I’ve discussed cultural differences and clarity in Mexico’s business world. But dealing with Mexican realities is not the only challenge faced by U.S. executives on Mexican assignments. Inevitably, as reported by many corporate leaders I’ve interviewed, U.S. executives in Mexico must also cope with the headquarters challenge.

Perhaps the two most repeated concerns they have about the corporate offices back home are the lack of interest in or appreciation for what they do here, and the lack of attention given them when they request assistance. Sooner or later all U.S. executives find out that the corporate base is both unaware and unappreciative of different cultural and business practices, which often leads these executives to wish for a quick end to their Mexican assignments. One U.S. executive strongly recommends encouraging management to come down and see the Mexican operation with their own eyes, as well as the efforts required in this market. “When they are here, they see that our accomplishments are the results of incredible hard work and persistence,” he says. “The first time they have to dial 20 times to complete a call they begin to appreciate what we go through!”

When it comes to explaining that different business practices make it almost impossible to adopt guidelines developed for the U.S., most executives find their complaints falling on deaf ears. For example, one U.S. director of marketing for Mexico was thoroughly frustrated with headquarters’ insistence that his sales force was not making sufficient contacts on a daily basis. “They expect our sales representative to hit on six customers every day, when in Mexico, you are lucky if you can make three,” he says. “They don’t understand how difficult it is to move in this city, and they don’t understand that you simply cannot come to your customer and act as if you were in a hurry.”

Although bottom-line goals were met, comments persisted over the low number of visits. “If only my boss would come to Mexico and try herself to pay six visits a day!” he commented in a moment of frustration.

Lack of attention is a complaint often directed at the home office’s Human Resources Department. I have met and talked with international HR managers, and surprisingly, in many companies the task of taking care of overseas assignees is given little importance and often conceptualized as an “added” responsibility. For example, one large multinational has assigned an HR manager in charge of two large U.S. regions the responsibility of acting as a liaison to its Latin American operations. “Frankly,” he says, “my U.S. responsibilities have priority, and I often find myself without the time to take care of the many requests coming from Latin America.” Unable to find the time, these HR managers often have little knowledge of Latin America. Indeed, the relatively few HR managers at headquarters who know about foreign destinations are often focused on Asia and Europe. Latin America is, for many large companies, a minor market, although its potential has always been recognized. As one savvy international HR manager stated, “We have been waiting for Latin America to emerge as a truly significant market for years. It will probably happen after I retire!”

While everyone talks about the global nature of business today, companies on the whole still operate from a “center-periphery” perspective. Headquarters is where the action is, and everyone has to fit into its style and mentality. No wonder executives spending time in Latin America often worry about whether or not headquarters will remember them if they stay too long. Out of sight, out of mind.

The post Stuck in the middle: Cultural differences in Mexico’s business world appeared first on MexConnect.

“The problem in Mexico is that workers, and generally speaking all people, resist change.” This was the opinion expressed to me recently by a successful (at least, rich) entrepreneur in Mexico City. Because of this resistance, he says, “Mexico will continue to be behind the developed economies.”

In his own experience, he finds it impossible to make overdue changes in his company. It’s important to examine this assumption, so common in Mexico. It is, of course, not unique to Mexico. In the U.S. as well, managers often assume that people resist change, and knowing this is important for any manager who wants things done in a new way. We need to determine the extent to which people indeed resist change, and whether resisting change is in fact an unhealthy attitude. In the first place, people in Mexico, and elsewhere, don’t resist change in and of itself. What makes people uncomfortable is uncertainty. The human condition is such that we strive to reduce doubt in our lives.

Because change often brings with it a lot of uncertainty, most people think of the potential consequences and become concerned. Will this change affect my job? Will it demand more from me? Will it eliminate my job? Until people know the effects of change on their lives, they will resist it. Until their concerns are addressed, their uncertainty will linger, and thus resistance.

When I face managers in companies everywhere, I ask them to tell me the last time they heard someone resisting any of the following changes: longer vacations, flextime, higher salaries, more insurance coverage, child-care centers in the workplace, and so on. All of these are changes too, but since they clearly provide an added advantage, employees are less likely to react.

Nafta is producing important changes in all three of its member countries. Resistance to the trade treaty can be found among numerous business sectors, both in Mexico and in its two neighbors to the north. Those who wholeheartedly support Nafta, and generally freer trade among nations, should not dismiss such sentiment as simply foolish or short-sighted. When industries are hurt by Nafta, their resistance is not foolish. It is simply common sense, and yes, common business sense. The idea that the business world supports free trade is one of the many fallacies we have been taught. Some businesses do support a free-trade philosophy, but not surprisingly, they are usually those who would surely benefit from this environment: large multinational companies that operate on a truly global scale. But the tomato grower in Florida, the avocado grower in California, the broom manufacturer in Illinois hardly see how Nafta will make their day, and they are concerned about their business future. In Mexico, those in the poultry business and office furniture manufacturers are equally concerned. Illogical? Hardly.

And if this is the behavior of the rational business world, why should we find it so strange that a low-skilled worker in Mexico should feel threatened by automation, by new technologies requiring skills he or she doesn’t have?

The implication is obvious: Explain how a proposed change will not, in fact, adversely affect workers’ futures, and that your company will provide for all the needed training so they’ll be able to keep working. This will reduce their very logical uncertainties, and make them allies for a change. But if this is a promise than can neither be made nor kept, accept resistance as the most rational of all human behaviors.

The post New and unimproved: A resistance to change in Mexican business appeared first on MexConnect.

Both friends and enemies of Nafta predicted the treaty would bring increased investment crossing national borders, and in the case of Mexico, a significant new presence of U.S and Canadian firms. This has been the case, and although it could slow down if global financial woes persist, the tendency in the near future will be expanded economic integration within the Nafta bloc.

The new Mexican business landscape will increasingly feature U.S. and Canadian players. They are and will continue to challenge the traditional stronghold of key families in Mexico. The family business in Mexico can no longer survive only on the basis of social networks or on ties to political power or both.

The family-based firm is the basic business unit of Mexico, on both the large and small scale. The tradition generates resources while maintaining the nation’s social fabric. As a culture, Mexico is characterized as family-centered, as opposed to the individual-centered cultures of both the United States and Canada. For this reason, the new challenge to the family business unit is as much social as economic.

According to Francis Fukuyama, senior social scientist at the Rand Corporation and author of “The End of History and The Last Man,” societies with low levels of trust, such as Mexico, are less likely to spawn large corporations, whereas societies with high trust levels, such as the U.S. and Canada, are more capable of organizing themselves into large, private enterprises. In low-trust societies, businesses tend to be family-centered (precisely because others cannot be trusted), and large enterprises often are created by government, either in the form of direct ownership or through subsidies.

In Mexico, the government is pulling out of its traditional role as the large investor. At the same time, local businesses are increasingly becoming transnational, and thus adapting traditional ownership structures to global standards.

It’s too early to predict the complete demise of the family business as an institution. As stated earlier, family firms serve an important social role, and will not fade away easily. But the institution is undoubtedly changing form as it struggles to survive.

Many family-run businesses have been forced to establish partnerships with large U.S. and Canadian multinationals. This is the case, for example, with the Telmex-Southwest Bell partnership (Telmex is controlled by Carlos Slim, head of Mexico’s richest family), or Bell Atlantic’s association with Alejo Peralta’s Iusacell. Through these associations, the family business assures itself a future, but it also implies a loss of control, or to say it differently, it loses some of its family image.

Other family-run businesses attempt to survive by expanding their operations overseas. But in doing so, they are forced to enter into partnerships with other business interests who have a greater know-how of those markets. Once again, the family look changes. Another tendency is the internationalization of the family, with branches of the same clan living in the United States and Canada, and establishing business operations with Nafta coverage. This was the story of the Rothschilds who established family branches in key European countries and in the United States.

But any of these possibilities requires significant cultural changes within the family-run business. Since it can no longer survive only on the basis of nurturing social and political ties, it will have to produce professionally prepared members, able to manage businesses in a fiercely competitive environment. From now on, family membership will not suffice to work in the business. Incompetent family members will no longer have a say in operations.

The challenges to the family-run business are many, but as long as families continue to be the central social unit of Mexico, expect them to make the necessary adjustments in order to survive. They may change in focus and style, but they will not disappear easily.

The post Family affair: The family business in Mexico appeared first on MexConnect.

More often than not, when foreigners simply refuse to engage in the human aspects of the working world, they tend to see the more negative aspect of the Mexican experience.

When I talk with non-Mexican businesspeople about their experience with Mexican organizations or Mexicans, I hear extremely contrasting views. One executive who works in the car industry tells me that Mexican workers are known for their extremely high-quality output, and that the reputation of Mexican work is highly regarded in the industry. Accordingly, Mexico should be ready to compete on the basis of quality, not just cheap labor.

But I also hear the perennial negative view about the Mexican work tradition: unreliability, low quality control, informality in meeting deadlines, and so on. To many doing business with Mexico, the experience is often frustrating. “It’s only worth it because labor is cheap enough to compensate for the many disappointments in the process,” says one European executive I spoke to recently. How can such divergent perceptions be explained? Could it be that the perception of the “Mexican experience” is as uneven as their statements? Why is it then that the experience of working with Mexicans is so uneven?

Before attempting to answer what is indeed a complex issue, let me say that such unevenness is not restricted to any one category of people. Over the years, I have heard equally inconsistent appraisals of blue and white collar workers, top and entry-level management, and even of business owners.

No doubt, part of the explanation lies in the profound Mexican cultural view that work and the human experience are highly interconnected, as opposed to the more compartmentalized working style of the United States, Canada, and Europe. For example, in Mexico if someone does not like you, it will be reflected quickly in how well they will work with or for you.

By contrast, in other cultural orientations, the quality of the work will tend to be fairly steady, regardless of the personal pleasure derived from it. It seems the variation in perception is a reflection of a more integrated experience that does not separate work from other experiences. If it is true that Mexicans will often disappoint you, it is also true that if they feel respected and protected, they are likely to go the extra mile, in ways difficult to find elsewhere.

I never cease to be puzzled by the many experiences I have witnessed or heard of Mexican staff working long hours, weekends, and often with little financial compensation, in order to finish an important job. This is especially true when the project is of importance to a boss who is well-liked and respected.

But the other side of the coin is equally true. When Mexicans do not feel appreciated (especially when their dignity is not respected), they can easily become unreliable, unpredictable, or simply “lazy.”

Clearly, I am suggesting that the unevenness of the Mexican experience has something to do with the external stimuli provided. More often than not, when foreigners simply refuse to engage in the human aspects of the working world, they tend to see the more negative aspect of the Mexican experience. A few months ago, a frustrated Canadian who had been in Mexico for over a year told me his working philosophy: “I just want to get the work done. I neither have the time nor the inclination to get involved in all the personal stuff, which apparently Mexicans love to do!”

But the counter-perception is equally revealing. One Mexican executive working for a leading accounting firm tells me of his experiences working with U.S. fellow-managers: “They come here assuming we know nothing, and then assume we are simply machines. If they want a machine, let them hire a robot. I am a full person.”

If one thing can be concluded is that the “Mexican experience” can be guided or shaped. Spending a little time on the human side of the workplace will ensure the experience is a mostly positive one.

The post Eye of the beholder: Perceptions of Mexican job performance appeared first on MexConnect.

I received various emails on my recent column dealing with management standardization. Many people were concerned that my column suggested that standard procedures are not necessarily the best way to manage, and that if this is the case, wasn’t I suggesting discriminating double standards?

I think those concerns are valid.

Historically, we know that managers’ discretional use of rules and procedures has been used to discriminate against people—minorities and women in particular. But it’s also true that some rules and procedures discriminate on the basis that they are often developed from the perspective of a dominant group, and those rules are often easier to live by for people who share the culture of the dominant group. The uniform application of a rule or concept can discriminate against many people who would otherwise be just as qualified.

According to Jean Mavrelis, a colleague of mine and a gender and cross-cultural expert, we need to distinguish between “Double Standard I” and “Double Standard II.” The former is using different standards that simply create discrimination. The second double standard is using different standards to create equality. For example, should we build exactly the same number of bathroom stalls for men and women?

For a fair outcome we should build a greater number of bathroom stalls for women, since women on the average take a longer time in the bathroom (believe it or not someone actually studied this and found significant time differences). So “bathroom-stall equality” does not produce “equality” since women will have to wait in lines longer and more often than men.

The key concept is outcome. If using the same standard produces unequal outcomes, we should be concerned. However, different standards for different people (in order to produce equal outcomes) will no doubt receive resistance. Many will claim you cannot have “special rules” for “special people” because then everyone will want to have access to those special rules. The solution, according to Mavrelis, is to develop rules that are more inclusive of the needs of those “special groups,” but apply them universally.

For example, relocation is often a vital step in the career of a manager. There’s an implicit rule in many companies that in order to move up, you need to move out. This rule is much easier to follow if you are a person who grew up in the United States, where being independent is appreciated, and where no one in your family is going to mind that you live where it is most convenient for you. In other cultures, where physical proximity to the family is important, this rule is not as easy to adopt, and if it is undertaken, it can sometimes carry with it social and psychological burdens.

Mavrelis often refers to how companies view the concept of family when they consider relocating someone. In mainstream U.S. culture, the family means only father, mother, and children, but in other cultures, a family may include grandparents or nephews. Obviously, you cannot make a rule stating that if you come from a certain culture, you can include extended family as part of your nuclear family, and at the same time prohibit other employees from taking advantage of this rule.

According to Mavrelis, the best approach would be to say that a family consists of all family members residing in the same household, and that relocation benefits include all of them. This way everyone can make use of the rule, regardless of the type of culture or tradition they come from.

No doubt, in this globalized world we live in, developing rules that are more inclusive and do not discriminate will require a reconceptualization of what makes sense and is fair in a world marked by diversity.

30-Jul-00

The post Double standard: What’s right for Mexico’s business world? appeared first on MexConnect.

Anyone who has ever worked in Mexico realizes that one of the biggest differences between doing business in this country and its two Nafta partners concerns information. Whereas in the U.S. and Canada information about most business issues is widely available, and often free, Mexican managers have to face the reality that information is both scarce and often full of errors.

There are several reasons why Mexico has not yet developed an information-rich environment. One is the lack of respect for intellectual ownership, which makes development of for-profit information more difficult. A second important reason is that capitalism in Mexico is developed on the basis of privileged access to information, such as which government actions will be taken or which suppliers will be awarded contracts. The development of the family business tradition was often based on the fact that families held those “business secrets” to themselves. From a business perspective, keeping information away from competitors is an advantage, although the system as a whole suffers.

This is one reason why it is a common practice for professional or business associations to have incomplete information about their own activities. Over the years, I have wondered why few statistics are offered by official associations in their own sectors, and the answer they give me is that their own membership fails to provide them with such figures.

A final reason is the size of the informal economy, which by definition is unrecorded in official statistics. While no one knows exactly what percentage of the economy is informal, estimates usually put the figure anywhere between 20 and 40 percent of the total economy! Some companies that require information engage in primary marketing research, but this is the most expensive of all data. The vast majority of smaller companies simply find the cost too high. One of my clients is a traditional, highly successful family enterprise in Mexico. The company was contemplating introducing a new product in the market. After analyzing the costs involved in a marketing study, it decided to table the study. “We have been very successful without expensive studies,” explained one of its partners to me. “We rely on our common sense and our feeling for the business.”

Without a rich supply of information, management in Mexico often has to be “intuitive.” Now that “intuition” and “emotional intelligence” have become the new buzzwords of U.S. management, I cannot but laugh at the fact that in Mexico this has been a very old tradition. Mexican managers have to fill in those information holes with their intuition, their so-called business “smell.” Without adequate information, we must rely on our emotional intelligence, sometimes called intuition, sometimes called common sense, or else we’d simply go crazy.

And managers trained in modern MBA programs, based on rational decision-making models, do go insane when they are faced with the realities of Mexico. I recently had a conversation with a bright young Mexican manager, who was presenting to his U.S. boss a distribution plan for its marketing products. His boss asked him to explain the basis on which he was making his recommendations, to which the young manager replied: “It is based on our past experience and our ‘feeling’ for the market.” His U.S. boss canned the plan. Neither side is right or wrong. Their behavior simply reflects the rational versus the intuitive model of management. Undoubtedly, Mexican mangers would benefit greatly from fomenting a more information-rich environment, but equally true, U.S. managers may also have to learn that “feelings” and “intuition” may sometimes provide the best available solution.

The post In the dark: Without reliable information, Mexican managers get in touch with their feelings appeared first on MexConnect.

These days it seems every company is adopting a team approach to doing business. While the concept is relatively new in the Western world, it is an old practice in Japan. But team-building, which requires that individuals think of themselves primarily as members of a group, rather than as individuals, is certainly a challenge to mainstream U.S. thinking and practices, as well as to the style prevailing in Mexico. Team-building in a Mexican/U.S. operation is a huge challenge, requiring major philosophical changes by its members.

In the U.S., the strongly held value of individualism puts up barriers to team thinking. Each person is accountable for his or her individual actions and performance, and generally not responsible for what others do. If someone makes a mistake, the logic goes, that individual should be punished, not his or her colleagues or boss. In successful teams, however, everyone feels responsible for everyone else, since they are (or should be) rewarded for what they accomplish as a team.

Mexico’s hierarchical tradition makes successful team-building very difficult. In hierarchical cultures, those in authority make all important decisions. In successful teams, on the other hand, decisions need to be made by the group, and team members therefore need to be empowered significantly. This requires that the traditional hierarchical style prevailing in Mexico be replaced with a more empowering environment. Although many argue that Mexicans “resist” assuming this role, those who have little power welcome the idea of shared responsibility and shared decision-making. In my experience, empowerment in Mexico fails because those at the top who hold the power rarely relinquish their authority, especially when it comes to making decisions. They may say they want to delegate responsibilities and grant functional authority, but in reality they are unwilling to do so.

There are other barriers to overcome in order to create a successful cross-national team. Team members need to trust one another, which in any setting is difficult to accomplish. But cross-culturally, trust itself is treated very differently. Whereas Mexicans find it difficult to trust someone they do not know well, in the U.S. being recognized or given credit for work performed is the basis for developing trust. At the same time, Americans find that the time needed by Mexicans to develop personal trust is too demanding and inefficient.

Another major difficulty lies in the logistics required to get the members of a cross-national team together. By definition, these teams are far apart, making communication among members problematic. In the early stages of team-building, members have to be with each other to develop their goals, their own working systems and their strategic planning, as well as to overcome the cultural challenges noted above.

This requires that resources be spent on running retreats and other meetings and on hiring experts to help in the process, until all team members adopt the new philosophy and feel totally comfortable with each other.

Obviously, this requires a financial commitment many companies are unwilling to make. But without that commitment, their teams are unlikely to coalesce and it’s back to “every man for himself.”

The post Pulling together: Cross national teamwork promises greater efficiency for doing business in Mexico appeared first on MexConnect.

Discrimination is an important moral concern for all of us.

In the business world, the issue of discrimination goes beyond moral grounds. Although businesses’ main concern is profits, discrimination is also bad for business and the economy. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a recent speech that discrimination is unprofitable: “To the extent that market participants discriminate—consciously or, more likely unconsciously—credit does not flow to its most profitable uses and distribution of output is distorted,” said Greenspan. “In the end, costs are higher, less real output is produced, and national wealth accumulation is slowed.” In other words, everybody is better off without discrimination. When I speak to clients about globalization, I tell them that the concept implies respect and non-discrimination. We can never have a truly global economy if there are people in the world kept from taking part.

Discrimination exists and is a reality in the world of international business. In fact, much of the opposition to the globalization process comes from groups of people who feel they are being excluded unfairly from the benefits of more dynamic international trade. One example of inefficient discrimination is the way companies that operate in Mexico recruit their professionals. The typical preference is for bilingual college graduates from a private university. The vast majority of Mexicans cannot dream of paying the tuition of a private university. Because students from private universities have a special advantage, this preference creates a de facto class/race discrimination. Firms also lose out by practicing this policy of exclusion. In many fields, the best professionals in Mexico have been trained in public universities, as is the case with engineers, doctors and architects.

Another typical discriminatory practice is ageism, probably the most widespread form of discrimination in Mexico. It is virtually impossible to get an interview with a firm or institution if you are over 35 years old. Placement agencies seem to hold true the old-fashioned myth that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” They seem to forget that old dogs often already know many of the tricks needed in order to be an efficient employee. What is worse, this age discrimination is often practiced in educational institutions, where one would hope higher moral values reign. One well-known university, for example, does not hire anyone over 35 as a permanent faculty member. An insider told me that the official reasoning behind this policy is that these applicants’ retirement pensions would not be sufficient to support a decent standard of living. That must be great comfort to the person not getting the job, but the practice also means that many highly qualified professors are not even considered. The university ends up offering a lower-quality education.

Greenspan is right. Discrimination is a drag on the economy and an obstacle to a successful globalized world. Management must learn to see this issue as crucial to their business, and not simply as a public image concern. Managers should evaluate their daily actions, their assumptions, and discover if they are unconsciously practicing discrimination. Doing this is not easy, as it requires a major shift in thinking. But we have no choice: It’s a business imperative.

The post Increasing equity in Mexico: Discrimination in the world of international business appeared first on MexConnect.

It is surprising how different norms on the proper greeting method in the business world affect people so strongly. This is especially true when we contrast U.S. and Mexican preferences. Some people will say “hi,” others will take a few seconds and exchange polite talk, such as, “How are you doing today? How is you family?” Some insist on shaking hands, others prefer to greet quickly.

What is a proper way of greeting? From a pragmatic view (which prevails in the U.S.) greetings should be courteous and quick—the work environment is about work, and greeting is a social act that should be minimized in terms of time. A quick “hello” is more than enough in most cases, and when you run into many people every day, greeting everyone is neither necessary nor preferred.

When dealing with U.S./Mexican business interactions, this philosophy just doesn’t work. Mexicans often find it extremely distasteful when U.S. executives show up in Mexico, greet the one or two persons they came to see, and “ignore” everyone else. Furthermore, even the usual quick “hello” common in the U.S. is interpreted in Mexico as insufficient. As anyone living in Mexico knows, greetings here are much more formal and require more time. You should stop, shake hands, and exchange a couple of polite inquiries at the very least. But many executives who are spending only one or two working days in Mexico have very limited time on their hands and find this social requirement to be unrealistic and too demanding.

“Sorry, I know they [Mexicans] don’t like it, but I just don’t have the time,” says a U.S. executive with whom I have worked for a number of years. “If they had the tight schedule I have, they wouldn’t spend so much time greeting people either!” This view is pragmatic and reasonable, right? So what if people don’t like the way you greet them, the important thing is that you get your job done. And why should people be so sensitive about something that is not that important?

Well, what is unimportant to one person is vital to another, and when it comes to greetings, different cultural traditions place a different degree of importance on proper greetings. In Mexico, greeting is extremely important, and no matter how much you would like them to understand that you don’t have the time, you will always get strong negative reactions if you don’t take the time to greet properly.

Why? One of the reasons is that in a culture in which conflicts and anger are communicated indirectly, non-verbal cues are observed and interpreted. For example, if someone walks into the office in Mexico and does not greet everyone well, other people will “interpret” this behavior as meaning one or various of the following possible things: (a) the person is angry, (b) the person is depressed, (c) something happened in the family, (d) something nasty is about to happen.

If the reason for not spending time greeting people is based on a time-conservation concern, the result will be exactly the opposite. In saving a couple of minutes, you have started off on the wrong foot and created a tense work environment. This will make dealings in the future rockier, which in the end will waste time.

Not greeting properly is simply a violation of cultural norms, and one that will not go unnoticed in Mexico. You may think you are saving time by skipping this “formality,” but you have inadvertently damaged a business relationship. Taking the time to greet properly will save you time and certainly a lot of aggravation.

The post When in Rome… Mexican greeting practices in the business world appeared first on MexConnect.

I have argued before that discrimination in the workplace is not only ethically wrong, but inefficient for the organization, since great candidates are often not considered for hiring. More specifically, companies lose out in the area of innovation when they do not have a diverse workforce.

There is considerable evidence that companies with a diverse workforce are more innovative than those with a homogenous one. A diverse workforce could mean anything from variety in races and social/cultural backgrounds to variety in ideologies and work styles. It makes sense that such an employee-makeup would be beneficial: If you have people who offer different points of view, you are more likely to find “new ways” of doing things.

So why are so many firms not diverse, especially in Mexico? The reason is partly based on conscious or unconscious discrimination, but perhaps more importantly, it can be explained by the mind-set of most managers when they are hiring. Typically, managers prefer to hire people who can “fit” into the organization, i.e., can easily be molded into accepting the existing organizational culture.

Formal procedures further ensure that people hired will fit the style and preferences of the company. This is usually done through psychological tests—wrongly assumed to be universal in their validity and usefulness—which measure such traits as “ability to think on your feet.” While appearing to be objective, looking for this personality trait produces a cultural form of discrimination. For example, it is much more likely that someone raised with the values of mainstream U.S. culture will be able to “think on their feet” better than someone raised with the values of Asian cultures.

According to Dr. Adrian Chan, professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and an expert on Asian-American issues, it is difficult for most Asians to “think on their feet” because their culture places more emphasis on perfectionism.

“Asians prefer to be very prepared, rather than make things up,” he tells me. But often U.S. companies reward people who can quickly offer ideas, even if not fully developed, and since many Asians feel uncomfortable doing this, they are often considered lacking managerial skills.

Of course, any company would benefit greatly from having both people who can think on their feet as well as people who aspire to be perfectionists. The two combined create a truly superior synergy.

Another typical trait sought by companies is the ability to take the initiative. Yet this ability is often shaped by cultural considerations, including the implicit rules of when it is or is not appropriate to show initiative. For example, Mexico is a role-driven culture, which means that your behavior is shaped by the role you are given in the organization, rather than by intrinsic psychological traits of the person.

Whereas in the U.S. having initiative is supposed to be demonstrated before you are placed in a leadership position, in Mexico the role you’re given will determine whether or not you show “initiative.”. Thus, when Mexicans are in the role of students they rarely challenge teachers (i.e., don’t show initiative), yet the same person when in the position of a teacher easily assumes initiative and takes command of his/her class.

In both cases, what the company assumes are universal psychological traits are actually behavioral norms that vary from culture to culture. By employing these types of procedures for selecting employees, managers end up generating a uniform, rather than a diverse, workforce.

It should be pointed out that many managers still fear having to deal with diversity. “It can be chaotic,” a friend of mine who holds a high position in a company told me. “If we allow diversity to be all over the place, how can we communicate?” This a valid concern, for certainly we want an organization in which communication is effective.

The answer lies in serious training for managers, so that they develop the skills to deal with different kinds of people. And the challenge for the organization is to create an organizational culture that incorporates “diversity” as one of its core values. While the process can be painful, the rewards down the road are worth it. It could mean the difference between being an innovative, forward-looking company, able to contend in today’s fast-changing environment, and just another always-one-step behind organization.

The post Weirdos welcome: A Mexico workforce that encompasses a variety of cultures, work styles and ideas appeared first on MexConnect.