Read the case study and answer the 7 Questions. Don't forget to use Hofstede's cultural dimensions in answering your questions: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/mexico,the-usa/

Sean's First 100 Days at Technico, Inc., Monterrey, Mexico It had been 100 days since Sean took over as manager of Technico's manufacturing plant in Monterrey, Mexico, on a three-year expatriate assignment. Looking back now, Sean remembers how excited he was in the first few weeks to get some of his plans and ideas underway. This was Sean's rst foreign assignment, and he knew it was a phenomenal opportunity to advance his career prospects with the company if he handled it well. He was uent in Spanish, a big plus, and he was somewhat familiar with Mexico, having vacationed there before. In his first week, Sean met with his direct reports and made a few walk-around tours of the plant, pausing to introduce himself to employees. Sean believed getting to know employees as individuals and taking an interest in them beyond their work lives was a key to his past success as a manager; besides, Sean was simply a people person, friendly by nature. The employees he met addressed him as senor, which made him a little uncomforta ble, and he quickly asked them to call him Sean. They were polite with him but not very forthcoming as he attempted to engage them in friendly conversation about their backgrounds and experience at Technico. He decided to arrange a ' getting to know you\" all-plant meeting very soon to break the ice. As Sean gathered information and made some initial observations, a few things stood out to him right away as opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the Monterrey plant. He couldn't wait to get started. A few things that he noted: One - He was pleased with what he learned about employees' skill and experience levels, Two - Pay rates were determined by job category and seniority, Three - There was no performance appraisal system, And Four The plant did not use any team-based work structures. Sean strongly believed in the importance of the rst 100 days for anyone assuming a new leadership position. He saw that period as crucial for establishing credibility with employees and superiors. He wanted to show his employees that he had their best interests in mind, as well as the company's, and he wanted to prove to his superiors that he was the right choice for the job. Therefore, he set three ambitious goals for his first 100 days: 1. Develop a merit pay plan. Sean was very surprised to learn that seniority was the sole basis for compensation at the plant, as he was a big believer in 'pay-for-performance'. He was confident that the prospect of a financial reward would be appreciated by strong performers and would motivate average and weaker ones to step it up. His plan was to ask supervisors to complete a short employee appraisal form and hold one-on-one meetings with employees to discuss the ratings. 2. Establish a Technico Effectiveness Team. The top line employees would form a team with a supervisor to correct quality control problems and eliminate inefficiencies. In Sean's experience in the United States, being named to one of these teams was considered an honor 3. Implement a peer-nominated recognition and reward program. Sean started a program like this in his last two management positions in the U.S. It was a modest, easy to implement program that was appreciated by both the employees who were recognized as well as those who had the opportunity to nominate co- workers. The employee selected for recognition for a given month could choose from a menu of small rewards, such as game or concert tickets, store and restaurant gift certificates, or cash envelopes. Now, 100 days later, Sean looks back at his early enthusiasm and ambitious plans with chagrin. Nothing has worked out as expected, and little progress has been made on those big goals. On top of that, the family atmosphere he'd been able to develop with his employees in his previous management positions, and to which he attributed much of his past success, has proven elusive here. Employees don't seem interested in his relationship-building attempts. What went wrong? Upon reflection, Sean noted some occurrences over the past couple of months that foretold doom for his big plans... Regarding the performance appraisal system, his H.R. Director reported that only about 25% of the supervisors actually held the meetings. Most simply filled out the forms and submitted them to H.R., without discussing them with employees.The Technico Effectiveness Team only met twice after the initial roll-out meeting and hadn't brought him a single idea for improving production quality or efciency. He talked with the supervisor on the team. who explained that the members just did not understand what Sean wanted. So Sean met with the team a gain, explained that only the best employees were there and how much he valued their feedback. 'When he said \"Let's try brainstorming some ideas as a group. Any and all ideas are welcome. Who wants to go first-.7", no one responded. They seemed to be waiting for Scan to continue or for the uncomfortable meeting to mercifully come to an end. Concerning the reward and recognition program, not one peer nomination had been submitted. Sean was truly puzzled by this. Surely employees would want to nominate a peer who helped them out. or who had otherwise gone above-and-beyond the call? In summary, at the end of his first 100 days, Sean is feeling disappointed, both in himself for his failure to achieve the objectives he set, and in his employees for their seeming unwillingness to \"get on board\" and work together with him to improve the Monterrey plant. Discussion questions 1. to What are the US's scores on Hofstede's cultural dimensions of Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance? What do these scores mean in terms of how US employees would want work to be structured? What are Mexico's scores 011 Hofstede's cultural dimensions of Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance? What do these scores mean in terms of how employees from Mexico would want work to be structured? Based on their Hofstede's scores, what are the cultural differences between the US and Mexico? What do these differences mean in term of how work should be structured differently between the two countries? What are two examples of employee behavior or attitudes that frustrated or puzzled Sean in his initial impressions of Monterrey plant manager? Based on cultural differences between the US and Mexico, why are these behaviorsfattitudes confusing to Sean? Using Hofstede dimensions, why didn't Sean's (a) merit pay, (b) effectiveness team, or (c) peer reward system work? In other words, what incorrect assumptions was Sean making about the culture in Mexico? If Sean does not improve his crosscultural understanding, how might it impact his effectiveness going forward? Can you think of other mistakes he might make if he does not improve his cross-cultural understanding