Agents2Change - Smart Business Thinking

Getting to grips with prioritisation

Prioritisation is a great concept when you have the space and time to do it.  The trouble for busy managers and executives is that they often don’t.  They find that their already stretched capacity continues to be spread thinner and thinner, as the responsibilities and priorities increase.  It can become a vicious circle that is very difficult to break.

 

“Jack had a demanding role as head of operations for a global manufacturing group.  He had always been good a delegating and getting things done and had worked his way up from junior management to his current role and was good at thriving under pressure and delivering against all the odds.

Lately however the demands of his peers and his directors in this matrixed organisation were becoming overwhelming.  Everything was urgent; every was a 'Strategic' initiative with a Board member behind it; and saying no was just not an option.  As a result, he and his team felt like they were working their way into the ground.”

 

Jack’s situation is not unusual, and in modern matrixed organisations, competing priorities are often evident.  But prioritisation needs two key levers in order to be most effective.  

1. It needs to be clearly linked to the company strategy.  When new lines of business or new sectors are targeted, then efforts need to be justified in terms of how they support this strategy.
2. Efforts must show a relationship to the bottom line. Strategic initiatives are almost always linked to growth, but it's not unusual for senior managers to lose sight of this; and the relationship of their teams in delivering it.  At the end of the day, or your performance year;  you will be measured as much by business performance as you will on any other target that has been set.

 

Some tips to help you with prioritisations include: 

• Ensure that your annual performance targets are clear and comprehensive.  They become your employment contract for the year ahead, so a clear and well documented set of priorities will help you when the pressure starts to build.
• Where there are priority conflicts, such as competing department goals, escalate this through the hierarchy for resolution  (up to the board if necessary) rather than getting in the cross fire with peers or functional directors.
• Always keep the consequences of non-delivery clear in your mind.  Some targets will have minimal impact, whilst others may have a major impact further down the line. Consider the inter-connectivity of some priorities, which may not be your immediate concern, but will have a major impact for other areas of the business further down the line.  If it becomes a major resource drain on your area, ensure it gets included in your annual targets.

 

If you would like to hear more about how our coaching packages can help you to become better at prioritising, contact us at:  [email protected], for a free, no obligation chat.

 

We can also provide public speaking engagements on the subject of prioritisation.  Contact us at:  [email protected]

Authentic Leaders Only - Apply Within

Authenticity is one of those words that is bandied around quite a lot these days, almost to the point where it loses credibility.  But before you are tempted to throw it in the ‘new age mumbo jumbo’ bucket, let’s just take a few minutes to consider its relevance for the modern business leader.

 

Today’s leaders are under constant pressure to perform, to engage their staff and to communicate to their shareholders.  It is far greater than anything that was experienced by leaders of the last century.  With the global economic crisis, this pressure has intensified considerably, as we see the fall of major corporations like Lehman Brothers, the finger has pointed not only to the policies and strategies of the corporation, but also the behaviours and characters of their leaders.

 

Authenticity is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘of undisputed origin’.  The word originally comes from the Greek word ‘Authentikos, meaning  'principal or genuine'.

 

If the global crisis had taught us anything it is the need to be principled and genuine in business.  Leaders of today’s global organisations need to be able to display a consistent set of behaviours and values that reflect steadfast and reliable principles in how business should be done, if they are to rebuild trust in their institutions and regain the support of their shareholders.

 

Qualities associated with Authenticity include:

 

• Being a really good listener – Authentic people know how important it is to understand and acknowledge other people’s perspectives.  This does not mean agreeing with everyone.  In fact most studies on engagement and communication show that acknowledging differences in opinion heightens rather than diminishes trust.
•  Admitting your limitations – Authentic leaders know that they are not super-human and therefore understand that creating an illusion of being all-knowing is a recipe for disaster.  Acknowledging your limitations openly has a counter-intuitive effect, in that it enhances people’s perceptions of your abilities.  Why?  Because you have displayed self awareness, one of the highest character traits for the authentic leader.
• Empowering others to be creative - Authentic leaders are really good at creating an environment of engagement and participation; it is second nature to them.  They do this because their leadership style is not driven by a power-hungry ego.  Instead, they see power, status and control coming through sharing responsibility across a wide network of players. 
• Deeds and words are in sync – perhaps the most important rule of them all for the authentic leaders is sticking to his or her word.  Reliability in actions is the ‘killer’ ingredient.  It only takes one or two slips on your promises to lose huge ground in the trust of your people. 

 

If you have some experience of authentic leaders, or the impact of not having authentic leaders, please do share your comments below.

 

If you would like to hear more about how our coaching packages can help you to become a more authentic leader, contact us at:  [email protected], for a free, no obligation chat.

 

We can also provide public speaking engagements on the subject of authenticity.  Contact us at:  [email protected].

The Rise of the Corporate Bully

One of the things that we have observed in our work is the rise of the corporate bully.  Bullying in the workplace has the same characteristics to the playground bully, and the motivations of the bully are also similar, but as they are masked in adult behaviour, they can often be ignored or even encouraged by organisations.

Why, I hear you ask, when so much evidence tells us that supportive and engaging leaders achieve more and get far greater levels of commitments than a bullying leader, would organisations encourage such behaviour?

One word – Fear.  The playground bully is a child that feels compelled to bully because he or she feels fearful.  This may be because they are not very smart in the classroom, or they observe dominant and bullying behaviours at home.  They bully to gain power and control.  They crave this because at a deeper level, at the sub conscious, they do not feel worthy of love or respect, and therefore believe that if they can’t have both, they will settle for respect, or at least what they misconstrue as respect. 

Those very same feelings that are observable in the school child of 10 or 12 years old, are virtually identical to those motivations behind the senior corporate bully.  The head of marketing who insists on humiliating under-performing team members; The Head of IT that shouts and screams when team members have missed an important deadline; The Head of Finance that forces his or her team to work late to fix accounting issues to ensure a positive report to the Board, each and every one of them is driven by an innate sense of their own unworthiness or likeability.  They mask the deep hole that these feelings bring by creating fear, distrust and keeping everyone at a distance.

But what of the bosses of these bully managers?  What motivates them to tolerate this behaviour, even if they personally do not sign up to such tactics?  The answer also brings us back to the same issue – fear.  Whilst their fear is not wedded to their sense of self, it is linked to poor organisational performance, a track record of poor delivery and a belief that something is needed to turn this around.  Often exacerbated, they turn to the corporate bully to pull everyone up by their boot-straps to ‘get us out of this mess’.  But does such a strategy work?

According to the CIPD bullying cost UK businesses over £2billion per year (2005 CIPD report).  A workplace bullying survey found that over 38% of Americans have reported bullying at work.  Corporate performance does not fare well in bullying environments.  In fact the losses may be even higher than some estimates have suggested, if we factor in reduced creativity, low morale, and increased turnover — all factors that weigh heavily on the bottom line.

Strategies to help you or your team if bullying is a factor:

• Have your targets and delegated duties written down.  If your boss has a tendency to change their mind, or blame you for not delivering something that was outside of your control, written documentation will help.  Always follow up with an email confirming your understanding of requirements.
• Find an independent mentor  (either in your department, or in another division) who can be a sounding board and the voice of wisdom when you are feeling under pressure.
• Think deeply about how important this role or this organisation is to your long term plans.  If it is very important, then start to network to build a wider span of influence beyond your immediate team to build support.  If it is not important, then start to consider your exit strategy and focus on what qualities and culture will be important in your next role.

If you are affected by these issues, website resource that might help include:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-topics/bullying-harassment.aspx

http://www.bullyfreeatwork.com/blog/

http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/03/create-a-bullyfree-workplace.html

http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/being-bullied/

If you would like more personal support, then we can offer confidential, focused and targeted coaching package to give you strategies to support your needs.  Contact us at:  [email protected].

 

We can also offer engaging and highly participative public speaking and seminar sessions if you would like to bring this or matters of people and performance to your corporate event.  Contact us at:   [email protected].

 

 

Virtual Teams Can Outperform Traditional Teams

We've featured the value of virtual teams in the past. Once seen as the poorer cousing to real teams, as technologies adapt, companies become more diverse and cultures merge, we see the real value that can be derived from virtual team. This article from HBR blog network, gives a great overview of how to do virtual teams well.

via blogs.hbr.org

Examining Culture #7 - And finally! Building a Cultural Map

In this mini-series, we have looked at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries. We have taken a look at the theories on national culture and organisational culture.  In this, our final instalment, we explain our approach to developing a cultural map in organisations.

The major growth strategy for multi-nationals has been heavily reliant on Mergers & Acquisitions  in recent years.  These have often been in key markets and geographic locations; for example there has been significant increase in Eastern Europe and South and Central America.  This brings access to new and growing markets for companies who have plateaued in their home countries, but it also brings cultural challenges in how best to integrate and align these target companies into the established corporate culture. 

The reason that integration and value creation is so difficult in the post-merger organisation is multi-fold.  Many reports and research papers conclude that the reasons for poor results are often down to poorly targeted acquisitions, unclear goals, unrealistic valuation of the target company and more often than not, an incompatible company culture. 

However culture is not an indefinable or unchangeable concept.  On the contrary, it can be defined, measured and with concerted effort, changed.  To do that, requires accurate diagnosis and practical ideas on how to address cultural needs.

Our View of Culture

Over the years, the Agents2change team have been brought in to address many issues around performance, improvement and integration in some of the world’s biggest companies.  Our combined expertise spans over 90 years of organisational change and understanding the key levers towards integration.  Indeed our founder, Mary McGuire has undertaken extensive research in the area of multi-cultural management at Masters level and is linked with a number of business schools. 

We apply our knowledge and understanding of the most  influential models and theorists on culture (from Hofstede to Schein) and have developed our own unique Cultural mapping model.  We take the view that there are certain cultural ‘flags’ that allow us to interpret, measure and intervene in culture to achieve integration. 

A central premise of our model, is the view that integration must come from a shared understanding of the direction and goals of the organisation.  This is impacted by a number of areas, including how motivated people feel, how equipped they are to do their job (knowledge) and whether they believe this is a company that they want to be associated with (commitment).

Building A Cultural Map

We have developed an exclusive internet survey that allows for the collation of data from small or large populations.  The survey takes only 15 minutes to complete and has the advantage of being customisable for an organisation’s own requirements.  Using sophisticated survey design, which allows for a mixture of response types, the questionnaire is intuitive to use and eminently user-friendly, as reflected in the very good completion rates we typically achieve.

What we deliver is understandable management reports, split by function or country and giving a thorough analysis and explanation of what the data is saying.  We also supply recommendations, based on our experience of what makes change stick and how to make it happen in geographically spread organisations. 

Cultural mapping can be done for any size of organisation to suit any budget.  We can do a small review for a team of 20 staff, or provide a global review covering several thousand staff in multiple languages.  Our approach is completely flexible and designed around your needs.  If you feel you could benefit from this service, contact Mary McGuire: [email protected], for a confidential, no obligation discussion.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

Examining Culture #6 - 'That's just the tip of the Iceberg!'

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.   We have already looked at the key writers on National Culture.  Today we turn to organisational culture theory. 

Probably one of the most extensive writers of recent years is Edgar Schein of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MiT) who has over the years provided much insight into the complexities of understanding and managing cultures within organisations.  He introduced the concept of Culture as an iceberg, in that those things that are observable on the surface are but a small percentage of the issues that are occurring underneath the surface.  

Schein describes culture as multi-layered.  At the visible layer we see artifacts and symbols that represent culture, which in turn come from beliefs and attitudes.  These all stem from basic assumptions that are  deep-rooted and often held at the sub-conscious level.   We don’t often think about how culture is expressed in organisations, and yet its influence is everywhere.  From the organisational structures, to the brand identity to the communications and visual art observable within the office.  It all speaks to the values and underlying assumptions of what this culture represents.  Apple and Google are probably the best proponents of culture as a tangible asset to be encouraged and encompassed by all employees.  Other headquarters such as banking and insurance, exude power and status messages to maintain status quo.  One sector is about game-changing and the other is about the old order. Both are valid, just different.

Schein went on to describe Three Cultures that arise in distinct occupational communities.  The Executive culture is about hierarchy and control.  The Engineering culture is concerned with design and process.  The Operators culture is concerned with the hands-on day-job, whether that be manufacturing or service based.   

When we look at how global companies today are often a made up of many legacy companies that have come together through acquisitions, each with their own distinct history and culture, this therefore poses some challenges for the post-merger integration efforts. 

What we at Agents2Change have found useful is some a cultural mapping exercise to help explain the key differences that occur across organisations.  We will look at this in more detail in our next and final instalment in this Culture series.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

 

 

Examining Culture #4 - GLOBE - Linking Leadership to Culture

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.

We have already presented the findings of Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars.  Today we are looking at Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness or GLOBE as it is known.  Tomorrow we will review Hall, both very influential and insightful studies into Culture.

The research for GLOBE was initiated by Robert J House of the University of Pennsylvania in 1991.  His initial purpose was to find a way of measuring and defining the leadership qualities across different cultures.  Building on and expanding the seminal work of Hofstede, and that of other organisational theorists, House set about developing a multi-country, multi-organisational research program.  This has now encompassed over 16,000 middle managers in over 60 countries.   

 

Whilst there is clear overlap with the work of Hofstede  (see Hofstede 2010), it also brings some new insights, particularly in the area of leadership and leadership performance.  More particularly, GLOBE spans more than 951 organisations, rather than one entity, as in Hofstede’s case.  Shi & Wang in their thorough comparison of the two models, outline the differences in methodology below.

 

 

We cannot say by looking at this table, that one approach is better than the other.  We can say however, that they bring different aspects of data into the body of knowledge on multi-cultural management.  Hofstede was concerned with finding differences in national cultures, so only having one organisation, but one that could provide over 117,000 respondents still brought a larger data sample in which to achieve this task then had ever been done before. GLOBE, on the other hand, was a broader research piece, which looked at defining leadership qualities across different cultures.  Both are useful, but need to be considered within their respective frame of reference. 

The GLOBE model identified nine cultural dimensions, which as we can see from Table below, have parity with Hofstede’s model on many counts:

 

 

GLOBE enhances rather than detracts from the original work of Hofstede.  It goes one step further in looking at the impact of culture on organisational performance, through the introduction of the Performance Orientation dimension and the definition of institutional collectivism. 

Shi & Wang (2011) remind us that whilst “GLOBE study is less criticized than Hofstede’s work, possibly not because there are fewer controversial issues, but perhaps more because it is much more recent, and therefore researchers have not yet fully analysed and tested it” (P. 93)

GLOBE provides a framework that goes beyond the measuring management or only considering one organisation and systemically looks to gather data from across sectors and countries.  GLOBE goes one step further in linking culture to performance, and important advance in thinking of why culture? and why now?

As we see more and more mergers and acquisitions failing to deliver on promises and a global recession that is continuing to bite, GLOBE provides us with some through-provoking ideas about how we might continue to motivate and manage people across organisational and geographic boundaries.

 

Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

 

References

Hofstede G (2010) The GLOBE debate; Back to relevance, Journal of International business Tudeis, 41: 1339-1346

House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW & Gputa V (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The  GLOBE study of 62 societies, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

Shi X & Wang J(2011) Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model:  Which way to go for Cross-Cultural Research?, International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93-98.

Examining Culture #3 - How Trompenaars describes the dimensions

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.

 

We have already presented the findings of Hofstede and today we look at Fons Trompenaar & tomorrow we will review GLOBE, both very influential and insightful studies into Culture.

 

Fons Trompenaars, who over 15 years and with 50,000 managers across the world has developed a model to describe cultural differences.  Often authored with Hampden-Turner whom together wrote their seminal work ‘Riding the Waves of Culture; in 1997,  he built a model around three key principles illustrated in below:

 

 

 

From this they developed a series of scenario based questions to test out how individuals react in these three areas, which led to 7 pairs of dichotomies described as dimensions, outlined in Figure 5 below:

 

 

 

 

At first glance, Trompenaars can be seen to make the picture of culture even more complex, when added to the picture that already emerges from Hofstede.  However on closer inspection, what we see is a re-framing of many areas that Hofstede termed slight differently.  For example what Hofstede terms High and Low power distance can map on to the Achievement ‘v’ Ascription scale here.  Similarly the Individualism and Collectivism scale from Hofstede has similar themes with Trompenaars.  Where they differ, is perhaps more attention in Trompenaars model to time (sequential ‘v’ Synchronic) and environment (Inner directed ‘v’ outer-directed), although even this, one could argue has some synergies with the masculine /feminism scale from Hofstede. 

 

Trompenaars, like Hofstede has had his critics.  His research which looked more at behaviour responses to scenarios to test out his concepts.  Based on a US model of relationship or task-based management, it is exclusively testing out management behaviour.  Hofstede (1996)  questions the reliability of the data  “A serious shortcoming of Trompenaars’ data bank which no professional analysis can correct is its evident lack of content validity”(P.197).  Others question the cultural biases and base assumptions ( Minko (2011 p.48) & St Claire-Ostwald (2007)).

However, even with these shortcomings, Trompenaars research helps us to consider culture both in the context of the organisation and the individual and attempts to link it to management behaviour.  Even a rudimentary audit of a global company, using Trompenaars framework would be insightful in identifying the cause of some of the differences and conflicts that might be present.

Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

 

References

Hofstede G (1996) A serious shortcoming of Trompenaars’ data bank which no professional analysis can correct is its evident lack of content validity International Journal of  Intercultural Relations, 20.(2) 189-198.

Minko M, (2011) Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World , Bingley, Emerald Publishing

St Claire-Ostwald B (2007) Carrying Cultural Baggage: the contribution of socio-cultural anthropology to cross-cultural coaching, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 5(2), 45-52

Trompenaars F and Hampden-Turner C (1997)Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, NB Publishing

Examing Culture #2 - Is Hofstede's view of Culture relevant?

Hofstede is seen as one of the key writers and proponents of cultural theory, through his research in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and to which he has continued to add.  His research was based on employees within one organisation – IBM and covered over 116,000 responses, 72 national subsidiaries and 20 language, taking the data at two points in time over a four year period.  When first published, over 20 years ago, it was one of the most extensive pieces of research in the area of culture and lead to some critical thinking of what characteristics are observable in different national cultures.

The central premise to Hofstede’s work is that Culture and cultural identity are learned attributes developed over time and he coined the process ‘mental programming’.  

 

We can see how culture is ever-changing, in the ways that values and priorities change from one generation to another.  For example, we can see if we look back at key decades in UK society, that values changed from:  Being frugal and economical in the 1940’s  (key themes: ‘War’ and ‘Rations’); being hard-working and strong family values in the 1950’s  (key themes:  Post-war Industrial growth); being expressive and freedom of speech in the 1960’s  (key themes: Feminism, Free Love, Student Revolts); being politically aware and experiencing hardships in the 1970’s  (Increased political unrest, widespread strikes and large scale unemployment).  Thus we can say that culture is at the same time traditional yet ever changing.  The shifts in cultural values are harder to view in the day-to-day, but evident when looked at through a longer lens. 

This brings some interesting challenges to modern day multi-nationals, as it means that cultural identity and values needs to be understood and observed to a point, but that people are open to and willing to change their values and priorities if it makes sense for them to do so. 

Culture can feel like an intangible and hard to grasp concept, yet it is both general – i.e. definable at a national or continental level; but also specific – i.e. definable at an organisational, team and even family level.   And for each of these situations a new set of norms might be applied. 

Hofstede originally defined  four dimensions of culture as a way of mapping and explaining differences in national cultures.  If we look at how European countries map out on these dimensions, we see some interesting patterns:

Each dimensions looks at a different aspect of human interactions:

1.            Power Distance:  Defining and prioritizing power in their environments – e.g.. how much are hierarchies respected and maintained

2.            Uncertainty Avoidance: How important is it to know what is coming next and how much effort is invested into avoiding uncertainty

3.            Individualism ‘v’ Collectivisim:  What is more important – to be known and respected as an individual or to be part of and respected as part of a community (or group effort)

4.            Masculine ‘v’ Feminine:     “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct and focused on material success; femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlaps (i.e. both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with quality of life)” (Hofstede P.82)

To these original dimensions, a fifth was added – Long Term’v’ Short Term Orientation.

 

The dimensions give us a frame of reference in which to consider and view culture, and it does allow us to perhaps explain differences that emerge across different countries, even in one geographic regions such as Europe.  However Hofstede was at pains to point out that the purpose of his cultural landscape was not to allow us to fall in to the trap of stereotyping countries and national cultures.  Far from it, Hofstede believed that by having a frame of reference, we could free ourselves up from our own cultural bias, to look at cultures with a more objective lens. 

There are a number of issues with Hofstede’s study methods and conclusions, which remind us of the need to treat it critically.  The first is that the data is focused around the respondents in one organisation – IBM.  Whilst an organisation of sufficient size  (well over 120,000 employees at the time of the research) to provide a statistically significant sample, but that does not mean it is representative on a national level.    

Blodgett et al (2008) after examining Hofstede’s model conclude that “Hofstede’s cultural instrument lacks sufficient validity when applied at the individual unit of analysis”.  McSweeney B (2002) goes further to systematically deconstruct and debunk his theories stating that “The scale problem of Hofstede’s research is radially compounded by the narrowness of the population surveyed” and that Hofstede oversimplified the importance of organisational culture as a component and a relevant factor when matching samples across countries.  Yet despite this criticism, I think that St Claire-Ostwald (2007) offers wise words when she states  “To reject totally Hofstede’s or similar functionalist models of national culture, before more satisfactory models have been developed, would be to throw away valuable insight.”

Hofstede’s model still has influence on our current thinking of Culture and its interpretation.  One can see his influence in other important models, such as those of Trompenaars and GLOBE, which will be covered in the next section of this series. 

Culture is ever-present and all-pervasive and however much we want to imagine that business as usual can continue without it, it cannot.  However by becoming more aware of it, is the first step in managing its consequences.

Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

 

Further Reading:

Blodgett J, Bakir A &  Rose G (2008)  A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework, Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35)

Hofstede G (1994) Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival; Software of the Mind, London: HarperCollins

McSweeney, B. (2000). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.

St Claire-Ostwald B (2007) Carrying Cultural Baggage: the contribution of socio-cultural anthropology to cross-cultural coaching, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 5(2), 45-52

 

Multi-Cultural Management and Its Challenges – Introduction

In this mini-series, we will look at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.

We will revisit the writings of the key writers on Culture – Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hall and we will also look at some up to the minute examples of multi-cultural management challenges faced by some of the world’s biggest companies.

But first, let’s set the scene.  A Spanish technology group has recently acquired a British IT company operating in a similar area.  They both operate in the same market and offer similar technology, yet every attempt to merge, integrate or transform their processes to a common approach is failing.  It is not that they don’t see the benefits of the changes, or even of working together more closely; yet any percieved attempt by one side to impose a process on the other is contentious.  Sound familiar?  Well this type of situation occurs in over 80% of post-merger organisations.

Often what is interpreted as resistance to change is based in a mis-understanding of culture and cultural needs of the legacy teams and organisation.  Even in this example, if we look at some of the cultural markers defined by Hall's definiton of High and Low Context cultures, we find that Spain would fall more into high context cultures, meaning that more is interpreted from the wider reference points of non-verbal, historical and social expectations, creating a much smaller dependence on and trust in written communication.  Britain, by contrast, falls into the low context cultures, which means that explicit forms of communication are preferred and expected and less value is placed on non-verbal or subliminal messages.  Whereas one country would put much more store in face-to-face meetings to reach agreement, the other would not want to act without clear written agreements.

Over the next few weeks we will take you on a cultural journey, exploring what continues to be the issues faced by modern management in multi-national organisations and what we can learn from the extensive body of knowledge that is already out there to help us navigate this tricky landscape.

Do you have any experience of multi-cultural management you would like to share?  Or would you like to have a more detailed discussion on how we support multi-cultural management?  Please feel free to leave your comments here.  Or contact us at [email protected].