Sumários
22 Outubro 2026, 14:30
•
Govindraj Dempo
Session 1 Revision
Revision of the course syllabus and key concepts in preparation for the examination.
Session 2 Questions and answers
An opportunity for students to raise questions and seek clarification on the course content.
Advance examination information
· Duration: 2 hours.
· Paper structure: Four syllabus questions and one case study.
· Response format: Handwritten.
· Examination conditions: Closed book.
Additional support requirements
Students with additional learning or support requirements must consult the lecturer in person to discuss their needs.
Learning objectives
· Consolidate understanding of the syllabus and its key concepts.
· Identify questions and seek clarification before the examination.
· Understand the examination structure, format and conditions.
20 Outubro 2026, 14:30
•
Govindraj Dempo
Session 1 Management context in India
Examination of India's management context using Hofstede and Gesteland, with a focus on authority, teamwork, communication, negotiation and operating conditions. Comparative discussion connects India with the USA, Germany, Japan and the preceding Brazil case.
Session 2 Tata Starbucks in India
Application of these concepts to the Tata Starbucks case, examining partnership governance, global standards, regional adaptation, customer occasions and the evidence needed to support growth decisions.
Class activity: Groups of three or four use the worksheet on page 6 of the student handout to prepare a one-page recommendation and a short oral explanation, following the instructions given in class. The hypothetical numerical exercise on page 7 is undertaken as directed.
Preparation
Review Hofstede and Gesteland and read the case on page 4 of the student handout. Prepare one example of a global standard, one possible local adaptation and one question about the Tata-Starbucks partnership.
Required reading
Das, D., Eisner, A. B. and Korn, H. J. (2015), Tata Starbucks: How to Brew a Sustainable Blend for India, pp. 43-56.
Learning objectives
Apply Hofstede and Gesteland to management practices in India and comparisons across countries.
Evaluate partnership governance and the balance between global standards and local adaptation.
Develop and explain a recommendation supported by case evidence and the directed numerical exercise.
15 Outubro 2026, 14:30
•
Govindraj Dempo
Class overview. The class combined presentation and debate with a practical observation exercise on public university campus services in Lisbon. Students developed oral argument, comparative analysis, evidence collection, and concise professional reporting.
First session: Presentation and debate
Students presented their group analysis and participated in a structured debate. They were expected to explain their evidence, compare alternative viewpoints, respond to questions, and defend a practical recommendation using comparative-management concepts.
Teaching focus
Clear presentation of the management issue, evidence and recommendation.
Respectful challenge of competing interpretations and recognition of implementation risks.
Balanced team participation and concise responses during debate.
Second session: Campus field practical
Teams of three or four examined one public service or shared space at the ISCTE main campus in Lisbon. The 45-minute exercise required neutral observation, comparative management analysis, and one realistic improvement for international users.
Stage | Time | Required activity |
Observe | 15 min | Select one service touchpoint and record three neutral facts. |
Analyse | 10 min | Identify one support and one difficulty; apply one Hofstede and one Gesteland dimension. |
Check | 5 min | Identify one non-cultural explanation, such as staffing, technology, language or rules. |
Design | 15 min | Propose one common rule, country adaptations, one improvement and one measurable result. |
Fieldwork rules
Observe public areas only and do not interrupt normal campus activity.
Do not photograph, record, or identify individuals, and do not infer anyone's nationality or culture.
Speak to staff or students only with instructor approval and the person's clear consent.
Use cultural frameworks as hypotheses and test them against operational explanations.
Moodle practical submission
Requirement | Specification |
Upload and format | Moodle Practical's Folder; one PDF or DOC file per group |
Length and typography | Maximum one A4 page; approximately 300 to 400 words; Times New Roman, 12 point |
Content and identification | Observation, Analysis and Proposal; every member's full name and student number |
File name | GroupNumber CampusServiceAudit |
Assessment and learning outcomes
Assessment. Evidence: 3 marks; Hofstede and Gesteland frameworks: 4 marks; recommendations: 2 marks; communication: 1 mark. Outcomes. Collect neutral evidence; distinguish cultural hypotheses from operational factors; recommend and measure a practical adaptation; and communicate findings orally and in a concise written submission.
13 Outubro 2026, 14:30
•
Govindraj Dempo
Class overview. The class combined an individual handwritten quiz with collaborative analysis and presentation of a Japanese case study. The two sessions assessed individual understanding, academic integrity, comparative-management application, teamwork and oral communication.
First session Quiz submission
Students completed the quiz by hand on paper. They were required to write their full name and student ID clearly on the answer sheets and tick the Delivery options checkbox when submitting. The use of AI or any AI-assisted tool was strictly prohibited.
Teaching and assessment focus
Individual application of course concepts under supervised assessment conditions.
Clear identification, complete submission and compliance with academic-integrity requirements.
Second session Japanese case study
Students worked in groups to analyse the Japanese case study and present their conclusions. Each group coordinated its analysis, identified the main management issues and prepared to explain and defend its recommendations during the relevant session.
Group organisation
Group | Members | Activity |
USA | 11 | Japanese case analysis using the assigned United States perspective. |
EU1 | 9 | Japanese case analysis using the first European perspective. |
EU2 | 9 | Japanese case analysis using the second European perspective. |
Discussion themes
The central decision, stakeholders, constraints and evidence presented in the case.
Japanese management practices and the organisational and institutional context.
Comparison with United States and European management perspectives.
The strengths, risks and implementation requirements of each recommendation, without cultural stereotyping.
Learning outcomes
Apply comparative-management concepts to a practical business case.
Compare Japanese management approaches with United States and European perspectives.
Develop an evidence-based recommendation with clear implementation considerations.
Work effectively in a group and present conclusions clearly.
Overall teaching conclusion
The session balanced individual assessment with collaborative learning. The handwritten quiz tested each student's understanding and responsibility for academic integrity, while the Japanese case study required students to apply comparative-management concepts, evaluate alternative perspectives, and communicate a practical group recommendation.
Group allocation note. This summary interprets the supplied allocation as USA - 11 members, EU1 - 9 members and EU2 - 9 members.
8 Outubro 2026, 14:30
•
Govindraj Dempo
Session 1 — Brazil’s Business and Management Context
Comparative study of Brazil’s business environment, communication practices, professional relationships, leadership and decision-making. Application of Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions and Gesteland’s framework to examine authority, trust, formality, time orientation and communication.
Comparisons with the USA, Germany and Japan support discussion of managerial adaptation. The analysis distinguishes cultural influences from institutional, market and organisational factors, including regulation, infrastructure, skills, operating capability and accountability.
A Germany–Brazil supplier mini-case examines a misunderstanding between an equipment supplier and a café operator. The exercise focuses on separating facts from assumptions, considering cultural and non-cultural explanations, clarifying approval authority and establishing written commitments. Brazil_Lecture_Slides.pdf
Session 2 — Starbucks in Brazil
Application of comparative management concepts through the Starbucks in Brazil case, focusing on the balance between global standards and local adaptation.
The case examines product localisation, customer needs, outlet formats, operating-partner governance and the allocation of responsibilities between headquarters, the Brazilian operator and store managers. Strategic discussion compares consolidation, rapid expansion and phased local pilots, using case evidence, operating risks and measurable performance criteria. Brazil_Student_Handout.pdf
Student Activities
- Complete a decision matrix identifying common standards, local adaptations and decision owners.
- Prepare a one-page group recommendation, in groups of three or four, with a short oral explanation.
- Apply one Hofstede concept and one Gesteland dimension, consider an alternative explanation, and propose actions, responsibilities, controls and performance measures.
- Use hypothetical store data to calculate revenue, contribution, operating result and break-even sales, including the effect of a 10% reduction in daily orders. Brazil_Student_Handout.pdf
Learning Objectives
Develop the ability to apply cultural frameworks to practical decisions, distinguish evidence from assumptions, evaluate alternative explanations, and recommend locally appropriate management actions supported by clear accountability and sound operating economics.
