Denken Sie globales, aber…
Durch aufrichtigen Mulligan
Wenn eine Firma Betriebe in China aufstellt, scheinen sie, mit zwei eindeutigen Wahlen gegenübergestellt zu werden: `gehender Einheimischer' oder, die dominierende Geschäft Kultur ihrer Organisation auferlegend.
Es ist nicht eine einfache Wahl, und es gibt keine scharf geschnittenen Antworten, hinsichtlich deren Weg Ihnen die besten Resultate holt. In Ermangelung einer definitiven Zusammenfassung kann es eine Schlacht der Willen werden, zum zu sehen, welche Kultur gewinnt.
Wählen Sie die lokale Kultur und Sie sind in einer Position, zum des lokalen Stabes, aber viel der Betriebe des Geschäfts effektiv zu motivieren wird zu den Nichteinheimischen undurchlässig. Sachen erhalten getan, aber nicht notwendigerweise wünscht die Weise die Hauptsitze sie zu. Was Sie in der Wirksamkeit gewinnen, wie am Ort definiert, verlieren Sie in der Sicht.
Viele Firmen nehmen einerseits die Annäherung, daß es eine tadellos gute Kultur innerhalb ihrer Organisation gibt, eine, die sie gut für viele Jahre in vielen Ländern gedient hat, und daß China kein unterschiedliches ist. Diese Firmen versuchen, jeder in übereinstimmung mit dieser Kultur zu holen. Sie können finden, daß waagerecht ausgerichtetes Oberflächenreportage besser erhält und die Daten, die sie erhalten, jetzt in einem Format, das der HQ versteht, aber in ihr konnten nicht die rechten Daten gerade sein sind.
Oder mindestens führen die allgemein gehaltenen Stereotypen uns zu diesen zwei Drehbüchern.
Im realistischen besteht eine gemischte Unternehmenskultur, die die Feinheit der lokalen Kultur mit der Leistung Lagebestimmung der traditionelleren multinationalen Firma kombiniert. Finding that blend is an eternal quest, and nobody I know thinks that they have achieved it. Many of these people are aiming for the sun but getting to the moon is good enough.
Retail Research
Then along comes Dr Jos Gamble of Royal Holloway, University of London. He has just conducted research on the retail industry in China, in conjunction with the ERSA. His conclusions are not the usual bromides about thinking globally, and acting locally. There is a welcome depth, and a plain-speaking tone.
He essentially says that China is much like any other market, and that adjustments should really only be made for institutional features, like the labor market. Other than that it is business as usual. You operate as you do overseas, except when there is a specific reason why you can’t, like a law or a deeply ingrained practice.
It’s a bit of a relief when someone just says it out like that.
In the retail sector, this approach equates to replicating exactly the store procedures, employment relations and customer service standards of the parent company. Dr. Gamble studied both Japanese and UK firms and found that they used the same processes, and looked for the same outcomes, in almost all cases. But for some issues, like better customer service, they used a different approach to achieve the same outcome.
Japanese companies operating in China were more prescriptive and detailed in their way of dealing with customers than the UK-owned stores, which encouraged workers to adapt behaviour they used in everyday life. Either approach seems like a good idea to reduce staff turnover. Control over the working environment is a major motivating factor in China.
Dr. Gamble concludes that: “Most of the world’s major global retail firms are desperate to grab a slice of the largest and most rapidly growing emerging market. All the evidence suggests that, whilst it may be necessary to adapt to some extent to local conditions, time-tested management practices actually translate well across cultures.”
His research was based on interviews with management and staff in eight Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu, as well as key players in the UK and Japan. He was interested in how global organisations transfer management practices and retail concepts to their overseas subsidiaries.
The retail environment is different from most others, for sure, but you could probably make the same conclusions for any industry in China. It may well be that Dr. Gamble’s advice is applicable only to stores and malls.
If it is not then it tells us that overseas companies operating in China should make all attempts to introduce their own culture to their operations here, except when there are specific barriers that cannot be overcome, such as law or a custom.
Now, that’s cleared things up a bit.
Frank Mulligan, Talent Software




































April 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Frank -
I love this topic! I had the opportunity to see the same cycle in Eastern Europe in the 90’s that I see in China now and it is interesting that the some of the same companies are making the same mistakes again.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Hi Frank,
I was one of the biggest proponents of “localization” (especially of the top position) in Taiwan and China in the late 80s and early 90s. Once again the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for …” proves true. Many old clients did install local bosses (expats are expensive after all) only to discover a few years down the road that their local operations had reverted to a traditional Chinese culture: no training, opaque finances and promotions/bonuses based on senority and relationships, not performance.
It is easy for a Western firm to look at their “trained” local staff and their overall compliance in following HQ policies and think, “Great, we can move to the next step, to get rid of the expensive expats.” While I once supported this, I now think it is a mistake.
The best companies at instilling their corporate culture onto the local operation have extremely strong commitments to training, plus they season future Chinese senior managers by sending them overseas as expats and/or posting them to HQ for a few years.