Merging a subsidiary with headquarters
The theories surrounding convergence where cultures are supposedly becoming more alike due to shared technologies and economical advances, divergence where cultures are retaining their attributes regardless of external pressures and maybe changing but at a rate hardly relevant and crossvergence which demonstrates a combination of the two (Ralston 2008, p.28-29) are extremely important to an international manager trying to integrate a subsidiary closer to the headquarters.
Firstly, the organisation needs to recognise the similarities and differences between the headquarters and the subsidiary, hence analysing the cultural distance. It then needs to analyse the work values in order to conclude on the reliability of the control systems in place and finally continually monitor shifting in work values (Mead & Andrews 2009, p.418). Therefore understanding if there is a divergence, convergence or in fact crossvergence taking place can assist in formulating plans to integrate the subsidiary with headquarters.
The headquarters will most likely need to expatriate a manager to the subsidiary if in fact it finds that the national culture is diverging and having an impact on the subsidiary’s corporate culture, one that is shifting away from headquarters values and culture. If however the analysis show a convergence, it can utilise the technologies used that assist in convergence to bring about the change needed to integrate. The crossvergence theory will enable the organisation to identify those aspects that need tweaking to fit into the headquarters culture and those that are already somewhat in tune.
In conclusion, understanding of the above concepts assists in formulating a targeted plan whereby different traits of the organisational culture need different practices to integrate the subsidiary as a whole.
Cross cultural management and theories
Due to technological advances, market liberalisation and many parts of the world embracing direct foreign investment, successful business models are bound to be replicated whilst failing models become extinct as those harbouring them will eventually be taken over, merged or closed down. Therefore ‘...business practices are converging in some respects and to some degree...’ (Mead & Andrews 2009, p. 411) however this does not necessarily translate to individual’s private life, religious beliefs and cultural norms, which are bound to fester in the workplace sometimes and require understanding from the headquarters. For example in the Islamic holy month of Ramadan were Muslims fast, it is an excepted fact that things slow down in the Arabian gulf, not much business during the daylight hours takes place, which may frustrate those in the headquarters even if there is reasonable cultural coherence at other times. Appreciation of the religious culture even if convergence in other aspects of business dealings takes place is conducive to better work harmony between the subsidiary and head office.
Crossvergence compliments different cross-cultural frameworks because it lacks definitive borders, it does not view culture as remaining static nor does it hypothesise that the whole world will eventually identify with the same traits, nor is it one dimensioned, it takes into account different aspects of external and internal influences.
Hofstede’s (1997) seminal work on culture is indicative of differing traits of differing cultural groups and their influence on business behaviour, whilst also noting that employees of multi-national organisations do not need to agree on each others’ cultural traits only on their work practices Hofstede et al., (1990 p.311) recognises that common grounds in the workplace is in fact possible and essential, even if individuals’ cultural traits differ due to age, nationality beliefs and morals.
Crossvergence allows for the cultural ambiguity of those individuals who shift between two or more cultures and whose numbers according to Hong et al. (2000 p. 709) are on the rise, these individuals cannot be viewed to affiliate with one culture alone. Some may view this switch as a vehicle for transporting different cultural traits to different groups, hence decreasing the cultural distance in some aspects of the organisational culture.
Management theories, recognise that those who come from cultures that are exposed to other cultures on regular basis are more likely to have imported some traits from the foreign culture. Arguably, the cultural traits that are exported are mostly Anglo-Saxon through the wide spread of global American organisations and brands, pop music and TV shows, hence we can conclude that those cultures who are exposed and are open to organisations from differing parts of the world and that they possibly identify to a large extend with the American culture. This fact is further enhanced when English is being used as the functional language of many organisations, hence bringing Anglo-Saxon corporate ideologies closer to foreign cultures.
Elements to be considered when merging subsidiary
There are many aspects of the subsidiary’s culture that need to be evaluated in order to make a decision on the most effective theoretical framework to use in order to integrate a subsidiary.
Studying Hofstede’s (1997) model and understanding the cultural distance between the subsidiary and the headquarters is important, if the subsidiary culture is individualistic then rewards to individuals who conform to the ‘new’ standards maybe accepted however if collective culture prevails then group incentives and acceptance is more prevalent.
The language used at the subsidiary may impose a barrier, hence expatriating a manger who can speak the language, yet is part of the headquarters is key to changing the practices without him being viewed as a complete outsider and hence employees maybe more accepting of his new practices, this is especially important to collectivists.
Integrating is viewed as less empowerment for the subsidiary, some may appreciate it as the subsidiary staff may want standardised practices or resent it as change is often unwelcome, unless incentives are highlighted. Therefore the level of control the headquarters assume may need to be gradually increased in order to be accepted, a sudden upheaval will especially in a collectivist culture, where stability is important pose risk to the morale of the employees that may impact negatively on the organisation’s performance and to shareholders wealth.
In conclusion, there is no one theory to be followed, an analysis of culture and desired control level needs to take place and strategies to reach the desired outcome must be implemented.
References:
Hofstede, G. (1997) ‘Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind’ McGraw-Hill: New York
Hofstede, G, Neuijen, B, Ohayv, D, & Sanders, G (1990), 'Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases', Administrative Science Quarterly. 35(2) pp.286-316
Hong, Y. Morris, M. Chiu, C. & Benet-MartÃnez, V. (2000), 'Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition', American Psychologist, 55(7), pp.709-720.
Mead, R. & Andrews, T. G. (2009) International management. 4th ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons