Accumulative Report

THE PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE OF BINH DUONG PROVINCE

THUDAUMOT UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING
🙢🕮🙠

Accumulative Report
Title:
Business Negotiation Differences
Between Britain/America and
Vietnam

Student: Vương Diệu Khang Code: 2222202010783

Course: Mini project: British - American work styles and communication (Dự án nhỏ:
Phong cách làm việc và giao tiếp Anh - Mỹ)

Class: NNANO39

Lecturer: Nguyễn Xuân Hồng

--- Bình Dương, 2025---

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 1

 Accumulative Report

PHIẾU CHẤM
Điểm GIÁM KHẢO 1 GIÁM KHẢO 2

Bằng số Bằng chữ

Tiêu chí Tốt Khá Trung bình Kém Điểm số

100% 75% 50% 0%
GK1 GK2

Liên quan trực tiếp Khá liên quan Liên quan từ xa Hoàn toàn
không liên quan
Chủ đề

0.75-1 điểm 0.6-0,75 điểm 0.3-0,5 điểm 0-0.25 điểm

Tổ chức tốt; sắp Có tổ chức, nhưng Một số phần lan Tổ chức kém;
xếp hợp lý, phát phát triển chưa man; bắt đầu và không tiến triển
triển logic; bố cục logic, cảm giác kết thúc không rõ logic; bắt đầu
rõ ràng chỉ có phần bắt ràng và kết thúc mơ
Bố cục đầu và kết thúc hồ

2-2,5 điểm 1.4-2 điểm 0.7-1.3 điểm 0-0.6 điểm

Chất Hỗ trợ chi tiết cụ Một số chi tiết Chi tiết có phần Không thể tìm
lượng thể theo chủ đề không hỗ trợ cho sơ sài. Không hỗ thấy chi tiết cụ
thông phần chủ đề trợ chủ đề thể
tin và
2-2,5 điểm 1.4-2 điểm 0.7-1.3 điểm 0-0.6 điểm
độ thú
vị

Không có lỗi Chỉ một hoặc hai Nhiều hơn hai lỗi Nhiều lỗi gây
Lỗi viết lỗi khó hiểu
câu
1.6-2 điểm 1.1-1.5 điểm 0,6-1 điểm 0-0.5 điểm

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 2

Accumulative Report

Trích dẫn và trình Trích dẫn và trình Trích dẫn và trình Trích dẫn và
bày tài liệu tham bày tài liệu tham bày tài liệu tham trình bày tài liệu
khảo, hình vẽ, bảng, khảo, hình vẽ, bảng, khảo đúng quy tham khảo không
Trích
biểu rõ ràng và đúng biểu đúng quy định định nhưng chưa rõ đúng quy định,
dẫn và
quy định nhưng một số chỗ ràng không rõ ràng.
trình chưa rõ ràng.
bày
TLTK
1.6-2 điểm 1.1-1.5 điểm 0,6-1 điểm 0-0.5 điểm

ĐIỂM TỔNG CÁ NHÂN

ĐIỂM THỐNG NHẤT

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 3

Accumulative Report

Content
Page
Chapter I: Introduction 5
Chapter II: Understanding the Cultural Blueprint 6
2.1 Background Concepts: The Language of Business 6
2.1.1 Definition of Business Communication: More Than Just Words 7
2.1.2 Common Styles of Communication: A Cultural Lens 7
2.2 Three main differences: Britain/America vs. Vietnam 10
a. The Direct Line vs. The Subtle Path: Explicitness vs. Nuance 10
b. Getting Down to Business vs. Building Bonds First 11
c. Words Alone vs. The Full Picture 11
Chapter III: Conclusion: Building Bridges, Not Walls 12
References 13
Appendix

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 4

Accumulative Report

Chapter I: Introduction

In today's globalized business environment, effective communication across cultures is

paramount. As Richard D. Lewis highlights in When Cultures Collide, understanding
different cultural profiles is essential because "cultures... influence behaviour in a manner
which is both subtle and profound" (Lewis, 2006). These subtle yet profound influences
shape everything from negotiation tactics to team dynamics, management styles to
marketing approaches. Misunderstandings stemming from differing communication
styles can impede collaboration, negotiation, and overall business success (Zhang, 2023).
John Mole, exploring European business nuances in Mind Your Manners, echoes this
sentiment, reminding us that while shared human goals exist, "it is the differences that
cause the friction" in the practicalities of international business interactions (Mole, 2003).
Ignoring these differences can lead to significant challenges in the global marketplace.

This report focuses specifically on the fascinating, and sometimes challenging,

communication dynamics between two distinct cultural spheres: the typically direct, task-
oriented approaches often found in Britain and America (Lewis, 2006), and the more
relationship-focused, high-context style prevalent in Vietnam (Maison Office, n.d.;
Lewis, 2006). This comparison is increasingly relevant as economic ties strengthen and
collaborations grow between these regions, particularly within frameworks like ASEAN
where the UK and US engage with Vietnam (Council on Geostrategy, 2021). Why do
seemingly simple conversations sometimes lead to confusion? Why might a negotiation
pace feel drastically different? What unspoken rules govern trust-building?

To explore these questions, we will delve into the fundamental principles of cross-
cultural communication. We'll draw insights from established models, like Lewis's
categorization of cultures into Linear-active, Multi-active, and Reactive types (Lewis,
2006), and Hall's concepts of High and Low Context (discussed in Lewis, 2006; United
Language Group, n.d.). We'll consider Mole's observations on European business
etiquette (Mole, 2003), many principles of which resonate more broadly, and integrate
findings from contemporary research on effective communication techniques in diverse
settings (Zhang, 2023). Our focus will be on unpacking three significant areas where
communication styles often diverge between the British/American context and the
Vietnamese one:

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 5

Accumulative Report

1. The prevailing preference for direct, explicit language, where meaning is

expected to be clearly stated (common in UK/US) versus a reliance on
indirectness, context, and nuance (characteristic of Vietnam) (Lewis, 2006;
Commisceo Global, n.d.; The Sentry, 2023).
2. The emphasis on accomplishing the task first, often prioritizing efficiency and
results (typical in UK/US) versus the fundamental necessity of building personal
relationships and establishing trust beforehand (essential in Vietnam) (Lewis,
2006; Maison Office, n.d.; Tubudd, 2023).
3. The strong reliance on verbal and written messages as the primary carriers of
meaning (UK/US) compared to a more holistic approach in Vietnam that heavily
incorporates non-verbal cues, the surrounding context, and even the strategic
use of silence (Lewis, 2006; Vietnam Briefing, 2021; The Sentry, 2023).

By examining these key differences in detail, referencing insights from When Cultures
Collide (Lewis, 2006), Mind Your Manners (Mole, 2003), Addressing Cultural
Differences (Zhang, 2023), and supplementary research, this report aims to provide a
clearer understanding and practical insights. It's intended for professionals, students, or
anyone interested in navigating the exciting, yet intricate, landscape of British/American-
Vietnamese business interactions. The goal extends beyond merely highlighting
differences; it seeks to foster the empathy and understanding needed to build robust
bridges of effective communication.

Chapter II: Understanding the Cultural Blueprint

2.1 Background Concepts: The Language of Business

Before diving into the specific contrasts between Britain/America and Vietnam, it's
helpful to establish a foundational understanding of business communication itself and
the common frameworks used to analyze cultural variations in communication styles.

2.1.1 Business Communication: More Than Just Words At its core, business
communication is the process of sharing information, ideas, and feedback both internally
(among colleagues, teams, departments) and externally (with clients, partners, suppliers,
the public) to achieve organizational goals (Zhang, 2023). This exchange involves

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 6

Accumulative Report

creating shared meaning, fostering collaboration, enabling decision-making, solving

problems, and building professional relationships. It operates through various channels –
face-to-face, phone, email, reports, presentations, etc. (Pressbooks, n.d.). However,
effective communication occurs only when the receiver understands the message largely
as the sender intended (Zhang, 2023). Culture plays a pivotal role, influencing language
choice, interpretation of messages, politeness norms, argument structure, feedback styles,
and the amount of information deemed necessary to share explicitly (Lewis, 2006; Mole,
2003).

2.1.2 Decoding Communication Styles: A Cultural Lens Scholars have developed

several models to help us understand patterns in cultural communication tendencies.

• High-Context vs. Low-Context Cultures (Edward T. Hall): This framework

distinguishes how much meaning comes from explicit words versus shared context
(Lewis, 2006; United Language Group, n.d.).
o Low-Context Cultures: (e.g., US, UK, Germany, Scandinavia) rely on
explicit, direct verbal communication. Clarity and precision are valued
(Lewis, 2006; United Language Group, n.d.). Meaning is primarily in the
words.
o High-Context Cultures: (e.g., Vietnam, Japan, China, Arab nations) rely
more on shared background, non-verbal cues, and relationships. Messages
are often implicit, valuing harmony and face-saving (Lewis, 2006; United
Language Group, n.d.; The Sentry, 2023).
• Direct vs. Indirect Communication: Linked to context, this refers to how
directly intentions are stated (Lewis, 2006).
o Direct Styles: (e.g., US) Value clarity, honesty, saying what you mean
(Lewis, 2006). Can be seen as blunt.
o Indirect Styles: (e.g., Vietnam, UK to some extent) Use hints, suggestions,
roundabout phrasing to maintain politeness, harmony, and save face
(Lewis, 2006; Commisceo Global, n.d.; VJOL, n.d.). British style can mix
directness with understatement (Commisceo Global, n.d.; Mole, 2003).
• Relationship vs. Task Orientation: Describes the primary focus when initiating
business (Lewis, 2006; Mole, 2003).

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 7

Accumulative Report

o Task-Oriented Cultures: (e.g., US, UK, Northern Europe) Focus on the

business objective first; efficiency and results are key (Lewis, 2006; Mole,
2003). Relationships may follow.
o Relationship-Oriented Cultures: (e.g., Vietnam, Southern Europe, Asia)
Require establishing trust and rapport first through socializing and time
investment (Lewis, 2006; Mole, 2003; Maison Office, n.d.). Networks are
vital (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
• Linear-Active, Multi-Active, and Reactive Cultures (Richard D. Lewis): This
model adds dimensions of time, planning, and interaction (Lewis, 2006).
o Linear-Active: (e.g., US, UK, Germany) Value logic, facts, planning, doing
one thing at a time, task-oriented (Lewis, 2006).
o Multi-Active: (e.g., Italy, Latin America) Relationship-oriented, flexible
with time, do many things at once, expressive communication (Lewis,
2006).
o Reactive: (e.g., Vietnam, China, Japan) Prioritize harmony, listen carefully
before reacting, communicate indirectly, value subtle cues (Lewis, 2006).

Understanding these frameworks helps appreciate communication's cultural tapestry.

Popular culture, particularly film, often dramatizes these dynamics. (Note: Movie
examples below are drawn from popular film depictions identified via web search,
illustrating general concepts).

Primary
Name of Plot Phase Business
Illustrative Dynamic
Film Depicted Relationship
Aspect Focus
Young
Mentor (Gekko) and protégé (Bud
Wall Street broker's rise
Individuals Fox) relationship; individual greed vs.
(1987) and fall under
ethics.
mentor
Partnership formation & breakdown
The Social Founding &
Individuals & (Zuckerberg, Saverin, Winklevoss);
Network early growth
Groups individual vision vs. team/investor
(2010) of Facebook
conflict.

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 8

Accumulative Report

McDonald's
The Partnership turned sour (Ray Kroc vs.
nationwide Individuals &
Founder McDonald brothers); individual
expansion Companies
(2016) ambition driving corporate takeover.
phase
Glengarry Duration of a Intense competition and conflict
Groups &
Glen Ross high-pressure within a sales team; individual
Individuals
(1992) sales contest survival tactics.
Period of Depicts corporate culture, employee
Office Space employee Groups & disengagement, and dysfunctional
(1999) disengagement Companies team/management dynamics within a
& rebellion company.
Agent starting
Jerry Focuses on building trust and
his own
Maguire Individuals personal relationships (agent-client)
independent
(1996) vs. corporate scale.
agency
An individual advocate taking on a
Erin Investigation Individuals
large corporation over ethical/legal
Brockovich & legal case vs.
issues impacting a community
(2000) against PG&E Companies
(group).
Implementatio Explores the human impact of
Up in the n of remote Individuals & corporate restructuring and the clash
Air (2009) firing Companies between traditional methods and new
procedures efficiency drives.

These cinematic examples reflect real-world business dynamics influenced by

communication styles and relationship priorities.

2.2 Three Key Differences: Britain/America vs. Vietnam

Let's explore the three chosen communication differences in more detail.

a. The Direct Line vs. The Subtle Path: Explicitness vs. Nuance

This difference stems from low-context versus high-context orientations (Lewis, 2006;
United Language Group, n.d.).

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 9

Accumulative Report

• Britain/America (Low Context/Linear-Active Tendencies): Prioritizes clarity,

efficiency, and explicit meaning (Lewis, 2006). Ambiguity is often seen
negatively (United Language Group, n.d.). Instructions are expected to be clear,
feedback direct (though politeness varies), and "no" stated plainly (Lewis, 2006).
British style may use more understatement but aims for clarity (Commisceo
Global, n.d.; Mole, 2003). Open voicing of opinions is generally acceptable.
Detailed contracts are crucial (Lewis, 2006). This style is seen as efficient and
transparent but can be perceived as blunt or impersonal by high-context cultures
(Lewis, 2006).
• Vietnam (High Context/Reactive Tendencies): Communication emphasizes
harmony and protecting 'face' (thể diện) (The Sentry, 2023; Tubudd, 2023; Maison
Office, n.d.). Direct confrontation or criticism is avoided (The Sentry, 2023).
Messages are often indirect, using hints and context (Lewis, 2006; VJOL, n.d.). A
hesitant "yes" may mean "no" (Lewis, 2006). Silence can indicate disagreement or
contemplation (Vietnam Briefing, 2021). Politeness and respecting hierarchy are
crucial (The Sentry, 2023; Maison Office, n.d.). Relationships and shared
understanding underpin agreements, alongside contracts (Maison Office, n.d.).
This style, seen as respectful internally, can appear vague or slow to low-context
cultures (Lewis, 2006). Understanding face-saving is critical (Tubudd, 2023; The
Sentry, 2023).

b. Getting Down to Business vs. Building Bonds First: Task vs. Relationship

This reflects differing priorities in establishing business connections (Lewis, 2006; Mole,
2003).

• Britain/America (Task-Focused/Linear-Active): The primary goal is achieving

the objective efficiently (Lewis, 2006; Mole, 2003). Meetings often focus quickly
on business matters. Partners are often chosen based on competence and proposals
(Lewis, 2006). Trust is often built through successful task completion and
contracts (Mole, 2003). Personal rapport is valued but not always a prerequisite
(Lewis, 2006). The approach can feel transactional initially.
• Vietnam (Relationship-Focused/High Context): Building personal trust and
rapport is essential before substantive business (Maison Office, n.d.; Tubudd,
2023; Lewis, 2006). Initial interactions involve socializing and getting to know

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 10

Accumulative Report

partners personally (Maison Office, n.d.; The Sentry, 2023). Trust is earned
through sincerity, respect, reliability over time (Maison Office, n.d.; Talentnet
Vietnam, 2023). Introductions and networks ('quan hệ') are vital (Cambridge
University Press, 2021; Maison Office, n.d.). Patience is necessary; rushing is
counterproductive (Maison Office, n.d.; Lewis, 2006). The relationship strength
often underpins the commitment (Maison Office, n.d.).

c. Words Alone vs. The Full Picture: Verbal Emphasis vs. Holistic Cues

This highlights differing weights given to communication channels (Lewis, 2006).

• Britain/America (Verbal/Written Emphasis): Primary meaning is carried by

spoken and written words (Lewis, 2006). Clarity and precision in language are
key. Written communication (emails, contracts) holds significant weight
(Pressbooks, n.d.; Lewis, 2006). Non-verbal cues are secondary to the explicit
verbal message (Lewis, 2006).
• Vietnam (Holistic - Verbal, Non-Verbal, Silence): Communication includes
words, non-verbal cues, context, and silence (Lewis, 2006). Tone, expressions,
gestures carry weight (The Sentry, 2023). Etiquette like business card exchange
(The Sentry, 2023) and respectful address signals respect. Silence is meaningful –
indicating thought, disagreement, or respect (Vietnam Briefing, 2021; Lewis,
2006). Face-to-face meetings are often preferred for important discussions (The
Sentry, 2023) as they allow exchange of the full spectrum of cues (Lewis, 2006).
Strong listening skills are highly valued (Lewis, 2006).

Chapter III: Conclusion: Building Bridges, Not Walls

Navigating international business between Britain/America and Vietnam requires

understanding profoundly different communication styles rooted in distinct cultural
values (Lewis, 2006; Mole, 2003). The contrasts are significant: British/American
preference often leans towards direct, explicit, task-focused communication reliant on
verbal/written word, while the Vietnamese approach typically favors indirect,
nuanced, relationship-centric communication where context, non-verbals, face-

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 11

Accumulative Report

saving, and silence are crucial (Lewis, 2006; Maison Office, n.d.; Vietnam Briefing,
2021; The Sentry, 2023).

Recognizing these patterns is the first step (Zhang, 2023). Successful partnerships require
conscious effort and adaptation (Lewis, 2006; Zhang, 2023). For Western professionals,
this means cultivating patience, investing time in relationship-building (Maison Office,
n.d.), learning to interpret indirect cues and silence (Vietnam Briefing, 2021; Lewis,
2006), and developing sensitivity towards 'face' (Tubudd, 2023; The Sentry, 2023). For
Vietnamese professionals, adaptation might involve adjusting to more directness and a
faster pace, providing more explicit information, and understanding that directness isn't
usually intended disrespectfully (Lewis, 2006).

Bridging the gap requires empathy, active listening, seeking clarification, and assuming
positive intent (Zhang, 2023; Lewis, 2006). Moving beyond stereotypes and engaging
with individuals is key (Mole, 2003). Frameworks from Hall, Lewis, and Mole provide
maps, but success depends on mindful application and willingness to learn (Lewis, 2006;
Mole, 2003). By embracing cultural curiosity and adapting communication (Zhang,
2023), potential friction can become a foundation for strong global partnerships.

References

1. Mole, J. (2003). Mind Your Manners: Managing Business Cultures in the New
Global Europe (3rd ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
2. Lewis, R. D. (2006). When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures (3rd ed.).
Nicholas Brealey International.
3. Zhang, C. (2023). Addressing Cultural Differences: Effective Communication
Techniques in Complex Organization. Academic Journal of Management and
Social Sciences, 5(3), 30-36.
4. Cambridge University Press. (2021, June 11). Networking in Weak Institutions:
When Is It Good for Small Business Investment? The Case of Vietnam.
Management and Organization Review. Retrieved from
https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
5. Commisceo Global. (n.d.). What's the British Communication Style? Retrieved
from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 12

Accumulative Report

6. Council on Geostrategy. (2021, October 27). Enhancing British-Vietnamese

relations in a more competitive era. Retrieved from
https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
7. Maison Office. (n.d.). Business Culture in Vietnam: Guide for Foreigners (2025).
Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
8. Pressbooks. (n.d.). Oral versus Written Communication – Business Writing:
Theory, Process, and Application. Retrieved from
https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
9. Talentnet Vietnam. (2023, November 9). The Importance of Trust in The
Workplace. Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
10. The Sentry. (2023, November 22). Muôn màu văn hóa kinh doanh tại Việt Nam.
Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
11. The Sentry. (2023, November 22). Navigating the Nuances of Vietnam Business
Culture [2025]. Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
12. Tubudd. (2023, April 14). Cultural factors that affect business activities in
Vietnam. Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
13. United Language Group. (n.d.). Communicating in High Context vs. Low Context
Cultures. Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
14. Vietnam Briefing. (2021, April 23). Business Etiquette in Vietnam - Customs and
Tips. Retrieved from https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for
15. VJOL (Vietnam Journals Online). (n.d.). DIRECTNESS AND INDIRECTNESS IN
MAKING REQUESTS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMSESE. Retrieved from
https://ludwig.guru/s/previously+provided+for

Vuong Dieu Khang Page 13