Yes, in a perfect world, a global leader masters all psychological, philosophical,
geographical, geopolitical and anthropological elements. A true superman with an
excellent global understanding and great experience in EQ and CQ (emotional and
cultural intelligence). Possibly multilingual, sensationally communicative, and
equipped with all relevant tools, including lots of travel- and meeting-time at
disposal. Wishful thinking, for sure. Such a person does not exist.
To
be a true global leader has become such a complex task, that one single person
cannot fit the job anymore. It’s now a matter of very inter-active management
teams, who support their leader in a manner which allows them together to
inspire, teach, lead and control global teams and interest groups (suppliers,
clients, employees).
Specialists
from all back-grounds must therefore join in such group-leaderships.
Representatives from HR, of course, but also education experts, communication
and media specialists, political analysts, financial wizards, and even life-balance
advisers and motivation providers. But then, global leaders need one more
element, a tool which cannot be bought, stolen or even learned. Either one has
it, or not: EQ. Emotional Intelligence, expressed through charisma, feelings
and connectivity.
The
other key is a deep-rooted tolerance about other people’s values, believes, interests,
and behaviors. Or, actually, tolerance is a word too vague, it should be acceptance.
An ability, which probably can be learned best, once again, from parents. Yet a
crucial tool to be really successful in today’s open and somewhat open-end global
business environment. Some manager believe that the world is one, but regardless
of quick air-connections, video-conferencing and free electronic data-access,
that is not the case. It’s more complicated.
The Lewis Model
Richard
Lewis, cross-cultural opinion leader and author of ‘When Cultures collide”
suggested in his findings that there are 3 major cultural orientations: the
linear-active group (somewhat representing the “Western World”), the
multi-active one (i.e. Brazil or Italy) and the re-active types (such as Japan,
Korea, Vietnam, etc.). HR-specialists and cross-cultural lecturers use the ‘Lewis
model’ to teach their employees (and specifically expatriates) about the
conditions and behaviors in a foreign country or a new market. Only, the
process of teaching is long and expensive, and mostly limited to the very destination,
which is of immediate interest to the company. In international business
projects, time and patience are always limited and subsequently, actions often happen
re-active and minimalisticaly.
For example, most of the time, expatriates obtain their destination-training
upon arrival at their new post, rather than before
the actual decision-making about their new job. But, if the expatriate is not
performing well in the new country (for whatever reasons), the required correction
measurements substantially delay the ongoing business project and become
extremely expensive. It is estimated that global corporations spend EURO
200’000 and more for a repatriation effort (transport home & new assignment
for former expatriate, replacement initiatives, communication to employees, clients,
media, etc.). Not to mention the time and energy required by HQ to supervise the
transaction.
Apply CQ pro-actively
Yet,
unfortunately, CQ is hardly ever part of the research and preparation work
prior to a merger & acquisition, to an opening of a branch office in a
foreign environment or to employing an expatriate. Also, Due Diligence-reports
seldom contain soft-factor issues status, gender, communication behavior, etc.
Some
even experienced managers still see the world as one identical market place and
they plan their sales and marketing according to geographic-logistical frameworks
(i.e. air-connections and travel time). Why otherwise would a “region” such as
EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) be so popular in international enterprises?
But EMEA makes no sense, really, for substantial global business activities. Europe
is such a diversified continent (just look at the difficulties within the EU),
and so is Africa. In the Middle East, maybe, business practices and cultural behaviors
are somewhat similar from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. Or are they?
New global business territories
Anyway, Geert
Hofstede, another respected cross-culturist, suggested in his concept ‘Globe’, that
there are ten major cultural clusters:
¨ Anglo Cultures (including Britain and the US)
¨ Arab Cultures (‘leader’ Saudi Arabia; on to Maghreb countries)
¨ Confucian Asia (with China and Japan as major players)
¨ Germanic Europe (with power-house Germany)
¨ Nordic Europe
¨ Eastern Europe (Russia as dominating country)
¨ Latin Europe
¨ Latin America (rather different to Latin Europe)
¨ Southern Asia (with two huge markets India and Indonesia)
¨ Sub-Sahara Africa
That’s
quite interesting, and it surely is more cultural-needs-oriented than the old
system (east/west or established/emerging). Maybe Hofstede’s names for his 10
regions sound a bit old-fashioned today, but his proposal certainly allows a
more sensible approach to the regional needs and cultural behaviors. And it
could be another valuable element for global leaders to be globally successful.