Globalisation is not a new corporate invention; nations have tried since the earliest recorded times to acquire territory and then impose their rules, procedures and philosophies on those they conquered. Some succeeded. But when they did, typically, this was the result of the conquered culture being virtually eradicated - not from synergy developed with it. Where the 'globalised' entity was not eradicated, there may have been periods of apparent compliance but eventually most ended with separation or national independence.
Nothing much is different in the corporate world. Money may enable a company to acquire another company and its cohort of employees, or to create one in another country, but it does not guarantee acquiescence or collaboration of the local workforce, let alone added benefits from synergy and diversity.
Cultural differences, experienced when attempting to operate across national boundaries, are deeply rooted and immensely, often invisibly, powerful. These pose the greatest challenge and threat to globalisation initiatives (and are also often the root of failed mergers and acquisitions).
Geert Hofstede developed a research-based systematic framework of dimensions for assessing and differentiating national and organisational cultures. Much of his work is described in his book Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, first published in 1991. Hofsted identified and defined five dimensions which explain cultural differences. These differences go far deeper than the mere differences in customs, manners, food, etc that tourists are advised to observe. These dimensions describe the very foundations of beliefs, values and ways of thinking that impact virtually every thought and deed and thus interaction with others.
Individualism
The degree to which action is taken for the benefit of the individual or the group.
If we develop processes such as performance management or performance related pay which are focused on the individual, they will not be effective and may even adversely impact performance in cultures that value group-based processes and vice versa.
Power Distance
The degree to which inequality or distance between those in charge and the less powerful (subordinates) is accepted e.g., to what extent are things decided by those higher up the hierarchy or through the participation of those within it.
If we develop processes such as goal cascading or authorisation and approval processes that assume hierarchical power and control, they will create issues in more participative cultures and vice versa.
Certainty
The extent to which people prefer rules, regulations and controls or are more comfortable with unstructured, ambiguous or unpredictable situations.
By its very nature, globalisation typically assumes that rules, regulations and controls are an appropriate means by which to leverage results. However, when applied to organisations in cultures with high tolerance for ambiguity, they may prove restrictive.
Achievement
The degree to which people focus on goal achievement and work or quality of life and caring for others.
Over the past decade, this dimension has also seen generation differences as well as national culture differences. Again, many performance management and reward processes assume the exclusive and positive impact of personal (individual) goal setting - even when the organisations implementing them exhort their managers to achieve work-life balance for their staff. In reality, the staff know that work-life balance comes only when the results already have!
Time Orientation
The extent to which people are prepared to adapt themselves to reach a desirable future, or the extent to which they take their guidance from the past and focus on fulfilling their present needs and desires.
The cultural differences in how time is viewed have had a major impact on organisations who attempt to implement processes that are strictly time-based with strict deadlines and short-term horizons. Those in cultures with different views see these as reactive, irrelevant and even destructive.
Despite us knowing about these issues since at least 1991, it is only recently that organisations are beginning to realise that globalisation may not be the panacea solution once thought - the benefits of efficiency, clarity, fairness, etc may not be gained if cultural differences are not taken into account. Glocalisation is now the new norm - developing a set of global principles or over-arching values but then developing local processes that reflect those values and take into account local cultural dimensions. Is this simple as in 'Keep It Simple Stupid'? No. But we are now in an era where valuable complexity is acceptable and ineffective simple solutions are not - and that does seem to be a global phenomenon.
Clinton Wingrove (pictured), EVP and principal consultant at Pilat HR Solutions
