[ 14 ]
Journal of European Industrial
Training
21/1 [
1997
] 14–18
© MCB University Press
[
ISSN 0309-0590
]
The art of cross-cultural management: “an
alternative approach to training and development”
Marion Estienne
Principal Consultant and Partner, deLafayette Consulting, London, UK
Cross-cultural training and
development has often been
regarded as principally skills-
based and a “quick fix” for
those organizations whose
aim is to compete in the
global marketplace. It is
questionable whether this
approach has been success-
ful in helping companies use
cultural diversity for competi-
tive advantage. Proposes an
alternative approach which
takes into account the need
to develop a “global mindset”
along with new strategies,
structures and processes as
well as the lifecycle stage of
the organization. These con-
ditions can be satisfied by
including three elements in
any training and development
intervention: developing a
global mindset; working
through a model of cross-
cultural reconciliation; and
emphasizing the development
of “relational” skills among
all members of the
organization.
Current development efforts in
cross-cultural management
During the time I have been involved in cross-
cultural training and development for organi-
zations, I have had the nagging feeling that
we were “not getting it quite right”. Although
it has become fashionable for the executive
boards of blue chip companies to issue the
call for cross-cultural training, as if this were
the “quick fix” which would make their orga-
nizations more competitive, I have had doubts
about whether our approach made the com-
pany more competitive.
Without doubt, understanding the conse-
quences of culture on business practices can
improve decision making and help a pluri-
cultural workforce to work together more
effectively. Cross-cultural training can also
help close the skills gap between the ideal and
the reality of working internationally.
By “not getting it quite right”, though, I
mean that cross-cultural training has rarely
had the impact that we expected in terms of
assisting companies to use diversity to their
best advantage. That is, of course, a general-
ization, as policies and results vary from
company to company. However, referring to
one of the conclusions Lisa Hoecklin came to
as a result of her research, “there are many
more examples of companies articulating
their intention to use cultural diversity for
competitive advantage at a strategic level
then there are successful examples at an
operational level” (Hoecklin, 1995).
I can also think of just the opposite: where
individuals from the operational level were
interested in improving their skills without
the recognition from the strategic level that
this was crucial to business objectives. For
many at more senior levels of the organiza-
tion, cross-cultural skills are seen as “soft”.
They are a series of techniques which may
improve individual performance without
having any significant impact on total organi-
zational effectiveness.
I believe this has happened for two reasons:
One is because we have not talked enough
about the global mindset that is critical to
global success. Skill acquisition is important,
but it only has meaning when it is part of the
altered process of how we think about
business. An attitude and awareness are nec-
essary which convert the “where” the com-
pany does business, to “how”.
A related issue is the extent to which we
emphasize that cultural assumptions are
invisible. Culture conditioning is so much a
part of the fabric which is “us” that we take it
for granted. Hofstede says that culture is that
part of our makeup which is between person-
ality, which is specific to individuals, and the
universal characteristics of human beings
(Hofstede, 1991). In fact, we are hardly con-
scious of the cultural assumptions which
form the basis of many of our actions and
words until they are challenged. This is what
leads to those uncomfortable feelings known
as “culture shock” when we visit or live in a
culture other than our own.
The second reason, and I believe the major
one, for the failure of cultural diversity to
play an important, strategic role for many
companies, is because we have treated it as
something apart from the organization’s
lifecycle. Culture may play a role in market-
ing and advertising. It may have a recognized
effect on the formation and operation of
multi-cultural functional teams.
We have failed, however, to recognize that
cross-cultural learning, and the organiza-
tional conflicts generated by culture, are
inherent to the development of organizations
which have chosen to become global market
players. Making the transition from a strat-
egy and structure, focused on a domestic
market, to a global or “transnational” organi-
zation means change (Bartlett and Goshal,
1989).
Nothing has so rapidly and brutally forced
organizations to change as increased, inter-
national competition. Structures, processes,
relationships, and above all, mindsets need to
fall into line with new economic realities
(Bartlett and Goshal, 1989). What many
authors point out is that putting into place
the required strategies and structures to
operate globally have far outpaced the human
capability to do so (Bartlett and Goshal, 1989;
1990; 1992; Brake et al., 1995; Hoecklin, 1995).
This is where training and development
can assist, but only if it is linked to the
momentum of the company’s strategic need
and its stage in the organizational life cycle.