Leading Cross-Cultural Teams

In this month's issue of HBR, Erin Meyer writes about the challenges of leading cross-cultural teams.  She has some good tips on how to prevent communication breakdowns and enhance team effectiveness.   I would like to highlight one of Meyer's recommendations.  Here is an excerpt from her article:

Train everyone in key norms.

When entering a new market, you’ll inevitably have to adapt to some of the local norms. But you should also train local employees to adapt to some of your corporate norms. For example, L’Oréal offers a program called Managing Confrontation, which teaches a methodical approach to expressing disagreement in meetings. Employees around the world hear about the importance of debate for success in the company. A Chinese employee told me, “We don’t do this type of debate traditionally in China, but these trainings have taught us a method of expressing diverging opinions which we have all come to practice and appreciate, even in meetings made up of only Chinese.”

 

Two points should be stressed here.  First, managing a global team is not simply about adapting to local culture.  It is also about deciding what core norms and principles should be applied globally.  Four Seasons, for instance, is known for doing an excellent job of adapting to local cultures.  However, all hotels and employees around the world adhere to some common guiding rules and principles that insure a consistent high quality brand experience.   Second, the L'Oreal example above provides a good model for how to handle the issue of conflict in meetings.  In some cultures, it will be much more difficult to encourage people to speak up and express dissent.  L'Oreal has recognized this challenge and addressed it head-on.  That's something all global teams should consider.  

Adaptation in Global Strategy

We've been discussing different types of globalization strategy with my students here in France.  We read Pankaj Ghemawat's classic article in which he discusses three different types of global strategy: adaptation, aggregation, and arbitrage.  Adaptation is when firms modify their strategies and products/services as they move to different markets around the world.   Aggregation is when firms standardize their products/services, striving to exploit global economies of scale.  Arbitrage is when firms try to take advantage of factor market differences across nations, so that they can achieve cost efficiencies (e.g., outsourcing to low cost labor nations).   Ghemawat argues that firms must choose which of these strategies will be their priority.  He also argues that it's difficult to pursue all three strategies with equal emphasis, as these distinct strategies require quite different organizational structures and processes.  

We compared two interesting case studies this week in class.  On Wednesday we examined L'Oreal, a French company that has expanded successfully across the world.  L'Oreal has pursued an aggregation strategy, selling a product developed in one nation across many markets around the world... while marketing it often quite explicitly with the home nation branding and positioning. For instance, L'Oreal acquired the Maybelline brand and sold it through an "American beauty" positioning in markets around the world.  Likewise, the sold the L'Oreal brand with a positioning of "Parisian or French beauty" across the world.  By contrast, Thursday's case focused on a firm that has emphasized adaptation in its global strategy.  We analyzed how Canadian-based hotel firm Four Seasons came to Paris.  They had to adapt in order to succeed in the French market. 

I see two lessons from this interesting comparison between L'Oreal and Four Seasons.  First, Four Seasons did indeed adapt, yet they were quite explicit about the core practices and values that would remain constant.  That enabled them to protect their brand and their organizational culture.  Before firms embark on global adaptation strategies, I believe that it's quite useful to outline explicitly what the "non-negotiables" are... i.e., what are the core standards and values that will be applied globally.  That helps protect the brand, and it minimizes conflict between the home office and the local country managers, since everyone understands what the core beliefs are.  

Second, I think the L'Oreal case illustrates that certain products are more conducive to an aggregation strategy.  In other words, some products don't need to be adapted substantially when sold around the world.  In fact, global consumers don't want the product to be adapted.   For instance, consumers around the world want to buy French luxury goods, Heineken beer, etc.    The country of origin conveys a premium image that enables the firm to sell their goods globally at a premium price.  Some other goods and services simply are not conducive to such global expansion.  They require adaptation; firms have no choice.  Many food categories, for instance, fall into this category.  

Going Local to Go Global

Wharton's Marshall Meyer has written a new paper titled, "Going Out by Going In."   Meyer describes how Chinese firms such as Haier (an appliance manufacturer) "draw revenues from overseas by penetrating previously inaccessible domestic markets and then renting their distribution and service channels to foreign competitors.”   After all, foreign firms often find it very difficult to establish a route to market (distribution and sales channels) in the vast rural areas of emerging markets such as China or India.  If a domestic firm such as Haier has already established a route to market capability in those rural areas, they can generate significant revenue by providing services to foreign manufacturers who do not have the resources or the knowledge to replicate that rural presence quickly.  Meyer takes it one step further though.  He suggests that firms such as Haier develop experience and knowledge from building new routes to market in these rural areas in their home country, and that expertise may facilitate international expansion as well.  In other words, the knowledge and processes developed at home may be transferable as these firms from emerging markets try to establish a route to market in other countries, even those in the industrialized world.  Check out this video below, in which Meyer explains his research on this topic. 

Diversified Firms in Emerging Markets

Harvard Professor Tarun Khanna has conducted extensive research on large business groups (conglomerates) in emerging markets.  He has found that the so-called conglomerate discount doesn't exist in many emerging markets.  Why?  Khanna argues that institutional voids exist in these countries.   Capital, labor, and product markets are not very efficient.  Therefore, large organizations and their management teams fill these "voids" in those countries.  In other words, the conglomerate serves a useful function, because it does what the efficient labor, product, and capital markets do in more developed countries. 

On the other hand, in more advanced economies like the United States, unrelated diversification makes much less sense.  Investors, for instance, can diversify risk quite inexpensively on their own; they don't need a CEO to diversify into many unrelated units to reduce risk.   That type of strategic move proves far more expensive than simply having the investor buy an index fund to achieve risk diversification.  

A new paper by Venkat Kuppuswamy, George Serafeim, and Belén Villalonga examines this concept in more detail.  They look at capital, product, and labor market efficiency in 38 countries over a 15 year period.   They find that the value of corporate diversification does indeed fall as capital and labor markets get more efficient.   However, they did not find a significant effect for product market factors.   In sum, corporate strategy should look different as we move across the globe, and not just because of cultural differences.  Fundamental differences in the institutional environment call for different approaches to corporate strategy as we move from more advanced economies to emerging markets. 

Do Some Global Firms Exhibit Excessive Localization?

Experts frequently criticize large multinationals for failing to customize their products adequately for local markets.  We hear about the fabulous flops, in which firms try to export a popular product developed in the United States or Western Europe, only to experience a huge failure in an emerging market.  I'm quite sure that multinationals do make these mistakes often.  However, I think we hear far less about an equally serious mistake that many firms make.   Some companies have far too many local variations of essentially the same product.  They adapt their goods for every local market around the world, yet perhaps they don't quite need that level of localization. 

These firms don't encounter the same level of criticism. Why?  The economic damage is not as apparent.  After all, these goods may sell very well in each local market.  However, the localization strategy comes with some costs.   By constantly adapting their products for each country, the firms fail to take advantage of potential economies of scale and learning.  As a result, their costs are much higher than they should be.  Moreover, they spend excessive amounts of money building multiple brands in the same product category, rather than investing in the growth of fewer truly global brands.   I'm not saying such a global strategy is ALWAYS better than localization.  Naturally, localization is essential in some products and markets.  However, I do think we fail to levy the same amount of criticism at firms that miss out on key cost savings because of the constant adaptation that they engage in from country to country.

Why does this excessive localization take place in some multinationals?  I would argue that the explanation lies in the organizational structure, not in the minds of those senior executives plotting global strategy.   In many firms, country managers and regional presidents push for localization because it gives them more control and power.  It justifies the existence of larger brand management staffs at the local level, and in general, the country managers control more financial, physical, and human resources.  All else equal, country managers have some personal incentives to push a level of localization that may be higher than optimal.   We often don't hear experts discuss this failure; instead, we hear often about the firm that failed to adapt to a local market.  Yet, both types of mistakes can be equally costly.