When managers are sent aboard for an assignment they seem to have been cut-loose from HQ and when returning their polyhistor experience is not put to use. Then why send them at all?

How can you have a global company without global people? I was reading recently in an article entitled "Onwards and Upwards" the following statement was written:

"...Americans are highly sensitive to any tone of condescension and especially if it comes at them in a non-American accent..[also]..People will treat you differently because you are not American. It can be irritating to be a foreigner in a land where you think you speak the language but to Americans, that is just what you are - you are still an alien...."

It is a sad reflection on just a Nation that still thinks itself as "The World". There is but a delicate balance between the words diplomacy instead of hypocrisy.

It is presumed the same management techniques will also work aboard - so there is a high failure rate and staff turnover. Also companies don't have enough International Managers who have "inter-cultural abilities". As stated by Bartlett and Ghoshal that companies lack "...corporate personnel policies [that] must be geared up to develop a multi-dimensional and a flexible organisation process..."

When an overseas assignment is given there is a lack of preparatory training (which is inclusive of the whole family) and when expats return to the organisation there is no properly laid out career structure for them to progress further.

I think an International Manager is a profession and there should be more of them especially if more globalisation as claimed would occur but it shouldn't be left as an appendix area in business.

What is understood by the term "cultural diversity" within organisations?

People are also diverse. The dictionary definition is: a person who has lived and traveled in many countries esp. one who is free of national prejudices. Who is familiar with many parts of the world composed of people or elements from all parts of the world or from many different spheres.

If there is a common goal in business and negotiations look promising to be mutually beneficial, why then the difficulty with that person's culture? Or is it more to do with politicking and an excuse to blame the lack of understanding and thinking on poor communication skills on the other businessman.

For if that was the case, these last thousand centuries of trading between borders and society today comes to naught.

Also, if video-conferencing, video phones etc., becomes advanced with lower costs in centres and workplaces around the globe. Then want's the problem if it reduces cost by giving an increase in the means of production that International Manager's can achieve.

I can't see why one should 'tippy-toe' around the issue of culture. If the person/company/country regards diversity in people as not important - then why do business?

Most cultures are questionable anyway as to their origin and value to society. Its the products and services that are offered to the benefit of their community with that they should concern themselves with.

Culture is when you are following a herd backwards. I'd rather not have the strain because its much nicer following my own feet forward and I've never acted or given genuflection to man-made cultures why should business.

However, to state briefly nearly half of all top fortune 500 companies are run by expats some of whom come from Commonwealth countries⁽¹⁾. These include American Airlines, MCI Worldcom, Jacques Nasser at Ford, Geoff Bible at Philip Morris to name a few of the chief executives who hold such senior positions.

Therefore, they have a distinct advantage of understanding the global market. The article also stated that these CEO tended to be open, and direct, they have travelled well.

It is a good thing that in London, England over 300 languages are spoken and the city is the "Modern Tower of Babel" and this comes from its rich resource of historical culture.  It has the corporate advantage of sending executives to a foreign region with at least the basics in the local language and establishing a rapport. ⁽²⁾ 

So if companies can't be bothered to utilise these employees experience then they are not stragetically planning for the CEOs or their boardroom requirements of tomorrow and then they will start to whinge that they can't find anyone suitable with international experience.

REFERENCE SOURCE:

(1) Sunday Business Newspaper on 16th January 2000 ~ article "Commonwealth* expats hit the big time" on page 16 (Foreign: United States).

(2) Weekend Financial Times Newspaper on 13/14 May 2000.

(3) Management Today Magazine, July 2000 issue Ticket to Raise article (page 48-53)

WEBSITE ARTICLES:

Global Myths

WEBLINK SOURCES:

ExpatNetwork Online
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
Commonwealth Institute

Note: *The Commonwealth is an organisation of free association of sovereign states comprising Great Britain and a number of its former dependencies who have chosen to maintain ties of friendship and practical cooperation and who acknowledge the British monarch as symbolic head of their association.

Articles            Homepage