This case study examines the opportunities and obstacles facing American managers who oversee operations in Mexican manufacturing plants, particularly within the maquiladora industry. Drawing on de Forest (1994), the paper identifies core impediments to effective management: language barriers, entrenched cultural hierarchies, inherited power structures, and a worker mentality shaped by economic protectionism and a directive educational tradition. The paper then evaluates alternate courses of action — from top-down Americanization to worker-driven communication — ultimately recommending a culturally adaptive strategy that works through existing authority structures. By engaging the patriarchal company leader as an ally, American managers can introduce incremental change while respecting the social fabric that defines Mexican workplace culture.
This paper demonstrates applied case study analysis: the writer identifies a real-world management problem, situates it within a theoretical and cultural framework, and derives concrete recommendations from that framework. The use of direct quotation from a peer-reviewed management journal (Academy of Management Executive) to support cultural claims is a strong example of evidence-based argumentation in business case writing.
The paper follows a standard business case format: an introduction summarizing the scenario, an analysis section divided into the major issue and its cultural roots, a recommendations section offering both alternate and preferred courses of action with an implementation note, and a brief conclusion. This structure — problem, analysis, recommendation, implementation — mirrors the frameworks taught in management courses and is appropriate for undergraduate business writing.
This case study examines the need for American management in Mexico and the benefits and obstacles inherent in such a working relationship. More contemporary and dynamic management is needed throughout much of Mexico, and many firms desire it strongly. Many of the most successful companies recognize that the maquiladora industry must elevate its level of production in order to compete more versatilely within the world market and in relation to what can be produced within the United States. There needs to be a broader perspective of American managers acting as ambassadors of goodwill, along with a heightened sense of responsibility in that role.
The major issue in this case is that there are very real and formidable challenges associated with American managers taking over a plant in Mexico. A primary obstacle is the absence of a shared language, compounded by differing cultural norms and standards. These differences make many of the elements necessary to run a successful company quite difficult to achieve. The overall mentality with which companies are viewed and treated also creates a significant stumbling block to managerial success.
Economic protectionism and a directive, French-influenced educational system have fostered a particular workplace mindset. As de Forest (1994) observes, "In comparison with U.S. workers, Mexican workers may not follow through on tasks, they tend to be activity oriented rather than problem solvers and appear to assume that companies exist to provide jobs rather than to make a profit." The central problem, therefore, is the mentality and learned behaviors surrounding work and employment at a major company — behaviors that act as substantial impediments to organizational success and to the achievement of meaningful goals.
As noted above, the educational and economic systems already in place contribute to an underwhelming view of work in Mexico. There is also a more nuanced cultural dynamic at work that creates metaphorical red tape for outsiders who enter the field hoping to accomplish tasks on a different timeline and with a different mindset. Mexican firms function in many ways as institutions — much like the government, the church, and broader society. Within these institutions, a firm hierarchy is in place. While structure can benefit companies, an excessive degree of rigidity can be truly damaging to organizational success.
There is largely an unequal distribution of power, which can result in the person running a given company holding an excess of authority. This is particularly problematic when power is inherited rather than earned, or when comparable influence can be gained through personal friendships and favors (de Forest, 1994). As de Forest (1994) notes, "Most top managers balance competing interests through consensus rather than engaging in open competition. Mexican firms tend to reward submission, direction, and loyal personal service — personal service — to the person in authority." This dynamic exemplifies how tradition shapes culture, which in turn shapes and solidifies current and future values, creating a cycle in which the present and the future replicate the past.
This self-perpetuating cycle is particularly problematic because it sustains fixed expectations about how things are done, what roles are created, and what objectives are set. It can prevent a company from thriving, hinder the development of workers, and stunt overall team cohesiveness. It also reinforces the institutional rigidity that characterizes so many organizations in Mexico, making it even more challenging for outsiders to engage in meaningful change.
Companies in Mexico still offer a great deal of potential to outside industry. They provide compelling products, workers often enjoy collaborating with one another, and there is frequently a strong sense of company loyalty from workers to the firm. However, certain pillars of structural rigidity must be dismantled in order for organizational success to be achieved. These changes can best be made by harnessing the power and influence of the company leader within Mexico's distinct management culture.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.