Cross-Cultural Communication and Collaboration at BRP Finland: case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis was commissioned by BRP Finland to answer the research question: How do cultural differences affect communication and collaboration between Finnish employees and their remote managers from different cultural backgrounds at BRP Finland, and how can these challenges be addressed? To support the exploration of this main question, three sub-questions were used: 1. What cultural differences are most relevant to the interaction between Finnish employees and their remote managers from Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland, based on Hofstede’s framework? 2. What best practices can BRP Finland learn from managers in Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland? 3. What strategies can help Finnish employees navigate cultural differences in communication and collaboration with their remote managers? The theoretical framework of the study was Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, and the research was conducted as a qualitative case study. The study took place in the spring of 2025, with data collected through semi-structured interviews. The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. The findings showed that, although employees were generally satisfied with their current situation, challenges emerged due to the Finnish direct and low-context communication style, low-hierarchy approach, and tendency to avoid uncertainty. In addition, Finnish employees typically did not emphasize their achievements, which could be interpreted abroad as a lack of ambition or reluctance to advance in their careers. Based on the findings, suggestions for development were provided. In addition, a separate guidebook for internal use at BRP Finland Ltd. was created to support employees in recognizing cultural differences and developing their cross-cultural competencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".