Global Management Skills

Why is it that someone who is classed as a good manager in Australia can sometimes become less effective when moved elsewhere?

We’ve all heard the stories.

David, the Aussie Project Manager was great at engaging and driving a team in Australia. Team meetings were full of intense discussion, robust debate, and often laughter. Everyone left feeling energised and enthusiastic. In Indonesia however, he couldn’t create the same team atmosphere. He complained that the employees lacked drive and initiative. The team didn’t achieve their goals.

Mai, the Sales Manager from Thailand had such a tight team that she often took them away with her for weekend activities “just for fun”. In Australia she found the team “very serious” and “not committed to the company and their roles”. Although she seemed to build good relationships with other managers, she was disappointed in her team relationships and performance outcomes.

What was happening in these situations?

Managing locally, we operate within the context of our own culture, with values that are familiar to us, and with communication styles we have mastered from a young age. The problem is that managing locally is no longer enough. In developing talent, global organisations look to hi-potential employees to prepare them for succession to more senior roles. And this preparation often involves moving to another country.

Locally, virtual teams and increasing diversity are placing expectations on a manager to manage increasing diversity of employees, backgrounds, languages and cultures.

How can they do that?

Research into Cultural Intelligence has shown that managers who have high CQ (defined as the ability to operate effectively regardless of the culture they are in) are more effective as managers and are more likely to report that they have adapted well to another location. In addition, they are more equipped to make better judgments and decisions as they manage, and to lead more effective teams.

So how would high CQ help David and Mai?

Firstly, they would approach each new team expecting that there may be differences in thinking and values. They would also anticipate that those differences would transfer into behaviour. David would not have assumed that the Indonesian team would feel comfortable talking openly in a meeting situation especially in the early days. He would have taken time to build rapport outside of meeting situations and taken care to create a very safe environment in meetings themselves. And, very importantly, he would have been satisfied with a quieter, more harmonious meeting and not made assumptions or negative judgements about people’s performance based on their ability to speak out in meetings.

Mai would not have interpreted hours in the office to equate to commitment to the organisation. She would have discussed lifestyles in Australia with a cultural mentor and recognised the importance of work / life balance which was operating in her team. She would have been prepared to become a member of the group and lead alongside the team instead of continuing along in the directing role that she had been accustomed to playing. She would not have equated that role in the team to a loss of respect or status, and would have felt equally comfortable working in that style.

The great news is the research shows that CQ is not a fixed entity, but one that can be increased and developed. Both David and Mai can learn from training or coaching to build each of the four components of CQ by dealing with their attitudes and motivations, their knowledge, their strategic skills in applying that knowledge and their actual behaviour –changing behaviours when appropriate.

This is what we do in our Global Management Skills workshops; help managers increase their cultural intelligence and apply it to their management roles. If you would like to learn more please contact us!