1) There is a “psychological” sense of urgency, unrelated to real needs.
2) Speed has become default strategy; sometimes, it does not even matter what is being done, it needs to be done quickly. This is often survivor-based mentality.
3) There is a generic low level of trust that others do their jobs well.
4) There is a belief that ingenuity and drive gets things done, whilst structure and process slow down things down.
Often, managers ask my why people from certain cultures are reticent or refuse to escalate issues via email/phone call when appropriate.
Let us take an example.
Tada from Chang Mai is a product manager for Product Q 4 in Asia Pac. Recently, a leading VP from HQ returned home with a long list of issues to be fixed. Tada had shared the list of concerns only after having been asked. Let’s see why Tada never escalated before he was asked.
1) Tada prefers harmony to conflict. Tada believes that conflict or bad feelings need to be avoided at all costs because these unpleasant states are almost irreversible.
2) Tada believes that the role of his boss is to know things and act. If he does not know, he should know. If the boss does not know, he should ask. If the boss does not ask, it is not Tada’s role to tell him and “upset” him or disrespect him.
3) Tada believes that maintaining hierarchy is more important than resolving specific issues.
4) Tada believes that he will be “stick out as a trouble maker” is he escalates, and while escalation may solve a specific issue, his reputation within the organization will be tarnished.
Corporate HQ is not happy about the expected 8 month delay of an upcoming critical product. There is fear that a window of opportunity will close in the next quarter, which may render the product irrelevant.
In a lesson learned exercise done by an outside consulting firm, the report said “ there is too little transparency between development teams, located in San Francisco, Tel Aviv and Beijing. More transparency and better team work between the teams will drastically accelerate development”.
The truth is that transparency between the development teams is not the issue; there is fierce competition between the teams on who will be blamed for the obviously hallucinatory overly aggressive commitments which were made to the market. The fact is that the delay will be 2 years, not eight months! (The external consultant never got it).
San Francisco based team members have “placed the résumés” on the web, to bail ship. In the meantime, they claim they are “waiting and waiting” for the Israeli designers to translate business needs into product architecture. The Israelis claim that the “business needs as described by the SF team are empty platitudes”. In Beijing, developers who are supposed to be designing building blocks for the product are fooling around on Facebook all day, whilst providing progress reports on non existing building blocks.
The external consulting firm not see the root cause of the dirty politics as a derivative of the hallucinatory commitment to the marketplace. The external consultants were too ideological about the need for transparency and team work in global teams. The external consulting firm worked with a productized OD model on “how to succeed in global development”. The consultant had 3 years experience. His last project was improving supply chain issues in the frozen meat industry. The consultant has never travelled outside of the US, yet the firm for which he works is “well-branded”.
The cooking class post of a few days ago illustrated the purchasing of a simple and useless solution for a complex problem. My Gloria Blog provides many examples of this.
While many organizations do handle problems of global organizing appropriately by leveraging OD, this post will relate to reasons why lots of companies do the wrong thing.
1) OD has become productized, having migrated from solution-based projects. This is good for large consulting firms who can then hire new college graduates who learn to “administer” the products quickly.The firms charge high prices using their brand name, and “clip a coupon”.
2) The death of professional standards has been replaced by commercial standards, i.e., making the client “happy”. This client is often from HR or represented by HR. Threatened by their low status and the derivate need to perky and pleasing, the HR manager wants wow results from nifty products. This is even worse if the consultant is hired by Training.
3) Many inexperienced global organizations want “one size fits all”, because they do not understand the need to differentiate between a shared “core” and specialized applications. For example, the core may be “we want transparency”: this should NOT lead to “running better meetings”, because information is not shared in meetings in many parts of the world.
Bill manages a cutting edge development team based in Durham N.C., Amsterdam Holland and Haifa Israel. The team is working on Version 21.1 to be released in 3 weeks
A crisis in India has arisen with version 19.5 and 3 engineers need to fly to the client. This will be tremendous wear and tear on the other members of the development team.
Hank (Holland) said this pressure reminded him of a joke and proceeded to tell a very off colour joke; naturally, Chicago based Nancy White, EVP HR jotted this down as an urgent “actionable item” for her upcoming 1/1 with Hank. After the joke, Hank said that the decision to bend over backwards to accommodate the Indian customer was “idiotic”.
Hadas (f) from Haifa criticized Mike for “poor judgement”. She then lectured for 20 minutes on priority management and “what I vud do if I was in your shoes”. She then asked Bill: “Have you fallen on your head”? and “Are you crazy”?
Bill was flabbergasted at the pushback. He expected is team to perhaps disagree with the decision yet commit to make it happen.
Which is exactly what was happening, except Billy-boy did not understand it. Hank’s bluntness and Hadas’ lecture and verbal pushback had nothing to do with what both will DO.
George from Portland manages the Sales Organization.
Smadar, his EMEA director is based in Israel. His APAC director, Ming (m), is based in Taipei. Smadar and Ming talk and sms (text) on their cellphones all the time.
George is about to have his annual sales meeting in Salzburg Austria. George has been asked by other members of his staff to ensure that Ming and Smadar turn OFF their phones during meetings, and surrender their phones to the admin at the start of each session.
George shot off an email to Ming and Smadar telling them of the phones off rule for the upcoming pow wow. George also said an admin will ensure enforcement.
Ming was highly offended; Ming believes that he must be available ALL THE TIME for his clients and agents. While Ming’s clients and agents would not be angry were he not to answer, they would feel Ming is not respecting them.
Smadar thinks that George is ramming yet another rule down her throat and if there were less rules, there would be more Sales. Smadar believes urgent things are important things and answering calls is urgent.. She believes that a client who calls her NOW may not call her back “later”.
Ming and Smadar both believe George does not respect their way of doing business.
Smadar plans to take calls and will not surrender her phone to the admin; she will label each call “an exception”.
Ming plans very long and frequent bio breaks with a second phone he is bringing.
George will open the Sales Meeting with a lecture he will give on “Focus, Focus and Focus”. Ming will be in the lobby; Smadar will be texting.
Sima (Israel f) is Head of Travel for a global concern. Chosen to lead travel for a US based company because she speak 7 languages fluently, Sima works 20 hours a day, 7 days a week and uses 3 mobile phones-sometimes simultaneously. Her customers are thrilled with her yet travel costs are high.
Patty (US) is a senior purchasing executive for the same global company. Patty is a cutting edge professional who knows when buy quality and when to be “cost effective”. She has cut costs 5% quarterly for the last 4 years.
Sima has just received a call from John (English from HK), the firm’s Chinese-English interpreter who is now in Sydney. A wild cat strike “may” close Australian airspace in 6 hours, and John must be in Manila the next day. John’s present flight is to leave an hour after the strike “may” begin.
Sima has “come up” with a solution. John can fly out in an hour, but only on a first class ticket at a 12000 USD cost.
Corporate policy states that purchasing can sign a purchase order for first class travel if the CEO signs off. Sadly, the (new) CEO just got on a gruelling 17 hour flight from Singapore to NYC, in her first visit to Asia Pac.
Sima wants to act quickly and get John on his way, taking “full responsibility” and “get the ok ex-post-facto.” Patty wants to go by the rules, and not get on the wrong side of the new very cost conscious CEO. Patty refuses to sign off.
Using a creative manipulation, Sima transfers a budget surplus from a cancelled trip in another division and bypasses Patty. John flies out first class.
The CEO gets off the plane and reads a 34 long email thread in which Patty and Sima tear one another to shreds.
The CEO takes no sides and texts to both: “I am CEO, not baby sitter: solve this without me”.
They don’t.
EVP HR Gloria Ramsbottom-Lemieux is called in and both are sent to a “cooking workshop” to learn “high-power cooperation”.
Those wishing to promulgate delegation via skill training and via a “culture change” would be best to consider some observations about cultures where delegation runs against the grain.
1) In many cultures, delegation is seen as unfair downloading of responsibility. “If you are a tiger, rule the mountain.”
2) In many cultures which are survival oriented and have a paranoid streak, delegation is seen as setting up a victim to blame.
3) In cultures where there is a healthy and real work-life balance (and not merely lip service to work life balance), delegation may be seen as negative to the balance.
4) In entrepreneurial cultures where people look beyond their role and see the organization end to end , delegation on “some issues” but not all relevant parameters, is seen as highly manipulative. A customer service agent who is delegated “total responsibility” for the customer, yet cannot provide input on policy is a good example.
Secretaries and admins have almost no ability to “filter” what the boss reads and more.The massive use of email enables direct and indirect escalation via use of cc and bcc.
Furthermore, the pace of business imparts a feeling of constant urgency. Add to this the fear of losing a job and the derivative need to “transfer blame.
The above provides a perfect context for a culture of escalation, where almost everything “floats to the top.”
Culture also impacts the degree to which one uses escalation.
Bat-Sheva (f, from Beersheba Israel) believes that bosses in general, and her boss in particular, make errors all the time. She also believes that “hierarchy” and “undue process” do not solve urgent problems. Bat-Sheva escalates almost everything via cc and bcc.
Joe (m from Durham NC, USA) is matter of fact, polite and positive. He works the system well, and following process. Joe rarely shows his anger, however he does express emotion “expediently”. Joe however can write very aggressive and flaming emails, which vent horrendous rage. Often Joe can meet someone in the hall, whom he has attacked, and says: “Wow, did you see that email I shot off?”
Nu (f from Bangkok) uses email for transmission on facts and data. Nu never escalates anything by email. To give info to the boss’s boss, she has lunch with his sister, a colleague of hers. Nu expresses emotion by ignoring emails. She has a special filter that transfers all emails from Joe and Bat-Sheva to the bin.
Ralph (LA, USA) met with his entire 14 man global project team in Toronto for a 2 day “crisis management” session.
Due to a change in customer deadlines, delivery of a key project needs to happen 2 weeks earlier than planned, and the schedule is very “aggressive” even before this recent 2 week change.
To make matters worse, Ralph’s team has many Chinese, Russians, Indians and Israelis who will now be forced to work weekends for 4 months.
Ralph decided to make his motivational “pitch” based on three elements:
+a fat bonus for success
+painting a gloomy scenario in case of failure
+becoming a winning team
This motivational pitch aggravated almost everyone in the room.
1) The Israelis felt that “waving a bonus under our nose to get hard work makes the staff into whores”.
2) The doomsday scenario appeared to the Chinese team as “meaningless propaganda” and Ralph lost their trust.
3) The winning team flag waving appeared “too American” to the Indian team. Folks expected to hear a firm demand “to put aside your differences” to make this happen. A demand like this would have put the Israelis and Chinese in a more cooperative mode, since they are always trying to cannibalize work given to India. Paresh mumbled: ”Ralph is weak, naive and detached from reality”.
The Russian team saw Ralph’s “winning team flag waving” as weakness, and concluded he was desperate, which made Ralph look pathetic.
EVP HR manager Gloria Ramsbottom-Lemieux sent Ralph a text after his session: “Gr8 leadership-Glo”.
