Speakers

List of Participants 

Exhibition 

Social Programme 

Practical Information

SLIDES

Keynote Speech:
The Management of Strategic Dilemmas

Dr Fons TROMPENAARS

Managing Director, Centre for International Business Studies

I.                  Preamble

We increasingly face an international world.  We used to advocate becoming international whilst being sensitive to international differences – when in Rome, do as the Romans do – until we realised that the Romans wondered why Dutch people did not behave like Dutch people.  The era of expatriation and adaptation to local circumstances has passed.  We have now swung the other way, to globalisation, which is about doing the same everywhere.  The thinking was: provided everyone understands that, the world will be okay.  MBA education, mediocrity and arrogance followed: ‘how can we make the world stop thinking and just apply the basic themes across the world?’  That has not worked either. 

Hence, neither local adaptation nor global application has worked.  We now consider those challenges ‘dilemmas’.  How can we manage and lead those dilemmas?  The main difference between leaders and managers is that leaders realise they have dilemmas while managers just think they have a problem. 

II.               A Three-step Model of Dilemmas

1.                  Approach

I will use a model of dilemmas to stimulate thought on dilemmas and how they are caused.  Most dilemmas are value dilemmas caused by cultural differences – that is how dilemmas and understanding of cultural differences interact.  I will propose a three-step approach. 

2.                  Recognition

It is firstly a model for recognising cultural differences: be careful with models about cultural differences; they may support your stereotypes.  The risk is that you use this model to reaffirm your pre-conceptions. 

3.                  Respect

a.                  Practice, not talk

Secondly, respect: people who speak a lot about respect worry me, as do companies which emphasise their integrity.  Why do they need to?  If I have a sign above my door supporting one of my values, ‘We do not kill people here’, it will make people nervous.  I feel the same about an American firm with a sign espousing their integrity: why do they say it?  Respect is not promoted through simply talking about it, but practising it.  Respecting cultural differences – respecting both sides of the dilemma – requires a realisation that all cultural differences are within you; you have simply forgotten about them. 

b.                  Cultural similarities

Some people struggle to understand and respect Asian people, because they always say ‘yes’ even when they want to say ‘no’, but there are situations in which everyone, regardless of nationality, may say yes when they want to say no.  25 years ago in London, my wife (then my girlfriend) tried on an awful dress and asked me whether I liked the dress.  I was so in love that I became English: ‘that is an interesting dress; it has potential.’  I became an Asian person: I said something I did not mean.  Asian people very often focus on the relationship, and then talk business.  If you are from the Netherlands, you may say it is a beautiful dress; but you are talking about the relationship, not the dress.  That is the beginning of respect – the realisation that although you are Dutch there is something Asian in you. 

c.                  The next step

The real trouble can start after you recognise and respect cultural differences.  In America, where I do a great deal of work, many companies tell me they follow my three‑step model.  IBM people tell me they take the three steps: helping people to recognise cultural differences, then respecting them; thirdly, they ignore them!  That almost describes globalisation, does it not! 

4.                  Reconciliation

a.                  MBAs

I would like to offer an alternative to globalisation and localisation: the principle of reconciliation, or the art of integrating opposites.  I teach many MBA courses, where a typical question is: why would a company centralise or decentralise?  MBAs immediately attribute it to control and flexibility; but I suggest they stop and think (which makes them nervous, as that is not normally part of their education!).  The only intelligent reason is the extent to which a company is decentralised: the more decentralised you are, the more you need to centralise.  The opposite also holds true. 

b.                  Myers‑Briggs

In Western societies, we are not educated to think about opposites and how to reconcile them on a higher level. I have researched cross‑cultural issues extensively.  The most widely used psychological instrument worldwide is Myers‑Briggs, which 1.2 million have filled in.  You are measured across four categories on the degree to which you sway one way or another.  Are you more of a thinker or a feeler?  Are you more judgemental or more perceptive?  One week ago, I asked a simple question of two senior British people with more than 30 years’ experience with Myers‑Briggs: if you are thinking why can you not be feeling?  They did not know the answer.  We discussed it: the answer was that the questionnaire does not measure it. 

Consider your hero in life, who might use his feelings to increase the quality of thinking, and vice versa.  The most interesting people are those who combine.  The people who predominantly think, we call robots; the people who only feel, we call neurotics.  The people who do neither of them become President of a large country!  How can we help people to think in opposites and integrate them on a higher level?  That is the essence of reconciliation. 

c.                  Locally and internationally

I will approach this through a seven‑dimensional model showing all the dilemmas.  That is very important because many organisations are internationalising.  Additionally, local organisations encounter cultural challenges in integrating an acquisition or separate functions of the company.  Different cultural values have to be reconciled rather than letting one crush the other. 

d.                  Managers and leaders

What are management and leadership about?  Our research showed that managers discover and solve problems, while leaders – especially those working internationally – continuously solve dilemmas.  If people say, ‘I am a good manager (or leader) because I do not have dilemmas’ we know those people are overpaid.  The essence of life is a dilemma; the role of a leader is to reconcile them.  What we call transcultural competence is the ability to integrate those opposites at higher levels.  We discovered that all the big dilemmas are strategic. 

III.           Culture

1.                  Definitions of Culture

Can you define culture?  Culture is almost anything, which is why it is hard to get to the heart of what culture is. 

Participant

Culture is about norms and values.

Fons Trompenaars

That is wonderful. 

Participant

Culture is an accumulated knowledge. 

Fons Trompenaars

It is about knowledge; ‘accumulated’ might have something to do with the group or community. 

Participant

Culture is about structure. 

Fons Trompenaars

It is a set of elements which are related; it gives structure to your experiences, values, and norms, and it relates to how your values and norms are structured. 

Participant

It is about communities. 

Fons Trompenaars

It is about the community, and it is about preservation.  Culture, values and norms are not about the individual – we might call that personality.  It is very important to know what culture is in order to talk about dilemmas, as culture creates most of the dilemmas.  Some people say that culture is the way a group of people solves dilemmas. 

2.                  Individuals vs. Community

We all have the same dilemmas: on one hand we have individual freedom; on the other we have the sense of community.  You can overdo ‘community’, and kill yourself with communism; you can overdo ‘individual’ and kill yourself with shareholder value.  How do you combine the interests of the shareholder with the other stakeholders, and vice versa?  Every organisation is working at that.  We tend to swing from one extreme to the other. 

3.                  Layers of Culture

Someone from  MIT, created a wonderful model of culture: culture has many layers; on the outside we see the expressions of culture – our language and the ways we speak and eat.  On this level there is a tendency for all things to become similar: we all eat sushi and speak English; buildings are the same.  We say we are globalising.  However, research shows a different picture: beyond products and artefacts, hamburgers and sushi, you encounter norms and values. 

4.                  Norms and Values

Still the most widely used definition of culture is: culture is a shared set of norms and values.  The norm is a shared orientation of a group or community that defines what they should do; the value is a shared orientation of a group which defines what they want to do.  There is a big difference between acts driven by ‘necessity’ and ‘desire’.  In a successful culture, people start liking what they should do.  We share a value called ‘oxygen’, but it is no longer a value because it is a norm and a basic assumption. 

5.                  An Outside Perspective

If I ask Americans what American culture is, they say, ‘do you mean East or West Coast?  As a North American it is very difficult to see what Americans share, because they share it.  If an American asks a European what European culture means, the European might say, ‘What European culture?’  The American might say, ‘You are all obsessed by vacations and high quality food.’  The point is that you sometimes need an outsider to help you understand your culture.  Although there are individual differences, any culture has a normal distribution. 

6.                  Subjectivity

There are cultural overlaps between American and French people, although both cultures deny any overlap; and each country rolls out the stereotypes.  A Frenchman told me his lateness was not the problem; the people who were on time caused the problem because they never knew what to do with their time.  Be very careful with your judgement.  By definition, I will stereotype because I am describing a model.  If you judge what I say, that is your judgement, not mine. 

7.                  A Natural Consensus

Why are French people so different from Americans?  Why are R&D people so different from marketing people?  It is because it works.  The word ‘culture’ comes from colere, to cultivate, which literally means to act upon nature.  Humans have developed norms and values; the most obvious being survival.  Consensus means Dutch people can fight water levels.  When nature presents a problem such as a lack of oxygen for our lungs, the solution becomes automatic – a basic assumption which is a value that has become a norm.  If we agree that culture helps us to overcome problems, which present themselves to us as dilemmas, there are three major areas: dilemmas and problems with other human beings; with time; and with nature. 

IV.            Cross‑Cultural Research

1.                  My Background

Among the seven dimensions of the model, five relate to human relationships; in each of the seven dimensions there are three steps: recognition, respect, reconciliation.  You must make the links yourselves.  I was born to a French mother and a Dutch father.  I studied economics before doing my PhD at Wharton University, in America, where Shell sponsored me to study cultural differences across 10 refineries, where the functions were the same but the cultures were different.  After eight years with Shell, I set up the Centre for International Business Studies, where we consult on differences in culture; creating core values and identity; and post‑merger and acquisition issues. 

2.                  Comparative Results/Techniques

Even though our questionnaires measuring cultural differences have changed over 20 years, they continually show similar results.  I am currently writing a book, Marketing Across Cultures, and I am appalled with marketing techniques across cultures: the first book on comparative techniques across cultures is amazingly naïve.  Never ask short questions in cross‑cultural research because the meaning may be unclear – always tell a story. 

V.               Case Study 1

1.                  The Dilemma

You are a passenger in a car in which your friend is speeding.  When you hit a pedestrian, you look at the speedometer and see your friend was doing 50kph in a 30kph limit.  Your friend’s lawyer assures you that you were the only witness.  The judge asks you what speed you were going.  Question one: what is the right of your friend to expect you to testify to the lower figure?  a) As a close friend, they definitely have the right to ask you to lie, b) they have some right, or, c) they have no right. 

The second question is: would you lie for your friend?  Across the 37,000 people I have presented to, not one has said, ‘that is a nice position to be in.’  That point is crucial because the dilemma is the same for all of us; our culture tells us how to solve the dilemma.  I do not know a culture in which the individuals do not want to help their friends, or one which completely disrespects the laws which prevent their children being killed.  The dilemma is the same but the culture dictates which answer is more appropriate. 

2.                  English vs. French

Some people say they need more information.  An English woman among a group of French managers answered ‘b’ but said it could be ‘a’ or ‘c’ depending on what happened to the pedestrian.  I replied that they were dead.  A French lady complained that had she known they were dead, she would have answered ‘a’: her friend definitely had a right to ask for help if they had killed someone!  The English woman was astounded!  In France, friends are obviously more important than pedestrians. 

3.                  Universalism vs. Particularism

It is necessary to understand values in order to develop respect.  The first major dilemma that leaders face is ‘universalism versus particularism’.  A universalistic culture would answer ‘a’: there is a universalistic truth with no exceptions.  A particularistic culture would answer ‘b’: it depends on the particular circumstances.  The former would aim for consistency with standards, universal procedures and rules, and transparency (the universal truth).  The latter would say there are exceptions to the rule; they are flexible, pragmatic, and more at ease with ambiguity. 

4.                  Research Results

We carried out research across 60,000 people (98% business people) in 55 countries, with at least 200 from each country.  In Switzerland 97% said ‘my friend has no right or some right’.  I will not help by lying’; in Canada and the USA it was 93%; then there was Sweden; the UK; Australia; the Netherlands; Germany with 87%; France was a little below the middle; then came Singapore; Japan; India; then Venezuela with 37%; and Korea with 32%. 

5.                  Humour

Arthur Köstler  wrote an essay on humour: the essence of humour is when two opposite logics turn logical, and you understand both – even though it is not your own logic.  If a culture or individual lacks humour, there are only two sides; you must choose from one. 

6.                  Religion

A universalistic culture is helped by Protestantism; from Switzerland to Germany, they are all Protestants.  The truth is codified in the Bible and God is checking if you hold to that.  That is why Protestants feel guilty: because God has seen their wrongdoing.  The Catholics might argue, ‘perhaps God was not looking’ or, ‘if He looked, perhaps He might understand; if not, we will attend confession to discuss it.’ 

7.                  Standardise or Customise?

The top countries – Switzerland, the USA, Canada, and Sweden – love to universalise and standardise: there is a rule you should respect.  In America, a restaurant might offer four pre‑prepared dressings for your salad; in France, your salad arrives with dressing already on top, made according to the mood of the chef – everything is particularistic in France.  Some Americans like to visit France because it is so unpredictable. 

Is it better to standardise everything in your business or make things unique?  This is another MBA question.  If you understand how to standardise the unique – like mass customisation in cars – you are in great shape.  However, we are not educated like that. 

VI.            Rules and Exceptions

What is more successful: the left or the right?  In Holland, MBAs are regarded as making people consider and answer the fundamentally wrong questions.  This is one of those questions.  Any good international leader would say they need to be consistent because if they are not consistent they cannot be flexible. 

You can only have exceptions when there are rules; if there are no rules, the exception becomes chaos.  Children learn through rules and exceptions.  Parents need to make exceptions to the rules otherwise the children will leave home too early; conversely, if the parent has no rule the child will never leave, or learn. 

VII.        Case Study 2

1.                  The Dilemma

In 1996 I helped Samsung prepare for buying Fokker, the former Dutch company.  The Koreans were preparing the cultural side while the Dutch prepared the legal side.  Incidentally, universalists would focus on the legal and financial side.  Three months later, I received a fax from the Executive Director of Samsung’s Global Management Institute, thanking me for my help because my book, Riding the Waves of Culture, had been translated into Korean and was helping Samsung in its globalisation.  I was both happy at its publication and surprised at the lack of communication from my publisher regarding copyright.  I faced the dilemma of either helping my Korean friends or upholding my publishing copyright. 

It is important for international leaders to frame a dilemma they face, and confirm whether it is a dilemma.  I had this dilemma with Samsung because of the history I shared with them; otherwise, it would have been clearer cut.  Once you know it is a dilemma, what exactly is the dilemma? 

On one hand, the British publisher clearly held copyright; on the other hand, Samsung had a unique particularistic relationship.  We mapped the dilemma on a line: universalism (universal copyright) at one end and particularism (the particular relationship) at the other.  If we enforced the universalist right, we would sue Samsung and they would pay £21,000 within a week, plus £23,000 for the publication of the book.  However, I have then abandoned the value I place on the relationship with Samsung.  Alternatively, we could find a compromise.  How could we use the relationship to gain more copyright? 

How would you advise me in solving this dilemma? 

Participant

The publisher could ask the Koreans to translate some other books they wanted to get published in the Korean market. 

Fons Trompenaars

That is a good solution; we use the relationship to gain more copyright outside my book.  Bear in mind that my publisher is also involved here; I was quite happy to get my book published. 

2.                  The Solution

How should we use the relationship part of the axis to get the outcome we want?  We thanked Samsung and asked them for five free copies of the book; we also asked them to send the copies to us so that my publisher could check the quality.  We then asked if Samsung could find a publisher to publish another of my books.  This was just before the Asian Crisis (people often seem to read my books just before a crisis.)  The book was not that good but it successfully sold 16,000 copies in Korea because it was endorsed by Samsung.  That is called reconciliation: the art of integrating opposites; reaching a compromise.  In this case, that meant finding a joint publisher.  My publisher said they never had such a good deal. 

3.                  Globalisation vs. Localisation

You need a global reach for critical mass but you also need to be sensitive to cultural diversity.  On universalism vs. particularism, the first three weeks at McKinsey Consulting involves pretending that you are listening to a client and then following your own choice anyway – that is the universal approach; do not think too deeply.  At the opposite end, KPMG is multi‑local – they have enormous offices worldwide and the American partners stay in America, the Dutch in Holland, and the Japanese stay in Japan. 

How can you reconcile the two approaches?  In literature, these are transnational firms: they take the best local practices and globalise them.  What does your company do at HQ to allow local offices to share their best practices? 

4.                  Multicultural Management

The problem with sharing practices internationally is the lack of international understanding that accompanies the practices.  I lectured to the top 100 people from an American company which manufactured machines for making microchips; there were 53 nationalities among them.  However, the management team consisted of seven people across only nine nationalities (two of them had dual nationality).  If the management team in your company is multicultural, you are in good shape – even though it is very difficult to lead a company with multicultural management. 

5.                  Higher‑level Reconciliation

You can reconcile, on a higher level, universalism vs. particularism, localism vs. globalism, and centralism vs. decentralism.  Mass customisation is universal customisation but it is particular.  How can you apply that to your business?  I believe today’s audience is at the centre of customised business.  The individual vs. the group: this is a central challenge for an international leader.  We asked 60,000 people: how can you improve the quality of an individual’s life?  a) Give people as much freedom as possible, and the quality of their life will improve as a result; or, b) continually monitor them even if it obstructs their freedom and development, since that is better for the overall quality of their life?  ‘a’ is more individualistic while ‘b’ is more ‘communitarian’. 

6.                  Research Results

There were some surprising scores.  Israel scored highest in individualism.  Some people would say Israel is very team‑oriented, and this questionnaire does not measure the extent to which Israel can form teams from creative individuals.  The questionnaire measures where the spiral starts, but it does not measure the strength of the spiral.  As expected, Canada and the USA were more individualistic; then came Denmark and the Netherlands; further down, Egypt and Mexico; and you end up with Japan, which is more group-oriented.  In Japan, you start with the family name, go through the first name, and end up with the family name – all cultures have both names but there are different starting points.  In our research, the French are very communitarian. 

7.                  French Collectivism

Some researchers believe the French are very individualistic; I never understood that.  As a child, family holidays in France were always in August.  We always invited grandes mères, grands pères, and cousins, and we would sit around and discuss French individualism – in a large group!  All the collective terms with subtle relationship meanings are French: rendezvous, entente, and ménage à trois.  Solidarité is another example.  The French are not individualistic, but they are internally controlled – they like to be in control of their own destiny, like Americans. 

VIII.     Reward Schemes

1.                  Knowledge Management

Knowledge management is popular in the Western world because we are not inclined to share information.  Post‑Aristotle and Plato, what is new?  Yet copyright continually grows.  Withholding information is a problem in individualistic countries.  In Japan, it is much easier to share information, where the problem is the opposite: benefiting only the team can result in mediocrity. 

2.                  The Individual vs. the Team

Think about implementing a new reward system within your company.  What should you do?  Let us use dilemma methodology, with an axis of Japanese, North-western Europe, and America.  You need to reward individual performance, but you also need to stimulate team cooperation.  How do you resolve that within your reward system?  You need to motivate both individuals and the team; simply focusing on the individual produces individuals who withhold information for themselves. 

Another family dilemma: should parents focus on making their child independent or on making them a good family member?  That is another MBA question.  The parents might produce an independent child who independently decides to become a good family member.  How is that applied in business?  It is not.  I often advise companies on reward schemes – it is appalling how superficial they are: either very team‑oriented or very individualised.  I rarely see a simple solution that combines the two.  Companies need to reward teams for finding solutions that promote individual creativity, and reward individuals for their contributions to teamwork. 

3.                  Shell Experiment

While working on my last HR project at Shell, I experimented on individual performance vs. team spirit.  There were many Americans, British and Dutch among our 2,200 sample population – individualistic people.  In America, I advise choosing the individual reward system in individual competition.  We formed a joint venture with the Japanese; in Japan, there were team bonuses.  In Europe, it does not matter provided you avoid taxes!  The problem arises when your people are internationally diverse. 

At Shell, we put 50% of variable pay towards individuals, but the only individual criterion we used was: how good a team player a person was.  50% would go to teams, but the teams would have to display what they did to enhance individual creativity.  What are companies doing about this? 

In the literature, this is known as ‘coopetition’: you have to compete to cooperate and cooperate to compete. 

IX.            Research Methods

We often research using five‑point scales of agreement and disagreement.  Many international researchers use ineffective measurements.  Additionally, some researchers give ‘strongly agree’ more weight than ‘agree’, but it is known in cross‑cultural research that some cultures love to say ‘strongly agree’ when they simply agree.  In our intercultural workshops, Americans either score high or low – they like to be clear.  Japanese people are more cautious: if they do not like it, they might put ‘undecided’ because the results will be distributed within the company (Japanese give their true feelings in the corridor afterwards.) 

X.               Mutual vs. Affective

This is about emotions: a mutual culture has emotions but often does not have the inclination to show them.  I often ask Southern English people: how do you show emotion?  They show emotion through humour.  In Italy, when do they not show emotion?  Italy is an affective culture.  Of the people who say it is unprofessional to show emotions at work: Ethiopia is very neutral; Italy and France are at the bottom: if there are emotions, show them. 

Should a good international leader show emotion?  If your head is in control, the risk is analysis paralysis; those who cry in passion are known as loving neurotics.  Why not combine?  All great leaders who successfully do that continually check what their heart communicates to them.  Some show emotion first and then control; others do the opposite.  International leaders always combine the two.  A book being published soon by Tom Peters talks about the role of women in business, saying it is cool to be emotional. 

XI.            Public vs. Private

The famous German psychologist, Mr Levine , said, ‘Americans are amazing people; they are also the first people to talk to you at international conferences.’  Why do Americans love to communicate?  Mr Levin attributed it to Americans having a personality like a peach: there is a lot of flesh on the outside, but a very tough nut in the middle.  Americans can be very public because they keep a small part of themselves private, perhaps even from themselves. 

When I moved to Philadelphia, an American neighbour helped me move.  When we finished, I turned to offer Bill a beer – he was already in my fridge!  In America, the refrigerator is public; in Europe, that is close to rape!  The American view on cars is, ‘You need my car?  Take it.’  However in Germany it is, ‘Take my wife but not my Mercedes!’  Furniture is public in Europe – when people move they often leave it; but in France furniture belongs to the family. 

XII.        Specific vs. Diffuse

1.                  Shareholder Value

If you say you married, ‘for tax deduction’, that is specific; if you say, ‘it was for love’, that is diffuse.  There are some things that Americans will not discuss publicly.  Levine spoke of ‘a specific relationship’: I relate to you and you relate to me.  Five years ago, I wrote an article saying that shareholder value would kill itself; people questioned that because shareholder value was very popular at the time.  I maintained that a value held at the cost of other values, especially in the short term, will kill itself, as communism did.  If you go too far either way, you encounter problems. 

2.                  Dutch People

Dutch people are very specific and very straight in their communication, because privacy is not a factor in relationships.  In our book, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, the chapter on the Dutch was called, ‘You Are An Idiot, But Do Not Take It Personally’. 

3.                  German and Austrian People

When I gained my PhD, people within academia began to call me Dr Trompenaars, and I felt like Dr Trompenaars everywhere.  However, when I stepped outside the University, people still called me Fons because even titles are very specific.  In Germany or Austria, you are ‘Herr Doctor’ everywhere.  Germans are coconuts rather than peaches – the first encounter stops at the outer layer of a person because privacy is so important.  However, if you have a relationship you share everything. 

In relation to distribution of information: what is private?  The most difficult country for us to do research in is Germany; it is a diffuse culture: ‘that is none of your business.’  Diffuse cultures need context to communicate, while in specific cultures it needs to be interpreted the same way by everyone: a low context culture.  Diffuse cultures perceive something personal in what is intended to be public in specific cultures. 

4.                  A Research Example

A dilemma on internet usage: four years ago, we worked with Merrill Lynch after it lost 30% of its wealth management portfolio to Charles Schwab, which operated on the internet.  Merrill asked what was the dilemma was.  We asked people: would you paint your boss’s house?  a) No, or, b) the privacies are mixed, so we will paint our boss’s house.  In Sweden and the Netherlands, 91% said ‘no’; in China, 32% said ‘yes’.  In Japan, which is a very diffuse culture, 71% said ‘no’, but we interviewed Japanese people and they said that in Japan they never paint houses!  Hence, cross-cultural market research can easily be misleading: some research results simply show the Japanese to be not very diffuse. 

XIII.     Hi-tech or High-touch? 

Merrill Lynch asked us if they needed facts and performance online, or rapport, trust and confidence with their brokers.  Going too hi-tech would be unpopular with brokers because that is their living; going too high-touch means no clients.  Merrill Lynch achieved reconciliation quite well with ‘clicks that stick’, or e-learning, which research shows is very powerful if combined with face-to-face learning. 

XIV.     Achievement vs. Description

1.                  The Dilemma

Moments of truth: the moment is specific but the truth is diffused.  Achievement vs. description addresses how people gain status.  Achievement is what you do; descriptive status is who you are: family background, gender, age, and not what but where you studied.  We asked people: is it most important to act as suits you, even if you do not get things done?  Achievers would disagree. 

2.                  Research Results

Australia, Canada and the UK are very achievement oriented; the US scored 71%.  Egypt, Argentina, the Czech Republic and Korea focus on ascribed or attributed status.  Within international companies, judging on age versus role can be a big issue.  The dilemma is: attributed status according to your role vs. performance status.  The risk is: everyone following the leader vs. everyone challenging the leader by what they do.  Very often, these organisations cannot make decisions.  The literature refers to ‘the servant leader’ who continually integrates their background with what they can bring to a team.  Practise what you preach: the former is achieved; the latter is ascribed – you need both. 

XV.         Time Planning

Should time be organised in sequence or in parallel?  We asked people to draw three circles: past, present and future.  America and Japan focus on the future; Spain, on the present; France is balanced.  In international business, these factors create dilemmas.  This method does not measure long- or short-term focus.  When the Japanese were buying a national park’s operations, they submitted a 250-year business plan, matching the life expectancy of a Redwood tree; Americans would want 1,000 quarterly reports.  The best way to increase the speed of a sequence is to synchronise it in parallel. 

XVI.     Internal vs. External Control

1.                  Nature

Do people control nature (internal control), or vice versa (external control)?  Should a boxer concentrate on himself rather than his opponent (internal control)?  Judo fighters channel their opponent’s energy towards themselves (external control). 

2.                  Safety

When driving a Mitsubishi space wagon, I was hit from behind by a Volvo 240: the Mitsubishi was heavily crumpled; the Volvo was unscratched.  Swedish safety is: I am stronger than you; Japanese safety is: please come in!  Car safety is now about knowing where to be flexible, in order to be tough in other areas.  Safety is about reconciliation.  We asked people to choose between ‘a’ (internal control) and ‘b’ (external control): Israel scored 88%, Norway 86%, and France scored very high. 

3.                  Technology

There is nothing wrong with internal control or with pushing technology; but you can push technology until you are too niche.  Philips pushed too far; they marketed very well and have excellent technology, but they still do not talk to each other.