from national cultural differences and traditions main factory, may have made the BMW team between German and US managers. uncomfortable from the outset. The outcome in both cases will have come as no The cultural guru's great contribution may lie surprise to Professor Geert Hofstede, who 30 years less in detailed analysis of deeply held cultural ago pioneered the study of cultural diversity in attitudes and more in helping companies anti- 56 countries using IBM's worldwide database. He cipate and understand behaviour patterns that has since been joined by others, notably a fellow Dutchman, Fons Trompenaars, and the American, their foreign managers may display in their home territory, and the different patterns that they dis- Craig Storti. play when transferred to the UK. Interest in their work is currently reviving after As immigration grows, and London expands some big companies, including IBM, found that even further as an international financial centre, trying to impose a single corporate culture around it becomes an important skill to be able to work the globe did not lead to better collaboration. effectively with and through executives of widely Two of the five 'cultural dimensions' that Prof. different backgrounds. Nationality, however, is Hofstede derived from his database go some way not the only cause of non-communication, and to explaining the difficulties faced by Honda, not even the main cause, points out Kris Wadia, BMW and Daimler-Benz managers in collaborat- Accenture's executive partner for global sourcing. ing with their opposite numbers at Rover and 'Put five English-speakers in a room to agree a set Chrysler respectively. of tasks, and each will come away with a slightly One is individualism, defined as the degree to which different perspective', he says. Add in personal ties between individuals - family as well as busi- fiefdoms, ancient IT systems and complex and ness colleagues - are loose or tight. The UK score inappropriate organization and reward structures, as assessed by Prof. Hofstede is 89 out of a possible and effective collaboration will sink rapidly. 100, indicating a high degree of individualism, Accenture's Mr. Wadia finds that with modern exceeded only by the US with 91. Germany is a technology, companies can set up the infrastruc little above the European average at 67, but Japan ture and telecommunications links between scores 46. units relatively easily. What is more difficult On another dimension, uncertainty avoidance - and time-consuming are the soft issues, such the degree to which individuals feel uncomfortable as training UK managers to work together, and in unstructured environments - the Japanese with foreign counterparts, and vice-versa. score 92, the Germans 65, the Americans 46 and The more sophisticated the communications the Brits 35. In real terms, the lack of precise systems, the more room there is for misunder- rules and procedures at Longbridge, Rover's standing. Ants have no such problems. FT Source: adapted from "Masters of collaboration', Financial Times, 29/6/2007, p. 8 (Lester, T.) . @ The Financial Times Limited. All Rights Reserved.Masters of collaboration By Tom Lester Ants, those masters of collaboration, have made at board level, but the hoped-for results will only their species some of the most successful on the materialize if operating staff at all levels in planet. In contrast, tigers walk alone, and are Birmingham are ready and able to work with in grave danger of extinction. The message for their opposite numbers. business is this: in the modern world, we must collaborate or die. Nationality, religion or corporate culture may Too often, however, in many UK companies, suc- be the big hurdle, but it is important to also cessful collaboration - both internal and external realize that even within the same organization happens by accident rather than design, con- wider cultural gaps can exist between, say trasting vividly with many overseas rivals. R&D and finance as between the R&D teams of two partners. Wherever it occurs, the failure to There are good reasons why effective collabora- understand can be disastrous. Rover is a tragic tion is growing rapidly. Business operations example. Back in the 1980s, when shop-floor col- are becoming steadily more flexible at every laboration in the UK car industry was near zero, level of the organization. Non-core activities Rover nonetheless managed to form a partner- are outsourced, and procurement has become a ship with the Japanese group Honda to fill its worldwide activity centred on China. Satisfying vital new model programme. customers at home demands an unprecedented level of co-operation unimpeded by rigid hierar- But the arrogance of the Rover managers and the chies and departmental boundaries. lack of a learning culture prevented them from obtaining the real benefits of the relationship Flatter organizations depend not on authority according to Professor Lord Bhattacharya, head but on teamwork for effective action, and of the Warwick Manufacturing Group. Later, networks of individuals may stretch halfway in 1992, when BMW bought the Rover business, round the globe and connect only electronically. communication with the German managers was The truly multinational executive, able to work even worse (exacerbated by political infighting effectively anywhere in the world with any on the German side). nationality, remains a rare beast, and ordinary staff therefore need to understand and learn Failure was the inevitable and bitter result. No from different cultures to achieve the right level doubt, ex-Rover patriots today will see the some- of collaboration. what similar collapse of the DaimlerChrysler link as salve for wounded pride. Rather like Rover, A foreign joint venture or alliance, for example, DaimlerChrysler was dogged by poor collabora- may be agreed in Mumbai with great enthusiasm tion and infighting, which stemmed in part