language) -> Integrate (empower participation, resolve conflict, combine ideas into novel solutions). SPLIT Neeley . virtual teams Structure & power . Process & empathy . Language (fluent dial-down dominance: slower, no slang, check understanding; less-fluent dial-up engagement: set comment goals, resist withdrawal) . Identity (avoid misreading silence) . Technology (bridge social distance). 16 . Multicultural T10 . DIVERSITY Individuals INSIDE US Vora's 3 elements *: Knowledge . Identity . Internalisation (held for the same culture combination) -> spectrum mono- to highly multicultural. Cultural frame-switching (compartmentalised A|B; Korean daughter / American manager) vs hybrid culture (A+B->C). Brokerage (Jang): insiders integrate, outsiders elicit. Integrative complexity = differentiate and integrate clashing views (built via value conflict + effort, not automatic) > creativity, performance. Higher social capital & diverse networks. Strain: identity uncertainty; translation overload. Manage (Hong & Minbaeva): place in bridging roles, allow translation time, reward the talent. 17 . Expatriate U- Curve T13 . IN SCOPE Culture shock / U-curve (Javidan et al. ): honeymoon > crisis (shock) > adjustment > mastery . CQ & pre- departure prep ease the dip; repatriation is its own re-adjustment. Why use expats: position-filling, management & organisation development. Challenges: family disruption, adjustment difficulty, cost, failure risk. Deploy in any expat/relocation scenario. 18 · Bamboo Ceiling T11 . GUEST LECTURE Hyun (2006): the individual + cultural + organisational factors impeding Asian progress into senior leadership despite a diverse population (Australia 32% overseas- born, not mirrored in senior ranks; Leading for Change). 4 mechanisms *: 1. Low assertiveness incongruent with leadership prototype (Lu, Nisbett & Morris) - "not an Asian issue, an issue of cultural fit" 2. Ethnic homophily (Lu) - bonding with same- ethnicity lowers leadership emergence 3. Prototype mismatch (Sy) - seen as competent but lacking charisma/dominance -> mid-level, not top (links to ILT) 4. Model-minority paradox (Eguchi) - "hard worker" image gets you used, blocks recognition Break it: cultural-context awareness; leaders foster inclusivity; individual behaviour change; networks & support (Asian-Australian Leadership Awards); monitor progress with targets (WGEA; 2025 law - 500+ employee firms set measurable gender-equality targets). Intersectionality: multiple marginalised identities compound (woman of colour = gender x ethnicity); gender progress alone is insufficient. 19 . EXAM ANSWER * * THE SIGNATURE SHAPE
- 第 4 轮（每题必写“防护栏段”）
- 生态谬误 + 四层模型 + CQ（知识/技能/觉察）三件套。[8]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdf! Fresh stems - the exam STYLE, not the exam 全新题干 -- 考查的是考试“风格”,而非考试原题 These are AskSia-authored scenarios in the IBUS6002 style. They are not the unit's proprietary teaching cases. The frameworks are canonical; the scenarios are invented to rhyme with the four case domains plus the multicultural / bamboo-ceiling angles. 这些是由 AskSia 原创撰写、采用 IBUS6002 风格的情境。它们不是本课程专有的教学案例。框架是经典的;情境是为 了与四个案例领域以及多元文化/竹子天花板的角度押韵而编造的。 - 01-07 Quick framework-recognition (quiz-style) Q1-Q7 快速框架辨识(测验形式) Q1 DIMENSION RECOGNITION 2 marks A subordinate refuses to start a task until the manager explicitly tells them how, and is uncomfortable challenging the manager's plan even when they see a flaw. Name the Hofstede dimension and which pole, and one management implication. IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library Q2 FRAMEWORKS DIFFER 2 marks Why might Hofstede and GLOBE report different individualism scores for the same country? Give two reasons. Q3 CONTEXT & FEEDBACK 2 marks A German engineer tells a Japanese colleague "this design is wrong, redo it," and is baffled when the colleague is offended and goes quiet. Name the communication concept and explain the clash. 04 CRITIQUE / APPLY THOUGHTFULLY 2 marks A manager reads "China scores 80 on power distance" and concludes "so my Chinese analyst Wei will never speak up in meetings. " Name the two errors. Q1-Q4 Answers - concept reps Q1. Power distance - high pole. The subordinate accepts hierarchy, expects direction, and won't challenge the boss. Implication: in a high-PD context, assigned goals & clear top-down directives work better than participative goal-setting; a low-PD manager must give explicit direction rather than wait for the subordinate to self-start. Q1. 权力距离 -- 高极。下属接受层级、期待指引、且不会挑战老板。含义:在高权力距离情境中,指派式目标与清晰的 自上而下指令比参与式目标设定效果更好;一位低权力距离的管理者必须给出明确指引,而不是等下属自我启动。 Q2. (i) Different samples - Hofstede = IBM sales/service pre-1980; GLOBE = ~ 17,000 middle managers pre-2004. (ii) Different measures & time - GLOBE separates values ('as should be') from practices ('as is'), which can invert, and the data are decades apart. Same label, different construct. Q2. (i) 不同样本 -- Hofstede = 1980 年前的 IBM 销售/服务;GLOBE = 2004 年前约 17,000 名中层管理者。(ii)不同测量与时间 -- GLOBE 把价值观(“应当如何”)与实践(“实际如何”)分开,二者可能相反,且数据相隔数十年。同样的标签, 不同的构念。 3 Q3. High- vs low-context communication (Hall). The German is low-context / direct - meaning is in the words, blunt criticism is normal. The Japanese colleague is high-context / indirect - criticism is softened, face is protected, 'redo it' reads as a personal attack. Add Meyer's downgraders: the German should soften ('could we revisit this part?'). Q3. 高语境 vs 低语境沟通(Hall)。那位德国人是低语境/直接 -- 意义在言辞里,直白的批评是常态。那位日本同事是 高语境/间接 -- 批评被软化、面子受保护,“重做”读起来像人身攻击。再加上 Meyer 的降级词:那位德国人应当软化 (“我们能不能重新看看这一部分?”)。 4 Q4. (i) Ecological fallacy - applying a country-level average to a single individual. (ii) Stereotyping - treating a tentative generalisation as a fixed trait. The score is a working hypothesis; Wei's behaviour also depends on personal, interpersonal & organisational layers. Q4. (i)生态谬误 -- 把一个国家层面的平均值套到单个个体身上。(ii)刻板印象 -- 把一个试探性的概括当作固定特 质。分数是一个工作假设;Wei 的行为还取决于个人、人际与组织各层。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library PRACTICE . ESSAY 1 - PRACTICE BANK (CONT. ) Last concept reps, then the first worked essay 最后一轮概念演练,然后是第一篇范例论述 Q5-Q7 quick items; Essay 1 = a post-acquisition motivation clash Q5-Q7 快速题;论述1= 收购后的激励冲突 Q5 DECISION STYLE 2 marks Team A reaches decisions slowly - everyone is consulted first - but once decided, implementation is fast and uncontested. Team B's boss decides alone and fast, but rollout drags and gets resisted. Name the framework and classify each.[9]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfCULTURAL INTELLIGENCE - CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE XILE AHA - UNIT The meta-capability the whole unit is building 整门课旨在培养的那项元能力 CQ as Knowledge . Skills . Mindfulness (unit framing) and the 4-factor canon - why CQ is the engine of every adaptation 文化智力(CQ)作为知识 · 技能 · 正念(本课的框架)以及四要素经典模型 -- 为何 CQ 是一切适应的引擎 The big idea. Every framework in this bible is inert knowledge until a person can notice a cultural difference, understand it, and act differently in the moment. That capability is Cultural Intelligence (CQ) - and it is learnable, which is the whole premise of the course. 核心要义。本 bible 中的每一个框架,都只是惰性知识,直到一个人能够察觉一处文化差异、理解它、并在当下采取不同的行 动。这种能力就是文化智力(CQ) -- 而它是可学的,这正是本课程的整个前提。 Knowledge cognitive: know the cultures CQ cultural intelligence Mindfulness metacognition: notice & reflect Skills behavioural: act & adapt 3-part (unit framing) Cultural Intelligence (CQ) as taught in this unit - THREE parts working together: KNOWLEDGE (cognitive: knowing cultural differences), SKILLS (behavioural: the repertoire to act on them) and MINDFULNESS (cultural metacognition: noticing, suspending judgement, adapting in the moment). 本课程所教授的文化智力 (CQ) -- 三部分协同运作:知识(认 知:了解文化差异)、技能(行为:据此行动的本领库)、与觉察 (文化元认知:察觉、悬置判断、在当下调适)。 - Unit framing (the 3-part recap slide) 本课的框架(三段式回顾幻灯片) - Knowledge (cognitive) - knowing the cultures, the frameworks, the differences. Built by lectures, readings, this bible. 知识(认知) -- 了解各文化、各框架、各差异。通过讲 座、阅读、本 bible 建立。 - 4-factor canon (Earley & Ang) - know for exam 四要素经典模型(Earley & Ang) -- 考试须知 - CQ-Drive (motivational) - the interest & confidence to engage. CQ-驱动(动机) -参与的兴趣与信心。 - CQ-Knowledge (cognitive) - cultural systems & frameworks. CQ-知识(认知) -- 文化系统与框架。 IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library - Skills (behavioural) - the repertoire to act on the knowledge: adapt your verbal & non-verbal behaviour. 技能(行为) -- 据知识行动的本领库:调适你的言语与非 言语行为。 → Mindfulness (metacognition) - noticing in real time, suspending judgement, adjusting. The hinge that turns knowledge into right action. 觉察(元认知) -- 实时察觉、悬置判断、加以调整。这是 把知识转化为正确行动的枢纽。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-ibus6002.pdfIndulgent = gratify desires, enjoy life, leisure, optimism (Mexico, US, Australia). Restrained = suppress gratification via strict norms, duty, pessimism (China, Russia, Egypt). - > Motivators: fun vs duty. 2b . Reading & Limits *T3 . LAYER CRITIQUE Originally 4 dims; the 5th (LTO) & 6th (IVR) were added via the East-Asian extension. Masculinity is now relabelled by the Culture Factor as "Motivation toward Achievement & Success. " A score of 38 = low-ish; "China 80 PD vs Australia 38" is the textbook contrast - always comparative, never absolute. Limits (examinable, Topic 3): · Whose values? - one company (IBM) · Representative? - sales/service staff only · Hides diversity - a national average masks subcultures & within-country variation · Point-in-time - have values changed since? · Validity - does it measure what it claims? labels are researcher-chosen · Western perspective > Apply thoughtfully. Topic 3 is essentially a structured critique of Topic 2 - examiners reward this critical layer in every essay answer. 3 . The 4-Layer T3 . SPINE The single most important slide: "a CCM problem is beyond national culture. " Frame EVERY case answer through four layers: THE FOUR LAYERS 1 National & Cultural - econ/political/social env, values, worldviews 2 Industrial & Organisational - competition, stakeholders, strategy, structure, org culture 3 Managerial & Interpersonal - role expectations, tasks, followers, power dynamics, urgency 4 Personal Characteristics - personality, experiences, personal values Recipe every applied topic reuses: identify problem > analyse (which models? which cultural differences?) > recommend 3-4 concrete actions. Use frameworks as working hypotheses, not labels - this is the move examiners reward.
-
8）我需要你给我 2 个信息，我就能把“复习重点”变成你个人的冲刺计划
- 你 final 的具体日期是哪天？（因为你材料只说在 formal exam period，并没给具体日期/场次。）[6]Source: asksia-bible-ibus6002-bilingual.pdfComponent Weight When / detail Final examination - essay-type, cases & scenarios 40% Formal exam period Group case study (present 18% + Q&A 5% + questions 2% + engage 3%) 30% In-semester Individual written assignment (~1200 words) 15% In-semester Quiz 1 (online) 5% Early semester Quiz 2 (online) 5% Mid semester Individual participation (simulations + discussion) 5% All weeks The recurring 3-part question architecture 反复出现的三段式题目结构 Part What the question asks 1 . Analyse Apply two or more frameworks to explain the cross-cultural issue; which is most relevant and why? 2 . Evaluate Was this approach suitable in this context? Would it suit a different context? Why / why not? 3 . Advise the protagonist: a short action plan (3-4 specific moves), each justified by a course concept Recommend IBUS6002 . Cross-Cultural Management . AskSia Library ★ The exam format - applied, essay, NOT multiple choice
- 你最怕哪两块（选 2 个即可）：
- A 激励（SDT/Equity/Goal-setting）
- B 决策（RDM/Meyer/analytic-holistic）
- C 谈判与冲突（5 stages + Hall + TKI）
- D 领导力（GLOBE/ILT/paternalistic/Pyramid）
- 你回我后，我可以按你选的模块给你：
- “可直接背进考场的句子”（每个概念 1–2 句）
- “每题 3–4 条建议库”（带概念名 + why）
- “一套 30–45 分钟/题的写作计时训练法”
- （可选）如果你愿意，我也可以把你“最弱的两块 + 你最常踩的陷阱（比如只写一个框架/建议没理据）”帮你记住，之后你每次来我就优先带你复习这些。
Ask Sia for quick explanations, examples, and study support.
Let's Get in Touch
