8 challenges for Westerners working with Thais

First, full disclosure. I have travelled and worked all over the world and Thailand is my favourite place to work. Thailand has never been colonized and it is purely Asian, untainted with the colonialist influences, for better and worse.

Thailand is very unique, and it is hard to make sense of what is going on. The Thai business culture is very hard to decipher. Westerners constantly misread clients and staff and foreigners are very often misunderstood.

Here are eight challenges which illustrate some of the difficulties that you may encounter.

1) A Thai will go out of his way not to inconvenience you in any way, shape or form. Very often you may be told what to want to hear, unless you know how to get people to stop “klenjai”ing you (making you feel comfortable). It is not easy to get the level of trust that people will “level” with you. It can takes months.

2) Thais  takes work life balance very seriously. Any manager who does not respect this balance is pretty much wiped off the map. You must say hello in the morning, you should greet people and smile, you must engage in small talk and if you are too busy to do this, the Thais will not follow you.

3) Every country has its shortcomings. In some countries, one can discuss these shortcomings openly with the local staff. Not in Thailand. As an outsider, you must keep your criticism of Thai society to yourself. Don’t get this wrong.

4) Everything takes lots and lots and lots of time to get done.. Are you in a hurry? Don’t work in Thailand. And don’t try and speed things up.

5) Thai employees have opinions, criticisms, great ideas, personal preferences and dislikes. It is hard to observe all this unless you listen to what is not said, grasp hidden nuance, and gain peoples’  deep trust.You don’t get this by landing on Monday and leaving on Wednesday.

6) Meetings are not platforms for expressing differences of opinion “openly”.

7) Lots of very important information is relayed in gossip, because public discourse is needs to be polite and sound positive.Do not fight the gossip-log in.

8) If you are the boss, you are expected to know.  If you ask too many questions of your employees, they may wonder why you are a boss. And if you “delegate”, you may be seen as an absconder.

Share Button

When Israelis and Chinese work together, what are the major cultural factors at play-revised

I have spent hundreds of hours working with Israel and Chinese managers/ employees working together in various virtual organizational configurations.

The goal of this short post is to point out some of the main issues impacting their interaction.

The two cultures have a lot in common: a lot of internal divisiveness, “an insider/outsider” mentality in which you trust your own and tend to mistrust others; a huge Diaspora which creates a huge ethnic based network; a preference to leverage relationships ; a blunt communication style (within the inner circle) with few niceties as well as a disdain for “hot air” which both cultures see in North American management jargon. It is also worth noting that China and Israel have institutional corruption issues, and this impacts governance and management styles-one can see this manifested in a “love of short cuts and work around procedure”.

There are many differences between Chinese and Israeli business culture.

I will point out the top 5 differences in my experience:

1) Relationships in China are hierarchical; relationships in Israel are more egalitarian.
Israelis emphasize individual initiative as a way to get things done. (Israelis often view “asking the boss what to do” is a weakness.) The Chinese put far less emphasis on the importance of the individual and much more importance on command and control.
2) Israelis are suspicious about authority and challenge authority all the time. The Chinese defer and obey authority. And when they disagree, they show more apparent respect to the chain of command. This is by far the most hard-to-crack difference, especially when an Israeli employee speaks to his Chinese boss in the same way he addresses his Israeli boss.
3) Israelis hold planning in deep disdain and the Chinese value planning, albeit less than the Americans. Israelis view planning as a platform that can and must constantly be changed, while the Chinese see it as a commitment, although the Chinese are very aware that plans can and should change in a pragmatic fashion.
4) Both cultures “negotiate” everything as a way of life. Yet for Israelis, when a contract is signed, it is binding because Israelis are legalistic. The Chinese continue to haggle after a contract has been signed, via “post contractual negotiation”. This post contractual negotiation can drive Americans crazy. The Israelis shrug it off as another quirk that needs adjusting to.
5) Israelis are blunt, direct communicators who have no clue what “face” is all about. The Chinese are indirect, discrete communicators and use “face” to maintain social harmony. This can lead to a situation where the Chinese see the Israelis are chronically rude and the Israelis see the Chinese as two faced. This creates chronic trust issues which must be handled with care. This can lead to a situation where the Chinese see the Israelis are chronically rude and the Israelis see the Chinese as two faced.

In all my work over the years, the most common issue I have noticed is the breakdown of trust due to communication styles. Once this hurdle is overcome, my observation is that the Israelis and Chinese prefer working with one another more than they do with the more structured Americans or detailed driven Germans.

Revised Sept 18th
Follow me @AllonShevat

Share Button

What shocks Israelis about Japanese business culture-part 2

I have spent hundreds and perhaps a thousand hours working with Japanese teams and Israeli teams who need to interact, generally around the introduction of new products into the Japanese market.

There are probably few cultures as different as the Israelis and the Japanese. And it would be fair to say that I could write 100 things that appear shocking to the Israelis . I have chosen the top four.

1) The Israelis engineering/development teams find it very challenging that the Japan based offices do not filter Japanese customer input. Every bit of input from the customer appears magnified and blown out of proportion. A minor flaw gets the attention of a revenue-impacting flaw. Thus, the Israeli feels a need to “push aside” the Japanese member of their company and “speak directly to the client.”

2) The Israelis observe that the Japanese buy the Israeli innovation, yet “whine” about the “inevitable” ugly process of introducing something very new. “They want the child, not the pregnancy”, which appears very “unfair”.

3) Israelis work as hard as the Japanese, and I dare say, sometimes harder. So the Israelis  react very poorly to ceremonies of verbal abuse, which Japanese have known to deal out to the Israelis. Unlike the Americans and Canadians I have seen, the Israelis really cannot stomach verbal abuse, and many refuse to return after being thrashed.

4) I have observed several instances in which an Israeli was told by a local colleague  “The Jews are such good businessmen; how is it that this product has so many bugs”. Needless to say, this ain’t the wisest thing to say, although it is not classical anti-Semitism encountered at times in many other places, like Eastern Europe.

Yet strangely, there are many things which are very similar in the two business cultures: very very hard work, an emphasis on commitment, more loyalty to the work place than to one’s career…..and lots of jokes about Americans.

Share Button

What shocks Japanese about Israeli business culture

I have spent hundreds and perhaps a thousand hours working with Japanese teams and Israeli teams who need to interact, generally around the introduction of new products into the Japanese market.

There are probably few cultures as different as the Israelis and the Japanese. And it would be fair to say that I could write 100 things that appear shocking to the Japanese. I have chosen the top three.

1) An Israeli firm can send a team to a customer and the Israeli team can argue amongst themselves in front of the customer. In Israeli business culture, argument is a sign of commitment! The Israelis believe that the Japanese customer will appreciate their openness, and respect the fact that no one echoes “the party line”

2) The Israelis view severe quality issues of emerging technology as part of the game. You innovate, you introduce the product, and you mop up the mess. The Japanese customer “needs to know the risks  if they buy innovative products”.

3) The Israeli communication style of very, very open, far more open than any style they have encountered. An Israeli can easily tell anyone “ you are totally wrong”, “not true” or “let me correct you”. Needless to say, this ain’t what the Japanese are used to!

Yet strangely, there are many things which are very similar in the two business cultures: very very hard work, an emphasis on commitment, more loyalty to the work place than to one’s career…..and lots of jokes about Americans.

Share Button

A set of “algorithms” for global organizing: A building block of the new OD operating system

Minahan and Norlin in their recent article “Edging Toward the Center” (OD Practitioner: Vol 45: 4, 2013) suggest a move away from the extremities of OD which may have been applicable in the past in the happier days of OD and suggest that OD should migrate to the centre, i.e., towards bringing more value to clients without abandoning OD’s core values. I suggested in my critique of that article that this is “too little too late” because OD has been almost “voted off the island”; I also suggested we needed a new Operating System for OD, not a bug fix or service pack. I proposed six principles.

The goal of this post and the next 3 posts is to provide examples of each of the 6 principles I proposed as a new operating system for OD.

4) Create  a set of global organizing “algorithms” which address organizational design and management development; these so called algorithms serve as a platform to manage complexity in order to enable rapid and adaptive behaviour.

Global organizations often need to move quickly and be highly adaptive, because  speed is often a major part component of strategy. Yet global organizations are often slowed down by time zones, misunderstandings, overt and  hidden agendas as well as draining culture clashes.

Global organizing has been around enough that we know of many recurring problematic patterns that OD needs to cope with. The question is: how can OD be relevant? Let’s look at some of the recurring issues in global organizing.

1) Developing trust between cultures which follow process and those which leverage relationships.

2) Openness vs. discretion as preferred communication venue, especially when speed is strategy

3) Risk taking behaviour  vs. risk aversion behaviour-as linked to “face” and furthering/hindering one’s career, especially in new product introduction

4) Need for clarity vs. high tolerance of ambiguity, especially when two diverse sites are jointly developing a new product.

5) Obey vs. challenge authority

……and the list goes on and on.

Here are some examples of what OD would deal with:

1-In a Global Supply Supply Chain organization HQed in Holland and Singapore, in an industry with 2 products every 5 years/3 products a month, what organizational design/behaviour issues can be expected and what is the protocol for designing and staffing such an organization. What type of leader are we looking for?

2-In an organization which sells most of its products in Japan and the US, with R&D taking place in Israel and India, what organizational design/behaviour issues can be expected and what is the protocol for designing and staffing such an organization. What type of leader are we looking for?

The new OD operating system would drive these critical issues into organizational design and focus on non parochial leadership development, which is very different from what happens today.

Sadly at this point, OD does not deal early enough in global organizational design, and too few OD interventions are prophylactic in nature. This gap is a huge strategic niche; if OD can provide something even close to a conceptual and architectural algorithm for global organizational design, this would vastly improve our impact and not position OD in training and firefighting.

Nowadays, when the fires break out (if the manager has a high level of awareness and Gloria is not the HR manager, ) OD may be used to ease the pain, The pain relief (in the form of cultural training) probably has a western bias.

In the new OD operating system,  training would not have a western bias which would push  patience and understanding until the other side changes, nor preach “meeting in the middle”, which is clearly a western quirk. But that belongs to another post.

Share Button

Towards a new Operating System for OD-Developing Global Leaders

 

Minahan and Norlin in their recent article “Edging Toward the Center” (OD Practitioner: Vol 45: 4, 2013) suggest a move away from the extremities of OD which may have been applicable in the past in the happier days of OD and suggest that OD should migrate to the centre, i.e., towards bringing more value to clients without abandoning OD’s core values. I suggested in my critique of that article that this is “too little too late” because OD has been almost “voted off the island”; I also suggested we needed a new Operating System for OD, not a bug fix or service pack. I proposed six principles.

The goal of this post and the next 3 posts is to provide examples of each of the 6 principles I proposed as a new operating system for OD.

3) Develop global leadership/followership capabilities across acutely diverse cultural divides, which factor in value and behavioural  preferences of  all major cultural constituencies. (By acutely diverse, I do not mean merely a colour or food preference divide)

Amir (m) is an outstanding global leader. He is aware of the limitations of his own culture; his basic assumption is that things get done very differently all over the world. Amir has pushed back with vigour on HR attempts to push for unified way of doing things, promulgated in phoney globalism training.

Amir is multi-lingual. He speaks 3 languages and reads books, novels and newspapers of every country he visits. Before his recent visit to Turkey, he read Hurriet for a month, to be savvy of what is going on. When Amir visits different sites, he generally stays for the weekend.

He uses what works: Amir is high on relationships in Asia and in the Mid East, high on process in the US and parts of Europe. He is forceful yet tolerant when dealing with the creative yet undisciplined Israelis and orderly and disciplined when dealing with the Germans. Amir defines this cultural flexibility as his key skill.

When East meets West, Amir does not force feed western ways. Amir does not even push traditional “transparency” in cultures with “face issues”. Amir is quoted as saying “It’s my job to learn the bad news”.

In HQ, Amir’s chooses to surround himself with senior managers from different cultural backgrounds to ensure that the touch and feel of the organization’s HQ has huge variance so that it is user friendly to the extreme. For example, he constantly grills product managers about the cultural  variance of each major market before he ok’s travel.

When he visits Japan, he uses an interpreter and the meetings are in Japanese.

Amir looks at his role as a trust builder between his unit and the rest of the world. “I create a platform on trust and deals are plugged into that platform”.

Amir is very different from the managers who are trained by todays’ OD consultants, who promulgate “patience”, and “sensitivity” and listening skills, and perhaps even “know thyself”. Yet underneath todays consulting is a hidden bias of….one day folks will be develop and do things “our way”. Why does OD have this bias? Because OD itself which”leans” to and on western values.

When OD gets this right builds development of global leadership into the operating system, the sky is the limit of how much impact OD has.

Share Button

Cross Cultural Literacy: A major component of the OD Operating System

Minahan and Norlin in their recent article “Edging Toward the Center” (OD Practitioner: Vol 45: 4, 2013) suggest a move away from the extremities of OD which may have been applicable in the past in the happier days of OD and suggest that OD should migrate to the centre, i.e., towards bringing more value to clients without abandoning OD’s core values. I suggested in my critique of that article that this is “too little too late” because OD has been almost “voted off the island”; I also suggested we needed a new Operating System for OD, not a bug fix or service pack. I proposed six principles.

The goal of the previous, this post and the next 4 posts is to provide examples of each of the 6 principles I proposed as a new operating system for OD.

2) Drive cross cultural organizational literacy, so people from different cultures can understand the different view of organizational life
.

Cross cultural organizational literacy is the ability to understand organizational life as someone different from you understands it, and thus design organizations and organizational life appropriately.

People from all over the world see organizational life very differently and behave differently.
While the external veneer of organizations may superficially appear to be similar, “disturbed” somewhat by some background noise stemming from cultural differences, the perceptions of organizational life and desired behaviour actually have huge variance.
Time after time, despite the variance, OD mostly supports organizational alignment around Western values and norms, and thus, OD looses its relevance as a tool to debug problems caused by the global organizational configuration.
Many of the bugs of present day organizing can be debugged if OD approaches this issue holistically: structure, control mechanisms, enabling mechanisms, types of leadership and followership, training, policies, values etc.

Moshe argues to show committment; Shayakit does not give bad news in order to show committment, Hans follows process to show committment.

Stan (US) plans in order to control. Adi (Israel) does not plan, in order gain control. Anil (India) prepares to plan, but them improvises.

When Obe (Japan) is silent, Fred disconnects. When Fred (US) thinks out loud, Obe disconnects.

Sima (Israel) argues with her boss because she cares; then they have lunch together. Sam (Canada) discusses things with his boss, but must be careful not to ruin his career. Chai (Thailand) defers and shows respect to his ignorant boss, whom he criticizes behind his back at lunch with his peers.

Fred (US) focuses on strategy to get the long term right; Yossi ignores strategy to ensure survival; Yossi does not care about the long term. Fred writes off the short term (he lives in an Empire.

Paul (Canada( arrives on time to show respect; Sivan (Israel) will never allow a time constraint to interfere with content, because she respects content not form. Helmut (Germany) believes form is content.

Sally (US) show excitement and optimism to engage people around selling a new product. Pierre (France) feels that undue optimism and excitement disengage him. Som (Thailand), turns off when she hears how “great” everything is.

Organizing has a global configuration today, but OD relegates the aforementioned issues to the realm of “cultural training”. Typically OD would prefer Western managers have patience, and suggest that others grow; thus the growing irrelevance of OD.

Aligning organizations to be global is not cultural training; it is the very heart of OD.

And OD must understand that acquiring the ability to have us all understand how others view organizing is THE critical success building block of the new OD operating system.

Once we get this right, we can become important players in organizational design issues and develop prophylcatic and corrective interventions, far beyond the impact of cultural training.

Share Button

On interactions between Israelis and American Jews/ non-Jews in global business

The global configuration of business, the huge amount of US companies with an Israeli subsidiary (generally R&D), the growing number of Israeli owned company with a US office (generally marketing and a “shingle” for Wall  Street) ensure that Israelis and Americans are in frequent business interaction.

Some of the Americans are Jewish; some are not. This post related to observations accrued over time in working with the interfaces of Americans Jews/non Jews with Israelis.

It is important to state a priori that the most frequent error Americans and Israelis make when starting to work together is the assumption of “apparent similarity”, i.e., the attitude that the 2 cultures are pretty much culturally aligned. This is not the case; there are huge cultural gaps between the US and Israelis in communication style, decision making and basic assumptions about how organizations work. The pain caused by the differences is made all the more worse because of the initial assumption of similarity.

The pain causes some interesting things to happen.

1) At times, American non Jews will ask American Jews to try and explain the Israelis’ behaviour. The American Jew quickly learns “how very American he is” and he may find himself feeling somewhat alienated from his “co religionists”

2) An Israeli manager may assume that an American worker who is Jewish may give him better information about a certain situation. This never happens and the Israeli manager is stunned at “how American” the American Jew is behaving. When the Israeli is ultra- nationalist, he may see the American Jew as almost treacherous.

3) Israelis, known for their preference of the informal network as opposed to working the system, will often turn to a Jewish American. But the Jewish  American is American, and he will often not play the game. Thus, the informal networking that Israelis eventually work is the networking done with Indians and Chinese, more than with American Jews.

4) Americans often chose an American Jew to liaise with the Israelis, only to witness that while at times it may work well, this choice  often adds an unneeded hidden dynamic.

5) Many American Jews are very assimilated. Interacting with Israelis makes their ethnic background more salient, and they may feel more uncomfortable in dealing with the Israelis.

6) Americans often find great value in working with an Israel-based Israeli who is American born and bred. Israelis find huge value in working with a US based  American who is Israeli born and bred.

Share Button

The Upside of Knowing Nothing- Fred and Graham go to Thailand

Fred and Graham are two senior analog engineering managers who just returned from a joint business trip to Thailand.

Fred (an analytical introvert) was born and brought up in Raleigh and he studied in North Carolina. This was his first trip abroad. Fred attested that “I know nothing about Asia” before he left. “This will all be new to me-all I can say is that I am open to learn and sound stupid’.

Graham (a more jovial and outgoing extrovert) was born in Boston and he has a Chinese-Thai grandmother, which you would never know by the looks of him. He speaks rudimentary Thai yet Graham understands about 80 percent of what is said. Graham visited Thailand as a child, and this was his first business trip. “Don’t worry, Freddy -boy……you may be a better engineer than me, but YOU chose the right guy with whom to go to Thailand. I’ll show you the ropes”.

Fred loved the trip;  he felt comfortable at all times and he was well liked. Fred was patient and “half the time I did not know what was going on”….but more of often than not, Fred managed to engage the people effectively. The clients simply loved him.

Graham was far less lucky. Graham found himself very impatient with the pace of things. Try as he did, the locals did not appreciate his language skills and they preferred answering Graham in English. Graham felt the locals almost resisted him and he felt out of place.

Most strange of all,the clients preferred Fred to Graham, because they felt Graham “speaks down” and felt ashamed of their poor English. The clients understood why Fred went “straight” to business without small talk, and pardoned him. When Graham went “straight to business”, they chided him as “are you sure you are part Thai”?

This story illustrates a complex dynamic between Fred and Graham’s Thai hosts, within Graham’s psyche as well as the upside of knowing that you know nothing.

Share Button

Change is not a project that can be managed (revised Dec 18)

In recent posts, I have elaborated on some of the differentiators between Organization Development and Change Management in coping with the implementation of  complex organizational change. This post will illustrate provide a short case illustrating the differences.

Change Management approach is mechanistic. CM believes that change has a beginning and end, and the transition between the two is “manageable”. Change management focuses on delivering predefined changes to managers more than happy to in-source their woes. CM provides well documented and rational road maps on how change management delivers. CM uses a wide of tools, many of them mechanistic to the extreme.

OD views “changing” as ongoing and constant state, not a project with a beginning and end which can be managed like a software release. OD has a dynamic approach to the way events unfold in an organization. OD address underlying dynamics which impact the ability of organizations to adapt, such as power struggles, poor teamwork, lack of engagement, detached leadership and pissing contests. Professional OD consultants are suspicious about constant change programs and futile reorganizations.

The basic approach of OD is that “change” is likely to be subverted unless the underlying dynamics are dealt with. CM often blames underlying dynamics for screwing up their well drawn up plans.

OD focus is on achieving ongoing systemic flexibility and agility, not a one time hit and run change.

Let’s look at this real case which shows the difference.

Case:

MBK, a small Israeli  firm with a cutting edge technology, buys an American competitor with an older and out-dated version of the MBK’s technology in order to gain access to their former US competitor’s install base. The CEO wants to realize these synergies quickly via rapid integration, so he calls in both an OD consultant and Change Manager to get their cut on how this can be achieved as fast as possible.

The CEO wants the propagate the vision of “our wow new technology to our new US  install base-all leveraged and done in 6 months”.

OD’s Plan:

A realistic (aka pessimistic) OD consultant confronted the CEO that the transformation cannot be done that quickly; he suggests a 3 year year period adjustment time is more of less what is to be expected. The OD consultant claims that a vision of  “our new  technology to our new install base” means nothing very practical to the leadership and troops of both organizations. Each and every individual is worried about “what happens to me” and that is the issue which needs to be addressed, claimed the OD consultant.

The OD consultant wanted to start the integration by developing the framework of a flexible planning platform with a very small group of key people from both the US and Israeli organizations . This group is to be tasked with making (and re-make) plans and managing the integration activities which go on. The “plan will probably changes tens of times”, as it  takes into account the  goals of the acquisition, factoring in ways to deal with the massive resistance, fear, anxiety, and political agendas of all. The OD consultant called this plan a “a rolling out plan”, which changes all the time based on obstacles encountered and the derivative adjustment of the integration goals.

The CEO thinks the OD consultant has no  business focus and that he is negative.

CM Plan:

The CEO chooses to work with a  user friendly and less argumentative Change Manager!

The optimistic Change Manager draws up a plan (with his bare hands)  that creates synergies to leverage the newer technologies in the large US install base, creating huge revenues. The Change Managers’ plan, covered in 70 slides, takes 6  months to fully implement. The plan consists of redrawing roles, responsibilities, creating new processes and  some team building (via cooking classes and golf tournaments.)

The CEO is impressed and the CM is hired.

The Results:

3 months into the the plan, the CEO and his change manager look at the organization, and all they see is resistance and push back:  The US team had blocked access to their clients, and the Israeli team works directly with clients, causing friction. Sales are down and the organization is inwardly focused.

The CEO and his CM have stormed ahead, but the troops ain’t there. There are three months left to go and the integration has yet to begin.

The Change Manager and the CEO agree that a motivational speaker will be brought in. The cost of the motivational speaker is $9000.

PS. Naturally, CM and OD have their place in the current marketplace. For commercial reasons, CEO’s prefer the quick and often very ineffective CM fix. OD, caught up in its past, has yet to adapt itself to being relevant in global change.

———————————–

Dear subscribers, In order to clean up the spam, all blog subscriptions were deleted and a new subscription system installed. Please re register  on the right side, or below and sorry for the trouble.

Allon  אלון

Share Button