Intercultural Issues at Hyundai
Inter-Cultural Issues at Hyundai
Hyundai faces issues with intercultural concerns for two major reasons. First, they operate a carmaker that operates on a global scale and second because they actually have many of their cars manufactured in countries other than their country of origin including the United States. Indeed, Hyundai operates both Hyundai itself and Kia within the United States. This can be a challenge on a number of levels. Issues like nationalism, inter-cultural interactions, inter-cultural turf wars, prior wars between the home country of the company with that of one or more countries they operate in and other related concerns can all be issues for companies like Hyundai that originate from one country or part of the world and operate extensively, especially as a manufacturer, in another. Put another way, there are a lot of dependent and independent variables that Hyundai must address and deal with to operate efficiently and with the proper amount of public relations and other corporate skills. Indeed, the cultural norms of South Koreans and Americans, let alone those of any other countries that Hyundai operates and sells in, are quite different and the meshing and melding of those two cultures as they interact can be quite tepid and even uncomfortable at times.
Table of Contents
Terms & Acronyms 4
Literature Review 19
Discussion & #8230;.22
Conclusion & #8230;24
Terms & Acronyms
Asian Auto Crisis — the time period during which Kia acquired bankruptcy and thus allowed them to be acquired by Hyundai
HMA — Hyundai Motor Company. Founded in 1967 and is traded publicly in South Korea.
HMMA — Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama
Hyundai America Technical Center — the “proving ground” for Hyundai cars in the United States. The area is located in California City, California in the western United States.
Kia — Another South Korean car company, in addition to Hyundai, that has operated corporately since 1944. Roughly one third of Kia’s corporate assets are owned by Hyundai Corporation.
Kia Motors America — the United States division of Kia Motors. Founded in 1992, they filed for bankruptcy just a few years later in 1997 and when was acquired via a majority stake buyout (51%) in 1998. They outbid Ford Motor Company, which had had a stake since 1986, predating their entry into the American market. They have since drawn back their stake to roughly a third.
Kia Motors Europe — the European counterpart to Kia Motors America
Lean Production System — a Japanese automaker creation, it is a stressing of flexible and easily-changeable production operations in auto plants
NUMMI — New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated — a joint venture of Toyota and General Motors that was shuttered in 2010
SIA — the common acronym used to identify Subaru/Isuzu Automotive.
West Point Plant — the American manufacturing point for Kia vehicles. The plant is located in the state of Georgia in the southeastern corner of the United States. The plan is fairly close to the Montgomery Hyundai plant
Inter-Cultural Issues & Hyundai
Chapter I – Introduction
Hyundai has been able to take major advantage of the fact that two of the major domestic United States automakers, General Motors and Chrysler, were on the verge of obsolescence and extinction to the extent that they had to be bailed out by the United States federal government. The third major United States automaker, that being Ford, did not take any federal bailouts but they themselves struggled both before and during the recession in their own ways. All three of them are doing much better now but Hyundai was able to make some major inroads even though some inter-cultural issues continue to haunt and challenge them in many ways.
Hyundai starting operating in the United States when it opened up its first United States plant in Montgomery, Alabama in 2005. This followed its operations in South Korea at its Ulsan and Asan plants. The Ulsan plant was the first but then it shifted to the Asan plant which was located in a remote area of South Korea so as to avoid violent and otherwise disrupted labor activities. However, these efforts did not end up succeeding and the labor strife that they strived to avoid happened anyway.
The company then tried to succeed by operating a plant in Canada but due to shoddy human resource policy conformance and other issues, Hyundai soon discovered that they were unable to manufacture cars in Canada make the needed profit. As such, after less than roughly five years in Canada, operations in that country were shuttered in favor of going back to the Asan model. In both cases, South Korean investors were shaken by the fact that the plants did not operate with stability and profitability and this shook their confidence in the plant and in their investments with the Korean automaker.
South Korea’s Hyundai eventually found success by moving to Alabama but even that was not without its challenges and obstacles to overcome and a lot of the problems were cultural. On top of that, many of the union activities that helped trouble the Ulsan and Asan plans in South Korea also influenced the progression of the Montgomery plant in many ways. As far as cultural concerns and challenges, there are always going to be challenges when taking an Asian automaker like South Korea’s Hyundai and acclimating ownership from South Korea into a more Western country like the United States, which of course Hyundai had already discovered during their ventures in Canada.
Even so, Hyundai stood to benefit greatly if the Montgomery plant succeeded, so they pressed on with the project to offshore operations from South Korea to Montgomery. However, even in an age where the marketplace becomes more globalized by the day and international boundaries between the different operation points within certain industries or even within single businesses, some challenges can still come up during such a transition from operating a plant in South Korea and then shifting it to an entirely different marketplace and country like the United States. Even with the more vague boundaries caused by globalization, firms like Hyundai have had to deal with cultural issues that pertain to and/or otherwise affect employee relations, human resources practices, general business practices, sales tactics, whether or how to focus on catering and pandering to nationalism in customers and so forth.
Another major concern in such a shift are the commonly accepted cultural practices of the two very different cultures that are the United States and South Korea as well as the obvious language barrier issues that exist as well. Just as prior work has focused on management practices, that is far from being the only cultural issues that Hyundai must face and this report shall focus on the other major cultural issues that have or could arise in the future based on the review and theories of the best minds on the subject including from those in the industry as well as those that have reviewed the similar efforts of other foreign countries bringing operations to Western nations in the past.
One major cultural issue that any foreign automaker must endure is the penchant for many politicians, domestic companies of any sort and people in general is the whole “Buy American” chorus. Indeed, many of the foreign cars in the United States are made in one of three major foreign countries, those being South Korea, Japan and Germany. Just within the last century (and mostly in the last half century and change), the United States has been at war in all three of those regions. With Germany, it was World War II and World War I before that. German automakers that now sell pervasively in the United States include BMW and Mercedes, both of which are luxury cars with a hefty price tag. For Japan, there is Toyota (which sells Toyota, Scion and Lexus) and Honda (which sells Honda and Acura cars in the United States). Finally, one has South Korea which sells Hyundai and Kia cars, both of which are owned by Hyundai at this time. It should be noted that the United States was not at war with the South Koreans, but rather the North Koreans, but the United States was at war in that region nonetheless and many people are not educated enough to make that distinction or that distinction is not important and/or relevant to their viewpoint.
Many people are not hung up on the fact that the United States is importing a lot of German, Japanese and South Korean cars but the nationalism that was largely fed (at least in the past) but the fact that the United States was at war with those nations is still very well alive in the modern context. However, there are plenty of other people that are just focused on the price of goods and not on where they are made, so this is why many Americans buy a lot of goods from Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam (another nation that the United States has had a war with) and other Asian countries.
Another major concern for Hyundai, already mentioned before in this introduction, is union efforts to unionize the plant that Hyundai operates in the United States. Union membership has declined steadily in the United States over the last couple of decades but their efforts remain very concerted and strong and the United Auto Workers (UAW), which is the union that works within the automakers domestic to the United States, are certainly no exception to that rule. Indeed, when General Motors filed for bankruptcy, which was eventually taken over and managed by the United States federal government, the unions were able to win a lot more power and concessions while investors took much of the brunt of the bankruptcy.
Obviously, and especially given their union issues in South Korea, Hyundai wishes to avoid a repeat of that dynamic and has made every effort possible to keep their United States operations non-union in nature. They have weathered the anti-Asian (bigoted or just pro-American) storm as well as other cultural concerns to become one of the clear automotive company powers operating in the United States and they are also able to clearly claim (correctly and honestly) that their cars are manufacturing domestically rather than being put together in Asia or some other country/region and then imported into the United States. Even so, some cultural concerns and challenges still exist.
In a nutshell, the major issue that Hyundai has and will face is the fact that they originate in one country and operate massively in another country and there are a number of major cultural and societal differences between the two areas. Examples these massive differences include societal norms, cultural norms, the array (or lack thereof) between the two countries, language barriers, different standards relating to courtesy and respect, perceptions and attitudes towards foreign car makers, human resource practices, management practices, attitudes towards unions from both corporate/employee/societal/political sources, and so forth.
Even if one temporary excludes the fact that importing corporate operations and culture from one region of the world to another, the cultural and societal variations and differences that exist just within the United States (or even within a single state) can vary quite a bit and this can affect any of the dynamics listed above. Some cities sin the United States in particular typify the term “melting pot” as applied to the United States and these cities include Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco, just to name a few. This would perhaps explain why Hyundai chose Alabama as its United States plant side given that the area in question is a lot more culturally and societally homogenous than other areas in the United States. Its relative closeness to areas like the Northeast, Southeast and Midwestern United States is also probably a major plus for Hyundai as well.
Coming back to the United States culture (as varied as it tends to be) and its comparison and contrast to the South Korean culture, there are obviously a lot of differences and language is far from being the only dimensions that this can be applied to. Many of the common trends, behaviors and acceptable norms in South Korean culture may seem odd or even offensive to Americans and the same can certainly happen in reverse as well. The barriers in place are by no means limited to language or time zone differences between the two cultures. Normal and proper human resources and managerial practices can vary but even things like normal daily interactions can be tepid at best in certain situations, especially when speaking of interactions between people that were born or remain South Korean citizens and how/when they react with Americans and how that all plays out.
To put a fine point on the overall problem that has and must continue to be addressed by Hyundai, and as addressed in this report, is the fact that Hyundai must acclimate and customize its approach based on the fact that they are melding two entirely different cultures when they are corporately centered in the East and they operate extensively in a Western country like the United States. There are a lot of “sub-problems” that are part and parcel to this greater issue and those will be covered in the next section.
As noted in the introduction and the problem sections of this report, there are a number of sub-problems that are part of the cultural dynamic in play between Hyundai and the United States and those sub-problems will be covered in this section. The first major issue is the union concern that they must deal with. This is not something to uniue to the United States and, as noted before, is a concern that they had in their home country of South Korea as well. However, while the union activities in the United States are rarely violent, they can get rather dicey and can actually present great fiscal danger to union firms. A sterling example of this in motion was exemplified by the recent travails of Hostess, which many say was taken down as a corporation, at least in part, by unions refusing to give concessions that would allow Hostess to retain its solvency, at least for a time. In the end, one of the major unions refused to budge and the company was liquidated with the brand names being sold to other corporate entities with a lot of them vowing not to allow for union operations with the reopened factories and/or brands.
Another sub-problem, also as mentioned before, is the concept of “buy American” proponents and nationalism in general. Obviously, the amount of time that has passed since the Korean War has allowed the anti-Korean animosity to subside, even it was silly to begin with given that the United States was never at war with South Korea. After hitting a peak in the 1960’s, American car companies have had a litany of issues including the near-collapse of Chrysler in the 1970’s and the subsequent near-collapse of all three major United States automakers during the recent “Great Recession” of 2007-2009. General Motors (GM) and Chrysler had to be bailed out by the United States federal government. GM has often been referred to as “Government Motors” and Chrysler is now majority-owned by Italian automaker Fiat. Ford was the only major United States automaker that did not take a government bailout and/or allowed for a government-organized bankruptcy but they struggled mightily as well. These struggles, coupled with shoddy workmanship and/or styling, on part of all three automakers at one time or another has allowed foreign automakers manufacturing cars in the United States to make major inroads and Hyundai is far from being the only beneficiary of that with Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda doing quite well in addition to Hyundai.
Another sub-problem is the language and time zone differences, both of which present logistical issues with a firm that operates both in the East and the West at the same time. However, this is far from being a problem unique to Hyundai or even the automotive industry, but it must be dealt with nonetheless. A related concern is the different societal and cultural norms that are entirely different between the two regions and countries and how those two different cultures can interact and meld together to form a corporate culture of mutual respect and form a single profitable corporate entity.
Chapter II – Methodology
Data & Sources Used
The research for this report is a good blend between qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative data is useful to ascertain how Hyundai has fared with each of ventures. For example, Hyundai’s automotive sales performance can be compared between how they did when they made their cars in Korea, how they did when they were made in Canada, and how they have done since the Montgomery plant was opened. It can also be compared how Hyundai did before the Great Recession and how they have done since then or any other number of time horizons and windows.
The qualitative data is useful because cultural and social struggles including battles with unions, culture clashes, different corporate/HR practices and so forth cannot really be defined or explained using statistics alone and even those statistical trends have to be explained in qualitative terms because the numbers alone do not come close to telling the story as to what is going on and why. For example, those looking at car buying trends from 2005 to the present would almost see a sharp uptick in purchases of Hyundai and Kia cars, especially since 2007, and wonder why that might be. Some might point to the recession and suggest that it was because of people wanting to spend less on cars but that is not something that statistics alone would reveal or confirm. It could also be that anti-foreign car people were relaxing their viewpoints or it could be that people liked the design of newer Kia or Hyundai cars as compared to before or it could because of gas prices spiking so sharply from 2008 to the present and so on and so forth. The point is that there are entirely too many dimensions to just look at a sales repot and just easily identify what is going on because that is simply not rational, let alone true.
Even so, using qualitative data can be a bit dangerous and chaotic as it is much harder to make qualitative presumptions and theories that are based on reality and that can be definitively proven. However, it is not impossible and it is often entirely possible to show a correlation between a quantitative outcome and a qualitative theory through the use of surveys, interviews and so forth that can confirm the hypothesis at hand or disprove it. The key is to not make any brash or unfounded/unsupported assumptions and to make sure that the qualitative and quantitative results are both effectively and properly garnered and that they truly do point to the same single (or series) conclusions and outcomes.
This study and literature review was conducted using a number of broad or specific assumptions. The first of those assumptions is that scholarly community, those articles and research stemming from academic and scholarly/peer-reviewed journals are a good source of data for analyzing the questions within this study. This may seem like a non-starter but a lot of doubt is sometimes cast on the academic community due to their alleged disconnection and/or aloofness as to what is really going on in certain situations and dynamics and/or how reasonable it is to undertake certain efforts and tasks when running a business that is both global, national and local all at the same time depending on the situation. However, the author was care to select proper articles with proper viewpoints relative to this study and what was being researched.
Another assumption is that the broader performance and management structure as portrayed to the public is at least somewhat complete and accurate and not mishmash of random events and goings-on and/or an outright lie as compared to what is trying going on behind boardroom doors. Since major moves and changes with a public company are typically revealed to the public in some manner or form, this is assumed not to be an issue.
There are a couple of limitations that presented themselves. While they could have probably been overtaken if the study was given more time and/or more latitude, the author decide against going too deep down the proverbial rabbit hole. One such limitation was to conduct interviews with employees from both the United States and South Korea so as to ascertain just how well the strikingly different cultures meld together and how that manifests itself from a management and human resources perspective.
Another limitation, as partially noted in the assumptions, is that scholarly research about firms or practices is not always in line with reality in a lot of cases and some research and studies assign motives and patterns that are either not there or that paint an incomplete story of what is actually going on. This report will avoid that being an issue by keeping things at least fairly broad rather than drilling down too far and thus mucking up the conclusions that can be drawn.
Lastly, a limitation that exists is the potential (even if unproven) if biases about car manufacturers perhaps pervading into the research done relating to intercultural issues with firms that are foreign to the United States but yet operate prolifically in the United States rather than the other way around which is usually looked upon much more favorably. This was not assumed to be the truth and the true state of affairs, but it had to be kept in mind as a possibility no matter what since the chances of such a bias is obviously there. Politics and nationalism can stain anything and that includes scholarly research.
Chapter III — Hypothesis & Research Questions
The hypothesis that shall be offered for this report is as follows:
Hyundai, despite some definite and voluminous challenges relating to language, culture and distance, is able to effectively run a car company and build its brand within the United States
As for the research questions that are to be offered for this assignment, there are a couple.
1. Is Hyundai using the best strategies it can to avoid nationalistic marketing and PR campaigns that can be used to help Hyundai and Kia cars lose their luster?
2. How can Hyundai effectively manage and control the clear and present differences and variations between cultures in the United States vs. that of South Korea and vice versa?
3. How can Hyundai best manage potential or actual intercultural issues that it encounters during the daily course of its daily business?
Chapter IV – Literature Review
One interesting nugget that was find fairly early on in the research done for this study is that not all foreign-origin car companies that operate within the United States operate in the same general fashion. Indeed, a study done that was reviewed by the author of this report did a comparison of Hyundai and Toyota and made remarks and observations about symmetric and asymmetric leadership cultures within car companies. The leadership styles of the two firms were found to be very different when compared side by side but yet both companies take these distinctly different leadership styles and still mostly succeed. It speaks to the fact that even if a firm is foreign in origin to a market it operates in, there is no single leadership structure or style that is the end-all, be-all of operating a firm with a profit and in an effective way. To discover that this all holds true even when talking about a multi-national companies is an interesting observation for the study’s author to confirm (Shim & Steers, 2012).
Another study looked at Hyundai’s entry in the market of the Czech Republic. One of the main observations that the author of this report found fascinating was the statement that “the global is produced local.” This may not really hold true for Chinese goods being produced in China and imported around the world but it certainly holds true for Hyundai’s operations in areas like the Czech Republic and the United States (Macha & Drobik, 2010). Another treatise covered both Hyundai and Kia and it was noted that in 2008 there was a bit of a turf war between Kia and Hyundai in the aftermath of Hyundai getting a controlling stake in the company, which included the firing of Len Hunt, the CEO of Kia Motors up until that point, as well as Ian beavis, the marketing Vice President. It was the third major shakeup at Kia in as many years, but the executive musical chairs pretty much ended after that (“Culture Clash,” 2008). A similar happenstance occurred in the pre-Kia days as well (Greenberg, 2002). However, the culture fracas that occurred in 2008 was muted by future initiatives such as the one undergone even before the Kia/Hyundai spat in 2005 when Hyundai made it a point to tell employees that they should learn about other cultures. For example, employees in Seoul, South Korea were urged to learn about the culture and people of countries like India. Some employees were lucky enough to take field trips to learn about other cultures. As such, it’s clear that Hyundai was well-invested in multi-cultural ideals before their acquisition of Kia (Thorpe, 2005).
That all being said, it is fairly clear from the literature that leadership styles and culture in general is a lot different from South Korea to the United States. For example, it was observed in a 2008 article that leadership styles in South Korea are often much more authoritarian than in the United States. This can obviously present a potential issue as Hyundai operates extensively in both countries. At least in 2008, Hyundai’s leaders were apparently very much “do what I say or else” type of leaders (Welch, Kiley & Ihlwan, 2008). Hyundai’s succession planning, even as recently as 2010, has been subject to chaos (Pesek, 2010).
The aforementioned clash between Canadian and Korean culture that occurred when Korea tried its experiment in Canada prior to moving to Montgomery, Alabama is also confirmed via the literature (Sang & Young, 2005). A related article noted that the setback in Canada led to Hyundai starting with a fresh approach in India and, later on, the United States with much success (Lansbury, Seung-Ho & Chung-Sok, 2006). Hyundai has also acclimated and customized its cultural and leadership approach based on the subsidiary that is in question. For example, an article noted that Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited are ran rather differently even though they have the same corporate parent (Sang-Hun, 2006). As far back as 1996, Hyundai and other foreign car companies operating in the United States were lauded for their effective mobilizing of resources and effective cultural interactions with their American components (Lee, Lee, Kim & Lim, 1996).
Another study made it a point to observe that Hyundai has been able to operate under two entirely different cultural and societal environments but yet get strong results from all relative environments despite these differences rather than only succeeding in one or the other and/or trying the same approach at all locations. It is clear from these observations that Hyundai has been customizing its cultural and leadership approach, at least in part, based on cultural and societal differences rather than trying to fit a proverbial square peg in a round hole (Hyung & Jong-Sung, 2011). The United States strategy seems to be working so well that Hyundai is churning out cars at maximum capacity and there is now talk of building another United States factory, although nothing is confirmed thus far (“No New Plant,” 2012)
Chapter V — Discussion & Recommendations to Management
It is clear based on the results of the literature that Hyundai is doing a fairly good job of aligning themselves with the commonly held facets and parts of making a global business venture work for the betterment of all of its workers, both in the United States and in South Korea. Hyundai’s habit of not emphasizing its ties to South Korea within the United States is a good idea, both in theory and in real-world practice, because it emphasizes the fact that their focus is on building quality care and on building their brand. This is what investors are seeking and this is what Hyundai and its subsidiary Kia tend to deliver.
Even so, nationalism and pandering is prevalent in the United States marketplace and the pressure of things like unionization and “Buy American” are always on the horizon but Hyundai (at least thus far) has been able to avoid unionization of its plants and they are able to fall back on the fact that a lot of the people, tax revenues and what not that are involved with Hyundai’s and Kia’s United States operations stay within the United States due to reinvestments in the United States infrastructure as well as via the salaries and benefits paid to the employees that work for Hyundai and Kia within the United States in three states alone from their corporate operations not to mention all the Kia and Hyundai dealers that are able to make a living. Even if those dealers and parts sellers are not directly affiliated with Kia (and they are usually not), much of the same conditions and rules apply.
If there are some recommendations that the author of this report would offer to Hyundai, at least as it pertains to intercultural issues, there would be a total of three. First, the intentional avoidance of playing international politics with marketing and daily operations is a wise idea and it should continue. If another car company or organization (or even a politician) plays that card, they should respond by noting the facts above about Hyundai, albeit a non-U.S. firm, operating and paying a ton of people and manufacturing all of their cars within the United States rather than having the cars made elsewhere which they could probably do at much less expense.
Another recommendation is to open another plant using the patterns and practices used and currently being used at the Montgomery plant. Hyundai’s ability to grow will be stifled if this is not done. Either that or the Montgomery plant needs to be expanded to allow for more production output. Lastly, management needs to continue to market to the social and car-buying trends of the American public because that is who they are selling to. American-sold cars needs to be designed specifically catering to the American consumer. Both Hyundai and Kia are certainly doing that now through its design and marketing strategies, such as the hamster ads for Kia, and they need to continue.
Chapter VI – Conclusion
In closing, it is clear that Hyundai faces a litany of challenges and potentially damaging cultural and societal situations but they are currently weathering that storm quite well. Even so, the literature (both scholarly and non-scholarly) that exists out there confirms that they must remain on top of things and remain ever-vigilant about the cultural and societal traps that Hyundai can fall into if they are not careful.
As long as they continue to be careful and are cautious to not violate any social or cultural norms, either in their home country of South Korea or in the United States itself, they should do fine. When watching any Kia or Hyundai commercial, it is not readily apparent that they are a foreign-based car manufacturer. This is not to say that they are hiding this fact but they have no basic need to advertise what they are given that the majority of the car companies that sell cars in the United States are owned, in whole or in part, by foreign corporate entities and that actually includes American car company stalwart Chrysler at this time.
Even with that question does come up, Hyundai can point to the fact that their main source of completed cars come from a source that is domestic to the United States and that is something that lot of other foreign-source car companies cannot say. However, other foreign car companies like Toyota and Honda do much the same thing, or at least manufacturing in Western plants in countries like Canada or Mexico if they do not manufacture their cars in the United States.
All in all, it is clear that Hyundai is here to stay, at least for now, in the American automotive marketplace and much can be said about Kia as well. A lot can change from year to year and decade to decade but both Kia and Hyundai are most definitely on the upswing in terms of quality and sales and they should obviously do well for themselves if that trend continues in the future.
Culture Clash at Hyundai, Kia. (2008). Orange County Business Journal, 31(12), 51.
Greenberg, K. (2002). Culture Clash May Have Led to Weber Exit. Adweek Eastern
Edition, 43(33), 4.
Hyung Je, J., & Jong-Sung, Y. (2011). Transferring Production Systems: An
Institutionalist Account of Hyundai Motor Company in the United States. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(1), 41-73.
Lansbury, R.D., Seung-Ho, K., & Chung-Sok, S. (2006). Globalization and Employment
Relations in the Korean Auto Industry: The Case of the Hyundai Motor Company
in Korea, Canada and India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 12(2), 131-147.
Lee, D., Lee, K., Kim, J., & Lim, G. (1996). Executive Insights: The Korean Automobile
Industry – Challenges and Strategies in the Global Market. Journal of International Marketing, 4(4), 85-96.
Macha, P., & Drobik, T. (2010). Knowing One’s Place in the Era of Globalization: A
Case Study of the Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Czech Automobile Plant in Nosovice, Czech Republic. Annual of Language & Politics & Politics of Identity,
No new U.S. plant for maxed-out Hyundai. (2012). Quality, 51(1), 12-14.
Pesek, W. (2010). SUCCESSION ISSUES CAST a SHADOW OVER SOUTH
KOREA’S CORPORATE CULTURE. Guelph Mercury (on).
Sang Hoon, N., & Young Wie, H. (2005). ‘Lead and support’ versus ‘control
And command’: A case study of culture clash in a Canadian-Korean merger. Acta Koreana, 8(1), 37-48.
Sang-Hun, C. (2006, July 27). 2 Hyundai Companies Deal Far Differently With Labor.
New York Times. p. C4.
Shim, W., & Steers, R.M. (2012). Symmetric and asymmetric leadership cultures: A
comparative study of leadership and organizational culture at Hyundai and Toyota. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 581-591.
Thorpe, N. (2005). Employees take trips to understand other cultures. Automotive News, 79(6159), 24I.
Welch, D., Kiley, D., & Ihlwan, M. (2008). My way or the highway at Hyundai. New York,
New York, U.S.: McGraw-Hill Companies.
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.
Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality
Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.
We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.