THE EUROPEAN TRAIN(ING) WRECK!

Lew Kurtzman, President, Growth Resources Association

Two successful laboratory equipment companies merged, creating the need for reorganization and a new corporate culture. Senior management of the newly merged divisions convened frequently to decide how to transition from two mid-size companies into a united corporate worldwide powerhouse. One plan was to bring people from both divisions together for training sessions that stressed teamwork and corporate citizenship. Since each division had its own sales force, it was the decision of senior management to begin the sessions in the United States with training workshops that emphasized how each sales team could complement the other: sharing mail lists, making joint sales calls, and providing account information to each other. Twenty-five sales reps from different areas were selected to participate in each respective session. Eleven sessions were conducted in the United States with rave reviews from the attendees. For the most part the workshops were upbeat and reported to be effective. The next mission was training the European subsidiaries to become a united force against the mounting competition in each country. The European director of human resource was assigned to organize the training sessions along with the newly appointed corporate director of worldwide sales training. The directive from senior management was to conduct the workshops exactly as they had been done in the United States. This presented an extraordinary challenge. The European subsidiaries of both divisions had been autonomous, each headed by a managing director. They were accustomed to doing business their own way. Many of the subsidiary officers were located in distant cities within a single country. Little or no contact had been made among managing directors or sales reps o the two companies prior to the merger. The European HR director selected Barcelona as the venue for all four workshops. All were to be conducted within a two-week time period as sales reps from different countries and different divisions would be brought together for two and one half days for their respective doses of corporate "sale education". Representatives from France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and Sweden were in attendance for the first session. It began with introductions of all attendees. There was light-hearted cultural stereotyping and humorous comments were made by many of the reps as they followed one another in a prearranged seating order at a horseshoe-shaped table. Name tents were carefully placed so that no two countrymen sat together. For the most part, all attendees spoke English reasonably well. Following the introductions, the HR director handed the meeting over to the director of worldwide sales training. He was a veteran sales trainer in the United States, highly respected by senior management of both divisions for his enthusiasm and his leadership during the US training sessions. Following the morning break the three French reps returned to the training room earlier than the others and sat down together. They had even moved their name tents, two of them trading places with a German and a Dutch representative. As the others took their seats, there was some confusion as to where some should sit. The training director returned to the room to find many of the name tents switched and the seating arrangement organized more or less according to language orientation. Not risking discord, he let the matter rest. Upon her return, the HR director sternly ordered everyone back to their original seats, causing a chaotic few moments of name tents exchanges and chattering in as many as four or five languages. When organization was restored, the training director tried to stimulate discussion about the benefits of shared resources. Much to his dismay, the group seemed annoyed by the parental treatment they had just received. One of the Dutch reps uttered, "Dat is stom" (This is silly). Participation became limited to a few reps who spoke perfect English; those from the United Kingdom, two Swedes and a German. As the session continued, even their participation waned. By lunchtime, several of the attendees were drawing doodles. One of the French reps had been drawing clever cartoons depicting an American car salesman with a rat's head. The salesman was named "Billy Jones, le vendeur raton." Every so often he would hold up a new cartoon for the group's entertainment. Lunchtime in Spain is later than in most countries. By 1:30 p.m. most of the members of the group were suffering from hunger pangs. The Two-hour lunch break didn't help, as most of the reps dozed off in their seats during the afternoon session. The lack of attention and participation caused a struggle for the American facilitator, who tried gallantly to interject some humor. American humor is not always funny to people from other cultures, and in this case drew little more than polite chuckles. Late night dinners in Barcelona resulted in an hour delay on day two due to oversleeping and severe hangovers. When the session finally began, shortly after 10:00 a.m., the training director was so frustrated that he could hardly perform. His attempts to control the group were frequently interrupted by wisecracks whispered in several languages. During the morning break, the American training director phoned back to the resident of the company to explain the situation and ask for a dignified way out of his tortuous situation. The president expressed a little understanding and ordered that the session to be completed, and that the program continue with three more workshops. Earlier the HR director had reported that the session was progressing well. Upon hearing about the first workshop, several of the European managing directors refused to send their sales personnel to the remaining sessions.

Questions:

1. Summarize the case (one paragraph).

2. Identify the ethical issues that lie behind the situation.

3. Identify stakeholders that are affected by the ethical issues.

4. Identify corporate strategies and policies to encourage ethical behavior.

5. Develop and offer two or three alternatives (options) to solution to resolve the ethical issue driving the case situation. Weigh pros and cons (if appropriate) associated with each option.

6. Make a recommendation.