Why change a winning formula? Cultural rigidity in globalising companies March 1, 2010

You can see the appeal. If a company has transformed itself over the years from a small domestic entity to a fast-growing international operation, they might be forgiven for thinking that what they have done so far works pretty well. So why change that? Western companies have done this for years – only a few have had the imagination to fully open themselves up to cultural integration. The conversation goes something like this:
West: You do things differently from us. We’re the new owners, so do things our way. After all, we have got here because of the way we do things (we do them right).
East: Yes, but look. We have a lot of new companies who are beginning to do really well and are even thinking about going international themselves. You don’t have a patent on successful business.
West: Aha, I notice that the way you do things also works fine for you. Maybe we could adjust things to harmonise more effectively while at the same time retaining both of our identities and doing our best to share a common overall inclusive vision

And now, things have progressed. Now, we have strong Eastern enterprise from India, China, Korea and Japan coming to Europe and America, saying pretty much the same in reverse. They will be facing all the same questions about localisation of management, performance management of local staff and avoiding the risks of the “hired hands” syndrome, when all local staff are regarded as not quite “one of us” and talent slips through fingers needlessly.

Lots of research points to the conclusion that multicultural teams, when they really work, are better than any monocultural team. The only problem is, if they don’t work, they can be the worst and least effective. The focus, then, is on global leadership and team management. What is your experience of this? What do you think?