A NATION OF DECISION MAKERS
by Mel Copen September/10/99
© Mel Copen, September, 1999

This is the first in a short series that focuses on strengthening the understanding of international differences. The purpose is to make interactions across cultures more enjoyable and more productive, whether these are of a business or a personal nature. These interactions are important, not only when one is involved with “things international,” but given the changes taking place in Forsyth County, in our everyday lives.

Despite many perceptions to the contrary, we are a nation of decision-makers and responsibility takers. Although we may not think of ourselves in those terms, relatively speaking, we stand heads and shoulders above most countries. Perhaps the most dramatic illustrations can be found in wartime experiences. Military actions are often related to the decisions of great leaders. However, a key strength of the US military has been the fact that leadership is pervasive. If something happens to the company commanding officer, the platoon leader will step in and assume command and so on down the ranks. And if there is no clear ranking officer, invariably, someone will take charge. This is not the result of a “Leadership 101” training course, but instead is the product of a strong cultural trait that combines a belief in the ability to control one’s destiny and a sense of responsibility to look after both oneself and others. Usually this pattern is not even recognized, primarily because it seems to be a natural process.

But it is not so in other cultures. During World War II it became apparent that a German unit could be crippled if it lost its commanding officer. The hierarchical structure was such that communications and command flowed down from the top in a rigid fashion. Break that chain, and paralysis was often the result. Another, even more dramatic example of a different pattern was illustrated by the experience of an Indian friend who commanded an armored battalion during the 1960’s conflict between India and China. The fighting took place on remote mountain peaks in the Himalayas where no fortifications existed. Indian tanks were airlifted to the mountaintops to serve as pillboxes. Waves of Chinese troops moved up the slopes to take the high ground, with only the first ranks carrying weapons. As these front-line soldiers fell, those behind them picked up the weapons and advanced them further, until they too fell. Eventually, the tank crews ran out of ammunition and had to flee. The hills were captured, but at an incredible cost to the victors. The point of these illustrations does not focus on warfare. Each portrays a fundamental aspect of the culture that is very different, relating to the role of individuals and the pattern of decision-making within them.

Over the years, in working with groups of business executives, I have frequently used a particular management game. The concept is relatively simple and involves a competition between two fairly sizable teams. The time to complete the task is short and the task is fairly complex. The teams operate in isolation of each other. The quality of the end product (and there are specific criteria) decides the winner of the competition. Everything is identical for each team with the exception of the way the teams are managed. One is set up in a very structured manner while the other is free-form. In the structured team, each element of the task is identified and assigned to a sub-group, and the leader supervises the entire process. In the free-form team, the leader explains the task to the entire group and then allows them to proceed as they wish. The results, when one tries this task across cultures, are strikingly different.

In the US, invariably one team wins. No, it’s not the structured team. It is fascinating to watch what happens. The structured group receives clearly assigned tasks (from the designated leader), but the group often experiences difficulty communicating since the task is complex (and the short time period also adds a negative bias). In addition, the leader becomes the primary decision-maker and communications channel to coordinate all efforts – sometimes becoming a bottleneck. A number of people drop out and just become passive observers. In the unstructured group, on the other hand, people are free to move into roles which best relate to their skills or knowledge. Communication is usually very open – and most everyone becomes involved. Leadership roles keep moving back and forth as people offer new ideas and different people take charge as new obstacles are discovered and the project moves into different phases. People who are unsatisfied with their roles often switch to more satisfying and productive tasks. Normally, the unstructured group has a much more satisfying experience.

When this same exercise has been used in Latin America, again one team invariably wins. Now which one? You are right if you guessed the structured group. But why? Primarily because the unstructured group spends most of its time battling over who will be the leader. That group often never gets far into the task at hand. Note the difference in concept from the typical US pattern.

Now lets move to Japan. Guess what happens here. Again, the resultant pattern is consistent, but it is completely different from that of the prior two examples. The winner is unpredictable, with the “structured group” winning as often as the unstructured. Why? Once more, for a totally different reason. The Japanese have such difficulty working in the structured group that the structure dissolves almost immediately and both groups function in an unstructured fashion. It’s not that they ignore the instructions. It’s just that the structured form is not one that is comfortable or particularly meaningful to them. The result, two unstructured teams in competition – in which case one should expect a 50/50 split.

Finally, let’s move the exercise to China – a China of a number of years ago, when the country was just beginning to experiment with a more open economy, but was still very much influenced by Maoist philosophy and the disastrous aftermath of the Cultural Revolution. The results? Again, consistent, and on the surface, appearing very similar to the experience in Japan – impossible to predict who would win – but for the totally opposite reason. At that time, the Chinese had difficulty understanding what it would be like to work in a free-form team (as one might suspect from the wartime example). The “unstructured team” immediately structured itself (by some mysterious process, -presumably along party lines). So two structured teams competed against each other. Things have changed substantially since then. I don’t know what would happen if one used this game with today’s Chinese executives. As China has opened up and begun to move more toward free-enterprise I would guess that its pattern will start coming close to that found in the US. Cultural patterns are not static things. An interaction with other cultures can have a substantial impact in bringing about change.

A key point here is that there is a very strong linkage between many elements of behavior. The more flexible the society, the more demands it will make on individuals to exercise leadership and responsibility – perhaps one of the reasons why it takes a great deal of time and maturity to really make democracy and free enterprise work. Many nations that are experimenting now are finding that it is not an easy path to take. It is one that we have been walking for more than 200 years – and still have some bugs to work out.

It is important that we recognize two things: first, the strength we have as a nation if we realize that we do have decision-makers at every level of society and can harness the creative energy there. Many successful companies have learned that it is not just the CEO and his/her immediate staff that can drive a company forward, but empowerment and involvement of everyone on the entire team. Second, we need to recognize that our pattern does not fit everyone else. Understanding what is driving others is very important, particularly when two cultures come into contact – whether that be in a social or a business setting. Understanding and appreciating those differences is the key to success, for both competition and cooperation.
—————–