17: Getting Things Done in Organizations
The author refers to numerous incidents when, working with individuals who are Middle Eastern, his secretary would ask him to tell them something- and when they heard it "from a man," they were satisfied with the answer, even if the (female) secretary had already told them the same thing - a source of inconvenience to himself and frustration to his secretary.
Gender bias is a common issue when dealing with international visitors. They may have been told, but find difficulty accepting, that a woman can hold a position of authority and responsibility. And the fact that women are, indeed rising into such positions in greater numbers has made this an issue that merits closer considerations.
But this is only one example of the kinds of assumptions that are made about the power and authority of people in organizations that may make it more difficult to get things done, or give unintentional offense to a person in a position of authority, which may make future interactions more difficult.
MISCONCEPTIONS
Visitors from power-oriented cultures often insist on interacting directly with "the boss" - presuming that only people in supervisory or executive positions have sufficient decision-making authority to provide the level of cooperation they need, and subordinates merely carry out orders handed down from above in a narrow range of authority. In some instances, they believe that a "no" will turn to a "yes" if they persist in escalating to higher and higher levels of authority.
(EN: Not just foreigners - many Americans have this perception as well, a throwback to a few generations ago that still persists. It's particularly common in certain areas of the country, and more pronounced with older people than younger.)
Meanwhile, the tactics of subordinate workers are taken as obstructive - that they are attempting to prevent a person from pestering "the boss", either out of respect for his time, or the belief that the person in question does not deserve to be granted what they ask.
However, decision-making power is often delegated in American business.
Front-line employees whose job it is to interact with others (fellow employees as well as outsiders) generally have the authority and information they need to handle customers, even in unusual situations. And to behave as if they do not have this authority is insulting and dismissive - it implies they are of too low a status or lack the intelligence, competence, or the trust of their employer to make certain decisions.
However, their power is in fact limited in some situations and companies, and it is true that "the boss" must be called in to make or approve a given decision. As such, knowing when it is appropriate to appeal to authority can be a complex matter. The US business environment has also become increasingly procedural - there are documented riles to be followed and employees below a certain level are not authorized to act outside the bounds dictated to them.
On the bright side, this means that doing business in America does not require personal connections to insiders - though it can be helpful to leverage a "network" of contacts to get more prompt attention, even a person who is completely unknown will be able to get service and cooperation for matters that are routine and predictable.
The example is given of a Brazilian student who assumed it would be impossible to get financial aid from a university because he had no personal connections. He was amazed, and incredulous, at the claim that all he had to do was "fill out a form and send it" to get consideration.
(EN: Again, this is not entirely foreign. I recall a number of incidents where American students would ask me to review letters they were sending to graduate schools or colleges to which they wanted to transfer - very long letters full of detail and persuasive language. They were likewise taken aback when I suggested one sentence would do - "please send an admission form for the #### semester" - and that they could do so by phone. Such requests are routinely handled by clerks who send a form to anyone who asks, and the letter would likely not be read. It simply wasn't necessary to make a personal appeal to authority just to get an application form.)
CHARACTERISTICS OF U.S. ORGANIZATIONS
Many of the following points have already been mentioned, so the section will be brief:
- Objectivity is key to hiring in most organizations. The candidate with the best credentials, who is willing to accept the salary offered, is hired. People are promoted within an organization for personal accomplishments.
- Use of "connections" to get a job or a promotion is not uncommon, but when it is learned, it is a discredit to both the individual and the manager who hired or promoted him.
- Efficiency is the primary objective of most organization: to do things as quickly or cheaply as possible.
- Expediency, as a component of efficiency, is remarked by foreign visitors: procedures for getting things done are often quite simple and results are quick compared to more bureaucratic cultures.
- Customer service and quality are often compromised. Measurements of "quality" and "satisfaction," upon closer inspection, are generally measurements of speed and efficiency
- Especially in business, efficient communications are preferred. A phone call is faster than a meeting, an e-mail faster than a phone call.
- Routine interactions among people in a business, or outsiders interacting with a business, is often automated through computer systems. More and more customer interactions are pushed to the Internet rather than in person or by telephone.
- Organizations are fond of downsizing - eliminating positions by automation or process efficiency. This is perceived by some employees to be on too aggressive a schedule, such that there are often too few employees to get the work done efficiently or effectively
SUGGESTIONS FOR DEALING WITH U.S. ORGANIZATIONS
Five basic principles are communicated, again repeating some of what has been previously discussed.
Primarily, be courteous to all employees, regardless of gender or class, and even if they hold low-level positions. Communicate with the first employee you encounter (the one who answers the phone or meets you) and let them decide whether they can serve you or refer you yo others.
Also, attempt to be efficient in your dealings with organizations, in any capacity. Learn the expected procedures in advance, ask several questions up-front so you may proceed apace rather than having to halt and ask questions throughout a process, and keep a record of the names and contact information of people so you may contact them directly should you need further assistance.
Additional tips are communicated as a procedure for interaction (EN: but they don't seem necessary in all instances, and are in fact a bit random):
- Plan communications in advance, whether an office visitor or telephone call, so you can clearly explain your situation and make clear what you want
- Accept help from whomever offers to serve you, and allow them to decide when to involve others. Call for a higher-level employee only if you are convinced the normal procedure is not working.
- Be pleasant. Showing anger or impatience is not likely to get faster action, but more careful and cautions attention to procedure and adherence to policy.
- Do not be overly personal. There may be a brief exchange of pleasantries, than it's down to business. Being overly conversational is seen as a waste of time or an attempt to curry favor.
- Be direct and detailed about what you want, and ask for specific details about what they will do (a projected date)
- If the resolution is not satisfactory, state as much, and ask what appeal procedure is available. If there is a procedure, there will not be any reluctance to yell you.