Can organizational empowerment work in multinational settings? W. Alan Randolph and Marshall Sashkin Executive Overview Multinational companies face serious challenges from a dynamic and complex global economy—challenges that compromise the effectiveness of traditional management methods. Empowerment can address these challenges if managers are willing to take the steps to create a culture of structural empowerment, while also taking into account the impact of national culture differences. Strong evidence suggests that empowerment comes to life and has positive impacts on performance and efficiency when managers use the following three interrelated keys: share accurate information, create autonomy via boundaries, and replace hierarchical thinking with self-managed teams. To avoid failed empowerment efforts in multinational settings, managers must understand several specific issues they will face when using these three keys in such settings, where cultures vary along four dimensions: power distance. uncertainty avoidance, individualism- collectivism, and assertiveness focus. This article defines empowerment in practical terms and explains how to create a culture of empowerment using the three keys. The four dimensions of national culture are used to examine in detail how national culture differences can impede or facilitate utilization of the three keys to empowerment. A number of specific multinational examples are provided throughout the discussion. We conclude with specific guidelines for successful creation of organizational empowerment in multinational settings. In the 2st century the challenges of working in a multinational economy will take on new meaning as companies strive to find efficiencies in world- wide markets with an intensity not seen before and with the knowledge that events worldwide will interact to affect everyone.’ Few, if any, parts of the world will be exempt from a new focus on improv- ing efficiency. To meet these challenges and be- come more efficient in a global economy, organi- zations will have to make structural changes. They will have to create alternatives to hierarchies, change the way decisions are made, redefine jobs, and, in short, change the assumptions people have about how to structure organizations. Such restruc- turing is difficult and often painful but also essen: tial for success in « global environment. Further- more, it is made extremely complex when working across multiple national cultures. One promising approach to structural changes to meet these challenges has been the creation of to organizational empowerment, Research and con- sulting by Blanchard and his colleagues suggest that empowerment means first recognizing that am untapped tool for improving efficiencies in busi- ness operations lies in the knowledge, experience, and internal motivation of the people in an organ- lation Second, it means releasing that power and creating a culture of empowerment by using three interrelated keys: share accurate information with everyone, create autonomy via boundaries, and replace hierarchical thinking with self- managed teams. While our consulting and re- search experience and the research of others have shown these three empowerment keys to be effec- tives applying these concepts in multinational set- tings means that organizations must be prepared to deal with an entirely new set of issues. Some- times one element of ¢ national culture will en- hance the application of « particular empower- ment key, while another cultural element willzone Randolph and Sasbkin i} inhibit the same key’s effectiveness. In other cases, a cultural element will enhance one key while inhibiting another key. And when multiple na- tional cultures are present in the same organiza tion, application of the three keys is made even more difficult. Indeed, creating a culture of empow- erment in a multinational setting is, to say the least, complex, and ignoring this complexity can easily lead to a failed empowerment effort. To cre- ate empowerment in multinational settings, organ- izations must understand and know how to deal with the impact of national culture differences on the application of the three keys to empowerment. Only then will firms be able to reap the benefits of empowering their people to achieve desired results, Creating a culture of empowerment in a multinational setting is, to say the least, complex, and ignoring this complexity can easily lead to a failed empowerment effort. To better appreciate the issue at hand, consider the following example, to which we will make ref- erences throughout. A North American agricultural company approached us with the desire to conduct training in several countries, their goal being to create « culture of empowerment across these var- ious national cultures. The design team consisted of two North Americans, one Brazilian, and one Argentine, and pilots of the program were to be conducted in the United States, Brazil, and Argen- tina. While we were confident that organizational empowerment could be achieved in the United States, we were less certain about other cultures. And sure enough, as we focused on ways to share information and to create autonomy via boundaries, we immediately encountered several problems. In Argentina, and even more so in Brazil, ‘employees expect their managers to possess all the information they need to make good business decisions. Employees don't make business deci- sions; their job is to carry out the decisions of managers. Hence, why would they need more in- formation, and even mote so, why would they need qutonomy to act? In the United States, employees were much more open to being involved in deci- sion-making and using greater amounts of infor- mation to make business decisions. On the other hand, employees and managers in the United States had a hard time envisioning the creation and utilization of strong teams, preferring individual responsibility instead, whereas the Bra- zilians and Argentines were much more comfort- able working in teams with shared responsibility. Blind application of any empowerment key across these varied cultures would have left the training open, at best, to success in some countries and failure in others, We had to find ways to deliver « corporate message that allowed for some signifi- cant differences in the various national cultures. Needless to say, these multinational differences created serious challenges for the design team and for the training that had to occur to create a new culture of empowerment in the company. Indeed, had we not directly addressed these challenges, the empowerment effort would certainly have failed While only touching the surface of the problem, the example helps to highlight the focus of this article: Creating organizational empowerment is made far more complex when one ventures into multinational settings. At the same time, however, understanding the impact of the elements of na- tional culture on application of the three keys to empowerment does make it possible to succeed with empowerment in multinational settings. We shall first clarify what empowerment is in relation to the three Blanchard keys. Next we explore evi- dence that empowerment works, when properly applied. We then provide definitions for the four culture dimensions we use in our analysis—the four initially identified by Hofstede: degree of com- fort interacting across hierarchical levels, degree of comfort with uncertainty, degree of team-versus- individual orientation, and degree of masculinity versus femininity.‘ Then we get to the heart of the issue and explore the interaction between Hot- stede’s culture dimensions and Blanchard’s three keys to empowerment. In so doing we address both positive and negative implications of the cul- ture dimensions on implementing empowerment ‘actoss national settings and offer guidelines for successful application of the three keys in multi- national settings. Empowerment: What Is It? Empowerment has often been defined somewhat simplistically as giving people the power to make decisions in an orgemization, And while increased decision-making authority is clearly part of the change that must occur to move from « command- and-control mindset to empowerment, it falls far short of what empowerment really means. Indeed, even in empowered organizations, top managers still define the direction in which the company is going and set objectives for organizational perfor- mance. But empowerment greatly expands the104 Academy of Monogement Executive scope of action of those who are not the top man- agers. Randolph observes that "empowerment is recognizing and releasing into the organization the power that people already have in their wealth, of useful knowledge, experience, and internal mo- tivation.”> Releasing this power to focus on organizational goals calls for changes in people from top to bot- tom of the organizational hierarchy. Managers have trouble with the idea of giving up control, fearing that organizational performance will dete: riorate if they let employees take over. And em- ployees think empowerment sounds good, s0 long s they do not have to take on personal account- ability for results. Their lifetime of experience in ‘command-and-control organizations makes some ‘employees afraid to take the risk of responsibility, where failure is as much « possibility as is success but with potentially great negative consequences * Indeed, employee fear of responsibility is espe- cially enhanced in some cultures which perpetuate the idea that it is the manager's job (and not the employee's) to make decisions and be accountable for results. Employees think empowerment sounds good, so long as they do not have to take on personal accountability for results. Ken Blanchard and his associates have provided q-clear and practical approach to creating empow: erent.” They define three interrelated keys that together can create structural empowerment in or- ganizations: + share accurate information widely, * create autonomy via boundaries, and * replace hierarchical thinking with self-managed teams. We shall examine each of these three keys in some detail, before looking at how they might be applied in the varied and differing cultural contexts of mul- tinational organizations. The First Key: Share Accurate Information Widely Open sharing of information is crucial to empow- erment, since without information people cannot ‘act responsibly, even if they want to, The problem in most organizations is that top managers are often reluctant to share financial, performance, and strategic information with people throughout the organizational hierarchy. They feel that this information is too complex and too sensitive for February such sharing. But without the vertical and herizon- tal sharing of information that is needed to make business decisions, empowerment will go no- where. Information sharing is the lifeblood of em- powerment! The Second Key: Create Autonomy Via Boundaries This key moans making sure that individuals and teams know exactly where their responsibilities begin and end. Clear boundaries must be con- structed by defining goals, roles, and values, and by designing organizational structures and sys- tems consistent with them. These boundaries spell out an area of freedom so that everyone, within this area as well as outside it, knows where to act with autonomy. Thus armed, people are far more able and likely to carry out their responsibilities in empowered and effective ways. They do not have to worry about stepping on one another's toes or about getting permission before taking action to achieve desired results. The Third Key: Replace Hierarchical Thinking with Self-Managed Teams The call for greater team emphasis and espe- cially for teams that control their own work has been heard before and often ignored by top man- agers. But much evidence suggests that such teams can have teal benefits in today's complex and dynamic business world, especially if they are empowered, self-managed teams. The collec- tive application of a team’s knowledge, skills, and motivation can create a powerful synergistic impact for an organization, Aside from increased satisfaction on the part of team member-employ- ees, self-managed work teams have been shown to increase employee commitment, improve manage- ment-employee communication, increase efficiency, and reduce costs? The three keys, when implemented properly and as an interactive package, result in what is known as organizational empowerment. That is, rather than simply encouraging people to “feel empow- ered,” the three keys actually make changes in an organization's operating structures. These changes create the empowering conditions needed to make empowerment real. Without them, empow- erment will fail and its promised results will not materialize. Does Empowerment Really Work? Numerous examples demonstrate the successful application of empowerment in a variety of com-2002 Randolph and Sashkin us panies. In their book Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management, Edward Lawler and his colleagues report that when people are given more control and responsibility, companies achieve a greater return on sales (103 percent) than in com- panies that do not involve people (6.3 percent).® As a specific example, Trader Joe's, a company in the re- tail food industry, found that more empowerment ‘was accompanied by an increase in annual sales growth from 15 percent to 26 percent. Sales per store increased 10 percent per year, while number of stores increased by almost 100 percent. In addition, overall sales volume increased more than 500 percent over am eight-year period. Results of another study suggest that empower- ment is essential for companies that hope to suc- ceed in the new knowledge-based economy." Wal- Mart and VISA International are examples of companies that have successfully made the tran- sition to empowerment. Wal-Mart and VISA International are examples of companies that have successfully made the transition to empowerment. The relationship between each of the three keys to organizational empowerment and “hard” mea- sures of team performance for $0 teams of applied research engineers has also been investigated." While the most potent of the three keys appeared to be the implementation of self-managing teams, the relationships between overall team perior- mance (which included quality, schedule, and fi- nancial outcomes) and each of the three keys was statistically and practically significant. That is, when there was more information sharing, perior- mance was better. When clear boundaries existed, boundaries that promoted autonomy for the team, performance was higher. And when self-managed team structures were in place, performance again increased. In every case, when the keys to oxgemi- zational empowerment were implemented, perior- mance was higher. In sum, clear evidence of a positive relationship between empowerment and performance out- comes seems to exist, if the three keys are imple- mented effectively. But a crucial factor that multi- national companies must also consider is how national culture differences can affect and moder- ate the application and success of these keys to empowerment. When working to empower an or- ganization that bridges national cultures, we must learn to understand and acknowledge the impact that cultural differences can have. The character- istics of a culture will sometimes make implement- ing empowerment easier, sometimes more diffi- cult. In addition, when national cultures are mixed in a company, conflicts or synergies can result from the cultural differences. Understanding Culture in Multinational Settings The construct of national culture has been studied in depth over many years by Geert Hofstede and his colleagues. We will use their culture frame- work in our analysis. In 1980 Hofstede first reported the results of a forty-nation study of national cul- ture’s effects on an organization's people.!? Cal- lecting hundreds of thousands of survey question. naires from people in IBM organizations in those widely varied nations, Hofstede identified a set of four factors that cam be used to understand key culture differences across nations: 1, Power distance centers on the extent to which organization members feel comfortable in inter- actions across hierarchical levels. It reflects the degree to which people feel they should be in- volved in decision-making. At one end of the continuum, employees fee! that it is the manag- 1's job to have the power and to make the de- cisions, and at the other end, employees feel they should have power and be involved with the manager in decision-making. 2. Uncertainty avoidance concerns the degree to which organization mombers want to avoid am- biguity and uncertainty in favor of clear goals and operating guidelines. 3, Individualism-collectivism tracks the extent to which people preter to be treated as unique individuals rather than as part of a group. In individualistic cultures, people want to be able to stand out as individuals and not be held back by the group, whereas in collectivistic cultures people find comfort and energy in the group setting, 4, Masculinity-femininity is the label Hofstede used for the fourth factor, but this label is actu- ally a stereotypical misnomer. The underlying construct focuses on the degree to which people feel that they should be assertive, rosults- focused, and insensitive to emotions versus feel- ing that they should be more nurturing, less results-focused, and more sensitive to emotions. ‘Since in much of the world, then and now, these orientations are commonly seen as gender re- lated, Hofstede used a gender-based label to define the construct. We prefer to label this cul- ture factor as assertiveness focus. In cultures of105 Academy of Menagement Executive high assertiveness focus, people tend to be re- sults oriented and insensitive to others, whereas in cultures of low assertiveness focus, people desire positive relationships at work and place cchigher value on personal needs than on work needs. We shall now explore in detail the implications which these four national culture dimensions have for applying the three keys to creating empower- ment. Although the discussion focuses on one cul: ture dimension and each of the keys separately, the three keys actually operate interdependently as a package, while the four culture dimensions also work together to define a national culture. The basic question we shall address is whether these national culture dimensions make empowerment more or less difficult to achieve, Implementing Empowerment in Multinational Settings Ignoring the impact of cultural differences on the application of the three keys to empowerment may render the empowerment effort a failure. By better understanding the inhibiting and enhancing ef- fects of the cultural elements on the empowerment process, organizations will be better able to tap into the true empowered potential of people in multinational settings. The issues are many and complex, so to facilitate understanding, we shall follow a structured discussion format. Specifically, we shall work from a framework that integrates the four dimensions of culture from Hofstede with the three keys of empowerment from Blanchard and his associates. We shall also refer back to the agricultural company example we opened with and offer some mini-case examples, to help ex- plain the impact of national culture on the imple- mentation of empowerment. Table 1 briefly sum- marizes some important effects of high or low levels of the four culture dimensions on the appli- cation of the three empowerment keys, We shall make repeated reference to this table as we pursue a structured and detailed analysis. Ignoring the impact of cultural differences on the application of the three keys to empowerment may render the empowerment effort a failure. Power Distance and Empowerment Power distance focuses on the comfort level people {feel in interacting and making decisions across the hierarchical levels of an organization. It has a def- Febracey inite impact on creating a culture of empowerment. When power distance is high, people may not feel comfortable making decisions that their managers have previously made. On the other hand, when power distance is low, people may wonder why managers have been so slow to let go of control. They may welcome involvement in decision- making and enhance the movement to empower- ment. Consider the example of a United States com- pany that tried to empower its Mexican plant em- ployees. The plant in Nuevo Laredo manufactured women’s slippers and after two years was produc- ing at less than 80 percent of expectations. A deci- sion was made to empower teams, to engage people in increased levels of decision-making. Working along « 20-foot mechanized conveyor, em- ployees quickly learned to do ail the tasks on the line, Unfortunately, the Mexican workers were much slower to take on greater problem-solving and de- cision-making responsibility. The high power dis- tance in Mexico was a limiting factor. As shown in Table 1, workers in such a culture expect their supervisors to control information, provide clear boundaries, make decisions, and tell them what to do, Moving these workers to the point of full team responsibility for critical business decisions would be difficult. With this example as a starting point, let us look specifically at the impact of power distance on ‘each of the three keys to empowerment, High Power Distance and Sharing Information, High power distance will probably inhibit sharing information for several reasons. From the worker's perspective, as Table | shows, people will wonder ‘why the manager is sharing information that has typically been used for making managerial deci: sions, since they feel it is the manager's job to make decisions and solve problems, Information is equated with knowledge power, and people in high power-distance cultures believe managers should have more power (information) than em- ployees. Likewise, workers will wonder why they should share information with the manager, since the manager has more power and should have better access to information than the workers. The same tendency will apply to the managers them- selves. They will see less need to share informa- tlon with the workers, since managers should be making all the important decisions. And the man- agers will tend to doubt if the workers could pro: vide any information that the managers do not already have.Randolph and Sashikin 107 Table 1 Effects on the Three Empowerment Keys of High or Low Scores on the Four Culture Dimensions Power distance Key High low Share accurate People do not expect People expect and Uncertainty avoidance High Low People like People can deal with information to get all the ‘welcome information information thot unclear information information clarifies things Create autonomy via Boundaries are easy Boundaries oan be People xespond People can live with boundaries tocereato but hard created in collaboration well to clear ‘ambiguous boundaries to widen ‘and are easy to widen boundaries Replace hieraichy ‘Hard to replace People welcome leader as People want clear Teams ca create thelr ‘with hierarchy when part ofthe team ‘team roles ‘own roles lead ie part of But let us quickly add that these employee and managerial attitudes are tendencies, not abso- lutes. A high power-distamce culture does not mean that people will not share information, just that more time and energy must be devoted to accepting information sharing as an operating premise. During the consulting project in Brazil (a high power-distance country) for the U.S. agricul- tural company referred to earlier, efforts to create empowerment by sharing information proved to be quite effective. But some real selling was required to make it work. We explained to the employees how their possession of more information would reduce work uncertainty (something desired in their culture) and that empowerment also meant that managers would not try to blame people for mistakes made A high power-distance culture does not mean that people will not share information, just that more time and energy must be devoted to accepting information sharing as an operating premise. By explaining iniormation sharing and empow- erment this way, we were slowly able to enhance employee acceptance of information from manag- ers to be used for decision-making and to help them see how the information they possessed ‘would have value to the managers. Because of the large power distance, managers had to be directly involved in the initial giving and sharing of infor- mation to show employees that sharing informa- tion did not eliminate the chain of command. The cultural element of high power distance slowed the process of changing to empowerment but did not stop it. High power distance only changed the rationale behind greater information sharing to create empowerment. Low Power Distance and Sharing Information Low power distance tends to make managers and employees quickly see the need for and desirabil- ity of sharing information (see Table 1), In coun- tries like Sweden, Denmark, Australia, and Israel, low power distance makes managers and employ- es feel more like equals. In addition, the informal- ity in these countries leads employees to expect managers to share information so they can make better decisions together. And informality makes employees comfortable about sharing information with managers, since they do not feel that manag- ers should or cam possess all the knowledge power (information) in the organization. Because of the sense of equality and informality, using informa- tion sharing to start « process of empowerment is much easier in low power-distance countries. High Power Distance and Autonomy Via Boundaries ‘The impact of power distance on creating cuton- omy through the use of boundaries presents an interesting paradox. As Table | shows, in countries with high power distance such as Mexico, Venezu- ela, or the Philippines, it is easier for managers to create autonomy with boundaries, since people in these countries expect the manager to define boundaries for people's work. But when it eventu- ally comes time to move toward a more collabora- tive approach to setting boundaries or widening boundaries to enhance worker autonomy, high power distance becomes an inhibitor. We certainly108 Academy of Management Executive February Individualism Astortivenoas focus High Low High low People ant information Pople want team-related People want feedback People want feedback that relates to ‘information ‘on results fon processes and individuals interactions People prefer People preler team-based People preter cleat People preler process: ‘individual-based ‘boundaries tsk goals related goals boundaries People have difficulty People welcome a team People want teams to People like a focus on ‘working in teams focus ‘have real goals and ‘team development responsibilities processes saw this inhibition in the Mexican plant when ‘managers told employees they had the freedom to figure out for themselves how to improve the sub- assembly process. This statement set the bound- aries too wide, and managers had to back up and more narrowly define the parameters of decision- making freedom in order to keep the process of ‘employee collaboration moving forward. Low Power Distance and Autonomy Via Boundaries Low power distance makes the collaborative crect- ing of autonomy via boundaries welcomed by em- ployees, if not expected (see Table 1). In countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States with low power distance, workers welcome the wider boundaries that allow them to collaborate on defin- ing orgamizational vision, values, and goals. They ‘enjoy the chamce to plan for future directions of their units and their teams. They also more easily adapt to widening the boundaries to allow them growing de- ‘grees of autonomy and responsibility. High Power Distance and Self-Managed Teams Let us shift now to the impact of power distance on the third key to empowerment: replace the hierarchy with self-managed teams (see Table 1), High power distance inhibits movement to replace hierarchical thinking with self-managed teams. When employees and managers alike feel that managers should be atforded greater deference (as in high power-dis- tance cultures), people are reluctant to accept a more egalitarian method of management. They resist the idea of their manager becoming « member of their team. Within the US. agricultural company in Brazil workers found it especially hard to view their man- agers as equals on @ team, although they felt a strong team affinity with their fellow workers. They wondered how the manager, who was supposed to make decisions for the team, could be a participant in team decision-making. A slow process of moving toward teams as decision-making bodies was neces- sary to allow people time to adapt and change their beliefs, and even atter great effort, the high power distance inhibited the teams from taking responsi- bility for some key business actions. When employees and managers alike feel that managers should be afforded greater deference (as in high power- distance cultures), people are reluctant to accept a more egalitarian method of management. Low Power Distance and Seli-Managed Teams In countries with low power distance, replacing the hierarchy with self-managed teams is much easier (see Table 1). In numerous U.S. companies and in @ Coca-Cola bottler in Australia, we ob- served a quick embrace of self-managed teams. Even in the government-run railway system of Westem Australia, we saw civil service employees welcome the chance to be part of the decision- making process." Here the intervention was fo- cused specifically on creating teams that would take on many of the decision-making roles previ- ously held by managers. The employees had to lear how to function in self-managed teams, and the managers had to lear how to operate as team members, but the cultural bias toward more egal- itarian relationships made both parties welcome the chance to shift the balance of power. The em- ployees enjoyed the challenge of learning and ap-ma Randolph and Sashikin 108 plying new skills, and the managers did not greatly fear a loss of control and power to the self managed teams. Uncertainty Avoidance and Empowerment Since uncertainty avoidance focuses on people's tolerance for ambiguity, it should definitely impact the empowerment process. When uncertainty avoidance is high, people like to have assign- ments, goals, policies, and procedures carefully spelled out. Thus, in those cultures where uncer- tainty avoidance is high, trouble is likely when the empowerment process moves too quickly toward people setting their own goals. On the other hand, when uncertainty avoidance is low, people can tolerate unclear structure in their work roles and processes. Indeed, if managers in these cultures re not careful, empowerment can lead to chaos when clear goals are not set for people who can tolerate this lack of clarity. We return again to our example of the U.S. agri- cultural company operating in Brazil. The United States culture scores moderately low on uncer- tainty avoidance, whereas Brazil scores moder- ately high, When the U.S. managers and their con- sultants proposed that workers in the Brazilian operation would be accountable for establishing their own goals, based on information provided to ail employees, the proposal which had been readily accepted in the US. was greeted as though the Brazilians suddenly did not understand En- alish, the official language of the company. Even when they were given a book on empowerment written in Portuguese, they continued to show a lack of comprehension. The managers learned that they would initially have to set many of the param- etors for the workers, effectively reducing some of the uncertainty and the related anxiety for every- one. Gradually, the workers and managers alike began to accept the challenge to reduce uncer- tainty by setting their own parameters for work, within certain overall guidelines, but empower- ment was a long slow process. Let us tum now to exploring the impact of uncer- tainty avoidance on each of the three keys to em- powerment. High Uncertainty Avoidance and Sharing Information High uncertainty avoidance tends to make people ‘welcome managers sharing information that clar- ifies and defines issues clearly (see Table 1). The challenge in sharing more information is making it understandable to all, When people start to re- ceive lots of financial and other operating informa tion, they will bo confused unless it is presented in way that is clear and understandable. In one of the earliest applications of extensive information sharing, called “open-book management" at SRC, the engine re-manufacturing buyout from Interna tional Harvester, education went right along with information sharing." Even though the company was in the United States, with moderately low un- certainty avoidance, the organization's leaders re alized the need to educate people in how to use the information used by managers in the past but new to the workers. Such education would be much more necessary for people in countries like Greece, Portugal, or Japan, where uncertainty avoidance is, high. Education is effective in giving people tho means to reduce their uncertainty. Low Uncertainty Avoidance and Sharing Information Low uncertainty avoidance helps people tolerate the initial lack of uncertainty that comes with shar- ing new information (see Table 1). But people in these cultures still need education to learn how to interpret and use this new information to make decisions. Most likely, they will acknowledge that this information does not always make sense and will welcome the chance to learn how to use it effectively. In fact, if uncertainty avoidance is very low, as it is in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Den- mark, the risk may be that people will tolerate a lack of clarity that loads to bad decisions. They may be more than willing to make key decisions using information they do not understand, with potentially serious negative consequences. As dis- cussed below, clear boundaries can help avoid potentially negative outcomes. If uncertainty avoidance is very low, as it is in Singapore, Hong Kong. and Denmark, the risk may be that people will tolerate a lack of clarity that leads to bad decisions. High Uncertainty Avoidance and Autonomy via Boundaries High uncertainty avoidance makes people wel- come the clarification of boundaries that create qutonomy for their efforts (see Table 1). By being provided with clear goals, roles, and a vision for guidance, people in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance find comfort in having guidelines forno Academy of Management Executive their behavior. Especially when the road to em- powerment hecomes difficult, as it always does at some point in the journey, clear boundaries will enhance the acts of autonomy vital for progressing through the inevitable discouragement. Indeed, in countries with high uncertainty avoidance, like Greece, Portugal, and Argentina, senior manage- ment must create clarity to successfully make the journey to empowerment. And since the managers in these countries also share this low tolerance for ambiguity, achieving this clarity will be easier. However, « potential problem is that the managers will have more difficulty when the time comes to widen the boundaries and allow the workers to bocome involved in creating their own boundaries. Low Uncertainty Avoidance and Autonomy Via Boundaries Low uncertainty avoidance helps people cope with ambiguity and may make them less concerned with the need to create autonomy through bound- aries (see Table 1), Indeed, they may even prefer ambiguity as it relates to goals and accountabili- ties, and this preference can create a problem for the empowerment process. An empowered organi- zation demands accountability and responsibility from everyone. Empowerment does not create free- dom without responsibility. When properly imple- mented, empowerment places more responsibility on the workers, in addition to granting them more freedom to decide how to get things done, While people with low uncertainty avoidance that are found in countries like Great Britain, India, and the United States embrace the ambiguity and freedom to figure things out on their own, they may also prefer to avoid being pinned down with clear re- sponsibilities. Boundaries that set expectations are essential for these cultures, if empowerment is to succeed Empowerment does not create freedom without responsibility. When properly implemented, empowerment places more responsibility on the workers, in addition to granting them more freedom to decide how to get things done. High Uncertainty Avoidance and Self-Managed Teams Finally, would we expect uncertainty avoidance to have an impact on replacing the hierarchy with self-managed teams? The answer is yes, though February the impact may not be as strong as with some other culture dimensions. High uncertainty avoidance makes people want team roles clearly detined be- fore replacing hierarchy with self-managed teams (see Table 1). The difficulty in a country like Japan, with high uncertainty avoidance, will come when the teams are asked to set their own goals and operating procedures. Such a request will create uncertainty as to how to proceed. In Japan, where power distance is relatively high, people will nat- urally want management to set the team goals, thus stifling the movement toward self-managed teams. Low Uncertainty Avoidance and Self-Managed Teams (On the other hand, as Table 1 shows, low uncer- tainty avoidance, as seen in the people of Sweden. or South Africa, makes people welcome the oppor- tunity to deal with the ambiguity of using all avail- able information and general guidelines to estab- lish their own team goals and accountabilities, which enables easier replacement of the hierarchy with self-managed teams. In numerous instances in the United States, where uncertainty avoidance is low, we have witnessed people in teams rally to the challenge of setting their own team goals. But- ler Manufacturing Company in Kansas City is one such company with whom colleagues of ours have consulted. By working to create self-managed teams through training and continued effort, they found that people can rise to the occasion and set very challenging goals. In addition, teams became more confident in using their collective abilities to solve business problems. Clearly people's toler- ance for dealing with uncertainty made this trans- formation easier. Individualism and Empowerment Individualism lies at one end of a continuum with collectivism at the other. This dimension of culture relates to whether people want to work alone and be free to operate as individuals or want to work in groups and be thought of as part of interacting sets of people. Since empowerment focuses on working in teams, this cultural dimension is critical in any shift to empowerment, Cultures with strong ten- dencies toward individualism will have difficulty moving to the team responsibility that is essential for empowerment, whereas cultures strong in col- lectivism will find this shift much easier. Consider this example seen repeatedly in United States companies, where individualism is very high. The financial group of an information ser-2002 Randolph and Sashikin uu vices company was in the process of shifting to ‘empowerment with « heavy focus on self-managed teams. Aiter several months of training in team building and sharing information, managers tried to build a sense of team responsibility by asking the teams to set both team goals and individual goals for the team members. Resistance was ap- parent, as people talked about not having the skills or the time needed to set team goals, Numer- ‘ous team and individual meetings revealed « key point of the resistance: people did not like being held accountable for results that depended on the work of others. If they had to be accountable for results, they wanted to control the work. Employee predisposition toward individualism held them back from becoming empowered teams. Let us look specifically at the impact of in- dividualism-collectivism on all three keys to em- powerment. High Individualism and Information Sharing With high individualism, people will want infor- mation sharing to focus on information that relates to individuals (see Table 1). People in strongly in- dividualistic cultures, like the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, prefer direct control over matters that affect them. They want information that directly relates to their jobs, especially if they are held accountable for results. One finding from ‘our empowerment research is that, in generall, peo- ple without information cannot be expected fo act responsibly. When people ate individualistic, they use the lack of information asa key reason for their resistance to making decisions for which they will bbe held accountable. On the other hand, we have found that people with information are almost compelled to act with responsibility.'® When indi- vidualism is strong in a culture, people may be even more strongly compelled to act responsibly than in mote collectivistic cultures. Information sharing helps people know and understand why something must be done, and it builds a base of trust on which to act. Individualistic people like control over their own destinies, and information gives them that control. High Collectivism and Information Sharing A the other extreme, with high collectivism, peo- ple will more readily accept and want information sharing that focuses on the toam effort rather than on individuals (see Table 1). People in countries like Japan, Chile, Mexico, and the Philippines do not like to stand out from the group. Indeed, « common Japanese saying translates as “the nail that stands out gets hammered down.” In such cultures, information focused at the individual level may induce a sense of responsibility, but it may also make people feel uncomfortable with the perception that they are being singled out and compared to others or to the group as a whole, Recall the example of the United States manufac- turing company trying to create empowerment in Mexico, « high-collectivism culture. The reaction to team-based information was very positive. While people were not comfortable making decisions they felt the manager should make (due to the high power distance, as discussed before), they were comfortable using information for the team’s benefit, Team members enjoyed discussing the team information they received and found they could use it to improve the way the team ap- proached its responsibilities regarding quality and quantity of production. High Individualism and Autonomy Vier Boundaries With high individualism, people react best to boundaries for autonomy that focus on individual- based responsibilities (see Table 1). In countries like aly, France, and Norway where people ex- hibit tendencies toward high individualism, they expect and respond well to individually set goals, policies, and procedures. Until managers translate the vision, values, and goals that define bound: aries to the individual level, people have a hard time understanding and buying into them. Once managers translate them, their employees can be- gin to accept the empowerment that comes from these boundaries. Unfortunately, for high-individ- ualism cultures, some empowerment focus must be at the team level, and that is where this culture dimension will present challenges for managers trying to create empowered teams. In countries like Italy, France, and Norway where people exhibit tendencies toward high individualism, they expect and respond well to individually set goals, policies, and procedures. High Collectivism and Autonomy Via Boundaries On the other hand, with high collectivism, as in areas like Venezuela, Singapore, and Korea, the reaction to team-based boundaries for cutonomy (team goals, policies, and guidelines) will be pos- itive (see Table 1). Indeed, the challenge is how toua Academy of Management Executive translate these boundaries down to the level of the individual contributor. As we found in the high- collectivism Mexican company, people resisted the definition of structure that specified responsibility for each team member. They did not want to be held accountable as individuals, but as « tear, High Individualism and Self-Managed Teams When we move to consider the impact of individ- ualism-collectivism on the third key to empower- ment—replace hierarchy with self-managed teams— the connection is quite clear (see Table 1). Con- sider again the example of the financial group of the information services company in the United States (a high-individualism culture). At every tum, the preference for high individualism pre- sented problems for the movement to replace hier- axchical thinking with self-managed teams. When it came to resolving conflicts in the teams, pointing fingers at each other was always a problem. When team performance was poor, everyone looked for a scapegoat, and when performance was good, peo- ple wanted to take personal credit for the success. People just did not like being held accountable as @ team, because that meant they had to share the blame when others failed and the credit when they did ll the work themselves. Over time these groups of individuals did learn to function as self- managed teams, but the strongly individualistic culture certainly inhibited the teams from reaching the highest levels of self-management. High Collectivism and Self-Managed Teams With high collectivism, as in the company in Mex- ico, anything that is team focused, such as replac- ing hierarchical thinking with self-managed teams, will be more easily accepted. In the Mexi- can company, when the initial moves were made to teams, workers had a natural affinity and desire to work in teams. The movement to semi-autono- mous teams was quite well received, and the de- sire for a strong team focus allowed the teams to move steadily toward enhanced responsibility for performance and problem solving, thus becoming self-managing teams. Assertiveness Focus and Empowerment Since assertiveness focus describes the degree to which people desire to focus on results and achievements, its impact on empowerment will likely not be as strong as that of some other culture elements. It will probably have its main effect on the type of information and boundaries desired. February When assertiveness focus is high, people feel less comfortable with a nurturing and relationship- oriented environment. They want to pay attention to getting results so they can get their just rewards and advance in their careers. Thus they desire clear task goals and task-related information. But when assertiveness focus is low, people do not want such an emphasis on results, as it may be a detriment to relationships. They care about their colleagues and their families too much to focus exclusively on results. Hence, they want process- related information and boundaries, When assertiveness focus is high, people feel less comfortable with a nurturing and relationship-oriented environment. They want to pay attention to getting results so they can get their just rewards and advance in their careers. Within the US. agricultural company in Brazil, some challenges could be traced to this culture dimension. When the US. managers, moderately high on assertiveness focus, were involved in in- formation sharing and boundary setting, they tended to focus squarely on results. But the Brazil ians, moderately low on assertiveness, wanted in- formation and goals that took into account a con- cem for others, both their fellow workers and their families. While the culture differences were not that pronounced in this case, more significant problems may occur in countries where managers ‘and employees are farther apart on the assertive- ness-focus dimension. Let us explore the impact of assertiveness focus on each of the three keys to empowerment, High Assertiveness Focus and Information Sharing In countries like Venezuela, Japan, and Switzer- land, with high assertiveness focus, people will welcome information sharing if they feel it will help them get better results (see Table 1). As we have seen in a number of settings, people with a high assertiveness focus wolcome information about business issues. Such people can take this information and create magical results. In the United States, where assertiveness focus is moder- ately high, information sharing in an organization with a complex billing structure made a huge dif- ference in outcomes. The average time it took the billing response center employees to get back to clients was four days. When they were told that the00a Randolph and Sashkin ng. industry average was two days, they soon got their responses down to two days. The focus on results and the availability of information continued to stimulate their competitive juices. Over the next three months, they reduced their response time to four hours on over 98 percent of the inquiries—from four days to four hours. Sharing information with results-oriented people can achieve truly astonish- ing results. Low Assertiveness Focus and Information Sharing In countries with c low assertiveness focus, infor mation sharing that focuses exclusively on results will probably not yield so favorable a reaction (see. Table 1). However, we have seen some positive results from information sharing in countries with low assertiveness focus, like Sweden and Den- mark, The key is to ensure that the information is not only about business results, but also about business processes that depend upon telation- ships among colleagues, as noted in the case about Brazil. When people in these countries feel connection with their peers and their bosses that goes beyond the workplace, they respond quite well to information sharing and the link between information sharing and responsibility upon which ‘empowerment depends. High Assertiveness Focus and Autonomy Via Boundaries Referring to Table 1 again, consider the impact of assertiveness focus on the second key to empow- erment: boundaries to create autonomy. Again, the focus of the boundaries is essential. In a culture of igh-assertiveness focus like Austria or Ireland, for boundaries to create autonomy to be effective, they must focus on defining work outcomes that can be rewarded and lead to advancement. People in cultures with high assertiveness focus want to feel the power of assertiveness on their results, and they best see this power with clearly defined business goals and clear links to recognition and rewards. Low Assertiveness Focus and Autonomy Via Boundaries When we are in a culture of low-assertiveness focus, a strict emphasis on outcome goals as boundaries to create autonomy will not likely be as effective as if boundaries are coupled with goals that relate to processes and relationships (see Ta- ble 1). For example, in companies in these cultures, performance management systems will help cre- ate autonomy more effectively if they include busi- ness-related objectives and measures along with competency objectives and measures that focus on such factors as leadership and communication skills. Consider the oxample of Semco, the Brazilian maker of rocket-fuel-propellant mixers.'® As noted earlier, Brazil is near the midpoint on the asser- tiveness-focus continuum. To create autonomy through boundaries, Semco has utilized a mix of goals and structural adjustments. Semco uses pro- ductivity goals as an objective benchmark to as- sess performance against the market. It also ties rewards directly to performance through a profit- sharing plan. While employees are evaluated on performance, they also get a chance to evaluate their managers, with the knowledge that contin- ued poor managerial performance will result in the manager stepping down. The role af CEO even rotates among six people, with the goal of building shared leadership structure. Semco is using structure to create a sense of partnership and a feeling of family, while also focusing on results. So far the approach is working as Semco is getting results that far exceed those of the typical Brazil- ian firm, While employees are evaluated on performance, they also get a chance to evaluate their managers, with the knowledge that continued poor managerial performance will result in the manager stepping down. High Assertiveness Focus and Self-Managed Teams Replacing hierarchy with self-managed teams has an interesting implication in cultures with a high- assertiveness focus (see Table 1). The tendency is to believe that assertiveness is most likely when people control their own destiny; that is, when they are not relying on others who may not share their zeal for results. Hence, for a culture of teams to fit with this high-assertiveness focus, the teams will need clear and real responsibility and autonomy to achieve results. Goals will need to be team based, and teams will need to have the ability to reward ond punish members who do not perform. In some organizations that we have witnessed, teams actu- ally gain the right to hite and fire team members, Allowing them to do so seems most appropriate when assertiveness focus and the related need for control of employees aro high.ma Academy of Management Executive Low Assertiveness Focus and Self- Managed Teams With low-assertiveness focus, people enjoy going through a team development process as they leam to replace the hierarchy with self-managed teams (sco Table 1). They like the idea of a positive work- ing relationship between the manager and the team members, as well as among the members. ‘The danger here for empowerment is that people from countries like Portugal, the Netherlands, and Israel may focus too much on team development and not enough on results. Empowerment needs the team focus, but the team must become self- managed toward the achievement of meaningful ‘organizational goals and objectives if empower- ment is to succeed. Indeed, if the teams are to replace the hierarchy, they must become more than close, friendly groups of workers; they must become a force for responsibility regarding com- pany business outcomes, and this step can be in- hibited if assortiveness focus is low. No Two Empowerment Processes Alike Thinking back over the four cultural dimensions and the three keys to empowerment (see again Table 1) clearly reveals that every culture dimen- sion has both pluses and minuses for creating « culture of empowerment. No one sot of culture di- mensions is clearly the most favorable for empow- erment. Nor does any set make empowerment im- possible. Leaders of a change to empowerment must know the potential inhibitors and drivers of empowerment that may result from each culture dimension. Cultures ate defined as the whole set of four dimensions. The issue of culture is not so simple as, dealing with one culture dimension at a time. All four will be interacting to create a gestalt for the people involved in an empowerment effort. As we have seon, some elements of a particular culture may enhance empowerment, while other dimen- sions may simultaneously impede its develop- ment. Leaders of cn empowerment effort must draw from the strengths offered by the various dimensions and recognize and otiset the negatives, provided by the other dimensions. One could rightly argue that the implementation of empowerment is made far more difficult when cultural tendencies are mixed in the same organi- zation. For example, what if the managers come from Denmark where they are comfortable with low power distance and have a tolerance for am- biguity (low uncertainty avoidance] and the work- cers are from Mexico where people are more com- February fortable with a high power distance and want things to be very clear (high uncertainty avoid- ance)? When the Danish managers want to operate ‘more like members of the team and want to allow the Mexican workers to make more decisions based on their own analysis, problems will arise. Such circumstances are becoming increasingly common as organizations employ multinational teams that are at times even virtual teams which never have face-to-face contact. Different cultures in @ single multinational organization will un- doubtedly create problems, especially if one or more of the various cultural groups do not under- stand the differences The implementation of empowerment is made far more difficult when cultural tendencies are mixed in the same organization, Four Guidelines ‘The difficulties and problems of implementing empowerment in multinational organizations can usually be overcome. Thus, we end on an optimis- tic note by offering four guidelines for creating a culture of empowerment in multinational settings: 1. Recognize that no matter what the national cul- ture, empowerment must focus on the structural ‘elements that create forces for change to « cul- ture of empowerment. The three interrelated keys to empowerment of- fer c game plan for creating organizational em- powerment conditions when used as a set. Carefully learn about the national culture be- fore attempting to introduce empowerment!” and learn to understand the impact that each culture dimension will have upon the three keys to empowerment, Gear the empowerment change process to take advantage of the levers offered by certain na- tional culture dimensions, to counteract the inhib- itors offered by other national culture dimensions. By recognizing that no two empowerment change processes will be exactly alike, organizations are more likely to succeed in creating the structural empowerment needed to attain desired levels of performance and efficiency in today's complex and dynamic multinational business environment. As ‘empowerment develops and spreads through a mul- tinational organization, it can help achieve eco- nomic goals. It can also help organizations and individuals capitalize on the rich diversity ofome Randolph and Sashkin us knowledge, experience, and motivation that re- sides in the peoples of multinational organiza- tions. The challenge is to know the three keys and how to adapt them to the cultural differences in multinational settings. Endnotes Fiiedman, 7, 1999, The Lexus and the olive tree. New York Farrar, Straus and Giroux, *Blanchacd, K, Carlos |. P, & Randolph, A, 19%, Empower ment taker more than a minute, San Froneisco: Berrett Koehler ‘ond Randolph, W. A. 1995, Navigating the journey to empower: ment. Organizational Dynamics, 28: 19-92; also published in ‘German as Der weg zum empowerment—eine reise mit hidern lesen. Organizationa Entwicklung, 14 Jahrgang 1985, Nr. 4, 6-68 ® Laveler, EE, Il 1992. The ultimate advantage: Creating the highinvolvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Sit ver,5. A, 1993 Perception ol empowerment in engineering work ‘groupe: The linkage to transformational leadership and perfor. mance. Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University: ond Lawler, EE, II, Moheman, S.A, & Benson, G. 7001. Organizing for high performance: Employes involvement, TOM, zeengineering, and knowledge management in the For tune 1000, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass “Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International dit ferences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publica: \W, Alan Randolph i profoscor of management atthe University of alimore. He teaches organic tional behavior and intema tional business and is active ast consultant on empowerment. Ho hae published widely in ea dome and practitioner journals. His most recent book is The 2 Keys to Empowerment, with Ken Blanchard and John P. Carlos. Contact: wrandalph@ubmcil, baited tions; and Hoisteda, G. 1997, Culture and organizations: Sot: wate of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill Randolph. op. ct. "Randolph, W. A. 2000. Re-hinking empowerment: Why is it 0 hard to achieve? Organizational Dynamics, 292) 4-107 "Blanchard, K, Carls, J.P. & Rendelph, A. 1998. The 3 keys to-empowerment Release the power within people for astonish: ing results, San Francisco: Berret-Koehler "Mohan, S. A., Cohen. SG. & Mohrman, A.M, fx. 196. Designing team-based organiaations. Son Franciece:Joseoy Base; cand Eloy, D.F, & Randolph, A. 1997. The eifoct of superioader Ibehavier on autonomous work groups in « government-operated railway service. Public Personnel Management, 252): 257-272 "Lawler, EE. Il Mobrman, S.A. & Lediord, G. B,J. 1992 Employee involvement ond total quality management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, "Malone, 7. W. 1987. I empowerment just « fad? Control, ‘decision-making, end IT. Sloan Management Review, 28) 3-25. "Silver, op. cit, "8 Hotstede, G. Culture's consequences: Holstede, G. 1980. Mo tivation, leedorship and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, I} 19-22 "SBlloy & Randolph, op. ct. “Davia, 7, R. 1987. Open book management: Ite promiae cand pitfalls. Organizational Dynamics, 2) 7-20. "Blanchard, Carlos, & Randolph. Empowerment takes more than a minute, °" Fjerman, J. Winning ideas from maverick managers. For tune, 6 February 1995, 65-8 A good starting point for learning about culture is Hot sted, Culture and organizations. Chapters 2-5 Marshall Sashkin is profoseor of human resource development at George Washington University He teaches leadership. consulting sila, end organizational diagno. sis. Ho has consulted with GE Capital ani American Express, among others, nd has published cn leadership, participation, and change in ceademie and practi ‘Noner journals. His book Leader ship That Matters is expected in 22, Contact: sashkin® gw