Management and Culture Differences: Chalon vs Armstrong - Case Study Example

Running head: Management and culture differences Topic: Management and culture differences: Chalon vs. Armstrong Chalon versus Armstrong Presented by Presented to Institution Date Introduction Culture is the way of life of people shared by people in a place or time. Culture encompasses attitudes, goals, practices and values among people in a social group. In this context cultural differences between the Americans and the French are revealed in a work environment. Chalon (a French business executive) was hired by Michelin to help turn sales for a branch in America. Having grown under French culture Chalon imposed his cultural beliefs over his American employees totally unaware of the cross-cultural differences that existed between the French and the Americans. These differences cut across many business functions especially where an organisation brings in an expatriate from a different geographical region. This case study shows managerial problems that arise as a result of cultural differences in leadership and/or management styles. Chalon was overly critical of his subordinates, the French culture is cynical on giving praise to someone even when one is deserving of it. Chalon rarely motivates his subordinates. As he attests “…even when I was pleased with their results, I tried not to show it.” (INSEAD A 2006, P.5) Americans expect more praise than criticism, “…for every negative comment, they expect three positives” (INSEAD B 2009, P.3). American managers use positive criticism to the dignity and motivate employees as well as encourage them to take initiatives. Managers aim at making employees feel appreciated for what they have done while challenging them to recognize areas of improvement. The French on the other hand are known for their direct criticism and are taught how to develop counter arguments with which they value discussion. They have an approach called ‘these-antithese -synthese’ which is trained in school from the very start. In France an employees is expected to always have a counter-argument with his boss. In contrast, Americans do not present their opposition or difference of opinion at least not in the face of the boss. According to House (2005), different cultures have different levels of human orientation. A research by Globe (Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness) defines human orientation as “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being generous, altruistic, fair, kind and caring to others” (House, 2005, P.569) cultures with high human orientation are characterised by people motivated by the need to belong and the promotion of the well-being of others. A society with low humane orientation is characterized by individuals with a high need for power and material possessions. The American culture has a much stronger human orientation as compared to the French and for this reason Chalon finds it hard to cope with high levels of fairness his subordinates and colleagues expect from him. Americans are more intrusive into personal life as compared to the French. Trompenaar and Turner (1998) expound on this aspect in their theory on “specific vs. Diffuse”. The theory offers insight on how managers can maintain private and working lives separate. Chalon comes from a specific-oriented culture that widely recognizes issues touching on work and family. He is more open in public- his work place and very closed about his private. This is attested by his direct talking, the application of equal principles and his consistency with morals regardless of the people he addresses. His American colleagues on the other hand come from a diffuse-oriented culture where work and family are closely related. The Americans are as more open about private life (issues relating to family) more than they are about their jobs. They are often indirect in speech, and their application of morals is based on the person and the context. His cultural contrast strains the relationship between Chalon and his workmates. By failing to participate in small office talk, colleagues and subordinates viewed Chalon as alienating himself and they therefore branded him as “not a people person” (INSEAD A 2009, P. 2). While the American culture is positive, the French culture is critical. Chalon is critical of his employees and rarely has a nice or complementary word for them he criticizes them more than he praises them. According to House, Wright and Aditya (2004) this could stem from cultural upbringing. American parents raise their children making them believe that there is enough for everyone; consequently Americans grow to develop “win-win” type of relationships. In a positive culture, the success of one party is envisioned as translating into the success of all affiliated parties and the success of the entire venture. In contrast is the French culture which is critical. Chalon comes from the French culture which is deep rooted in a belief of scarcity. Such a culture bolsters jealousy, in which if one person wins, the other has to lose. Americans culture emphasizes engaging in an activity for the fun of it. It is common to hear an American mother tell her child “go have some fun”. The French on the other hand are brought up conservatively to follow norms in the society. Rarely will French people try to against these norms as they would be considered liberal. Americans appreciate the effort put in any task whether it is successfully completed or not. Chalon refers to this as “giving an A for effort” (INSEAD A 2009, P. 3). This is based on positive feedback which is deeply rooted in the American educational system. Each Americans receive praise since their childhoods and expect to continue receiving praise from their managers (Guillaume, 1997). The French and Northern Europeans dismiss this type of praise as being effusive and superficial. Chalon’s imposition of tough conditions and insistence on perfection by sales team meant that they strived more to hit target sales more than they had fun doing. Although Chalon was aware that he was stretching the employees so as to achieve the targets, he rarely showed some form of appreciation or motivation. As a matter of fact, he was quicker to criticise than congratulate his employees. The authoritative managerial approach by French managers such as Chalon has been confirmed by several researchers of cross-cultural management (Hofstede, 1993). In their research on US and French managers, Hofstede and Bond (1988) found that while US managers worked within more classless work environments, their French counterparts valued power and authority which was concentrated at the top management levels. This again reinforces the view that the French are not likely to openly share information amongst themselves especially where there are class differences. This is in contrast with Americans who are freer with each other regardless of their classes. Chalon notes that his colleagues and subordinates would occasionally drop by his office to introduce their spouses. Also, during small talks in the office, employees would openly share information about their family. Schmidt & Yeh (1992) found that senior executives managing companies in larger distance powers with differing cultures such as America and France had higher levels of self-interest as compared to countries in small power-distance cultures such as Anglo-Canada and U.S.A. Aulakh, Kotabe, and Sahay (1996) assert that there are no significant cultural differences based on individualism. The only significant difference arose in matters relating to trust and conduct the executives expected from others. The executives in larger distance powers such as France hold lower levels of positive belief in colleagues than those in differing cultures. Based on the findings of Yukl and Falbe (1990), for Chalon to gain trust from colleagues he ought to focus more on contextual factors since trust is not embedded to cultures but rather in it is relationship specific. Chalon needs to temper administrative duties and adherence to strategy with consideration to the context in which he works. Chalon had a very successful career as a manager. He gets very surprised by Armstrong’s comments because he thought he always considered himself an achiever. He was results oriented, disciplined, and always insisted on complete accountability from his team. Although he anticipated normal resistance normally associated with change, but he did not expect them to openly reject him. He is at a loss to understand why this was happening yet he always strived to temper his toughness with fairness. He had applied this approach in his long and distinguished career as a senior level manager. He had turned around businesses in as well as outside France. Chalon had always considered himself open with his employees’ issues and a great motivator of teams. The surprise is compounded by his failure to realise that it is not his leadership or motivational skills that are in question but rather cross cultural problems affect his work environment. Chalon is surprised that there are complains about him being cold and distant, and that he does not make effort to get to know people at work. He feels that sharing information freely with his juniors is intrusiveness. This indicates cultural differences between the French and Americans. Whereas Chalon thinks he is free with information, he is in fact very conservative with sharing of personal information which makes a lot of difference in the American context (Guillaume, 1997). As a result, Chalon comes out as a reserved and cold leader. Employees view him as snob and inaccessible. Chalon is surprised that for the first time his management style and his way of interaction is not effective. All along during the discussion with Armstrong, the human resource manager, he thought this problem was due to the culture difference Americans and French. He knew that with cultural change he could always introduce a suitable approach in his management style with commendable results. After all, he had held top level management positions in six different countries, among them heading the company’s Spanish operations. He is strongly convinced that the difference cannot be in corporate style but rather in corporate culture. Chalon thinks his fluent English which he had learnt while working outside France, put him in a better management position to communicate and interact with the American workers.Chalon is therefore astonished by Armstrong’s comments about employees’ complaints of his interaction style. Chalon fails to realise that although he may have good and fluent English, which helps a lot in communication, the problem is more than just expressing himself and interacting with his employees. Smith and Peterson, (1988) assert that although the fluency in a foreign language is crucial to expatriates, the familiarisation with the local culture is much more essential Armstrong’s comments that Chalon should change his cross-cultural style surprise Chalon. Although he knew that different skills were required to motivate employees in different cultural environments, he never anticipated such a huge difference in the American culture. He is convinced that the American culture was no different from the European cultures where he had worked. Though sceptical about the need to see a cross-cultural consultant, Armstrong convinces him that there were other managers, including him who had struggled with cross cultural change. Chalon’s direct style of management puts him on collision course against the American style of management. He is very clear on the objectives that are to be achieved. He was very quick with his disapproval when the targets were not met. This however is pointed out in the meeting he had with the cross-cultural consultant who tells him that the Americans expect to be given three positives for every one negative that they receive. The consultant tells him tough this is different from the European culture where one receives three negatives for every positive that he gets. This is reflected in Mr. Chalon’s management style where he tells the consultant that he believes in pushing the employees hard till to stretch them beyond their capacities in order achieve the given targets. According to Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson and Bond (1989) the way American managers are trained to manage is differs greatly with the way French managers are trained. Americans are trained to use a considerable amount of positive feedback too develop self-esteem, motivate employees and encourage initiative taking. In stark contrast to Chalon’s direct criticism, Americans encourage constructive criticism, a term that used to motivate an employee by appreciating his efforts while recognizing that could be improved upon. If Chalon knew this from the onset, perhaps he would not have been shocked as he was because he could have changed his leadership to suit his global management approach to an American context. Chalon was expecting too much from a team whose effort he rarely appreciated. This section seeks to explain what Mr. Chalon should do in order to improve the current state of affairs in the company. It discusses some of the leadership and motivational strategies that he could implement effectively without losing his face or his strength as a leader. To begin with, Mr. Chalon should review his approach of motivating employees. He is reluctant to motivate his employees even when they have achieved the required targets. He stretches the employees limit to ensure that they achieve even higher targets with little or no recognition of their efforts at all. However, he is not hesitant to criticize them when they fail to achieve targets. A clash of style between the American way of motivation and the European way of motivation is portrayed here. Whereas Mr. Chalon prefers direct criticism, Americans are used to constructive criticism whereby an employee is both encouraged to feel proud and appreciated while recognizing what changes could be brought about to bring about improvement. For every negative given; Americans expect to receive three positives. Consequently, Mr. Chalon should strive to understand Americans’ expectation for explicit appreciation if at all he wants his employees to give more than a 100%. Mr Chalon might improve the motivation of employees using Hertzberg's theory. “If you want people to do a good job, give them a good job to do” -Frederick Herzberg (1987). In other words, for people to do a good job they have to be motivated. According to Webster’s New Collegiate dictionary a motive is “something (desire or need) that causes a person to act”, to motivate is “to provide with a motive” and motivation is the “act of providing someone with the desire to take action”. Motivation can either be intrinsic (driven by interest and enjoyment in a task) or extrinsic (driven by external factors such as money and grades).According to this theory, Mr. Chalon should place more focus on motivation factors. He can improve the morale of employees by looking into the nature of the work itself in terms of the opportunities it offers for employees to assume responsibility; recognition of employee contributions; internal promotions; training and development of all employees-this enables all the employees to work towards the positions they want in the company. This will result in a drastic reduction in the number of employees seeking to transfer to various positions within the company in protest of his management style. Also, Mr Chalon should review his leadership skills so that they reflect his management role in an American context. Mr. Chalon seems to lack one crucial requirement of a team leader, which is the ability to empathize with his employees. He is reluctant to encourage his employees when they deliver commendable results even though he is constantly pushing workers beyond their limits so as to achieve the set targets. Also, he is not slow to criticize his employees where he feels things are not turning out as expected and is not interested in recognizing the effort put in. In addition, Mr. Chalon is reluctant to openly share information with his employees who in turn view as cold and distant. This clearly shows his lack of ability to empathize; he does not perceive the feelings of others and make an effort to understand the cause of those feelings. He should strive to empathize more with his employees by sharing information with them and participating in small office talk. Mr. Chalon should ensure that his employees have access to training opportunities in the company. This will impart employees with new skills which mean they are able to engage in more exciting and demanding activities. As a result, the employees’ capability is not only used but also the company is able to improve its productivity. Training also gives employees a sense of further development in their career which in turn leads to job satisfaction. Ultimately, the employees will feel more motivated. Mr. Chalon should encourage teambuilding in the organization. As seen in the case study, management in American context places more weight in support among employees in favour of criticism. Therefore, efforts should be taken to ensure that relationships between teams are at their best. Regular team building exercises should be organized to help improve interpersonal relationship skills. Yukl (2010) demonstrates that, “team building activities increase cohesiveness, group identification and cooperation” (107). Team building activities ensure a high standard of performance at both productivity and team functioning levels. Some examples of team building tactics include using symbols to develop group identification, facilitation of social interaction among members, informing members about group activities and achievements and conducting process analysis. Teams require an external party to provide feedback devoid of bias or advancement of political agendas. Such a party helps the team achieve fundamental breakthroughs and wade through tough times (Molloy, 2006). Therefore, the incorporation of managerial reviews allows for not only functional input as the team progresses but also offers evaluation to align team purpose with the oraganisational objectives. The team can present periodical performance evaluations and reports to selected management figures, hold discussions and chart the way forward. Conclusion In today’s increasingly globalised world, cultural differences and their effect on management practices continue to be prominent in the corporate agenda. As observed from this case study, different geographical regions have different business management practices which are heavily influenced by the cultural practices in those regions. These cultural practices could be influenced by the education systems as well as religion. These cultural practices have the potential to affect even the leadership and management styles of the most talented managers like Mr. Chalon. As a result, a company should always ensure that it has special policies for training senior leaders and management that are brought from a region whose management practices are likely to be influenced by cross-cultural differences. These policies could involve the hiring of consultants who have an understanding of the management practices of a given region or developing special training programs. References Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M., Sahay, A., (1996). Trust and performance in cross-border marketing partnerships: A behavioral approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5), 1005-1032. Guillaume, F. (1997). Conquering the American Market - A la conquête du marché américain Editions Odile Jacob. Herzberg, F.I (1987). “One more time: How do you motivate employees?’ Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 87, vol 65,p109-120. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucian connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81–90. House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez Molloy, C. (2010) MGT590 Module 1. Individual and Team Development (1-18).Wagga Wagga: Charles Stuart University. Schmidt, S. M., & Yeh, R. H. (1992). The structure of leader influence: A cross national comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 251–262. Smith, P. B., & Peterson, M. (1988). Leadership, organizations, and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Smith, P. B.,Misumi, J., Tayeb, M. H., Peterson, M., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the generality of leadership styles across cultures. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 97–110. Turner. H, Trompenaars A. (1998) The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands Doubleday Business 1st Edition , Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in teams and decision groups Leadership in organisations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140. Read More