It ain’t easy managing creative people.There are hundreds if not thousands of US based managers who are managing Israelis, especially in R&D and Engineering.

The US based managers enjoy the hard working nature of the Israelis, the boundless  creativity and the pragmatic, no nonsense approach of “doing whatever it takes” to get the job done. On the other hand, the way that Israelis do business can be very annoying to US based managers.

I have a list of about 45 annoying things that Israelis do to American manager and how to deal with them. In this post I will deal with three of the more annoying behaviours.

1) Israelis argue all the time. Absolutely  everything (especially management direction) is up for debate. While this debate enables a lot of the creativity, it is often hard for a US based manager to manage the endless filibusters in order to “move on”.

The best way to deal with this is to let the arguing go on until “enough is enough” and then end it very forcefully by standing up, raising your voice, and tell them to stop arguing. You can do so in English, and if necessary in Hebrew. If there are two Hebrew words a US manager should learn, they are “tafsiku lhitvakech”-stop arguing. (תפסיקו להתווכח)

2) Israelis challenge authority all the time. If a US manager believes that once he has given direction “my word be done”, he will be in for a rude awakening. Israelis (like Aussies) are very suspect of authority and never acquiesce without a good fight. The upside is that you won’t encounter passive resistance, but you sure will encounter active resistance.

The best way to deal with the challenge to authority  is to absorb some punishment, fight back, and when enough is enough simple say….”the discussion is over-do what you are told”. The Israelis will respect this far more than a weak and politically correct hint, such as “get over it, guys”.

3) After a decision has been made, Israelis often return to the decision and try to re open it with new facts and opinions. More than anything else, this drives US managers crazy. The upside of this behaviour is that last minute changes often enable a more flexible response; the downside is that this flexibility is not scalable.

The best way to deal with this is to allow re opening of decisions in engineering and technical matters, and not allow this reopening of decisions in other less critical areas. When you do not allow an Israeli to revisit a decision, you may lose his trust, but take the risk, because otherwise you can spin wheels in endless debates.

Managers (especially those educated in the West) often feel the need to provide vision, hope and clarity of direction even in the most turbulent and uncertain waters. The managerial assumption is that people need hope and something to cling to. This managerial assumption has a cultural bias.One part of the cultural bias is that ambiguity needs to be mitigated because it is intolerable. Another part of the cultural bias is that stories should have happy ends, sort of “ all is well that ends well“ as a desired state.

Not all cultures have a need for management to provide this perceived sense of phony hope, especially if the provision of this hope compromises credibility of their manager. For many cultures, it is “ok` to promise blood, sweat, tears, criticism, temporary floundering and worse, as long as the boss is seen as credible,  technically competent, street smart and on top of things. The cultural bias herein is the overriding need for credibility, the willingness to let go of the perceived myth that we control our destiny and the tolerance for ambiguity in a hostile environment.

And thanks to GC for making me think.

Many Western managers are truly shocked when Asian and Mid Eastern  folks feign understanding. “Now what’s the big  deal to say “I don’t understand”. Why do I have to figure out that I am being misunderstood?”, asks many a Western-educated boss.

There are many reasons why it is not universally accepted practice to admit lack of understanding. Here are the top 6.

1) Showing lack of understanding needs a context of trust. If I do not feel safe, I need to keep my guard up.

2) Showing lack of understanding shows weakness, and in the business world world, weak people get screwed.

3) It is not my role to say I do not understand. It is my boss’ role to ensure that I understand, and he needs to do so with compassion.

4) My peers may make fun of me if I ask a question of understanding, because they think I am showing off.

5) My accent makes me shy.

6) I feel deep embarrassment admitting limitations of any time publically due to face saving needs.

This post will document how cultural differences can create a huge gap around the issue of what is the appropriate way to fulfill one’s role.

I have chosen one case study, one Israeli, one German and one American.

Case:

An Israeli project manager overseeing the deployment of an infrastructure project in the field of telecommunications now realises that part number 43 has not been ordered; the part will cause a huge delay in “go-live” and negatively impact total project revenue by 5% due to penalties.

All procurement goes through a very well regulated purchasing process, totally controlled by IT technology. “Procurement by the book” of part 43 will take 6 months. Part 43 is needed in two months.

Shai, the Israeli project manager will order  part 43 “outside” of the procurement process (from the same vendor always used)  and issue an email ok’ing to the supplier that the supplier will be paid in full. The Israeli project manager must avoid having a “rosh katan” (small head); avoiding rosh katan means “it is not only important to do YOUR OWN piece, you need to see that the entire job gets done. Obeying orders and following process is a poor excuse”

Johanna from Dusseldorf is Compliance Officer on site. Her role is to ensure process compliance and contract fulfillment. Johanna sees a conflict between process compliance and contract fulfillment, so she has emailed her American boss, asking for his guidance. Johanna has provided a very detailed description of the problem, along with a recommendation of sticking to process at all costs  and having those who erred “face the consequences”. Johanna firmly believes that process compliance is more important than any specific project. Johanna believes that she must only do HER job.

Kevin is the American who managers Mr Cowboy Shai and Ms Rigid Johanna. Kevin believes in process, tainted with pragmatism. He certainly does not like the way that Shai operates, but Shai always delivers. He is glad he has a watchdog like Johanna, and he does not want to demoralise her. Kevin will ensure Johanna that he fully supports her, and “at the same time” ask her to sign off ex post fact, promising this will be the last time. Shai will be publically castigated and yet, he will get a bonus for delivering. Kevin believes in pragmatism.Doing one’s role means being mature, pragmatic and expedient. He does wish Johanna and Shai would have talked between them, but he has given up on this long ago. He does wish all parties would adopt his pragmatic view of doing the job and moving on.

Israelis often assume that Canadians are like Americans who live in a cold country, and some of them speak French. This of course is not a very useful paradigm with which to start to work with Canadians.

When preparing Israelis to work with Canadians, these are the main differences which I point out:

• Canada is a very secular society. I prepare the Israelis that they will not find a lot of religious fundamentalists in Canada who marvel at those who come from the “promised land”, as they find south of the border.
• I prepare Israelis that in communications, Canadians are not as explicit as Americans may be. Messages may be more subtle, and objections may be expressed somewhat mutely.Israelis tend to see Americans as not very confrontive, and I prepare the Israelis that the Canadians are even less confrontive. And I warn them that being “nice” is very Canadian, but niceness  does not mean agreement exists.
• I warn the Israelis that an authoritarian style does not fly as well in Canada as it does in the States. I also warn Israelis not to brag about the military background in the more peace-loving Canada.
• I tell Israelis that Canadians do not expect people to act like they do, because they realize that Canada is not the center of the world. Canada is very tolerant in this way. And I caution the Israelis not to be pushy.
• Canada and Israel, I point out, are more egalitarian in nature than the US.
• I also point out that Canada and Israel are far less politically correct, and the humour of both countries contains many examples of ethnic stereotyping, without people dropping dead and calling a lawyer; yet I warn them to exercise caution.
• Many Israelis speak perfect French. In Israel, speaking French may have a perceived negative value, because it is indicative of hailing from a Middle Eastern background. I encourage Israelis to use their French freely in Quebec. I also prepare them that in interactions with the Quebecois, the management style may be slightly more authoritarian. Quebecois and Israelis may be more informal and fun loving after work, when things can get done as well.

Several factors impact the constant use of mobile phones.

1-demographics

2-in certain cultures, one must always be available for customers (e.g., Japan, China, India, Israel)

3-in certain cultures, you need to constantly available for family (e.g., Israel)

4-business happens on-line and people are expected to be highly responsive.

5-technology is addictive.

Both during personal consulting sessions and in group sessions, I had allowed people to keep their phones on silent. And more and more, people started taking calls, or answering sms (text) messages or calling an admin to give instructions based on a text message/sms which had been received.

Subsequently , I started asking people to turn off their phones; in groups I would put the phones in a paper bag, and inevitably we would all be hearing ringtones or buzzing.

As of late, I no longer allow cell phones in a group session. I gather the cell phones and insist they are left outside the room and they are in OFF mode. If people refuse, I tell them they need to choose: session or phone. I am no longer a cultural relativist on this issue. I demand that there is no cell phone usage in group sessions I facilitate.

In personal consultations I am more lenient, but I tell the people I work with that use of the phones really annoys me.

I do not accept the fact that I am intransigent or old fashioned. I think it is the right thing to do. Often I use the fierce resistance to my 0 tolerance for cell phones as material to work on during the sessions, especially in companies in which people are very busy texting/emailing yet nothing happens. The Israelis call this hyperactive organizational impotence as“full gas in neutral”.

I have been fired twice for the “no mobile phone policy”, and as Edith Piaf sang, moi je ne regrette rien..