Different cultures gets things done differently.

It is true that Sam (US) from R&D and Cheryl (UK) from Sales can work things out between them in the spirit of teamwork and escalate only the very contentious issues to their bosses. But Paco (Spain) from R&D and Yi (Shanghai) from Sales will be castigated by their bosses if they work out issues between them without the explicit apriori agreement of their bosses on almost every detail. Paco’s and Yi’s boss do not get things done the way that Sam and Cheryl’s boss get things done.

Teamwork in global organizations presents a challenge because the values needed to drive teamwork are not universally shared. In some languages, the work “team work” does not even exist. In many places in the world, bosses expect that subordinates do what they are told and not “accommodate” their peers from parallel organizations.

Attempts to force feed western style teamwork backfire all the time in the global work place.

Authoritarian managers kowtow to HR and corporate campaigns to improve teamwork, and then go back home and they continue to behave as they have been programmed to: directive, authoritarian and compassionate.

While there is a lot to be said for establishing across the board corporate values and desired behaviours, these artifacts are rarely implemented.

I suggest that attempts to drive behavioural uniformity be more pragmatic. Deeply ingrained cultural behaviours cannot be defined away by empty slogans such as “teamwork” is our middle name.

Teamwork is a quirk; some do it. Some don’t. Now let’s get real about how to leverage the talent we have in the global configuration of organizations.

Many OD consultants assume that there is a shared view of what is truth.

Nothing can be further from the truth!

Boss John asks Bill (in a concall) if the quarter looks good. Bill gives bad news. Bill is telling the truth, i.e. representing the facts; while Bill may fear  how John may act, Bill is not fearful as being seen as a liar.

Boss John then asks Som (in the same con call) if the quarter looks good. Som says that the quarter is looking fine. After the concall, Som calls John and says the quarter is horrible. John calls in an OD consultant because Som is lying and “ we need to have full transparency”.

Do most OD consultants understand this? My experience is that they do not. In cases like this, the western educated OD consultant will work with Som “to be more transparent”. Som will agree, but for the wrong reasons.

The global OD consultant needs to understand that Som has a different hierarchy of truths. Som believes that relationships need to “appear” harmonious, bad news news to be given discretely, and all effort must be made not to give the boss bad news in public because it makes the boss look bad.

The global OD consultant will provide John with the right context to elicit “
accurate” news from his direct reportees.

I want to get practical very quickly.

Interviewing in the East and in the West is very different. While in the West you can introduce yourself as a consultant and start bombarding the other side with questions, this is not possible or desirable in the East.

In the East, an interviewee will give information if there is a degree of personal trust, and if he feels his “opinion” does not make him stand out like a sore thumb, if he does not lose face, or if he needs not feel he is critical of someone in authority.

One of the first things one notices outside the “western world” is that there is an expectation that a consultant should be an expert; experts need to know and not ask so many questions. Asking too many questions is seen as “trickery” or “game playing” or “feigning weakness”.

I have been told time and time again: “you are asking questions me instead of telling me’!

Since OD starts with a diagnosis, it is very important to gather data, so the question arises, how do you learn about the organization without asking “too many questions”. And what are “too many questions”?

Here are some practical guidelines that I have found useful:

1 A diagnostic interview is not a one hour slam, bang, thank you maam. Diagnosis is a series of many meetings where a relationship is established and information starts to leak out. It takes a long time to diagnose in Asia, for example. I use lots of informal discussion to learn about the organization. I go drinking at night with the salary men in Japan; I take long lunches with lots of chit chat in Thailand; I listen to the gossip in a Singapore office. I build very friendly relationships in India. I rely far less on formal interviews.

2 An expert can get input from others, but this must be done with a lot of context: “I am trying to understand. On one hand, Ethan seems to get the business right yet I have heard that other things need some improvement, especially the way he talks to customers! Or I am wrong? Help me understand this.” The point here is that you need to put words into peoples’ mouths and then asked them to ok it or elaborate.

3 Often one needs to use external attribution to interview. Let’s say you want to know if the customer respects Ethan. You can say: “I have heard that the customer respects Ethan” and also “I have heard that Joe has a better relationship with the customer than does Ethan”. Using attribution, an interviewee can join a group and not stick out like a sore thumb.

4 Another useful tool is to use non-existent rumours and see what people say. “I have heard that the customer would do more business were Ethan not managing the account….but this may be wrong”. Then, just wait.

5 Another useful tool is to use futuristic events, because they have not happened yet and thus, there is no loss of face, so interviewees can speak up easily. “Management is thinking of giving Ethan a huge role as Key Account Manager in a new huge deal. Is this a good idea?” The expression of an opinion in this case is easier because nothing has happened yet, i.e., there are no face issues.

6 Yet another tool is to not to let go. Let’s say X says he does not know how effective Ethan is with customers, yet you need his opinion because he has critical technical input. It is acceptable to apply pressure as follows: “try to remember; I may fail if I do not have your input and the CEO would not be happy with me; I understand that you cannot answer me today. We can talk about this tomorrow”. Then, ask others what X thinks and confront him with that: “I heard that you are shy when Ethan makes technical errors at the customer site. Am I wrong? This manipulation (which would rarely work in the West) works wonders…and you make a smile. You have become a “persistent” expert”.

7 Try as much as possible to discuss, and not ask questions. There is much more openness to discussion than to questions, where answers are needed.

8 If accents are hard to understand, apologize profusely for not being fluent in your interviewees’ language. Then use a whiteboard, and ask him to write words you do not understand. Do not give up because this shows lack of respect, even if it takes all day. I have sat with Koreans and Japanese for 7 hours each on an interview I could have polished off in an hour in Canada or Israel.

I practice OD all over the world. I work with Thais, Japanese, Israelis, Russians, Indians, Americans, Canadians, Brits, Dutch and Germans. I initially  tried to use classical, Western OD and failed. As a result, I have adapted OD to global practice, basically by letting go of the western basic assumptions on which OD is based.

Western OD focuses on  humanistic values, and endeavours to  realize the full potential of individuals. Western OD puts emphasis a wide and complex set of peoples’ overall needs, which are important in work and for life in general.

Western OD focuses on creating an inclusive and empowering environment in which leadership shows the way, inspiring and empowering  people to fulfill their mission.

When working in groups which are truly global and encompass a wide range of cultures and very acute diversity, there are many differences that one notices immediately, which questions the universal validity of OD’s assumptions.

1) In many parts of the world, group identity is far more salient than individual identity.

2) In many parts of the world, power is not at all shared, the ability to influence is very safeguarded as an extremely rare resource. In short, leaders and followers have mutual expectations in their genetic code which cannot be changed, even by classical OD.

3) The organizational needs of human beings’ vary all over the world. ( Bill may want his boss Fred to consult him before acting, yet Song may expect Sumchai to dictate with compassion).

Given the above, the very foundations and basic assumptions upon which Western OD is based, are not universally applicable. And this is not “cultural diversity”; what I claim is that people do not share the same genetic code about organizing.

This makes the art of communicating about organizing so challenging, especially since the massive use of English makes a lot of things sound “apparently similar”. This apparent similarity is very shallow.

While all folks use the same words, deep differences appear under the surface. A few examples will suffice.

1-The West values partial transparency the East values discretion.

2-In some places, teamwork is seen as “cool”; in other places it is betraying your boss.

3- In some quarters, win win is something to strive for; in others, win win is stupidity at best and suicide at worst.

3-Empowerment provides an opportunity to develop others; empowerment means giving away the crown jewels of a rare resource.

4-Participatory decision making makes better decisions; top down dictates sweetened with compassion is the way to best make decisions.

The role of value-flexible, global  OD consultant is  to ensure that one set of values does not over rule the other. In other words, OD should not purvey its own values, but rather  enable a dialogue between contradictory values within organizations.