I.

QUESTION 1:
In today’s increasingly interconnected world, cross-border culture and cultural exchange
have been getting more common than ever. With greater international travel and
communication, cultural differences ought to become increasingly irrelevant. Although
with this greater contact, there is likely a chance that cultural differences will remain a
vital stumbling block to world understanding. Cultural values, communication styles and
long-standing prejudices deeply ingrained in people are not something to be readily
excised by greater contact or familiarity.

Firstly, norms and values are strongly embedded in societies and persist over time.
Hofstede's six-dimensional model—power distance, individualism–collectivism, and
uncertainty avoidance—continues to be useful in describing cultural characteristics that
shape attitudes towards authority, group versus individual responsibility, and
risk­-aversion in ways consistent across decades (Hofstede, 2011; MindTools, 2024). For
instance, most Asian societies—Vietnam being no exception—value hierarchy, group
harmony, and indirect communication above Western preference for individualism and
directness, with the suggestion that differences such as these are not so readily bridged by
superficial contact (MindTools, 2024).

Moreover, language and communication styles continue to hinder intercultural

interaction. Even when people use a shared language like English, communication can
collapse due to differences in the way meaning is conveyed. Edward Hall's theory of
high-context vs. low-context cultures explains this very well. In high-context cultures
(e.g., Vietnam, Japan), much meaning is implicit, relying on tone, facial expressions, and
social cues. Meanwhile, low-context cultures (e.g., Germany, the United States) value
clearness and verbal precision. Without training or cultural literacy, individuals
misinterpret messages, leading to misunderstandings in both personal and business
settings (Hall, 1976; Hofstede Insights, 2024).
In addition, ethnocentrism and historical heritages entrench cultural boundaries,
regardless of travel frequency. Ethnocentrism - the belief in the superiority or “normality”
of one’s own culture - remains prevalent and subtly affects people’s perception of others
from different cultures. Most travelers in most cases bring along preconceptions and
stereotypes, rather than sustaining more perceptive understanding. Even well-meaning
global media and education systems at times reinforce simplistic or biased cultural scripts
(Verywell Mind, 2024). A tourist may enjoy local architecture or food without any
knowledge of the history or values behind them. Cultural interaction can therefore be
shallow without an effort.

Furthermore, globalization does not so much remove cultural differences as cement them
in new ways. Scholars now speal of “cultural hybridization”, a process in which societies
borrow global influences while still preserving their local values and traditions
(Tomlinson, 1999). For example, global fast-food chains like McDonald’s or Starbucks
localize their products to accommodate local customs: rice products inVietnam,
vegetarian options in India, or no beef in restaurants in the Middle East. Such adaptations
show that local culture still plays a significant role in influencing consumer attitudes and
expectations. Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic plan centers on
modernization alongside the preservation of national heritage and islamic values,
reinforcing the viewpoint of culture and progress being coexistent.
But increased travel and globalisation can bestow benefits of increased knowledge, but
only if accompanied by meaningful learning. Research on cultural intelligence (CQ)
identifies that effective intercultural contact is not so much a matter of experience as of
the ability to interpret, modulate, and reflective engagement in another culture (Setti
et al., 2022; conceptual CQ studies in Malaysia, 2024). Those with higher
CQ—especially those who have been trained or coached to reflect—are better at
navigating multicultural work environments, intervening in cross-cultural conflict, and
building trust.
Finally, education and interpersonal relationships are essential in transcending cultural
differences. Formal cross-cultural training programs were proven to increase participants'
CQ and cultural competence, although effects vary by delivery mode and content (Urgun
et al., 2025 systematic review). Additional empirical evidence confirms that international
travel, foreign language proficiency, and intercultural exposure have positive correlations
with high CQ scores, particularly among individuals with open or reflective orientations
(Jurasek et al., 2023; Chédru et al., 2025)
II. QUESTION 2:
1. Brand introduction:

Starbucks, the United States-based global coffeehouse brand, entered Vietnam in 2013,
its first move into one of Southeast Asia's most dynamic economies (Mad About
Marketing Consulting, n.d.). Vietnam presented a compelling growth opportunity due to
its massive, youthful population and rapidly urbanizing expanding middle class. But
while other emerging markets offered the same kind of challenge, Vietnam offered a
different cultural challenge: not only is it an emerging consumption nation, but coffee is
embedded deeply within social ritual and national culture. Vietnamese coffee culture is
made up of street vendors, family-run cafes, and robust, low-cost traditional coffees
based on Robusta beans, served generally over ice with sweetened condensed milk
(ToAsia.biz, 2023). Despite its global success and recognition by brand name, Starbucks
has a limited number of outlets in Vietnam with around 90–100 stores and merely a 2%
share of the country's $1.2 billion coffee market segment as of 2023 (ToAsia.biz, 2023;
Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.). This difference between brand name recognition
and market share makes Starbucks Vietnam a fascinating study case for the impact of
cultural differences on business failure or success.

Despite the inherent cultural barriers, Starbucks managed to establish a viable, if niche,
place in the Vietnamese market through several culturally adaptive strategies. Starbucks
maintained its signature global image—offering premium service, modern ambiance, and
a consistent international menu—while strategically incorporating local products to
deepen cultural connection. Most importantly, Starbucks introduced the Asian Dolce
Latte, a sweeter version of the drink more appropriate to Vietnamese taste patterns, and
Tet-themed seasonal products to engage with Vietnam's cultural calendar (Mad About
Marketing Consulting, n.d.). In addition to coffee, it also offered bubble tea and fruit
smoothies, which are popular among Vietnamese youth, especially in urban enclaves. The
company also redesigned its physical space to offer a "third space" for young
professionals, students, and expatriates—a space that was not home or work but rather
appropriate for studying, socializing, and business meetings. This niche marketing of
high-end, urban, and image-differentiating consumers proved more effective than
attempting to sell to the broader Vietnamese, many of whom looked at Starbucks as a
luxury brand (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.). By prioritizing experience and
prestige instead of mass affordability, Starbucks created a differentiated product that
appealed to a targeted, loyal segment.

Starbucks also experienced large cultural misalignments that hindered it from entering the
market even deeper. Among the issues was that the product offerings of Starbucks were
not aligned with the tastes of the Vietnamese. The classic Vietnamese coffee, strong
roasted Robusta beans filtered by a phin filter, is extremely rich and intense and typically
cold sweet condensed milk—barely recognizable from Starbucks' standard
Arabica-based, typically warm beverages (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.;
ToAsia.biz, 2023). Starbucks didn't have initially to fully localize its menu in that it did
not offer such traditional local dishes as egg coffee and cà phê sữa đá. Although the
beverages were finally introduced, the wait was a failure in cultural sensitivity and
foresight (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.). In addition, Starbucks' business model
created another barrier. While a typical cup of coffee would be priced at a mere VND
6,000 (around $0.25), Starbucks' beverages would be in the range of tenfold (ToAsia.biz,
2023). This extreme price difference pushed away regular consumers, solidifying
Starbucks' image as an upper-crust, not a people's brand. Moreover, even as it grew to
approximately 100 stores by 2023, it lagged behind local giants like Trung Nguyên and
The Coffee House in terms of size as well as market influence—indicating the negative
side of its focused positioning (ToAsia.biz, 2023).

2. Cultural Factors Involved

Several deep-seated cultural factors were behind the struggle and partial success of
Starbucks in Vietnam. Most significant among them is how coffee is consumed as a
cultural ritual, rather than a commodity. In Vietnam, coffee drinking is most typically a
slow, social beverage, conveying leisure and camaraderie. The traditional phin brewing
method is reflective of the cultural values placed on patience and mindfulness. Starbucks'
original products, being Western and high-strung in idea, were not at first compatible
with this ritualistic consumption practice (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.).
Vietnamese customers are very price-sensitive. This trait reflects economic circumstances
as well as cultural values that favor functionalism as well as affordability. Starbucks'
Western premium pricing did not account for the local sensibility, limiting its appeal to a
very narrow socioeconomic niche (ToAsia.biz, 2023).

Additionally, Vietnamese hierarchical norms and business etiquette guided how

Starbucks invested in the nation. Vietnam comes in relatively high on Hofstede's power
distance index, where people expect decisions to originate from those who are in power
and respect hierarchical structure (Corporate Counsels Vietnam, n.d.). Noting this
awareness, Starbucks partnered with Hong Kong-based Maxim's Group, a well-respected
local business partner, to smoothen regulatory and operational hurdles. This strategic
partnership was an acknowledgment of the local business culture and enabled less
disruptive market entry. Furthermore, Vietnam's collectivist culture with group harmony
orientation and long-term commitments had an impact on the way Starbucks interacted
with customers. The company localized the advertisements' content, used
Vietnamese-language signage, and introduced promotions around culturally important
occasions such as Tết (Lunar New Year), reflecting respect and adherence to local
tradition (Corporate Counsels Vietnam, n.d.).

Vietnamese communication is also high-context to a significant degree—messages are

often implicit and reliant on non-verbal cues or generalised cultural knowledge.
Starbucks reacted by creating advertising campaigns that dispensed with directness and
embraced subtlety, in contrast to some rivals who were criticised as being culturally
insensitive. An example of such a contrast lies in KFC's 2022 debacle, when a store was
controversially named after a revered Buddhist monk, leading public backlash due to
cultural ignorance (Vietnam Briefing, 2022). Starbucks' polite and conservative
communication policy saved it from repeating those blunders. Time orientation also had
an impact: business is essential in punctuality, but Vietnamese culture is more tolerant of
tardiness and improvisation. Starbucks fit this by working long hours and creating areas
for long, leisurely visits, incorporating itself even more into one's habits (Corporate
Counsels Vietnam, n.d.).

3. Remaining Challenges

Despite its success, Starbucks nonetheless has a number of long-term challenges in

Vietnam. Western leanings of the brand and price positioning based on values limit its
customer base to purely upper-end urban consumers only. Its niche positioning strategy
currently may inhibit scalability in a market that still prefers established value-based
brands. Vietnamese consumers increasingly also seek authenticity and cultural connection
with their restaurant selections. Competing domestic brands offer phin-brewed Robusta
coffee at much cheaper prices and with deeper-rooted culture-based experiences. To
increase its market share, Starbucks can maybe deepened its localization strategy by
launching Robusta-fueled drinks, launching menu offerings from Vietnamese coffee
culture, and piloting cost-effective offerings without compromising brand image.

5. Lessons Learned

Starbucks' experience in Vietnam provides rich lessons in the importance of sensitivity

and adjustment to culture for international business. First, it underscores that deep
localization—rather than shallow branding—is required for long-term success. While
Starbucks ultimately introduced regionally themed beverages, the initial hesitation to
deliver culturally familiar offerings was a weakness that reflected the cost of the lack of
cultural foresight (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.). Second, the company
demonstrated the strength of market segmentation compared to mass popularity. Through
young urban professionals and expats, Starbucks occupied a profitable niche even when it
could not capture the mass consumer base (Mad About Marketing Consulting, n.d.).
Third, cultural sensitivity is emphasized in the case. Cultural blunders in sophisticated
cultural markets can destroy brand reputation, as in the case of KFC. Starbucks avoided
such mistakes by adopting diplomatic, context-specific messaging and campaigns
(Vietnam Briefing, 2022). Fourth, partnership with local organizations was a key tactic.
Maxim's Group partnership helped Starbucks navigate Vietnam's regulatory structure and
gain valuable market knowledge (Corporate Counsels Vietnam, n.d.). Last, Starbucks'
experience indicates that holding out in the long term pays off. Even with its poor growth
in Vietnam, its commitment to quality, consistent brand messaging, and gradual
localization helped it survive in a harsh environment (Mad About Marketing Consulting,
n.d.).

The Starbucks Vietnam case brings out the intricate nature of relationships between host
country culture and global business strategies. The errors the company committed at the
start regarding product development and pricing illustrate the risks of underestimating
local culture. But its subsequent refinements—everything from product customization to
regional marketing and strategic partnerships—allowed it to stabilize and flourish in a
bounded but profitable niche. Starbucks' experience attests that in multicultural and
multi-attitudinal markets like Vietnam, success is not only an exercise of brand equity but
listening, compromise, and modest absorption into the host culture. To multinational
companies, most especially those venturing into the Southeast Asian markets, Starbucks'
story is a strong testament that culture is not a barrier but a blueprint for long-term
success.
III. QUESTION 3:

1. My Cultural Background: Vietnamese Values through Hofstede’s Dimensions

Vietnamese culture is shaped by Confucian values, collectivism of the past, and

agricultural heritage, and has developed a system of cultural values with direct
implications for individual behavior, communication, and organizational relationships.
Vietnam ranks high in power distance (PDI ~70), low in individualism (IDV ~20), and
medium in long-term orientation (LTO ~57), uncertainty avoidance (UAI ~40), and
masculinity (MAS ~40) (Hofstede Insights, 2023).

The high power distance is an indicator of socially sanctioned hierarchical arrangement

and authority. Older individuals, teachers, and bosses are obeyed from childhood onward
and upheld in the workplace. Decisions are taken from the top within organizations, and
subordinates never question or confront managers in public.

The low individualism score indicates Vietnam's collectivist culture. The group harmony
is more important than individual goals, and commitment to family, group, and
organization is strong. The Vietnamese employees are more at ease as a group, make
consensus-based decisions, and value relationships.

Vietnam's long-term orientation indicates a cultural preference for planning, patience, and
perseverance. Things are done step by step, with a focus on stability and long-term
growth. Education is of utmost importance, and long-term investment is viewed as wise.

Communication in Vietnam is indirect and indicative of high-context interaction. "Face"

saving — retaining dignity and evading public embarrassment—is imperative.
Disagreement can be communicated through silence, indirect hints, or recruitment of a
third party. This style promotes harmony but obscures purpose and generates confusion,
particularly in intercultural communication (Lewis, 2006).

2. Company Chosen: Google – Overview and Rationale

Google LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., is one of the most prominent and
entrepreneurial technology companies in the world, providing popular products and
services such as Google search, Android, Gmail, and Google Maps. Founded in 1998,
Google has become synonymous with workspace innovation, technical innovation, and
focus on user experience. The firm is consistently ranked among the global best
workplaces due to its unique and diverse workplace culture, based on autonomy,
creativity and deep respect for employee well-being and development (Forbes, 2023).

The selection of Google for this cross-cultural analysis stems from its distinctive and
quite intentional organizational culture, one that has been extensively studied and used as
an exemplar of corporate culture design. Google’s work environment is characterized by
flat hierarchies, data-driven decision making, psychological safety, and a strong emphasis
on diversity, equity, and inclusion. These structures and values create a culture that is
open, innovation-oriented and empowering.

Google is particularly well-suited to exploring cultural fit and contrast because it

represents a fundamentally different set of assumptions and practices from those that are
commonly found in Vietnamese organizations. In Vietnam, cultural norms are likely to
reinforce hierarchy, indirect communication, and risk aversion, whereas Google
positively fosters direct feedback, open collaboration, and experimentation. This clashing
juxtaposition provides fertile ground in which to explore the ways in which cultural
heritage affects adaptation, performance, and workplace relationships in an increasingly
globalizing workplace. By examining Google through Edgar Schein's model and
comparing it with Vietnamese culture through Hofstede's framework, this examination
aims to uncover how employees of collectivist, high-context cultures like Vietnam may
struggle and grow in such a paradigmatically different organizational culture.

3. Explanation of organizational culture:

3.1. Edgar Schein’s Three Levels of Culture Model

 Edgar Schein’s model (2010) assumed that organizational culture exists at three
hierarchical levels.

a. Artifacts: are factors that are visible, recognized initially or associated with values, but
they are not always obvious. They include physical space and layout, written and spoken
language, and the overt behavior of group members.

b. Espoused values: could be norms, principles, philosophies or generally a higher level

of awareness of which is valued in the organization.

c. Basic assumptions: are factors that are invisible, taken for granted and not usually
stated.

In general, this model helps uncover the underlying dimensions of cultural awareness and
what really shapes the internal identity of the organization. However, the limit of this
model is that it is highly abstract and difficult to apply without detailed internal data.

3.2. Johnson and Scholes’ Cultural Web Model

While Schein focused on the deeper layers, Johnson and Scholes suggested a model of
cultural formation through practical manifestations in the organizational activities, which
is called the Cultural Web. This model consists of seven factors:

a. Stories: are told by the organization’s members, which embed the present; flag up
important events, personalities and typically have to do with successes, failures, heroes,
villains and mavericks.

b. Rituals: are the special events through which the organisation emphasises what is
particularly important and can include formal organisational processes and informal
processes.

c. Symbols: such as logos, offices, titles, type of language or terminology commonly

used, which become a shorthand representation of the nature of the organization.
d. Organizational structure: which reflects power structures; delineates important
relationships and activities within the organization;and involves both formal structure and
control and less formal systems.

e. Power structures: the most powerful individuals or groups in the organisation, which
may be based on management position and seniority, but power can be lodged with other
levels or functions in some organisations.

f. Control systems: the measurement and reward systems that emphasise what it is
important to monitor and to focus attention and activity upon – for example, stewardship
of funds or quality of service.

g. Paradigm: are underlying and commonly held beliefs of the organisation, which help
form the way organizations think, evaluate and decide.

4. Organizational Culture Audit:

4.1. Analysis Based on Schein’s Three Levels of Culture

To analyze Google’s organizational culture, this section employs Edgar Schein’s (2010)
Three Levels of Culture model. According to Schein, organizational culture operates on
three interdependent levels - artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying
assumptions- and that complete understanding involves accessing all three. This model is
particularly appropriate for Google because the company has consciously cultivated its
culture in a way that encourages innovation, openness and psychological safety. Applying
this framework enables the analysis of how Google’s surface structures and avowed
values arise from and enshrined its deep-seated assumptions, and how these might be
reconciled with or contradictory to Vietnamese cultural norms.
a. Artifacts:
At the level of artifacts, Google organizational culture is full of tangible signals of
openness, experimentation, and egalitarianism. Google offices are famously open-plan,
with relaxed dress codes and open spaces that are meant to foster casual contact between
teams. The company offers a range of employee benefits—free meals, wellness centers,
nap pods, and on-site medical facilities—bidding farewell to compartmentalizing people.
Rituals like the TGIF all-hands gatherings allow employees at all levels to directly
question top brass, fostering openness and ignoring pyramid roadblocks. The teams are
small and often cross-functional, and employees are encouraged to make suggestions
regardless of rank—a practice fostered by Google's long-standing 20 percent time rule.
b. Espoused Values:
Google's espoused values are user-centricity, innovation, inclusion, and respect for one
another. Public statements and communications of leadership elicit values such as "focus
on the user," "respect each other," and "do the right thing." Innovation is embedded in
programs such as 20% Time when employees spend their time on favorite projects, which
lead to significant products such as AdSense. Organizational choices are guided by
people analytics—Google uses data to predict risk of attrition, improve diversity
outcomes, and maximize recruitment efficiency. Applying Google's data-driven values,
Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as most critical in driving
recruitment success, is a testament to this. Active ERGs, visible diversity objectives, and
inclusion awards help reinforce DEI.
c. Basic underlying assumptions:
At the most fundamental level, Google assumes that innovation can originate from any
point in the organization and that failure is a prelude to learning. Its experimental unit X
(Moonshot Factory) represents the premise that bold ventures—no matter how risky—are
necessary to advance at the edge of technology. The company also fundamentally
assumes that work is meaningful and autonomous, and that workers prosper where they
feel trusted and nurtured. Google's ethical imagination workshops also vindicate that
innovation must be responsible and ethical—a reflection of firm belief in what
technology can do for society.
4.2. Analysis Based on Johnson and Scholes’ Cultural Web:

In addition to Schein’s model, Google’s organizational culture can also be effectively

analyzed using Johnson and Scholes’ Cultural Web Model, which defines six interrelated
elements: stories, ritual and routines, symbols, organizational structure, control systems
and power structures. The model provides a broader perspective to take in how culture is
manifested and reinforced in everyday life and managerial decisions.

a. Stories: ​
Storytelling within Google is extremely effective in reaffirming cultural values. Internal
stories glorify employee-initiated projects that turned into global products, including
Gmail and Google Maps. These stories emphasize values such as initiative, autonomy,
experimentation, and learning from failure. For example, the origin of Gmail is usually
recounted as a badge of the "20% time" policy that gives employees time to work on their
side projects. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are depicted as visionaries who broke
conventions—reaffirming the value of questioning norms and encouraging disruption.

b. Rituals and Routines:​

Recurring events such as TGIF meetings (now all-hands), quarterly OKR reviews, team
retrospectives, and weekly one-on-one check-ins foster a culture of accountability,
reflection, and open communication. New Googlers (Nooglers) go through a rigorous
onboarding process that is designed not just to instruct in job duties but to immerse them
in Google values. Managers are taught coaching rather than commanding, reinforcing
horizontal communication and distributed leadership.

c. Symbols: ​
Google's symbolic culture is immediately recognizable and culturally charged. The
multicolored Google logo, Android statues outside offices, and casual dress code express
creativity, inclusiveness, and friendliness. Physical spaces are open, modular, and
employee-centered, with themed micro-kitchens, well-being rooms, and collaboration
spaces. These symbols break down formality and create psychological safety. Even the
names of offices—"Googleplex"—reflect scale, playfulness, and technical wizardry.

d. Organizational Structure: ​
Even though Google has expanded to become a large multinational, it tries to maintain its
structure fairly flat and fluid. Teams function in a matrix environment with project-based
leadership. The decentralization allows quick iteration and provides employees at all
levels the authority to drive decisions. The ability to propose and test ideas without the
need for executive approval allows Google's emphasis on bottom-up innovation.

e. Control System:

Google's performance management is designed to strengthen ownership and

development. Goal alignment with individual flexibility is provided through the OKR
(Objectives and Key Results) system. Peer review, manager feedback, and biannual
performance reviews are all bundled into a GRAD (Googler Reviews and Development)
system. Success is gauged by innovation output, collaboration, user benefit, and
alignment with Google's values—not merely financial performance.

f. Power Structure:

Google's power structures are informal and expertise-based. While vision and values are
promulgated by executives, power vests in those who demonstrate problem-solving
ability, thought leadership, or product expertise. Critical groups like Google Brain or
DeepMind can drive strategic direction as much as top leadership. This meritocracy
encourages bottom-up influence and a culture of deference to ideas over hierarchy.

Using Johnson and Scholes' model complements Schein's layers by grounding cultural
values in operational realities and giving insight into the active reproduction of culture. It
highlights that Google's innovative culture is not merely aspirational but rooted in daily
interactions, work environments, communication norms, and even the rationale of
decision-making. Together, these models illustrate how Google's culture is intentionally
designed and reinforced on both visible and invisible levels, enabling scalability without
compromising the culture. It reinforces how stories, behavior, and systems all intersect to
create Google's innovation-driven, high-perfomance culture.

5. Comparision: My Cultural Traits vs. Google’s Culture

Understanding the degree of alignment between my Vietnamese cultural background and

Google’s company culture is vitally important information regarding where harmony will
exist and where accommodation will be required. Vietnamese culture, shaped by
Confusian values, values hierarchy, group orientation, and indirect communication.
Google’s culture, on the other hand, values openness, egalitarianism, risk-taking, and
individual ownership. Plotting these onto appropriate dimensions, we can observe both
sources of cultural tension and synergy potential.

5.1. Power Distance:

Vietnam is high on power distance, i.e., extensive acceptance of unequal distribution of

power in organizations. Subordinates do not resist authority and managers are considered
decision-makers who drive things. Google is extremely low on power distance.
Employees are encouraged to question concepts regardless of hierarchy. Managers are
coaches rather than directors. This difference signifies an extreme mismatch. A
Vietnamese employee will not say "no" or directly speak back to superior staff. For
instance, in a Google brainstorming meeting, the Vietnamese employee might not
propose contentious ideas in case they are misconstrued as disrespectful. This would
inhibit innovation and participation unless supported by a psychologically safe culture.

5.2. Individualism vs. Collectivism:

Vietnam is a collectivist culture in which people strongly identify with in-groups and
make decisions in consideration of group harmony. Team objectives tend to overwhelm
individual objectives in such cultures. Google is more individualist, and values such as
autonomy, self-expression, and development of oneself are influential. Google
appreciates team work but also respects individuals in developing their own things and
interests and undertaking their own projects, such as in 20% Time. This scale measures
both fit and mismatch. My collectivist personality would be an asset to team cohesion,
especially in collaborative ventures. But I would initially struggle with the high degrees
of self-promotion and self-management involved in Google's internal mobility and
promotion culture, which are prized strengths.

5.3. Communication:

Vietnam is a collectivist culture in which people strongly identify with in-groups and
make decisions in consideration of group harmony. Team objectives tend to overwhelm
individual objectives in such cultures. Google is more individualist, and values such as
autonomy, self-expression, and development of oneself are influential. Google
appreciates team work but also respects individuals in developing their own things and
interests and undertaking their own projects, such as in 20% Time. This scale measures
both fit and mismatch. My collectivist personality would be an asset to team cohesion,
especially in collaborative ventures. But I would initially struggle with the high degrees
of self-promotion and self-management involved in Google's internal mobility and
promotion culture, which are prized strengths.

5.4. Communication Style:

Vietnamese communication is indirect and high-context. Silence, non-verbal behavior,

and suggestion are usually employed rather than confrontation or directness. Preserving
harmony and face is the ultimate concern. Google promotes low-context, direct
communication. All feedback is open, frequent, and often public. Employees are
encouraged to openly disagree with one another—even with managers. This could be a
source of miscommunication. I may be offended by blunt feedback or interpret open
disagreement as conflict, when others may misinterpret my indirectness as indifference.
Acclimating to this style would require time and culturally sensitive coaching.
5.5. Long- term orientation:

Both cultures are in this dimension. Vietnamese culture emphasizes perseverance,

education, and postponed gratification—values reflected in Google's commitment to
long-term innovation, experimentation, and failure learning. Google's tolerance for
postponed success and investment in "moonshot" projects fits with a core belief in future
payoff. Such fit would make me comfortable with being involved in long-term projects
and accepting ambiguity in results. My patience and future-oriented mindset would be an
asset for work requiring strategic vision and steady effort.

5.6. Attitude Toward Risk and Failure:

The Vietnamese are risk-averse and like security, predictability, and stability. This is both
the product of social as well as historical factors, including the importance of face and the
consequences of public failure. Failure is the rule and is celebrated within Google as part
of innovation. Projects such as Google Glass or Google Wave, even though they were
dropped, are deemed to be valuable experiments. Google X (Moonshot Factory) treats
high-risk ideas with the potential for groundbreaking success. This is a major mismatch.
Perhaps I am afraid to be bold or recommend unconventional solutions because of fear or
peer judgment. Without the reinforcement mechanisms of positive feedback and rewards,
perhaps I lose the chance to develop.

Summary Table: Cultural Fit vs. Mismatch

Cultural Vietnamese Culture Google’s Organizational Fit/Mismat

Dimension Culture ch

Power Distance High – respect for Low – flat structure and Mismatch
hierarchy openness

Individualism Low – collectivist, High – individual Mismatch

group harmony autonomy emphasized
 Communication Indirect – avoid Direct – open and candid Mismatch
Style confrontation communication

Long-Term Strong – value Strong – long-term Fit

Orientation persistence and planning innovation focus

Attitude Toward Risk-averse – value Risk-tolerant – failure as Mismatch

Risk stability learning

6. Impact on Adaptation, Collaboration, and Performance (If I Worked at Google)

Adapting to an office such as Google—so divergent from Vietnamese cultural

norms—would be challenging and revolutionary. This section examines more deeply how
my own culture would shape my adaptation experience, teamwork, and performance, and
how organizational support mechanisms might help resolve such challenges.

5.1. Adjustment to Structure and Culture:

To begin with, I would struggle to adapt to Google's low power distance structure. From a
Vietnamese culture in which authority is rarely questioned and hierarchy is deeply
revered, it would be strange—even antithetical—to present suggestions to managers or
question opinions directly in meetings. The horizontal structure in which lower-level
employees may offer input to senior brass and even question mandates may conflict with
my deeply instilled assumptions about deference and formality. Furthermore, Google's
emphasis on future-oriented self-management—such as via the 20% Time policy or
OKRs—can be overwhelming, especially in comparison to the more dirigiste managerial
style common in Vietnam. Without explicit hierarchical directives, I might first be
confused or hesitant to develop personal work goals and make independent decisions.
However, Google's mentoring culture and onboarding programs could be a good bridge.
For instance, several teams utilize buddy systems and peer coaching that allow for new
employees to build confidence in communicating in the workplace with time. Google's
emphasis on psychological safety, which was confirmed by Project Aristotle, is such that
mistakes are utilized as learning opportunities. Over time, this safety net could reduce my
fear of communicating and allow me to innovate and contribute more boldly.

5.2. Collaboration and Communication:

In terms of collaboration, my Vietnamese collectivist cultural values would assist me in

being a responsible and considerate team player. I would be inclined to prioritize group
success over personal prestige, respect team norms, and put effort into communal
projects. This would work extremely well within Google's team-focused organizational
model, where collaboration between functions and backgrounds is common practice.

But style of communication would be the initial issue. Vietnamese communication is

high-context and indirect, used to foster harmony and "save face." At Google, though,
open and direct communication is not only valued but required. I would probably take
blunt criticism personally as rude or embarrassing and struggle with criticizing, even
when warranted. Similarly, brainstorming sessions where assertiveness and quick idea
generation are valued would intimidate me at first.

In order to combat these problems, there are formal team practices—such as

retrospectives, facilitated discussions, and asynchronous collaboration tools—that can
help provide less confrontational ways to engage. Exposure to supportive managers who
themselves become vulnerable and expressly solicit input from more introverted team
members would also be necessary. Google's Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), such as
the Asian Googlers Network, could also provide culturally acceptable spaces and
sponsorship and ease adjustment.

5.3. Performance and Growth:

Over time, I believe my performance would improve as I absorb Google's core values.
My long-term orientation would make me concentrate on complex innovation projects
that require time and perseverance. I would possess a good work ethic, teamwork, and
attention to detail—traits desired by Google in execution and delivery. In career roles
involving continuity of projects, coordination across cultures, or value-based innovation,
I would likely excel.

Besides, as I progress in assertively expressing my ideas and making informed risks, I

would develop key soft skills like influencing communication, strategic thinking, and
adaptive leadership. The multicultural setting and fast-paced environment of Google
would also add diversity to my perspective and broaden my cultural
sensitivity—preparing me for leadership roles in international teams.

5.4. Mutual Enrichment:

In learning and adapting from the culture of Google, I would also bring separate concepts
from Vietnamese traditions—e.g., the importance of harmony in groups, dignified
negotiation, and long-term relationship development. These could complement team
harmony and improve global market awareness, particularly in Southeast Asian contexts.
Google's openness to multiple mindsets ensures that my values, rather than being
repressed, may balance more individualistic or high-speed team contexts.

In general, Google would force me to leave my comfort zone culturally, while at the same
time confirming the value of the world that I carry. Under mentorship, formal feedback
processes, and inclusive leadership, issues caused by cultural mismatch could be phased
out