Tue 31 Aug 2010

One Size Does NOT Fit All

Posted by Bruce Alan Johnson under Consequences of Ideas, Culture
No Comments

You’d imagine that in my 30-year career in the international business arena, I’ve seen a lot of huge mistakes. And you’d be right. One of the biggest mistakes by far made by American businesses is in how they decide to pay foreign employees. I don’t have any vendetta against compensation consultants, but I have seen too many cases where they just don’t get this key point.

Is it right to ‘match’ your pay scale to that of local companies? Generally (except in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand), no. People aren’t dumb. They know that an American or Canadian company is generally far better off financially than most local firms, and can therefore afford to pay at least a little more. Just from a competitive standpoint, it’s good practice to pay a little above your competition. During my ten years in South Africa, I always paid my staff 20% more than the going rate. And it worked.

But match American pay scales? In Europe sure—maybe even higher. But in developing countries, never.

Why? Well, let’s take American Apparel, a company which has done quite well in the USA but has been a total failure in China. The company entered China promising to pay sales staff the same high wages earned by their employees in America. High salaries as a marketing strategy worked in the States, reasoned American Apparel’s management, so surely this should be a good marketing ploy in China as well. It wasn’t. It was an unmitigated disaster.

The company meant well, but the ‘sweatshop free’ message they thought they were broadcasting across China with this policy just did not work in a nation where the average salary is only one-thirtieth that earned by Americans. To Chinese consumers it just seemed stupid and silly, rather than honorable, for American Apparel to pay employees that much. As the Chinese reasoned, “They’re just passing those outrageous costs on to us!” (Separate from this error, the company made a second costly mistake: their ads in China were too overtly sexy for Chinese girls, who are more interested in a ‘cute’ look (think Hello Kitty) than an aggressively sexy one.)

As we point out in our book Carry a Chicken in Your Lap—Or Whatever It Takes to Globalize Your Business, most American business practices do not translate into foreign cultures very well at all. Just as in high school and college, it pays to do your homework. Find out how the people in your new market think. Study their culture. And above all, respect it. Then you won’t make the mistakes—you’ll make friends and profits, instead.

Tags: , ,

 

Sat 5 Jun 2010

Call Them Back!

Posted by R. William Ayres under Accountability, Communications, Transparency
No Comments

“We’re sorry. Jill Montgomery is not available. Record your message at the tone. When you are finished, hang up or hold for more options.”
Beep.
“Jill, this is Bob from the ABC Corporation. I’m calling about that invoice we sent in last week. As you know, it was due yesterday. We understand that this is a new kind of arrangement for your company, but we’ve done this lots of times before. One day overdue isn’t gonna kill us, but we’ve got to get this done today. Give me a call as soon as you can.”
Click.

One hour later.
“We’re sorry. Jill Montgomery is not available….”
Beep.
“Jill, Bob from ABC again. We’re getting nervous about this invoice payment. We have John, your VP’s signature on the contract, clearly stipulating payment yesterday. We’ve already started work on this project, but we need that payment. Please call me as soon as possible.”
Click.
“Hi, this is John McAren. I’m not available right now, but please leave your name and number and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.”
Beep.
“John, this is Bob from ABC. Your business office is dragging its heels paying our invoice. You know we made a lot of concessions on this contract. We want to make this work. But it can’t happen if we can’t get paid. Call me and tell me what you can do to make this happen.”

Two hours later.
“We’re sorry. Jill Montgomery is not available….”
Beep.
“Jill, Bob with ABC. Look, this is really very simple. You sign the form, you initiate the wire transfer, everything is done. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about this. Your secretary says you’ve been busy in meetings, but I know this will only take you two minutes to push through. I hope this isn’t how you treat all your business partners.”
Click.
“Hi, this is John McAren. I’m not available right now….”
Beep.
“John, it’s Bob. It’s been three hours, and I can’t get a straight answer out of your business office. The secretary says the VP of Finance is on vacation, but that can’t mean the whole thing shuts down, does it? C’mon, we need your help here. We want to help you on this project; help us do that!”

Two hours later.
“We’re sorry. Jill Montgomery is not available….”
Beep.
Click.
“Hi, this is John McAren….”
Beep.
“John, Bob. We’ve got a legally binding contract here. If we don’t get this wire, I’m going to have trouble making payroll. I don’t wanna escalate this, but your company is leaving me no choice. Get back to me by the end of the day—or you may be hearing from my lawyer next.”
Click.

Two days later.
“Law offices of Morgan, McGrew & Hall, how can I help you?”

Communications are vitally important to any enterprise. Are you keeping in touch with your customers, your vendors, the people you do business with? Or does getting in touch with your company involve an endless revolving door of phone trees and voicemail messages?

Both Bruce and I have always taught our kids: the greatest insult you can pay to anyone is to ignore them. When calls or emails aren’t returned promptly—even with a “sorry I can’t talk now, I’ll get back to you tomorrow”—people get the message quickly that you don’t value them, their time, or their business.

We’ve written before that in the international arena, business is based on respect. But that’s true of business in any realm. If you don’t respect the other organization or the people on the other end of the line, why are you doing business with them? And if you do respect them, why not communicate with them? Make yourself reachable. Return phone calls. Simplify your phone tree, and make it user-friendly. Some companies do this tremendously well—Southwest Airlines even has a system that will call you back automatically rather than making you wait on hold. And it actually calls back!

However you do it, make sure you’re communicating clearly and often. Don’t hide behind phone trees, voicemail and org charts. Talk to the people you do business with.

Tags:

 

Wed 7 Apr 2010

Collegiality: A Weapon of Mismanagement

Posted by R. William Ayres under Accountability, Consequences of Ideas, Culture
No Comments

There’s a lot of talk in the workplace about “collegiality”. Job descriptions frequently list “collegiality” or “team player” as a job requirement. Face-to-face interviews are designed to determine whether someone will “fit in with” a given work group. Across the board, collegiality is regarded—publicly, at least—as a universal virtue.

And why not? Who wouldn’t want a collegial environment? Presumably, nobody wants to come to work with a bunch of jerks who yell at each other all the time. Scads of HR surveys have confirmed that camaraderie and morale are critical in job satisfaction, productivity, and low personnel turnover.

So why do I get nervous whenever someone starts talking about collegiality?

It’s because, in the modern workplace, collegiality isn’t a virtue so much as a weapon used by poor managers and poor performers to hide their own incompetence and punish their enemies.

Many of us have had experiences with bad managers. Micromanagement, for example, is rife. But what happens when your micromanaging boss tells you to do something stupid? What happens if you argue, knowing that you’re right? Does the boss argue back? Or do they label you “not a team player” and dock you for a “lack of collegiality” on your next performance review?

The same dynamic occurs in group settings. Debates and disagreements happen all the time. In an ideal world, those debates take place within the established rules of evidence and logic. Different sides take different positions, gather evidence, examine things from different angles, and come to a conclusion. Some people may ultimately remain unconvinced, but the organization can move forward with the best approximation of the truth its people have been able to muster.

What happens instead in the real world? Different sides take different positions. At least one (frequently many) start to denigrate the others’ motives, launch personal attacks, insinuate that their position is “really” held because of greed, or prejudice, or vindictiveness, or some other such nefarious and hidden agenda. When evidence and arguments are put forth, they are met, not with counter-arguments but with more ad hominem attacks.

Anyone in the midst of such a mess who tries to remain reasonable and stick to the rules of argument will, sooner later, become frustrated and insulted. The moment they express that frustration, they will be accused of being “uncollegial”.

I have watched this for years in higher education—one of the most deplorably-run industries in the United States. At past colleges and universities I have worked for, I have seen colleagues who were expressing perfectly valid arguments in public accused of “violating collegiality,” in tones that made it clear that the accuser regarded this as a sin of the highest order. I have seen students—supposedly our customers—called racists and compared to Alabama Governor George Wallace because they opposed a particular “diversity plan” at a particular time & place. And I have myself been accused of “being mean” and “enjoying hurting others” because I gave my opinion when someone asked me for it, on a program that wasn’t particularly good (and I said so, without directly insulting anyone).

The fact is that collegiality, in and of itself, is not a universal virtue. Collegiality is valuable if it is based on trust and respect. I have had many disagreements over the years—even significant ones—with people I respect, and have enjoyed collegial relations with them. I have also seen collegiality used often enough by the incompetent—people who are not respected, and who don’t want to go to the trouble of earning respect—to know that, on balance, focusing on it does more harm than good.

The lesson for any organization or team is clear. Respect comes first—and respect is always earned. Collegiality will follow as a consequence. Any organization that wants to get things done doesn’t need a collegial team nearly as much as it needs a team of people who are all contributing their best efforts and their best thinking to the task. Collegiality and a desire to “not make waves” has driven many an organization over a cliff. Don’t let that happen to yours.

Tags:

 

Sat 27 Feb 2010

I Thought They Were Bookstores

Posted by R. William Ayres under Culture
No Comments

About a month ago, I had an interesting experience. I had signed up with two local branches of a national bookselling chain to do an “author appearance and book signing” to promote our recently-released book, Carry a Chicken In Your Lap—Or Whatever It Takes To Globalize Your Business. Both branches were very happy to work with me—they put the event up on their websites, made nice posters with my picture and the book, and highlighted my connection to the area as a “local” author. In both cases, I was given a prime piece of real estate, right near the front door, where everybody going in and out would walk past me.

Over the course of four hours in two stores, I signed and sold two books. One was to a friend of mine who came by to chat.

Experienced authors will say, “Of course! Don’t waste your time with book signings!” That advice is all over the net. More interesting to me was my observations about the people going in and out, and what this says both about bookstores and about us in the United States.

I had, as I mentioned, prime real estate. People would walk right past me. And since there was, in both cases, a large poster next to me, and a table, and (in one case) a nice arrangement of flowers, there was plenty to draw the eye that “hey, there’s something unusual here.” Indeed, the posters and tables did catch many eyes.

But while people would look at the posters, and some would even slow down to read them, very few looked in my direction. Of those that did, very few made eye contact. Of those that made eye contact, most looked almost guilty and broke it immediately. And all used body language that immediately disconnected them from me. They put up a wall. They pulled into a shell.

This is a fascinating observation, given the interaction of people and locale. These were, after all, people walking into a bookstore. When presented with a real-live author with nothing better to do than chat with them, people walking into these stores almost universally sent the same message: run away! Flee the author! Avoid all contact! You’d think authors were widely known to carry plague.

In truth, I think there are a variety of things going on here. One is an almost astonishing lack of curiosity. One or two people did stop, just to ask, “So, what’s the book about?” But for the most part, people walking into these major national-chain bookstores have apparently no interest in or curiosity about books. They may be interested in particular books. But a new book, something outside their experience? Forget it.

Beyond the lack of curiosity, it struck me that most of these people were profoundly uncertain of their own social skills with strangers. They were afraid—of what, neither they nor I know for certain. But they had, for the most part, lost the ability to start a conversation with a potentially interesting stranger, even one for which the context has already been set and the pretext for the conversation given.

Finally, as I sat through the fourth hour of this relative tedium, watching people come and go with their lattes and their magazines and bookmarks and, occasionally, books, it occurred to me: these are not, for the most part, bookstores as we used to conceive of them. They are coffee shops, gift shops, and meeting places that happen to have books in them. But many of the people that come to them are not, by and large, very literary.

So to fellow authors, I can only echo the advice given by so many others: skip the bookstore signings. And to the rest of us a call, not to arms but to conversation: talk to strangers. Break out of the American shell. Broaden your world a bit. You might learn something.

Tags:

 

Wed 20 Jan 2010

Are We Schoolyard Bullies?

Posted by R. William Ayres under Accountability, Consequences of Ideas, Culture, Transparency
1 Comment

Sometimes, it’s an Alice-in-Wonderland world. There have been two cases recently of countries acting in an open and democratic manner, and getting slammed for it—by the international community of countries that preach open democracy.

First, Switzerland was widely ridiculed for its decision this past December to ban the construction of minarets on Muslim mosques. The proposal, passed by 57% of voters in a referendum of the Swiss population, has been variously called “far-right,” “extremist,” and “radical.” Political cartoons mocking Switerland as an intolerant country have sprouted up in newspapers across the West, and politicians (none of them Swiss) have lined up to denounce the measure.

Second, Iceland faces a referendum of its own this coming March on whether to levy the obligations of the failed Icebank towards its foreign depositors onto Icelandic citizens. The President of Iceland, in refusing to sign a bill that would do just that, has forced a vote on the measure. Polling suggests it will likely be defeated. In response, the European Union has warned Iceland that this could stall or derail Iceland’s path to joining the EU, and both it and the IMF have threatened that Iceland will get no more aid from outside if they don’t repay the British and Dutch governments, who have already compensated their nationals for their bank losses.

National sovereignty as a principle was supposedly established back in 1648, with the Treaty of Westphalia. In rough terms, under the sovereignty principle countries are supposed to respect each other’s right to govern themselves as they wish. If two countries want to unite and share governance, that’s their business (East and West Germany). If a country wants to separate and go separate ways, so long as it’s done peacefully that’s their affair as well (Czechoslovakia). And each country gets to have its own laws, not subject to the edicts of the Pope, decrees of the Emperor, or the dictates of the UN.

The idea of democracy—or, more accurately, republicanism (small “r”)—is that whatever laws a country adopts should reflect the will and the interests of the citizens of that country, not just its rulers. In Iceland’s case, there’s no doubt that the leaders of Icebank—and much of the Parliament—would rather that the taxpayers foot the bill. In Switzerland, the Swiss Federal Presidency and parliament opposed the ban on minarets. In the latter case, the people rejected their government’s preference. In the former, they appear poised to do the same.

What’s the problem here? In both cases, you have very well-educated populations deciding issues of importance to themselves. This is how it’s supposed to work: people are responsible for their own country’s direction and its future. It’s their country; they run it, not we.

What these cases reveal is that we don’t really believe in democracy, or republicanism, or the supposed ideals of the “free world.” Or, more accurately, we only believe in those things when people in democratic countries make the decisions we want them to make. When they make different ones, we decry them as “radicals” and threaten to take things away from them until they comply with our wishes.

The fact is that what you and I think of the past decision of the Swiss, or the future decision of Iceland, is irrelevant (unless you are Swiss or Icelandic—I am neither). These are their decisions to make. And we should either respect their right to make them, or shut up about the “free world” and our inveterate love of Democracy and go back to being schoolyard bullies.

Tags: , , ,

 

Mon 4 Jan 2010

Not All Problems Have Solutions

Posted by R. William Ayres under Asymmetry, Consequences of Ideas
1 Comment

Foreign Policy magazine’s Marc Lynch has written the following about possible US involvement in Yemen, now being discussed openly by the Obama administration:

But it is important to think carefully about the nature of the U.S. interests there, the kinds of resources which would be required to seriously affect the dynamics which matter to the U.S., and how actions in Yemen would fit into wider strategic concerns. I’ve always thought that the global COIN conception is a recipe for overstretch and exhaustion, as the frontier endlessly recedes and American resources are squandered in a futile attempt to bring order to the unorderly parts of the world. To say that Yemen’s state failures produces conditions which allow some dangerous things to develop does not necessarily mean that massive action is required — the world is full of suboptimal outcomes beyond our means to repair. Decisions should not be made to escalate or initiate commitments to Yemen in a politically-charged, reactive way. And what ever is done had better take seriously the key political issues in the Gulf and Yemen — where AQAP is only one small part of an extremely complex environment.

Whatever we think about the particular issue of Yemen, there is a deep bit of wisdom here: “the world is full of suboptimal outcomes beyond our means to repair.”

For some time now—indeed, for the better part of the last four or five decades—American foreign policy has been driven by a hidden, underlying, unexamined assumption: that the United States can do absolutely anything, can “fix” any “problem,” can engineer any outcome, if only American minds and muscle are put behind the effort.

This idea lives everywhere, from the continued insistence in some quarters that the US “could have won” in Vietnam, to the present-day assertion that America can win a “war on terror”—or even that it can transform Iraq or Afghanistan into functional democracies that will act in US interests.

The Greeks had a name for this kind of unexamined assumption that leads people and nations alike to try the impossible: hubris. The thing about hubris is that it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to those inside the assumption. For many Americans, the idea that the US can do anything—embodied in the phrase, “if we can put a man on the moon, we can do X”—seems not only plausible, but obvious.

There are two lessons to be learned here. For Americans in particular, this assumption needs serious examination. In a world of finite resources, not every problem is solvable, not even by the most powerful—and trying usually leads to catastrophe, as history has told us for over two thousand years.

For organizations and nations in general, there’s a broader, equally critical lesson. Much of what we do is driven by hidden ideas—things we think are true that we never take time to examine. We have to pull these assumptions out and examine them—especially if they involve believing that we will always be successful at something. Hubris can only overtake us if we let it sneak up from behind—the moment we turn to face reality, we get a much better handle on what we can and can’t do.

Note: Tip of the hat to my friend Steve Saideman for pointing up Lynch’s stuff on his blog.

Tags: , , , , ,

 

Mon 7 Dec 2009

Lessons from a Chinese Buffet in Vermont

Posted by Bruce Alan Johnson under Culture
1 Comment

It’s probably the last place you’d expect to find it, but there is a remarkably good Chinese buffet in Newport, Vermont, just a few miles from the border with Québec. They present two 40-foot buffet lines that are fastidiously maintained, immaculate every moment. With food that is consistently hot, appealing, and satisfying.

On my most recent visit I watched the staff and spoke with the young manager. “When you first opened here last year, the entire community was convinced you’d fail. No advertising, no flyers. Yet you are flourishing! Why?”

“Patience!” he smiled. “Great Chinese virtue!” Indeed.

But everybody knows that you can’t have a successful business without heavy promotion, right? “We knew we had a superior product, and we never worried about competition. We knew that if we just waited, the word would spread.” And spread it most definitely did. Thoughts for American managers to reflect on.

Then there is the work ethic that comes with that culture: not one staff member (all Chinese immigrants or Chinese-Americans) is ever seen loitering in the drinks service area or daydreaming. Motion is swift, focused, and quiet. Nobody ever has to ask the staff for more of anything on the line—they watch and keep the huge kitchen informed. And they remove your used plates while you are back at the buffet bars.

Operations are simple and lean, prices even simpler: $6.25 for all-you-can-eat lunch (including free green tea) and about $10 for dinner (which also includes endless shrimp and sushi). No clutter or varying margins to worry about—just head count. Hw much simpler can it get?

In a business world today that screams “7 ways to grow your profits” and “the 13 things you must learn to succeed,” it’s quite nice to come across an enterprise that is simple, honest, reliable, and startlingly successful. Think differently, and enjoy different results…

Tags:

 

Thu 3 Dec 2009

Picking the Right People for Expat Assignments: The HR Dimension

Posted by R. William Ayres under Choosing people for overseas, Culture, Transparency
1 Comment

The following was originally written as a guest post on the International HR Forum blog. You can view it (and any discussion it generates) on that site at: http://internationalhr.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/expat-selection-its-not-just-skills/.

A large American corporation sent a senior executive to reside in an African country known for its wide religious tolerance, as the general manager of the company’s regional operations. Managerially speaking, the man was qualified. But he brought with him a zealous sense of religious superiority that manifested itself as rigid intolerance.

In his first week on the job, he screamed at Muslims who were in a corner observing one of the five prayer times of the day, and then at Sikhs whose heads were traditionally wrapped. By the next week, more than a hundred employees had walked off the job. Some of them brought in government authorities to the site. In the meeting that followed, the executive said that he would accept crosses as jewelry and pins, but no other expression of religious identity! Even though the officials tried to explain the supreme importance of religious diversity in their country, the response was an arrogant assertion of “rights” that the executive claimed he had.

Of course he had no such rights, and a week later the government informed the American corporate headquarters that this executive would have to be removed at once, or all government contracts with that company would be canceled and official hearings would be held for the aggrieved workers. He was recalled, another casualty of the mistakes companies make in sending the wrong people overseas.

Every time we talk to an audience about sending people overseas, we start with one fundamental point: not everybody can do this. Not everybody will be successful in Copenhagen just because he or she did well in Cleveland or Calgary. Furthermore, no magic, single thing guarantees success. The world is a complex place. It would be surprising if we didn’t need complex abilities to deal with it.

But what if you’re coming the other direction—sending people to the United States? Over the years it has become quite plain that the most costly mistake made by companies sending people to the US has been the blind belief that there are dollar signs instead of Ss in the name United $tate$. The second error lies in believing that a country as stunningly diverse as America is in fact an homogenous market. America is not just 50 states—it spans 11 time zones, from the westernmost tip of Alaska to eastern tip of Maine. And its people are so diverse in culture and outlook that domestic companies usually take great care to make sure that the right Americans are matched to the appropriate areas of the country for sales and marketing. A person who sells successfully in Mississippi will almost certainly be rejected by the more harried residents of New York.

Recently a Middle Eastern company of considerable wealth sent a two-member team to New York City to head their American office. Not only had neither member of the team ever been to America—both made vehement anti-Semitic remarks almost every day. Needles to say, they were strongly resented by most New Yorkers, and failed completely. They were recalled at considerable expense, the company’s reputation in the States tattered.

When it comes to finding the right people—and avoiding the wrong ones—human resources needs to play a critical role. The reason is simple. Understanding the keys to choosing the people most qualified for overseas assignments is something that most line managers aren’t well equipped to do. Managers’ primary purpose is to get the job done. Often, this does involve deciding who’s going to do what. But in the international arena, those decisions are not based on how well you know the technical field or the business goals. They’re based on what you know about your people.

This is where HR can and should play a key role. Arnold Kanarick, who headed HR at The Limited and Bear Stearns, pointed out, “HR isn’t about being a do-gooder. It’s about how do you get the best and brightest people and raise the value of the firm.” Good HR offices are staffed with trained professionals who know how to evaluate aspects of a company’s people to assist tremendously in choosing the right people to send overseas.

To do that requires recognizing a fundamental reality: the world is a very complex place that does not lend itself to packaged solutions. The primary challenge is finding people who can deal with differences—but what kinds of differences vary widely, depending on where your organization wants to go and what it wants to do. There are no simple tests or easy systems for scanning personnel files.

So what should you be looking for? Here’s a profile of what a potentially successful overseas assignee should look like. Key characteristics include:

• Matching demographic characteristics (gender, race, religion) to the place they’re being sent. Different cultures react differently to different sorts of people.

• Open-mindedness toward difference. Can the people you’re sending work well with others who are different?

• Language facility. People who have no facility whatsoever for learning foreign languages—or, worse still, who actively resist even a modest attempt—should not be sent overseas.

• Language assumptions. Anyone who thinks the world speaks English, or that the world ought to speak English, should stay at home.

• Acceptance of the world as you find it. Anyone infected with the desire to westernize other parts of the world will definitely do a poor job of representing your business.

• Tolerance of different ways of doing business. Just because you didn’t think of it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

• Time-change tolerance. The more difficult it is for people to adjust to jet lag, the effects of travel, and time-zone differences, the less they probably ought to do it.

• Cultural-time Flexibility. People who understand that different cultures think differently about time, and who can adapt themselves to those cultural differences, will do much better overseas than those who don’t.

So how do you find employees who fit this profile? There are two keys here: know what you’re sending them into, and know your people. Choosing people to send overseas can’t be done with a one-size-fits-all checklist. But a good HR department that does know the firm’s employees, and that does its homework, can make a tremendous contribution in helping companies get the right people in the right places overseas.

Tags:

 

Tue 10 Nov 2009

Trailer for Carry a Chicken In Your Lap

Posted by R. William Ayres under Choosing people for overseas, Culture
1 Comment

Bruce gave a talk at Butler University recently on our book, Carry a Chicken In Your Lap, Or Whatever It Takes to Globalize Your Business. See the trailer here!

Carry a Chicken In Your Lap from The Mattison Corporation on Vimeo.

Tags: , , , ,

 

Wed 4 Nov 2009

Everybody Has Culture – and It Matters For Your Business

Posted by R. William Ayres under Culture
No Comments

Too often, people make one of two mistakes about the importance of culture:

• They assume (as do most Americans, for example) that “culture is something that other people have,” and that what they do is “normal.”

• They assume that culture only affects the superficial things in life, like what food you eat, what clothes you wear, or what music you listen to.

But national culture—the culture shared by large groups of people—can have a profound impact on how they do business. Take the following example:

The other day, my wife and I listened to an episode of an American radio show called “This American Life.” Its subject was a United States Congressional hearing in which the CEOs of 3 major health insurance companies were grilled about “recision”—the practice of pulling individual health insurance plans just when they’re needed, often for the most flimsy of reasons. At one point, the chairman of the committee asked each of the 3 men: will you renounce recision in all cases except those of clear and provable fraud? Every one of them said no. And they all cited the law—as in, “this is legal, so we can do it”—as their only “defense”.

How is this cultural? To Americans, this isn’t much of a surprise—we assume that people will act in their own, narrowly defined, self-interest, and that if they can cheat you out of a buck, they usually will. But what would a Swiss reaction to this be? Or a Swedish or Norwegian one? The Swiss have a word for it—undenkbar, unthinkable. That’s just not how business is done.

Most of the business practices you run into around the world are based on underlying cultural assumptions about what’s appropriate and what’s not. The more you can figure out what those assumptions are, the better you will do. And the moment you hear someone saying, “We have to do it this way—everybody else does,” run!

Tags: ,

 

Next Page »