Managers, Experts and National Cultures

“Experts” are sometimes unwillingly forced to develop as managers and/or leaders, mostly because good performance is assumed to be an indicator of future management potential; whereas the strong performance can simply be a reflection of technical expertise (cf. previous article on performance/potential matrix). Notwithstanding the development motives of the individual which may or may not be taken into account according to the corporate culture, there might be a case that the management / expert dichotomy is influenced by national culture itself.

Laurent, in the “Cross cultural puzzle of international human resource management”, in Human Resource Management, 1986, 25 (1), investigated the theory that in many cultures, to become a manager, you first have to be an expert. The hypothesis is that recruitment is based on technical skills and then development is based upon technical competence. First and foremost expertise, management is almost an afterthought! Laurent made the statement “it is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that subordinates may raise about their work” and measured the positive response rate in various countries.

Here’s the result of the studies and further implications (“et alors”).

Managers, Experts and National Cultures

The percentage of managers who agreed with this statement can be categorised as follows in addition to which I have included an analysis against Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (cf http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html):

Very Low (less than 40%) e.g. Great Britain 30%.

These national cultures have weak uncertainty avoidance and small power distance. In these cultures, experience can count as much as qualifications, uncertainty can be welcomed rather than controlled, and the education systems tend to point towards more generalist development.

Low (40 – 50 %) e.g. Germany 40%

These national cultures have strong uncertainty avoidance and small power distance. In these cultures, the professions are important and “management” would not be expected to give opinions beyond their “territory”, but uncertainty can be avoided through processes.

High (50 – 60%) e.g. France 59%

These national cultures have strong uncertainty avoidance and large power distance. Beyond qualifications, the belief in expert knowledge is very strong: the more expert the leader, the better able the organisation to cope with uncertainty in the future.

Very High (more than 60%) e.g. Indonesia 67%.

These national cultures have weak uncertainty avoidance and large power distance. Expertise and management go hand in hand so that the “strategic apex” of an organisation might be seen to be “wise”, having an answer to any question presented by a subordinate.

Et alors?

Does this mean that except in Anglo-Saxon countries, leadership and management must essentially remain an extension of technical expertise? When these cultural norms are applied within their cultural “boundaries”, then yes, it might seem futile to promote Anglo-Saxon leadership to (say) Indonesian companies in Indonesia staffed by Indonesians with Indonesian stakeholders. But what if the country of business is different than the country of origin, if the staff are multinational and the business partners are from other cultures? It might not be the time (in this example) to stop developing experts as managers and bring in more generalist leaders; however once the business becomes “global” it might no longer be a competitive advantage to maintain the status quo. It is a case of balance and adaptability, but as cultures are very hard to change, this is easier said than done!

In large multinational companies, besides cultural adaptation, it might also be wise to take heed of the individual’s wishes and motivations regarding the development as an expert or a manager; however for an organisation to accept to develop “generalists” as managers there has to be a cultural acceptance that managers do not necessarily have to be experts. Similarly, to develop experts without forcing them to become managers or leaders will also take a certain amount of “cultural courage”. Back to Hofstede’s dimensions: there are some national cultures which are neither weak nor strong in terms of uncertainty avoidance and neither large nor small in terms of power distance. When creating a corporate culture for the future, in terms of leadership development, wouldn’t that mid-point national culture be a good example to follow?