Individual and Organizational Enablers and Barriers of ‘group mindset’ Enactment and Development

enablers may have the ability to detract from engagement in negative behaviors rather than to activate supporting behaviors; e.g. the ability of language competence may prevent a manager from detracting from

‘group mindset’ development and realization, i.e. avoid going ‘below zero’, while active solicitation of different opinion and advice from international colleagues may add to global mindset development and realization, i.e. enable going ‘above zero’ – i.e. in a Herzbergian terminology, which factors are hygiene factors and which are motivators.

6.3 Individual and Organizational Enablers and Barriers of ‘group mindset’ Enactment and Development

The force field analysis-inspired (Lewin, 1951) overview of driving and restraining forces of development and enactment of ‘group mindset’, highlights both positive and negative forces as experienced by Solar middle managers. In the following, this force field of positive and negative forces is broken down into individual and organizational enablers (cf. research questions sub-questions) to spell out concrete microfoundations of the management practice as performed by the individual manager, as well as what factors in the organizational environment at the discretion of corporate functions/top management that middle managers’ see as ‘group mindset’ drivers. Some enablers have been specifically mentioned or suggested by Solar field members during interviews or participant observation, others are the author’s suggestions and exemplifications derived from the barriers and enablers put forth by respondents and discussed with internal member check fora:

183

6.3.1 Individual Enablers of ‘group mindset competence’ in Solar

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, individual enablers are understood as actions or behaviors that are within the sphere of influence for the individual manager, i.e. which are at the individual’s discretion and can be influenced in the short run or medium term. Individual enablers of ‘group mindset’ competence seen in a Solar middle managers perspective include:

1. English skills/willingness to learn English.

2. Tactical middle management ability and willingness to be translators and boundary brokers vis-a-vis local operational middle managers.

3. Role modelling and supporting employee mobility (receiving as well as sending employees); e.g.

short-term assignments, projects and internal recruitments.

4. Formation of and participation in competence communities as avenues for knowledge sharing on demand and voluntary best practice proliferation.

5. Participation in group level strategic decision-making processes and projects to ‘get real’ and in touch with a ‘group perspective.’

6. Prioritization of participation in international activities and meetings contributing to high quality of interaction by being well-prepared.

7. Proactive international meeting management in order to optimize time spent together and value created.

8. Inclusion of ‘group mindset’ measures in local key performance indicators and individual performance objectives.

9. Countering local monopolization of ‘group mindset’ = localization.

10. Socialization of newcomers (managerial and non-managerial employees) into ‘group mindset’

thinking.

6.3.2 Organizational Drivers of ‘group mindset capability’ in Solar

The individual enablers of group mindset-competence are supplemented by organizational enablers, i.e.

governance structures, systems and group-wide practices that middle managers deem to be drivers of ‘group mindset’ enactment and development. Organizational enablers understood as organizational mechanisms at HQ discretion that may promote capacity for developing and enacting ‘group mindset’ in managerial practice seen in a Solarian middle manager perspective, include:

184

1. Modular business model- governance philosophy (key markets/challengers/’sunshine companies’).

2. Middle manager inclusion into strategic decision-making processes.

3. Corporate communication and group news in local languages (offline and online).

4. Provision of language training.

5. International introduction program and cross-organizational training & development.

6. Facilitation of cross-function and cross-country knowledge sharing fora.

7. Countering corporate monopolization of ‘group mindset’ = standardization.

8. Communicating the group and local ‘group mindset’ business case and success stories.

9. Including ‘group mindset’ behavior into the performance management structure (quarterly reviews as well as performance appraisals).

10. Frequent top management and HQ-staff field trips/study tours to ‘get real’ and in touch with local reality.

The Solar middle manager perspective on individual and organizational enablers, summarized in the 20 points above, is of course tied to the context of the strategic choices, market position and financial standing of Solar. In Chapter 3, a conceptual analysis, based on extant literature on global mindset, was presented positioning global mindset as a global leadership meta-competence of individual managers, as well as an organizational capability linked to global strategy execution. The strategic global mindset capability model was presented as a conceptualization of a theoretical understanding of global mindset as both

meta-competence and organizational capability and a conceptual summation of the researcher’s pre-understanding of global mindset, including a catalog of global mindset enablers at both the individual and organizational level derived from extant literature. If one views the individual and organizational enablers resulting from the ‘group mindset’-analysis presented in this chapter in comparison with the theoretical framework and pre-understanding of strategic global mindset, there are both cases of resonance and dissonance.

First and foremost, the consequences of ‘globality’ in Solar are felt primarily as strategic complexity and cross-organizational boundary-spanning in pursuit of ‘both-and’ – not as handling intercultural personnel management and motivation across borders, which is the typical focal point in the literature on global leadership and global mindset. Few Solar managers are exposed to intercultural collaboration in their everyday job as they do not have managerial responsibilities for subordinates with another cultural background in their own geographical locations, through a matrix structure or local staff composition

185

characterized by a high degree of diversity. This means that many of the organizational enablers for developing global mindset are not available to Solar foster ‘group mindset’: The use of global career paths, talent pipelines and local employee diversity, short term assignments and expatriation are impaired by language barriers and the highly diverse nature of Solarian markets. So even if a higher degree of internal employee mobility was present in Solar, the opportunity to activate these inroads would be a solution available to a minority only - and probably only - within a limited geographical area in the short run and medium term. As a consequence, the Solar experience highlights the importance of creation of other types of fora international exposure and experience such as cross-organizational communities of practice, or through the communication of shared success and knowledge of ‘the other’ to allow Solarians to participate in an imagined community from a distance. I this respect, the use of bridge-building technologies is also present as an important enabler, although in Solar only a small group of managers and employees participate in

permanent virtual teams requiring remote management.

Another common denominator between the ‘group mindset’ experience in Solar and the theoretical

recommendations for development of global mindset is the accentuation of positive, global experience that has yielded results as an enabler. Although ‘global experience’ in Solar does not stem from expatriation or short-term assignments as usually assumed in extant literature, but more likely from field trips to other markets, participation in cross-organizational temporary project groups, HQ visits or group training activities the importance of not only exposure, but also a positive experience of participating in such activities are pointed to as key: The experience that international interaction is worthwhile and benefits both the individual and the business is key to development and enactment of ‘group mindset’ in Solar. This is connected to another common denominator between the conceptual analysis of global mindset and empirical analysis of

‘group mindset’, namely the importance of performance management in supporting of inhibiting ‘group mindset’. In Solar, middle managers both point to performance structures as a detractor in that too narrow focus on local results is a barrier for engaging internationally; at the same time designing the performance system so as to put a premium on cross-organizational performance is called for.

The pertinence of foreign language proficiency comes across in both the conceptual and empirical analysis as does the importance of a common language. With regards to common language it stands out from the Solar experience that corporate values are not mentioned as a source of common language; instead field members point to the shared business purpose of pursuing gross margin, the existence of common processes and technological infrastructure terminology as well as the use of a common leadership toolkit as sources of common language. That shared values are not present in the study can be seen in connection with the fact that Solar corporate values have not been implemented as a coordination mechanism in Solar (cf. Chapter 5 on Solar corporate values; Interviews 3, 21). Further, Solar has grown and internationalized by acquisition:

Solar has bought and sold some 80 companies since the late 1980s averaging three to four companies a year -

186

being on the move constantly in a state of flux instead of slow, organic growth with ample time to socializing and learning slowly as the business grows locally. Building an organizational culture homogeneous enough to work as a coordination mechanism or social architecture, lowering the transaction costs of

cross-organization interaction under those circumstances, may be very difficult and resource consuming (not to mention that the demands of the market may change completely while this process takes place). And so, seeing corporate culture as a glue technology synthesizing local and global in multinational corporations into

‘a third way’ uniting a multitude of diversities, may be more of an option for companies working in relatively stable markets or structures?

Finally, the analysis of individual and organizational enablers of the development and enactment of global mindset operationalized as Solar ‘group mindset’ stands out from the conceptual analysis of global mindset, presented earlier, in that the Solar case stresses a somewhat overlooked part of global mindset, namely appreciation of the local. Due to the characteristics of the wholesale industry with a local front-end and global back-end combined with a strategic choice of Solar to occupy a middle position in the market as well as an internationalization strategy, based on acquisitions in emerging markets in the nearest geographical zone of development characterized by a higher degree of fragmentation, a lower degree of market

sophistication and complexity of consumer demand than key markets, appreciation of the local is not only a reminiscent of domestic, home country mindset or an expression of ethnocentrism, but rather a characteristic that is important for developing a profitable business. As such, the Solar case emphasizes that global mindset is not only cosmopolitanism and intercultural skill for handling international interaction, it is also an

appreciation for the local as an end in itself, not as a sign of immaturity. A monopolization of global mindset by corporate functions, if not top management, as synonymous with (more) harmonization, synthesis and integration is in as much danger of suboptimization as is a too narrow, local interpretation. That ‘reverse suboptimization’ is a detractor of global mindset as well as appreciation for the local can be an enabler, is not a rationale present in extant literature. This in turn emphasizes the strategic nature of global mindset in that the degree to which local should be emphasized, seen from a performance perspective, hinges on market context and business strategy.

187