Four Cultures, One Company:
Achieving Corporate Excellence through Working Cultural Complexity
by Rebecca Dooley
To be published in a forth-coming edition of the Organization Development Journal
The need to globalize is an imperative for companies to compete for higher productivity, lower cost, and increased access to a worldwide customer base. On the human side of this strategy, major and minor intercultural disconnects between (and within) countries continually challenge productivity.
This case study describes an effort to understand and address a set of complex intercultural dynamics within a U.S. multinational company operating in Malaysia. Within the production work environment in Malaysia are three distinct ethnic groups: Malay, Chinese, and Indian, all attempting to function within the expectations of U.S. management. Included, are three phases of the change approach taken: 1) needs assessment, 2) educational intervention with embedded organizational feedback, and 3) management action and results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital (WD) was recently honored by being awarded number four ranking in the 2001 Best Employers in Asia study of out 355 companies participating. Hewitt Associates and The Dow Jones & Company independently conducted the Asian-wide survey. Western Digital manufactures and sells disk drives for computers. It is an extraordinarily competitive industry, with each drive maker in a race to break technological design barriers, ramp up the designs into production, and get into the market place as soon as possible. For Western Digital, this demands flawless execution between design engineering in the U.S. and production in Asia, with effective communication an imperative within a high-pressure environment. Until two years ago, a great deal of attention was given to the transfer of product knowledge between the U.S. and Asia. There was, however, no organized effort to understand and address the cross-cultural communication disconnects that sapped away at quality and productivity.
Two managers in significant positions on each side of the ocean recognized the problems were more than skin deep. On the Malaysia side was Mr. Tom McDorman, currently Managing Director of Malaysian Operations, who pointed out, From a managing perspective - given the tri-cultural makeup of the company - I realized anyone could be offending 1/3 of the population at any given point, resulting in a significant impact on productivity. On the U.S. side was Mr. Joe Viglione, Director of Test Engineering (U.S. based design center), who became increasingly disturbed by the consequences of poor Asian-Western communications and relationships. In an already high-pressure environment, we had situations where people were not understanding how they were being seen by another culture. In some cases, this was costing us dearly in time and money because of deteriorating relationships, described Mr. Viglione. Productivity was suffering due to the significant communication and management issues occurring between the U.S. personnel and within the Malaysian operation itself. These two managers teamed up with Ms. Rebecca Dooley, Principal Consultant of Dooley Associates, an organization development and training consultancy to unravel and address the underlying dynamics. An overall change cycle strategy was used, including a Needs Assessment phase, Course Design and Delivery with Feedback, and Executive Report and Management Action (see Figure 1 Change Cycle).
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
1
On the U.S. side, Mr. Viglione wanted the U.S. staff to ultimately receive training that would increase their ability to communicate effectively and build stronger relationships in Asia. This was becoming especially important due to a major restructuring of operations, one that consolidated all Asian manufacturing into Malaysia. Ms. Dooley was asked to interview managers and engineers from both the U.S. and Malaysian side to identify what were some of the common communication patterns, decision-making differences, and perception issues between Asian and Western sides. Of interest, was how these patterns and differences affected relationships, communication, quality, and efficiency of decision-making.
Mr. McDorman was interested in addressing not only Asian-Western communication skills, but also the inter-ethnic dynamics he was observing within the Malaysia plant. Through interviews and videoconference observation, Ms. Dooley was able to uncover critical incidents that revealed cross-cultural learning and organizational needs specific to Western Digital.
Through the interviewing process, questions from both Asian and Western sides about the way in which other did business quickly surfaced:
- Why does staff in the Asia seem to take less initiative in front of their bosses?
- Why do Americans interrupt and argue with each other, and change their minds so often in a meeting?
- Why are Americans so emotional about work issues?
- Why do Americans put their feet up on the table in front of others?
- What is the purpose of "saving face" and is it productive?
- Why are Americans constantly asked if they have eaten?
- Why do Asian counterparts say "yes," when they mean "no?"
- Why does an American engineer, lower in status, disagree with a Malaysian manager in a meeting?
- Why do personnel from Malaysia copy everyone in emails?
It became clear there were superficial issues - dealing with gestures and etiquette; as well as deeper-seated cultural value systems bearing on working relationships between the U.S. and Asia.
Wherever possible, examples and direct observation to illustrate the puzzling/irritation dynamics were sought and collected.
Rebecca Dooley was able to observe a videoconference involving U.S. and Malaysian personnel, with no U.S. expatriate personnel present on the Malaysian side. The purpose of the meeting was to status the quality and yield data on operations, by each product and line; and to review/identify actions that were being taken to improve the current state. The following observations were made, reflecting some of the issues raised by interviewees:
- Americans continuously interrupted the Malaysian presentations. The Americans really didn t want a detailed data dump, and certainly did not wish to wait to ask questions at the end of the presentation. They needed to interact with the content, debate, brainstorm, and resolve in the meeting, without having to wait until the end. However, not once did the staff on the Malaysian side interrupt a presenter, whether from their own staff or from the American s side. They waited until the presentation was complete, carefully asked a few questions, then sidelined the resolution indicating the issue would be worked outside of the meeting.
- Both sides had status obligations, with the Malaysian presentations far more detailed and lengthy than what was presented by the U.S. side.
- Americans would engage in frequent side discussions; openly arguing, disagreeing, and brainstorming with each other, often leaving the Malaysian side completely out. The Malaysian side did not interrupt or seek to participate in these discussions. The Malaysian group gave ordered presentations and recommendations, did not hold side discussions, and generally did not disagree with each other in front of the audience at hand.
- The Americans would ask questions, after which a relatively long period of silence would ensue from the Malaysian group. During this silence, the Americans would look at each other, fidget, rephrase the question, or start talking among themselves.
One scenario that was reported several times by U.S. staff was a situation where a Malaysian manager would direct a lower-ranked U.S. engineer to complete a task that the U.S. engineer disagreed with. If the U.S. engineer outright disagreed with the directive, especially overtly in a meeting setting, a flurry of email battles would ensue. The battle of the emails would ultimately escalate to the point of requiring senior executive intervention, with technical issues being reexamined that should have been resolved at significantly lower levels in the organization.
Another example involved a technically competent U.S. engineer, who went to Asia to assist in product transfer. Under the high-pressure environment, he went straight to work on what he thought was best to do, without giving consideration to what Asian production engineers were trying to tell him. He did not accept invitations to lunch or dinner, and generally did not socialize. If he disagreed with someone in a meeting he would say so bluntly. When the next product transfer cycle began and the U.S. prepared to send the engineer, the Asian management team (U.S. and local) simply refused to allow him to come. The engineer had no idea he had caused this kind of friction until he was barred from traveling.
Also interviewed, were three top-level American executives based in Malaysia. Though generally very positive about doing business in Malaysia, they expressed frustration about status meetings where confronting problems on an in-depth basis was systematically avoided. They perceived staff giving slow or non-responses to direct questions, which they found either non-productive or frustrating. They also expressed a vague discomfort over the lack of proper enthusiasm demonstrated about everything from tackling critical problems and objectives to subdued applause after an impassioned presentation.
As stated previously, Malaysia is made up of three ethnic groups: ethnic Malay, Chinese, Indian; each with their own customs and languages. Historically, occupational segmentation has placed ethnic Malays in agriculture and civil service sectors, with the Chinese making up the nation s business community, and the Indian population historically having been imported to provide for the labor-intensive needs of the country, such as laying down railroads. Currently, Malaysian government policy strongly promotes increased levels of education for the ethnic Malay segment, in order to promote their integration into the business community. Meanwhile, the Indian community has gained a significant foothold in technology and managerial skills much sought after by multinational companies.
In looking at the organizational structural microcosm of the WD factory, ethnic segmentation occurred in both functional and hierarchical forms. Hierarchically, ethnic Malay and Indonesian women under contract occupied the lowest status in the organization, providing direct production labor. Indian and a few Malay males occupied first-line supervision, with ethnic Malay men and Chinese in middle management positions. Chinese also occupied upper management positions, with predominantly Chinese and Americans in executive management. Functionally as well, there was a general tendency for an ethnic group to gain a dominant position either by a majority presence or by supervisory power. Hiring occurred primarily from the supervisor s own ethnic background and this was accepted as a perfectly natural thing to do. Such practices would extend the function s homogeneous composition. This group would then speak the language of the majority members of the group, even if there were others from other different cultures who did not understand that language.
This approach to organizing and hiring helped to perpetuate stereotyping, bias and prejudice, leading to mistrust between the ethnic groups. It was not uncommon for a manager or engineer to exclude a member of another ethnic group by explicitly ascribing a generalized negative characteristic to that individual. Thus, there was a significant heightened sensitivity about fairness rampant throughout the organization as indicated in climate surveys and other HR data.
The segregated nature of the organization, strong in-group/out-group dynamics between ethnic groups, and the role of supervisory power led to consequences unanticipated by WD management. This was poignantly illustrated by an incident that occurred a few months after Mr. McDorman had arrived to take over manufacturing operations. One of Mr. McDorman s immediate priorities was to tackle the high scrap rate. He directed his production floor supervisors to investigate all aspects of production, to identify the root causes for excessive scrap, and to target opportunities to significantly reduce scrap levels. He was looking for tooling, systems, procedural, and training issues to resolve. Although there were some technical issues identified and speedily resolved, Mr. McDorman was surprised at the dramatic rate of improvement that occurred in just a few weeks time. Week by week scrap levels dropped significantly, up to 50% in the first quarter alone.
One day, as Mr. McDorman walked around the production floor, he noticed a Malay woman production worker standing alone, doing nothing, facing the glass window, in full view of the other workers. Several hours later when he returned she was still there. He was puzzled by this and asked one of the Indian supervisors what she was doing. The supervisor replied this was to embarrass and punish her for scrap thaThe supervisor replied this was to embarrass and punish her for scrap that was traced to her station.
In the subsequent quarter, a physical inventory was conducted, which lead to the disturbing discovery that inventory overall losses had dramatically increased. This had a major cost impact on the production numbers, and cancelled out much of the gains accomplished in scrap rate reduction during the previous quarter. What had happened to the material? At about the same time as the physical inventory took place, the toilets throughout the facility began clogging up and the sewage maintenance crew was called in to investigate. The crew found the lost inventory; scrap material had been flushed down the toilet. Apparently, operators were hiding scrap in their clothing and flushing it down the toilet to avoid the embarrassment and punishment inflicted by the supervisors if the group had higher scrap levels. They did not understand the impact of inventory loss, only that scrap had to be reduced to avoid punishment. It took another quarter, after careful training and supervision, before both scrap and inventory levels came under control, and the continued improvement could be trusted.
What Mr. McDorman learned was that the local culture employed and accepted a downward punishment approach to managing, including abusive strategies from a U.S. perspective, as a means to improve output. This reality clashed with Mr. McDorman s values for leadership, and was one of the key incidents that led to more systematic management development at all levels of the organization. The role of positional power, with its cultural implications, became a significant part of the design of the cross-cultural training intervention.
Mr. McDorman notes that the incident is just one example among many others in which productivity is compromised by lack of awareness or ignorance of the cultural implications of managing.
Western Digital had related information to bear on the subject - the extent to which U.S. and Malaysia personnel had similar or differing expectations about What is Management Excellence. WD had conducted an exercise where management groups throughout the U.S., Asia, and Europe were asked to describe Leadership Excellence at Western Digital. Participants included front-line, middle, and executive managers, and encompassed all functions of the organization. The question each group had to answer was: What are the attributes, values, and behaviors which constitute management and leadership excellence for WD? There were 20 U.S. sessions and 7 sessions in Malaysia. Input was collected and thematically analyzed for similarities and differences. There were 93 unique themes identified by all sources. The top 23 most frequently mentioned themes in the U.S. and Malaysia were compared.
There were eleven shared priorities between the U.S. and Malaysia:
- Effective communication
- Teamwork
- Goal-Setting
- Empowerment
- Rational
- Open-minded/ adaptable/flexible
- Accountable/Responsible
- Listening
- Good Judgment
- Skilled
- Recognition and Reward
What was more interesting were frequently mentioned expectations expressed in the Malaysian context not shared as being priorities in the U.S. and the degree to which the issue/attribute appeared on the Malaysia radar, and not on the U.S. The management expectations with the highest differences in ranking between Malaysia and the U.S. are listed.
Malaysia Ranking U.S. Ranking
- Sociable 12 76
- Respecting Dif. Cultures 20 81
- Building Skills 6 58
- Fairness 2 49
- Influential 17 61
- Considerate 4 42
An interesting picture emerges. Sociable, described in Malaysia in terms of getting people together and friendly hosting of others is an important competency in management. Sociable registered far less frequently in the U.S., with a different emphasis as in the ability to demonstrate social skills and general friendliness. For the Malaysia environment Respecting Different Cultures, Fairness, and Considerate register as high priority on these skills, given the tri-cultural factors. Fairness, in fact, was the number two most frequently mentioned attribute of management excellence in the Malaysian context. Building Skills reflects the notion that the organization, rather than the individual employee bears the responsibility for learning. Influential is an interesting priority in Malaysia, placing the primary burden of influencing others on the manager rather than on the employee.
Five areas needed to be addressed within a structured learning experience:
1) Build intercultural understanding and skills between Asia and the U.S., which would address communication patterns, decision-making, how things get done, processing conflict, and leading others.
2) Intercultural awareness between the local ethnic groups (as well as more in-depth understanding of the local diversity for U.S. personnel).
3) Reduce stereotyping, prejudice, exclusion, and promote integration structurally throughout the Malaysia operation.
4) Solicit meaningful management strategies from participants themselves that would increase a desirable climate for all cultures.
5) Provide individual skills for understanding and coping with difficult and emotionally charged interpersonal situations.
A two-day course, Global Intercultural Leadership, was developed and offered to all managerial and engineering personnel doing business in or with Malaysia, involving approximately 700 people. Important data/information gathering opportunities were built into the course to provide executive management with a) more specific insight into the issues, and b) practical and systemic strategies that should be taken to improve the overall operating environment
The research framework chosen for developing a basic understanding of global cultural differences is Geert Hofstede s rich research, well described in Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, (McGraw-Hill, 1997). The five dimensional model provided the basis for discussing value differences and resulting predictable communication patterns and conflicts (to be described in a later section of this article).
A critical consideration for creating the kind of learning that was needed was to ensure that each class had adequate representation from each cultural/ethnic group; i.e. ethnic Malay, ethnic Indian, ethnic Chinese, and American. Participants were invited to bring a symbol of their culture, i.e. some object they felt reflected some important aspect of their heritage.
The Levels of Consciousness model was used to convey our different stages of awareness in any given inter-cultural encounter (Figure 2).
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2
The example of an American male meeting an ethnic Malay woman for the first time in a business context was used.
Unconscious Incompetence - The American attempts to shake the hand of an ethnic Malay woman, who recoils nervously.
Conscious Incompetence - After a few times of experiencing very awkward moments, the American becomes aware there is something generally wrong with the attempted gesture.
Conscious Competence - The American finds out that most Malay women prefer not to shake a man's hand because of religious beliefs, and consciously withholds the handshake.
Unconscious Competence - After many months, the American is able to automatically assess the situation of whether to shake the hand of a Malay woman or not. "Unconscious competence" also includes what we know about our own culture but don't realize. The goal of the course was to bring to a conscious level those areas where conscious skill building would enhance communication, relationships, and productivity for Western Digital.
Out of this self-observation and reporting process, similarities and distinctions between the groups surfaced naturally. An example was the contrast between the repeated value of respect for elders from all Malaysian cultures (Malay, Chinese, Indian), but never mentioned by U.S. participants. Family and maintaining community (and harmony) were frequently mentioned by all Malaysian cultures, whereas family was mentioned a few times by U.S. participants, but never community. The most common distinguishing values reported by U.S. were freedom, independence, and self-reliance. The Chinese more distinguishing set included long-term accumulation of wealth, hard-working, filial piety, and food. The ethnic Malay s unique values reported were hospitality, gentility and speaking softly, adherence to religious requirements, and neighborly sharing of food. The Indian groups often referenced the belief of cause and effect, such as Karma as a strong influencing value, and worry over what, when, and where to do things based on family expectations and traditional belief systems.
Demonstrating the different forms, circumstances, and meanings of handshakes was a fascinating part of this exercise: whether to look in the eye or not, what a firm versus a soft handshake communicates, how long, how close, one hand, two hands, no hands, male-female, to indicate sincerity, to one s elder. Around 20 different kinds of handshakes could be compiled through this process.
Although the three cultures co-exist in the same country, much of the information presented by each culture was unknown by other cultures. Between the reporting of values and associated sayings, demonstration of varying forms of handshaking, disclosing things most other cultures do not know about us, and allowing a period of interviewing, a rich foundation for building understanding, appreciation between all the cultural groups emerged. Although the three cultures co-exist in the same country, much of the information presented by each culture was unknown by the other local cultures. The interview session, where the cultural group under focus was asked questions by other groups was highly interactive and informative.
The Daily Misunderstandings was a revealing exercise dealing with non-verbal gestures and their perceived meaning even before people begin speaking to one another (Figure 3). In their cultural groups, participants are presented with a list of gestures and body positions and asked to evaluate whether their reaction would be a) positive, b) negative, or c) neutral. They were asked to add to this list those things they found puzzling about the behavior of other cultural groups. Thus, over the course of many classes, many things sometimes quite surprising - were added to the primary set.
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3
The introductory section explored the nature and effects of stereotyping (labeling and generalizing) and prejudice (exclusion because of a negative bias/labeling). Each group listed ways in which they felt other groups stereotyped them, and evaluated these stereotypes as to whether they were fair (there is some basis for this perception) or unfair (a continuous pressure to compensate for an unfair, negative perception). Following this disclosure, the other cultural groups provided positive stereotyping feedback (what are generalized gifts a particular culture brings to the organization) for each of the different cultural groups. Through this discussion, participants were made aware of the effects of negative stereotyping on the organization and individuals. This exercise may not work well in the U.S., where cultural and ethnic identities and differences are systematically minimized, even denied; but was a powerful way to reduce negative stereotyping, and increase appreciation for the rich cultures of Malaysia.
Part II: Hofstede s Five Dimensions of Cultural Values
In Geert Hofstede s research on cultural differences, he statistically identified five dimensions of cultural value differences between societies that impact workplace behavior, communication, decision-making, and conflict. They are:
1) Individualism-Collectivism
2) Power Distance (relationship to authority)
3) Masculine-Feminine (Task/Achievement versus Nurture Orientation)
4) Uncertainty Avoidance
5) Long Term Orientation
Though all five dimensions were examined, the course focused in-depth on two dimensions: Individual-Collectivism and Power Distance for two reasons. First, these two dimensions could explain the majority of the dynamics experienced between U.S. and Malaysia staff (see Figure 4).
Figure
4
Secondly, Low Power Distance as a variable is statistically correlated with societal wealth (Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, pg. 44) and productivity of complex tasks, therefore highly relevant to Western Digital operational success.
Individualism- Collectivism
Participants within each cultural grouping first answered a sample of questions culled from Hofstede s value distinctions, which most related to the needs assessment findings (see Figure 5 for abbreviated Individualist-Collectivist preferences). Responses were posted (blue dots indicated a collectivist preference, green dot an individualist preference). Secondly, the group discussed how their culture wanted them to respond to each preference set and posted their conclusions. It was important to do the second step for two reasons. One is there was pressure on participants to answer from a U.S. perspective because the company is owned by Americans. Secondly, many of the participants, who are well-educated engineers and managers, studied abroad such that they have likely experienced varying degrees of value shifts. When the group evaluated the general societal pressure on these value dimensions, they invariably mirrored the Hofstede research. This allowed for some examination about the degree to which they participants were in concert or in tension with their own culture, and the extent to which they were compelled to operate bi-culturally, depending on whether they were at work or within their cultural community.
Figure 5
Results of the exercise:
Participants from Malaysia varied widely in their preferences anywhere from indicating NONE to ALL collectivist preferences. Overall, Asian participants selected individualist preferences 63% of the time. U.S. participants selected individualist preferences nearly 100% of the time. However, when the Asian groups evaluated what their culture taught them about these preferences, they chose overwhelmingly collectivist preferences. An analysis of a sample of four workshop sessions revealed which collectivist statements were more likely to be chosen by Malaysian participants (Figure 6).
Figure
6
The only collectivist statement chosen sporadically by Americans was #1 - Decisions better made by consulting many people, and once in a great while #3 Group should receive praise.
Worth noting, is the unconscious emotional stamp cultural upbringing leaves. Regardless of how many green dots (individualist preferences) were chosen, when asked to describe what the person in the painting (Figure 7) was feeling, invariably Asian participants described him as "lonely," "unhappy," "depressed;" while U.S. participants described him as feeling "free," "in heaven," "peaceful," and happy."
Figure 7. Riding the Fence , by Wanda Coffey
The Hofstede research was then presented for countries in which WD does business. Important differences between Asian and U.S. values and patterns of communication, decision-making, and conflict were surfaced and discussed. Of particular focus are Asian-Western meetings, where strong differences exist. One issue is the surfacing of problems in a meeting (Western employees want to, Asian employees don t want to). Another is discussing/arguing a point with emotional fervor. Americans think it shows commitment, Asians experiencing it as over-emotionalism, aggressive, and seeing overt conflict as a dynamic that threatens the relationship. Initiating ideas and interrupting others are typical practices and indicate proaction and intelligence to the U.S., but seen as rude and presumptuous by Asians. Discussions about the length and meaning of pauses often surfaced. To the Asian perspective, a long pause means giving adequate consideration and thinking to the question. To the American, a long pause means insecurity, or even sullen anger. Behavioral strategies to bridge communication were introduced and practiced.
Power Distance
Power Distance is a significant issue for WD. Power Distance, according to Hofstede, is the extent to which those in power are expected to exert authority over others. The desire to create an organizational culture of empowerment and decision-making at the lowest level is a complex proposition. The Hofstede data reflects the large societal gap between the U.S. and Malaysia, and the tension between high and low power distance preferences is experienced on continuous basis throughout WD. On a general level, WD staff from the U.S. take initiative, make suggestions to their bosses, don t wait to be told what to do, want to make decisions about their work, don t want to be monitored/micro-managed, and are not afraid to debate an issue with a superior. These behaviors would be looked upon in a Malaysian context as tantamount to insubordination.
Within the WD Malaysia operations itself, the expectations were far from uniform. Participant preferences on a sample set of questions ranged from very high power distant preferences to very low. Often surfaced, was the dilemma of an employee with a strong low power distance preference, but reporting to a high power distance boss. The well-educated technical staff members often expressed frustration over wanting more control over their work and decisions, but felt their bosses would not allow increased autonomy. Also discussed were the expectations of the production workers, usually from rural communities, with limited education. They expect to be closely monitored, and told what to do, how, when, and to varying degrees expect to be chastised about non-performance. Not providing this type of close supervision would be perceived as poor management who doesn t care whether things are done right or not. Empowerment is a slow process indeed for this population. Generally speaking, course participants overwhelmingly wanted to see a culture of low power distance fostered, both for the sake of efficiency as well as psychological well being.
A skill exercise at the end of these two dimensions challenges Asian and Western participants to switch hats and practice conducting a meeting using the opposite preference set. The most difficult actions for U.S. participants were long pauses, and showing deference to managers. The most difficult actions for the Malaysians were defending a personal idea, interrupting others, and continuously talking.
One of the most important parts of the course dealt with how to organize in a multicultural workforce environment. The central activity was inspired by Rosabeth Moss Kanter s The Tale of O (video, 1993), which uses symbols to examine power dynamics and psychological effects of minority-majority group dynamics. Participants were asked to draw from their own experiences to describe the effects of three organizational alternatives: Segregated, Majority, and Integrated. Figure 8 employs the use of different colors to illustrate organizational options. Option 1, for example, illustrates two groups, The Greens and The Reds. Each group is completely homogeneous and participants are asked to describe positive and negative consequences of this structure, and the likely relationship between the two groups.
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
8
Option 2 was further embellished by asking participants to describe the likely consequences under the conditions of when a) the supervisor was also a red, and b) when the supervisor and his/her manager both were the greens.
The most common observation where the structure had a red supervisor with a majority red group in Option 2 was the increased likelihood of bias and favoritism, helping to explain why there is high sensitivity towards this issue in the organization. In a structure where the greens are the supervisors (i.e. The West), the following sobering observations were made repeatedly:
- Fast decision-making because the boss is always right, more autocratic
- Less favoritism because the boss makes decisions based more on merit than ethnic orientation (this was a surprise finding)
- Minority boss tends to not socialize, listen to, or respect different opinions of the majority
- Important information might not get to the green due to fear
- Resentment and resistance builds from the group, group loses respect for supervisor, difficult for the supervisor to motivate the group, implementation becomes increasingly difficult
- Majority becomes rebellious and revolts difficult to manage the group, instructions not obeyed, sabotage likely at this stage
- Majority finds a way to get rid of the supervisor, or supervisor decides to leave
These insights into the implication of structure were serious issues since many functions in the factory were structured in these ways. Compensating strategies suggested by participants for Option 2 (Majority) type of structure included:
- More socializing between cultures
- Mix reds and greens on assignments
- Set clear vision and objective goals
- Listen and understand alternative ways of thinking
Participants could see the psychological advantage of not having any single majority culture dominating a group (Option 3 of Figure 8). However, it was acknowledged that a common language, clear goals, and operating ground rules would be important to establish for optimizing this structure.
The empirical evidence backs up first hand observations and highlight the compelling risk and opportunity at stake. Studies of homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups indicate both possibility for increased performance (Tjosvold, 1989; 1993, Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993), and the threat of underperformance Randolph & Blackburn, 1989, Jackson, 1991). It is clearer that heterogeneous groups do better on tasks requiring problem-solving, creativity, and managing complexity, as long as group members have a higher tolerance for conflict (Shaw, 1976), and striving for common goals (Terborg, 1976). Increased performance will more likely occur when managers can reconcile competing goals (goal clarity), and distribute power in a representative manner (Cox, 1993). Polarization of different social groups within the organization harms productivity, breeds cynicism and resentment, heightens intergroup frictions and tensions, and lowers productivity (Gottfredson, 1992, Carnevale & Stone, 1994).
Immediately after this exercise, participants reorganized themselves in an as mixed configuration as possible by culture, gender, age, and function. They were given an exercise to identify and diagram non-work related areas they had in common, create their own operating principles for working together, and develop a team name and logo. This is an energizing, inspiring part of the workshop, where people can see how diversity in a group can be a creative advantage.
Part IV: Management Strategies for WDM
Two approaches for receiving specific feedback for management were designed into the course. First, a leadership survey based on the most frequently mentioned attributes of an excellent leader by Malaysia employees was anonymously administered to 166 course participants to obtain a baseline, snapshot reading of overall WDM management performance. Conclusions for management action on specific priority themes are summarized in Figure 9. Secondly, a feedback session was held, where the question was posed to groups: What are specific things that WDM management could do to create a desirable environment that values and welcomes different cultures, and systematically encourages productive cooperation? In this exercise individuals used post-it notes to generate as many practical ideas as possible. Groups organized the notes into clusters and presented them to the WDM Managing Director. The suggestions were compiled by frequency of mention, and a full description of each category was presented to the executive management team (Figure 10).
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
9
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 10
With these two sets of data from course participants, Mr. McDorman established the Board of Excellence, where specific executive responsibility and organization was formed (see Figure 11) and vision and goals established for each. Status in these areas is given regularly.
Figure
11
Creating a common WDM operating culture, which embraces the best of all cultures, yet transcends specific cultural differences emerged as one of the most significant actions management could take. It became clear that the more diverse the set of cultuIt became clear that the more diverse the set of cultures working together within a company, the more urgent the need for a shared organizational culture.
Part V: The Human Brain and Response Cycles
As stated previously, WD is in a high-stress industry, a condition that can often lead to uncomfortable confrontations in an attempt to resolve issues quickly and correctly. There is not always time for careful consideration of cultural protocol. Yet, a rash comment or unthoughtful gesture that violates a deeply held cultural value can result in losing objectivity and replaced by fight/flight reactions of shock, anger, sadness, revenge, or withdrawal to name a few. For this reason a portion of the course dealt with the emerging body of science surrounding the physiology of the human brain, the role of adrenaline, and how stress situations can be recognized and managed. Chemical reactions in the brain under stress were examined, and simple behavioral diagrams were developed (Figures 12 and 13) based on Daniel Goleman s Emotional Intelligence one representing a positive cycle, the other a negative cycle to proved a tool for understanding, analyzing, and coping with these triggers.
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 12
Figure 13
Participants generated common threatening triggers in the workplace, whether they be cultural or otherwise, and analyzed positive and negative cycle responses. Often, the origins of these triggers were based on humiliating comments from bosses. One participant commented, Face is all well and good, but it does not apply to bosses in Malaysia. The higher up you are, the more you can yell. Strategies for interrupting the negative cycle were generated and discussed. Most of the discussion centered on managers replacing a yelling/interrogating pattern with a calm discussion/problem-solving and involving pattern. It is interesting to note that most of the Asian solutions to negative trigger stimulus continued to be avoidance or accommodation strategies, while American suggestions tended to be comparatively confronting, address it directly strategies.
The last activity of the course was for each group to role play a real work situation, with a Round 1 Negative Cycle with its consequences, and a Round 2 Positive Cycle, where the same situation is processed using creative positive cycle strategies.
Sudhir Bhassu, Manager of Test Equipment Engineering comments, "Learning about brain functioning has seeped into our status meeting vocabulary. When things get tense, words and phrases about 'adrenaline reaction,' or 'an amygdala moment' help remind us that it is possible to manage stress intelligently, rather than in reactive ways that hurt each other, cause us to make poor decisions, or destroy productivity."
As a result of course input, a "WDM Way" Summit was convened, made up of a cross-section of functions, cultures, and levels of the Malaysia operation. The summit task was to agree on a unifying set of meaningful core operating values, specific to WD Malaysia, that would become the expected way managers and employees would conduct business and work with each other. The values adopted through a consensus-based facilitated process included:
1) Respect and Fairness
2) Compassion and Caring
3) Integrity
4) Adaptability
5) Responsibility
6) Teamwork
Passion was surfaced and vigorously debated as to its merits as a value for Western Digital Malaysia. (Worth noting: it was uncovered in one of the workshops that passion connotes hot feeling in Chinese, which is viewed as an unstable condition that threatens harmony.) Ultimately, the issue was resolved by an agreement that WDM management and employees would develop a passion for living up to all the values.
Due to the establishment of the Board of Excellence and focus on developing a common operating culture, impressive progress was made in a short period of time. HR recruits for cultural balance throughout the organization; "irritations," such as canteen, parking, and ethnic holiday scheduling and coverage have been dramatically improved; an increased rate of company-sponsored social gatherings has been met with high attendance and enthusiasm; emphasis on establishing objective performance criteria is helping to improve fairness issues; management staff is continuously encouraged and trained on how to reduce power distance ; and the "WDM Way" has become central to all employee development activities.
The most significant recognition of broad-based impact throughout the organization was Western Digital achieving the fourth ranked position in the Top Employers of Asia Award for 2001. The award was based on employee survey data, assessment of employee engagement and innovative HR practices, and interviews with top leadership (see figure 14 for a sample of Hewitt findings).
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
14
The complete list of the top 20 Best Employers is found in Figure 15.
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
15
"The most significant change that has happened in a short period of time is the sense of belonging and commitment that people have toward WD Malaysia," reports Fauzi Che Rus, Director of HR. "This is reflected in the Hewitt survey data, where high employee satisfaction has resulted in our being ranked fourth Best Employer in Asia. We still have a lot to learn and development to go, but we have tremendous momentum to build upon."
Mr. McDorman adds: "We've experienced a 20% productivity increase in operations last year, and part of this can be attributed to what we've been able to accomplish with our people through education and relentlessly targeting problems. But beyond data collection systems, I have to say there is also direct observation that is very satisfying to me. For example, when I see a group of people from different ethnic backgrounds choosing to have lunch together, that tells me something. Whenever a new project comes up, we try for as much of a diverse mixture of personnel in the team as possible. We talk in terms of 'reducing power distance' in the organization. When I see an American modify their behavior in a meeting to be less aggressive for the Asian context, or making sure to hand an ethnic Malay an object with their right hand, it shows real learning has and continues to occur, and 'improved productivity' is happening before my eyes."
Western Digital was able to successfully understand, address, and significantly improve its operating environment in a short period of time by:
1) Putting effort into systematically understanding the complex intercultural dynamics occurring within the company.
2) Creating a learning opportunity for building intercultural skills, with feedback from participants embedded in the process to guide management action.
3) Determined and visible leadership at the Executive Management level, where clarity and organized accountability led to follow-through on development plans.
4) Forging consensus around a core set of meaningful operational values, which transcended individual cultural preferences.
5) Engendering community and commitment throughout the organization through increased social gatherings, sponsoring events and training around the core values, and systematic management development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing of references used in understanding the cross-cultural dynamics and the development of the workshop:
Augsburger, David, Conflict Mediation Across Cultures. Westminster John Knox Publications (1995)
Barth, Fredrik, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. 1969.
Carmel, Erran, Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones. Prentice Hall (1999)
Carnevale, A.P. & Stone, S.C. Diverstiy: Beyond the Golden Rule. Training & Development. 48, 10, 22-39 (1994)
Cox, T.H. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler (1993)
Dodd, Carley H., Dynamics of Interpersonal Communication, 4th Edition. WCB Brown & Benchmark (1995)
Ding-Ho, Wang. Why the Chinese Act this Way. Caves Books, Ltd. Taipei. 1977.
Farid, Elashmawi, Multicultural Management, New Skills for Global Success. Gulf Publishing Company (1993)
Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence - Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books (1995)
Gudykunst, William B., Ting-Toomey, Stella, Culture & Interpersonal Communication. Sage Publications (1988)
Gottfredson, L.S. Dilemmas in Developing Diversity Programs. Diversity in the Workplace. New York: Guilford Press (1992)
Harris, Philip R., Managing Cultural Differences. Gulf Publishing Company (1991)
Hofstede, Geert, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. McGraw-Hill (1997)
Hofstede, Geert, Culture s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1984 and 2001)
Jackson, S.E., ed., Diversity in the Workplace. New York: Guilford Press (1992)
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, The Tale of O (video). Goodmeasure Inc., 1993
Lewis, Richard D., When Cultures Collide. Nicholas Brealey Publishing (1996)
Lustig, Myron, Intercultural Competence, Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures. 2nd Edition, Harper Collins (1996)
Randolph, W.A. & Blackburn, R.S. Managing Organizational Behavior. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin (1989)
Simmons, George F., Transcultural Leadership, Empowering The Diverse Workforce. Gulf Publishing Company (1993)
Shaw, M.E, Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior (2nd edition). New York. McGraw Hill (1976)
Storti, Craig, Cross-Cultural Dialogues. Intercultural Press (1994)
Terborg, J.R. Castore C., & NeNino, J.A. A Longitudinal Field Investigation of the Impact of Group Composition on Group Performance and Cohesion. Journal of Personality and Psychology. 34, 782-790 (1976)
Tjosvold, D, Learning to Manage Conflict: Getting People to Work Together Productively. New York. Lexington Books (1993)
Training Management Corporation, Doing Business Internationally, 5th Edition. Princeton Training Press (1999)
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. & Michaelsen, L.K. Cultural Diversity s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups. Academy of Management Journal. 36, 3, 590-602 (1993)
Wenzhong, Hu and Grove, Cornelius, Encountering the Chinese 2nd Edition. Intercultural Press (1999)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebecca Dooley is an organizational development and training consultant, based on California. Rebecca works with Fortune 1000 companies, universities, and national and international government agencies around the world. Her current active consulting and research interests include vision/planning strategies, defining internal leadership excellence criteria and organizational core values, and developing global intercultural skills. More of her work can be viewed at www.global-intercultural-training.com . |
|
|
