Socometal: Rewarding African Workers

M11HRM

(Human Resource Management)

NAME: Senapathy Kumar

STUDENT ID: 3008326

COURSE: MBA General Management

MODULE TUTOR:

Terrence Wendell Brathwaite

1

INTRODUCTION:

The case study of the cross-cultural organization

The cultural differences had often been neglected in financial aspects of management.

Which caused communication problems and relational differences between

multicultural team members of the organization resulting in the absence of unionism

as a whole.

Multiculturalism or cross cultural organization generally used to signify plurality, or

diversity of cultures, or different ethics, here it relates to the attitudes and behavior of

organization practices—by which individuals, teams, and political institutions use

culture to stop or decrease the level of management in cultural differences.

Multiculturalism approach is unwilling to address the cultural differences in order to

serve geopolitical or economic ends. This attitude favors the dominant culture and

managerial model, and its characteristic of imperialist logic used in mostly the

western countries.

The problem associated with cross-culture comes from pre-existing attitudes about

relations between Africa and the West. This is a deeply rooted relationship with

perceptions distorted by historical background. French has the dominant partner

overemphasizes its own culture, ideals and conceptions of the world.

When this multiculturalism is applied to business development, the resulting tendency

is to impose this cultural determination upon the party that is considered inferior. It is

when the African culture accepts this status of inferiority that this characteristic of

multiculturalism becomes embedded in the relationship creating a vicious cycle of

misunderstanding.

At the work team level, multiculturalism causes relations between team members to

be characterized by indifference toward the values and perspectives of fellow team

members, and also by the inability of members to participate in spontaneous

interactions of the workflow.

SOCOMETAL organization orientation

Which is the metal container manufacturing company, its an multinational plant

which is a joint venture 52% owned by the French parent company and 48% owned

by the Senegalese. The company has a annual returns about $144 millions, more over

It has set up a role model in Africanisation of management policies.

The most of the mangers are from France. Diope, who is the assistant chief engineer,

went up with the agreement with N’Diaye who is from the native tribe he is not even

person belong to the company, the contract was to increase in 30% of the daily

production in exchange of two hours pay. The contract was implied without the

confirmation of the French authorities. The production level was very high in history

of the organization, later when MR. Bernard who is the chief production engineer

from France came to know about the payment made to the workers as he thought it

was a double pay, he was not satisfied to let the contract to move on, as it was not to

the work regulations of the company, so he need to put an stop to the new contract. As

we move to the behavior aspects of the organization here mainly depends upon the

cross-cultural management

CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT IN SOCOMETAL

The events take place in Socometal, a mixed Franco-Senegalese company located in

Dakar, with a employees composed of French and Senegalese managers.

The facts described in this case concerning the relationship between Diop a

Senegalese and Bernard is from France. The relations in this case are not uniquely

stating to Senegal or Africa but are generally based on what we previously defined as

the problem of multiculturalism as a whole.

In Africa, the people behave according to the rules of what is called a Circulatory

Management Model, that we refer to as the major organizing principle of African

societies - where goods, people, energy, work force, services and data have to

circulate, to be shared between individuals and communities. It is a primary model of

the social government characterized by vision of combining and coordinating diverse

elements into a whole all human actions, and thus a model in which the company has

legitimacy only when understood in its social context.

3

AFRICAN AND WESTERN APPROACHES:

The expatriates or the Senegalese employee did not take the differences between

African and Western approaches in production relations into account. Though

everyone perceived the new order as a common challenge, no shared vision emerged

on how to meet the deadline. When Mr. Bernard said, “it will take a miracle,” he

revealed his ignorance of African societies, their specific time investment priorities,

the ability of their members to change dramatically when problems arise and, finally,

the available conditions for collective mobilization. While members of the managing

team had worked together for a long time, the methods normally practiced did not

authorize any of its members to look for new ideas from outside of the management

circle. The fact that there was no real acknowledgement of their different cultural

characteristics, as well as the ignorance of their respective conceptions of team

management, did not allow the Socometal managers to identify ways in which to

mobilize the workers in the face of the challenge presented.

N’Diaye’s problem-solving approach found widespread support in part because of his

demand for a pay raise for everybody, which addressed the problem of low worker

salaries. However, in order to convince Diop and the foremen, he essentially utilized

several principles of the circulatory model, and chiefly the reciprocity of rights and

duties. In turn, the foremen used the corresponding rules of sociability to push their

colleagues to increase their normal work rhythm. In fact, the wage demands alone

would not have brought about the collective mobilization of all the Socometal

workers.

THE PAY FACTOR:

The bonuses offered to the workers in an effort to increase daily production were not

suitable. In this case, the bonus was an incentive for greater individual work

development; regardless of the fact that the chief engineer Mr. Bernard diametrically

opposed this practice to the central rules of the circulatory model.

From the employers point of view pay is the powerful tool for furthering the

organization strategic goals, it has a large impact on employee attitude and the

behaviors, and it influences the employee’s attribute to work with the interest of a

broader organization

Employees as a resource:

The organization has to compete in the labor market that they should consider their

employees not just as cost but as the source in which the organization has invested

and from which it expects valuable returns, although controlling cost directly affects

an organization ability to compete in the market, the organization pay policies and

programs are one of the most important human resource tools for encouraging desired

employee behaviors and discouraging undesired behaviors.

Deciding the pay:

Although organization face important external labor and product market pressures in

setting their pay levels, a range of discretion remains .the positive aspect of paying

above the market average is the ability to attract and to retain the top experienced

available this inurn make the company to elongate its productive medium the negative

aspect is the added cost

Globalization of pay structures:

The market pay structure can differ substantially across countries both in terms of

their level and in terms of the relative worth of jobs. Typically expatriate pay and

benefits continue to be linked more closely to the home country

N’Diaye succeeded because his approach was in keeping with the values and rules of

sociability at the very center of this model. The solution he presented Diop and the

foremen aimed both at the success of their common business goals and a monetary

benefit for all involved. Several principles and rules of the circulatory model, such as

mutual aid, are economically and socially useful or necessary for the survival of their

members. Thus, imported models can create ambiguity and tensions between bosses

and local workers, obstacles to teamwork and consequently costly malfunctions for

local society and companies.

Socometal’s results of high levels of production and a successful collective

mobilization shows that the circulatory model is not opposed to a company’s income

and production demands. N’Diaye explained that several of these sociability

principles act as powerful and effective levers which managers could pull more often

in order to integrate differences and to transform them into positive forces for their

companies. .

5

Mr. Bernard epitomizes this image and it is further reinforced in the interviews by the

words and behavior of the majority of expatriates towards the local personnel. Their

behavior refers, on one hand, to the history of colonial relations between France and

Senegal, and on the other, to that of the French run company for which they work.

The expatriates did not think Diop capable of replacing Bernard as the head of

production. Mr. Bernard in turn clearly expressed this by his attitude.

Most of the Senegalese workers we observed were very confused by the actions of the

expatriates. Misunderstanding the culture, management developed by Mr. Bernard,

along with the attitudes and behavior of most of his colleagues, relied on this

fascination and intimidation.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT:

SOCOMETAL is profitable company, which even though not strong enough in

managerial as well as employee management. This is due to the various factors that a

organization has to cope up with the environmental factors that is which a two main

techniques has been developed to initiate that we could address the negative aspects of

the organization through these strategic planning process and its very vital play role

for every organization to adopt these process.

HYPOTHESIS A

FRENCH MANAGEMENT:

The Most senior management persons of the French companies were educated at the

Grandes Ecoles, which is one of the elite schools of France. These colleges put a

highly intellectual skill in their students, which is rarely matched elsewhere in the

world. This in turn highly educated management people and with an unusual degree

of academic precision.

Thus an organization has a intellectual task to be over whelmed and in terms of

detailed analysis, the complete mastery of complex concepts and the data of the

eventual application of rational outcomes, More pragmatic issues of intakes,

motivating staff etc are not as prominent in French management thinking. Decisions,

once taken at senior levels management, will be let down to the Chain of lower

management for processing. This especially are from a consensus can see approach

oriented, non-hierarchical background, as being more concise in lacking team

building.

http://www.worldbusinessculture.com/French-Management

French Business Structures:

Senior management, therefore, tends towards the directive, rather than the

collaborative.

Cultural Compatibility:

French companies tend towards rigid formulae and functionality within system the .

The PDG determines in a singular way the future direction of the company. This

vision is put forth in the line for implementation by more junior management. Senior

management, level plays the direct role instead of being collaborative

The power often handled by the CEO motivated to a centralist approach, which is

already seen in many other aspects of French life. Below the PDG will be found a

strict hierarchy of managers, organized along rigidly functional lines of responsibility.

The weaknesses of the System may only become apparent when problems arise and

quick responses are called. Lets we see the Japanese way of management and

compare the key factors that directed its organization.

http://www.worldbusinessculture.com/French-Management

HYPOTHESIS B

JAPANESE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:

Japan is the country where cooperation, networks and cartels exist since more than a

century. The history of Japanese economy might give new ideas for the use of

networks even in the Western world. The reconstruction of the economy after WW2,

7

different forms of association or cooperation (among firms in the same industries,

across industries, between public corporations, private companies and state agencies,

etc.) shape and define the basic characteristics of Japanese market structure and

corporate enterprise.

Companies can form alliances in order to acquire cheaper or better input materials,

capital, to make cheaper or better output and in order to increase or protect their

market share. All these forms are common practice in Japanese economy

Based on the logic detailed above, I have tried to find 2 hypothesis which can help to

describe the Japanese management past and maybe the future. The past is evidently

easier but it should explain somehow the last 20 years of crisis as well.

The Japanese model of management is very consistent and homogenous. The core of

it is the 4 “treasures”, as most of the experts affirm: the life-long employment, the

seniority based compensation, the long promotions and the corporate level unions.

After the war Americans came to care about quality management on the island, which

reinforced consequently the competitiveness of Japanese products on the world

market.

In Japan, specific cooperation practices exist which can be applied to companies of

other nations or countries as well. There are even examples where competitors

realized cooperation in their competitive market. Long term perspective in corporate

governance and management makes the nation one of the champions in networks and

cooperation

In the last several years theirs lot of emergence of the Japanese product in

automobiles, And various consumer electronic goods which are competing more than

the any other part of the world, when the western managers looked over the Japanese

style of management as a role model for the their increase in production and rapid

economic growth.

The more Executives and scholars try to under stand the basis of Japanese approach

to human recourse management is different from the rest of the world, the

management system requires a high motivation of the employees and commitment by

them to the firm. These include a unique system of approach by the organization in

the field of human resource management such as

>Slow promotion

>Frequent transfer of employees

>Heavy training

>Support and cooperation at all levels

>Decision-making from the lower level

Management Implementation:

Japanese management system are based on three principles

GIVING IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION FLOWS

“BOTTOM UP” DECISION-MAKING

THE DIVISION MANAGERIAL LABOR-LOWER LEVEL MANAGERS

IMPLEMENT, WHILE THE MIDDLE MANAGERS SUPPORT THE

SUBORDINATES, TOP MANAGERS DEAL WITH THE OUTSIDE GROUP

The companies’ process is to circulate the vast amount of information at all times.

Intimation regarding various key factors are sent to all levels regarding the

competitors is constantly circulated to the lowest level of the employee networks, this

inurn creates a great space for the managers to get involved in their wok flow as well

as it genres the rate of creativity and enhances the team work, and make sue all part of

the organization to run in smooth condition, this is the place were the French

management lacks in organization behavior .if N’DIAYE asked the confirmation with

higher officials regarding the overtime in absence of MR. Bernard, so that employees

wouldn’t have faced to have a long run in the production level

“BOTTOM –UP” decision making process involves many management to diversify

in their decision-making that is even the lowest level of the employee holds the

suggestions and approvals to the committee. This is as we see is reverse in French

system of management But in Japanese system getting quick decision approval takes

long time but once implemented on the time of approval this is reverse in France

system where the decision are quickly made but take along time to implement, since

those who implement them must fully briefed on the plan and persuaded that it is a

good idea.

9

The final aspect of the organization is division of the labor between management

levels, implementation and development of plans is left to the lower level managers

who are not responsible for he evaluation or developing the their immediate section

staffs. Middle

Managers are the persons involve solely concerned with the review of the

implementation and plans by their the subordinates and in the development of all their

subordinates for several levels down.

Top managerial system is the review decision by he lower levels and is not the

directly concerned with the company operations. This pattern of delegation tends to

encourage decision to the lowers level consistent with available information and

knowledge. This pattern s opted quite indifferently in French management system.

The success of these systems depends upon the human key resource policies,

selection, training and placement, training, and placement of lower level personnel is

essential to bottom up decision-making. Slow promotion, employment security, and

lengthy training are required to allow

COMPARING THE HYPOTHESIS A&B:

CONCLUSION:

1.There should be differences between cultures and organizational models, which

pose a problem in multiculturalism

2. Ability of the managers must create and develop management systems that scope

the view of managerial skills and which should integrates cultural aspects

3. ‘Team spirit’ in the diverse needs more time than a group composed of people

reared in a single national culture, who are trained in the same schools or who share

the experience of a single managerial system. If this team spirit is not formed, the time

used for information exchanges, decision-making and implementation is greater.

Without these conditions, manager leads to his loss of credibility and the ability to

mobilize all the team members

4.The organization members must be given time to express their view of knowledge

just like a feed back of the overall vision. However the manager must not compromise

on operational deadlines nor the quality norms decided upon with the multicultural

team members.

RECOMMENDATION:

Giving importance of information flows

“ BOTTOM UP” decision-making

The division managerial and labor-lower level managers implement, WHILE the

middle managers SUPPORT THE subordinates, top managers deal WITH THE

outside groups

The management philosophy should aim for the material and spiritual fulfillment of

all employees, to serve mankind, to be united family, and to expect employee

commitment to meet the organization needs.

REFERENCE:

11

1.DONALD CURRIE (2006) 1edn.INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT.LONDON: CIPD

2.NELARINE CONILUS (2001) 2edn.HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.UK:

THOMSON

3.HOLLEN BECK.GERHART.WRIGHT (2006) 5edn.HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT.NEWYORK: MC GRAW-HILL IRWIN

4.MICHEAL BEER.BERT SPECTOR (1985) 1edn.READING IN HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.NEWYORK: MC MILLAN.INC

5.MARK E.MENDENHALL.GARRY R.ODDU.GUNTER K.STAHL (2007)

4edn.READING AND CASES IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT.NEWYORK.ROUTLEDGE

6.S.HARPER (1987) PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

HANDBOOK.ENGLAND.GOWER PUBLISHING

7. (n.d) WORLD BUSINESS CULTURE [ONLINE] AVAILABLE FROM

http://www.worldbusinessculture.com/french-management[7april2010]