In the quest of building a strong global identity, organizations are realizing more and more culture related issues which, when used as a covert foundation in policy formulation and planning, would aid in aligning organizational goals with regional differences. Time perspective is one such element of culture, which influences the way members of a culture tend to approach decision-making in consumer as well as business activities. The difference in the time perception leads to the difference in the outlook of the employees towards work and people. The issue of time in the study of culture can been used in International Human Resources Management (IHRM) researches to measure country and group level effects that can be discriminated between countries and groups and thus help explain variance in the behaviors of organization and people. The dimension of time-perspective could be added (Bond, M H et al 1987) as the fifth dimension of culture related to work organization. The other four dimensions are Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede and Bond 1984), as defined by Geert Hofstede’s most popular framework of studying international culture.
Philip R. Cateora and John L. Graham ('International Marketing', 10th edition, Pg. 130) define the classification of perspective of time into Monochronic and Polychronic time. M-time or monochronic time perception of a culture implies that people tend to concentrate on one thing at a time. It is typical of low-context cultures like that of North Americans, Swiss and Scandinavians. They divide the time in to small units and are concerned with promptness. M-time is used in a linear way and is experienced as being tangible, in that we save time, spend time or waste time. The concept of polychronic time or P-time is characterized by simultaneous occurrence of many things and by "a great involvement with people". P-time allows for relationships to build on and context to be absorbed as part of high-context cultures like that of India and other South Asian countries. The completion of human transactions is considered more important than holding to schedules.
The author has made an attempt to analyse the HRM practices of USA, India and Japan, in the context of cultural-differences in the perception of time. The choice of these cultures have been based on the fact that traditionally USA is recognised as a M-time culture, India as a P- time culture, while Japan is a mix of M- time and P- time behaviour. However these cultures do not exist in isolation, and the time perception in these cultures is being influenced and changed by cross-frontier trade and other interactions.
The implications of the difference in the perception of time in different cultures can be organization wide, individual directed or task centric.
Influence on Organisation
Those issues, which effect planning, scheduling and unionism have an organization wide effect and are in turn influenced by culture based perception of time.
The P – type culture takes short-term view of organization and its goals, while an M-time culture takes a long term view and emphasizes long term organization planning. For an organization that is planning to set up operations in P-type culture, it would have to acquaint the employees with its long-terms goals and align them with their personal goals to introduce a long-term vision.
Reworking the reward system to emphasis on attainment of long term planning goals would also reinforce the same. A culture having a mix of P and M type behavior shows long term planning and a strategic role of HR in planning. Rules are codified and decision-making is allowed adequate time.
For any organization with international operations unionism is an essential part of its external environment, which is often guided by the law of the land. M-type culture takes an adverse view of unionism. On the other hand, P-type culture has cooperative unions and collective bargaining and worker participation is the norm. A mix of P and M type culture shows enterprise unionism, which is positive and cooperative in nature and worker participation is encouraged.
The information about prevalent unionism is of use to both employees and management since this defines their interaction and extent of worker participation in management.
Decision making is another aspect of organization which in M-type culture, perceived as more bureaucratic with rigid rules, is appreciated if it is quick; while P-type culture is more flexible and accepts a long decision making process. In contrast, the mix of P and M type culture emphasizes the role of HR in the decision making. The rules are formal and codified and decision making is allowed adequate time. By acquainting its expatriate managers with these perceptions an organization would gain in situations like negotiations.
Influence on Individual
Aspects like individual’s performance appraisal, reward and perspective towards employment are some issues, which are influenced by culture-based perception of time.
Performance appraisal can be based on individual achievement or it can emphasis group performance. An individual in an M-type culture concentrates on his own performance since group achievements are not the primary goal, while in a mix of P and M type culture, group performance is an important criteria for performance appraisal. In this issue the organization can be guided by societal norms and values. The interval between performance appraisals is also dependent on perception of time and a culture with long decision making cycles might require a longer performance appraisal cycle.
The issues like career planning, hiring policy and succession planning are dependent on average employee tenure in the organization. In both P-type and the mix type culture, employees presume a lifetime employment. This leads to easy succession planning and a need based hiring policy, which relies heavily on personal interviews as a selection criteria. In contrast, an employee in M-type culture would in all probabilities work for more than one employer in his lifetime and hence a structured hiring policy. Another area of difference between different cultures is wage determination. In P-type culture wages are based on industry-cum-regional parameters, and seniority is an important parameter in determining wages. Wages in M-type culture is skill and merit based. In a mix of M and P type culture wages are based on both seniority and merit. To avoid dissonance this factor is to be kept in perspective to draft an effective compensation policy in different cultures. Since most organizations want to avoid a geography based pay differentiation, a non-monetary remuneration can be offered.
Influence on Task
Task definition and task related skill development is also influenced by culture related perception of time.
Tasks in P-type culture are loosely defined giving flexibility to the employee while M-type culture has rigid definition of task. In the mix of P and M type culture job definition is simple and broad. This difference could mean job dissatisfaction in organizations operating in different cultures but following a uniform job definition.
The perception about training is also culture based. P-type culture considers training to be of little importance and training is on the job. In M-type culture formal training is imparted. In the mix of M and P type cultures, train-ability is emphasized with both on-job and off-job trainings being imparted. Thus the issue of training and skill development in different cultures will have to be tackle differently, more so because cultures also promote multi-skill or specialization development. P-type culture and the mix of M and P type culture, associate job rotation with job satisfaction hence employees are multi skilled. In M-type culture employees are specialists in specific tasks. This difference would be specially emphasized in case of blue-collared workers.
Comparison
A good case for comparing the three cultures is the statistical comparison of importance of company breeding in the US and Japanese managerial labour markets by Takao Kato and Mark Rockel. It states that there is a clear difference between the time taken for new recruit to reach the position of CEO in the two countries. On an average, in USA it took 20 years while in Japan it took 27 years in. Seeing that most of the CEOs in India reach that position after 25 to 30 years in the organisation we can extend the study to aid in comparing the three cultures.
This difference in promotion is quite apparent in terms of real time. But another criteria to be considered is that Japanese organisation stress on hands-on on-job-training for the development and training of a CEO hence the emphasis remains on the long-term objective. The survey points to the fact that the managerial labour market of Japan tends to nurture more long-term relationship between managers and the firm than that of USA. The CEOs in USA laid lesser emphasis on knowing the firm and its employee, owing to comparatively lesser stress on consensus building.
In the traditional Indian firms with the emphasis on relationships, the promotions were typically based on seniority thus often the CEOs were appointed even as they were just a few months away from the stipulated retirement age.
Conclusion
The deeply entrenched perceptions, which have even shaped cultures, would be difficult to melt to mould together in one universal time-perception. But the desire to seek or introduce homogeneity in these matters are uppermost in the minds of a managers dealing with various issues of international HRM, ranging from managing of subsidiaries to training of expatriates. The slow progress towards acceptance of similar mixed time- perceptions at least in the place of work is visible.
While on one hand the Japanese promote dynamism, future-orientation, hard work and adherence to rules, on the other hand importance is placed on relationships, broad job descriptions, decentralization and respect for seniority.
HRM practices in USA are showing a similar trend, be it in greater tolerance of trade unions or in forays in building corporate loyalty. Similar trends in India are being forced towards a more monochronic approach to wards work, by advent of competition for the state owned enterprises from the private sector firms, including MNC.
Puja Karki is a management consultant with diverse experience in IT and business process outsourcing domains, with special focus on BFSI and FMCG verticals. Additionally she is a prolific writer and speaker about outsourcing, IPR and contemporary global issues.
email: puja.karki@gmail.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Puja_Karki
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Strategies For Leading Through Change
I need to make a change in my company…How do I do it, and how do I manage it? This is a question I hear from business leaders every day... yet the question often comes to me after the fact... when people are up in arms and ready to bolt. A change can be something as simple as new stationery or as tumultuous as a merger or acquisition, and while the change is often seen by top leadership as necessary to move ahead of aggressive competitors, this is not always the case for employees. Why? I believe the answer is this - Your employees are not angry about the change itself... they are angry because they are often the last to hear, you did not get their buy-in, their vote didn't count , and bam... Trust is shattered!"
Imagine this: During a strategic planning meeting, the executive team of a large technology company makes the decision to launch a new product line and ditch an existing one. Ditching the existing product line means that a few talented employees will become obsolete, and the new product line will require a new pool of talent. The executive team chooses to "keep this quiet" until they are ready to launch (yeah right!) They begin to meet after hours in a locked room to discuss their plans. As human behavior often teaches us, it is very hard to keep a secret when you know you have one inside you.
So . . . Sally Smith, CIO, makes the decision to tell one person outside the executive team: "I have something to tell you, but you have to promise not to tell anyone" (yeah right . . . again.) In addition, the janitor knows something's up . . . he cleans after hours and sees the big dogs locked in a room every night for three weeks, and he begins to whisper in the halls to his comrades. Suspicion builds and the grapevine begins to circulate rumors: "I hear the company is closing," or "I heard we are merging" or "I heard that we are headed for a 20% lay off" or "I heard that the company is in big trouble" and so on. The fear, doubt, worry and anxiety begin to build. People are not sure what is going on, but all they know is that it must be big, and they are nervous . . . very, very nervous!
Change efforts are delicate, and they require finesse . . . they can't be taken lightly, and they must be communicated from the top to the bottom of the organization. I believe that the key to success during any change initiative includes three very important aspects:
1) Communication- Communication needs to be clear, consistent and repeated again and again. Repeat the communication until you hear yourself and others saying "Okay, okay . . . we got it . . . we are tired of hearing about it . . . we are on it!" Communicating a change takes time for people to really hear it. The have to roll it over in their minds, talk about it with others and get clear about what's what. The first time employees hear about a change, they are usually hearing it through filters of fear, doubt, worry, and confusion. So . . . don't expect them to get it the first time, and by all means . . . don't send it in a memo! Use verbal communication . . . talk to them, talk to your managers, talk to your team, and keep repeating the message again and again.
2) Gain Commitment - During a change initiative, it is critical for a company to gain buy-in from everyone in the organization. You want each person in the company to support the change and to feel as if they have been a part of planning the change initiative. Empower your employees by inviting them to collaborate during the change. The "town meeting" format is perfect for this purpose and coupled with smaller management meetings. This approach can provide an open forum for people to be able to clear (a form of venting which is highly constructive . . . allow for 10 minutes of clearing in the beginning of each town meeting,) ask questions and above all to allow their ideas to be heard and implemented.
3) Coaching - Emotions will be running high during a period of transition, and I believe that coaching for the entire organization during this time is not a luxury…it is a requirement. Managing people during change is one thing but managing their emotions is an entirely different animal. It requires listening, empathy and the giving of time. Coaching during change can support an organization in building teamwork and can foster a sense of support and trust. As thought leader Phil Harkins, President of Linkage, Inc and author of Powerful Conversations: How High Impact Leaders Communicate says "The organizational change coach operates like a free safety-a term for the player who can move freely around the field as the play requires. In other words, the coach must be able to work when and where the need arises, in order to facilitate the shift that is taking place." From The Art and Practice of Leadership Coaching by Howard Morgan, Phil Harkins, and Marshall Goldsmith.
This article was authored by Bea Fields. Fields is an Executive Coach and the President of Bea Fields Companies, Inc Fields specializes in leadership and team development and in generational issues in the workplace. She is the chief principal of The Gen Y Project and the co-author of http://edge-book.com Edge: A Leadership Story. Copyright (c) 2007 Bea Fields Companies, Inc.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bea_Fields
Imagine this: During a strategic planning meeting, the executive team of a large technology company makes the decision to launch a new product line and ditch an existing one. Ditching the existing product line means that a few talented employees will become obsolete, and the new product line will require a new pool of talent. The executive team chooses to "keep this quiet" until they are ready to launch (yeah right!) They begin to meet after hours in a locked room to discuss their plans. As human behavior often teaches us, it is very hard to keep a secret when you know you have one inside you.
So . . . Sally Smith, CIO, makes the decision to tell one person outside the executive team: "I have something to tell you, but you have to promise not to tell anyone" (yeah right . . . again.) In addition, the janitor knows something's up . . . he cleans after hours and sees the big dogs locked in a room every night for three weeks, and he begins to whisper in the halls to his comrades. Suspicion builds and the grapevine begins to circulate rumors: "I hear the company is closing," or "I heard we are merging" or "I heard that we are headed for a 20% lay off" or "I heard that the company is in big trouble" and so on. The fear, doubt, worry and anxiety begin to build. People are not sure what is going on, but all they know is that it must be big, and they are nervous . . . very, very nervous!
Change efforts are delicate, and they require finesse . . . they can't be taken lightly, and they must be communicated from the top to the bottom of the organization. I believe that the key to success during any change initiative includes three very important aspects:
1) Communication- Communication needs to be clear, consistent and repeated again and again. Repeat the communication until you hear yourself and others saying "Okay, okay . . . we got it . . . we are tired of hearing about it . . . we are on it!" Communicating a change takes time for people to really hear it. The have to roll it over in their minds, talk about it with others and get clear about what's what. The first time employees hear about a change, they are usually hearing it through filters of fear, doubt, worry, and confusion. So . . . don't expect them to get it the first time, and by all means . . . don't send it in a memo! Use verbal communication . . . talk to them, talk to your managers, talk to your team, and keep repeating the message again and again.
2) Gain Commitment - During a change initiative, it is critical for a company to gain buy-in from everyone in the organization. You want each person in the company to support the change and to feel as if they have been a part of planning the change initiative. Empower your employees by inviting them to collaborate during the change. The "town meeting" format is perfect for this purpose and coupled with smaller management meetings. This approach can provide an open forum for people to be able to clear (a form of venting which is highly constructive . . . allow for 10 minutes of clearing in the beginning of each town meeting,) ask questions and above all to allow their ideas to be heard and implemented.
3) Coaching - Emotions will be running high during a period of transition, and I believe that coaching for the entire organization during this time is not a luxury…it is a requirement. Managing people during change is one thing but managing their emotions is an entirely different animal. It requires listening, empathy and the giving of time. Coaching during change can support an organization in building teamwork and can foster a sense of support and trust. As thought leader Phil Harkins, President of Linkage, Inc and author of Powerful Conversations: How High Impact Leaders Communicate says "The organizational change coach operates like a free safety-a term for the player who can move freely around the field as the play requires. In other words, the coach must be able to work when and where the need arises, in order to facilitate the shift that is taking place." From The Art and Practice of Leadership Coaching by Howard Morgan, Phil Harkins, and Marshall Goldsmith.
This article was authored by Bea Fields. Fields is an Executive Coach and the President of Bea Fields Companies, Inc Fields specializes in leadership and team development and in generational issues in the workplace. She is the chief principal of The Gen Y Project and the co-author of http://edge-book.com Edge: A Leadership Story. Copyright (c) 2007 Bea Fields Companies, Inc.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bea_Fields
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)