Navigating cultural integration: challenges and strategies for Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Navigating Cultural Integration: Challenges and Strategies for Taiwanese Technology
Companies Expanding into the United States
Weichuan (Wayne) Liu
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2025

© Copyright by Weichuan (Wayne) Liu 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Wayne Weichuan Liu certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Eric Canny
Dr. Richard Grad
Dr. Kenneth Yates, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2025

iv
Abstract
This dissertation examines the cultural integration challenges faced by Taiwanese technology
companies expanding into the United States, focusing on differences in leadership styles,
organizational practices, and cultural norms. Using a qualitative research design and the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) framework, the study explores these issues
through in-depth interviews with managers and supervisors from mid-sized Taiwanese firms.
Key findings reveal significant cultural disparities, such as hierarchical versus participatory
decision-making approaches and differing motivational drivers, with Taiwanese organizations
prioritizing stability while American workplaces emphasize agility and innovation. These
challenges underscore the need for targeted interventions, including cultural training programs,
leadership development workshops, and cross-cultural mentorship, to enhance adaptability and
collaboration. Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model is used to evaluate the
potential impact of these interventions, highlighting their role in improving cultural awareness,
fostering behavioral change, and strengthening organizational cohesion. This study provides
actionable strategies for integrating Taiwanese and American practices to foster inclusive and
innovative work environments by equipping leaders with the necessary skills and perspectives to
bridge cultural divides. Additionally, it contributes to the field of cross-cultural management by
offering recommendations for future research, such as examining the role of technology in
cultural integration, assessing the long-term impact of interventions, and understanding how
integration strategies support sustainable growth. These insights aim to guide organizations in
achieving successful global expansion while maintaining cohesive and dynamic team dynamics.

v
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation
committee chair, Dr. Kenneth Yates, for his steadfast support, insightful guidance, and
encouragement throughout this journey. His expertise and thoughtful feedback have been
invaluable, shaping this dissertation and helping me navigate its many complexities. I am also
profoundly grateful to my committee members, Dr. Eric Canny and Dr. Richard Grad, for their
thoughtful critiques, constructive suggestions, and encouragement. Their diverse perspectives
and academic rigor have enriched my work and helped me achieve a level of scholarship I could
not have reached alone.
A special thanks to Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, whose advice and mentorship during the
early stages of my dissertation laid a strong foundation for this work. Her insights and
encouragement gave me the confidence to pursue and refine my research focus.
I am deeply indebted to my wife, Judith Tsai, and my son, Nathan Liu, for their
unwavering support and patience throughout this journey. Their love, understanding, and
constant encouragement have been my greatest source of strength. Judith’s belief in my abilities
and Nathan’s inspiration as I strive to be a role model for him have made this accomplishment
possible.
I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the individuals who participated in
the interviews for this research. Your willingness to share your experiences, insights, and
expertise made this study possible and enriched its findings in countless ways. Your
contributions were invaluable, and I deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to this
project.

vi
To my colleagues, peers, and the faculty at the University of California, Rossier School
of Education, thank you for your support and encouragement throughout my academic journey.
Your shared ideas, collaboration, and camaraderie have greatly contributed to my growth as a
researcher.
Finally, to my family and friends, thank you for your enduring encouragement and for
standing by me during the challenges of this academic journey. This dissertation reflects not only
my work but also the collective contributions of those who have supported and guided me along
the way. To each of you, I offer my heartfelt thanks.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgments v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 1
Context and Background of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 2
Importance of the Study 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 4
Definitions 4
Organization of the Dissertation 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review 8
Historical Context of Cultural Integration Challenges 9
Application of KMO Framework in Past Research 11
Scope and Magnitude of Cultural Integration Challenges 12
Causes and Factors of Cultural Integration Challenges 14
Strategies and Interventions for Successful Cultural Integration 15
Conceptual Framework 17
Summary 27
Chapter Three: Methodology 30
Research Questions 31
Conceptual Frameworks: Gap Analysis (KMO) 31
Overview of Design 33

viii
Research Design 33
The Researcher 35
Data Collection 36
Data Analysis 41
Credibility and Trustworthiness 41
Validity and Reliability 43
Ethics 44
Limitations and Delimitations 44
Chapter Four: Findings 46
Participants 46
Knowledge Findings 48
Motivation Findings 62
Organization Findings 62
Other Findings 85
Summary of Findings 88
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations, and Evaluation 92
Findings and Discussion 94
Recommendations: Practical Interventions to Address KMO Gaps 97
Implementation of the recommendations 105
Evaluation: Assessing Effectiveness Using Kirkpatrick’s Model 110
Delimitations and Limitations 115
Future Research 118
Conclusions 119
References 122
Appendix A: Interview Data 132

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences and Interview
Items
40
Table 2: Participant Overview 47
Table 3: Budget allocation for three phases 108

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework - Gap Analysis (KMO) 32
Figure 2: Implementation phases 106
Figure 3: Kellogg Logic Model 107
Figure 4: Communication plan for each phase 108

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In an increasingly globalized business landscape, the ability of multinational corporations
to successfully navigate the complexities of cultural integration has become paramount
(Lubatkin et el., 2015). The challenges and opportunities presented by cultural diversity in the
workplace have garnered significant attention in academic and corporate circles alike (Brett,
2014). This endeavor is particularly critical for Taiwan-based companies expanding into the
United States, as it bridges the geographic gap and transcends the cultural chasm. The central
focus of this study is to meticulously examine the challenges associated with cultural integration
practices adopted by Taiwan-based companies as they extend their operations into the United
States. Specifically, this research is to delve into the complexities and obstacles these companies
face in fostering inclusive organizational cultures that support sustained growth. Situated at the
crossroads of international business, corporate culture, and cross-cultural management, this
investigation seeks to illuminate the intricacies of the difficulties encountered, providing a
deeper understanding of the impediments to creating an environment conducive to growth,
innovation, and long-term success in the U.S. market.
Context and Background of the Problem
The rapid globalization of business has necessitated a deeper understanding of crosscultural integration challenges, particularly for companies expanding into foreign markets. This
study focuses on the context of Taiwanese technology companies, such as InnoGlow (a
pseudonym), which face unique cultural integration challenges when expanding into the United
States due to the significant cultural differences between Taiwanese and American business
environments. With a substantial global workforce, these companies often operate with a
structure characterized by a top-down decision-making approach, wherein the CEO, who also

2
serves as the company's founder and a significant shareholder, holds substantial decision-making
authority, primarily based in Taiwan.
Given InnoGlow's unique position and growth trajectory, this study examines this
organization and other similar organizations’ efforts to integrate their distinct Taiwanese
corporate culture with the American context, ultimately addressing the overarching problem of
practice. While InnoGlow serves as a contextual reference point for this research, it is important
to clarify that this study is a field study rather than an organizational study. The research will
focus on the broader context of Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the U.S., rather
than solely on InnoGlow.
The study seeks to examine how Taiwanese companies’ approach to cultural integration
is relevant not only to InnoGlow itself but also to similar organizations seeking to navigate the
complexities of cross-cultural management and foster supportive growth-oriented cultures in an
international setting. By broadening the scope to a field study, the research aims to generate
insights that are applicable across the industry, providing valuable recommendations for
Taiwanese technology companies navigating cultural integration in the U.S. market. Moreover,
this approach ensures that the findings are not biased by the researcher's position within
InnoGlow and can be useful to a wider range of companies facing similar challenges.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The central focus of this study is to meticulously examine the challenges associated with
cultural integration practices adopted by Taiwan-based companies as they extend their operations
into the United States. Specifically, this research will delve into the complexities and obstacles
these companies face in fostering inclusive organizational cultures supporting sustained growth.
To achieve this purpose, the research will address the following key questions:

3
1. What is the extent of supervisors' knowledge regarding promoting cultural integration
within Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
2. What motivations drive supervisors to promote cultural integration in Taiwan-based
companies in the U.S.?
3. What organizational factors influence the process of cultural integration within
Taiwan-based companies expanding into the U.S.?
4. What organizational practices, encompassing knowledge and motivation, support
effective cultural integration in Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
These research questions will guide the study, enabling a comprehensive exploration of
the multifaceted dimensions of cultural integration within Taiwan-based companies and their
implications for developing growth-supportive organizational cultures.
Importance of the Study
In an increasingly globalized business world, managing cultural diversity and integration
effectively has become a critical success factor for multinational corporations (Thomas et al.,
2006). Failure to address this issue can result in many negative consequences, including
decreased employee morale, higher turnover rates, and lower overall organizational performance
(Brett, 2014). Furthermore, cultural misunderstandings and misalignment can lead to
communication breakdowns, reducing the efficiency of cross-border collaborations and
potentially hindering innovation and growth (Deloitte, 2019).
For the specific organization under examination, InnoGlow, understanding the nuances of
cultural integration is vital due to its ambitious expansion goals and unique corporate structure.
Its ability to successfully integrate Taiwanese and American cultures can significantly impact its
competitive edge and growth potential. Given that the United States represents InnoGlow's

4
largest market, the failure to examine and address cultural integration practices could jeopardize
its position and market share, making this study particularly relevant to its strategic objectives.
Furthermore, research in this area has broader implications for similar multinational
corporations seeking to expand their operations across borders. Insights gained from this study
can inform best practices in cultural integration, benefiting InnoGlow and other companies
facing similar challenges, thereby contributing to advancing knowledge and practice in crosscultural management and international business.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework guiding this dissertation is the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analytical framework (KMO). The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytical framework focuses on
identifying and addressing gaps between desired outcomes and current practices within an
organization. It is particularly relevant to this study as it provides a structured approach to
explore the barriers and challenges of cultural integration practices in these Taiwan-based
technology companies. By identifying challenges in cultural integration efforts, this framework
helps to pinpoint areas requiring improvement and intervention, aligning well with the problem
of practice centered on enhancing cultural integration strategies for growth.
The KMO approach emphasizes knowledge, motivation, and organizational support in
achieving successful cultural integration. In the context of this study, it provides a lens through
which to examine the factors influencing the mindset and attitudes of employees and leadership
in both the Taiwanese and American branches of InnoGlow. Understanding the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support factors will help shed light on the psychological and
behavioral aspects that underpin cultural integration efforts.

5
The qualitative method approach is chosen as the methodology for this study, as it
enables the exploration of the multifaceted nature of the research problem.
Definitions
This section provides brief definitions of key terms central to understanding the design
and approach of this dissertation. These definitions are essential for grasping the concepts
discussed in the study and are grounded in the existing literature.
Cultural Integration
Cultural integration refers to the process by which individuals from different cultural
backgrounds come together to form a cohesive, functioning community within an organization
(Schein, 2010).
Cross-Cultural Management
Cross-cultural management involves the study and application of management practices
in diverse cultural environments, focusing on understanding and leveraging cultural differences
to improve organizational performance (Adler, 2002).
Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational (KMO) Framework
The KMO framework is an analytical tool used to identify gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support that can hinder desired performance levels within an
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Collectivist Culture
A collectivist culture prioritizes group goals over individual goals, emphasizing
interdependence, social harmony, and cohesion within a community (Hofstede, 1980).

6
Individualistic Culture
An individualistic culture values personal goals and autonomy, encouraging individual
achievement and self-reliance (Hofstede, 1980).
Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence is the ability to relate to and work effectively across cultures,
encompassing cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Multinational Corporation (MNC)
A multinational corporation is an enterprise that operates in multiple countries, managing
production or delivering services in more than one country (Kostova & Roth, 2002).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is a leadership style that inspires and motivates followers to
achieve higher levels of performance by transforming their attitudes, values, and behaviors (Bass
& Riggio, 2006).
Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes)
within qualitative data, providing a detailed and nuanced account of data (Braun & Clarke,
2012).
Triangulation
Triangulation is the use of multiple methods, data sources, or perspectives to enhance the
credibility and validity of research findings (Denzin, 1978).

7
Reflexivity
Reflexivity involves the ongoing process of reflecting on the researcher’s biases,
perspectives, and interactions with the research context to ensure the integrity and transparency
of the research process (Finlay, 2002).
These definitions will serve as a foundation for understanding the subsequent discussions
and analyses in this dissertation.
Organization of the Dissertation
There are five chapters used to organize this study. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to
the problem of practice, establishes the research purpose, outlines research questions, justifies
the importance of the study, and introduces the theoretical framework and methodology. Chapter
2 includes an in-depth review of relevant literature, covering topics such as cross-cultural
management, organizational culture, leadership, and growth-supportive cultures. The chapter
synthesizes existing research, identifies gaps, and highlights critical theoretical concepts. Chapter
3 outlines the research design, data collection methods, sampling procedures, and data analysis
techniques. It also explains the choice of mixed methods and how data will be collected and
analyzed. Chapter 4 presents, analyzes, and discusses the research findings. It includes insights
from stakeholders regarding cultural integration, leadership practices, and the role of
organizational culture in fostering growth-supportive environments. The specific outcomes of the
data will be assessed based on an analysis of interviews, observations, and documents. Chapter 5
provides recommendations based on the research findings. It offers practical guidance for the
Taiwan-based companies that expand to the US. The chapter concludes with a summary of the
study's contributions to the field and suggestions for future research.

8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The literature review provides a scholarly context within which the research questions
can be situated and addressed. This chapter explores the multifarious aspects of cultural
integration challenges multinational corporations face, explicitly focusing on Taiwanese
companies expanding into the United States. It begins by exploring the historical evolution of
cross-cultural management challenges, detailing the extent and trends of these issues and the
theoretical approaches that have shaped management practices. The KMO (Knowledge,
Motivation, Organizational) framework, modified from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework, is introduced early in this discourse as a pivotal analytical tool to address these
complex challenges. While not directly employed in individual studies such as those by Chen
and Klimoski (2007) and Szulanski and Jensen (2008), this framework provides a structured lens
for reinterpreting their findings. It aids in diagnosing cultural integration issues more effectively
and developing targeted interventions. By employing the KMO framework, the research aims to
align various empirical findings with specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences, thereby illustrating the framework’s utility in devising effective strategies for
managing cultural diversity in global organizations. After describing the history, this chapter
reviews the relevant research associated with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis and the
multiple KMO as a theoretical lens to view and address the cultural integration challenges in
multinational corporations. The review discusses the scope and magnitude of these challenges,
evaluating the roles of leadership, management, and organizational culture and how they
influence employee perceptions and company policies. It further examines practical interventions
and models that guide successful cultural integration, culminating in providing a structured
approach to understanding the complexities of cultural integration in a business context.

9
Historical Context of Cultural Integration Challenges
The history of multinational corporations (MNCs) is fraught with challenges related to
cultural integration. Historically, MNCs have faced the complex task of merging diverse
workplace cultures, a process that has evolved with the globalization of business (Kostova &
Roth, 2002). In the Taiwanese context, companies expanding into the United States have often
grappled with balancing the collectivist cultural orientation with the individualistic American
culture (Hofstede, 1980; Chen & Starosta, 2003).
Cross-cultural management theories have transitioned from early models focusing on
cultural differences and their impact on management practices to more contemporary practices
that embrace cultural synergies and competencies.
Early Model
Early models of cross-cultural management focused on identifying and categorizing
cultural differences. One of the most influential early models is Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions
Theory (Hofstede, 1980), which identifies key dimensions that vary across cultures: Power
Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance,
and Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation. This model provided a framework for understanding
how cultural differences impact organizational behavior and management practices.
Contemporary models
Contemporary models have evolved to incorporate a more dynamic and interactive view
of culture. For instance, the Globe Study (House et al., 2004) expanded on Hofstede’s
dimensions by adding new dimensions such as Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation
and by emphasizing leadership behaviors in different cultural contexts. Another significant
contemporary model is the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Model developed by Earley and Ang

10
(2003), which focuses on an individual's capability to function effectively in culturally diverse
settings by developing cognitive, motivational, and behavioral skills. The research question
addressed how individuals can enhance their effectiveness in multicultural environments. The
variables included cognitive, motivational, and behavioral facets of CQ as independent variables
and effectiveness in diverse settings as the dependent variable. The study involved a diverse
sample of professionals and found that individuals with high CQ demonstrated superior
performance and cross-cultural success, emphasizing the importance of CQ as a critical predictor
in international business.
Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2013) introduced the concept of the multicultural
personality, which includes traits such as cultural empathy, open-mindedness, social initiative,
emotional stability, and flexibility. These traits are associated with better adjustment and
performance in multicultural settings. Reiche et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of
flexibility and adaptive capacity in cross-cultural management, highlighting how individuals and
organizations must adapt their strategies to succeed in diverse environments. Deardorff (2020)
presents an updated model of intercultural communication competence, integrating recent
research on effective communication strategies in multicultural settings. This evolution reflects
an increasing recognition of the dynamic and complex nature of cultural integration in business
settings (Moran et al., 2014).
Case studies of Taiwanese companies, such as the expansion of electronics giant Acer
into the U.S. market, illustrate the practical challenges of cultural integration. Acer's approach to
integrating with American culture while retaining its Taiwanese identity has been the subject of
much analysis. Specific challenges included communication barriers, differences in management
styles, and varying expectations regarding work-life balance. Acer successfully overcame these

11
challenges by implementing robust cross-cultural training programs, fostering open
communication, and adopting a flexible management approach that blends elements of both
Taiwanese and American practices (Child & Mollering, 2003). Other studies include establishing
Taiwanese semiconductor companies in Silicon Valley, revealing strategies ranging from
establishing local solid management teams to adopting dual-centric approaches to governance.
which faced the challenge of integrating its hierarchical, collectivist culture with the more
egalitarian and individualistic American work environment. TSMC addressed these challenges
by establishing strong local management teams, promoting cultural exchange programs, and
encouraging a dual-centric governance model that values Taiwanese and American cultural
strengths (Hillemann & Verbeke, 2019). The research question focused on how TSMC
effectively integrated Taiwanese and American cultural strengths. The variables examined
included governance structures and cultural programs as independent variables and
organizational performance as the dependent variable. The study analyzed TSMC employees and
executives, revealing that the dual-centric governance model successfully bridged cultural gaps,
leading to improved collaboration, innovation, and market performance.
In summary, the historical context of cultural integration presents a complex picture of
Taiwanese companies strategically navigating cultural differences in the U.S. market. The
literature indicates that successful cultural integration requires a nuanced understanding of home
and host country cultures, effective cross-cultural management practices, and the willingness to
adapt and learn from historical precedents.
Application of KMO Framework in Past Research
Clark and Estes' gap analysis framework provides a structured approach to identifying the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) gaps that can hinder the achievement of

12
desired performance levels in organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). The framework has been
applied across various research domains, including cultural integration, to diagnose barriers and
implement effective interventions.
Recent studies have utilized the framework to identify gaps in understanding and
expertise that impede successful cultural integration. For instance, Rockstuhl et al. (2011) found
that employees' cultural knowledge gaps could lead to miscommunications and conflict in
multinational teams. Research has also focused on motivation gaps that affect individual and
group willingness to engage in cross-cultural interactions and adapt to diverse work settings. A
study by Vo et al. (2022) revealed that motivation is significantly linked to employees' efforts to
understand and appreciate cultural diversity. Organizational structure and processes can either
support or restrict cultural integration. Szulanski and Jensen (2008) applied the KMO framework
to explore how organizational barriers affect the transmission and implementation of best
practices in cross-cultural management.
Scope and Magnitude of Cultural Integration Challenges
Contemporary issues in cross-cultural management encompass communication
barriers, conflict resolution, and aligning diverse work practices. (Adler, 2008) A significant
trend is recognizing the importance of cultural agility—the ability to manage culturally new
quickly, comfortably, and effectively in changing environments (Caligiuri, 2009). This concept
of cultural agility has been thoroughly examined and emphasized by Caligiuri and Tarique in
their 2016 study (Caligiuri, 2016), exploring the multifaceted nature of cultural agility and its
critical role in global business operations. Caligiuri and Tarique argue that cultural agility
transcends traditional cross-cultural competencies, proposing it as a dynamic capability that
enables individuals and organizations to adapt to diverse cultural settings quickly and effectively.

13
They highlight that cultural agility involves the ability to understand and interpret different
cultural contexts and the skill to respond promptly and appropriately to these differences
strategically. They suggest this agility should be cultivated as a strategic asset, crucial for global
leaders and teams operating in an increasingly interconnected and culturally diverse business
landscape. Their research underscores the importance of integrating cultural agility into the
strategic planning of global operations, viewing it as a key driver for competitive advantage and
success in international markets. Therefore, Caligiuri and Tarique's work provides a compelling
argument for organizations to prioritize developing and nurturing cultural agility among their
workforce to enhance global operational effectiveness and adaptability.
Cultural integration significantly impacts international business operations, affecting
everything from day-to-day interactions to high-level strategic decisions (Schneider & Barsoux,
2003). The importance of understanding and managing cultural differences in international
expansions is also emphasized in the context of performance and competitive advantage, as
discussed by Stahl and Tung (2015), who examined the relationship between cultural intelligence
and success in cross-border mergers and acquisitions. They discovered that cultural intelligence
is essential not only during negotiations and transactions but also crucial for post-merger
integration, facilitating smoother assimilation of different corporate cultures. Their findings
highlight that higher cultural intelligence among leaders and teams leads to improved
communication, enhanced mutual understanding, and trust among diverse stakeholders, thereby
minimizing conflicts and supporting strategic objectives. Moreover, they emphasize the need for
cultural due diligence, akin to financial and legal considerations in mergers and acquisitions
(M&As), advocating for investment in cultural intelligence development as a strategic
component of successful international expansions. This research illustrates that prioritizing

14
cultural intelligence is a significant determinant in achieving successful integrations and a
competitive edge in global markets.
For East Asian companies in the U.S., adapting to different cultural norms poses a
challenge with operational, legal, and ethical dimensions. Tsai and Eisingerich (2010) illustrate
how Asian firms, including Taiwan, tackle the U.S. market's complex business environment,
focusing on understanding and integrating into the local cultural fabric. Their research question
explored how these companies managed the complexities of the U.S. business environment. The
variables included cultural adaptation strategies, local market understanding as independent
variables, and business success as the dependent variable. Participants included representatives
from multiple East Asian companies operating in the U.S. The study concluded that companies
investing in cross-cultural training and localized governance structures achieved greater
operational success and employee satisfaction.
Meanwhile, research by Brannen and Salk (2000) and Oliveira et al. (2023) provides
insight into how East Asian firms navigate the cultural complexities inherent in transnational
business, suggesting that effectively managing these complexities can provide a competitive
advantage.
In summary, the scope and magnitude of cultural integration challenges are significant
for multinational corporations, focusing on the unique position of Taiwanese companies in the
U.S. market. Addressing these challenges through strategic cultural agility and intelligence is
crucial for operational success and sustainable growth in the international business landscape.
Causes and Factors of Cultural Integration Challenges
Leadership styles and management practices play critical roles in the success of cultural
integration within multinational corporations. The interplay between transformational leadership

15
and cultural diversity has been extensively studied, with findings indicating that inclusive
leadership practices significantly contribute to better integration outcomes (Bass & Riggio, 2006;
Zhu et al., 2022). Furthermore, aligning leadership development with cross-cultural competence
facilitates organizational adaptability in diverse cultural settings (Mendenhall et al., 2012).
Organizational culture is a determinant factor in how effectively a multinational
corporation can integrate across cultures. A firm's cultural norms, values, and practices influence
its approach to internationalization and can either enable or hinder the process of cultural
integration (Schein, 2010; Taras et al., 2009). Research has shown that organizations with a
robust and adaptive culture are more successful at integrating a diverse workforce and leveraging
the benefits of cultural diversity (Radu, 2023).
Employees' perceptions of cultural integration efforts are crucial to their success. Studies
on employee perspectives reveal that recognizing and appreciating cultural diversity within the
workplace can improve job satisfaction and reduce turnover intentions (Chen & Eastman, 1997;
Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Recent research underscores the importance of employees' cultural
intelligence and the need for management to foster an environment where cultural learning is
supported and encouraged (Ng & Earley, 2006; Ang & Ng, 2020).
In summary, the causes and factors influencing cultural integration challenges are
multifaceted. Effective leadership that is culturally aware and inclusive can greatly enhance
integration efforts. Organizational culture must be conducive to diversity and adaptability, and
employee perspectives must be considered to create a cohesive and supportive workplace
environment that values cultural differences.

16
Strategies and Interventions for Successful Cultural Integration
Best practices in cross-cultural management are grounded in empathetic, communicative,
and collaborative leadership. Leaders who possess cultural intelligence and can demonstrate a
genuine understanding of and respect for diversity tend to facilitate better integration (Ang &
Van Dyne, 2015). Thomas and Inkson (2004) argue that culturally intelligent leaders are adept at
cross-cultural adjustment, which is key to managing diverse teams. Training programs focused
on developing such competencies are increasingly recognized as best practice (Livermore, 2015).
Scholars have developed various models and frameworks to guide MNCs in addressing
cultural integration challenges. The Cultural Intelligence Model posits that awareness,
knowledge, motivation, and strategy are the fundamental pillars for successful cultural
integration (Earley & Ang, 2003). The Integration-Responsiveness Framework is another tool
that helps companies balance global efficiencies with local responsiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal,
1989). These models emphasize the need for adaptable and situational approaches to cultural
integration.
Organizational interventions to promote growth-supportive cultures are essential for
harnessing the benefits of cultural diversity. Inclusive human resource practices prioritizing
cultural diversity in recruitment, retention, and training have been linked to positive
organizational outcomes (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). Organizational policies facilitating
intercultural communication and collaboration are also vital (Lauring, 2011). Companies
increasingly employ cultural mentoring and support networks to enhance cultural understanding
and integration (Thelen et al., 2009).
In summary, the strategic implementation of cross-cultural management best practices,
adherence to proven models and frameworks, and the development of organizational policies that

17
promote a culture of inclusivity and growth are critical for successful cultural integration in
multinational corporations. These strategies should be tailored to the specific needs of an
organization and continuously refined to adapt to the changing global business landscape.
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes' gap analysis framework offers a comprehensive approach to identifying
and addressing organizational performance issues. Based on the notion that there are three
primary types of gaps - knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) - the framework
provides a structured method for diagnosing problems and proposing effective interventions.
Knowledge gaps are discrepancies between current and needed knowledge among employees or
stakeholders. Motivation gaps arise when there is a lack of incentive or willingness to perform
tasks. Organizational gaps refer to the systemic and procedural deficits within an organization
that impedes performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The framework is grounded in performance improvement theory, which posits that for
any organization to perform effectively, its members must have the necessary knowledge and
skills, be motivated to apply them and work within an environment conducive to performance
(Swanson & Holton, 2001). The KMO framework particularly applies to cross-cultural
management challenges where these gaps can become pronounced due to the complexities of
operating in diverse environments.
Application to Cultural Integration Challenges
The key theoretical principles of the Clark and Estes framework are applied to
multinational corporations' cultural integration challenges. These principles help in
understanding how gaps in employee and management training (knowledge), differences in

18
cultural values affecting employee engagement (motivation), and organizational policies and
practices (organizational) contribute to the overall challenges in cultural integration.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge gaps occur when there is a discrepancy between employees' skills and
understanding and the competencies required to perform their jobs effectively in a multicultural
environment. These gaps can stem from a lack of awareness of cultural norms, language barriers,
or insufficient training in cross-cultural communication and management practices. Such gaps
can severely impact multinational corporations' operations, as employees may not understand the
cultural nuances necessary for smooth interactions with their international counterparts or local
markets (Earley & Peterson, 2004). These gaps can be categorized into four types:
● Factual knowledge: Employees may lack basic information about different cultures'
norms, values, and communication styles. For example, knowing specific cultural
customs or business etiquette can prevent misunderstandings. Recent studies highlight the
importance of cultural awareness training in improving factual knowledge among
employees (Jackson, 2019).
● Conceptual knowledge: Understanding the underlying principles and theories of crosscultural communication and management is crucial. Employees need to grasp how
cultural differences impact behavior and interactions within a business context.
Contemporary research underscores the significance of conceptual knowledge in
fostering effective intercultural interactions (Zhang & Zhou, 2021).
● Procedural knowledge: This involves knowing how to perform tasks or procedures that
are culturally sensitive. For instance, how to conduct meetings, negotiate, or resolve
conflicts in a way that respects cultural differences. Recent literature emphasizes the role

19
of procedural knowledge in successful international business operations (Chen & Lin,
2021).
● Metacognitive knowledge: Employees must be aware of their thought processes and be
able to adjust their strategies for interacting with individuals from different cultures. This
includes self-awareness and the ability to reflect on one's cultural biases and assumptions.
Recent studies have shown the impact of metacognitive strategies on enhancing crosscultural competencies (Thomas et al., 2021).
Addressing knowledge gaps typically involves implementing comprehensive training
programs, developing culturally tailored educational materials, and fostering a continuous
learning environment that encourages cultural curiosity and literacy. Earley and Ang (2003)
emphasize the significance of developing cultural intelligence through targeted training and
educational materials. Thomas and Inkson (2004) advocate for creating an organizational culture
that prioritizes continuous learning and adaptability, fostering an environment where cultural
curiosity and literacy are actively encouraged. These practices are key in equipping employees
with the necessary skills and understanding to navigate and thrive in diverse cultural settings.
Traditional Top-Down Asian Management Style Versus Western Bottom-Up Style
One significant knowledge gap in cultural integration arises from differences in
management styles between traditional Asian and Western approaches. Traditional Asian
management is often characterized by a top-down, hierarchical structure where decisions are
made by senior executives and passed down to subordinates. This approach emphasizes respect
for authority, collectivism, and maintaining harmony within the organization (Chen, 2003).
Conversely, Western management styles typically adopt a bottom-up approach, encouraging
employee participation, open communication, and individual initiative in decision-making

20
processes (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Understanding these
divergent management styles is crucial for multinational corporations aiming to integrate diverse
cultural practices. A lack of knowledge about these differences can lead to miscommunications,
decreased employee morale, and ineffective management practices within a culturally diverse
organization (Adler & Gundersen, 2008).
Differences in Problem-Solving Processes: Traditional Asian Style Versus. Western Style
Another area where knowledge gaps can significantly impact cultural integration is the
difference in problem-solving approaches between traditional Asian and Western styles.
Traditional Asian problem-solving methods often emphasize a collective approach, valuing
group consensus, patience, and a long-term perspective. This method is deeply rooted in cultural
philosophies that prioritize harmony and collective well-being over individual opinions (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995). In contrast, Western problem-solving tends to be more direct and
individualistic, focusing on immediate results, analytical thinking, and innovation. Western
styles often value critical thinking and encourage questioning and challenging existing norms to
find the best solutions (Schein, 1996). Organizations must recognize these differences to
facilitate effective problem-solving in multicultural teams. Bridging this knowledge gap involves
training programs that educate employees about diverse problem-solving techniques and promote
an inclusive approach that leverages the strengths of both styles (Livermore, 2015).
Risk-Taking: Traditional Asian Risk Aversion Versus Western Encouragement of RiskTaking
Risk-taking behavior also highlights a significant knowledge gap in cultural integration.
Traditionally, Asian cultures tend to be more risk-averse, valuing stability and cautious decisionmaking. This aversion to risk is influenced by cultural norms that prioritize security,

21
predictability, and the avoidance of potential failures that could disrupt harmony and reputation
(Hofstede, 1980). On the other hand, Western cultures often encourage risk-taking, viewing it as
a necessary component of innovation and growth. Western business environments typically
celebrate entrepreneurial spirit and the willingness to take calculated risks to achieve significant
advancements (Morris, 1998). For MNCs, understanding these cultural differences in risk
perception is critical. Managers must know how cultural backgrounds influence their employees'
attitudes toward risk and create environments that balance caution with innovation. Training
programs and cross-cultural workshops can help employees from different backgrounds
understand and respect these differences, fostering a more cohesive and dynamic workplace
(Thomas & Inkson, 2004).
In sum, to operate effectively in the United States, managers and leadership of Taiwanbased companies need to know the following:
● Knowledge of Traditional Top-Down Asian Management Style Versus Western BottomUp Style
● Differences in Problem-Solving Processes: Traditional Asian Style Versus. Western Style
● Risk-Taking: Traditional Asian Risk Aversion Versus Western Encouragement of RiskTaking
Motivation Influences
Motivation gaps address the 'will' component of performance issues. As Deci and Ryan's
self-determination theory suggests (Deci & Ryan, 2012), intrinsic motivation is crucial for
encouraging employees to engage positively in cross-cultural interactions. This theory implies
that recognizing and rewarding culturally competent behaviors could significantly bridge
knowledge and motivation gaps for individuals navigating diverse organizational settings. Shore

22
et al. (2009) highlight the intricacies of motivation within multicultural environments, noting
how cultural biases and inadequate engagement strategies can adversely affect motivation.
Similarly, Chen et al.'s (2010) research emphasizes the significance of organizational support in
enhancing expatriate effectiveness, suggesting that motivational challenges often stem from
perceived cultural insensitivity or lack of support. Additionally, incorporating expectancy-value
theory provides a more nuanced understanding of motivation. This theory posits that motivation
is influenced by:
● Expectancy: Belief in one's ability to succeed in a task. For cultural integration,
this means that employees and leaders must feel confident in their ability to
engage and succeed in cross-cultural interactions (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020).
● Self-Efficacy: Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory plays a critical role in
understanding motivation related to procedural knowledge. Self-efficacy refers to
an individual's belief in their ability to execute specific actions required to achieve
desired outcomes. In the context of cultural integration, self-efficacy influences
how employees approach culturally sensitive tasks, such as cross-cultural
communication and conflict resolution. Higher self-efficacy can lead to greater
perseverance and resilience when faced with challenges in intercultural
interactions. This theory suggests that individuals with high self-efficacy are more
likely to take proactive steps in learning and applying procedural knowledge in
cross-cultural settings, thus facilitating smoother cultural integration (Bandura,
1997).
● Value: The importance or value placed on the success of the task. If employees
and leaders perceive cultural integration as beneficial to their personal growth and

23
the organization's success, they are more likely to be motivated to engage in these
efforts (Rosendweig, Eccles & Wigfield, 2020).
● Mental Effort and Growth Mindset: Mental effort is another critical aspect of
motivation that affects how individuals engage with culturally diverse
environments. This concept is closely linked with Dweck's (2006) growth mindset
theory, which posits that individuals who believe their abilities can be developed
through effort and learning (a growth mindset) are more likely to invest the
necessary mental effort in mastering new skills and adapting to different cultural
contexts. In the context of cultural integration, a growth mindset encourages
employees and leaders to view challenges as opportunities for development rather
than obstacles. This mindset fosters a willingness to engage in continuous
learning and adaptation, which is essential for successful cross-cultural
interactions and long-term organizational integration (Dweck, 2006).
What Motivates Leaders to Integrate Cultures: Values and Why
Understanding what motivates leaders to integrate cultures is essential for addressing
motivation gaps. Leaders who value cultural diversity and inclusion often drive successful
integration efforts. These values can stem from a personal commitment to fairness and equality
or a strategic recognition of the business benefits associated with a diverse and inclusive
workplace. According to Ng and Sears (2012), leaders motivated by a genuine belief in the value
of diversity are more likely to implement effective cross-cultural integration strategies.
Additionally, research by Adler and Gundersen (2008) suggests that leaders who perceive
cultural integration as a competitive advantage—such as enhancing innovation, improving global

24
market reach, and fostering a positive organizational reputation—are more committed to these
initiatives.
Self-Efficacy: Confidence in Being Able to Integrate
Self-efficacy, or confidence in one's ability to perform a task, is a critical factor
influencing motivation to integrate cultures. Leaders and employees with high self-efficacy are
more likely to engage in and persist with cross-cultural integration efforts despite potential
challenges. Bandura's (1997) theory of self-efficacy emphasizes that individuals who believe
they can succeed are more motivated to undertake difficult tasks. In the context of cultural
integration, this means that training and development programs should not only impart
knowledge but also build confidence in leaders and employees. Enhancing self-efficacy can be
achieved through mastery experiences, social modeling, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997).
Research by Earley and Peterson (2004) supports this, showing that cross-cultural training that
includes experiential learning components can significantly boost participants' confidence in
managing cultural differences.
Mental Effort: Willingness to Put in the Effort
Mental effort, or the willingness to expend cognitive resources to understand and
integrate different cultures, is another critical aspect of motivation gaps. Leaders and employees
must be willing to invest time and energy into learning about and adapting to new cultural
contexts. This effort involves actively seeking to understand cultural norms, engaging in
continuous learning, and being open to feedback and adaptation. Locke and Latham's (2002)
goal-setting theory posits that clear, challenging goals can enhance motivation by providing
direction and purpose. In cultural integration, setting specific goals related to cultural
competency and providing ongoing support and resources can encourage leaders and employees

25
to invest the necessary mental effort. Additionally, Dweck's (2006) mindset theory suggests that
fostering a growth mindset—where individuals see their abilities as improvable through effort
and learning—can significantly enhance motivation to engage in cross-cultural integration.
In sum to operate effectively in the United States, managers and leadership of Taiwanbased companies must be motivated to:
● Value integrating cultures.
● Have self-efficacy or confidence in being able to integrate cultures
● Apply mental effort or willingness to put in the effort to integrate cultures.
Organizational Influences
Organizational gaps are structural or process-oriented issues within a company that
impede effective performance and cultural integration. These may include inadequate
communication channels that do not consider cultural differences (Hall, 1976), hierarchical
structures that do not permit the flow of culturally relevant information, or policies that are not
adaptable to various cultural contexts (Hofstede, 1980). Such gaps can also reflect a lack of
resources devoted to supporting multicultural initiatives or an organizational culture not
conducive to diversity. To close these gaps, organizations must develop clear and inclusive
policies, establish supportive management practices, and foster an organizational culture that
recognizes and bridges cultural differences, facilitating a more integrated, cohesive work
environment (Schein, 1992).
Resources That Prevent Integration
One significant organizational gap affecting cultural integration is the allocation of
resources. Effective cultural integration requires a substantial investment in training, support
systems, and tools designed to facilitate cross-cultural understanding and cooperation. Research

26
by Roberson, Kulik, and Pepper (2003) highlights the importance of providing sufficient
resources to diversity programs to ensure their success. Organizations that underfund these
initiatives often struggle to implement them effectively, leading to superficial compliance rather
than meaningful integration. Additionally, resources must be allocated for initial training and
ongoing support and development to maintain and enhance cultural competence over time
(Kundu et. al., 2020).
Policies and Procedures That Prevent Integration
Another critical organizational gap is the presence of policies and procedures that hinder
cultural integration. These can include rigid organizational structures that do not accommodate
cultural differences, standardized procedures that ignore cultural variations, and compliancebased approaches that prioritize uniformity over inclusivity. Ely and Thomas (2001) argue that
such policies can create an environment where diversity is seen as a challenge rather than an
asset. For example, performance evaluation systems that do not account for cultural differences
in communication styles and work behaviors can disadvantage employees from diverse
backgrounds, leading to frustration and disengagement. Revising these policies to be more
inclusive and adaptable is essential for fostering an environment conducive to cultural
integration.
Culture: Perceived Cultural Differences
Cultural differences within the organization itself can also pose significant challenges to
integration. These differences often manifest in varying communication styles, decision-making
processes, and conflict-resolution strategies. Research by Hofstede (1980) on cultural dimensions
such as individualism versus collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance provides a
framework for understanding these differences. For instance, employees from collectivist

27
cultures may prioritize group harmony and consensus, while those from individualist cultures
may value direct communication and assertiveness. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998)
further explore these cultural variances, noting that misunderstandings and conflicts often arise
from these differing perspectives. Organizations must be aware of these cultural differences and
develop strategies to bridge them, such as through cultural awareness training and inclusive
communication practices (Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000).
By analyzing cultural integration challenges through the lens of the KMO framework,
companies can take targeted actions to improve their international operations. This approach
allows for a structured assessment of where and how multinational corporations may need to
adapt their strategies to align with the cultural complexities of their global workforce.
The preceding literature review discussed core concepts such as cross-cultural management
theories, the significance of cultural integration in international business, and the challenges
Taiwanese companies operating in the U.S. faced. The KMO framework can be thoughtfully
applied as a guiding tool to explore these areas, offering insights into potential gaps that may
influence the effectiveness of cultural integration. This approach allows for a nuanced
understanding rather than a direct diagnosis, helping to identify areas where improvements could
be beneficial.
In sum to operate effectively in the United States, managers and leadership of Taiwanbased companies need to have the the following:
● Resources that promote integration.
● Policies and procedures that promote integration.
● Perceive cultural differences that promote integration.

28
Summary
This literature review has comprehensively examined the multifaceted challenges and
strategies pertinent to cultural integration in multinational corporations, with a particular focus
on Taiwanese businesses operating in the United States. The review explored the historical
context of cultural integration challenges, tracing the evolution of cross-cultural management as
a discipline. It highlighted key case studies, particularly those involving Taiwanese companies,
illustrating the complex dynamics and significant obstacles these firms face in the U.S. market.
In addressing the scope and magnitude of cultural integration challenges, the review
highlighted current trends and issues in cross-cultural management, emphasizing the strategic
significance of cultural integration for international business success. It underscored the critical
roles of leadership, organizational culture, and employee engagement in shaping these
challenges. The discussion demonstrated how deeply embedded cultural differences influence
business practices, employee interactions, and overall organizational effectiveness.
The causes and factors influencing cultural integration challenges were dissected through
a detailed examination of leadership and management influences, the defining role of
organizational culture, and the nuanced perspectives of employees. This section illuminated how
leadership styles and organizational policies either facilitate or hinder integration. It also
explored the critical need for culturally competent leadership and inclusive organizational
cultures that embrace diversity.
Strategies and interventions for successful cultural integration were thoroughly reviewed,
showcasing the best cross-cultural management and leadership practices. The discussion
included various models and frameworks that address cultural integration challenges,
highlighting the importance of adaptive and inclusive approaches. Organizational strategies

29
promoting a culture conducive to growth and the successful merger of diverse cultural entities
were also explored, emphasizing continuous learning and development.
The application of Clark and Estes' (2008) gap analysis framework was threaded
throughout the review, providing a structured approach to diagnosing and addressing cultural
integration challenges. The framework was utilized to identify knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) gaps, offering a systematic method for understanding and tackling the
barriers to effective cultural integration. This framework served as a valuable tool for
reinterpreting empirical findings and aligning them with specific gaps, thereby illustrating its
utility in creating effective strategies for managing cultural diversity within global organizations.
In conclusion, this literature review has provided a detailed and nuanced understanding of
the challenges and strategies associated with cultural integration in multinational corporations.
By examining the historical context, scope and magnitude, causes and factors, and strategies for
successful integration, the review has laid a solid foundation for the subsequent chapters on
methodology and findings. Applying Clark and Estes' gap analysis framework has offered a
valuable lens for diagnosing and addressing the barriers to effective cultural integration,
providing practical insights and recommendations for managing cultural diversity in global
business environments. This comprehensive review sets the stage for a deeper exploration of
cultural integration strategies, aiming to enhance the performance and cohesion of multinational
corporations operating in diverse cultural settings.

30
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents the research design and methods used to identify, collect, and
analyze data used to explore the challenges of cultural integration in multinational corporations.
Following the introduction and comprehensive literature review, this chapter systematically
outlines the research methods used to explore cultural integration challenges in multinational
corporations, mainly focusing on Taiwanese companies in the United States. It commences with
a brief introduction reiterating the study's purpose, followed by a detailed overview of the design
methodology.
Organized into several key sections, this chapter begins with an introduction, reiterating
the study's purpose and alignment with the research questions. Following this, the methodology
section elaborates on the overarching approach and theoretical framework. Overview of design
provides a comprehensive look at the research strategy, while the research design' section details
the specific methods and procedures employed. The research setting describes the environments
and contexts of the Taiwanese companies under study. The researcher's section reflects upon the
role and perspective of the researcher in this study, ensuring an objective and balanced approach.
Further, the chapter addresses validity and reliability, detailing measures undertaken to
ensure the credibility and dependability of the findings. The ethics section emphasizes ethical
considerations and adherence to research standards throughout the study. Finally, Limitations
and delimitations discuss the research's scope, boundaries, and inherent constraints, ensuring a
transparent and honest presentation of the study’s framework. This methodical organization
ensures a robust, replicable, and transparent research methodology directly aligned with the
objectives and questions in the earlier chapters.

31
Research Questions
1. What is the extent of supervisors' knowledge regarding promoting cultural integration
within Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
2. What motivations drive supervisors to promote cultural integration in Taiwan-based
companies in the U.S.?
3. What organizational factors influence the process of cultural integration within
Taiwan-based companies expanding into the U.S.?
4. What organizational practices, encompassing knowledge and motivation, support
effective cultural integration in Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
Conceptual Framework: Gap Analysis (KMO)
This study adopts the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to explore the
cultural integration challenges faced by Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the
U.S. market. As illustrated in Figure 1, the framework aligns with the study’s focus on
identifying specific challenges related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers.
● Goals vs. Current Achievements. The primary goal is effective cultural integration,
encompassing seamless communication, aligned decision-making, and collaboration.
Current achievements reveal gaps such as hierarchical communication tendencies,
differing risk tolerances, and inconsistent policy application.
● Causes of Gaps. Causes are categorized as knowledge (lack of cross-cultural
understanding), motivation (resistance to change or misaligned priorities), and
organizational barriers (policy gaps or resource constraints). These align with challenges
identified during participant interviews.

32
● Root Causes Analysis and Solutions. By addressing root causes, such as insufficient
training or unclear leadership roles, the framework guides the development of targeted
solutions, including cross-cultural training programs, mentorship initiatives, and
participative governance.
● Evaluation. The effectiveness of these solutions will be measured using predefined
evaluation metrics, including employee feedback, performance indicators, and alignment
with organizational goals.
This tailored approach ensures that the research addresses the unique complexities of Taiwanese
companies’ cultural integration challenges while providing actionable strategies for
improvement.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework - Gap Analysis (KMO)

33
Overview of Design
This study employs a qualitative research methodology to explore complex cultural
phenomena within organizational contexts effectively. The selection of a qualitative research
approach is grounded in its suitability for exploring complex, context-dependent phenomena
such as cross-cultural integration. Qualitative research allows for a deeper understanding of
participants' experiences, perceptions, and the contextual factors influencing these experiences
(Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Research Design
A qualitative case study approach was chosen for this research because it allows for an
in-depth exploration of the intricate dynamics involved in cultural integration within specific
organizational contexts (Yin, 2018). Case studies are particularly useful for understanding
complex social phenomena, as they enable the researcher to investigate the phenomenon within
its real-life context (Yin, 2018). This approach is supported by Stake (1995), who argues that
case studies are instrumental in capturing the unique and particular experiences of organizations
undergoing cultural integration.
Qualitative research methodologies, particularly case studies, have been increasingly
recognized for their ability to provide rich, detailed insights into organizational processes and
cultural dynamics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The case study approach is well-suited for this
research as it facilitates an in-depth understanding of the challenges and strategies unique to
Taiwanese technology companies operating in the U.S. (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Justification for Methodological Choice
The choice of a qualitative research design is further justified by the need to capture the
nuanced and multifaceted nature of cultural integration. Qualitative methods are effective in

34
exploring the subjective experiences and interpretations of participants, which are crucial for
understanding the complexities of cross-cultural interactions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). This
approach aligns with recent methodological studies that emphasize the importance of context and
participant perspectives in organizational research (Ravitch & Carl, 2020).
Using qualitative methods allows for the collection of rich, detailed data through various
techniques such as interviews, observations, and document analysis (Patton, 2015). This depth of
data collection is essential for uncovering the subtle and often hidden aspects of cultural
integration challenges and strategies (Tracy, 2019). Moreover, qualitative research is particularly
adept at capturing the dynamic and evolving nature of cultural integration processes, which is a
key focus of this study (Creswell, 2014).
Research Setting
The study focuses on mid-sized Taiwanese tech companies operating in the United
States, each with an employee base of approximately 100 to 500 individuals. This specific setting
is chosen due to its potential to provide rich insights into the dynamics of cultural integration in a
business environment characterized by technological innovation and diverse employee
backgrounds. The rationale for selecting these settings is their relevance and potential richness in
addressing the research questions. These companies are ideal sites to explore effective practices
and challenges in cultural integration as they regularly navigate cross-cultural dynamics. This
setting is conducive to gaining insights into the strategies employed by leaders in managing and
harmonizing diverse cultural influences within their organizations.
The research will involve interviewing 15 individuals, specifically targeting managers
and supervisors from various levels within these companies, along with 3-5 executives. This
strategic selection of participants is designed to ensure diverse perspectives on the processes and

35
challenges of cultural integration are captured. Focusing on managers and supervisors from midsized tech companies is critical, as they will likely be directly involved in the complexities of
integrating Taiwanese and American cultural elements in a business setting. By including senior
executives, the study also gains insights into the overarching strategies and leadership
approaches to cultural integration. This approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of
cultural integration strategies from both managerial and operational standpoints, enriching the
research findings with a wide range of experiential knowledge.
The Researcher
In conducting this research, it is important to acknowledge my positionality and how it
shapes my perspectives and interpretations. I am deeply immersed in both Taiwanese and
American cultures, having lived and worked extensively in both contexts. My dual cultural
immersion provides a unique vantage point, allowing me to understand the nuances and
complexities of cultural integration from both perspectives. As the executive of one of the
Taiwan-based technology companies under study, my research position is unique and
challenging. My direct experience with the cultural integration issues in my organization
provides me with a deep, personal understanding of the complexities involved. This insider
perspective is valuable but also brings potential biases, as my experiences and position might
influence my views and interpretations.
Being part of the setting I am studying, I acknowledge the risk of subjective bias,
particularly in interpreting practices and responses in a way that aligns with my own experiences
and beliefs. My cultural predispositions may incline me towards collectivist values, such as
emphasizing group harmony and hierarchical respect, due to my Taiwanese heritage. Conversely,
my American experiences may lead to an appreciation for individualism and egalitarianism. I

36
will adopt a reflexive approach to address this, constantly scrutinizing my assumptions and
biases throughout the research process. Additionally, I will engage with external advisors and
peers who can provide objective feedback and challenge my interpretations, ensuring a more
balanced and rigorous analysis.
The dual role of a researcher and an executive within the field also necessitates a clear
ethical approach, particularly in maintaining confidentiality and managing power dynamics
during interviews. By acknowledging and actively mitigating these challenges, I aim to
contribute an informed and balanced perspective, enhancing the validity and reliability of the
study’s findings.
Data Collection
In this research, the primary data collection method is in-depth interviews. This
qualitative approach is chosen for its effectiveness in gaining detailed insights and understanding
the nuanced experiences and perceptions of individuals in Taiwanese technology companies in
the United States. Interviews provide a platform for participants to articulate their views on
cultural integration, revealing the complexities and strategies involved in this process.
Participants
A purposeful sampling strategy is employed for the sampling and recruitment of
participants. This approach allows for selecting individuals who are most likely to provide rich,
relevant information and have direct experience with the cultural integration processes in their
organizations. The study aims to recruit 15 participants, comprising manager and supervisor
levels within these companies and 3-5 executives.
The participants' demographic details, including their roles, length of service, and
specific experiences with cultural integration, will be carefully documented. After data

37
collection, these subjects will be described in detail to enable readers to visualize and understand
the diverse perspectives and backgrounds of the participants, thereby enriching the study's
findings.
Outreach will extend to Taiwanese technology companies in the United States through
professional networks and industry contacts. An internal announcement was made within the
targeted companies, inviting volunteers to participate. This announcement emphasized the
study's focus on understanding cultural integration challenges and strategies.
Interested individuals were provided with detailed information about the study, including
its purpose, the nature of their involvement, and assurances regarding confidentiality and ethical
considerations. In selecting participants, particular attention was given to ensuring a mix of roles,
including executives, managers, and supervisors to capture a broad range of perspectives on
cultural integration. The aim was to recruit individuals with varying lengths of service and
diverse experiences with cultural integration to enrich the study’s insights. This methodical
recruitment process was designed to ensure a representative sample of individuals who could
provide in-depth, relevant information for the research.
Instrumentation
This study's primary instrument for data collection is a semi-structured interview
protocol. This format was chosen for its flexibility, allowing in-depth exploration of participant
experiences and perceptions while ensuring consistency across interviews. The protocol includes
open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed responses to the study’s research questions.
The questions in the interview protocol are carefully crafted to align with the research
questions and the conceptual framework of cultural integration in multinational corporations.
They focus on exploring the practices and interventions for managing cultural conflicts, the

38
perceptions of leaders about cultural integration, and the strategies employed in this context. For
example, participants might be asked about specific challenges they have faced in cultural
integration and the strategies they have found effective.
A piloting phase will be conducted before the main study to ensure the effectiveness of
the interview questions and the reliability of the data collection process. This pilot test will
involve a small number of participants who closely resemble the target demographic of the
study. This piloting aims to refine the interview questions, ensuring they are clearly understood
and elicit the information relevant to the research questions. It also provides an opportunity to
test the logistical aspects of the interview process, such as the length of time needed for each
interview and any potential issues with the technology used for conducting interviews. Feedback
from this pilot phase will be used to make necessary adjustments to the interview protocol,
enhancing the overall quality and reliability of the data collection method.
This approach aims to gather rich, qualitative data that provides insights into the
complexities of cultural integration as experienced by those directly involved in it. This method
aligns well with the study's qualitative nature, aiming to yield nuanced understanding rather than
quantifiable data.
The interview protocol will ask questions about the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences for management and leadership to implement integration strategies to
operate successfully in the United States, specifically focusing on the following influences:
Knowledge
● Traditional top-down Asian management style versus Western bottom-up style.
● Differences in problem-solving processes in traditional Asian style versus Western style.

39
● Risk-taking approach: traditional Asian risk aversion versus Western encouragement of
risk-taking.
Motivation
● Value integrating cultures.
● Have self-efficacy or confidence in being able to integrate cultures
● Apply mental effort or willingness to put in the effort to integrate cultures.
Organization
● Resources that promote integration.
● Policies and procedures that promote integration.
● Perceive cultural differences that promote integration.

40
Table 1
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences and Interview Items.
Influence Item Probe
Knowledge
Traditional top-down Asian
management style versus Western
bottom-up style.
Tell me what you know about
the top-down Asian
management style versus
the Western bottom-up
style.
Can you provide
examples from
your experience
of these
management
styles in action?
Differences in problem-solving
processes: traditional Asian style
versus Western style.
Tell me about the differences
in Problem-Solving
Processes: Traditional
Asian Style Versus.
Western Style
How do these
differences
impact decisionmaking in your
company?
Risk-taking: traditional Asian risk
aversion versus Western
encouragement of risk-taking
Tell me about the risk-taking
style between traditional
Asian risk aversion versus
Western encouragement of
risk-taking.
Can you share a
situation where
you observed
these differing
approaches to
risk-taking?
Motivation
Value integrating cultures. Tell me about the values that
motivate you to integrate
cultures and why
Which specific
cultural values
do you find
most important
in your role?
Have self-efficacy or confidence in
being able to integrate cultures.
Tell me about how confident
you are in integrating
culture.
What experiences
have contributed
to your level of
confidence?
Apply mental effort or willingness to
put in the effort to integrate cultures
Describe the challenges you
encounter integrating
cultures and how you
approach them.
What motivates or
discourages you
from putting in
this effort?
Organization
Resources that promote integration. Tell me about the resources
you have to promote
integration
What additional
resources would
be helpful?

41
Influence Item Probe
Policies and procedures that promote
integration
Tell me about the policies and
procedures that promote
integration
How effective do
you think these
policies and
procedures are?
Perceive cultural differences that
promote integration
Tell me about how you
perceive the cultural
differences that promote
integration
Can you provide
examples of
cultural
differences that
you think have
been beneficial?
General/Closing
Are there any other aspects
we haven’t covered that you
feel are essential?
General
Is there anything you’re
curious about regarding the
study's goals or outcomes?
General
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection for this study occured over three months. Each interview is estimated to
last approximately 60 minutes. The interviews were conducted via video conferencing platforms
such as Zoom or Teams, depending on participant preference and logistical feasibility. The
interviews were recorded. This approach ensures accuracy in capturing participants' responses
and allows for detailed data analysis. Additionally, field notes were taken during each interview
to document non-verbal cues and initial impressions, which can be valuable for contextualizing
the responses. The rationale for these logistical choices is grounded in qualitative research best
practices, emphasizing the importance of a comfortable and private setting for interviews and the
accuracy of data capture methods. This approach is supported by literature suggesting that such
environments and methods are conducive to candid and detailed responses.
Data Analysis
The data analysis for this researchinvolves a thematic analysis approach, as Braun and
Clarke (2012) suggested. After transcribing the interviews, the data were read thoroughly to gain

42
a deep understanding and identify patterns and themes. These themes were reviewed and refined
to ensure they accurately represent the data and are aligned with the research questions. This
iterative process of analysis and theme development allows for a nuanced understanding of the
data, providing insights into the cultural integration strategies and challenges within Taiwanese
companies in the U.S. This qualitative analysis approach is chosen for its ability to capture the
complexity and depth of the participants' experiences and perspectives.
Coding Process
The data collected through interviews were systematically coded to identify key themes
and patterns. The coding process involved both inductive and deductive approaches. Initially,
open coding were used to break down the data into discrete parts and identify initial codes. These
codes were categorized into broader themes using axial coding, where relationships between
codes are explored and established. Finally, selective coding were employed to integrate and
refine these themes into cohesive narratives that address the research questions.
To ensure transparency and consistency in the coding process, a coding table were
created to document each code, its definition, and examples from the data. This table serves as a
reference throughout the analysis process, facilitating the systematic organization and
interpretation of data. Additionally, a chart were developed to visually represent the relationships
between the identified themes, aiding in the synthesis of findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of the research findings is crucial for
qualitative research. Credibility refers to the confidence in the truth of the data and the
interpretations made by the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To enhance credibility, multiple
strategies will be employed, including member checking, triangulation, and prolonged

43
engagement. Member checking will involve sharing the findings with participants to validate the
accuracy of the interpretations. Triangulation will be achieved by using multiple data sources
(Patton, 2015) and methods to cross-verify the findings. Prolonged engagement with the research
setting and participants will help build trust and provide a deeper understanding of the context.
Trustworthiness extends beyond credibility and includes transferability, dependability,
and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1989). Transferability will be addressed by providing rich,
thick descriptions of the research context and participants, allowing readers to determine the
applicability of the findings to other contexts. Dependability will be ensured by maintaining a
detailed audit trail, documenting the research process, decisions made, and changes in the
research design. Confirmability will be achieved by maintaining reflexivity and transparency in
the research process, ensuring that the findings are shaped by the participants' experiences and
not by researcher bias.
Validity and Reliability
In the context of qualitative research, validity refers to the accuracy and authenticity of
the findings (Maxwell, 2013). Validity will be addressed through methodological rigor and
careful consideration of the research design. This includes ensuring that the research questions
align with the chosen methodology, employing appropriate data collection and analysis
techniques, and continuously reflecting on the research process to identify and mitigate potential
biases.
Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency and dependability of the research
process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While qualitative research acknowledges the subjective
nature of human experiences, reliability can be enhanced by clearly documenting the research
procedures and ensuring that they are systematically followed. This includes maintaining

44
consistent methods for data collection, coding, and analysis. Intercoder reliability will be
addressed by having multiple researchers independently code a subset of the data and compare
their results to ensure consistency.
Ethics
Involving human participants in research involves significant ethical responsibilities,
necessitating adherence to established ethical standards and practices. A cornerstone of ethical
compliance in this study is the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process, which ensures
that all research involving human subjects is conducted in a manner that protects their rights and
welfare. Prior to commencing data collection, this study will be submitted for IRB approval,
detailing the research design, participant recruitment strategies, data collection methods, and
measures for maintaining confidentiality and informed consent.
Ensuring voluntary participation is crucial, which means participants must be fully
informed about the study's nature and have the right to withdraw at any time without any
consequences. Maintaining confidentiality is paramount; this involves securing personal data and
ensuring anonymity in presenting findings. Obtaining explicit permission to record interviews is
a part of this ethical approach. To protect participant information, all data must be stored
securely, with restricted access, only available to the research team.
These ethical considerations are in alignment with the principles set forth by the IRB and
underscore the study’s dedication to upholding the highest standards of research ethics,
prioritizing participant welfare and rights throughout the research process.
Limitations and Delimitations
In this study, certain limitations and delimitations are acknowledged. One of the primary
limitations concerns the generalizability of the study's outcomes. By focusing exclusively on

45
mid-sized Taiwanese technology companies in the United States, the research is inherently
limited in its applicability to other industries or cultural contexts. The unique challenges and
processes of cultural integration encountered by these companies, while providing in-depth
insights, may not fully represent or apply to different sectors or companies navigating cultural
integration between other cultural combinations. Another notable limitation is the reliance on the
truthfulness of respondents' answers during interviews. As with any qualitative research, there's a
degree of trust in the authenticity of the participants' responses, such as the potential for
subjective interpretation of data, which cannot be objectively verified. As the researcher's
perspectives and experiences can influence the analysis, steps are taken to mitigate this through
reflexivity and peer review.
On the delimitation front, the study is purposefully confined to examining cultural
integration within a specific business and cultural setting, chosen to allow for a focused
exploration of the nuanced experiences and strategies of Taiwanese technology companies in the
United States. sign a semi-structured interview protocol as the sole data collection method, while
beneficial for depth, might limit the breadth of perspectives gathered. The number of
observations is another delimitation; with a relatively small sample size, the study might not
capture the full range of experiences and opinions in the broader population. Together, these
limitations and delimitations critically define the study's boundaries, underscoring the need for
careful interpretation of the findings within the contextually specific scope of the research.

46
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the research findings based on the qualitative data collected through
interviews with 12 managers, supervisors, and executives of Taiwanese technology companies
operating in the United States. It will analyze the data to provide answers to the research
questions and highlight the emerging themes related to cultural integration challenges and
strategies. The research questions are:
1. What is the extent of supervisors' knowledge regarding promoting cultural integration
within Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
2. What motivations drive supervisors to promote cultural integration in Taiwan-based
companies in the U.S.?
3. What organizational factors influence the process of cultural integration within
Taiwan-based companies expanding into the U.S.?
4. What organizational practices, encompassing knowledge and motivation, support
effective cultural integration in Taiwan-based companies operating in the U.S.?
. This chapter presents the research findings derived from interviews conducted with
managers, supervisors, and executives of Taiwanese technology companies operating in the
United States. The findings are structured around three key dimensions: knowledge, motivation,
and organization, with each category addressed through six targeted interview questions. In
addition, two open-ended questions were included to capture broader insights. Within each
interview question, participant responses are organized into themes that emerged from the data,
offering a nuanced understanding of the challenges and strategies involved in cultural
integration. This thematic organization provides a comprehensive framework for exploring the
interplay between Taiwanese and American cultural practices in organizational contexts.

47
For additional context, the anonymized interview data supporting this chapter’s analysis
is included in Appendix A: Interview Data. This appendix provides detailed participant
responses and coded themes to ensure transparency and enrich the understanding of the findings
presented.
Participants
The interview participants consisted of 12 individuals, including senior executives,
managers, and directors from various departments and sectors within the technology industry.
Their roles and responsibilities provided diverse perspectives on the cultural integration process.
An overview of the participants and their roles is provided below to contextualize the findings.
The participants, represented by pseudonyms, come from different technology industry
sectors and hold various leadership roles within their organizations. This diverse group
contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and strategies related to cultural
integration. Table 2 presents a brief overview of the interview participants:
Table 2
Participant Overview
Participant Job sector Job title
Aaron W. Tech, Manufacture Sr. Director, Business
Development
Ana S. Tech, Hardware Chief Operating Officer
Andy G. Tech, Software Chief Marketing Officer
Betty C. Tech, Software Head of HR
Dave W. Venture Capital Partner

48
Florence L. Tech, Software Head, Strategy Accounts
Jim W. Tech System Sr. Director, Product
Development
Judy T. Tech, Hardware Managing Director, US
Kevin T. Tech, Software VP, Sales
Max W. Tech, Hardware Founder/CEO
Nate N. Tech, Hardware Founder/CTO
Terry C. Tech Hardware GM, Americas
Knowledge Findings
The first research question examines knowledge by asking, “What is the extent of
supervisors' knowledge regarding promoting cultural integration within Taiwan-based companies
operating in the U.S.?” Six interview questions examined this research question.
Knowledge Interview Question 1: Management Styles
The first interview question regarding knowledge was, “Describe your understanding of
the different management styles in Taiwanese and American cultures?” The interviewees
consistently view Taiwanese management as more hierarchical, authority-driven, and focused on
technical credentials and group harmony. In contrast, they describe American management as
more egalitarian.
Hierarchy and Authority
Many participants noted that Taiwanese management is more hierarchical. For instance,
Aaron emphasized the value placed on technical expertise and seniority, while Ana and Betty
strongly emphasized respect for authority. Dave, Jim, and Kevin reinforced this, stating that

49
decision-making in Taiwan typically follows a top-down approach, where leaders make
decisions and teams execute them without much debate. Max further noted that this structure
promotes group harmony. Nate added, “In Taiwanese management, seniority is respected and
often deeply ingrained in decision-making processes. You often find less questioning of
authority figures.”
Collaboration and Participation
The interviewees describe American management styles as more collaborative and
participative. Aaron highlights the integration of cross-functional perspectives involving teams
from marketing, sales, and business development. Florence and Jim observed that American
leaders encourage input from all team members, making decision-making more inclusive. Max
described the American approach as egalitarian, valuing individual initiative and direct
communication. Terry added, “American companies are likelier to have open forums and
brainstorming sessions where even the most junior staff can present their ideas.”
Respect and Equality
Betty highlighted that while hierarchy exists in both cultures, American management
respects everyone equally, promoting a more inclusive workplace. Ana echoed this sentiment,
stating that American styles are participative and respectful. Nate noted, "in the U.S., respect is
often earned through contributions and expertise rather than age or tenure."
Core Principles and Philosophies
Judy contrasted the guiding principles of Taiwanese management, which emphasize
diligence, frugality, and endurance, with the American focus on individual value, systematic
evolution, and rational decision-making. This underscores a cultural divide: Taiwanese

50
organizations prioritize collective effort and long-term endurance, while American firms
prioritize systematic and regulatory adherence and innovation.
Individualism Versus Consensus
Andy observed that Taiwanese culture seeks consensus and places high value on
respecting authority, whereas American culture fosters individualism and open debate. Several
other participants, such as Dave and Jim, supported this and pointed out the encouragement of
idea-sharing and challenging authority in U.S. workplaces. Terry highlighted that “while
Taiwanese leaders prefer unanimity and cautious decision-making, American leaders are more
comfortable with taking calculated risks and encouraging diverse viewpoints.”
Structured vs. Flexible Decision-Making
Terry and Nate noted that Taiwanese management tends to have more structured
decision-making processes, where procedures and protocols are followed closely. In contrast,
American management is often more flexible and adaptable, allowing quicker pivots based on
team feedback.
In summary, the interviews reveal distinct contrasts between Taiwanese and American
management styles. Taiwan favors hierarchy, authority, and group harmony, while the U.S.
emphasizes collaboration, individual input, and egalitarian principles.
Knowledge Interview Question 2: Management Styles in Action
The second interview question regarding knowledge was, “Can you provide examples
from your experience where you have seen these management styles in action?” Participants
provided real-world examples highlighting the contrasting management styles between Taiwan
and the U.S. The typical pattern observed in the responses further reinforces Taiwanese
management's hierarchical, consensus-driven, and long-term strategic focus. In contrast,

51
American management is seen as more agile, participative, and focused on rapid, decentralized
decision-making. These experiences reveal a significant cultural divide in decision-making
processes, with Taiwanese management styles being more top-down and deliberate, while
American management encourages autonomy and fast, collective input.
Decision-Making and Hierarchy
Several participants shared examples of how hierarchical decision-making in Taiwan
contrasts with the more agile and decentralized approach in the U.S. Aaron recalled his time at
XXX Taiwan, where senior leaders made decisions after detailed planning sessions, compared to
YYY in the U.S., where decisions were quicker and team-driven. Andy noticed that in Taiwan,
managers sought group consensus before making tactical decisions, while in the U.S., they acted
more independently. Ana observed employees in Taiwan deferring to supervisors for approval,
unlike their U.S. counterparts, who often took the initiative. Max and Terry both described
decision-making in Taiwan as involving multiple meetings across departments to ensure
alignment, whereas in the U.S., they made quick decisions and trusted their teams to execute.
Kevin also highlighted this difference, noting that Taiwanese teams awaited clear instructions
while U.S. teams brainstormed and suggested alternatives proactively.
Flexibility and Innovation
Flexibility and innovation emerged as key characteristics of American management.
Dave shared that while working at PPP, ideas flowed freely from all levels, contrasting with his
experience at TTB Taiwan, where directives came from senior leadership. Florence described a
hybrid approach in one project where strategy came from Taiwan, but the U.S. team was free to
innovate in execution. Jim experienced a clash between the aggressive, short-term focus of his
U.S. sales team and his Taiwanese counterparts' more cautious, long-term strategy. Nate noted

52
that in the U.S., engineers could challenge senior management openly, fostering innovation. In
Taiwan, however, the administration made strategic decisions with little employee questioning.
Handling of Challenges and Feedback
Participants highlighted cultural differences in addressing challenges and providing
feedback. Judy shared that in Taiwan, public criticism of managers for not meeting targets was
common, whereas in the U.S., such situations were handled more discreetly, often due to legal
considerations. Betty pointed out the importance of culturally and legally aligning U.S. policies,
such as time off, to explain their rationale clearly.
Speed and Autonomy
The speed of decision-making and autonomy also varied between the two cultures. Max
recounted that in the U.S., he made quick decisions to allocate resources without waiting for
multiple approvals. Similarly, Terry shared how U.S. projects allowed for rapid decision-making
compared to the time-consuming consensus-driven approach in Taiwan. Jim added that U.S.
teams could quickly adopt aggressive tactics, while Taiwanese teams preferred methodical, longterm strategies.
In summary, the participants provided rich examples demonstrating the contrasts between
Taiwanese and American management styles. Taiwanese organizations emphasize hierarchy,
consensus, and systematic planning, while U.S. companies prioritize agility, collaboration, and
individual initiative.
Knowledge Interview Question 3: Management Styles in Different Cultral Context
The third interview question regarding knowledge was, “Can you share your observations
or experiences with different problem-solving processes in a cultural context, particularly
comparing Taiwanese approaches with American approaches?”. Participants shared various

53
observations about problem-solving approaches in Taiwanese and American business cultures:
The responses consistently reflect that Taiwanese approaches to problem-solving emphasize
thoroughness, consensus, stability, and risk aversion. In contrast, American approaches are
characterized by speed, agility, and a greater comfort with risk.
Consensus and Methodical Problem-Solving in Taiwan
Participants consistently highlighted the consensus-driven and methodical nature of
problem-solving in Taiwan. Aaron emphasized that Taiwanese teams focus on gathering
consensus and being thorough before implementing solutions, ensuring every detail is
considered. Similarly, Ana observed that Taiwanese teams favor collaboration, with a strong
emphasis on reaching a consensus. Andy noted that this approach prioritizes harmony and avoids
conflict, which aligns with Dave’s experience of extensive upfront analysis and group
discussions to ensure alignment. Florence echoed this, describing Taiwan’s problem-solving
process as highly methodical, involving careful consideration before taking action. Kevin
acknowledged that this approach helps consider all angles but can slow down the decisionmaking process. Nate added that the collective and deliberate approach ensures everyone is on
the same page, even if it takes more time. Max highlighted that Taiwan’s risk-averse culture
prioritizes long-term stability and maintaining group harmony.
Speed and Agility in American Problem-Solving
In contrast, the participants described American problem-solving as faster and more
agile. Aaron shared that U.S. teams are more willing to try solutions, gather feedback, and make
adjustments along the way. Ana observed that American teams prioritize finding quick and
efficient solutions, often taking risks to resolve issues promptly. Andy noted that while both
cultures value efficiency, the American approach is more direct. Dave highlighted the agile

54
nature of U.S. problem-solving, where teams test and adjust quickly. Florence added that U.S.
teams are more willing to take chances and iterate if a solution doesn’t work initially. Jim
pointed out that American teams tend to make faster decisions, especially in market-facing
scenarios. Kevin acknowledged the efficiency of this approach but warned that it might overlook
important details. Nate reiterated that while U.S. teams dive into problem-solving quickly, this
speed sometimes leads to oversights.
Collaborative and Process-Driven Approaches
Participants also noted that American problem-solving often involves more crossfunctional collaboration. Judy observed that U.S. companies focus on gathering input from
various departments, fostering open and inclusive discussions. Betty remarked that American
employees are encouraged to think outside the box, fostering innovation and creative solutions.
Terry shared an example of a two-stage decision-making process, where U.S. teams make quick
initial decisions to respond to market demands, followed by thorough analysis and consultation
with Taiwanese headquarters for refinement.
Balancing Approaches
Several participants highlighted the strengths and challenges of each approach. Jim
emphasized the importance of aligning decisions with broader company goals, balancing
American teams' agility with Taiwanese teams' strategic alignment. Kevin noted that while
Taiwan’s thoroughness ensures comprehensive solutions, the U.S.’s efficiency allows faster
responses to market changes. Max underscored the cultural differences in risk tolerance, with
Americans being more comfortable taking calculated risks.
These insights highlight Taiwan's careful, consensus-focused approach versus the U.S.'s
agile, risk-tolerant, and results-driven style. These contrasts show the challenges of integrating

55
teams from both cultures. Understanding these differences is crucial for fostering effective crosscultural collaboration, particularly in fast-moving business environments where speed and agility
can be essential. Still, it may need to be balanced with thorough planning and risk management.
Knowledge Interview Question 4: The inpact in Decision Making
The fourth interview question regarding knowledge was, “How do these differences
impact decision-making in your company?“ The responses consistently show that the primary
impact of these cultural differences is on the speed and thoroughness of decision-making.
Taiwanese management is slower due to its emphasis on consensus, thorough analysis, and input
from multiple levels, which helps ensure alignment but can slow down decision-making. On the
other hand, American management is faster, favoring quick decisions to meet market demands;
this analysis suggests that cross-cultural teams need to balance the speed and agility of American
decision-making with the thoroughness and consensus-driven approach of Taiwanese
management. Adopting a phased approach or combining quick actions with follow-up analysis
might be the best way to leverage the strengths of both cultures in decision-making speed, which
sometimes comes at the cost of overlooking essential details or stakeholder input.
Impact on Decision-Making Speed
Participants consistently emphasized how cultural differences influence the speed of
decision-making. Aaron noted that decisions in Taiwan take longer due to the need for input
from multiple levels, while U.S. teams are comfortable making quicker decisions with less
information. Andy and Dave both observed that Taiwanese teams prioritize consensus-building,
which can delay implementation, whereas U.S. teams focus on speed, which is beneficial for
time-sensitive projects but might lead to overlooked details. Florence highlighted the importance
of fast decision-making in the U.S. to keep up with market demands, particularly in the tech

56
industry. Similarly, Nate stressed that U.S. teams’ speed is advantageous when responding to
market changes, though it contrasts with Taiwan’s more deliberate approach. Terry summarized
these differences as affecting both the speed and style of decision-making.
Centralization vs. Decentralization
Several participants discussed how these differences impact the structure of decisionmaking. Betty pointed out that most authority and final decisions reside with Taiwanese
leadership, reflecting a centralized approach. Judy added that Taiwan’s top-down style ensures
quick, higher-level decision-making but limits input from middle management or employees. In
contrast, she noted that the U.S.’s decentralized approach fosters creativity and inclusivity,
though it can slow down the process. Max described a practical example where his U.S. team
made initial quick decisions to meet market demands, followed by consultation with Taiwan
headquarters for thorough analysis. Jim echoed this, explaining how his U.S. team wanted to
capitalize on a trend after initial market research. Still, Taiwanese management pushed for
deeper study, leading to a phased implementation strategy.
Thoroughness vs. Efficiency
The participants also highlighted the trade-offs between thoroughness and efficiency.
Kevin noted that Taiwan’s approach ensures all angles are considered, which is crucial for
strategic decisions but slows the process. On the other hand, the U.S.’s quick and efficient style
might overlook important details. Judy emphasized that while American teams generate creative
solutions, their processes can lack the depth of Taiwanese decision-making. Florence valued
Taiwan’s methodical approach when alignment is crucial for significant commitments. Nate
agreed, observing that Taiwan’s thoroughness ensures strategic alignment, whereas the U.S.
excels in rapid decision-making for immediate needs.

57
Balancing Both Approaches
Participants suggested that balancing these approaches could optimize decision-making.
Ana shared the importance of understanding and bridging these cultural differences by
explaining the rationale behind decisions to both teams. Max and Jim highlighted the benefits of
a hybrid strategy, where U.S. teams act quickly but consult Taiwan for deeper analysis, ensuring
agility and thoroughness.
In summary, the participants underscored that Taiwanese decision-making emphasizes
thoroughness, alignment, and centralization, while U.S. decision-making prioritizes speed,
efficiency, and decentralization. These differences can complement each other, creating a
balanced approach that leverages the strengths of both cultures.
Knowledge Interview Question 5: Risk-Taking Behavior Between Two Different Cultures
The fifth interview question regarding knowledge was, “How do you view the
differences in risk-taking behaviors between Taiwanese and American cultures?” The responses
show that risk-taking behavior is a clear cultural divide between Taiwan and the U.S. Taiwanese
teams are typically more risk-averse, preferring thorough evaluation, careful planning, and
ensuring long-term stability before making decisions. This reflects the cultural emphasis on
"saving face" and minimizing the chances of failure. On the other hand, American teams are
more comfortable taking calculated risks, embracing innovation, and accepting that failure can
be a part of the process. The U.S. approach leads to faster decision-making, innovation, and
quicker pivots when strategies don’t work, contrasting with Taiwan’s focus on ensuring all
angles are considered before acting. Regarding cross-cultural collaboration, these insights
highlight that Taiwanese teams may need to adapt by becoming more agile in high-paced

58
environments. In contrast, American teams may benefit from understanding the long-term
strategic considerations valued by Taiwanese counterparts.
Risk Aversion in Taiwanese Culture
Participants consistently highlighted the cautious approach to risk-taking in Taiwanese
culture. Aaron observed that Taiwanese teams prefer to have a solid plan in place, aiming to
minimize failure. Ana shared that her Taiwanese team hesitated to expand into a new market,
carefully analyzing potential downsides before proceeding. Dave and Florence noted that
Taiwanese teams typically evaluate every angle and consider long-term sustainability, avoiding
unnecessary risks. Jim emphasized that Taiwanese companies focus on potential long-term
consequences, aligning with Judy’s view that Taiwanese businesses prioritize stability, cost
control, and sustainability. Kevin and Max both described Taiwanese culture as risk-averse, with
a strong preference for planning and "saving face." Nate added that Taiwanese teams tend to
account for all possible risks before moving forward. Terry underscored the importance of solid
planning, highlighting Taiwanese teams' cautious nature.
Risk-Taking in American Culture
Participants described American teams as more comfortable with risk-taking and more
accepting of failure. Aaron contrasted this with the U.S. approach, where teams are open to
taking calculated risks despite the possibility of failure. Ana noted that her American team
eagerly embraced the potential benefits of market expansion, demonstrating their willingness to
take risks. Andy highlighted the U.S.’s higher tolerance for risk and focus on innovation, while
Dave explained that American startups often pivot quickly, embracing failure as part of the
learning process. Jim and Judy echoed this sentiment, pointing out that American culture
encourages risk-taking as a necessity for growth and competitiveness. Kevin and Max observed

59
that Americans are more comfortable taking calculated risks to achieve immediate benefits.
Terry described U.S. teams as ready to take risks, even when outcomes remain uncertain.
Balancing Long-Term Stability and Growth
Several participants highlighted how these differing approaches impact decision-making
and strategy. Dave contrasted Taiwanese companies’ focus on building sustainable long-term
plans with the agile, risk-tolerant nature of American startups. Judy emphasized that American
businesses view failure as a valuable learning opportunity, while Taiwanese businesses aim to
avoid failure at all costs. Betty provided a nuanced perspective, noting that while risk-taking
occurs in both cultures, Taiwanese companies often rely on top management for strategic shifts,
whereas American employees across all levels engage in risk-taking. This difference fosters
innovation and quicker decision-making in U.S. companies while maintaining stability in
Taiwanese organizations.
In summary, participants highlighted that Taiwanese culture prioritizes risk mitigation,
stability, and long-term planning, while American culture embraces calculated risks, agility, and
learning from failure. These contrasting approaches shape organizational strategies, influencing
short-term growth and long-term sustainability.
Knowledge Interview Question 6: Example of Different Risk-Taking Approach
The sixth interview question regarding knowledge was, “Can you share a situation where
you observed these differing approaches to risk-taking?” The situations described consistently
reflect a contrast in risk-taking behavior. The American teams are generally more willing to take
calculated risks and act quickly, often embracing trial-and-error or the potential benefits of early
action. On the other hand, Taiwanese teams are consistently portrayed as more risk-averse,

60
preferring to conduct thorough research, internal testing, and analysis before committing
resources or making decisions.
This divergence in approach highlights potential friction in cross-cultural teams,
especially in time-sensitive industries. The American preference for rapid action can provide a
competitive edge but risks overlooking important details or long-term consequences. Conversely,
Taiwanese caution ensures stability and thorough decision-making but may slow down progress
in fast-moving markets. This analysis suggests that combining the strengths of both approaches,
such as phased launches or controlled tests, may lead to more effective risk management.
Balancing Risk in Product Development
Participants shared various situations where they observed differing approaches to risktaking between U.S. and Taiwanese teams. Aaron described a product development cycle with
ZZZ, where the U.S. team wanted to implement a new feature without full testing, while the
Taiwanese team hesitated due to potential technical issues. They compromised by launching in a
controlled environment to gather data. Similarly, Florence recounted a project where the U.S.
team preferred to test a new product feature quickly with customer feedback post-launch, while
the Taiwanese team insisted on running extensive internal tests first. Nate observed a similar
dynamic when exploring new LiDAR technology, where the U.S. team pushed for early realworld testing, and the Taiwanese team advocated for more simulations.
Expansion Strategies and Market Entry
Risk approaches also diverged in market expansion scenarios. Ana shared that during
deliberations about opening a new office, the Taiwanese team was hesitant due to perceived
risks, whereas the American team eagerly focused on potential market benefits. Judy highlighted
a North American expansion project where Taiwanese management conducted extensive

61
research and risk assessments while the U.S. team pushed for a more aggressive approach. Kevin
described a similar experience where the U.S. team wanted to test a new market with a small
pilot project, but the Taiwanese team preferred to conduct a thorough market research first. Dave
mentioned an investment scenario in a startup looking to expand aggressively into the U.S.
market. The cautious Taiwanese founders focused on gradual growth, while the American team
pushed for a faster rollout to capitalize on opportunities. Max provided an example from the
automotive storage market, where the U.S. team proposed an aggressive R&D strategy for a
first-to-market advantage, but Taiwanese headquarters cited potential risks and lengthy industry
qualification processes.
Innovation and Strategic Initiatives
When considering bold strategic moves, U.S. teams often demonstrated a higher
tolerance for risk. Andy noted that U.S.-based teams were willing to spend funds on bold
activations, while Taiwanese teams prioritized ensuring a set return on investment (ROI). Jim
shared an example involving a new product line launch, where the U.S. team was eager to
proceed after initial market research, while Taiwanese management sought more in-depth
analysis, including long-term forecasts and potential challenges. Terry observed a similar pattern,
where the U.S. team pushed for a quick launch to gain a first-mover advantage, but the
Taiwanese team opted for more market research.
Decision-Making Culture
The differing risk attitudes also reflect broader cultural differences in decision-making.
Betty noted that U.S. management often encourages employees to take risks and present
innovative solutions. In contrast, Taiwanese subordinates tend to seek approval from higher
management, reflecting a more cautious and hierarchical approach.

62
In summary, participants highlighted that U.S. teams often embrace calculated risks,
favoring speed and innovation to capitalize on opportunities. In contrast, Taiwanese teams prefer
thorough analysis and risk mitigation, prioritizing long-term stability and careful planning. These
contrasting approaches shape how companies balance immediate gains with sustainable growth.
Motivation Findings
The second research question examines motivation by asking, “ What motivations drive
supervisors to promote cultural integration in Taiwan-based companies in the U.S.?” interview
questions examined this research question.
Motivation Interview Question 1: Management’s Role in Culture Integration
The first interview question regarding motivation was, “In what ways do you value your
role in integrating different cultures?” The responses reflect that individuals working across
Taiwanese and American cultures value their role in bridging the two distinct approaches. These
respondents see themselves as connectors or bridge-builders, ensuring that teams from both
cultures understand and respect each other’s perspectives. This role is seen as essential for
creating a harmonious, inclusive environment where both precision and adaptability—hallmarks
of Taiwanese and American cultures respectively—can be leveraged.
The key skills highlighted are facilitating communication, building trust, and creating
common ground. It underscores the importance of translating language and conveying cultural
intent and context, enabling more effective cross-cultural collaboration. Overall, this role is
crucial for harmonizing efforts across geographically and culturally distinct teams, fostering a
productive and innovative work environment.

63
Acting as a Bridge Between Cultures
Participants emphasized their roles as cultural connectors, leveraging their understanding
of both Taiwanese and American perspectives. Aaron described himself as a connector who
helps teams navigate cultural intricacies and ensures mutual respect. Similarly, Ana saw her role
as a bridge-builder, fostering inclusivity and harmony across diverse teams. Judy echoed this,
valuing her role in integrating different cultural approaches to bridge distinct ways of thinking
and operating. Dave and Florence highlighted their unique positions in understanding both
cultures. Dave found it rewarding to help startups grow globally by blending Taiwan’s precision
with the U.S.’s speed and adaptability. Florence valued her ability to act as a cultural bridge,
drawing from her upbringing in Taiwan and her extended experience in the U.S.
Facilitating Understanding and Collaboration
Participants underscored the importance of promoting understanding and collaboration.
Jim valued both Taiwan’s structured, detail-oriented nature and the U.S.’s focus on innovation
and speed, seeing his role as ensuring both sides work together harmoniously. Kevin found it
rewarding to help teams collaborate more effectively by addressing cultural differences, while
Max emphasized the importance of helping both sides appreciate each other’s approaches.
Nate focused on finding common ground, helping teams understand and leverage the strengths of
both cultures. Terry highlighted the need to go beyond language translation, ensuring that
cultural context and intent are effectively conveyed.
Building Trust and Open Communication
Participants also emphasized the role of trust and communication in cultural integration.
Andy highlighted the value of building trust and fostering open communication between

64
cultures. Betty saw cultural integration as both a priority and a necessity, ensuring a seamless
blend of Taiwanese and American work styles.
In summary, participants valued their roles as cultural integrators, acting as bridges
between Taiwanese and American teams. They emphasized the importance of fostering mutual
respect, enhancing collaboration, and promoting understanding to leverage the strengths of both
cultures for global success.
Motivation Interview Question 2: Value in Culture Integration Role
The second interview question regarding motivation was, “Which specific cultural values
do you find most important in your role?” The responses highlight key cultural values important
in cross-cultural roles: respect, adaptability, clear communication, and openness. Taiwanese
values such as respect for hierarchy, patience, and maintaining harmony frequently contrast with
American values like initiative, innovation, and directness. Respondents emphasize that
understanding and adapting to these differing values is crucial for effective collaboration and
integration.
Most respondents also stress adaptability as a core requirement, allowing them to
navigate between differing cultural expectations. These findings underscore that a balanced
approach, where respect for structure and hierarchy coexist with innovation and open
communication, is essential for leaders and team members working across both cultures.
Integrity and Respect
Participants consistently emphasized the importance of integrity and respect in their roles.
Aaron highlighted integrity as the most critical value, while Ana and Andy stressed the
importance of treating everyone with respect, regardless of cultural background. Jim and Kevin

65
also underscored respect as foundational, ensuring all team members feel valued. Max added that
fostering respect helps build long-term relationships and supports diversity.
Adaptability and Openness
Adaptability emerged as a key theme. Dave described adaptability as crucial for
navigating different management styles and leveraging the strengths of both cultures. Judy
valued adaptability alongside accountability and effort. Terry and Kevin both noted that
switching between communication and management styles is essential for their roles. Max
emphasized flexibility in communication and decision-making as a means to foster collaboration
and inclusivity.
Collaboration and Communication
Participants highlighted the role of effective communication in promoting collaboration.
Ana and Andy emphasized clear and open communication as vital for bridging cultural divides
and supporting teamwork. Max and Terry added that flexible communication styles help
maintain harmony and drive success across cultural boundaries.
Hierarchy and Initiative
Several participants discussed the balance between respecting hierarchy and encouraging
initiative. Betty, Florence, and Nate emphasized the importance of respecting hierarchy in
Taiwan, which maintains structure and discipline. At the same time, they acknowledged the U.S.
emphasis on initiative, independence, and individual contributions as valuable for fostering
innovation and creativity.
Effort and Accountability
Judy and Dave stressed accountability and effort as key cultural values. These values
ensure teams remain dependable and committed, contributing to a disciplined and effective work

66
environment. Betty reinforced this by highlighting the importance of harmony and dependable
working methods in both cultures.
In summary, participants valued integrity, respect, adaptability, and effective
communication as crucial cultural values in their roles. They highlighted the need to balance
respect for hierarchy with fostering initiative, ensuring accountability while maintaining
openness, and creating harmonious and thriving cross-cultural teams.
Motivation Interview Question 3: Confidence in Culture Integration
The third interview question regarding motivation was, “How would you describe your
confidence right now in integrating different cultures?” The responses indicate a high level of
confidence in cultural integration due to various experiences across academic, corporate, and
startup settings. Many participants have lived in both Taiwan and the U.S., which has provided a
foundation for understanding and navigating cultural differences. This experience fosters a sense
of adaptability and enhances their confidence in managing cross-cultural teams, especially in
fast-paced or high-stakes environments.
The responses also show that transitioning between diverse roles and environments builds
robust cultural integration skills, suggesting that such transitions and varied roles are
instrumental in developing effective cross-cultural leaders. This aligns with previous insights on
adaptability, respect, and openness as critical values in multicultural integration.
High Confidence in Cultural Integration
Many participants expressed high confidence in their ability to integrate different
cultures. Aaron highlighted his extensive experience managing diverse cultural interactions in
semiconductor technical support and business development across multiple countries. Ana stated
she feels confident, citing her experience working with people from diverse backgrounds and her

67
ability to navigate cultural differences effectively. Andy and Judy shared similar sentiments,
emphasizing that their experience in both Taiwanese and American settings has helped them
build confidence in managing cultural nuances. Betty, Dave, Florence, and Jim stated that they
feel confident, reflecting their comfort and capability in cultural integration roles. Kevin also
expressed strong confidence, underscoring his ability to bridge cultural gaps effectively.
Confidence with a Learning Mindset
Some participants combined their confidence with a recognition of continued learning.
Max described his general confidence in integrating cultures within his current company but
acknowledged some uncertainty if placed in a new environment. Nate expressed that while he
feels capable, he is still learning and refining his skills. Terry rated his confidence as moderate to
high, indicating room for growth while maintaining a solid foundation.
In summary, most participants expressed high confidence in their cultural integration
skills, bolstered by their diverse professional experiences. Several also emphasized the
importance of continuous learning to navigate new challenges and refine their abilities further.
Motivation Interview Question 4: How Experience Contribute to the Confidence
The fourth interview question regarding motivation was, “What experiences have
contributed to your level of confidence?” The responses highlight how diverse experiences
across regions, industries, and roles build confidence in cross-cultural settings. Key contributors
include international education and work experiences, leadership roles across industries, and
managing cross-cultural teams. This analysis underscores the importance of exposure to diverse
environments and responsibilities in building confidence for cultural integration and leadership
in multinational settings.

68
Multinational and Cross-Cultural Work Experience
Participants highlighted how their diverse work experiences across different countries
and industries have shaped their confidence in integrating cultures. Aaron reflected on leading
teams across American, Indian, Korean, Belgian, and Taiwanese backgrounds, emphasizing that
overcoming challenges in various international roles has been instrumental. Kevin and Andy
similarly credited their time managing multinational teams and working on cross-cultural
projects in regions like Taiwan, France, and Latin America for building their confidence.
Jim pointed to his experience working in Japan and the U.S., which helped him navigate
differing cultural expectations. Florence shared that working in the fast-paced U.S. tech industry
sharpened her decision-making skills and enabled her to lead teams with diverse perspectives.
Educational and Early Career Transitions
Several participants discussed how their educational and early career experiences
contributed to their confidence. Max and Terry emphasized their transitions from Taiwan to the
U.S. for higher education, which required adapting to new cultures and environments. Nate
credited his time at Stanford and Intel for giving him the confidence to challenge ideas and thrive
in high-pressure environments. He added that his academic role at National Tsing Hua
University deepened his understanding of decision-making in different contexts.
Leadership in Varied Contexts
Participants underscored the value of leadership roles in different settings. Dave
discussed his experiences leading Taobao in Taiwan, working in venture capital, and managing a
professional baseball team, all of which taught him to navigate diverse organizational cultures.
Judy highlighted her time at a Taiwanese manufacturer and leading a U.S. branch office, which
broadened her market knowledge and customer support skills.

69
Ana mentioned her leadership of diverse teams and participation in cultural training programs,
which gave her practical tools for effective integration. Betty noted her successful relationships
with various departments in Taiwan, including HR, finance, and technical teams, as key to her
confidence.
Personal Growth and Adaptability
Several participants linked their confidence to stepping out of their comfort zones.
Florence described how moving to the U.S. for her master’s degree forced her to adapt quickly
and embrace new cultural norms. Dave and Max both highlighted how navigating between
traditional corporate environments and fast-paced startups helped them develop a flexible
leadership style.
In summary, participants attributed their confidence in integrating different cultures to a
combination of multinational work experience, leadership roles, educational transitions, and
personal growth. These experiences equipped them to navigate cultural nuances, build effective
teams, and adapt to diverse environments.
Motivation Interview Question 5: Challenges in Culture Integration
The fifth interview question regarding motivation was, “Can you describe some
challenges you've encountered when integrating cultures, and how have you approached these
situations?” Communication is the primary challenge encountered in cross-cultural integration,
particularly due to language barriers and differences in communication style. American teams’
direct approach often contrasts with the more reserved, harmony-focused Taiwanese
communication style. This can lead to misunderstandings or discomfort, especially if feedback
and decision-making expectations differ. Additionally, HR policy discrepancies and alignment
on decision-making speed are secondary challenges.

70
These challenges indicate a need for strategies that bridge communication styles, perhaps
by setting clear expectations, fostering open dialogue, and educating teams on cultural norms.
Additionally, leadership's role in recognizing and supporting cultural integration efforts is vital to
navigate and resolve these integration challenges effectively.
Communication Barriers and Language Differences
Participants consistently highlighted communication as a major challenge when
integrating cultures. Aaron described the language barrier as a significant obstacle, exacerbated
by differing company and national cultures. Ana and Judy echoed this, emphasizing how
language and communication styles can lead to misunderstandings. Dave, Florence, and Jim
noted that while U.S. teams tend to be direct, Taiwanese colleagues often take a more reserved
approach, which can cause gaps in understanding. Max and Kevin described similar challenges,
with Max observing that the U.S. team’s directness sometimes clashed with the Taiwanese
team’s indirect communication style. Nate pointed to the need to balance these communication
styles while managing language barriers. Terry emphasized the importance of leadership
recognizing these differences and implementing strategies to address them.
Aligning Expectations Around Policies and Decision-Making
Participants also identified differences in workplace expectations as a challenge. Andy
shared that aligning expectations around decision-making speed was difficult, as Taiwanese
teams often preferred a more cautious approach compared to the faster pace of U.S. teams. Betty
faced challenges when drafting HR policies, such as time-off and travel expenses, as cultural
differences required careful adaptation to ensure acceptance by both Taiwanese and U.S.
employees.

71
Addressing Cultural Awareness in Leadership
Terry emphasized the importance of getting leadership teams to recognize cultural
differences and develop strategies for managing them. He noted that without this awareness, it
can be challenging to fully integrate diverse teams.
Approaches to Overcoming Challenges
Participants shared strategies for addressing these challenges. Florence and Jim focused
on fostering open communication by encouraging more reserved team members to share their
thoughts and helping direct communicators understand the value of harmony. Judy emphasized
the importance of navigating verbal and non-verbal communication nuances, while Dave
encouraged both teams to find a middle ground that respects both directness and reservation.
In summary, participants highlighted communication barriers, differing workplace
expectations, and cultural awareness as key challenges in integrating cultures. They approached
these challenges by fostering open communication, adapting policies to suit cultural contexts,
and advocating for leadership involvement in recognizing and addressing cultural differences.
Motivation Interview Question 6: Factor that Impact the Decision
The sixth interview question regarding motivation was, “What motivates or discourages
you from putting in this effort?” Motivation for putting effort into cultural integration largely
stems from seeing positive, tangible outcomes and enhanced team collaboration. Many
respondents feel motivated by witnessing the strength that diversity brings to teams, the
satisfaction of bridging cultural gaps, and contributing to an inclusive work environment that
leads to company success.

72
Common discouraging factors include resistance to change, misunderstandings, and the
slow pace of progress due to cultural differences. These challenges suggest that while the
outcomes are rewarding, cultural integration requires patience and a willingness to navigate
setbacks. Addressing these discouraging factors may involve clearer communication strategies,
fostering open-mindedness, and setting realistic expectations around the pace of integration
efforts.
Motivation from Positive Outcomes and Team Growth
Participants consistently expressed that witnessing the positive impacts of cultural
integration motivates them to put in the effort. Aaron emphasized that his motivation comes from
roles that offer good returns, whether financial or personal satisfaction, for himself and the
company. Ana felt driven by the belief that cultural diversity strengthens the organization,
leading to innovation and success, and by the satisfaction of helping people collaborate
effectively. Dave shared his fulfillment in bridging cultural gaps and enabling startups to enter
new markets successfully. Similarly, Jim and Max highlighted the tangible results of wellintegrated teams and the clear link between cultural integration and business success. Nate and
Terry found motivation in seeing their teams grow stronger when everyone’s ideas are valued.
Florence noted that the workplace improves significantly when cultural understanding is
achieved, which motivates her to continue fostering integration. Judy valued the meaningful
results and collaborative opportunities that come from working with diverse teams. Kevin
echoed that seeing positive outcomes motivates him to keep bridging cultural divides.
Challenges from Resistance and Misunderstandings
While motivated by success, participants acknowledged challenges that can discourage
their efforts. Andy and Kevin noted that resistance to change can slow progress and dampen

73
enthusiasm. Florence and Jim found it discouraging when resistance or misunderstandings
hindered projects and slowed processes. Dave shared that missed opportunities due to cultural
misalignment can be frustrating, though he sees these setbacks as part of the learning curve.
Max and Nate pointed out that slow progress and misunderstandings while discouraging, are
expected challenges when integrating cultures. Judy found a need for clearer communication and
direction, which was particularly demotivating, as it complicates alignment and slows down
momentum. Terry emphasized that cultural misunderstandings can derail projects, which he
finds disheartening.
In summary, participants are motivated by the tangible benefits of cultural integration,
such as innovation, team growth, and organizational success. However, they face challenges
from resistance, slow progress, and misunderstandings, which can discourage them but are seen
as part of the learning process in building stronger cross-cultural teams.
Organization Findings
The third and fourth research questions examine organizations by asking, “ What
organizational factors influence the process of cultural integration within Taiwan-based
companies expanding into the U.S.?” and “What organizational practices, encompassing
knowledge and motivation, support effective cultural integration in Taiwan-based companies
operating in the U.S.?” Interview questions examined either one of these two research questions.
Organization Interview Question 1: Resource Availability and How to Use It
The first interview question regarding organization was, “What resources are available to
you that support cultural integration, and how do you utilize them?”
The most commonly mentioned resources supporting cultural integration include crosscultural training programs, mentorship opportunities, communication tools (e.g., Slack, Zoom),

74
and diversity initiatives. Many participants also highlighted the value of personal experience and
face-to-face interactions through travel or team-building events, strengthening relationships and
understanding between regions.
This variety of resources allows team members to gain formal and experiential insights
into cultural differences. Programs like language classes and dedicated D&I teams provide
structured support, while technology platforms help maintain continuous communication across
time zones. These resources facilitate ongoing cross-cultural learning and adaptation, essential
for fostering an inclusive work environment that supports effective collaboration between U.S.
and Taiwanese teams.
Cross-Cultural Training Programs
Participants consistently emphasized the value of cross-cultural training programs in
supporting cultural integration. Andy highlighted the usefulness of attending the Berlitz
Intercultural Business Skills workshop, which focused on USA-Taiwan relations. Jim, Kevin,
and Betty also mentioned internal cross-cultural training sessions as essential resources. Florence
and Dave mentioned similar programs that help teams understand differing behaviors and
attitudes, while Max added that these sessions sometimes include language classes to enhance
communication.
Mentorship and Leadership Support
Mentorship programs emerged as another key resource. Aaron noted that a good mentor
could be instrumental in navigating cultural integration. Ana and Kevin emphasized the
importance of mentorship opportunities, which provide guidance and foster stronger connections
between culturally diverse teams. Judy described how she leverages mentorship to encourage
open dialogue and knowledge sharing during meetings, creating an inclusive environment.

75
Communication and Collaboration Tools
Participants also highlighted the role of communication tools in bridging cultural gaps.
Nate mentioned using Slack and Zoom to communicate effectively between teams in different
regions. Florence and Max echoed this, emphasizing that these tools facilitate ongoing
collaboration and help overcome physical distances between U.S. and Taiwanese teams.
Team-building and Travel Opportunities
Face-to-face interactions play a crucial role in fostering cultural understanding. Betty
shared that her U.S. team members travel to Taiwan annually to meet their counterparts, which
helps strengthen relationships. Max mentioned that his company provides a travel budget for inperson meetings, while Florence highlighted team-building exercises to promote global
collaboration.
Leveraging Personal Experience
Several participants rely on their personal experiences to support cultural integration. Aaron and
Terry described drawing from their professional backgrounds working in both Taiwanese and
American settings to bridge gaps. Dave and Florence similarly use their cross-cultural
experiences to facilitate smoother integration and resolve conflicts.
In summary, participants utilize various resources to support cultural integration,
including cross-cultural training programs, mentorship opportunities, communication tools, and
team-building activities. They also leverage their personal experiences and company-provided
travel opportunities to foster collaboration and mutual understanding across diverse teams.
Organization Interview Question 2: Any Other Other Resource
The second interview question regarding organization was, “What additional resources
do you think would be helpful?” The responses highlight a strong demand for more immersive

76
and practical resources to enhance cultural integration. Suggestions range from traditional
methods like workshops, mentorship, and exchange programs to more innovative approaches,
including VR cultural immersion and AI-powered translation tools.
These recommendations reflect a desire for real-world, hands-on experiences that allow
employees to understand and navigate cultural differences deeply. Programs focusing on direct
collaboration and immersive environments are particularly valued, as they provide tangible
learning opportunities. Implementing these resources could significantly improve cross-cultural
understanding and collaboration, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and cohesive
organizational culture.
Cross-Cultural Workshops and Exchange Programs
Participants highlighted the need for more frequent and immersive cross-cultural
workshops and exchange programs. Andy suggested increasing the frequency of cross-cultural
workshops and initiating exchange programs to foster better understanding. Florence and Judy
emphasized the importance of workshops focusing on real-world scenarios and practical conflict
resolution. Jim added that hands-on workshops where U.S. and Taiwanese teams collaborate on
specific projects could enhance mutual understanding. Dave and Nate stressed the value of
structured cultural exchange programs, where team members experience each other’s markets
and work environments firsthand. Terry echoed this sentiment, noting that spending time in each
other’s environments would build stronger connections.
Specialized Training and Cultural Focus
Participants called for training resources tailored to specific cultural needs. Ana proposed
having resources focused on particular cultural groups, while Betty suggested a cross-cultural
training program designed specifically for Taiwanese teams to better understand U.S. culture.

77
Kevin supported the idea of immersive cultural programs to provide deeper insights into regional
work environments.
Innovative Technology and Tools
Participants identified the potential of advanced technology to support cultural
integration. Max recommended AI-powered translation tools, VR cultural immersion programs,
and customized cross-cultural analytics platforms to enhance communication and cultural
understanding. These tools could simulate real-world interactions and provide data-driven
insights into cultural dynamics.
Leveraging People and Mentorship
Aaron highlighted the importance of human resources, suggesting that employees with
cross-cultural experiences or those from international backgrounds could serve as valuable
mentors or advisors. These individuals could share their insights and guide teams through
cultural integration challenges.
In summary, participants suggested enhancing cultural integration efforts through more
immersive workshops, exchange programs, and tailored training resources. They also highlighted
the potential of leveraging advanced technology and experienced personnel to bridge cultural
gaps effectively.
Organization Interview Question 3: Policies and Procedures Support Cultural Integration
The third interview question regarding organization was, “Can you describe your
organization's policies and procedures that support cultural integration?” Most organizations
emphasize diversity and inclusion (D&I) as a cornerstone of their cultural integration policies.
Commonly cited practices include cross-cultural training, open communication channels,
mentorship programs, and flexible work policies to accommodate global teams. Technological

78
tools like messaging platforms and policies promoting regular travel between regions also play a
crucial role in bridging cultural gaps. However, some responses indicate a need for formal
policies for cultural integration, suggesting room for improvement in some organizations.
These policies help ensure alignment, foster open communication, and encourage the
sharing of diverse perspectives, which are critical for successful integration and collaboration in
multicultural environments.
Diversity, Inclusion, and Communication Policies
Participants emphasized their organizations’ strong focus on diversity and inclusion. Ana,
Florence, and Judy highlighted policies such as equal opportunity employment, diversity and
inclusion training, and employee resource groups. Kevin and Max added that their companies
implement cross-cultural communication guidelines and an open-door policy to encourage
sharing thoughts and concerns. Jim mentioned that cross-cultural training supports collaboration
between regional offices, ensuring alignment with company-wide objectives. Betty pointed out
that her company facilitates global communication through tools like U Messenger, ensuring
constant interaction across time zones. Nate described how open communication policies
promote collaboration between Taiwan and U.S. offices, with regular check-ins to keep teams
aligned.
Cross-Cultural Training and Mentorship
Participants noted the importance of cross-cultural training as a foundational tool for
cultural integration. Jim and Max mentioned mandatory training programs that help employees
navigate cultural differences effectively. Judy and Terry emphasized their organizations’
mentorship programs, which pair employees from different regions to share knowledge and
perspectives.

79
Dave explained that his organization encourages portfolio companies to adopt cultural training
and build diverse teams that reflect their target markets. Andy shared that travel opportunities,
such as trips to Taipei, help foster cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.
Flexible Work Policies and Collaboration
Participants also highlighted the role of flexible work policies in supporting cultural
integration. Ana and Florence pointed out that flexible arrangements accommodate global teams
working across different time zones. Nate added that his organization adjusts working hours and
supports remote collaboration to ensure smooth communication.
Terry and Betty noted that regular travel between regions, such as flying U.S. employees to
Taiwan, enhances cultural understanding and strengthens team cohesion.
Addressing Gaps in Policies
While most participants described well-established policies, Aaron noted that his
organization lacks specific procedures for cultural integration. However, it enforces general
guidelines to prevent discriminatory practices and promote inclusivity.
In summary, participants described various organizational policies that support cultural
integration, including diversity and inclusion initiatives, cross-cultural training, flexible work
arrangements, and mentorship programs. These resources help facilitate communication,
collaboration, and understanding across diverse teams, fostering a more inclusive workplace.
Organization Interview Question 4: The Effectiveness of Policies and Procedures
The fourth interview question regarding organization was, “How effective do you think
these policies and procedures are?” The responses suggest that while most participants find the
policies and procedures effective, there is a consensus that cultural integration is an ongoing
process that requires continual refinement. Many point out that the effectiveness of formal

80
policies often depends on their consistent implementation and the role of daily interactions in
fostering true cultural understanding.
Several participants highlight the importance of follow-up sessions and ongoing
assessments to ensure that the policies remain relevant and are applied effectively. Others note
the challenge of addressing cultural nuances despite the availability of tools and training
programs, suggesting the need for more tailored or advanced approaches to cultural integration.
Overall Effectiveness of Policies and Procedures
Participants generally agreed that their organizations' policies and procedures are
effective in promoting cultural integration. Judy and Betty described these measures as very
effective, fostering collaboration and inclusivity across diverse teams. Ana, Florence, and Max
echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the effectiveness of specific programs such as cross-cultural
training and communication guidelines. Max particularly highlighted the success of the Global
Mobility Program.
Effectiveness with Room for Improvement
Several participants acknowledged the effectiveness of these policies but emphasized the
need for continuous improvement. Dave and Florence noted that cultural integration is an
ongoing process, with policies providing a strong foundation but requiring regular updates to
remain impactful. Jim pointed out that while the policies are effective starting points, true
integration happens through daily interactions. Nate observed that while tools and policies help
maintain open communication, they don’t fully address deeper cultural nuances.
Areas for Enhancement
Participants identified specific areas for improvement to enhance the policies’ impact.
Kevin emphasized the need for follow-up sessions to ensure consistent implementation,

81
suggesting that effectiveness depends on ongoing evaluation and reinforcement. Aaron suggested
that good training programs introducing cultural differences and providing actionable guidelines
could significantly enhance the current framework. Andy and Terry rated the policies as
moderately effective, indicating that while they address core issues, more can be done to
maximize their impact.
In summary, participants viewed their organizations’ policies and procedures as generally
effective in supporting cultural integration. However, they emphasized the need for continuous
improvement through better training, regular follow-ups, and a focus on daily interactions to
address deeper cultural nuances and ensure sustained effectiveness.
Organization Interview Question 5: The Perception and Impact of Cultural Difference
The fifth interview question regarding organization was, “How do you perceive cultural
differences in your organization, and in what ways do they impact efforts toward integration?”
The responses consistently frame cultural differences as both a challenge and an opportunity.
While these differences can slow processes, create misunderstandings, or complicate decisionmaking, they also bring diverse perspectives, innovative solutions, and enriched problem-solving
approaches. Participants emphasized the importance of creating an inclusive environment where
these differences can be leveraged rather than becoming obstacles.
The overall perspective suggests that effectively managing cultural differences—through
open communication, mutual respect, and inclusive practices—can transform potential
challenges into strengths that drive organizational growth and innovation.
Cultural Differences as Both Challenges and Strengths
Participants described cultural differences in their organizations as both challenges and
valuable assets. Ana, Judy, and Dave emphasized that these differences foster innovation and

82
creativity by bringing diverse perspectives and ideas to the table. Jim and Max noted that cultural
diversity enriches decision-making and problem-solving, leading to more comprehensive and
innovative solutions when managed well. However, participants also acknowledged the
challenges posed by cultural differences. Florence and Kevin highlighted that misunderstandings
and slowed processes often arise when teams are not aligned. Andy and Nate pointed out that
differences in communication, work pace, and decision-making can create friction, though these
challenges also present opportunities for growth.
Impact on Communication and Decision-Making
Participants frequently cited communication and decision-making as areas most affected
by cultural differences. Betty observed that Taiwanese teams tend to be detail-oriented and
hierarchical, which can impact the integration of new hires unfamiliar with these norms. Jim and
Terry noted that American teams often favor a faster pace and more direct communication,
which can clash with more reserved and methodical approaches in Taiwanese teams.
Aaron highlighted the importance of understanding cultural habits rather than viewing
differences as right or wrong. He shared that conflicts often arise from these habitual differences,
particularly in aligning strategies. Max stressed that differing communication styles and risk
tolerances must be carefully managed to ensure effective collaboration.
Leveraging Diversity for Growth
Participants agreed that cultural differences when embraced, can drive organizational
growth. Florence and Dave noted that creating an environment where everyone’s voice is heard
allows organizations to leverage diverse viewpoints for innovative solutions. Max emphasized
that cultural differences in work-life balance, communication, and decision-making are crucial
for company growth despite their present challenges. Judy and Ana underscored the importance

83
of viewing cultural differences as strengths rather than barriers, enriching the workplace with
diverse problem-solving approaches. Nate concluded that while cultural differences can
complicate decision-making and communication, they ultimately add significant value.
In summary, participants recognized cultural differences as both challenges and strengths.
When managed effectively, these differences influence communication, decision-making, and
work processes but also foster innovation, enrich collaboration, and drive organizational growth.
Organization Interview Question 6: Benefit of Cultural Difference
The sixth interview question regarding organization was, “Can you provide examples of
cultural differences that you think have been beneficial?” The responses highlight the synergistic
benefits of cultural differences in fostering innovation, quality, and collaboration. Participants
consistently point out how Taiwanese strengths in planning, quality, and risk aversion
complement American strengths in innovation, speed, and risk-taking. These complementary
strengths enhance product development, market strategies, and organizational adaptability.
By leveraging these diverse cultural perspectives, organizations can create balanced,
competitive products and strategies that meet both local and global demands. This analysis
underscores the value of intentionally harnessing cultural differences to optimize team
performance and business outcomes.
Balancing Risk and Innovation with Thoroughness
Participants highlighted how the combination of different cultural approaches has driven
organizational success. Florence and Nate pointed out that the U.S. team’s willingness to take
risks and experiment balances well with the Taiwanese team’s careful, risk-averse mindset. This
dynamic ensures quick innovation without overlooking critical details. Jim and Dave shared
similar examples, where Taiwanese teams polished products to high standards, while American

84
teams brought creativity and energy to market launches, resulting in both reliable and
competitive products. Kevin emphasized that the Taiwanese focus on detail and quality
complements the American team’s agility and speed, enabling the development of high-quality
products faster. Max added that this blend results in technologically advanced and reliable
offerings.
Leveraging Strengths in Relationship-Building and Market Innovation
Participants observed that cultural differences enhance both relationship-building and
market innovation. Ana highlighted how the Taiwanese team’s emphasis on building strong
relationships with suppliers and customers in Asia has been instrumental, while the American
team’s focus on innovation has driven success in developing new products for the U.S. market.
Dave noted that this dual focus on sustainable growth and fast execution has helped portfolio
companies scale efficiently without sacrificing quality. Andy shared that the Taiwanese team’s
approach to meticulous planning and ROI evaluation complements the American drive for
creativity, ensuring well-rounded decision-making for significant projects.
Enhancing Communication and Collaboration
Participants acknowledged how cultural differences in communication styles foster
adaptability and collaboration. Judy explained that direct communication styles encourage clarity
and efficiency, while indirect approaches promote harmony and consideration. This blend helps
teams improve collaboration by learning from each other’s methods. Terry observed that this
adaptability leads to the development of competitive products that meet both local and global
market demands.

85
Maximizing Team Performance Through Cultural Integration
Aaron shared that breaking down tasks to match team members’ strengths allows
different cultural values to shine. This approach respects diverse opinions and talents, fostering
teamwork that drives success. Betty noted the personal and organizational benefits she has
experienced from integrating these cultural differences.
In summary, participants illustrated how cultural differences between Taiwanese and
American teams enhance product development, market strategies, and collaboration. By
balancing risk-taking with thorough planning, leveraging relationship-building and innovation,
and blending communication styles, teams have created high-quality, competitive products while
fostering adaptability and teamwork.
Other Findings
We have asked two additional open-ended questions to receive more input from
interviewees on some points we missed. The first open-ended interview question was, “Are there
any other aspects we haven’t covered that you feel are essential?” The responses underscore trust
as a recurring theme, described as foundational to successful cultural integration. Several
participants also emphasize the need for continuous adaptation and leadership involvement,
recognizing that cultural dynamics evolve over time. Additionally, aspects like generational
differences, the impact of technology, and cultural humility are mentioned as areas warranting
further exploration.
These insights suggest that cultural integration efforts must be dynamic, involving active
leadership, a commitment to trust-building, and a willingness to address emerging factors that
influence organizational culture.

86
The Role of Trust in Cultural Integration
Participants unanimously highlighted the importance of trust in successful cultural
integration. Dave and Florence stressed that trust is the foundation for effective communication,
collaboration, and innovation. Kevin and Nate echoed this, emphasizing that trust-building
facilitates smoother integration between culturally diverse teams. Aaron added that trust-building
strategies may vary depending on the business model and industry.
Leadership Commitment and Continuous Adaptation
Several participants pointed to the critical role of leadership. Judy emphasized that
leadership commitment sets the tone for cultural integration, inspiring employees at all levels to
participate actively. Ana underscored that everyone in the organization, from the CEO to the
newest hire, has a role in fostering cultural integration. Participants also noted the importance of
adaptability. Jim and Andy shared that cultural dynamics evolve over time, requiring
organizations to continually refine and adapt their approaches. What works today might not be
effective tomorrow, making flexibility key to maintaining integration efforts.
Broader and Evolving Perspectives
Max suggested that aspects like generational differences, the impact of technology, and
cultural humility significantly influence cultural integration strategies. Aaron highlighted the
value of both broad investigations for general insights and deep case studies for industry-specific
applications.
Cultural Integration as an Ongoing Journey
Participants agreed that cultural integration is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing
process. Ana described it as a continuous journey, emphasizing the need for sustained effort and
mindfulness across all organizational levels.

87
In summary, participants emphasized trust, leadership commitment, adaptability, and
ongoing effort as essential elements of cultural integration. They also called attention to broader
influences such as generational shifts, technological advancements, and cultural humility, which
shape integration strategies in evolving organizational contexts.
The last interview question was, “Is there anything you’re curious about regarding the
study's goals or outcomes?” The responses reflect a keen interest in the study's practical
applications and broader implications. Critical areas of curiosity include industry-specific
insights and best practices for cultural integration, comparing strategies across organizations to
identify successful approaches, measuring effectiveness and the long-term impact of integration
efforts, and geopolitical and generational factors that could influence cultural dynamics.
These points suggest that participants seek actionable insights and benchmarks to
improve their practices while contributing to the broader conversation on diversity and inclusion.
Incorporating these aspects into your study's analysis and dissemination could enhance its
relevance and impact.
Interest in Best Practices and Practical Applications
Several participants expressed curiosity about the best practices for cultural integration
identified through the study. Ana and Jim were eager to learn about specific strategies that have
proven effective in other organizations and how these could be adapted to enhance cross-cultural
collaboration. Andy hoped the findings would inform future strategies for improving integration.
Kevin and Florence wanted to see how other companies handle similar challenges and what
lessons could be drawn from their experiences. Judy was particularly interested in how the
study’s findings could inform broader industry practices, contributing to a larger conversation
about diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

88
Scope and Industry-Specific Insights
Participants also showed interest in the study's scope and its applicability to specific
industries. Aaron wondered if the study focuses on a particular industry and how geopolitical
factors, which might amplify cultural differences, could be managed in sensitive sectors. Max
and Terry shared similar curiosity, wanting to understand how the study addresses industryspecific challenges and measures the effectiveness of integration practices.
Long-Term Outcomes and Broader Implications
Judy, Max, and Terry were curious about the long-term impact of cultural integration.
They wanted to know how the study’s findings could shape organizational policies and industry
practices over time. Judy was also interested in the study's broader implications for diversity and
inclusion and how employee feedback could inform its conclusions.
In summary, participants were keen to learn about best practices, industry-specific
insights, and the study's broader implications. They emphasized a desire to understand how the
findings could enhance cross-cultural collaboration, inform long-term strategies, and contribute
to industry-wide improvements in diversity and inclusion.
Summary of Findings: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
To provide a cohesive overview of this chapter, the findings across the three key
dimensions—knowledge, motivation, and organization—are summarized below:
Knowledge Findings
The analysis of participants' insights revealed fundamental differences between
Taiwanese and American management styles:

89
Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian Management
Taiwanese management emphasizes authority, technical expertise, and group harmony,
while American management favors inclusivity, collaboration, and direct communication. Out of
twelve participants, eleven agreed that Taiwanese management emphasizes authority, technical
expertise, and group harmony, while nine participants noted that American management favors
inclusivity, collaboration, and direct communication. However, one participant argued that
Taiwanese management's focus on harmony often fosters creativity, contrasting it with American
management, which they described as "less predictable due to frequent shifts in priorities."
Decision-Making Processes
Taiwanese companies adopt thorough, consensus-driven approaches, prioritizing stability
and long-term strategies. Conversely, American companies emphasize agility and quick
decision-making. Nine participants agreed that Taiwanese companies adopt thorough, consensusdriven approaches, prioritizing stability and long-term strategies. Conversely, ten participants
emphasized that American companies value agility and quick decision-making. Divergent
responses included one participant noting that the American approach can feel rushed,
potentially sacrificing thoroughness for speed.
Risk Tolerance
Taiwanese teams are more risk-averse, reflecting a cautious, stability-focused mindset,
whereas American teams embrace calculated risks, fostering innovation and adaptability. eight
participants highlighted that Taiwanese teams are more risk-averse, reflecting a cautious,
stability-focused mindset. In contrast, ten participants observed that American teams embrace
calculated risks, fostering innovation and adaptability. One participant remarked that excessive
caution among Taiwanese teams could result in missed opportunities, while another felt that

90
American risk-taking could lead to unnecessary failures.These findings highlight the challenges
and opportunities of integrating distinct cultural philosophies into a unified management
approach.
Motivation Findings
The participants demonstrated strong motivation to promote cultural integration, driven
by what follows.
Acting as Cultural Bridges
Many saw their roles as essential for fostering mutual respect and collaboration between
culturally distinct teams. All participants valued their roles as connectors, fostering mutual
respect and collaboration between culturally distinct teams. While most participants described
their roles as essential, one expressed skepticism, noting that structural barriers often hinder their
effectiveness.
Valuing Cross-Cultural Roles
Integrity, respect, adaptability, and effective communication emerged as critical values for
leaders navigating cultural differences. All participants agreed on the importance of these values
in promoting integration, though some noted challenges in consistently applying them across
diverse teams.
Personal and Professional Growth
Experiences in diverse environments, combined with the rewards of successful
collaboration, fueled confidence and commitment to integration efforts. However, resistance to
change and communication gaps, noted by Nine participants, often presented significant barriers
that required persistent effort to overcome.

91
Challenges Encountered
Despite strong motivation, participants faced barriers such as resistance to change,
communication gaps, and misaligned policies, requiring persistent effort to overcome.
Organization Findings
Organizational factors play a crucial role in enabling cultural integration:
Supportive Policies and Resources
Cross-cultural training programs, mentorship, flexible work policies, and technology
tools like Slack and Zoom were instrumental in bridging gaps. Ten participants agreed on that.
However, two participants highlighted gaps in policy consistency, noting that unclear guidelines
sometimes hindered effective implementation.
Opportunities for Face-to-Face Interaction
Regular travel, team-building activities, and exchange programs helped strengthen
relationships and mutual understanding. Most participants emphasized the value of these. One
participant noted that while virtual tools are helpful, they cannot fully replace the impact of inperson interactions.
Challenges in Implementation
While many policies were deemed effective, the need for ongoing assessment, better
leadership involvement, and tailored approaches was emphasized. Nine participants identified
resistance to change as a significant hurdle, particularly among senior staff accustomed to
traditional practices. Seven participants noted logistical difficulties, such as coordinating training
across time zones or ensuring consistent messaging. Divergent views included one participant
who felt resource constraints, rather than resistance, were the primary obstacle to effective
implementation.

92
Balancing Cultural Differences
The findings underscored the importance of leveraging complementary strengths, Taiwanese
precision, and American innovation, to enhance organizational growth and competitiveness.
While most participants saw this balance as achievable, some noted the need for ongoing
assessment and leadership involvement to sustain integration efforts.

93
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation
Chapter 5 serves as the culmination of this dissertation, synthesizing the findings
presented in Chapter 4 and addressing the study's overarching purpose and research questions.
The purpose of the study is to comprehensively analyze the cultural integration challenges and
strategies faced by Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States. This
chapter offers an in-depth discussion of the findings, actionable recommendations, and a critical
evaluation of the interventions proposed using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) evaluation
framework.
The chapter is structured to address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) gaps identified through the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. It includes a discussion of
the findings, their implications for practice and theory, and recommendations to bridge these
gaps. Additionally, this chapter evaluates the implementation of the findings, considers the
study's delimitations and limitations, and identifies avenues for future research. Finally, a
conclusion is presented, summarizing the study's contributions to cross-cultural management and
multinational corporate strategy.
Purpose and Research Questions
The primary objective of this study is to explore the challenges associated with cultural
integration practices within Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the U.S. market
and to propose strategies for fostering growth-supportive organizational cultures. The research
addresses the following questions:
1. To what extent do supervisors possess knowledge about promoting cultural integration
within these organizations?
2. What motivations drive supervisors to integrate cultures effectively?

94
3. How do organizational factors shape the cultural integration process?
4. What practices, influenced by knowledge and motivation, support effective cultural
integration?
Overview of Analysis
The findings were analyzed using the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework to
identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational support gaps. Chapter 4 summarized these
findings, highlighting the differences in cultural expectations, management styles, and problemsolving approaches between Taiwanese and American business environments. This chapter
extends the analysis by integrating insights from the findings with theoretical frameworks and
empirical studies, offering practical solutions and recommendations.
Structure of Chapter Five
This chapter is structured as follows:
● Findings and Discussion: Analyzing the results and their implications for cultural
integration challenges.
● Recommendations: Practical interventions to address the KMO gaps, organized by
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational domains.
● Evaluation: Using Kirkpatrick’s model to assess the effectiveness of proposed
interventions.
● Delimitations and Limitations: Reflecting on the scope and constraints of the research.
● Future Research: Suggestions for further exploration based on the study’s findings.
● Conclusion: Summarize the contributions and practical implications of the research.

95
Findings and Discussion
This section explores the findings presented in Chapter 4 and their implications for the
study's purpose of understanding and addressing the cultural integration challenges faced by
Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States. The analysis follows the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) framework, integrating key themes and their
relevance to theoretical and practical considerations in cross-cultural management.
Knowledge: Cultural Awareness and Management Styles
The findings revealed clear contrasts in cultural norms and management styles between
Taiwanese and American companies, shaping how managers approach decision-making,
collaboration, and leadership. Taiwanese management is rooted in hierarchy and respect for
authority, emphasizing technical expertise and maintaining harmony within the group. This style
often leads to top-down decision-making processes prioritizing thorough analysis and consensus.
On the other hand, American management is more egalitarian and participative, encouraging
cross-functional collaboration and valuing direct communication and individual contributions.
The implications of these findings emphasize the critical need for cultural training to
bridge gaps in understanding between these two approaches. For example, Taiwanese managers
often face challenges adapting to the American preference for rapid decision-making and
autonomous work styles. Training programs should focus on equipping managers with the skills
to navigate these differences, such as fostering a more open communication style and developing
strategies for quick, confident decision-making. This recommendation aligns with Ang and Van
Dyne’s (2015) research on cultural intelligence (CQ), which highlights the importance of
adaptive behaviors in multicultural settings to effectively manage diverse team dynamics.
Additionally, organizations should create opportunities for managers to experience cross-cultural

96
interactions in real-world settings, enabling them to better integrate their hierarchical practices
with the more flexible, inclusive approach expected in the U.S.
From personal experience, I believe the importance of integrating cross-cultural training
into leadership development programs. Managers who constantly participate in immersive
training experiences gain a much deeper understanding of diverse work styles and learn to bridge
hierarchical and egalitarian approaches effectively. Encouraging open dialogue between
Taiwanese and American teams is instrumental in fostering mutual respect and collaboration.
Motivation: Drivers of Integration Efforts
Motivational factors, including self-efficacy, growth mindset, and willingness to invest
mental effort, play a significant role in shaping the success of cultural integration. Taiwanese
managers often approach their roles with a strong focus on stability, group harmony, and risk
aversion, reflecting cultural norms prioritizing long-term planning and collective well-being. In
contrast, American managers are typically more motivated by innovation, agility, and a higher
tolerance for risk, leading to a more dynamic and fast-paced work environment.
The findings underscore the importance of fostering a growth mindset among Taiwanese
supervisors to enhance their adaptability in the U.S. context. Dweck's (2006) growth mindset
theory emphasizes that individuals who view challenges as opportunities for learning and growth
are more likely to develop the resilience and flexibility needed to thrive in dynamic
environments. By cultivating this mindset, Taiwnines managers can better navigate the cultural
and professional differences inherent in the U.S. workplace, adapting their strategies to align
with new expectations and opportunities. Building self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is also crucial
(Bandura, as managers with confidence in their ability to lead cross-cultural teams are more
likely to engage proactively and effectively. Social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1997)

97
provides practical steps to address these motivational gaps including leadership development
workshops, mentorship programs, and role-specific training highlighting cultural integration's
strategic benefits. Companies can create a more cohesive and engaged workforce by aligning
motivational drivers with organizational goals.
I believe a growth-oriented culture can be cultivated by emphasizing adaptability and
resilience. I also witness the leadership programs that integrate mentorship opportunities with
experienced professionals who successfully navigated cultural challenges usually are beneficial.
Celebrating small wins and linking cultural integration efforts to tangible business outcomes can
motivate teams to embrace change. Encouraging managers to view cultural differences as
opportunities rather than obstacles enhances the organization’s ability to innovate and remain
competitive.
Organizational: Structural and Procedural Influences
Organizational structures and processes emerged as critical determinants of cultural
integration outcomes. Taiwanese companies often rely on hierarchical decision-making, where
authority is centralized, and policies are designed to ensure stability and alignment across teams.
While this approach provides a strong foundation for achieving long-term objectives, it may limit
inclusivity and creativity in U.S. workplaces, where flexibility, innovation, and decentralized
decision-making are highly valued.
The implications of these findings suggest that organizations must reevaluate and adapt
their structures and policies to promote inclusivity and cross-cultural collaboration (Clark and
Estes, 2008). For example, introducing participatory decision-making processes can empower
employees at all levels to contribute to organizational goals, fostering a more dynamic and
innovative culture. Additionally, investing in cultural training programs, mentorship networks,

98
and continuous professional development opportunities can support employees in navigating
cross-cultural challenges. These efforts should be backed by clear communication from
leadership about the importance of integrating Taiwanese and American practices to achieve
shared objectives.
From my experience, creating structured support systems is pivotal in driving cultural
integration. I always see participating in decision-making processes that empower team members
at all levels to contribute ideas and solutions can enhance inclusivity and innovation. Regularly
measuring the effectiveness of these initiatives through employee feedback and performance
metrics ensures continuous improvement. Hosting cultural exchange workshops and celebrating
diversity through team-building events can strengthen organizational cohesion and reinforce a
commitment to cross-cultural collaboration.
Recommendations: Practical Interventions to Address KMO Gaps
The following interventions are proposed to address the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) gaps identified in the findings. This section refines the recommended
interventions by aligning them with the literature reviewed. These recommendations are
grounded in relevant literature to ensure their effectiveness and alignment with established
theories and practices in cross-cultural management and organizational behavior. Integrating
contemporary research ensures that the recommendations are theoretically sound and practically
relevant to addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) gaps in cultural
integration.
Enhancing Knowledge
This section addresses the critical need to equip managers with the knowledge necessary
to navigate cultural differences effectively. It discusses interventions aimed at building cultural

99
intelligence, facilitating the transfer of tacit knowledge, and fostering organizational learning. By
implementing comprehensive training programs, mentorship initiatives, and knowledge-sharing
platforms, Taiwanese companies can empower their managers to bridge cultural gaps and adapt
their leadership styles to align with the expectations of the U.S. workplace.
Comprehensive Cultural Training Programs
Cultural training programs are vital for equipping managers with the skills to navigate
cross-cultural differences effectively. Hofstede's (1980) seminal work on cultural dimensions
emphasizes the significant impact of cultural norms on workplace behavior, highlighting the
importance of understanding differences in power distance and individualism. Taiwanese
managers, accustomed to hierarchical decision-making, can learn from training emphasizing U.S.
workplaces' participatory and egalitarian values. Additionally, Adler and Gundersen (2008)
argue that cross-cultural training improves managers’ ability to adapt to diverse work
environments, reducing misunderstandings and fostering collaboration. Incorporating case
studies and real-world scenarios into training aligns with these findings by allowing managers to
apply theoretical concepts in practical settings. Taiwanese managers can also benefit from
interactive workshops focusing on cultural intelligence (CQ), which Ang and Van Dyne (2015)
define as the ability to adapt effectively in multicultural settings. Incorporating cultural
intelligence frameworks into training modules allows managers to analyze cultural differences
critically and develop adaptable strategies for effective leadership.
Cross-Cultural Mentorship
Mentorship programs have been shown to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge and
enhance cultural competence. According to Kram (1985), mentorship relationships foster
professional growth by providing emotional support and career guidance. Supported by Baugh,

100
Sullivan, and Sherry (2005), mentorship is a powerful tool for bridging cultural gaps and
fostering professional development and organizational cohesion. In cross-cultural contexts,
mentors with bicultural expertise can help managers navigate workplace dynamics, aligning with
Black and Gregersen’s (1991) finding that mentorship reduces cultural adjustment challenges.
By pairing Taiwanese managers with experienced U.S. professionals, organizations can bridge
knowledge gaps and build confidence in cross-cultural interactions.
Knowledge-Sharing Platforms
Establishing internal forums or digital platforms that allow employees and managers to
exchange best practices, share experiences, and access resources related to cross-cultural
integration. These platforms allow employees to document best practices, exchange insights, and
develop solutions to cross-cultural challenges collaboratively. Regular discussions and webinars
featuring diverse perspectives can reinforce this knowledge-sharing culture, enhancing
organizational adaptability and resilience. These knowledge-sharing platforms align with Nonaka
and Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation theory, which emphasizes the role of shared
experiences in fostering organizational learning. Digital transformation has revolutionized
knowledge-sharing mechanisms. Recent research by Singh (2022) shows that knowledge-sharing
platforms can enhance employee engagement and learning when integrated with collaborative
technologies like Slack or Microsoft Teams. For Taiwanese companies, establishing such
platforms provides an effective way to document cross-cultural integration practices, share case
studies, and host discussions that promote mutual understanding across teams.
Strengthening Motivation
This section focuses on strategies to enhance the motivation of managers and employees
to engage effectively in cross-cultural integration. It explores interventions designed to build

101
confidence, foster adaptability, and align individual and organizational goals. By implementing
leadership development workshops, recognition and incentive programs, and personalized
coaching, Taiwanese companies can empower managers to embrace the challenges of
multicultural environments and drive successful integration efforts.
Leadership Development Workshops
Workshops that focus on self-efficacy and a growth mindset are supported by Bandura’s
(1997) theory of self-efficacy, which identifies confidence in one’s abilities as a critical factor
for effective performance. Managers who believe they can lead successfully in multicultural
settings are more likely to embrace challenges and take proactive steps to address them. Dweck’s
(2006) work on the growth mindset further underscores the importance of viewing challenges as
opportunities for development, making workshops an essential tool for fostering resilience and
adaptability among Taiwanese managers. Coronado and Benítez (2023) found that leadership
development focusing on emotional intelligence (EI) significantly improves managers’ ability to
handle cross-cultural challenges. Taiwanese managers can benefit from workshops combining
emotional intelligence training with cultural sensitivity, equipping them to lead in dynamic
environments confidently. These sessions should provide tools for handling agile team dynamics,
fostering resilience, and navigating rapid decision-making. Interactive components such as peer
feedback and self-assessment exercises can reinforce learning and confidence.
Recognition and Incentive Programs
Recognizing and rewarding outstanding efforts can motivate employees to engage in
cultural integration initiatives. Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory highlights that recognition
and achievement are critical motivators in the workplace. By rewarding managers who
demonstrate excellence in cross-cultural collaboration, organizations can encourage others to

102
prioritize cultural integration efforts. Research by Deci and Ryan (1985) further supports this
approach, indicating that recognition satisfies intrinsic motivational needs, leading to greater
engagement and performance. Wu, Ng, and Wang (2021) found that acknowledgment of
employees’ cross-cultural achievements not only boosts motivation but also fosters a sense of
belonging and alignment with organizational goals. Taiwanese companies should design
incentive systems celebrating innovative solutions and effective cross-cultural collaboration to
promote ongoing engagement. Companies can establish awards or incentives for effective crosscultural leadership, creative problem-solving, or fostering inclusivity. Public recognition can
further encourage others to prioritize integration efforts.
Personalized Coaching
One-on-one coaching sessions for managers can address individual motivational barriers.
Whitmore (2010) argues that coaching helps managers clarify their goals, overcome challenges,
and align personal objectives with organizational priorities. In cross-cultural settings, tailored
coaching sessions can enhance managers’ confidence and provide actionable strategies for
navigating complex team dynamics. These benefits are consistent with Gudykunst and TingToomey’s (1988) work on intercultural communication, highlighting the importance of
personalized guidance in improving cultural competence. Grant and Atard (2022) highlight the
effectiveness of coaching in addressing individual leadership challenges, particularly in
multicultural environments. Taiwanese managers can benefit from personalized sessions that
focus on their specific motivational barriers while also aligning their personal goals with
organizational strategies. Tailored coaching should focus on enhancing confidence, aligning
personal goals with organizational priorities, and developing strategies for effectively leading
multicultural teams.

103
Supporting Organizational Change
This section examines organizational-level strategies to create structures and policies that
support cross-cultural integration. It highlights the importance of adapting policies for
inclusivity, allocating resources for training and development, and fostering collaboration
through task forces and exchange programs. These interventions aim to build an organizational
culture that harmonizes the strengths of Taiwanese and American practices, promoting
innovation and sustainable growth in the U.S. market.
Policy Adaptation for Inclusivity
Taiwanese companies need to adapt their policies to align with the inclusivity expected in
U.S. workplaces. Adapting organizational policies to foster inclusivity aligns with Schein’s
(2010) organizational culture theory, which emphasizes the need for cultural alignment between
an organization’s values and its operational practices. Flexible and participatory policies can help
bridge the gap between Taiwanese hierarchical structures and the collaborative norms of U.S.
workplaces. Research by Cox (1994) further suggests that inclusive policies promote innovation
and employee engagement, making this an essential strategy for cultural integration. Shore et al.
(2018) emphasize that inclusive practices, such as participatory decision-making and diverse
representation in leadership, contribute to higher levels of employee engagement and
organizational performance. Taiwanese companies should revise policies to incorporate these
practices, ensuring that hierarchical structures do not inhibit creativity or collaboration.
Decision-making protocols should incorporate collaborative practices, while performance
evaluation systems must account for diverse cultural norms. Flexible policies can harmonize
Taiwanese stability-focused practices with the agility demanded by U.S. business environments.

104
Resource Allocation for Training and Development
Organizations should dedicate resources to cultural training, mentorship, and teambuilding initiatives. Investing in training and development aligns with Barney’s (1991) resourcebased view, which identifies human capital as a critical resource for achieving competitive
advantage. Allocating resources to cross-cultural training, mentorship, and team-building
activities ensures that employees can effectively manage cultural complexities. Additionally,
research by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) highlights the importance of resource allocation in
supporting global integration, making this a foundational recommendation. Allocating resources
to language learning tools, communication platforms, professional development programs,
leadership development, mentorship, and team-building initiatives ensures that employees are
well-prepared to navigate cultural complexities effectively.
Integration Task Force
Creating a cross-functional task force to oversee integration efforts aligns with Kotter’s
(1996) change management model, emphasizing the importance of guiding coalitions in driving
organizational change. Task forces comprising representatives from both Taiwanese and U.S.
teams can ensure balanced input and accountability, fostering a culture of collaboration and
shared responsibility. Such initiatives also support Heifetz’s (1994) adaptive leadership
framework, which advocates for diverse perspectives in addressing complex organizational
challenges. Garavan, McCarthy, and Sheehan (2022) found that diverse task forces enable
organizations to address cross-cultural challenges systematically by fostering collaborative
problem-solving and accountability. Establishing a cross-functional task force comprising
representatives from both Taiwanese and U.S. teams. The cross-functional task force can provide
oversight and direction for integration efforts. This group can also monitor the effectiveness of

105
initiatives, gather feedback, and recommend improvements. Their role is pivotal in maintaining
accountability and ensuring continuous progress.
Cultural Exchange Programs
Creating exchange programs that enable employees to gain firsthand experience of each
other’s work environments. Cultural exchange programs reflect the principles of experiential
learning theory, as proposed by Kolb (1984). These programs facilitate firsthand learning and
promote mutual understanding by immersing employees in different cultural environments.
Research by Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) also highlights the effectiveness of
international assignments in building cultural competence and fostering stronger cross-cultural
relationships. Kolb, Boyatzis, and Mainemelis's (2004) updated work on experiential learning
theory emphasizes the importance of immersive experiences in fostering deep cultural
understanding. Short-term job rotations and virtual collaboration projects allow employees to
gain firsthand experience of each other’s work environments. A study by Peng and Lin (2023)
highlights the effectiveness of such programs in building stronger cross-cultural relationships
and mutual respect. These cultural exchange programs can provide invaluable opportunities for
employees to experience and appreciate diverse work practices further to promote mutual
understanding, build stronger relationships, and foster a unified organizational culture.
These recommendations, grounded in recent literature, provide a robust framework for
addressing the KMO gaps identified in the findings. By integrating these contemporary insights,
Taiwanese technology companies can navigate cultural complexities with greater agility,
fostering innovation and collaboration in their U.S. operations. These interventions aim to
address the unique challenges faced by Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the

106
U.S. By implementing these strategies; companies can create a more cohesive and compelling
workplace, leveraging the strengths of both cultural frameworks.
Implementation of the Recommendations
The implementation plan is designed to systematically address the cultural integration
challenges identified in this study. It is grounded in a phased approach and guided by the Kellog
Logic Model (W.K. Kellog Foundation, 2004) to ensure alignment of resources, activities, and
intended outcomes.
Phases of Implementation
The plan unfolds in three phases, as illustrated in Figure 2: Implementation Phases:
● Phase 1: Needs Assessment and Stakeholder Engagement (Months 1-3) This initial phase
involves conducting surveys and focus groups to identify specific cultural gaps within the
organization. Stakeholders, including managers, employees, and leadership teams, are
engaged to gather insights and foster buy-in for the initiative. A dedicated project team is
formed to oversee implementation and ensure alignment with organizational goals.
● Phase 2: Pilot Training Programs (Months 4-6) In this phase, tailored cultural integration
workshops are developed and piloted. The training focuses on bridging cultural
differences, fostering effective communication, and promoting collaborative problemsolving. Mentoring programs are introduced, pairing employees from diverse
backgrounds to encourage knowledge sharing and mutual understanding. Feedback
collected during this phase is critical for refining the programs.
● Phase 3: Organization-wide Rollout (Months 7-12) The final phase involves scaling up
training programs across the organization. Cross-cultural strategies are integrated into
policies and procedures, including performance evaluations and leadership development

107
frameworks. Progress is monitored through periodic evaluations and stakeholder
feedback to ensure the initiative meets its objectives.
Figure 2
Implementation phases
Kellogg Logic Model
The implementation plan is structured around the Kellogg Logic Model, as shown in
Figure 3: Kellogg Logic Model, to ensure clarity and alignment:
● Inputs: Financial resources, HR expertise, cross-cultural trainers, e-learning tools.
● Activities: Development and delivery of workshops, mentoring programs, policy updates.
● Outputs: Number of training sessions conducted, participation rates in workshops.
● Outcomes:
○ Short-term: Improved cross-cultural understanding and communication skills.
○ Medium-term: Enhanced collaboration and reduced resistance to change.

108
○ Long-term: Strengthened organizational cohesion and operational performance.
● Impact: Creation of an inclusive, sustainable culture that supports innovation and growth.
Figure 3
Kellogg Logic Model
Resource Allocation
The estimated budget for this initiative is outlined in Table 3: Financial Budget
Allocation:
● $200,000 for training programs and workshops.
● $150,000 for consultancy and mentoring services.
● $125,000 for e-learning tools and materials.
● $100,000 for additional HR support and evaluation.

109
Table 3
Budget allocation for three phases
Category Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
Cost
Training
Programs
Develop and deliver
cross-cultural training
sessions
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000
Consultancy
Services
Hire external
consultants for strategy
development
$30,000 $40,000 $30,000 $100,000
E-learning Tools Purchase or develop elearning platforms for
cultural training
$20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $50,000
HR Team
Support
Allocate dedicated HR
personnel for program
support
$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000
Workshops and
Mentoring
Conduct workshops and
mentoring sessions for
employees
$30,000 $50,000 $45,000 $125,000
Communication Set up and maintain
communication tools
like intranet and
dashboards
$20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $50,000
Miscellaneous
Costs
Contingency fund for
unforeseen expenses
$10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $50,000
Total $185,000 $225,000 $190,000 $600,000
Communication Plan
A robust communication plan ensures clarity and engagement throughout the
implementation as shown in Figure 4. During Phase 1, surveys, focus groups, and kickoff
meetings introduce the initiative and gather input. Phase 2 incorporates regular updates through
newsletters, pilot program results, and feedback sessions to refine approaches. In Phase 3,

110
organization-wide communication strategies such as town halls, dashboards, and email
campaigns ensure alignment and transparency as the initiative scales
Figure 4
Communication Plan for each phase
Risk Management Plan
Proactive risk management strategies address potential risks, including resistance to
change and misalignment of cultural practices. Comprehensive training programs and open
communication channels help mitigate resistance. Regular feedback mechanisms allow early
identification and resolution of challenges. Leadership support and clearly articulated goals
reinforce the program's value and foster organizational commitment.
By following this structured plan, supported by clear illustrations and data, organizations can
effectively navigate the complexities of cultural integration, ensuring sustainable growth and
innovation
Evaluation: Assessing Effectiveness Using Kirkpatrick’s Model
Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
provides a structured framework for evaluating the proposed programs described in the previous

111
sections, including “Comprehensive Cultural Training,” " Leadership Development Workshops,”
and “Cross-Cultural Mentorship.” The Kirkpatrick model evaluates training and development
initiatives across four levels: Level 1: Reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Planned in
reverse order, starting with Level 4: Results, the model ensures that each level builds on the
previous one, ensuring a thorough assessment of how these initiatives address the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) gaps identified in the findings.
Level 1: Reaction
This level evaluates how participants initially perceive the programs, focusing on their
satisfaction, engagement, and relevance of the intervention. It focuses on capturing their initial
impressions and emotional responses to the programs. Programs like “Comprehensive Cultural
Training” and “Leadership Development Workshops” must actively engage participants and
leave a positive impression to foster their enthusiasm and commitment.
Purpose
The goal is to determine whether participants find the interventions engaging,
meaningful, and worth their time. Positive reactions are essential as they lay the foundation for
effective learning and application.
Questions Addressed
This level addresses questions: Were the training programs engaging and relevant to
participants' roles? Do participants find mentorship sessions valuable for navigating cultural
challenges? Which components of the programs resonated most with participants? What
improvements would they suggest?

112
Evaluation Tools
Evaluation tools include post-program surveys and feedback forms to gather immediate
responses, real-time polling tools during workshops to assess engagement, and focus group
discussions to explore participants’ perceptions in greater depth. For example, managers
participating in cultural training programs can rate their satisfaction with content delivery,
workshop facilitators, and interactive elements such as role-playing exercises. Positive reactions
are a strong indicator that the interventions meet immediate expectations and create a conducive
environment for learning.
Level 2: Learning
At this level, the focus shifts to measuring the extent of learning achieved during the
interventions. Interventions such as Comprehensive Cultural Training focus on improving
understanding of cultural norms, while Leadership Development Workshops aim to enhance selfefficacy and emotional intelligence. Pre- and post-training assessments, including quizzes,
simulations, and practical exercises, can evaluate participants' progress.
Purpose
The goal is to verify that participants have acquired the competencies necessary for
effective cross-cultural leadership and teamwork. This includes understanding U.S. workplace
norms, building cultural intelligence (CQ), and demonstrating adaptive leadership strategies.
Questions Addressed
Key questions for this level include: What new knowledge or skills did participants
acquire? Can they demonstrate a clear understanding of cross-cultural dynamics? How
effectively can participants apply adaptive leadership techniques to multicultural team settings?

113
Evaluation Tools
This evaluation uses pre-and post-training assessments to measure knowledge
acquisition, role-playing scenarios, case studies to assess practical skills, and cultural intelligence
(CQ) tests to evaluate adaptability. In comprehensive cultural training programs, managers can
be tested on their understanding of U.S. workplace norms and cultural intelligence (CQ). For
Leadership Development Workshops, assessments can measure self-efficacy and emotional
intelligence (EI) improvements. Learning outcomes should align with clearly defined objectives,
such as the ability to analyze cultural differences or demonstrate adaptive leadership.
Level 3: Behavior
This level evaluates how participants apply their learning in the workplace, focusing on
behavioral changes prompted by the programs. Observations, performance reviews, and 360-
degree feedback can be used to track how participants implement their newly acquired skills.
Purpose
The primary objective is to assess whether participants effectively integrate the skills and
knowledge gained into their daily roles, contributing to improved team dynamics and
collaboration.
Questions Addressed
The questions at this level include: Are managers incorporating participatory decisionmaking into team processes? Are employees using Knowledge-Sharing Platforms to document
and share best practices? How have team interactions improved as a result of these programs?
Evaluation Tools
Examples include observations of managers implementing inclusive decision-making
practices, 360-degree feedback from peers and subordinates to assess behavioral changes, and

114
performance reviews focusing on cultural adaptability and collaboration. Specific monitoring
behaviors include Managers applying inclusive practices, such as participatory decision-making,
learned during workshops. Employees leveraging knowledge-sharing platforms to document best
practices and contribute to cross-cultural integration efforts. Improved confidence and
adaptability in managers, as evidenced by their ability to navigate challenging cross-cultural
scenarios. Tracking these behavioral changes over time is essential to understanding how
effectively participants translate learning into practice.
Level 4: Results
This level evaluates the organizational impact of the programs, focusing on tangible
outcomes like employee engagement scores, retention rates, and cross-cultural project success
rates that can provide tangible evidence of effectiveness.
Purpose
The goal is to determine the programs' return on investment (ROI) and their contribution
to broader organizational objectives, such as successful integration into the U.S. market and
enhanced market performance.
Questions Addressed
This level addresses key questions like: How have the interventions contributed to
achieving strategic goals, such as successful U.S. market expansion? What measurable
improvements in innovation, collaboration, or team performance can be attributed to the
interventions? How do the financial and operational outcomes compare to pre-intervention
baselines?

115
Evaluation Tools
Evaluation tools include employee engagement surveys to assess organizational culture
changes, metrics tracking the success of cross-cultural projects and initiatives, and analysis of
retention rates, employee satisfaction, and productivity data. Project outcomes and team
performance metrics can assess improved collaboration and innovation resulting from cultural
exchange programs. The completion of integration initiatives within set timelines and budgets
can measure the success of cross-functional task forces. Enhanced employee satisfaction, as
reflected in surveys, can indicate the success of policy adaptations and mentorship programs.
By linking the evaluation levels directly to the programs proposed in the
recommendations as shown in Figure 5, this framework ensures a coherent approach to assessing
the effectiveness of each intervention. It also emphasizes the importance of continuous
improvement, using the insights gained from evaluations to refine and enhance future initiatives.
Figure 5
Evaluation criteria for each level

116
Delimitations and Limitations
This section revisits the delimitations and limitations outlined in Chapter 3 to provide
context for interpreting the findings and discussing the study's implications. By reaffirming the
scope and constraints of the research, this section ensures transparency and highlights how these
factors shaped the analysis and evaluation.
Delimitations
As detailed in Chapter 3, this study focused on mid-sized Taiwanese technology firms
with 100–500 employees expanding into the U.S. market. This delimitation was selected to
ensure the research addressed the unique challenges faced by organizations of this size, which
differ significantly from those encountered by startups or large multinational corporations. The
study could provide targeted insights into their cross-cultural integration challenges and
strategies by narrowing the scope to mid-sized firms.
The research also concentrated on managerial perspectives, particularly supervisors
responsible for leading cross-cultural teams. This focus excluded broader employee groups to
emphasize leadership dynamics in cultural integration clearly. While this approach allowed for a
detailed exploration of managerial challenges, it may need to capture non-managerial staff's
perspectives fully.
Framework Selection
The study utilized Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model to assess the
effectiveness of the proposed interventions. This model provided a structured framework for
evaluating training and development initiatives but excluded alternative approaches, such as
Phillips’ ROI methodology. This delimitation ensured depth of analysis within a single
evaluation model while recognizing that other frameworks might yield complementary insights.

117
Geographic and Temporal Boundaries
The research was limited to Taiwanese firms operating in the U.S. market, excluding
those expanding into other regions. This focus allowed for a specific examination of the cultural
differences between Taiwanese and American business environments. Additionally, the
evaluation of interventions was conducted over a short to medium timeframe (six to twelve
months post-implementation), leaving long-term impacts beyond the scope of this study.
Limitations
The study relied on data collected from a select group of mid-sized Taiwanese
technology firms. While this targeted approach enhanced specificity, it limited the
generalizability of the findings to organizations outside this size range or those in different
industries or geographic regions. For example, the challenges faced by larger multinational
corporations or startups might differ significantly from those explored in this research.
Reliance on Self-Reported Data
Much of the data used in the study came from self-reported surveys and interviews with
managers and supervisors. This reliance introduced potential biases, such as social desirability
bias, where participants might provide responses they perceive as favorable rather than entirely
accurate reflections of their experiences. Although steps were taken to mitigate these biases, such
as ensuring anonymity, they remain a consideration in interpreting the findings.
Cultural and Contextual Nuances
While the study focused on cross-cultural challenges between Taiwanese and American
business environments, it may not fully capture the nuances of individual subcultures within
these broader categories. For instance, regional differences within the U.S. or variations in

118
organizational culture across Taiwanese firms could influence the findings. These contextual
subtleties are essential when applying the study's insights to specific organizations.
Evaluation Constraints
Kirkpatrick’s model provided a robust framework for assessing the interventions but also
presented limitations. The model’s focus on training evaluation might overlook broader systemic
factors, such as industry-specific regulations or economic conditions, that influence cultural
integration. Additionally, the medium-term evaluation period may not capture the full impact of
interventions, particularly those requiring extended implementation to yield measurable results.
Resource and Time Limitations
Implementing the proposed interventions required a significant investment of resources
and time by participating organizations. These constraints may have influenced the depth and
scope of the programs studied. For example, while comprehensive cultural training programs
were proposed, some organizations may have implemented scaled-down versions due to budget
or time restrictions.
The delimitations and limitations established in Chapter 3 and revisited here define the
boundaries of this research and provide essential context for understanding its findings. While
the delimitations ensured a focused and practical exploration of cross-cultural integration
challenges, the limitations highlight areas where further research could expand upon this study.
Acknowledging these factors enhances the transparency and credibility of the research, paving
the way for future studies to address these constraints and build on the insights provided.
Future Research
This dissertation has explored the challenges and strategies for cultural integration faced
by Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the U.S. market. While the findings provide

119
valuable insights into Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) gaps, they also reveal
opportunities for further exploration. Future research can build on this foundation by addressing
several underexplored areas.
Long-Term Impact of Interventions
This study focused on evaluating the short to medium-term outcomes of interventions.
Future research should examine the long-term impacts of these programs, such as cultural
training and mentorship, on organizational performance and employee retention. Longitudinal
studies tracking changes over several years could provide deeper insights into how cultural
integration evolves and sustains within multinational contexts.
Broader Employee Perspectives
While this research emphasized managerial perspectives, future studies could explore the
experiences of non-managerial employees. Investigating how employees at different levels
perceive and adapt to cross-cultural dynamics would provide a more holistic understanding of
integration challenges and solutions.
Hybrid Work and Cross-Cultural Dynamics
The global shift toward hybrid work environments has fundamentally changed how teams
interact. Future research could examine how hybrid or remote work models influence crosscultural integration. Questions to explore include: How do virtual environments amplify or
mitigate cultural differences? What new challenges and opportunities arise when team members
from different cultural backgrounds collaborate in a primarily digital space?
Cross-Cultural Leadership in the Age of AI
As technology transforms workplace practices, future research could investigate how
digital tools, such as AI-driven cultural training platforms or virtual collaboration software,

120
influence cross-cultural integration. Understanding how emerging technologies bridge cultural
gaps or introduce new challenges, future research could examine the new frontier of AI tools that
influence cross-cultural leadership and integration. For example, AI-driven sentiment analysis
and communication platforms might mediate cultural misunderstandings or highlight latent
tensions. Research could investigate how leaders can leverage AI ethically and effectively to
navigate cultural differences while maintaining human-centric approaches to management.
Future research can address these areas, contributing to a more nuanced understanding
and transformative insights into cross-cultural integration. These directions emphasize the role of
global organizations not just as participants in the global economy but as innovators and leaders
driving meaningful change in an interconnected world. It also provides actionable strategies for
organizations navigating the complexities of international business operations.
Conclusion
This dissertation examined the cultural integration challenges faced by Taiwanese
technology companies expanding into the U.S. market, using the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) framework to identify gaps and propose targeted interventions. Through
an in-depth analysis, this study has demonstrated that effective cultural integration is a
multifaceted process requiring the alignment of individual competencies, motivational drivers,
and organizational structures.
The findings underscore the critical importance of equipping managers with the skills to
navigate cultural differences through comprehensive training programs and mentorship.
Additionally, fostering a growth mindset and providing resources for cultural exchange programs
can enhance adaptability and collaboration across teams. Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training
Evaluation Model provided a structured approach to assessing the effectiveness of these

121
interventions, highlighting their immediate and medium-term impacts on participants and
organizations.
Despite its contributions, this research acknowledges its limitations, such as its focus on a
specific organizational size and reliance on managerial perspectives. These constraints provide
opportunities for future studies to expand the scope of inquiry and explore additional dimensions
of cultural integration.
Ultimately, this dissertation contributes to the growing body of knowledge on crosscultural management by offering a practical framework for addressing integration challenges in a
globalized business environment. For Taiwanese technology firms, the insights provided here
serve as a guide to navigating the complexities of U.S. market entry, fostering successful
business operations and cohesive, collaborative organizational cultures. This study lays the
groundwork for further research and continuous innovation in the field by addressing the human
and structural dimensions of cultural integration.

122
References
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior.
Cengage Learning.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and
applications. Routledge.
Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., & Rockstuhl, T. (2020). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 820–845). Cambridge University
Press.
Baker T. Gedajlovic E. & Lubatkin M. (2005). A framework for comparing entrepreneurship
processes across nations. Journal of International Business Studies 36 492-504.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bartlett C. A. & Ghoshal S. (2002). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Harvard Business Press.
Bass B. M. & Riggio R. E. (2006).  Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational
culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44(3), 336–346.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2016). Cultural agility and international assignees’ effectiveness in
cross-cultural interactions. International Journal of Training and Development, 20(1),
20–32.
Chen, C. C., & Eastman, W. (1997). Toward a civic culture for multicultural organizations. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(4), 454–470.

123
Chen G. & Klimoski R. J. (2007). Training and development of human resources at work: Is the
state of our science strong? Human Resource Management Review 17(2) 180-190.
Chen G. Kirkman B. L. Kim K. Farh C. I. C. & Tangirala S. (2010). "When Does Cross-Cultural
Motivation Enhance Expatriate Effectiveness? A Multilevel Investigation of the
Moderating Roles of Subsidiary Support and Cultural Distance." Academy of
Management Journal 53(5) 1110-1130.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A dialogue.
Child J. & Möllering G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in the
Chinese business environment. Organization Science 14(1) 69-80.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social
psychology, 1(20), 416-436.
Denison, D. R., Janovics, J., Young, J., & Cho, H. J. (2006). Diagnosing organizational cultures:
Validating a model and method. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences,
2(3), 123–145
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.).
Sage Publications.
Deardorff, D. K. (2020). Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles (p.
116). Taylor & Francis.
Dweck C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.

124
Earley P. C. & Ang S. (2003). "Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures."
Stanford University Press.
Earley P. C. & Peterson R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a
new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management
Learning & Education 3(1) 100-115.
Earley P. C. & Ang S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101859.
Ely R. J. & Thomas D. A. (2001). "Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity
Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes." Administrative Science –
Quarterly 46(2) 229-273.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth-generation evaluation. Sage Publications
Gunia B. C. Brett J. M. & Nandkeolyar A. K. (2014). Trust me I’m a negotiator. Organizational
Dynamics 43(1) 27–36.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Hillemann, J., Verbeke, A. and Oh, W.-Y. (2019). Regional Integration, Multinational Enterprise
Strategy and the Impact of Country-level Risk: The Case of the EMU. Brit J Manage, 30:
908-925

125
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Sage Publications.
Hoffman R. (2007). The strategic planning process and performance relationship: Does culture
matter? Journal of Business Strategies 24(1) 27–48.
Jackson, S. (2019). Cultural awareness training: A crucial element for successful global business
operations. Journal of Business and Management, 25(3), 45–58.
Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business
performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human
Resource Management, 43(4), 409–424.
Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Diversity initiative effectiveness: What organizations can
(and cannot) expect from diversity recruitment, diversity training, and formal mentoring
programs. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Diversity at work (pp. 265–317).
Cambridge University Press.
Kundu, S.C., Mor, A., Kumar, S. and Bansal, J. (2020). "Diversity within management levels
and organizational performance: employees’ perspective," Journal of Advances in
Management Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 110–130.
Kostova, Tatiana & Roth, Kendall. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by
subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of
Management Journal. 45. 215-233.

126
Lauring, J. (2011). Intercultural Organizational Communication: The Social Organizing of
Interaction in International Encounters. Journal of Business Communication - J Bus
Comm. 48. 231–255.
Leong S. M. & Tan C. T. (1993). Managing across borders: An empirical test of the Bartlett and
Ghoshal [1989] organizational typology. Journal of International Business Studies 24
449-464.
Lin, W. T., Chen, Y. Y., Ahlstrom, D., & Wang, L. C. (2021). Does international expansion
constrain growth? Business groups, internationalization, institutional distance, and the
Penrose effect. Multinational Business Review, 29(1), 70-95.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications
Livermore D. & Soon A. N. G. (2015). Leading with cultural intelligence: The real secret to
success. Amacom.
Locke E. A. & Latham G. P. (2002). "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and
Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey." American Psychologist 57(9) 705–717.
Lundby K. & Caligiuri P. (2013 September). Leveraging organizational climate to understand
cultural agility and foster effective global leadership. People & Strategy 36(3) 26+.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Maznevski M. L. & DiStefano J. J. (2000). "Global Leaders Are Team Players: Developing
Global Leaders Through Membership on Global Teams." Human Resource Management
39(2-3) 195–208.
Mendenhall, M. E., Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2012). Defining the “global” in
global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 493–503.

127
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moran R. T. Abramson N. R. & Moran S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.
Morris M. W. & Leung K. (2000). "Creativity East and West: Perspectives and Parallels."
International Journal of Psychology 35(3-4) 109-209.
Nancy J. Adler: International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior 1986 Boston: Kent
Publishing. 242 pages. (1990). Organization Studies 11(4) 600–600.
Ng E. S. & Sears G. J. (2012). "CEO Leadership Styles and the Implementation of
Organizational Diversity Practices: Moderating Effects of Social Values and Age."
Journal of Business Ethics 105(1) 41–52.
Ng K. Y. & Earley P. C. (2006). Culture+ intelligence: Old constructs new frontiers. Group &
Organization Management 31(1) 4–19.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nuno Oliveira, Fabrice Lumineau, Africa Ariño (2023). “Time in international strategic
alliances: Progress and prospect.” Journal of World Business, Volume 58, Issue 4.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Radu, C. (2023). Fostering a positive workplace culture: Impacts on performance and agility.
IntechOpen.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2020). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. Sage Publications.

128
Reiche, B. S., Lee, Y. T., & Allen, D. G. (2019). Actors, structure, and processes: A review and
conceptualization of global work integrating IB and HRM research. Journal of
Management, 45(2), 359-383.
Rockstuhl T. Seiler S. Ang S. Van Dyne L. & Annen H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence
(IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross‐
border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues 67(4) 825-
840.
Roberson Q. M. Kulik C. T. & Pepper M. B. (2003). "Using Needs Assessment to Resolve
Controversies in Diversity Training Design." Group & Organization Management 28(1)
148-174.
Rosenzweig, E. Q., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Expectancy-value theory and its
relevance for student motivation and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.),
The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning (pp. 617–644). Cambridge
University Press.
Ryan R. M. & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary educational psychology 25(1) 54–67.
Ryan R. M. & Deci E. L. (2000). "Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation Social Development and Well-Being." American Psychologist 55(1) 68–78.
Salk J. E. & Brannen M. Y. (2000). National culture networks and individual influence in a
multinational management team. Academy of Management Journal 43(2) 191–202.
Schein, E. H. (1992). How can organizations learn faster? The problem of entering the Green
Room. MIT Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 85–92

129
Schein E. H. (1996). "Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies." Administrative
Science Quarterly 41(2) 229–240.
Schein E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing across cultures (2nd ed.). Pearson/Financial
Times.
Shen J. Chanda A. D'netto B. & Monga M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource
management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 20(2) 235-251.
Shore L. M. Chung-Herrera B. G. Dean M. A. Ehrhart K. H. Jung D. I. Randel A. E. & Singh G.
(2009). "Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?" Human
Resource Management Review 19(2) 117-133.
Stahl G. K. & Tung R. L. (2015). Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in international
business studies: The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. Journal of
International Business Studies 46 391-414.
Stahl, Günter & Miska, Christof & Lee, Hyun-Jung & Sully de Luque, Mary. (2017). The upside
of cultural differences: Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in cross-cultural
management research. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 24. 10.1108
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
Szulanski G. & Jensen R. J. (2008). Growing through copying: The negative consequences of
innovation on franchise network growth. Research Policy 37(10) 1732-1741.
Taras V. Rowney J. & Steel P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of
approaches challenges and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for
quantifying culture. Journal of International Management 15(4) 357–373.

130
Patrick D. Thelen, Cen April Yue, Aniisu K. Verghese (2023). Increasing employee advocacy
through supervisor motivating language: The mediating role of psychological conditions,
Public Relations Review, Volume 48, Issue 5.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business.
Berrett-Koehler.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2007). Careers across cultures. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.),
Handbook of career studies (pp. 451–470). Sage Publications.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2021). Cross-cultural management: an introduction. SAGE
Publications.
Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Trompenaars F. & Hampden-Turner C. (1998). "Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Diversity in Global Business." McGraw-Hill.
Tsai H. T. & Eisingerich A. B. (2010). Internationalization strategies of emerging markets firms.
California Management Review 53(1) 114-135.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage
Publications.
Yu, T., & Chen, G. M. (2008). Intercultural sensitivity and conflict management styles in crosscultural organizational situations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3),
227–247.
Van der Zee, K., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (2013).
Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Development of a short form. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 95(1), 118-124.

131
Yu, T., & Chen, G. M. (2008). Intercultural sensitivity and conflict management styles in crosscultural organizational situations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3),
227–247.
Zhang, Y., & Zhou, X. (2021). Conceptual knowledge and cross-cultural competence.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 80, 234–245.
Zhu W. Newman A. Miao Q. & Hooke A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in
transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? The
Leadership Quarterly 24(1) 94–105.

132
APPENDIX A
Interview Data
Question 1:
“Describe your understanding of the different management styles in Taiwanese and American
cultures?”
Participant Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 12 15 “In Taiwan, management tends
to place a higher emphasis on
expertise and technical
credentials, where leaders often
have deep technical
backgrounds.”. “In the U.S.,
management often values crossfunctional collaboration and is
more likely to integrate diverse
perspectives from marketing,
sales, and business development
when making decisions.”
Emphasizes technical expertise
in Taiwanese management and
cross-functional collaboration
in American management
Ana 13 15 “Taiwanese management styles
tend to be more hierarchical and
directive, with a strong
emphasis on respect for
authority and seniority.”
“American management styles,
on the other hand, are generally
more respectful and
participative.”
Taiwanese management is
hierarchical; U.S. management
is participative
Andy 12 14 ‘Taiwanese culture often
emphasizes respect for authority
and consensus, while American
culture encourages
individualism and open debate."
Taiwanese management
respects authority and
consensus; U.S. management
encourages individualism and
debate.
Betty 6 8 “management style in Taiwan is
more focused on respecting
hierarchy and authority. In the
U.S., while there is a hierarchy
and authority, the culture also
respects everyone as being
Taiwanese management
respects hierarchy, while U.S.
management respects equality

133
Participant Ask Ans Quote Notes
equal.”
Dave 13 16 “In Taiwan, management is
more structured and
hierarchical. Leaders make
decisions and the team follows
through. In the U.S., the style is
more open and collaborative—
teams are encouraged to
challenge ideas and contribute
at all levels.”
Taiwan is hierarchical and
structured; the U.S. is
collaborative
Florence 7 10 “I see Taiwanese management
as more hierarchical. "
American management is more
collaborative, and decisions are
often made with input from
everyone on the team.
Taiwan is hierarchical; the U.S.
is collaborative and inputdriven.
Jim 6 9 “In Taiwan, it's more common
to have a top-down approach
where the bosses make the calls
and the team follows. In the
U.S., it's much more open and
collaborative—everyone gets a
say. “
Taiwan is top-down; the U.S. is
open and inclusive
Judy 6 23 “In general, Taiwanese
companies adhere to a guiding
philosophy based on six core
principles: diligence, frugality,
practicality, endurance, courage,
and knowledge.
American management
typically emphasizes adherence
to laws and regulations with a
strong focus on individual
value, systematic evolution, and
rational decision-making
techniques. “
Taiwanese management is
based on six core principles;
U.S. management focuses on
individual value and legal
adherence.
Kevin 11 14 “Taiwanese management tends
to be more hierarchical.” “,
American management is more
collaborative.”
Taiwanese management is
hierarchical; U.S. management
is collaborative

134
Participant Ask Ans Quote Notes
Max 14 16 “Taiwanese management tends
to be hierarchical, emphasizing
respect for authority and group
harmony.” “American
management is more
egalitarian, valuing individual
initiative and direct
communication. “
Taiwan values authority and
harmony; the U.S. values
egalitarianism and direct
communication
Nate 6 9 “In Taiwan, management tends
to be more hierarchical.” “In the
U.S., it’s more collaborative and
decentralized.”
Taiwan is hierarchical; the U.S.
is decentralized and
collaborative
Terry 14 16 “Taiwanese management tends
to be hierarchical.” "American
management is more about
valuing individual initiative and
direct communication. There's
more emphasis on questioning
ideas and taking risks."
Taiwan is hierarchical; the U.S.
values initiative and risk-taking
Question 2:
“Can you provide examples from your experience where you have seen these management styles
in action? “
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 23 25 “When I worked at XXX
Taiwan, senior leaders
often made decisions after
detailed planning sessions.
But at YYY in the U.S., the
approach is more agile,
with quicker decisions
made through team
discussions. “
Taiwan focuses on detailed
planning; U.S. uses an agile, quick
decision-making approach
Ana 24 27 “in our Taiwan office, it's
common for employees to
defer to their supervisors
Taiwan defers to supervisors; U.S.
encourages independence and
initiative.

135
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
and seek their approval
before making decisions. In
our U.S. office, employees
are more likely to take
initiative and make
decisions independently.”
Andy 17 19 “In Taiwan, I’ve observed
managers making tactical
decisions only after group
consensus. In contrast, in
the U.S., managers tend to
have more autonomy to
make quicker decisions
with less need for
consensus."
Taiwan relies on consensus; U.S.
managers have decision-making
autonomy.
Betty 13 15 “When putting together the
time-off policy for US
office, the detail (combined
with simplicity) was very
important in order to
explain why certain
policies made sense
culturally and/or legally in
the U.S. “
U.S. policies need both cultural
and legal explanation; emphasis on
simplicity and detail.
Dave 21 23 “At TTB Taiwan, decisions
were often driven by the
senior team in China, and
we followed a clear
directive. But when I was
leading PPP, the approach
was more entrepreneurial—
ideas flowed from all
levels, and we had more
flexibility.”
Taiwan follows directives from
senior leadership; U.S. encourages
entrepreneurial ideas from all
levels.
Florence 16 21 “In one project, we used a
hybrid approach where
strategy was driven by
leadership in Taiwan, but
the U.S. team had more
freedom to shape the
execution. It worked well
Hybrid strategy: Taiwan sets
strategy; U.S. has execution
flexibility.

136
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
because we respected the
structure but still had room
to innovate."
Jim 13 15 “we had a situation where
our U.S. sales team wanted
to push for aggressive sales
tactics to quickly penetrate
a new market. However,
our counterparts in Taiwan
insisted on a more
methodical approach,
focused on long-term
strategy rather than shortterm gains. “
Taiwan prefers methodical, longterm strategies; U.S. pushes for
aggressive, quick market actions.
Judy 30 32 “For example, if a
production line fails to
meet the required sales
orders, or if a salesperson
delays payment collection,
managers may face
immediate and public
criticism.
In contrast, American
management tends to
handle these situations
more discreetly due to legal
considerations."
Taiwan uses public criticism; U.S.
approaches issues discreetly,
considering legal factors.
Kevin 19 21 “when I was leading a
project that required input
from both our U.S. and
Taiwan teams, I noticed
that the Taiwanese team
waited for clear
instructions before
proceeding, while the U.S.
team immediately started
brainstorming ideas and
suggesting alternative
approaches.”
Taiwan waits for directives; U.S.
team initiates brainstorming and
offers alternatives.
Max 22 23,27 “In Taiwan, when we
develop a new storage
Taiwan seeks consensus through
multiple meetings; U.S. allocates

137
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
solution, it involves many
meetings with different
departments to gather input
and reach consensus. This
can take time but ensures
everyone's aligned.” “In the
U.S., I've had to make
quick decisions, I allocated
resources immediately,
trusting my team leads to
execute without multiple
approval layers”
resources quickly, trusting the
team.
Nate 14 16,
18
"the culture was very
open—engineers could
push back and challenge
ideas even with senior
management.” “In Taiwan,
things were different.
Decisions, especially at the
strategic level, were made
by the administration, and
it wasn’t common to
question those decisions.”
U.S. engineers challenge ideas;
Taiwan’s hierarchy discourages
questioning.
Terry 22 23 “In Taiwan, when we
develop a new embedded
computing solution, it
involves many meetings
with different departments
to gather input and reach
consensus. This can take
time but ensures everyone's
aligned. In the U.S., I've
had to make quick
decisions.”
Taiwan emphasizes alignment
through consensus; U.S. makes fast
decisions.
Question 3:
“Can you share your observations or experiences with different problem-solving processes in a
cultural context, particularly comparing Taiwanese approaches with American approaches?“

138
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 31 34 “In Taiwan, the focus is on
gathering consensus and
being thorough before
implementing a solution.
It’s a careful process that
ensures all details are
considered. In the U.S.,
there’s more willingness to
try something out, gather
feedback, and adjust. “
Taiwan focuses on thoroughness
and consensus; U.S. emphasizes
quick testing and iterative
feedback.
Ana 34 37, 42 “Taiwanese teams tend to
take a more collaborative
and consensus-driven
approach to problemsolving.”, “American
teams, on the other hand,
are often more focused on
finding the quickest and
most efficient solution to a
problem. They may be
more willing to take risks
and try new things.”
Taiwan is consensus-driven; U.S.
focuses on speed, efficiency, and
risk-taking
Andy 22 25 “Taiwanese problemsolving tends to be more
collaborative, with a focus
on harmony and avoiding
conflict. In contrast,
American approaches are
more direct, although both
cultures value efficiency
and results”
Taiwan values harmony and
collaboration; U.S. is more direct
in problem-solving
Betty 26 29 “In the U.S., employees are
encouraged to think outside
of the box. In Taiwan, there
is more focus on having the
right answer in a measured
way, with a greater
tendency for a more detailoriented approach.”
U.S. encourages creativity; Taiwan
focuses on correctness and details.
Dave 27 30, 32 “In Taiwan, problemsolving often involves a lot
Taiwan emphasizes detailed
analysis; U.S. values agility and

139
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
of upfront analysis and
group discussions to reach
consensus.”, “In the U.S.,
the approach is more
agile—quick testing and
adjustments.”
quick adjustments.
Florence 25 28 “In Taiwan, I noticed that
problem-solving is very
methodical. There's a lot of
discussion and careful
consideration before any
action is taken. In the U.S.,
it’s faster-paced. People are
more willing to take a
chance and adjust along the
way if something doesn’t
work.”
Taiwan takes a methodical
approach; U.S. is faster and more
willing to take risks.
Jim 21 22 “The U.S. side tends to
make faster decisions,
especially when it comes to
market-facing actions,
while the Taiwanese side
ensures that all decisions
are aligned with broader
company goals.”
U.S. makes fast decisions; Taiwan
ensures alignment with company
goals
Judy 39 42, 45 “In Taiwanese companies,
problem-solving tends to be
more top-down and
directive, especially in
manufacturing
environments.” “In
American companies,
problem-solving is more
collaborative and processdriven. There’s a greater
focus on gathering input
from different departments
or team members, and
discussions are more open
and inclusive.”
Taiwan uses a top-down approach;
U.S. focuses on collaboration and
open discussions
Kevin 26 28 “the Taiwanese approach Taiwan is detail-oriented but

140
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
ensures that we’re
considering all angles
before taking a step, but it
can slow down the process.
On the other hand, the
American approach is quick
and efficient but might
overlook some details.”
slower; U.S. is quick but may miss
details
Max 35 37 “Taiwanese culture is more
risk-averse, focusing on
long-term stability and
'saving face.' Americans are
more comfortable with
calculated risks.”
Taiwan is risk-averse and stabilityfocused; U.S. is comfortable with
calculated risks
Nate 22 25 “In Taiwan, the process is
more collective—there’s a
lot of discussion to make
sure everyone is on the
same page before moving
forward. It’s more
methodical. In the U.S.,
people tend to jump into
problem-solving faster. It’s
quicker and more resultsdriven, but sometimes
things get overlooked.”
Taiwan emphasizes collective,
methodical processes; U.S. is fast
but may overlook details.
Terry 29 30 “For major decisions, we
often have a two-stage
process. We make an initial
decision in the U.S. to
respond quickly to market
demands, then consult with
Taiwan headquarters for a
more thorough analysis.”
U.S. responds quickly to the
market; Taiwan conducts thorough
follow-up analysis.
Question 4:
“How do these differences impact decision-making in your company?“

141
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 40 41 “The main impact is on
speed. Decisions in Taiwan
take longer because they
involve getting input from
multiple levels. In the U.S.,
it’s faster because we’re
more comfortable making
decisions with less
information.”
Taiwan is slower due to input from
multiple levels; U.S. is faster with
less information.
Ana 47 49 “when we're making
decisions that affect both
our Taiwan and U.S.
offices, we need to be
mindful of the different
communication styles and
decision-making processes.
We've learned that it's
important to be patient and
take the time to explain the
rationale behind our
decisions to both teams.”
Communication and decision
processes differ; patience and
clarity are key
Andy 28 29 “These differences can
impact the speed of
implementation. Taiwanese
teams may take longer due
to consensus-building,
while U.S. teams want to
act faster but may have less
input from all
stakeholders.”
Taiwan builds consensus, slowing
implementation; U.S. moves
quickly but may lack input.
Betty 32 33 “Most of the authority and
final say/decision will be
with Taiwan.”
Taiwan HQ makes the decision.
Dave 35 36 “It impacts the speed and
execution style. Taiwanese
teams may be slower to act
but ensure decisions are
well thought out. U.S.
teams move quickly, which
is good for time-sensitive
projects but can sometimes
Taiwan is slow but thorough; U.S.
is quick but may overlook details

142
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
overlook details.”
Florence 34 35 “It impacts how fast we
move. In the U.S., we tend
to make decisions quickly
to keep up with market
demands, which works well
in the tech space. But I see
the Taiwanese approach as
valuable when we need to
ensure everything’s aligned
before committing to
something big.”
U.S. responds quickly to market
demands; Taiwan ensures
alignment for significant decisions
Jim 34 37 “The U.S. team was ready
to move forward after
initial market research,
eager to capitalize on a
growing trend. However,
the Taiwanese management
wanted more in-depth
analysis, including longterm forecasts and potential
challenges. We ended up
going with a phased
approach.”
U.S. prefers speed; Taiwan prefers
detailed analysis, leading to a
phased approach.
Judy 48 49, 52 “The Taiwanese
management style, which is
more centralized and topdown, can ensure quick
decision-making, but it
may limit input from
middle management or
employees.”, “American
management’s more
decentralized approach can
lead to more creative
solutions but may slow
down the decision-making
process.”
Taiwan’s centralized management
is quick but limits input; U.S. is
creative but slower.
Kevin 26 28 “the Taiwanese approach
ensures that we’re
considering all angles
Taiwan is slow and thorough; U.S.
is fast but might need to look into
details.

143
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
before taking a step, but it
can slow down the process.
On the other hand, the
American approach is
quick and efficient but
might overlook some
details.”
Max 29 31 “We make an initial
decision in the U.S. to
respond quickly to market
demands, then consult with
Taiwan headquarters for a
more thorough analysis.”
U.S. moves quickly for market
demands; Taiwan conducts a
thorough follow-up analysis.
Nate 30 31 “The Taiwanese approach
ensures that we’re
thorough, especially for
strategic decisions that
require alignment from the
team. But it can slow us
down. On the U.S. side, the
speed of decision-making
is a plus, especially when
we need to respond to the
market quickly. “
Taiwan is slow but thorough; U.S.
is fast and market-responsive.
Terry 29 30 ‘It affects the speed and
approach.”
Speed and approach vary between
Taiwan and U.S. management
styles.
Question 5:
“How do you view the differences in risk-taking behaviors between Taiwanese and American
cultures?“
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 47 49 “Taiwanese teams are
generally more
conservative with risk,
preferring to have a solid
Taiwan is conservative and riskaverse; U.S. teams are more open
to calculated risks.

144
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
plan before moving
forward. They want to
minimize the chance of
failure. In contrast,
American teams are more
open to taking calculated
risks, even if it means
there’s a chance of failure.”
Ana 62 65 “our Taiwanese team was
initially hesitant due to the
perceived risks involved.
They wanted to gather
more information and
carefully analyze the
potential downsides before
making a decision.
Our American team, on the
other hand, was more eager
to move forward and saw
the potential benefits of
expanding into a new
market.”
Taiwan prefers caution and
analysis; U.S. embraces benefits
despite the risks.
Andy 32 34 “American culture
generally has a higher
tolerance for risk, with an
emphasis on innovation.
Taiwanese culture, on the
other hand, prioritizes
stability and risk
mitigation.”
U.S. prioritizes innovation and
risk; Taiwan values stability and
risk mitigation.
Betty 34 36 “There is a certain amount
of risk-taking in both
cultures. In Taiwan, the
CEO is constantly shifting
gears and strategies to
enhance the company.
However, in the U.S., there
seems to be more risktaking from employees at
all levels, as opposed to
only from management.”
Taiwan’s risk-taking is CEOdriven; U.S. involves risk-taking at
all levels.

145
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Dave 41 43 “Taiwanese teams are
generally more
conservative with risk,
preferring to evaluate every
angle before moving
forward. In the U.S.,
there’s more acceptance of
failure as part of the
innovation process. This
difference is why American
startups can pivot quickly,
while Taiwanese
companies build more
sustainable long-term
plans.”
Taiwan evaluates thoroughly
before acting; U.S. embraces
failure for quick pivots.
Florence 41 43 “Taiwanese teams are
usually more risk-averse.
They like to carefully
evaluate all the possibilities
before committing,
whereas Americans are
more willing to take
calculated risks.”
Taiwan is risk-averse; U.S. takes
calculated risks.
Jim 27 29 “Taiwanese companies
tend to be more risk-averse,
always thinking about
potential long-term
consequences. The U.S.
side, however, is more
willing to take calculated
risks for immediate
benefits.”
Taiwan considers long-term risks;
U.S. takes risks for immediate
gains.
Judy 56 58 “In Taiwanese business
culture, risk-taking is
generally more cautious
and conservative, with a
strong emphasis on
stability, cost control, and
long-term sustainability.
American business culture
tends to encourage more
Taiwan emphasizes stability and
sustainability; U.S. encourages
risk-taking and tolerates failure.

146
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
risk-taking and a greater
tolerance for failure as part
of the learning process.
Calculated risks are seen as
necessary for growth and
competitiveness."
Kevin 31 32 “Taiwanese culture tends to
be more risk-averse. They
prefer to have a solid plan
and mitigate as many risks
as possible before moving
forward. In contrast,
Americans are more
willing to take calculated
risks.”
Taiwan seeks solid plans and risk
mitigation; U.S. is comfortable
with calculated risks.
Max 35 37 “Taiwanese culture is more
risk-averse, focusing on
long-term stability and
'saving face.' Americans
are more comfortable with
calculated risks.”
Taiwan values stability and saving
face; U.S. takes calculated risks.
Nate 36 38 “Taiwanese culture tends to
be more cautious. People
want to make sure all risks
are accounted for before
moving forward. In the
U.S., there’s more of a
willingness to take risks.”
Taiwan is cautious and risk-averse;
U.S. takes more risks.
Terry 35 38 “Taiwanese teams are more
cautious and like having a
solid plan before jumping
in. Americans are more
comfortable with taking
risks, even if the outcome
is uncertain.”
Taiwan favors solid planning; U.S.
takes risks even with uncertainty.
Question 6:
“Can you share a situation where you observed these differing approaches to risk-taking?“

147
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 55 57 “During a product
development cycle with
ZZZ, the U.S. team wanted
to implement a new feature
that hadn’t been fully
tested. In contrast, the
Taiwanese team was
hesitant because of
potential technical issues.
We decided to launch it in
a controlled environment
first to gather data.”
U.S. pushed for quick
implementation, Taiwan preferred
caution, leading to controlled
testing.
Ana 62 65, 69 “When we were
considering opening a new
office in a different
country, our Taiwanese
team was initially hesitant
due to the perceived risks
involved.” “Our American
team, on the other hand,
was more eager to move
forward and saw the
potential benefits of
expanding into a new
market.”
Taiwan hesitated due to risks; U.S.
saw potential benefits in
expansion.
Andy 37 39 “I’ve seen U.S.-based
teams push to take a chance
on spending funds for more
bold activations, while
Taiwanese teams were
more cautious, wanting to
ensure a set ROI before
proceeding."
U.S. pushed for bold spending;
Taiwan wanted a guaranteed ROI.
Betty 40 42, 45 “In the U.S., I have
observed that U.S.
management supports and
embraces employees to
take an outside-of-the-box
approach and to come to
the table with solutions.”,
U.S. encourages creative
solutions; Taiwan subordinates
seek approval.

148
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
“In Taiwan, there appears
to be a greater tendency
from subordinates to check
for approval."
Dave 48 50 “One startup we invested in
wanted to expand
aggressively into the U.S.
market. The Taiwanese
founders were cautious,
focusing on gradual
growth, while the
American team pushed for
a faster rollout. “
U.S. pushed for aggressive
expansion; Taiwan focused on
gradual growth.
Florence 48 50 “"We had a project where
the U.S. team wanted to
test a new product feature
quickly without spending
too much time on it
upfront. They were okay
with getting feedback from
customers after the launch.
However, the Taiwanese
side was more cautious,
wanting to run more
internal tests first. “
U.S. favored quick testing; Taiwan
preferred thorough internal testing.
Jim 34 36 “One example would be
when we were considering
launching a new product
line. The U.S. team was
ready to move forward
after initial market
research, eager to capitalize
on a growing trend.
However, the Taiwanese
management wanted more
in-depth analysis, including
long-term forecasts and
potential challenges. “
U.S. wanted to act quickly; Taiwan
preferred in-depth analysis before
launch.
Judy 64 66 “One situation was during a
decision-making process
about expanding into a new
Taiwan conducted thorough
research; U.S. advocated for faster
expansion.

149
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
market in North America.
The Taiwanese
management approached
the decision with caution,
conducting extensive
research and risk
assessments.
The American team, on the
other hand, advocated for
moving forward more
aggressively. “
Kevin 37 39 “"Sure. A few years ago,
we were considering
entering a new market. The
U.S. team wanted to jump
in with a small pilot project
to test the waters, while the
Taiwanese team was more
cautious, preferring to
conduct more market
research.”
U.S. wanted a pilot project; Taiwan
preferred additional market
research.
Max 42 44 “"A few years ago, we saw
an opportunity in the
automotive storage market.
Our U.S. team proposed an
aggressive strategy,
investing heavily in R&D
to be first-to-market with a
new line of automotivegrade SSDs. Taiwan
headquarters was more
cautious, citing the
industry's lengthy
qualification processes and
potential liability issues.”
U.S. proposed aggressive R&D
investment; Taiwan cautious due to
qualifications and liability
concerns.
Nate 43 45 “"When we were exploring
a new technology for
LiDAR systems, the U.S.
team wanted to push it into
early testing to see how it
performed in the real
U.S. wanted early real-world
testing; Taiwan preferred
simulations and internal tests.

150
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
world, while the Taiwanese
team preferred to do more
simulations and internal
tests first.”
Terry 42 45 “The U.S. team pushed to
launch it quickly to gain a
first-mover advantage, but
the Taiwanese team wanted
to do more market research
before committing
resources”
U.S. pushed for quick launch;
Taiwan sought further market
research.
Question 7:
“In what ways do you value your role in integrating different cultures?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 63 64, 67 “I see my role as a
connector. I understand the
intricacies of both cultures
and can help teams
navigate them.”, “. It’s all
about making sure
everyone’s on the same
page and respects each
other’s approach."
Acts as a connector between
cultures, facilitating understanding
and respect.
Ana 73 74 “I see my role in cultural
integration as a bridgebuilder, helping to connect
people from different
backgrounds and create a
more inclusive and
harmonious workplace. “
Role is a bridge-builder for
inclusivity and harmony.
Andy 42 44 “Building trust and open
communication between
cultures are key values in
my role.”
Emphasizes trust and open
communication in cultural
integration.

151
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Betty 47 49 “I find integrating the U.S.
and Taiwanese cultures to
be a priority and necessity.
“
Sees cultural integration as a
priority and necessity.
Dave 55 56, 58 “I value it because I can
bridge the gap between
East and West.”, “It’s
rewarding to see startups
grow globally by
leveraging both cultural
strengths—Taiwan’s
precision and the U.S.’s
speed and adaptability."
Bridges East and West; leverages
precision (Taiwan) and adaptability
(U.S.).
Florence 57 58 “"I value it because I’m in
a unique position—having
grown up in Taiwan and
lived in the U.S. for so
long. I understand both
perspectives and feel like a
bridge between the two
cultures.”
Acts as a bridge between cultures
due to understanding both
perspectives.
Jim 42 44 “I value the structured,
detail-oriented nature of the
Taiwanese side, but I also
appreciate the American
emphasis on innovation
and speed. My role is to
ensure both sides
understand each other's
perspectives and work
together harmoniously."
Balances structure (Taiwan) and
innovation (U.S.), ensuring
understanding between both sides.
Judy 72 73 "I value my role in
integrating different
cultures because it allows
me to act as a bridge
between two distinct ways
of thinking and operating."
Acts as a bridge between distinct
cultural approaches.
Kevin 44 46 "Having worked in both the Helps teams collaborate by

152
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
U.S. and Taiwan, I
understand the perspectives
of both sides. It’s
rewarding to help teams
collaborate more
effectively by addressing
cultural differences."
addressing cultural differences.
Max 50 51 "I value being a connector
between our Taiwanese and
U.S. teams. It's rewarding
to help both sides see the
value in each other's
approaches.”
Connects teams, helping them see
the value in different approaches.
Nate 50 52 “I can relate to both sides
and help teams understand
each other’s perspectives.
It’s about finding common
ground and making sure we
leverage the strengths of
both cultures.”
Helps teams find common ground
and leverage cultural strengths.
Terry 50 51 "My job is to ensure both
sides understand each
other's perspectives, which
means more than just
translating language. It's
about conveying the intent
and cultural context behind
the words.”
Ensures understanding of intent
and cultural context beyond just
translation.
Question 8:
“Which specific cultural values do you find most important in your role?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 69 70 ““integrity” is most
important in my role”
Value integrity
Ana 80 81, “Treat everyone with Values respect, openness, patience,

153
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
82,
84, 86
respect, regardless of their
cultural background”,
“Being open to different
perspectives and ways of
doing things is crucial for
successful cultural
integration.”, “it's
important to be patient and
understanding.”, “Clear and
open communication is
essential for bridging
cultural divides."
and clear communication for
integration.
Andy 46 47 “Respect for diversity,
collaboration, and clear
communication are the
most important cultural
values for me.”
Values diversity, collaboration, and
clear communication.
Betty 54 56 “working in harmony,
respecting
hierarchy/authority, and
having a disciplined and
dependable way of
working."
Values harmony, respect for
hierarchy, and discipline.
Dave 60 61 “Adaptability and respect.
Being able to adapt
between different
management styles and
respecting each culture’s
approach is crucial. It’s
about taking the best of
both worlds and creating an
environment where teams
can thrive without feeling
pressured to conform to
one specific style."
Values adaptability and respect;
integrates cultural strengths.
Florence 63 64 “Respect for hierarchy is
key in Taiwan, while
initiative and independence
are really valued in the
U.S.”
aiwan values hierarchy; U.S.
values initiative and independence.

154
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Jim 48 49 "I find respect and
adaptability to be the most
important values.”
Values respect and adaptability.
Judy 75 76 “The most important
cultural values for me are
adaptability, accountability,
and effort.”
Values adaptability, accountability,
and effort.
Kevin 49 50 “I believe that being
adaptable helps me switch
between different cultural
expectations, and respect
ensures that I value
everyone’s input regardless
of where they’re from."
Values adaptability and respect.
Max 55 56 “I need to be flexible in my
communication style,
decision-making, and
management depending on
who I'm interacting with.
Respecting diversity,
fostering open
communication, and
building long-term
relationships are also
crucial."
Values flexibility, respect for
diversity, and relationshipbuilding.
Nate 55 56 “Respect for hierarchy and
experience is important in
Taiwan, and I think it helps
maintain structure. But I
also value the American
focus on innovation and
individual contributions.”
Taiwan values hierarchy; U.S.
values innovation and individual
contributions.
Terry 55 56 “Adaptability and openness
are essential. Switching
between communication
and management styles is
crucial”
Values adaptability and openness.

155
Question 9:
“How would you describe your confidence right now to integrating different cultures?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 73 74 "Integrating American,
Taiwanese, Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, Indian,
and Belgian in
semiconductor technical
support and business
development is what I have
been doing for years."
Experienced in integrating various
cultures in technical support and
business development.
Ana 88 90 “I'm feeling quite confident
“, “I've had a lot of
experience working with
people from diverse
backgrounds, and I've
learned a lot about how to
navigate cultural
differences effectively."
Confidence from extensive
experience with diverse
backgrounds.
Andy 49 51 “I feel confident in
integrating cultures as I
have had experience in
both Taiwanese and
American settings, which
helps me navigate cultural
nuances."
Confident from experience in both
Taiwanese and American settings.
Betty 58 60 "I have a high level of
confidence."
High confidence in cultural
integration.
Dave “Confident” Combine this with the next answer
Florence “Confident” Combine this with the next answer
Jim “Confident” Combine this with the next answer
Judy 78 80 "I feel confident in my
ability to integrate different
cultures thanks to my past
experiences working in
both Taiwanese and
American environments."
Very confident

156
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Kevin 53 55 “I feel quite confident.”
Max 60 62 "In general, I will say I am
confident in integrating
different cultures in my
current company. But I am
not sure if I will get into a
new company, but I can
still be that confident."
Confident now
Nate 60 62 "I can handle it, but still
learning.”
Conservative, but feel confident.
Terry 60 62 “"My level of confidence is
moderate to high.”
Sort fo confident
Question 10:
“What experiences have contributed to your level of confidence?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 79 80, 84 “Working together to
overcome all kinds of
challenges is the best way
to learn. Of course, a good
sense of people
relationships and an open
mind will be constructive.”,
“I have been in an
American company serving
Taiwan customers, a
Canadian company serving
China customers, and a
Dutch company in the US
serving East Asia
customers, led a team of
American, Indian, Korean,
Belgian, and Taiwanese…
not saying how confident I
am, but those experiences

157
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
do help a lot."
Ana 93 94 “Several experiences have
contributed to my
confidence in cultural
integration. These include:
Living and working
abroad: Leading diverse
teams, Participating in
cultural training programs.”
Andy 53 54 “My confidence stems
from previous experience
working in multinational
teams (Taiwan, France,
LATAM) and learning
from both successes and
challenges in cross-cultural
projects."
Betty 61 62 "My ability to successfully
have positive relationships
with various departments
and teams in Taiwan,
including but not limited to
the Technical CSM team,
HR team, and finance."
Dave 65 66 "Leading PPP and Taobao
in Taiwan, then moving
into venture capital with
AVC has exposed me to
both traditional corporate
environments and fastpaced startup cultures.
Managing the Professional
baseball team also taught
me a lot about leadership in
a different context. All
these experiences have
given me the confidence to
tackle diverse challenges."
Confidence from diverse
leadership roles in corporate,
startup, and sports contexts.
Florence 68 69 "Moving to the U.S. for my Confidence from adapting to the

158
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Master’s degree was a big
one. It forced me to step
outside my comfort zone
and adapt to a new culture.
Then working in the tech
industry, especially in the
U.S. where things move
fast, helped me gain
confidence in making
decisions quickly and
leading teams with diverse
perspectives.”
U.S. culture, tech industry
experience, and quick decisionmaking.
Jim 52 54 “Over the years, I’ve
worked in both Japan and
the U.S., and those
experiences have helped
me build confidence in
managing different cultural
expectations.“
Confidence from experience
managing cultural expectations in
Japan and the U.S
Judy 82 83 “Years of experience
working at a Taiwanese
manufacturer gave me a
deep understanding of each
department's function and
management culture.
Leading the U.S. branch
office helped me expand
into new markets and
support customers
effectively."
Confidence from experience in
Taiwanese manufacturing and U.S.
branch leadership.
Kevin 56 57 “My previous experience
working at multinational
companies and leading
cross-cultural teams has
been invaluable.”
Confidence from experience in
multinational settings and leading
cross-cultural teams
Max 65 66 “My early transition from
Taiwan to the U.S. for my
studies, managing crosscultural teams at PHS,
handling global customer
relations, and bridging
Confidence from transition
experience, team management, and
global customer relations.

159
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
communication between
our headquarters and U.S.
operations have all been
invaluable."
Nate 63 64 “: "My time at Stanford and
Intel gave me the
confidence to challenge
ideas and work in highpressure environments.
Going back to Taiwan to
teach at National Tsing
Hua University added
another layer—working in
academia and seeing how
decisions are made in that
context. Now as the CTO
of ATX, I combine those
experiences to lead teams
and make technical
decisions."
Confidence from academic, tech,
and teaching experiences in diverse
environments.
Terry 63 64 “My early transition from
Taiwan to the U.S. for my
studies, managing crosscultural teams at LANR,
handling global customer
relations, and bridging
communication between
our headquarters and U.S.
operations have all been
invaluable."
Confidence from U.S. transition,
cross-cultural management, and
global relations.
Question 11:
“Can you describe some challenges you've encountered when integrating cultures, and how have
you approached these situations?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 88 90 “The language barrier is
definitely a big one of all
Challenges include language
barriers and cultural conflicts in

160
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
those communication
issues. Different company
cultures on top of national
cultures also cause
conflicts and gaps in
cooperation.”
company practices
Ana 104 106 “One of the biggest
challenges I've encountered
is communication
breakdowns due to
language barriers or
different communication
styles.”
Language barriers and differing
communication styles cause
communication breakdowns.
Andy 57 59 “One challenge has been
aligning expectations
around decision-making
speed.”
The challenge in aligning
expectations on decision-making
speed
Betty 65 67 "I faced some challenges
with writing certain
policies from an HR
perspective, as culturally,
there are certain differences
with policies such as timeoff and expense/travel
policies.”
Differences in HR policies, such as
time-off and travel, pose
challenges.
Dave 71 73 "A big challenge is
communication. Direct
feedback is common in the
U.S., but in Taiwan people
are more reserved.”
Challenge in balancing direct U.S.
feedback with reserved Taiwanese
style.
Florence 75 77 "The biggest challenge is
communication. Sometimes
Taiwanese colleagues may
not speak up right away if
they disagree, while
Americans are more
direct.”
Taiwanese indirectness contrasts
with American direct
communication.
Jim 58 60 “One challenge was
communication. The U.S.
Challenge in communication
style—directness (U.S.) vs.

161
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
team is very direct, while
the Taiwanese side is more
reserved.”
reservation (Taiwan).
Judy 86 88 “One challenge I’ve
encountered when
integrating cultures is the
appropriateness of
language. Navigating the
nuances of
communication—both
verbal and non-verbal.”
Language appropriateness and
verbal/non-verbal nuances pose
challenges.
Kevin 60 62 "One challenge is
communication. American
teams tend to be more
direct, while Taiwanese
teams might avoid
confrontation to maintain
harmony.”
Direct U.S. communication
contrasts with Taiwanese
preference for harmony.
Max 70 72 "One challenge was the
difference in
communication styles. The
U.S. team's directness
sometimes clashed with the
indirect approach of our
Taiwanese colleagues.”
U.S. directness clashes with
Taiwanese indirect approach.
Nate 69 71 “"One challenge is
balancing communication
styles and language
barrier.”
Language barrier and differing
communication styles are
challenges
Terry 68 70 "The challenge I am
encountering now is to get
the leadership team’s
attention to knowing the
importance of cultural
differences and set a
strategy to handle this.”
Challenge in gaining leadership
support for cultural awareness and
strategy.

162
Question 12:
“What motivates or discourages you from putting in this effort?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 97 98 “I am working either for
money or fun. When I do
not have enough money,
much fun may pay for my
effort. It’s all about ROI; I
choose the role where I can
invest my time and effort
for good returns, not just to
myself but to the company,
whatever good return
motivates me.”
Motivated by ROI and roles with
rewarding outcomes.
Ana 113 114 "I'm motivated by the
belief that cultural diversity
is a strength and that by
integrating different
cultures, we can create a
more innovative and
successful company. I'm
also motivated by the
personal satisfaction of
helping people from
different backgrounds to
work together effectively."
Motivated by belief in cultural
diversity and personal satisfaction
Andy 62 63 "Motivation comes from
the desire to create a
cohesive and productive
team, while
discouragement can arise
from misunderstandings
that slow down processes."
Motivated by team cohesion;
discouraged by misunderstandings
Betty 73 74 "What motivates me is my
ability to help support and
impact culture in the U.S.
while also finding a way to
simply and clearly
communicate to the
Motivated by cultural impact and
clear communication, despite
challenges.

163
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Taiwanese team what
typical processes and laws
are in the U.S. While
motivating, I also find this
challenging."
Dave 78 79 "What motivates me is
seeing the impact we can
make by bridging these
cultural gaps. It’s satisfying
to see a Taiwanese startup
successfully enter the U.S.
market or vice versa.
What’s discouraging is
when misunderstandings
lead to missed
opportunities, but that’s
part of the learning curve."
Motivated by bridging cultures and
seeing success; discouraged by
missed opportunities.
Florence 83 84 “What motivates me is
knowing how much better
we work when we
understand each other.”,
“The only things that can
be discouraging are
resistance or when things
move too slowly.”
Motivated by teamwork;
discouraged by resistance and slow
progress.
Jim 64 65, 67 "What motivates me is
seeing the tangible results
of a well-integrated team.”,
“discouraging factor is
when misunderstandings or
resistance to change slow
down progress”
Motivated by results; discouraged
by misunderstandings and
resistance.
Judy 95 96,
101
“What motivates me to put
in the effort is the
satisfaction of achieving
meaningful results and the
opportunity to collaborate
with diverse teams.”, “a
lack of clear
communication or direction
can sometimes be
Motivated by results and
collaboration; discouraged by
unclear communication.

164
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
discouraging, as it makes it
harder to align efforts with
expectations.”
Kevin 66 67, 68 “Seeing the positive
outcomes motivates me.”,
“discouraging factor is
when there’s resistance to
change.”
Motivated by outcomes;
discouraged by resistance to
change.
Max 76 77, 80 “I'm motivated by the clear
link between cultural
integration and our
company's success.”,
“resistance to change, slow
progress, and occasional
misunderstandings can be
discouraging."
Motivated by company success;
discouraged by resistance and slow
progress.
Nate 77 78, 80 “What motivates me is
seeing how much stronger
the team becomes when
everyone’s ideas are heard
and respected.”,
“discouraging part is when
cultural differences slow
down progress, but that’s
just part of the learning
process.:
Motivated by team strength and
respect; discouraged by slow
progress.
Terry 73 74 “What motivates me is
seeing both sides grow and
succeed together.”,
“discourages me is when
cultural misunderstandings
derail projects.”
Motivated by mutual success;
discouraged by project derailment
due to misunderstandings
Question 13:
“What resources are available to you that support cultural integration, and how do you utilize
them?”

165
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 104 106 “I got that mostly from my
work experiences. HR
sometimes has some good
training programs for
leadership and team
building that involves this.
A good mentor can be
beneficial. Or by reading,”
Relies on work experience, HR
training, mentorship, and reading.
Ana 118 120, "Our company provides
several resources to support
cultural integration,
including cultural training
programs, Employee
resource groups, and
Mentorship programs.” “I
utilize these resources by
encouraging employees to
participate in them and
providing support and
guidance to those involved
in cultural integration
efforts.”
Uses cultural training, ERGs,
mentorship, and promotes
participation.
Andy 66 68 "Resources like internal
diversity training have been
provided. In 2022, we
attended a Berlitz
Intercultural Business
Skills: USA-Taiwan
workshop, which was very
helpful."
Utilizes diversity training and
intercultural workshops
Betty 78 80 "Our team in the U.S.
conducted a cross-cultural
training that was very
helpful in understanding
the different behaviors and
attitudes between the U.S.
and Taiwan. Additionally,
members of the U.S. team
are flown to Taiwan
annually, which is a great
Cross-cultural training and annual
U.S.-Taiwan team visits.

166
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
way to support cultural
integration and meet with
the team."
Dave 83 85 "We have access to crosscultural training,
mentorship programs, and a
strong network of advisors
from both regions. I also
leverage my own
experience and
relationships to facilitate
smoother integration.”
Uses training, mentorship, advisory
network, and personal experience.
Florence 89 91 "We have cross-cultural
training programs,
mentoring, and
communication tools like
Slack. I also use my
experience—having lived
in Taiwan and the U.S.—to
help bridge gaps. The
company also supports
global collaboration
through team-building
exercises.”
Training, mentorship,
communication tools, and personal
experience.
Jim 69 71 “We have access to crosscultural training programs
and consultants.”
Utilizes training programs and
consultants.
Judy 105 117,
126
“I have access to various
resources that support
cultural integration,
including training
programs, mentorship
opportunities, and diverse
team collaborations.”,
“Additionally, I leverage
team diversity by
encouraging open dialogue
and knowledge sharing
during meetings. This
creates an inclusive
environment where
Training, mentorship, team
diversity, and open dialogue.

167
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
everyone feels comfortable
expressing their ideas and
experiences, ultimately
fostering stronger
collaboration and
understanding across
cultures."
Kevin 71 72 "We have cross-cultural
training programs,
mentorship opportunities,
and regular team-building
activities.”
Training, mentorship, and teambuilding activities.
Max 82 84 “We have several
resources, including crosscultural training programs,
language classes, and an
HR department with a
dedicated D&I team. We
also use technology
platforms for virtual
cultural exchange programs
and have a travel budget to
facilitate face-to-face
meetings between our U.S.
and Taiwanese teams."
Training, language classes, D&I
team, virtual exchanges, and travel
budget.
Nate 82 84 "We have tools like Slack
and Zoom to keep
communication flowing
between teams in different
regions. We also rely on
cross-cultural training
programs that help team
members understand each
other better.”
Communication tools and training
programs.
Terry 78 80 “We can access crosscultural training workshops
and resources like
mentorship programs. I
also rely on my experience
working with Taiwanese
and American teams to
Training, mentorship, and personal
experience.

168
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
facilitate better
understanding.”
Question 14:
“What additional resources do you think would be helpful?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 110 111 “The best resource for me
is people. I would find
that people who have
cross-cultural experiences,
such as employees from
international companies
and NCG from foreign
countries.”
Suggests leveraging employees with
cross-cultural experience.
Ana 125 126 "I think it would be
helpful to have more
resources that focus on
specific cultural groups.”
Proposes resources tailored to
specific cultural groups.
Andy 71 72 "Additional resources
such as more frequent
cross-cultural workshops
and exchange programs
could be helpful."
Recommends more workshops and
exchange programs.

169
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Betty 84 85 "Potentially a crosscultural training for
Taiwan to better learn and
understand the U.S.
culture as well.
Suggests U.S.-focused cross-cultural
training for Taiwanese teams.
Dave 90 91 "More structured cultural
exchange programs would
be great. Having teams
spend time in each other’s
markets and experience
the culture firsthand
would make a big
difference.
Advocates for structured cultural
exchanges and market immersions.
Florence 96 97 "I think more in-depth
cross-cultural workshops
would be helpful,
especially ones that focus
on real-world scenarios.”
Suggests workshops with real-world
applications.
Jim 74 75 "More hands-on
workshops where the U.S.
and Taiwanese teams
could work together on
specific projects would be
helpful.”
Advocates for collaborative, handson workshops.

170
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Judy 117 118 “I believe additional
resources such as
interactive workshops,
language exchange
programs, and access to
cultural consultants would
be beneficial. Interactive
workshops that focus on
real-life scenarios could
provide practical
experience in navigating
cultural differences and
conflict resolution.”
Recommends workshops, language
exchanges, and consultant access.
Kevin 75 76 "I think more immersive
cultural exchange
programs, where
employees from different
regions can experience
each other’s work
environments, would be
beneficial."
Proposes immersive exchanges for
work environment exposure.
Max 88 89 “"Advanced AI-powered
translation tools, VR
cultural immersion
programs, and a
customized cross-cultural
analytics platform would
be incredibly valuable.”
Suggests advanced tech tools for
cultural integration.

171
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Nate 88 89 "I think cultural exchange
programs would help—
having team members
from Taiwan spend time
in the U.S. and vice
versa.”
Endorses exchange programs for
mutual cultural understanding.
Terry 84 85 “More opportunities for
cultural immersion—
having U.S. and Taiwanbased teams spend more
time in each other’s
environments would help
build stronger
connections.”
Advocates for cultural immersion
through extended team exchanges.
Question 15:
“Can you describe your organization's policies and procedures that support cultural integration?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 115 117 “My organization doesn’t
really have policies and
procedures specifically
designed for cultural
integration. But there are
some guidelines to avoid
any level of racism.”
No specific cultural integration
policies, but anti-racism guidelines
exist.
Ana 129 131 “Our organization has
several policies and
procedures that support
cultural integration,
including equal opportunity
Equal opportunity, diversity
training, and flexible work policies
support integration.

172
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
employment policy,
diversity and inclusion
training, and flexible work
arrangements.”
Andy 74 76 “Our organization has
allowed for travel to
Taipei, where there are
team members across
regions, which helps in
fostering cultural
integration."
Travel to HQ in Taipei fosters team
building and cultural integration.
Betty 88 90 “Our company uses U
Messenger, which is our
way of communicating
among teams and with HQ.
It supports cultural
integration as this is how
we ensure we are in
constant communication
globally and across a 12-
hour time zone.
Additionally, given that the
company's HQ is in
Taiwan, the company flies
employees from the U.S. to
Taiwan 1-2 times per
year.”
“U Messenger” and annual U.S.-
Taiwan employee travel support
integration.
Dave 95 97 “we prioritize diversity and
inclusion in our portfolio
companies. We encourage
founders to build teams that
reflect the markets they
want to serve and provide
resources like cultural
training and access to a
diverse advisory network.”
Encourages diverse teams,
provides cultural training, and
advisory network access.
Florence 101 103 “we have strong diversity
and inclusion policies,
cross-cultural training, and
flexible work policies to
accommodate global
Diversity policies, cross-cultural
training, and flexible work policies
are in place.

173
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
teams.”
Jim 86 88 “we have a good
foundation with crosscultural training and a
structure that supports
collaboration between the
Taiwan HQ and the U.S.
office. There’s also a focus
on aligning company-wide
objectives, which helps
keep everyone on the same
page."
Cross-cultural training and aligned
objectives support collaboration.
Judy 128 131 “Our organization has
several policies and
procedures in place to
support cultural integration.
These policies are: 1.
Diversity and Inclusion
Policy, 2. Cultural
Competency Training: 3.
Employee Resource
Groups and 4. Open
Communication Channels.”
D&I policy, competency training,
resource groups, and
communication channels.
Kevin 79 81 "We have a diversity and
inclusion policy, crosscultural communication
guidelines, and an opendoor policy that encourages
employees to share their
thoughts and concerns."
D&I policy, communication
guidelines, and open-door policy
encourage sharing.
Max 92 94 “"We have a diversity and
inclusion policy, crosscultural communication
guidelines, mandatory
cross-cultural training, and
a language support policy.”
Nate 93 95 “"We encourage open
communication across
teams and have policies in
Encourages open communication,
flexible working hours for time
zones, and regular check-ins

174
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
place that promote
collaboration between our
Taiwan and U.S. offices.
We also support flexibility
in working hours to
accommodate different
time zones and encourage
regular check-ins to make
sure everyone’s aligned."
between U.S. and Taiwan offices.
Terry 89 91 “We have a diversity and
inclusion policy in place,
and the company
encourages collaboration
across regions. There’s also
a mentorship program that
pairs employees from
different countries to share
knowledge and
perspectives.”
D&I policy, regional collaboration,
and mentorship for cross-cultural
knowledge sharing.
Question 16:
“How effective do you think these policies and procedures are?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 124 126 "I believe good training to
introduce cultural
differences and guidelines
to suggest to employees
how to do better about it
will be very helpful.”
Policies are moderately effective
only if company has good training
programs.
Ana 136 137 “These policies and
procedures are generally
effective in promoting
cultural integration.
However, there's always
room for improvement.”
Generally effective with room for
improvement.

175
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Andy 78 79 "These policies are
moderately effective.”
Moderately effective.
Betty 98 99 "I believe these procedures
are very effective.”
Procedures are very effective.
Dave 101 102 "They’ve been effective,
but cultural integration is
an ongoing process.
There’s always room for
improvement.”
Effective but cultural integration is
ongoing.
Florence 107 108 “: "They’re effective but
can always improve. The
policies help ensure that
everyone feels included,
and the training programs
help with awareness.”
Effective with potential for better
inclusion and awareness.
Jim 92 93 “They’re effective, but it
can be better. The policies
provide a good starting
point, but actual integration
happens through daily
interactions.”
Effective but daily interactions are
key for integration.
Judy 150 151 "I believe these policies
and procedures are quite
effective in promoting
cultural integration within
our organization.”
Quite effective for cultural
integration.
Kevin 84 85 "They’re effective to a
certain extent, but I think
we need to focus more on
follow-up sessions to
ensure that the policies are
being implemented
consistently."
Effective with a need for follow-up
sessions.
Max 98 99 :"Overall, they're
moderately high. Our
Global Mobility Program
and Cross-Cultural
Moderately high effectiveness,
particularly for mobility and
communication programs.

176
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Communication Guidelines
have been particularly
effective.”
Nate 99 100 "They’re effective but not
perfect. The tools and
policies help keep
communication open, but
the cultural nuances can
still be a challenge.”
Effective, though cultural nuances
pose challenges.
Terry 83 84 “They’ve been effective,
but we can make it better.”
Effective with room for
enhancement.
Question 17:
“How do you perceive cultural differences in your organization, and in what ways do they
impact efforts toward integration?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 133 135 “When I sense a conflict in
discussion or strategies
alignment, I would think
about the reasons behind, if
it is beyond a logical
thinking, and not absolutely
right or wrong but more
about the habits between
two different culture
groups.”
Cultural differences seen as
habitual rather than right or wrong;
impact on alignment.
Ana 141 143 "I perceive cultural
differences in our
organization as a source of
strength. They bring
diverse perspectives and
ideas to the table, which
can lead to greater
innovation and creativity.
However, cultural
Cultural differences foster
innovation but pose integration
challenges.

177
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
differences can also present
challenges to integration.”
Andy 83 84 “Cultural differences are
both a challenge and an
asset, impacting
communication,
expectations, and speed of
work."
Cultural differences affect
communication and work pace,
providing both challenges and
benefits.
Betty 102 104,
108
“The main differences I see
in the organization are the
Taiwanese penchant
towards being detailoriented and the focus on
the hierarchical structure.”,
“In many ways, this has
impacted efforts towards
integration, especially for
new hires who are not as
familiar with the
Taiwanese culture."
Detail orientation and hierarchy
impact new hire integration.
Dave 106 108 “Cultural differences can
be a challenge, but they’re
also what make us stronger.
Diverse perspectives lead
to more innovative
solutions, but only if we
create an environment
where everyone’s voice is
heard.”
Diverse perspectives drive
innovation when inclusivity is
prioritized.
Florence 112 114 "Cultural differences can
sometimes slow things
down, especially when
teams aren’t on the same
page. But they’re also a big
advantage because they
bring new ideas and
perspectives.”
Cultural differences slow processes
but bring valuable new
perspectives.
Jim 96 98 "Cultural differences are
both a challenge and a
strength. They impact
Cultural differences influence pace
and decisions; managed differences
yield better outcomes.

178
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
expectations around work
pace and decision-making,
but when managed well,
they can lead to more
comprehensive solutions
and better outcomes.”
Judy 156 158 “I perceive cultural
differences in our
organization as a valuable
asset rather than a barrier.
These differences enrich
our workplace by bringing
diverse perspectives, ideas,
and problem-solving
approaches.”
Differences enrich the workplace,
offering diverse ideas and
solutions.
Kevin 87 89 "Cultural differences are
significant, and they can
create misunderstandings if
not managed well.
However, they also bring
diverse perspectives.”
Differences risk misunderstandings
but offer diverse viewpoints.
Max 103 105 “"Cultural differences are a
critical part of company
growth. Communication
styles, decision-making
processes, risk tolerance,
and work-life balance
expectations all differ.
These differences can
create challenges but also
offer opportunities.”
Differences are critical for growth,
despite challenges in
communication and decisionmaking.
Nate 103 105 “Cultural differences can
be challenging, especially
when it comes to decisionmaking and
communication. But they
also bring a lot of value.”
Decision-making and
communication challenges; overall
value from diversity.
Terry 99 101 "Cultural differences are
apparent, especially in
Communication and decisionmaking differences are manageable

179
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
communication and
decision-making. However,
they don’t have to be
obstacles.”
challenges.
Question 18:
“Can you provide examples of cultural differences that you think have been beneficial?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 143 150 “I would break out the
process to a few tasks that
require different talents and
efforts, let them choose by
what they believe the best
they can perform, each
team take full
responsibility of the task
they are in charge. Then
with each task successfully
delivered, they contribute
to the final success of
objective achieved. By a
teamwork like this we
respect different opinions,
learn the values from
different cultures, gives the
flexibility of choice and
ease their choices by fitting
their talents.”
Leveraging diverse talents and
cultural strengths leads to flexible,
successful teamwork.
Ana 148 150 "I've seen many examples
of cultural differences that
have been beneficial to our
organization. For instance,
our Taiwanese team's
emphasis on relationshipbuilding has helped us to
establish strong
partnerships with suppliers
Relationship-building (Taiwan)
and innovation (U.S.) foster
partnerships and product success.

180
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
and customers in Asia.
Meanwhile, our American
team's focus on innovation
has led to the development
of new products and
services that have been
successful in the U.S.
market."
Andy 85 87 "One example is that the
Taiwanese approach to
planning and ROI has
helped in evaluating major
projects, while the
American focus on
innovation has driven
creativity."
Taiwanese planning and ROI
complement American innovation.
Betty 110 112 “on a personal I have found
these differences to be
beneficial.”
Personal appreciation for beneficial
cultural differences.
Dave 112 114 “"I’ve seen Taiwanese
companies focus on
sustainable growth and
product quality, while
American teams are great
at marketing and fast
execution. This
combination has helped
some of our portfolio
companies scale efficiently
without sacrificing quality.
It’s a win-win when both
sides respect each other’s
strengths."
Sustainability and quality (Taiwan)
complement marketing and
execution (U.S.) for efficient
scaling.
Florence 118 120 “One example is the
balance between the U.S.
team's fast risk-taking
approach and the
Taiwanese team's careful
risk-averse mindset. This
Risk-taking (U.S.) balanced with
risk-aversion (Taiwan) ensures
innovation and reliability.

181
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
balance has been helpful in
ensuring we innovate
quickly but don’t overlook
details. It’s that
combination that’s made
our projects both creative
and reliable."
Jim 102 105 “One example is how we
approach product
launches—Taiwan ensures
the product is polished, and
the U.S. side brings the
energy and creativity to
market it effectively."
Product polish (Taiwan) meets
market creativity (U.S.) for
successful launches.
Judy 166 170 “team members from
cultures that emphasize
direct communication often
encourage clarity and
efficiency in discussions,
while those from more
indirect cultures foster a
sense of harmony and
consideration. This blend
has helped our teams
become more adaptable, as
they learn to appreciate
different approaches to
communication, ultimately
improving collaboration.”
Direct communication fosters
clarity; indirect promotes harmony,
improving collaboration.
Kevin 92 94 "The Taiwanese team’s
focus on detail and quality
has complemented the
American team’s speed and
agility. Together, we’ve
developed high-quality
products faster than if we
had relied solely on one
approach."
Detail and quality (Taiwan)
enhance speed and agility (U.S.)
for fast, high-quality product
development.

182
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Max 110 113 “This has resulted in
products that are both
highly reliable and
technologically advanced.”
Cultural blend results in reliable
and advanced products.
Nate 110 112,
113
"The American willingness
to experiment has helped us
stay ahead of the curve
with new technologies.”,
“Meanwhile, the
Taiwanese team’s
thoroughness has saved us
from costly mistakes.”
Experimentation (U.S.) drives
advancement; thoroughness
(Taiwan) prevents mistakes.
Terry 105 108 “This blend has led to the
development of highly
competitive products that
meet both local and global
market demands."
Cultural blend produces
competitive, market-adaptive
products.
Question 19:
“Are there any other aspects we haven’t covered that you feel are essential?”
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 160 162,
167
"The management of
culture differences falls on
different categories can be
very different. It depends
on business models as well
as industry attributes.”, “A
broad investigation may
provide general
conclusions, yet a deep
dive into case based study
can yield very useful
knowledge to specific
applications.”
Cultural differences depend on
business models and industries;
case studies offer specific insights.
Ana 155 157 “I think it's important to Cultural integration is a continuous

183
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
acknowledge that cultural
integration is an ongoing
journey, not a destination.
It’s something that we need
to continuously work on
and be mindful of. It’s also
important to recognize that
everyone has a role to play
in cultural integration, from
the CEO to the newest
employee."
effort requiring everyone's
involvement.
Andy 90 91 "It’s essential to
continuously adapt and
remain flexible as cultural
dynamics evolve over
time."
Flexibility and adaptation are
essential as cultural dynamics
change.
Betty no No further insights shared.
Dave 119 121 "Trust is the foundation of
everything. Without trust,
it’s hard to integrate
different teams and
cultures. Building trust
takes time, but it’s worth
the effort. Once it’s there,
everything else—
communication,
collaboration, and
innovation—falls into place
more naturally.”
Trust is crucial for communication
and collaboration.
Florence 124 126 "I think trust is key. The
more trust you build
between different cultural
teams, the easier
integration becomes.”
Trust simplifies cultural
integration.
Jim 108 110 "It’s important to refine
and adapt your approach
continually. Cultural
dynamics change over
Continuous refinement and
adaptation are key.

184
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
time, and what works now
might not work next year.
Being open to evolving is
key to successful
integration."
Judy 176 178 “leadership commitment is
crucial. Leaders set the
tone for the organization,
and their involvement in
promoting cultural
integration can inspire
employees at all levels."
Leadership commitment is vital for
promoting cultural integration.
Kevin 97 98 “One last point I’d like to
make is that building trust
is key to successful cultural
integration.”
Trust is key to successful cultural
integration.
Max 115 116 "We haven't touched on
generational differences,
the impact of technology
on cultural integration, or
the role of cultural
humility. These aspects
play significant roles in
shaping our approach and
strategies."
Generational differences,
technology, and cultural humility
are significant factors.
Nate 116 118 "I’d add that building trust
between teams is crucial.”
Trust between teams is crucial.
Terry 110 111 no No further insights shared.
Question 20:
“Is there anything you’re curious about regarding the study's goals or outcomes?”

185
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Aaron 170 171 “If this study is to help
globalization of Taiwan
companies, would it be for
a specific industry? If yes,
what is that? As the
geopolitical factors
becoming more and more
critical, culture differences
may be driven to negative
side, how to manage that
can be part of the
investigation, especially for
those industries are more
sensitive to it."
Interested in industry-specific
focus and managing geopolitical
impacts on culture.
Ana 161 162 “I'm curious to learn more
about the best practices for
cultural integration that you
identify through your
research. I'm also interested
in seeing how the findings
of your study can be
applied to other
organizations, particularly
those in the technology
industry."
Curious about best practices and
application in the tech industry.
Andy 93 94 "I’m curious to learn more
about the study's findings
and how they might inform
future strategies for crosscultural collaboration."
Curious about findings to guide
future strategies.
Betty no no
Dave no no
Florence 130 131 "I’d be curious to see how
other companies are
handling cross-cultural
integration. Are they doing
anything different and how
Interested in comparing strategies
across companies.

186
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
successful have they been?
It would be interesting to
compare strategies and see
what lessons we can take
away."
Jim 113 114 “I’d be interested to see if
specific strategies have
worked better for other
companies and if there are
new approaches we can
adopt to enhance crosscultural collaboration
further."
Interested in knowing the strategy
that can improve cultural
integration
Judy 181 182 "Yes, I am curious about
several aspects of the
study's goals and outcomes.
Specifically, I would like to
know about the Impact on
the Organization, Best
Practices, Employee
Feedback, Long-Term
Outcomes, and Broader
Implications. How might
the findings of this study
inform broader industry
practices regarding cultural
integration? I would love to
see how our organization
can contribute to a larger
conversation about
diversity and inclusion in
the workplace.”
“Curious about study's
organizational impact, best
practices, and broader industry
implications.”
Kevin 100 101 "I’m curious to see how
other companies are
handling similar challenges
and what best practices
emerge from your
research."
“Curious about other companies’
strategies and best practices.”

187
Part Ask Ans Quote Notes
Max 119 120 "I'm curious about the
scope of your study,
industry-specific insights,
and how you plan to
measure the effectiveness
of cultural integration
practices. I'm also
interested in best practices,
generational factors, and
the long-term impact of
cultural integration."
“Interested in study scope,
effectiveness metrics, generational
factors, and long-term outcomes.
Nate no no
Terry 113 114 "I'm curious about the
scope of your study,
industry-specific insights,
and how you plan to
measure the effectiveness
of cultural integration
practices. I'm also
interested in best practices,
generational factors, and
the long-term impact of
cultural integration."
Curious about study scope, best
practices, and long-term impacts.

Asset Metadata

Creator Liu, Weichuan (author)

Core Title Navigating cultural integration: challenges and strategies for Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 01/31/2025

Defense Date 01/06/2025

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag business strategy,case study method,collectivism,cross-cultural management,cultural integration,expatriate management,Globalization,Hofstede’s cultural dimensions,individualism,institutional theory,intercultural competence,leadership adaptation,multinational corporations,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational behavior,organizational culture,qualitative research,semi-structured interviews,Taiwanese technology companies,technology sector,thematic analysis,U.S. market expansion

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Yates, Kenneth Anthony (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Grad, Richard (committee member)

Creator Email weichuan@usc.edu,weichuan88@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399FVH4

Identifier etd-LiuWeichua-13800.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LiuWeichua-13800

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Liu, Weichuan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250131-usctheses-batch-1239 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the cultural integration challenges faced by Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States, focusing on differences in leadership styles, organizational practices, and cultural norms. Using a qualitative research design and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) framework, the study explores these issues through in-depth interviews with managers and supervisors from mid-sized Taiwanese firms. Key findings reveal significant cultural disparities, such as hierarchical versus participatory decision-making approaches and differing motivational drivers, with Taiwanese organizations prioritizing stability while American workplaces emphasize agility and innovation. These challenges underscore the need for targeted interventions, including cultural training programs, leadership development workshops, and cross-cultural mentorship, to enhance adaptability and collaboration. Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model is used to evaluate the potential impact of these interventions, highlighting their role in improving cultural awareness, fostering behavioral change, and strengthening organizational cohesion. This study provides actionable strategies for integrating Taiwanese and American practices to foster inclusive and innovative work environments by equipping leaders with the necessary skills and perspectives to bridge cultural divides. Additionally, it contributes to the field of cross-cultural management by offering recommendations for future research, such as examining the role of technology in cultural integration, assessing the long-term impact of interventions, and understanding how integration strategies support sustainable growth. These insights aim to guide organizations in achieving successful global expansion while maintaining cohesive and dynamic team dynamics.