Slicing the Culture Pie

In her book “Overwhelmed” (on the pressures of work-life balance, among other topics), Brigit Schulte describes her trip to Denmark and her interviews with working couples there.  Here’s what she writes about work life in that country:

“Danes don’t live to work.  Danes work hard … but they work in a very focused way.  Lunch is usually no more than half an hour …  Most Danes work the standard thirty-seven hours a week.  Long hours are outlawed for most workers under the European Union’s Working Time Directive … no European is allowed to work more than forty-eight hours a week … Workplaces tend to be flat, without a lot of layers of management … Most Danes don’t feel obligated to check their smartphones and e-mail after hours … people who put in long hours and constantly check e-mail after hours are seen not as ideal worker warriors, as in America, but as inefficient … “

And yet, Schulte points out, “The Danish economy is one of the most competitive in the world, just a few rungs below the United States.  And it’s one of the most productive, ranking just behind the United States … Denmark has a low unemployment rate and one of the highest standards of living in the world.  It has one of the smallest gaps between rich and poor of any country on earth … and only 6 percent of Danes find it difficult or very difficult to live on their current income, compared to 21 percent of Americans …”.

Those of us who have worked in several countries are fully aware of the differences in workplace cultures from country to country.  And scholars from Hofstede to Trompenaars have constructed outstanding frameworks to help us understand and explain variations in these cultures.  In applying some of these frameworks over the years, I have found them helpful to some extent.  It is important to have a common vocabulary to be able to compare different cultural values, especially those relevant to the workplace.  In personality research, there is general agreement on a few selected taxonomies like the Big Five (McCrae and Costa) that most mainstream psychologists use to describe people’s personalities.

I don’t believe we are at a similar point with regard to describing different workplace cultures across countries.  There has been outstanding research in this area, pioneered by Hofstede; his dimensions have scores by which we can compare different countries.  Although his methodology has been criticized, his analysis seems to make a lot of sense to many managers and students.  There has also been considerable research on organizational cultures (Cameron and Quinn, Denison and Mishra), with a few of these dimensions (e.g., adaptability, hierarchy) overlapping with those of Hofstede et al. 

In my experience and interviews with managers globally over the years, I have drawn from these past scholars, as well as the more recent work by Lane et al. to offer a framework that is still a work in progress, but I believe is useful to managers working globally. It can be easily remembered with the acronym FASTAIDE, which stands for the first letters of each of the eight dimensions of workplace culture.  The idea here is that there is a set of dimensions by which to compare different countries’ cultures as they relate to workplace behaviors. 

1.     Formality – How formal should I be? At the one extreme are cultures where people are very informal, not only in terms of their interactions with one another but also in terms of how decisions get made, their appearance and the physical environment.  In the workplace, people refer to each other, and even senior executives, by their first names.  Dress is typically casual, and there are not a lot of rituals involved in meetings and business discussions.  At the other extreme are cultures that are quite formal, from attire to the way people address each other to the way meetings are conducted.  Titles are important, and offices are designed to reflect this.  In general, countries like Australia and the Netherlands tend to have informal cultures, while countries like France and Russia tend to have more formal workplace cultures.

2.     Authoritarianism – How directive should I be?  Some cultures such as France and Mexico expect bosses to give orders and run a command-and-control type of organization, while other cultures such as Israel expect their bosses to be more participative, asking for input from others and valuing a more bottom-up approach. 

3.     Structure – How much detail should I provide; how explicit should I be?  In some cultures such as Greece and Uruguay, employees prefer to have things spelled out in order to reduce any ambiguity.  For example, job descriptions are essential, and employees have handbooks that describe the company’s procedures in detail.  In other cultures such as Sweden, employees have a higher tolerance for ambiguity.  Hofstede refers to this as uncertainty avoidance.

4.     Time Orientation – How concerned should I be about time commitments?  Some cultures such as Switzerland and Germany are very strict on time, whether it’s when meetings start and end, or on deadlines for projects.  Hall describes this as linear or monochromic time.  Other cultures such as Central and South American countries are more fluid and flexible about time.  Promptness and following a schedule are not as important as focusing on relationships.  So schedules are not adhered to strictly and interruptions are welcome.  Hall refers to this as flexible or polychromic time. 

5.     Aggressive – How aggressively should I behave?  There is a lot of evidence of differences in aggressiveness across cultures.  And some would vigorously defend promoting aggressiveness in the workplace, suggesting that doing so improves productivity and profitability.  In countries like South Korea, it is not uncommon to have shouting matches among co-workers.  There is a tendency towards pushiness, an in-your-face mindset.  In other cultures like Canada, workers can still be competitive but will not be as confrontational.

6.     Individualism – How much should I focus on individual needs and goals versus group needs and goals?  In some cultures, such as the U.S.A. and Australia, the emphasis is on “I” and self-reliance.  These cultures value individual over group identity, and individual rights are very important.  Managers hold individuals personally accountable.  In other cultures, such as China and some Latin American countries, the emphasis is on a larger entity, such as the group, organization or tribe.  The good of the group often trumps the individual rights of individuals.   

7.     Directness – How straightforward should I be?  Some cultures such as Australia and the U.S. encourage managers to get straight to the point.  In other cultures such as some East African countries, the message is more subtle and indirect. What is implied is more important than what is actually stated.  People in these cultures place a lot of emphasis on nonverbal communication.  This is similar to Hall’s concept of high and low context cultures. 

8.     Expressiveness – How much should I show my emotions and be transparent?  In countries like South Korea, this is well accepted in the work place, while in countries like Russia and Hungary, you almost have to wear a poker face, or at least not reveal what they are really feeling.

I want to make three points about this framework.  First, each of these is on a continuum and while countries can be arrayed along this continuum, it is important to consider the relative standing of countries on each dimension rather than their absolute position.  Second, like Hofstede, these dimensions tend to be relatively independent of each other, although there may be clusters.  For example, informal cultures also tend to be non-authoritarian cultures.  Third, these are average or central tendencies.  It does not mean that everyone in that culture behaves in accordance with these dimensions.  For example, you may meet a Chinese executive in Beijing who might be expected to behave a certain way based on your categorization of Chinese work place culture.  Yet you may discover that this Chinese executive actually went to college in America, worked for a Swiss company in Lucerne, and got his MBA at Insead.  She would not be expected to fit the typical profile.

Cameron, K. and Quinn, T.  (1999).  Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.  Reading, MA:  Addison-Wesley.

Denison, D., and Mishra, A.  (1995).  Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness.  Organization Science, 6, 2, 204-223.

 

Hofstede, G.  Culture’s Consequences (second edition).  (2001).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

Lane, H. et al.  International Management Behavior (sixth edition).  (2009).  United Kingdom:  Wiley.

McCrae, R. and Costa, P.  (1987).  Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instrument and observers.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

Schulte, B.  Overwhelmed.  (2014).  New York:  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Trompenaars, H.  Riding the Waves of Culture:  Understanding Cultural Diversity.  (1993).  London:  Economist Books.

Mental Models of Cultural Adaptation

Kanji Nagano was a Japanese manager for a global financial services company in Tokyo.  Although well educated, having gone to one of Japan’s exclusive universities, he had never been out of the country and had always worked for Japanese companies.  He showed strong leadership qualities even when he was in school, where he was elected to many leadership positions.  In his fifteen years with different Japanese companies, his superiors recognized his leadership abilities by promoting him to bigger and bigger jobs. 

When he joined a German-based financial services company in Tokyo, Nagano-san inherited a team of 15 direct reports.  He quickly established rapport with his team by holding frequent group meetings, and built strong interpersonal relationships with his team members.  When he learned that he was being sent to Germany for a six-month assignment, Nagano-san was a bit apprehensive at first.  He knew that the German team he was to lead would have different expectations.  Yet he was not quite sure whether to change, or how to change, his leadership style.  Nagano-san’s leadership in Germany was not a success.  The German team members who reported to him felt that he wasted too much time trying to get consensus.  They felt frustrated at the way he ran meetings, where he expected everyone to agree to his decisions. 

By contrast, Jack Ellis was a marketing manager for a global consumer products company who was sent to the Philippines for a two-year assignment.  Jack was born and raised in the East coast, and graduated from an Ivy League school, where he spent his junior year in Thailand.  Jack relished the opportunity to work overseas, and he quickly embraced the Philippine work culture.  Recognizing the more authoritarian style of leadership in the Philippines, Jack decided that he needed to adapt his leadership style so that he could become more effective in managing his team of Filipino subordinates.  At times, Jack felt uncomfortable at how directive he was becoming, but he felt that this was the price he had to pay in order to become an effective leader in this setting.  Jack started taking language lessons so he could understand and speak to his staff in their native language.  He even learned how to curse in Filipino, and some of his team members commented that he was more Filipino than some of the local bosses.  Jack felt at times that he was compromising his values (especially when he was confronted with situations where bribery was involved), but he rationalized it all by remembering that “when in Rome …”.

In my experience, many managers in in cross-cultural settings use one of these two mental models in leading people from different cultures.  The first mental model is based on the assumption that to change your style is to be inauthentic, to not be true to yourself.  This then leads many managers to insist that they should not change, regardless of whether or not their style is appropriate for a given culture. In some cases, such as Nagano-san’s, the leader may believe that he may have to change, but does not know how.  In either case, leaders tend to use the same leadership style they used in their home culture when they lead people in other cultures.

The second mental model is based on the assumption that leaders have to be “cultural chameleons.”  When in a different culture, some managers believe the most effective strategy is to adjust your behavior and your style to what is expected and appropriate in that culture.  In Jack’s case, he decided early on that he would do whatever it took to fit into the local culture, even if by doing so he may be going against some of his deeply held beliefs and values.

Neither mental model is effective for managers leading across cultures.  However, I have found that you can be yourself and be an effective cross-cultural leader at the same time.  Here are three pieces of advice for how you might reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions:

1.     Separate your values from your behavior.

2.     Learn and/or practice different behaviors through practice and coaching.

3.     Integrate cultural differences by considering different aspects of yourself.

Let’s take as a third example Emile, who was a fast rising star for a global pharmaceutical company that had a subsidiary in Canada.  He had an aptitude for science, and had a warm, appealing way of establishing rapport with people.  Starting as a sales rep in Montreal, where he delivered outstanding results year after year, he was eventually promoted to become the head of sales for the subsidiary.  Recognizing his potential, senior management recommended him for a position in the U.S. headquarters of the company to head a marketing team.  Once again, he shone in his role.  Emile showed many of the qualities of leadership admired within the company.  He not only believed passionately in the mission of the company, he also had outstanding communication skills (even though as a French-Canadian, he did not learn to speak English until he was in his teens) and consistently exceeded objectives.  He had a reputation for building high-performing teams, and his 360-degree feedback results showed that Emile was a leader who involved and empowered his team, was a good listener, treated others with respect, maintained high standards, and had integrity.

For his next assignment Emile was sent to Mexico to head the company’s subsidiary there.  Even though Emile did not speak any Spanish, senior management felt that Emile was a good choice since the subsidiary needed an effective leader who would be able to build on the subsidiary’s success and introduce some needed changes.  It was an organizational situation that Michael Watkins describes as “realignment,” where a previously successful organization is now faced with some new challenges.  The Mexican subsidiary was certainly not a start-up, nor was it a turnaround situation.

Having established success using his participative, empowering style, Emile went down to Mexico excited at building his new management team, all of whom were Mexicans who had been with the company for many years.  Although he had done his homework on the business issues facing the subsidiary, Emile had not really put it much thought to how he would do things differently in Mexico.  After all, he had been successful in Canada and in the U.S. with a particular leadership style that he believed in strongly.  Why should he change?  Although he did not have an MBA, Emile was an avid reader and learner, and he realized that the command-and-control style of management was an antiquated way of leading people.

Emile’s first month in his new role was a near disaster.  As he told me years later, the Mexicans in his team were used to being ordered by their “jefe.”  They expected him to tell them what to do and to follow orders.  After all, he was the “hot shot” from headquarters who was selected to make the subsidiary successful.  Where were his ideas?  Why was he asking them what they thought?  Didn’t he have the answers already?  To the Mexicans, Emile seemed indecisive and unsure.

Fortunately, Emile had the emotional intelligence to recover quickly.  He realized that Mexican work culture favors strong leaders who appear authoritarian.  Yet he also believed strongly in his leadership values.  So how did he reconcile these conflicting practices?  Emile knew he could not make changes overnight. 

Using the three suggestions above, here’s what Emile did.  First, he learned how to behave differently while still believing in the value of participation and empowerment.  During team meetings, he made sure he was in control of the agenda at all times and ran a very tight ship.  He started off the meeting by reviewing the decisions from the last session and by providing his team with information and updates from corporate.  This was his way of conveying that he was in charge and that he had access to senior management.  He ran the meeting but he also made it a point to make sure he invited participation.  While this may have been a subtle shift, it made an impression on his Mexican team.  In short, he changed some of his behaviors while still maintaining his values.

Second, Emile began to learn and practice some different and/or rarely used behaviors.  For example, rather than going to his subordinates’ offices to visit and discuss issues with them, he had them go to his office.  While this may seem like a small gesture, it was symbolic and conveyed to his subordinates that he was indeed the boss.  He began to seek advice from an American executive he met at a business forum in Mexico City.  The American had been in Mexico for over twenty years, and helped Emile gain a different perspective on managing in that culture.

Third, Emile surfaced aspects of himself and his behavior that tapped into his more authoritarian self.  For example, in previous assignments in Canada and the U.S. where he had to push his team against tight deadlines, he had to adopt a very tough, no-nonsense approach so the project could be complete on time and on schedule.  So he drew on these parts of himself when managing his Mexico team.  These were behaviors that were already part of his repertoire but seldom used.

Over time, as the Mexican team began to develop trust and respect for Emile as the boss, he began to shift his leadership towards a more participative and empowering style.  He asked for their input before implementing new initiatives from corporate.  He encouraged them to take initiative on some of their key responsibilities.  Emile became an effective leader in the subsidiary who also gained the admiration of the locals.  After a successful four years, Emile was promoted to head the Latin American region for his company.

Watkins, M.  (2009).  Picking the right transition strategy.  Harvard Business Review (January), pp. 47-53.

Coming to Grips with Corporate Culture

“Culture” has been in the business news again lately, from General Motors’ failure to recall its faulty ignition switches to the replacement of an outsider for Target’s new CEO.  Those of us who have worked for more than one company, and/or have friends and acquaintances who work for different companies, know how powerful corporate culture can be. 

We all know that companies, like all social groupings, tend to form cultures that influence the way its employees think, feel and perceive what is going on.  When I worked for Citibank many years ago, I would compare notes with a colleague who worked for what was then called the Chase Manhattan Bank on how different our respective company cultures were.  Citibank was then brash, and its employees were expected to be aggressive, and even rude.  Chase Manhattan was more polite, and employees were expected to behave more gently.  As we know, cultural fit is important to corporate survival.  Many companies assess cultural fit before hiring managers, and many executives de-rail not because they lack technical expertise but because they lack this cultural fit.

Executives in successful companies, recognizing the importance of culture, try to shape their company’s culture to be aligned with the company’s strategy.  For example, Wal-Mart instills an almost obsessive regard for expense management that is in keeping with its strategy to be the low-cost provider and remain profitable through its “everyday low pricing” business model. 

As Lane et al. point out, culture is important because it serves two functions.  One, it helps efficiency.  Everyone in the company is expected to know that there is a way of doing things (companies even label these, such as “The Wal-Mart Way” and “The Toyota Way”) and once employees learn this, the company can operate more efficiently.  What is interesting is that many of these so-called norms are not necessarily written down or documented.  But once we learn the cultural code, many things don’t have to be spelled out.  We know that is the way things are done and violating this cultural code can have consequences.  I remember a company I was involved with where decisions had to be made by consensus.  An executive hired from the outside felt that this was not good for a company that was trying to be more agile and so he started to make decisions without going through the usual channels.  There was so much resistance to his attempts that he only lasted a year with the company.

The second function of culture, according to Lane et al., is that is provides an important source of social identity for its members.  Culture serves as a kind of psychological “glue”; the stronger the culture, the stickier the glue.  Belonging to a group not only provides some security; it also increases our identification and commitment with the group (or company).  Creating a strong culture is especially important for global organizations with subsidiaries in dozens of different countries.  Expatriates from these organizations who go overseas not only provide technical expertise but also serve as cultural ambassadors.  I have seldom seen expatriates being sent overseas who have either just joined their company or are not able to “represent” the company in a positive way.  Strong identification with the company also reduces turnover, and enhances the feeling of pride an employee has in working for the company.

Changing a culture as powerful as GM’s will be an uphill battle but it can be done.  There have been successful attempts at cultural change in companies like GE, Ford, IBM, Nissan and many other companies.  I have been involved with a few companies where the culture changed successfully although in all cases, it took time – as much as five years. 

In brief, what does it take?  Corporate culture, in my opinion, is shaped by three sets of forces, and so understanding these forces and using them to help drive change is a good first step.  In my opinion, these three forces are self-reinforcing and interdependent; implementing changes in one without taking into account the others will not work.  The first force is leader behavior.  Nothing speaks louder to employees than how leaders behave (not what they say should be done).  When Carlos Ghosn of Renault went to Japan to head Nissan, he made it a point to walk around the plant floors and introduced himself to shocked groups of employees.  When CEO John Reed championed Six Sigma at Citibank, he himself went through the training and taught some of the training workshops to employees.

The second set of forces involves the company’s processes and systems.  This is where the rubber hits the road, in the day-to-day activities that shape employees’ behaviors.  In my experience, the most important of these include decision-making processes, how conflicts are resolved, and how employees are recognized and rewarded.  Changing these processes and systems will begin to create changes in the culture. 

The third involves the company’s structure.  Microsoft recently restructured its organization to break down silos.  Many companies such as Cisco, P&G and IBM have moved to a more matrix-type structure.  Unfortunately, many companies start and stop with structure.  For example, GM has recently announced that it would have a head of Global Compliance.  If people still perceive that they will be punished for speaking up, then having an executive accountable for compliance practice alone is not likely to change the culture.

Given all this, here are three takeaways on corporate culture for managers and leaers.  First, unless you are near the top of the company’s hierarchical food chain, it will be impossible for you to change corporate culture.  In fact, even executives at higher levels sometimes find it difficult to change culture by themselves.  Think about living in another country with different cultural values and norms than your own; you have to adjust your behavior to the country’s cultural code.  Similarly, you have to adapt your behavior so it somehow fits in with the culture of the company you are working for.  Of course, you can deviate a bit but too much deviance and you will be rejected.

Second, by understanding the company’s cultural code, you can use culture to your advantage especially when trying to lead and influence.  For example, one of the companies I used to work for had a strong bias for being data-driven.  That is to say, recommendations or decisions had to be based on arguments based on analyses and good data.  In this organization, arguing by appealing to emotion would not get you very far.  Knowing this, those who were effective in this company made sure that they persuaded their key managers by always having solid data to back up their arguments. 

Third, you can create your own “mini-culture” within the larger corporate culture, as long as this is not too deviant.  Countries have national cultures, but they also have regional and even local cultures.  The southern United States can feel quite different than the eastern United States.  Let’s say that you are a manager of a customer service team in your company.  You have strong beliefs about how customers should be treated that may not be as much of a priority to the larger organization.  Within your sphere of influence, you can build a strong sense of customer service.  How?  Start by getting your manager’s buy-in and support.  Have a compelling vision that you can communicate to him or her, as well as to your team.  Then get your team involved and excited to make sure that they share and internalize the vision – it becomes not just your vision but everyone’s.  Then walk the talk.  Recognize team members who exemplify great customer service.  Spend time with customers yourself, and act on their suggestions and complaints.   You need not be merely a victim or product of the corporate culture.

Lane, H. et al.  (2009).  International Management Behavior (Sixth Edition).  United Kingdom:  Wiley.