The Resilient Enterprise case was part of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension. This dimension measured the extent to which different cultures socialized their members into accepting ambiguous situations and tolerating uncertainty. After received the news about the fire and one week delay, Nokia’s chief component-purchasing manager didn’t worry at all but still he communicated the news to other included their top troubleshooter. Nokia placed the affected parts on a special watch list and make daily phone call to check on the status of the situation. When the situation getting worse, Nokia quickly look for alternative sources for the parts. However, there are two parts that only came from Philips or its subcontractors. Nokia demanded to know details about other Philips plants; Nokia teams dug into the capacity of all Philips factories and try to squeeze as much extra spare capacity that available. With its extraordinary efforts and intensive collaboration with the supplier, Nokia able to avoid disruption and increased in market share by 3%. On the other hand, Ericsson treated the call from Philips as a conversation between technicians, which reflected on the consensual and laid-back nature of the Swedish culture. Employees at Ericsson didn’t even inform their bosses about the delay or look into the problem. Even when it was clear that the needed chips were significantly delayed, employees at Ericsson still didn’t communication the news to their bosses. By the time Ericsson realized the problem it was too late for them, even Philips couldn’t give them any help due to Nokia controlled all the available resources. The disruption was more than just a temporary hit for Ericsson, a year later they signed a deal with Sony for a joint venture. Although Nokia and Ericsson received the same call, but one took it more seriously and the other took it very lightly due to culture different. This lead to one able recovered and the other exited significant part of the market.