Based on an example by Buytendijk (2008) featured in Profit Magazine (2009) and with the completion of the analytical exposition of GSPI’s Cultural Performance Management Analysis [CPMA] in terms of GSPI’s Indian expats and Filipino workers, the following completes this series. Although, the CPMA framework is arbitrarily constructed, it is desired that respective trend of each series, i.e., Indian expats and Filipino workers, would be descriptively obvious.
Scoring
Buytendijk’s example of a CPMA framework shows the six pairs of opposing culture characteristics on the extremes, with the origin at the center, denoted by “o“. Thus, for simplicity, let us assume that the right-most and left-most values are 2.0, respectively.
Although some scores were initially based on trial perception values with certain cooperative individuals, the final scores, based on average values when available, used in the graphic were assigned by this writer. It is acknowledged here that accuracy of such scores is debatable, per se, but for purposes of this study, this writer hopes that a considerable debate over the results would follow that a revision could be issued in the future.
Each of the six opposing characteristics will be summarized below, and an explanation on the revision of the respective initial scores for each series is also provided.
GSPI Cultural Performance Management Analysis
Results
A. Group vs. Individual
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 ←Group | Locals : Individual→ 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.5←Group | Locals : Individual→1.0
Revisions: Both series exhibited the extremes. Indian culture tends to gravitate toward group affinity: primarily religion, state of origin, linguistic affiliation, and probably even caste. Expats are more prone to form groups, although some contemporary expats show a mild tendency toward individualism. Locals tend to be more individualized work ethic. On job site, the cultural groupings are relegated to the background in pursuit of common activities. Pakikisama (group loyalty) and Pakikipagkapwa (being with others) tend to make groups possible.
B. Meritocracy vs. Aristocracy
Initial Values: Expats : 1.5 Aristocracy→ | Locals : ←Meritocracy 1.5
Final Values: Expats : 1.5 Aristocracy→ | Locals : ←Meritocracy 1.5
Revisions: No revisions made. Results based on averages.
C. Rules vs. Relation
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 Relation→ | Locals : ←Rules 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 0.5 Relation→ | Locals : ←Rules 2.0
Revisions: No revision made on Locals, the exposition proved to be sufficient. For expats, the relation characteristic were considerable for only a few, specifically for those higher in the management echelon, rather than the majority.
D. Long-term vs. Short-term
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 Short→ | Locals : ←Long 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.0 Short→ | Locals : ←Long 1.5
Revisions: Expats are strongly short-term focused, but some instances like the blast furnace could be considered for the long-term. The short-term focus for expats might probably because of the shorter length of domicile in the Philippines. Locals are more prone to long-term focus, having been born and bred here. The decrease in the latter’s score was to account for the effect of the closure of NSC, many ex-NSC employees see a short-term of the future with GSPI.
E. Theory X vs. Theory Y
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0←Theory X | Locals : Theory Y→2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.5←Theory X | Locals : Theory Y→1.0
Revisions: Expats have maintained through the four-year stint that the Locals needs direction and close supervision, but some things are left to the locals. The Local score was decreased as the result of the closure whereby some individuals have developed a “wait-and-see” attitude, which in turn affected the work attitude of some.
F. Internal vs. External Focus
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 ←External | Locals : Internal→2.0
Final Values: Expats : 0.5 ←External | Locals : Internal→1.0
Revisions: Expats score decrease from 2.0 to 0.5 to account for only a number of factors among the various external environmental factors are considered. Locals score decreased from 2.0 to 1.0 to account for the internal focus remnants from NSC retained by GSPI.
Epilogue
Buytendijk cautions that “Cultural alignment doesn’t always guarantee success.” Change in the performance management practices as well as people might be necessary. There should be a considerable balance between the six opposing characteristics. “Performance management becomes change management, and dealing with undesirable behavior is part of that.”
Notes:
Buytendijk, Frank (2008). Performance Leadership: The Next Practices to Motivate Your People, Align Stakeholders, and Lead Your Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. back to text
Mehta, Monica (2009). Performance Leadership: A Q&A with Frank Buytendijk, Profit: The Executive’s Guide to Oracle Applications, 14:1. Skokie, IL: Oracle Publishing, February 2009. p. 32-33. back to text
Disclaimer: The posts on this site does not necessarily represent any organization’s positions, strategies or opinions; and unless otherwise expressly stated, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
The Grey Chronicles
Cultural Performance Management Analysis, Conclusion
Tags: Affinity, Aristocracy, Behavior, Change Management, Cultural Alignment, Cultural Performance Management Analysis, Direction, Employee, Expat, External Focus, Frank Buytendijk, Global Steel Holdings Ltd., Global Steel Philippines, Global Steelworks Infrastructure, Group, GSHL, GSII, GSPI, Indian, Indian Management, Individual, Internal Focus, Local, Long-term, Meritocracy, National Steel Corporation, NSC, Pakikipagkapwa, Pakikisama, Performance Management, Profit Magazine, Relation, Rules, Short-term, Success, Supervision, Theory X, Theory Y, Work Attitude
Based on an example by Buytendijk (2008) featured in Profit Magazine (2009) and with the completion of the analytical exposition of GSPI’s Cultural Performance Management Analysis [CPMA] in terms of GSPI’s Indian expats and Filipino workers, the following completes this series. Although, the CPMA framework is arbitrarily constructed, it is desired that respective trend of each series, i.e., Indian expats and Filipino workers, would be descriptively obvious.
Scoring
Buytendijk’s example of a CPMA framework shows the six pairs of opposing culture characteristics on the extremes, with the origin at the center, denoted by “o“. Thus, for simplicity, let us assume that the right-most and left-most values are 2.0, respectively.
Although some scores were initially based on trial perception values with certain cooperative individuals, the final scores, based on average values when available, used in the graphic were assigned by this writer. It is acknowledged here that accuracy of such scores is debatable, per se, but for purposes of this study, this writer hopes that a considerable debate over the results would follow that a revision could be issued in the future.
Each of the six opposing characteristics will be summarized below, and an explanation on the revision of the respective initial scores for each series is also provided.
GSPI Cultural Performance Management Analysis
Results
A. Group vs. Individual
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 ←Group | Locals : Individual→ 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.5←Group | Locals : Individual→1.0
Revisions: Both series exhibited the extremes. Indian culture tends to gravitate toward group affinity: primarily religion, state of origin, linguistic affiliation, and probably even caste. Expats are more prone to form groups, although some contemporary expats show a mild tendency toward individualism. Locals tend to be more individualized work ethic. On job site, the cultural groupings are relegated to the background in pursuit of common activities. Pakikisama (group loyalty) and Pakikipagkapwa (being with others) tend to make groups possible.
B. Meritocracy vs. Aristocracy
Initial Values: Expats : 1.5 Aristocracy→ | Locals : ←Meritocracy 1.5
Final Values: Expats : 1.5 Aristocracy→ | Locals : ←Meritocracy 1.5
Revisions: No revisions made. Results based on averages.
C. Rules vs. Relation
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 Relation→ | Locals : ←Rules 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 0.5 Relation→ | Locals : ←Rules 2.0
Revisions: No revision made on Locals, the exposition proved to be sufficient. For expats, the relation characteristic were considerable for only a few, specifically for those higher in the management echelon, rather than the majority.
D. Long-term vs. Short-term
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 Short→ | Locals : ←Long 2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.0 Short→ | Locals : ←Long 1.5
Revisions: Expats are strongly short-term focused, but some instances like the blast furnace could be considered for the long-term. The short-term focus for expats might probably because of the shorter length of domicile in the Philippines. Locals are more prone to long-term focus, having been born and bred here. The decrease in the latter’s score was to account for the effect of the closure of NSC, many ex-NSC employees see a short-term of the future with GSPI.
E. Theory X vs. Theory Y
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0←Theory X | Locals : Theory Y→2.0
Final Values: Expats : 1.5←Theory X | Locals : Theory Y→1.0
Revisions: Expats have maintained through the four-year stint that the Locals needs direction and close supervision, but some things are left to the locals. The Local score was decreased as the result of the closure whereby some individuals have developed a “wait-and-see” attitude, which in turn affected the work attitude of some.
F. Internal vs. External Focus
Initial Values: Expats : 2.0 ←External | Locals : Internal→2.0
Final Values: Expats : 0.5 ←External | Locals : Internal→1.0
Revisions: Expats score decrease from 2.0 to 0.5 to account for only a number of factors among the various external environmental factors are considered. Locals score decreased from 2.0 to 1.0 to account for the internal focus remnants from NSC retained by GSPI.
Epilogue
Buytendijk cautions that “Cultural alignment doesn’t always guarantee success.” Change in the performance management practices as well as people might be necessary. There should be a considerable balance between the six opposing characteristics. “Performance management becomes change management, and dealing with undesirable behavior is part of that.”
Notes:
Buytendijk, Frank (2008). Performance Leadership: The Next Practices to Motivate Your People, Align Stakeholders, and Lead Your Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. back to text
Mehta, Monica (2009). Performance Leadership: A Q&A with Frank Buytendijk, Profit: The Executive’s Guide to Oracle Applications, 14:1. Skokie, IL: Oracle Publishing, February 2009. p. 32-33. back to text
Disclaimer: The posts on this site does not necessarily represent any organization’s positions, strategies or opinions; and unless otherwise expressly stated, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
Share this: