Culture and Career Advancement

If you were to ask any individual if they have been “successful” in their careers, the answer is likely to be conditioned by cultural values. What constitutes “success” might be differently perceived in (say) the USA and Europe. Beyond the individual’s culture, I wondered if there might be any influence of culture on career management systems in organisations. Might European companies organise their career management systems differently than American companies?

Research led me to an article by M. Segalla et al, in the European Management Journal, vol 19, No 1, 2001, entitled “Culture and Career Advancement in Europe: Promoting Team Players vs Fast Trackers”. This fascinating article considers what “type” of profile is most likely to be promoted according to the national culture of the persons making the promotion decision. In this article, the authors cite Evans et al (1990) who identified various types of career management systems.

Here’s a synthesis of three different career management systems and further implications (“et alors”).

Culture and Career Advancement

Focusing on how different cultures identify and the develop talent, the authors present three different career maps (which can be represented by a pyramid with “top” and “lower” parts):

Anglo-Dutch

This model is characterised by non-elitist recruitment policies where young managers are hired for specific technical or functional jobs.

Development in a particular technical area is “vertical” in the “lower” part of the pyramid. In the “top” part of the pyramid, those who are selected to be managers follow a “zig-zag” path to the potential summit.

Germanic

This model is characterized by an emphasis on apprenticeship not only for “blue-collar” workers but also for young graduates who might become managers.

Development is “horizontal” in the “lower” part of the pyramid with job rotations through many functions. Once the most suited function is found, progress is potentially “vertical” in the “top” part of the pyramid.

Latin

This model is characterised by the fact that for managers, recruitment is elitist according to education and does not occur in the “lower” part of the pyramid.

Development is basically a tournament characterised by few rules or systematic norms: in the “top” of the pyramid, not all “zig-zag” paths lead to the summit – progression often depends on alliances and sponsorship. 

Et alors?

One of the key implications of these models is the potential bias for internal or external hiring. The Anglo-Dutch map implies reasonable comfort with hiring externally, whereas the Germanic model implies only one entry point at the start of a career and thereafter only promoting internally. Similarly, given the “political tournament” in the Latin model, it is likely that promotions have to be internal; however the paradox is that if the politics become too difficult to manage, an “outsider” is occasionally brought in. There is a commonality with all these career maps, namely that notwithstanding culture and internal or external promotions, the key element to secure a promotion is always past performance. In other words, regardless of “career management system”, no individual can “succeed” without consistent and superior performance.

An interesting question is what should be done in a company operating internationally? Is it possible to have a multitude of career management systems arranged in a confederate manner according to location and then have one palimpsest system at “group” level? According to the authors of this article, potentially not! They conclude that “human resource programs designed to standardise career management policy across Europe may fail because of intentional and unintentional barriers”. Notwithstanding standardisation, given that it is also difficult to transfer one system to another culture it looks like career management in an international company might be a very difficult challenge! There is however one solution: transparency. If everyone knows what they are subscribing to, how it works and what is expected of them then at least “unintentional” barriers might be removed at an international level.