This Is Horrible Management Advice

I’ve been seeing a lot of management advice lately — hopefully it’s a sign that the U.S. economy is starting to boom again, and projects are taking off. But the problem is, most of the advice I’m seeing is really horrible — at least, if you’re working anywhere outside of America.

Western Management Is… Western

Western management theory works great if you’re managing a Western team. That means a team of people that are completely and entirely Western in terms of their culture and expectations.

For example, in this recent article, Lisa Evans reports that employers are “turning away from the traditional management style of hierarchies.” This is absolutely correct — in the United States. But applying this advice elsewhere in the world could be a huge mistake, especially in the highly organized and role-driven cultures throughout the East. Much of what Ms. Evans writes is sound advice across cultures. She writes that, “Recognizing these basic human needs can create a workforce of employees who are committed to working for their leader because of who they are and how they are treated,” a management principle that is a universal truth. But, as with most Western-oriented management writers, she also adds advice that will fall flat across Asia: “Empowering employees is one of the best ways to get commitment.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t work well in countries and cultures where explicit instruction is expected. In India, for instance, delegating and empowering your team usually backfires. The culture of India, one that produces great technical minds, is still focused on rote training and clear task delegation.

Adapt Your Management To Fit Culture

Don’t be scared of looking for advice online, though. There’s a lot of great advice — but consider the author and their audience. If the article seems to “American,” look for advice from a more International source. One great example is Donna Flynn’s recent article on Managing A Team Across 5 Time Zones. She writes that it’s important to share the burden of communication in a multinational team: “Several months ago we started a rotating meeting schedule.  Every month, each team member now has one evening, one mid-day, and one early morning meeting, and misses one meeting that falls in the middle of their night.  No team member is expected to attend a team meeting between 10 pm and 7 am.”

Ms. Flynn adds, “No tool can replace being together in the same room.  I bring my globally dispersed team together twice a year for workshops,” advice that I heartily agree with. It’s one of the key success strategies that I teach to our clients.

So choose your source. There are even products that focus on overly “Americanized” management techniques. One is The Time Timer. It’s a clock, big, bold, and designed to sit on a conference table and get people to stay focused on the agenda. The product pitch resonates with Americans: “You’re in a meeting, there are only two minutes left, and you’ve been talking around and around without even getting into the most important topic. There was no sense of urgency. And now it’s too late.”

But there’s a problem. This agenda-driven mentality is too Western. It only works in those Western cultures that prize time above all else — such as the U.S., Switzerland, Germany, and a handful of other European countries. But deploy this strategy in South America, and your partners will think you don’t care about getting to know them. Try it in most of Asia, and you’ll be labelled impatient and opportunistic, and they’ll think you don’t want to build a real business relationship. Most cultures around the world do not value time like Americans do. In fact, the most important business cultural preference for them: Relationships. That means taking time to build a relationship, and letting the meeting run long. Long meetings are prized because it’s a sign that everyone is getting to know each other. Short meetings send a different signal: “I don’t value this relationship very highly.”

The most important thing to keep in mind: Be aware of the business culture you are working with. Make sure that the management style you apply is going to be the right style for that culture, and for your team.

How Leadership Differs Around The World

British linguist Richard D. Lewis has explored in depth how leadership style differs across cultures and countries. His diagrams of Leadership Styles, published in When Cultures Collide, offer wonderful insight into why so many multinational efforts run into problems. Anyone doing business across borders needs to understand these differences and adapt their own style accordingly.

Different Culture, Different Leadership

Leadership Styles
Leadership Styles

The variation of styles — from structured individualism of America, to consensus rule of Asia — fit  preconceptions about foreign culture. Even so, it’s important to understand the meaning behind each model, and also be aware of individual variation. The models are not unilaterally true across a country. Every individual will have their own blended style of leadership.

See Lewis’ Leadership Styles diagrams, inset, but also be aware that stereotyping is risky, as Lewis himself warns: “Determining national characteristics is treading a minefield of inaccurate assessment and surprising exception. There is, however, such a thing as a national norm.”

Lewis also argues that these cultural characteristics won’t change anytime soon. He writes, “Deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs will resist a sudden transformation of values when pressured by reformists, governments or multinational conglomerates.” While the “Westernization” of many Eastern countries gets a lot of press, most of these changes are superficial. Cultural preferences are deeply rooted. We learn about our culture from birth. Especially in countries with thousands-years-old history and culture, changes are slow to emerge. Stated more directly: Individuals may jump at the chance to adopt foreign practices, such as capital investment, but this doesn’t mean they are also adopting Western culture.

Management gurus have time and again tried to quantify and distill the secret of successful management into an easily followed formula. Peter Drucker, James Champy, Frederick Taylor, Henri Foyal, Frederick Brooks, and Mike Hammer have all put down their thoughts on the topic. But each has placed a Western emphasis on their particular management magic (and, except for Foyal, a very American emphasis).

As I’ve pointed out many times, cultural conflict is common across multinational organizations. Learning how to avoid the conflict — misunderstandings, misinterpretation, and direct cultural incompatibility — is the first step.

Multinational Leadership Success

There is no single management tool that can work in the global landscape. The cultural intricacies that define how people interact, both in a business setting and a social setting, run far too deep. And, just as management styles depend on environment, so do our relationship-building tools. Creating a successful International business relationship depends so strongly on cross-cultural awareness, in fact, that without extensive exposure to foreign culture most efforts are rife with failure.

Check out this short six-part series that talks about how business cultural preferences affect 27 project management disciplines.

The Global Opportunity

Global activity has broadly strengthened and is expected to improve further in 2014-15, according to the April 2014 World Economic Outlook (WEO). Much of the impetus for growth is coming from advanced economies. As the global economy returns to growth, it’s clear there are expanding international opportunities. Businesses are focusing on global economic strategies and new, emerging markets.

But outsourcing, forming a joint venture, or extending supply chains across the globe isn’t easy. Engaging with your partner is, in many respects, like hiring new staff located on the other side of the planet. How do you manage these new employees that aren’t in the office, don’t speak the same language, work a different shift, and will probably never meet your customer or understand the local market? More than likely, they are accustomed to doing business in a completely different way from what you find normal and acceptable.

Doing Business In The Global Economy

Understanding the strong cultural biases and preferences of our counterparts overseas is critical to success. I run into these differences all the time when working internationally. Here’s an example: In a survey conducted across Western and Eastern businesses, respondents were asked to choose whether they strongly agree or strongly disagree with the following statements. Consider your own answer to these questions:

  1. At work, we do business with the firm that has the best product, regardless of our relationship with them.
  2. To avoid a conflict of interest, I avoid doing business with someone solely because of a personal connection.

When presented to Western business people, responses tended toward agreement with these statements. More so, when presented to American business people, the score is almost always very strong agreement. It demonstrates the strong Western preference to be unbiased in the evaluation of products and services. In fact, in many Western companies, there are rules and regulations that specifically forbid preferential treatment because of personal relationships. These companies go out of their way to completely remove personal preference from any buying or hiring situation, making the process one that is as objective and fact-based as possible.

But when presented to Eastern business people, respondents registered strong disagreement with the statements. In India, the Middle East and China, the response is almost uniform: Intense disagreement. These cultures are strongly relationship oriented, and that cultural preference permeates the business environment. A business person making decisions in the BRIC (an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China) will focus on how well they know the person or group they intend to do business with. Strong personal relationships are an integral part of doing business. These strong relationships are what keep things moving smoothly. For instance, Japanese business contracts are much shorter than those drafted in the United States. This is because many of the expectations of the business environment are so deeply embedded in the culture that long, detailed contracts are unnecessary and even offensive. Furthermore, the value of “face” and one’s reputation is so intrinsic that it provides a much stronger motivation than a legal document.

Business Culture And Conflict

These fundamental differences in values and business practices lead to huge misunderstandings in the business world. Just some of these differences include how we manage people, what kind of relationship a boss and a subordinate have, and how we communicate.

Studies conducted by KPMG and Standish reported that 70 percent of projects are failing to meet their goals when it comes to quality, budget, and time — and nearly one quarter (24%) of all projects can be counted as complete failures. These projects are either cancelled outright, or are so off the mark the customer never even uses the finished product.

Frank Ridder, research director at Gartner, has commented that, “[We] found that 55 per cent of global organizations manage their sourcing activities tactically and at an operational level, failing to add a strategic management layer and invest enough in developing critical multisourcing competencies.” In other words, these organizations fail to effectively manage outsourced projects because they don’t plan far enough out, and they don’t take the time to understand the markets they’re developing.

These figures are becoming more and more widely accepted. According to Brandi Moore, a respected consultant on multicultural projects, fully two-thirds of outsourced projects are unsuccessful, and at the same time 65% of Western managers cite culture as their biggest challenge in multinational organizations.

The emerging global economy is creating challenges that Western and Eastern business are just learning how to deal with. As Geert Hofstede, of the Hofstede Institute, aptly wrote, “One of the reasons why so many solutions do not work or cannot be implemented is that differences in thinking among the partners have been ignored.” It’s impossible to build a global organization when each of its parts operates in a cultural vacuum, unaware of how the other parts work.

Identity And International Success

If you missed the first part of this six-part series, see: Part 1 of the series, Creating An International Culture Of Success, or see the entire series right here.

Identity is how we perceive ourselves in relationship to our family, associates, and friends. The individualist focuses on the personal. Such a typical Westerner might think about how they can “get ahead” of everyone else, “stand out from the crowd,” and show off their individual capabilities.

But the vast majority of cultures don’t prioritize the individual. Where the Westerner might think of “I,” someone from a collectivist culture would often think “We.” The group comes first, and is placed ahead of the individual. There is a core belief in the power of the group, and a corresponding feeling that individuals can only play a useful role in society through group involvement. Rather than stand out, the collectivist wants to be a part of the group and support common group goals. In this case, “standing out” is actually a bad thing.

Understanding this is absolutely essential to healthy team dynamics.

Why Identity Matters

Roy, a project manager in the United States, learned about identity the hard way. He had been overseeing work with a partner firm in Japan. The partner firm, responsible for tailoring Roy’s product to fit into Japanese culture, had done a great job. In particular, Roy felt that Masakuni, one of the product designers, had really done exceptional work. He wanted to reward the team, and he wanted to show everyone what a great job Masakuni had done.

As a reward, Roy called the team together to celebrate. He told everyone that the product redesign was a success, and he asked Masakuni to step forward. He told the team that because of Masakuni’s exceptional efforts, their U.S. employer was particularly happy. He went on to add that everyone would be receiving a bonus, but that Masakuni could expect “something extra” for all of his hard work.

Roy shook everyone’s hand. There were smiles all around and it seemed to Roy that he had done the right thing — until the next day. Masakuni did not come to work. Roy had an unexpected meeting on his calendar with the Japanese firm’s general manager. The general manager — fortunately, someone that was very multicultural, and who understood American culture — explained the problem. Masakuni had resigned because he had failed his coworkers. Roy’s congratulatory speech had in fact singled out Masakuni as someone that had not supported his own team. He had not shown them how to excel, just as he had. And by keeping that knowledge to himself, it was self serving: Masakuni had lost face with his group, and with his employer.

The Global Project Compass identifies the following management disciplines as being most directly affected by identity:

  1. Team & Human Resources Management
  2. Training Needs Assessment
  3. Independent Verification & Validation
  4. Assessing Outcomes

Team & Human Resources Management

As Roy learned in the story above, team dynamics is complicated in a multicultural situation. How we motivate team members, how we communicate with them, and how we expect them to communicate with us is essential to good management. Without understanding the more subtle aspects of business culture, managing a team becomes impossible.

Training Needs Assessment

All employees expect to have opportunities for growth. But people in different cultures anticipate receiving these opportunities in varied ways. For example, in many collectivist cultures the boss is expected to look out for employees, and provide guidance regarding a career path. But individualists expect to take action on their own, let their boss know what they would like, and push for what they want. If you don’t understand the right approach, team members will soon be left wondering if there is a future for them at the firm.

Independent Verification & Validation

Independent expertise can be highly valued. But, trusting a third party to ensure the success of a product or service is rife with cultural implications. The individualist approach tends to favor unbiased service providers with a strong track record, and no connection to the firm. The collectivist approach tends to favor trusted, well-known partners with strong connections within the group. It’s a different point of view that can lead to internal conflict in multinational organizations.

Assessing Outcomes

When assessing outcomes, a skilled multicultural manager needs to understand the dynamics of the team. A manager accustomed to individualist teams will naturally look to identify high performers. The individualist team, while working to succeed as a group, will ultimately be motivated to achieving individual goals (such as career advancement). But the collectivist manager will instead assess the team as a whole, understanding that individual performance (whether strong or weak) is, in many regards, left to the group to manage.

Identity is core to a person’s view of self image. The strong individualist employee will look for validation of their abilities, performance, and self worth. The collectivist employee will instead perceive their value in terms of how their work benefits the social “in group,” including family and associates. Benefits and rewards must be appropriate. For example, offering a great opportunity at a new company may not be exciting to a group-oriented person. Such a change means leaving their “in group” behind. It might be viewed as a loss of face — whereas the individualist is more likely to see it a chance to excel.

Cover graphic attribution: The artist and visual designer Yang Liu was born in China and lives in Germany since she was 14. By growing up in two very different places with very different traditions she was able to experience the differences between the two cultures first-hand.

Engagement Style And International Success

If you missed the first part of this six-part series, see: Part 1 of the series, Creating An International Culture Of Success, or see the entire series right here.

Engagement Style

Do we get right down to business, without knowing much about the other person — or, do we build a strong and trusting relationship, only talking about business after we know each other well?

Sending a delegate to represent an American company must be well thought out before departure. This delegate must have authority as well as longevity in the organization. Replacing delegates during the relationship should be done with care and planning. The new contact will need to be brought in slowly to transition the relationship. It is wise for American firms to engage more than one delegate to a relationship with the BRIC or they risk the business leaving with a delegate who departs. — Moore, Brandi, The Little BRIC Book.

Most cultures throughout the world choose the latter path: A relationship-driven engagement style. Conducting business outside of the “in group,” the trusted circle of family, associates, and professional contacts that you know well, is unheard of. It is far better to go into business with someone that you know well, even if the price or product isn’t the best. You know what you’ll be getting. Furthermore, the combined influence of your in group means everyone will do their best for you — and if they don’t, there are always solutions to improve the situation.

The Western, venture-driven style is very different. It’s found in relatively few cultures — probably less than 10% or so of the world. America is perhaps the most dramatic example of a culture that believes in doing business first. It’s a message driven culture, promoting products, uniformity, and a “best product and best price gets the business” ideal. Some of this ideal is beginning to leak into other cultures, but culture doesn’t change quickly.

The Global Project Compass identifies the following management disciplines as being most directly affected by engagement style:

  1. Accounting Policy & Costing
  2. Risk Management
  3. Procedure & Outsourcing Management
  4. Business Continuity & Recovery
  5. Information Assurance & Security

Accounting Policy & Costing

Policies regarding accounting and cost management are deeply affected by engagement style. Strongly relationship driven cultures tend to support more relaxed, flexible policies when it comes to managing the flow of money. This flexibility affords hiring family members, awarding favored contracts to close allies, and giving favors such as gifts for professional favors.

Unlike relationship driven cultures, many cultures focus on cost and performance first, and enact policies accordingly.

Venture driven cultures tend to support stronger accounting and cost management policies, leaning more heavily on the rules of business. This is particularly true in countries such as the United States, Switzerland, and Germany. In such cultures, the favoritism afforded by strong relationships is regarding as nepotism or corruption.

It’s important to remember that both systems are unique and both kinds of cultures feel their system works very well.

Risk Management

Different cultures approach risk from very different perspectives. Cultures that prioritize relationships tend to view those relationships as a means to avoid risk. Awarding an important contract to a close relative or friend provides security. The close relationship helps eliminate unknowns. While price and performance may not be the best, they are known. The strong “in group” network that defines the relationship means everyone will want to support the in group. Performance becomes a matter of saving face.

Venture driven cultures tend to equate risk reduction with choosing the best performer. Giving favored treatment to friends and relatives is viewed as a risk, and potentially disastrous. This usually means taking as objective an approach as possible. Contracts are awarded based on price/performance analysis, and risk is reduced by evaluating past performance. Contingency plans for poor performance generally involve financial penalties or having a contract revoked (not something a relationship driven culture is comfortable with).

Procedure & Outsourcing Management

As pointed out above, the typically “Western” venture driven style eschews anything that seems like favoritism. When talking about outsourcing this is probably one of the biggest differences between venture driven and relationship driven culture. The relationship driven culture will stick to its in group, favoring existing relationships. The venture driven culture assumes that every project must be objectively awarded based on performance criteria.

This also shows up in organizational procedures. Venture driven cultures tend to have written procedures that are enforced through business mechanisms (such as forms, systems, and policy review). Relationship driven cultures, on the other hand, rely more on informal, cultural procedures. Important policies are enforced not by forms and systems, but by the peer network and cultural environment.

Business Continuity, Recovery, & Security

Who is responsible for the continuity of the business? Many venture driven cultures will push for a separation of concerns, using an objective, often outside third party. This might be a service provider responsible for auditing and securing an information network.

Relationship driven cultures tend to prefer a more closely-held approach. Sensitive information is often controlled internally, and important individuals within the organization are tasked with ensuring continuity.

Each culture’s approach to security and information management can be very different. Probably the most dramatic example of this is the American view on intellectual property protection versus that of Chinese culture. While China is definitely changing, the American perception that intellectual property is owned and protected by law is not commonly shared in China. We routinely hear stories about how products are copied in record time in the Chinese market — and U.S. firms are constantly evolving strategies to stay ahead of the Chinese copycats.

Cover graphic attribution: The artist and visual designer Yang Liu was born in China and lives in Germany since she was 14. By growing up in two very different places with very different traditions she was able to experience the differences between the two cultures first-hand.

Time Orientation And International Success

If you missed the first part of this six-part series, see: Part 1 of the series, Creating An International Culture Of Success, or see the entire series right here.

How we think of time is a tricky subject, and one that varies from one culture to another, as I’ve talked about before. Does your culture view time as more fluid, a resource that is infinite? Or is timeliness and meeting deadlines of critical importance?

Time, Projects, And Business

In the project context, time becomes very meaningful. To the business, meeting a product delivery date can be the difference between success and failure — but, at the same time, different cultures will view the importance of meeting that date relative to other priorities. In strongly relationship-driven cultures, for example, the date is subordinated to relationship building. Customer happiness may be more important than shipping before the Christmas buying season. It can also imply an expectation of tolerance and understanding when dates slip.

Time can have a dramatic impact on our business relationships as well. When Japan and Australia entered into a sugarcane export agreement, conditions where beneficial for both parties. As time changed market conditions, Japan ended up with the “dirty end of the stick.” But the relationship-centered business model of Japan led to a huge misunderstanding when Australia refused to renegotiate business terms — in essence, Australia felt the timing of the deal was good fortune for them, while Japan expected that business terms would adjust as time went on. A very fixed versus fluid perspective (and one that resulted in a long and nasty dispute).

The American phrase “time is money” indicates how the typical American prioritizes time, but this approach never works in a culture that prioritizes the relationship (meaning, most of the Middle East, South America, and Asia). To these cultures, it’s more important to get to know each other, to build a trusting relationship, and then begin talking about business. There will always be time to make money together — in the future. Anyone that rushes the process is probably going to be viewed as impetuous, unreliable, or even untrustworthy.

The Global Project Compass™ identifies the following management disciplines as being most directly affected by time orientation:

  1. Project Time Estimation
  2. Quality Assurance Plan
  3. Requirements Management
  4. Testing Plan
  5. Acceptance Plan
  6. Performance Measurement

Project Time Estimation

Probably one of the most obvious consequences of viewing time differently is how we estimate time. Is that estimate a “drop dead” date that we absolutely will meet, no matter what? Or is it an average of where we’ll end up if all goes reasonably according to plan? Might it merely be a hopeful guess at what could be possible?

Depending on your culture, any of these options will be true. Understanding how your partner’s culture views time is crucial to knowing what a project estimate means.

Quality Assurance Plan

Planning the successful — and problem free — launch of any product demands forethought. It demands awareness and convergence of many different plans: Research, development, supply, construction, testing, marketing, customer support, distribution, and more. In a multinational situation, supply chain logistics and regional conditions ranging from weather, product availability, and local holidays play into it.

Assuming a quality assurance organization that is timely and schedule driven, it’s not hard to imagine how difficult their job must be. Consider a global team, where different offices have different notions about the priority and meaning of “time.”

And finally, ask yourself: How does our quality assurance organization, itself, think about time? Is being on time important? Is it one of the quality metrics they are watching out for?

Requirements Management

Are the requirements known at the outset of your project? Or are they vague and fuzzy, with new features “popping up” here and there? Scope creep, or the unending addition of new requirements, is one of the most dramatic influencers on a project.

If your business cares about setting a clear end-point for a project, the team needs to understand that. In cultures where time is fluid, the idea that a product is set in stone and cannot change will seem irrationally rigid and short-sighted. At the same time, projects that seem to shift like a sand dune under someone’s feet will drive a sequential, time-oriented person crazy.

Setting the right expectations is part of the solution, but also knowing how to leverage the strengths of each perspective is key.

Testing And Acceptance

Different products take different approaches to testing. Software can begin testing early in the product life cycle, while manufactured goods need to be tested once they come off the production line. In all cases, though, testing and acceptance is critical and needs to happen at the right time, and in the most effective way.

Both are “critical paths,” too. This means that someone, somewhere, is waiting on the results of testing or acceptance.

Will your testing team be ready to go at the right time? Will the right urgency be applied to the process — or will testing be run like like a fluid project, adding new requirements on the fly?

Time Orientation: Fixed Or Fluid?

Understanding time orientation means knowing how to build a healthy organization — one that supports the time orientation of its employees, without sacrificing necessary business goals. It’s a tough topic to master, because how we think about time is so deeply ingrained in our subconscious. It’s a part of who we are, and changing that doesn’t come naturally.

Think about how you feel, when kept waiting in the conference room for the other team. Are they late, rudely wasting your time — or are they instead thoughtfully giving you a few extra minutes to prepare, while they respectfully and unhurriedly wrap up another meeting?

Think about how hard it will be to change that initial, first reaction, the next time someone is “late,” or seems offended that you are not “prompt.”

Cover graphic attribution: The artist and visual designer Yang Liu was born in China and lives in Germany since she was 14. By growing up in two very different places with very different traditions she was able to experience the differences between the two cultures first-hand.

Communication Style And International Success

If you missed the first part of this six-part series, see: Part 1 of the series, Creating An International Culture Of Success, or see the entire series right here.

I’ve posted a lot about how communication style varies dramatically from one culture to another (including this great infographic on how different cultures negotiate). It’s both very obvious, a clear variation in how we interact, and at the same time deviously subtle in how quickly it can derail an otherwise healthy team and project.

Different Styles Of Communication

Low context cultures, most often associated with Western, industrialized countries, pride themselves on a directness that is unparalleled in other cultures. Lack of subtlety and being “honest and straight-shooting” is the norm. But these cultures end up missing most of the conversation when confronted with high context, rich communication styles.

High context cultures (especially Middle Eastern and Asian, but also South American, some European, and African countries) don’t know how to communicate in this simple, direct style. Confronted with direct, low-context partners, it’s as if 90% of their vocabulary is stripped away. The rich subtlety conveyed in circumstance, timing, silence, body language, story telling, deference, saving face, and tone are missing — leaving behind nothing but blunt, inelegant words (often, to make matters worse, in a second or third language on top of it).

Communication Style: Expressing Opinions (East vs. West)
Communication Style: Expressing Opinions (East vs. West)

Understanding one another’s communication style and being able to adapt, and interpret signals from both cultures accurately, is critical.

The Global Project Compass™ (introduced in Part 1)  identifies the following management disciplines as being most directly affected by communication style:

  1. Continuous Improvement Plan
  2. Segregation of Duties
  3. Project Management Plan
  4. Project Monitoring, Execution, & Control
  5. Change Control & Management
  6. Communications Plan
  7. Performance Measurement

Continuous Improvement Plan

Your continuous improvement plan is absolutely affected by other business cultural preferences, but communication style has a huge impact. Continuous improvement relies on understanding each other without ambiguity. Anything that stands in the way will throw sand into a delicately working machine. Processes like CMMI (the Capability Maturity Model) rely on putting complex, integrated processes into action. Everyone has to understand the process, support it, and pursue it’s objectives.

Segregation of Duties

The Compass also identifies segregation of duties as highly affected by communication style. Clearly defined roles are important in any organization. Segregation of duties is intended to create checks and balances to enforce standards or, in some cases, prevent fraud or malfeasance. One way of looking at this is whether control is unchecked in one person (or one office). A common reason to separate quality assurance, giving it authority on its own, is to support a separate office that has the authority to enforce quality (or at least, stop a project that is not going well).

For this to work, communication lines must be clear. How can quality assurance know how the project is going if there is limited, inaccurate, or unclear communication?

It’s important to note that power distance also deeply affects segregation of duties. The political alignments and often muddied visibility of some organizations create complex, co-dependent relationships. These relationships interfere with the goals of segregating duties.

Project Management, Monitoring, and Change Control

Excellent project management relies on clear communication as well. Across a culturally diverse organization, “clear communication” can mean many things. How does the American manager interpret his Chinese subordinate’s silence, when critical feedback is expected? How will an Indian employee react to the direct communication of a German boss causes him to lose face? Building a project management plan that works well within the multiple, diverse cultural environments of a multinational organization is a challenge.

Performance Measurement

Knowing how your team, and your company, is doing demands no ambiguity. You’ve got to be able to assess performance accurately. For business performance, that means getting accurate, timely information. To assess your team, you need to understand and assess your team member’s contribution. That means understanding what everyone has to say, in their own subtle or not-so-subtle communication style.

Western-style “360 evaluations,” where employees critically evaluate their peers, subordinates, and superiors, rely on American-style direct communication. When used in other cultural settings the 360 evaluation completely fails. When compared to typical American feedback, French and German respondents more easily criticize, but hold back compliments — so evaluations appear much less positive. In many Asian cultures, the idea of openly criticizing is taboo. Here, evaluations come back with seemingly perfect marks — and that can lead to incorrectly concluding that the Asian office is perfect.

Communication: The Tip Of The Iceberg

Most often, problems between multinational teams get put down to bad communication. It’s true that communication is important. It’s also true that most cross cultural situations have communication barriers (and often serious problems). How well people communicate — or, how poorly your team is communicating — is a very visual indication that there are problems.

Just like an iceberg floating in the ocean, this visual indicator usually means there is more going on beneath the surface. When your team isn’t communicating, it’s time to look for other problems too.

Cover graphic attribution: The artist and visual designer Yang Liu was born in China and lives in Germany since she was 14. By growing up in two very different places with very different traditions she was able to experience the differences between the two cultures first-hand.