Why is culture an issue when thinking about talent processes? 2nd Middle East Talent Management Summit Paul Sparrow, Centre for Performance-led HR 12th October 2008 © 2008, All rights reserved. Centre for Performance-led HR What is International Mindset? Bottom line questions for the Masterclass… We talk of need to internationalise the mind, to double-hat etc What does someone who has an international mindset do? What capabilities have they got? What evidence would you look for to feel happy they have it! What is National Culture ? The collective programming of the mind (Hofstede, 1980) A system for creating, sending, storing and processing information (Hall and Hall, 1987) Values, beliefs and expectations that members come to share (van Maanen and Schein, 1979) Knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Tylor, 1971) Behaviours that become the norm because a large percentage of people either ascribe to it or break it while acknowledging it is a norm in which they don’t believe (Yoshida and Brislin, 1995) Cultural Convergence ? “Social borders are starting to give way to the information and technology driven processes of convergence that have already turned political borders into largely meaningless lines on economic maps” .... “...The consequences go far beyond surface issues of taste to fundamental issues of thought process and mind-set... The essential continuity between generations has begun to fray” (Kenichi Ohmae, Borderless World. 1995) Cultural Nationalism ? “(Young managers) are drinking cappucino and Perrier, furnishing the apartment with IKEA, eating sushi, dressing in the United Colours of Benetton, listening to US/British rock whilst driving the Hyundai over to McDonald’s” .... “... Yet the more homogeneous lifestyles are becoming, the more steadfastly we shall cling to deeper values religion, language, art and literature. As our worlds grow more similar, we will increasingly treasure the traditions that spring from within” (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990) Cultural Assumptions and Organisational Behaviour • Power and authority relationships - leadership • Coping with uncertainty and risk-taking – problem solving • Interpersonal trust • Loyalty and commitment • Motivation – social loafing • Control and discipline (tolerance of deviance) • Co-ordination and integration • Communication • Consultation and participation - conflict Tayeb (1996) National Culture Critical Incidents • Individually: Think about a critical incident(s) where there appeared to be some cultural misunderstandings, and that had implications for performance. • What happened: what led up to the situation, what did you/they do/ not do, with what consequence? • Break Into Teams: • Briefly share individual incidents • Select one which is the most powerful • Identify what you would need to know about culture to handle the situation better? Eight Types of Knowledge Needed to Understand another Culture • • • • • Nature of work, attitudes to it, centrality to your identity How time and space is used, and how non-verbal behaviour is used Language, how it is used to achieve goals, to develop social interactions, and communicate emotion Roles, behaviours expected in relation to gender, titles etc Unit of analysis in terms of people, individual or members of a group • Rituals and superstitions • Class and status • Values, desired end states that people agree are good, and the ways of getting there Three Frameworks for Comparing Cultures Over 20 measures of cross-cultural differences 1. Communication context (Hall, 1976, 1983) 2. Status and function (Laurent, 1983) 3. Work-related values (Hofstede, 1980, 1991) – also touch on Trompenaars Context in Communication Individuals search for meaning in and interpret communications in reference to national culture Programmed differently in relation to extent to which you rely on ‘hidden dimensions’ Model built on qualitative insights High context societies attend to covert clues Use the situation, non-verbal behaviour etc Characteristics of High Context Cultures Long lasting, deep relationships Shared code communications, fast, efficient Personal responsibility, premium on loyalty Agreements spoken, not written Tight distinctions between insiders and outsiders High Context Cultures: What The British Really Mean (1)… WHAT THEY SAY WHAT THEY MEAN!? Not bad Good or very good Quite good A bit disappointing Perhaps you would like to think about …….. It would be nice if you…… I want you to to this, but am open to comments. If I hear nothing I will assume that you are doing it High Context Cultures: What The British Really Mean (2)… WHAT THEY MEAN?! WHAT THEY SAY Oh, by the way… Incidentally…. I was a bit disappointed that you …….. It is a pity that you didn’t…. I hear what you say } } I am about to get the primary purpose of our discussion } I am most upset and cross you …….. } } I disagree and do not wish to discuss it any further High Context Cultures: What The British Really Mean (3)… WHAT THEY SAY WHAT THEY MEAN!? With respect I think that you are wrong (or a fool) Very interesting I don’t agree/believe you } Perhaps we could consider some } I don’t like your ideas } other options } I’d like to think about that a bit more… I’ll bear it in mind… I don’t propose to do anything } } Characteristics of Low Context Cultures Shorter, fewer deep relationships Messages have to be made explicit Diffused and hard-to-pin down authority Written, legally-binding agreements Changeable boundaries between insiders & outsiders Faster change in behaviour patterns Locating Low and High Context Cultures HIGH Germany German Swiss Scandinavia North America Belgium, Holland, Denmark France Britain Southern Europe Middle East Asia, Africa, Latin America Japan LOW The Cross Cultural Puzzle of IHRM It is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that his subordinates may raise about their work. 77 59 59 67 49 40 40 27 30 Source: Laurent 1983 Japan Indonesia Italy France Belgium Switzerland West Germany Great Britain Denmark 18 Netherlands Sweden 13 13 USA 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Societal Status of Managers ? “...Through their professional activity, managers play an important role in society” Percentage in agreement ? Hierarchy and Communication Flows “...In order to have efficient work relationships, it is often necessary to bypass the hierarchical line:” Percentage in disagreement ? Hofstede’s View of Culture SOCIAL ORIENTATION i.e. relative importance of the interests of the individual vs. the interests of the group POWER DISTANCE i.e. appropriateness of power/ authority within organisations UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION i.e. emotional response to uncertainty and change GOAL ORIENTATION i.e. what motivates people to achieve different goals TIME ORIENTATION i.e. extent to which members of a culture adopt a long-term or short-term outlook on work or life Individualism vs Collectivism • Personal autonomy within decision-making • Loose ties between individuals • Own interests over social framework for belonging • Calculative commitment to organisations • Specific role definitions and relationships • Considerable extra-firm mobility • Low levels of paternalism • UK, USA, France, Australia, Germany (individualistic) vs. Latin America (collectivist) Individualism Index (IDV) Score Rank 1 County County USA Score Rank 19 County Israel Score Rank 37 2 Australia 20 Spain 38 Chile 3 Great Britain 21 India 39/41 West Africa 4/5 Canada 22/23 Japan 39/41 Singapore 4/5 6 7 8 9 10/11 10/11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Netherlands New Zealand Italy Belgium Denmark Sweden France Ireland (Republic of) Norway Switzerland Germany F.R. South Africa Finland Austria 22/23 24 25 26/27 26/27 28 29 30 31 32 33/35 33/35 33/35 36 Argentina Iran Jamaica Brazil Arab countries Turkey Uruguay Greece Philippines Mexico East Africa Yugoslavia Portugal Malaysia 39/41 42 43 44 45 46 47/48 47/48 49 50 51 52 53 Thailand Salvador South Korea Taiwan Peru Costa Rica Pakistan Indonesia Colombia Venezuela Panama Equador Guatemala INDIVIDUALISTIC Source: Hofstede (1991) Hong Kong COLLECTIVE Power Distance • How close are Supervisor - Subordinate relationships? • If close, is closeness open and friendly or critical and controlling? If not, is distance caring or controlling? • How is authority distributed and used? Widespread throughout all levels, or concentrated at the centre? • How is responsibility distributed? Differences in who gets responsibility for successes and failures? • How are proposals originated and approved? Do actions come from above or generated from within? • Do leaders encourage involvement or compliance? Power Distance Index (PDI) Score Rank 1 Country Country Malaysia Score Rank 18/19 Country Turkey Score Rank 37 2/3 Guatemala 20 Belgium 38 USA 2/3 Panama 21/23 East Africa 39 Canada 4 Philippines 21/23 Peru 40 Netherlands 5/6 Mexico 21/23 Thailand 41 Australia 5/6 Venezuela 24/25 Chile 42/44 Costa Rica 7 Arab countries 24/25 Portugal 42/44 Germany FR 8/9 Equador 26 Uruguay 42/44 Great Britain 8/9 Indonesia 27/28 Greece 45 Switzerland 10/11 India 27/28 South Korea 46 Finland 10/11 West Africa 29/30 Iran 47/48 Norway 12 Yugoslavia 29/30 Taiwan 47/48 Sweden 13 Singapore 31 Spain 49 Ireland (Republic of) 14 Brazil 32 Pakistan 50 New Zealand 15/16 France 33 Japan 51 Denmark 15/16 Hong Kong 34 Italy 52 Israel 17 Colombia 35/36 Argentina 53 Austria 18/19 Salvador 35/36 South Africa HIGH Source: Hofstede (1991) MODERATE Jamaica LOW Uncertainty Avoidance • Extent to which ambiguity and uncertainty is tolerated • Need for regulations for every eventuality • High formalisation of procedures • Specialist roles, standardisation • Lower labour turnover • Risk averse managers • Examples: high bureaucratic organisations in Latin America, Korea, Japan, Greece, Portugal and Belgium Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) Score Rank 1 2 Country Country Greece Portugal Score Rank 19 20 Country Israel Colombia Score Rank 37 38 3 4 5/6 Guatemala Uruguay Belgium 21/22 21/22 23 Venezuela Brazil Italy 39/40 39/40 41/42 South Africa New Zealand Indonesia 5/6 7 Salvador Japan 24/25 24/25 Pakistan Austria 41/42 43 Canada USA 8 9 10/15 Yugoslavia Peru France 26 27 28 Taiwan Arab countries Equador 44 45 46 Philippines India Malaysia 10/15 Chile 29 Germany FR 47/48 Great Britain 10/15 Spain 30 Thailand 47/48 Ireland (Republic of) 10/15 Costs Rica 31/32 Iran 49/50 Hong Kong 10/15 Panama 31/32 Finland 49/50 Sweden 10/15 Argentina 33 Switzerland 51 Denmark 16/17 Turkey 34 West Africa 52 Jamaica 16/17 South Korea 35 Netherlands 53 Singapore 18 Mexico 36 East Africa UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE Source: Hofstede (1991) Australia Norway UNCERTAINTY ACCEPTANCE Masculinity • Dominant values in culture aggressive, challenging, dominance & materialism (masculine) vs caring, co-operation, security and quality of life (feminine) • Strong separation of male careers • Higher levels of Industrial conflict • High stress cultures • Focus on power and material success • Italy, Japan, Venezuela and Mexico (masculine) and Scandinavian countries (feminine) Masculinity Index (MAS) Score Rank 1 2 3 Country Country Japan Austria Venezuela Score Rank 18/19 20/21 20/21 4/5 4/5 6 7/8 7/8 9/10 9/10 11/12 11/12 13/14 13/14 15 16 17 18/19 Italy Switzerland Mexico Ireland (Republic of) Jamaica Great Britain Germany FR Philippines Colombia South Africa Equador USA Australia New Zealand Greece 22 23 24 25/26 25/26 27 28 29 30/31 30/31 32/33 32/33 34 35/36 35/36 Belgium Arab countries Canada Malaysia Pakistan Brazil Singapore Israel Indonesia West Africa Turkey Taiwan Panama Iran France AGGRESSIVE GOAL ORIENTATION Hong Kong Argentina India Score Rank 37/38 37/38 39 Country 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48/49 48/49 50 51 52 53 Salvador South Korea Uruguay Guatemala Thailand Portugal Chile Finland Yugoslavia Costa Rica Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden Spain Peru East Africa PASSIVE GOAL ORIENTATION Source: Hofstede (1991) Roundtable Questions Why do researchers focus so much on values? What about individual differences? How do we avoid stereotype? Are there sub-cultures? Regional cultures? Do national patterns change? How stable are national differences? Adjustment processes? Insight processes? Inter-Cultural Interactions National culture seen as fundamental source of identification Culture within organizational settings seen as emergent and negotiated between interaction partners (socially constructed) Introduced new assumptions about cultural identification Shifted attention to nature of bi-cultural interactions and characteristics/ processes through which cultures formed Served principally by anthropologists and ethnographers, not by psychologists “Thick descriptions” of national culture drawing upon qualitative analyses Multiple Cultures Organizations home to and carriers of several cultures (function, organization and business unit, profession and occupational group, ethnic group, project-based network, regional institution, geographical and economic region, ideology and religion) IT enabled process of globalisation, new communication media = real-time information from remote cultures Changing patterns of problem solving at work. Inter-dependencies and complexity grown dramatically Individuals identify with and hold simultaneous membership in several cultural groups. Comparing Some Cultures in a European Car Company Country Power Distance Individualism Uncertainty Avoidance Masculinity Sweden Low Power Distance High Individualism France High Power Distance High Individualism Low Uncertainty Avoidance High Uncertainty Avoidance Belgium Moderate Power Distance High Individualism High Uncertainty Avoidance UK Low Power Distance High Individualism Low Uncertainty Avoidance United States Low Power Distance High Individualism Low Uncertainty Avoidance Brasil High Power Distance Moderate Individualism Moderate Uncertainty Avoidance Korea Moderate Power Distance High Power Distance Collectivist High Uncertainty Avoidance Low Uncertainty Avoidance Moderate Power Distance Moderate Individualism Passive Goal Orientation Moderate Aggressive Goal Orientation Moderate Aggressive Goal Orientation High Aggressive Goal Orientation High Aggressive Goal Orientation Moderate Aggressive Goal Orientation Passive Goal Orientation Moderate Aggressive Goal Orientation High Aggressive Goal Orientation India Japan Moderate Individualism High Uncertainty Avoidance Low to High Context Low Context Moderate High Context Moderate Low Context High Context Low Context High Context High Context High Context High Context Is there cultural variation in the sorts of skills and competencies that managers have ? Compare different ways of ‘making managers’ British generalist system French elitist system Germanic functional system Generalist Approach: U.K.-Dutch POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT = MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT • Careful monitoring of high potentials by management review committees • Review to match up performance and potential with short and long term job and development requirements • Separate, professional management development staff • External labour market • Little elite recruitment • Decentralised recruitment for technical / functional jobs • 5-7 trial • Internal potential identification via assessment centres • Some complimentary recruitment of high potentials Elite Cohort Approach: France POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT = POLITICAL TOURNAMENT • Accept Baccalaureat exam • Elite pool recruitment (non-cohort) • Predictive qualities from schools specialising in preparing future top managers • Grandes Ecoles • MBAs • Scientific Ph.Ds • High flier schemes • Competition and collaboration between peers • Multifunctional development • Political process: visible achievements, get sponsors,coalitions, read the signals • If get stuck, move out and on • Pantouflage - political appointment at the top • Movement from civil service to industry and return Functional Approach: Germany POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT = FUNCTIONAL LADDERS • Annual recruitment from universities and technical schools • Two year apprenticeship trial • Job rotation through most functions • Intensive training • Identification of person’s functional talents • Some elitist recruitment - Ph.Ds • Functional career ladders, relationships and communications • Expertise based competition • Multifunctional mobility limited to few elitist recruits • Limited multifunctional contact below level of division heads Roundtable Questions So how would you characterise some of the systems we represent in this room?: -the Swedish system? -the Polish system? -- the Belgian system? --the Brazilian system? -- the US system? -Russia, Korea, Japan…? Conclusions: Mechanisms Through Which Culture Shapes HRM • Attitudes held about, and definitions of, what makes an effective manager and their implications for the qualities recruited, trained and developed • The giving of face-to-face feedback, levels of power distance and uncertainty avoidance and their implication for recruitment interview, communication, negotiation and participation processes Source: Sparrow & Hilltrop (1997) Conclusions: Mechanisms Through Which Culture Shapes HRM • Expectations of the manager-subordinate relationships and its implications for performance management and motivational processes • Differential concepts of distributive justice, socially healthy pay and the individualisation of rewards and their implications for the design of pay systems • Mindsets used to think about organisational structuring or strategic dynamics Source: Sparrow & Hilltrop (1997) For Fun: Levels of Inter-Cultural Understanding?
