What not to do in Management Development

Even the best-laid plans go astray. This was certainly the case in management development programs, where an icebreaker and closing activity were not all they could have been. During a development session with Malays in a rural region early in my career, my colleague and I had included a sealed envelope in each workshop kit with the clear instructions "DO NOT OPEN'' until asked to do so by the facilitators at the first session. We had several packs of playing cards with us - these cards were distributed among the 40 participants but only royal cards were used (eg. eight Aces, eight Kings, eight Queens, etc). We had planned to conduct the first morning session using five groups of eight following our brief introduction. The cards had been distributed based on the profiles of the participants – our aim was to make sure that membership of the groups were evenly distributed to account for seniority, gender, age, job type, etc. At the opening, my colleague and I asked the participants to open their envelopes, take out the card and get together with the people who had a card of the same royal value as their card. Following the anticipated introductions and small talk, we expected the groups to begin bonding and form the basis of the morning's activities. Alas, we watched as the activity descended quickly into chaos. Some participants had absolutely no working knowledge of cards and had no idea of what to do, others did not like colour of the their cards and one male participant though that his Queen of Hearts was not appropriate – he asked if he could change – some changed and did not ask. Others, on seeing the chaos, simply formed their own groups. Good humor eventually prevailed and groups formed - the 2-day workshop was rated as very good overall by all participant but we cannot help but wonder if they understood about playing cards, would we have received a higher or lower rating.

The closing activity was revealed by a colleague who conducted a management development program in China, where a translator was used as very few participants had even the most rudimentary grasp of English. The theme of the program was something like leadership and engagement, where ''getting involved'' was an underlying theme. In other words, if you ''get off your chair'', become engaged, things will start to happen for you. To demonstrate this adage in practical terms, my colleague had taped a RMB100 note to the underside of each of the 30 or so chairs in the seminar room. At the conclusion, and with the help of the translator, the activity was supposed to go something like this. "Now, I want everyone to stand up and look at the underside of your chair''. As the participants retrieved the RMB note, the question was posed, ''What have you learned from this activity?'' The reply anticipated was something like the colloquialism ''If you off your #$@#!!, you'll make some money''. Before he could ask through the translator that the notes be returned, the participants quickly dispersed, with the notes in hand. I have visions of my colleague running after the participant trying to retrieve the notes. I think he gave up in the end. I've also wondered if the translator had a cut of the final action.

Management Issues in China

The cultural architecture of China is complex - in some instances, the architecture is homogeneous while in other cases, it is heterogeneous. Early studies portrayed Chinese managers as uniquely homogeneous and collective bunch, keeping in line with frameworks supplied by Hofstede et al. Their management practices and values seemed similar across China and much early research occurred within this dominant paradigm.

Recently, significant differences among the values of Chinese manager was observed by Ralston et al; younger managers appeared more individualistic, independent, profit-oriented and placed less value and reliance on patron-client relationships. In this setting, higher levels of individualism promoted a search for monetary rather than in-kind rewards. Uneven reforms in rural and urban areas, influence speed of adoptions of new policies, technology and practices within China. Instrumental attachments to work among the vast numbers of internal migrant workers also affected workplace practices.
In the above context, there are probably several Chinas - the neglected West, the old industrial belt of the northeast and the heartland around Wuhan, the south-west and the economic powerhouses of the coastal areas that stretch in a crescent shape from Beijing to Guangzhou. This economic architecture also brings with it another form of cultural diversity because distinct patterns of investment in China originate in Old China. There are favoured Economic Zones for overseas Chinese – those from Hong Kong and Macau tend to invest in Pearl River delta while those in Taiwan (Minnan) invest in Minnan River delta. The Chinese from East China invest in Yangtze River delta and the Eastern regions. With the WTO came a reaffirmation of agreements, a move to create and maintain a level playing field, more transparency, less regulation and an improved infrastructure. In the new environment, the entry of foreign firms was made comparatively easier. Foreign firms could also manufacture and distribute independently. Even the Chinese government agreed not to use its considerable power to benefit or assist local firms.
The implications of these developments for Chinese manager were considerable. A rapid transition from JVs to WOFEs as preferred entry mechanism occurred (although recently, the JV made a comeback). There were changes to foreign value chains in China and more direct negotiations occurred between foreign representatives and Chinese officials. In turn, this subtly affected the reliance of both foreign and Chinese managers on the networks of social capital in China. In addition, a sustained move from an outputs-based mindset to a performance-for-profit mindset gained currency.
Against this background and wondering if these changes had affected the way Chinese managers thought about managing, I executed a small research project during several consultancies in China. Experienced senior Chinese managers of IJVs were asked to identify management areas that they thought would be important for them in doing their jobs and getting results for their organizations in the next ten years. Five focus groups (12 managers in each) used a nominal group technique (NGT) to identify and prioritize important issues in management (completed in early 2005). An additional Q-Sort technique with the same groups (minus a few people who had ''gone elsewhere'') fine-tuned the data. While nearly all management issues gained a place in the initial identification, the NGT and Q-Sort produced the following five areas (in original order with no weightings attached), these were: 1. Performance management; 2. Innovation management and R&D; 3. Strategic HRM; 4. Risk management (including non-financial risk); and 5. Remuneration and rewards. After these issues, the others tapered off noticeably.
Borrowing from Tom Saaty’s AHP methodology, a further 191 managers (representing a cross-section of Chinese managers) from 15 organizations participated in a mini-AHP (accessed in-house via the internet). These managers were asked to rate the relative importance of each factors in the context of a series of stem questions that drive the AHP. The stem questions were of the type: In gaining better results for your organization, do you think that knowledge about innovation management and R&D is more important that knowledge about Performance management. These pairwise judgements allow for respondents to estimate how much more important one factor is over the other in the context of the question at hand. Judgements were made for the five priority management areas identified by the NGT. The AHP produced the following weightings for the priority management areas: Remuneration and rewards (.275); Performance management (.271); Strategic HRM (.190); Risk management (.149); and Innovation management and R&D (.115).
In the above context, there are probably several Chinas - the neglected West, the old industrial belt of the northeast and the heartland around Wuhan, the south-west and the economic powerhouses of the coastal areas that stretch in a crescent shape from Beijing to Guangzhou. This economic architecture also brings with it another form of cultural diversity because distinct patterns of investment in China originate in Old China. There are favoured Economic Zones for overseas Chinese – those from Hong Kong and Macau tend to invest in Pearl River delta while those in Taiwan (Minnan) invest in Minnan River delta. The Chinese from East China invest in Yangtze River delta and the Eastern regions. With the WTO came a reaffirmation of agreements, a move to create and maintain a level playing field, more transparency, less regulation and an improved infrastructure. In the new environment, the entry of foreign firms was made comparatively easier. Foreign firms could also manufacture and distribute independently. Even the Chinese government agreed not to use its considerable power to benefit or assist local firms.
The implications of these developments for Chinese manager were considerable. A rapid transition from JVs to WOFEs as preferred entry mechanism occurred (although recently, the JV made a comeback). There were changes to foreign value chains in China and more direct negotiations occurred between foreign representatives and Chinese officials. In turn, this subtly affected the reliance of both foreign and Chinese managers on the networks of social capital in China. In addition, a sustained move from an outputs-based mindset to a performance-for-profit mindset gained currency.
Against this background and wondering if these changes had affected the way Chinese managers thought about managing, I executed a small research project during several consultancies in China. Experienced senior Chinese managers of IJVs were asked to identify management areas that they thought would be important for them in doing their jobs and getting results for their organizations in the next ten years. Five focus groups (12 managers in each) used a nominal group technique (NGT) to identify and prioritize important issues in management (completed in early 2005). An additional Q-Sort technique with the same groups (minus a few people who had ''gone elsewhere'') fine-tuned the data. While nearly all management issues gained a place in the initial identification, the NGT and Q-Sort produced the following five areas (in original order with no weightings attached), these were: 1. Performance management; 2. Innovation management and R&D; 3. Strategic HRM; 4. Risk management (including non-financial risk); and 5. Remuneration and rewards. After these issues, the others tapered off noticeably.
Borrowing from Tom Saaty’s AHP methodology, a further 191 managers (representing a cross-section of Chinese managers) from 15 organizations participated in a mini-AHP (accessed in-house via the internet). These managers were asked to rate the relative importance of each factors in the context of a series of stem questions that drive the AHP. The stem questions were of the type: In gaining better results for your organization, do you think that knowledge about innovation management and R&D is more important that knowledge about Performance management. These pairwise judgements allow for respondents to estimate how much more important one factor is over the other in the context of the question at hand. Judgements were made for the five priority management areas identified by the NGT. The AHP produced the following weightings for the priority management areas: Remuneration and rewards (.275); Performance management (.271); Strategic HRM (.190); Risk management (.149); and Innovation management and R&D (.115).