Banter Without Borders

Cupcakes and Cashmere: Stalking Cultural Preferences

Whether it’s cupcakes in Doha or sushi in Warsaw, following cultural trends and ever-evolving cultural preferences will forever be one of my favorite pastimes.  Such inclinations are of interest as reflections of their surroundings, economic and otherwise. Although not ‘big ticket’ items, the sudden appearance of cupcakes in the Middle East, sushi in Eastern Europe and fine chocolates in China are new tokens of luxury in select burgeoning economies and segments thereof.  What is of greater significance to me, though, is what has happened to the luxury market in Japan, and how this has affected both consumer thinking and its cultural manifestations.

 Much has been written about changing consumer spending habits in Japan (see Carrefour post below), as the country’s collective belt has been tightening for a considerable period of time.  The early proliferation of ¥100 stores in the post-bubble 1990s was perhaps an early indicator of an emerging trend in shopping, which until then had generally eschewed bargain hunting as a cultural sport.  Now, such shops with names like Seria, Watts and Don Quixote are as ubiquitous in Tokyo as tea vendors, and cheap chic is now not only acceptable, it’s downright trendy.  The country’s ailing luxury sector, meanwhile, has been steadily eroding, evidenced by plummeting department store sales, and punctuated by Versace’s complete withdrawal from the Japan market last week.

This is all music to the ears of companies like Fast Retailing (of Uniqlo fame), H & M, and Forever 21.  They, like many others, have been ‘recession ready,’ and are now all battling for supremacy on Japan’s legendary fashion battleground, with jeans at $10.00 and cashmere sweaters of decent quality at eye-popping prices. For even as the country’s luxury market suffers, and one can conjure up a picture of austerity and restraint in a culture known for embracing stability and resisting change, Japan is at the same time one of the most cutting edge trend-driven places on earth. Thus, its new economic realities have simply presented new challenges for its trendmeisters, whether in food, fashion or tech devices and beyond.

As buying on the cheap continues to evolve from ‘hazukashii’ (embarrassing) to virtuous and even cool, it will be exciting to monitor the manifestations of this cultural trend in Japan, along with others across the globe. Now if only flying to foreign cultures were as inexpensive as those Uniqlo jeans………

The Death of the Brand Manger

In the October 12, 2009 edition of Advertising Age, Jack Neff posted a column entitled "Why It's Time to Do Away with the Brand Manager." http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=139593. I was shocked...yes, shocked! How could this be? Having grown up in the golden age of "brand management," it was universally accepted that a centralized manager was needed to oversee all aspects of the brand including: a point of consensus, how initiatives were executed and overall accountability. This was the central core of consumer marketing; the hub of the wheel, if you will.

Through all this, the "gold standard" in brand management was and has been Procter & Gamble. Impervious to change over the decades, P&G has been the stalwart of maintaining the status quo, at least in the concept of brand management and its function. And so how does Neff's opening sentence begin? "Managing a brand has always been a slightly odd concept, given that consumers are the real arbiters of brand meaning, and it's become increasingly outmoded in today's two-way world." What? What is a two-way world? What does P&G think of this, or Unilever or other global marketers? Well, as it turns out, they're embracing it...yes really. They're embracing the new concept of "brand advocate" as opposed to the historical concept of "brand manager". So what does this mean? Have I been wrong all my working life, or at least most of it? The answer is "no," but going forward it's "yes," I guess. What's changed?

What's changed is "Digital." In a report issued by Forrester Research entitled:  "Adaptive Brand Marketing: Rethinking Your Approach to Branding in the Digital Age," Forrester suggests... strongly suggests...that the brand manager of today will need to become much more consumer-centric, more nimble and more real-time focused. Digital now has allowed marketers to get to the "Holy Grail"...one-on-one marketing and an opportunity to create a direct dialogue with the consumer. And, that requires different skill sets and a different marketing organization set-up.

From the perspective of the global marketing director, (i.e., the super brand manager), this presents a paradox...more interaction with the consumer in local markets and rapid adaptation of local marketing initiatives by local marketing teams to better adapt to the consumer's needs. Rapid-fire analysis and immediate execution becomes the norm. But, this will have to be balanced with the need to control global brand equity and strategy. Global team building will take on new dimensions and the communications process between the global marketing director and team members will need to be streamlined; think virtual communication. Welcome to the digital world, and congratulations, you are no longer a brand manager; you're now a brand advocate.

Cross Cultural Communication: Global English...Say what?

On a recent cruise throughout Greece and Turkey, I was surprised to find that the entire crew, from various parts of the world, used some form of English to a greater or lesser degree. Many of them had learned English in school, while others had taken classes before finding employment with the ship. All of the employees had varying levels of English. While I found it easy to communicate with them, my untrained traveling companions did not. This led me to ponder the use of English as an International Language (EIL) - a burgeoning field brought on by what I would say is the accelerated globalization of the 21st century.

At the corporate level, EIL is necessary for globalization and outsourcing. Countries like India and China are increasing their use of "global English" in order to do business - a tempting offer for many Fortune 500 companies. The concern here is whether or not companies stateside understand the importance of EIL and the difference between it and their version of American English. To be sure, global English is not American, Canadian, Australian or even British English; it is a hybrid all its own. As transnational companies move into China, Africa and South America, the demand for English speaking skills is on the rise for non-native speakers, and they are learning as fast as they can. For our part, the key is to be aware of native speakers' use of idioms and the speed at which they speak; otherwise it is not conducive to successful ventures or well-formed intercultural relations.

Over the years, I have often been called upon to assist with pronunciation and English acquisition for non-native speaking employees at various corporations. In one instance, I distributed a twenty page handout of common business idioms in a feeble attempt to help these employees "get up to speed". In another case, most of the employees had been with the company for 25 years, and still their American coworkers claimed that they couldn't understand them. In the past, that would do because that was the norm.

Have you ever noticed, though, that it seems easier for German and Chinese coworkers to speak English together and to understand one another than it is for them to understand their American or British counterpart? Native speakers tend to use slang and reductions in speech because they are comfortable in their environment, and they "have the home court advantage". Comparatively, non-native speakers use much more ‘bookish' or formal language. Consider the amount of acronyms, abbreviations and idioms used in the office on a daily basis. They are all within a cultural context that is understood by most Americans, but completely foreign to international employees. For example: They "get a project off the ground." They don't call each other to discuss progress, they "touch base." Later, if the project is not going well, they don't end it, they "pull the plug." Such colloquialisms cause no end of confusion for multinational employees who are not well versed in that particular jargon.

It is time for native speakers to consider the idioms and slang they use and return to a more standard grammar, at least when interacting with non-native associates. If native speakers would only take the time to speak simply and directly, a lot of miscommunication could be avoided between native and non-native coworkers. This may sound inconvenient at first, but second language speakers moderate their speech and code switch without thinking. I believe this, too, will be the norm once a little attention is paid to how employees speak in certain situations.

Raising the awareness of native speakers can be a difficult problem. Native speakers tend to feel that if a person speaks their language, they automatically understand the native speaker's culture and expectations. This is sometimes referred to as "linguistic imperialism," and it can have very negative effects on meaningful communication between two speakers of English who come from different cultural backgrounds. This is not to validate imperialist notions that English is the better language. On the contrary, it is a call to be more aware of how we use English in conducting business and how it can make or break a deal, a global team, or successful negotiations.

I believe that spending money on ESL classes for employees is money well-spent. Spending money on native speaker sensitization is better spent. It will cut your bottom line, save money, guarantee a better ROI and, quite possibly, happier employees.

To read more on this topic visit:
Better Business English - A Proposal, by Kenneth Beare
http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa101899.htm

Kraft and Cadbury: Cultural Meltdown or Company Showdown?

Reading all the recent banter about Kraft and Cadbury not only unleashes my undying sweet tooth, it also gets my cultural molecules spinning. This potential acquisition, written about almost daily in the past few weeks, involves far more than simply the wisdom of connecting two companies. For one thing, on a personal level, it arouses passionate debate by virtue of its connection to chocolate, that addicting and magical substance which has captivated us for centuries. Taste, so much a part of our emotional and cultural DNA profile, is significantly shaped by our surroundings, as any global marketing team will attest. Nations do, in fact, have their own very distinct chocolate preferences, some of them surprising.  Judging from all the ruminations on the hugely nostalgic powers of Cadbury, and the attendant bashing of Hershey's, the brand Cadbury aficionados love to hate, the U.S. and U.K., never mind Kraft and Cadbury, could probably go to battle on this culturally sensitive matter alone.

Indeed, cultural preferences are at stake here, but so are corporate culture differences. How ironic, then, that Cadbury is now headed by Todd Stitzer, a "preppy New York lawyer,"* in the words of a Financial Times writer. Nevertheless, its company culture continues to run deep, and like so many organizations who entered early in the chocolate industry -- Fry's, Rowntree, and Hershey's as prominent examples -- its roots were philanthropic, perhaps further feeding into the nostalgia factor. Kraft, meanwhile, whose "tanks rolled on to Cadbury's well-tended Bournville lawns,"* is viewed as the U.S. behemoth ready to devour Cadbury's, despite recent rebranding efforts and cries to the contrary. There is a bright spot, though, and again, an ironic twist. Under Stitzer's reign, with one of the company's factories in Keynsham, England, about to shut down and move to Poland, and with Kraft promising to keep it open if the acquisition materializes, there are some in the U.K. now hoping the "white knight" from across the pond will in fact prevail.*

With rumors swirling about almost daily as to new tactics, potential suitors and sweeter offers, this emotionally and culturally infused topic will be one to watch closely -- perhaps with some "neutral" Swiss chocolate in hand.

*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125245727048594365.html

*http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/756b0108-a752-11de-9467-00144feabdc0.html

*http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2554c0f2-a322-11de-ba74-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

 

 

Japan's Election: Ties to Culture -- and Aliens?

There is nothing like a national election for a close-up view into a culture's soul. Whether in the business of global coaching and consulting or intercultural talent development, where obvious links are apparent, or in areas where such connections are more subtle, elections re-align and refresh our focus as we examine the way a country operates both domestically and with the world at large. Japan's recent election of its new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, provides such an opportunity.

1.The Land of the Rising Sun is famous for its risk aversion and reluctance to change. Thus, the significance of selecting a prime minister from a party other than the decades-old incumbent LDP, not to mention a prime minister nicknamed 'the alien,' might seem groundbreaking. On second glance, when learning of his rather non-traditional marriage to an eccentric wife -- an actress and 'alien' in her own right, who "travelled to Venus in a U.F.O. in the 70's"* and had a mental rendez-vous with a Japanese Tom Cruise (!) in a former life -- this event borders on the downright bizarre. Upon a closer look, though, this all falls very much within the Japanese cultural fold. For one thing, as the grandson of a former prime minister and former LDP member, Hatoyama isn't exactly a renegade. [In a recent Reuters blog post, in fact, a photographer laments Hatoyama's utter lack of flair and charisma, significant in a country where public persona is everything*.] As for his wife, her non-conventional behavior and peculiarities highlight a distinction in Japanese culture. While change itself may not be embraced as quickly as in the U.S., for example, eccentricity is tolerated and is not unusual at all. As a New York Times blog states: "Ms. Hatoyama, 'a musical actress, cookery writer, clothesmaker and television personality,' is given a sort of free pass by Japanese voters because she falls into the category of public figure known as ‘tarento,’ or ‘talent,' who are expected to be kooky."

2. The huge growth of Japan's 'silver haired' population in proportion to its younger citizens has now put a distinctive stamp on its culture. Changes in the country's workforce dynamics, with possible diversity-related implications for the future, and shifts in family structures, with the growth of '3G' family living arrangements, are but two examples. There is no denying that this past election was very much about Japan's seniors flexing their political muscles.  As Michael Zielenziger points out in the Nikkei Weekly, Hatoyama's campaign was targeted to older voters, who cast far more votes than their 20-something counterparts in this and previous elections. This lies in direct contrast to the Obama campaign's aggressive marketing to America's youth vote. Through adroitly using Japan's election as an effective primer for those who wish to penetrate the country's market, Zielenziger advises companies to keep Japan's demographics in mind, for "as Japan rapidly ages, the elderly have the disposable income, the political power and stay longer on the job.*" Global marketing teams: take heed.

3. The all-important issue of relationships and their carefully cultivated networks, so much a part of Japan's cultural fabric, certainly played a key role in Hatoyama's triumph. [How else to explain this historic victory with such a lackluster public figure?] It would be nearly impossible to imagine anyone from the outside coming in and breaking through this tightly knit circle of networks and into the political arena, no matter how powerful his or her platform. This all-pervasive aspect of conducting any sort of business in Japan, political and otherwise, is not about to change any time soon. The primacy of "relationships over ideas," also mentioned in the Nikkei Weekly article, is often hard for foreigners to accept, and the cogent example is given of attempting to enter the Japanese market with a "hit product," only to be stymied by the country's impenetrable barrier of age-old distribution networks and accompanying reluctance to "disrupt the traditional order."

With so much attention now focused on Japan in its post-election phase, questions surrounding its relationship with its Asian neighbors, China in particular, with the U.S., and with the world in general, will continue to be on our minds. How the country's culture figures into the answers, and how business will in turn be impacted, will be surely interesting to watch.

                                                      

                                                    

*http://blogs.reuters.com/japan/2009/09/08/farewell-to-photogenic-aso/

*http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/japans-new-first-lady-not-from-venus-was-only-visiting/

*http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/e/fr/tnw/

Global Marketing Challenges: Carrefour's Turn

In his posting on the many cultural challenges of global marketing teams, as well as international organizations in general, Jack Brown discusses Wal-Mart's rocky path to worldwide success. He attributes this in large part to the careful attention it is now paying to local markets on a deep level after years of what he rightfully terms 'missteps.' Companies are increasingly finding that a superficial nod to local practices and preferences is not nearly enough. Rather, understanding the most fundamental cultural tenets, ethics and principles of one's customers is what will bring success for the long term, avoiding costly gaffes and  errors along the way. In its rush to bulldoze into emerging markets, Wal-Mart certainly learned this the hard -- and some would argue the American -- way.

Now, it seems that Carrefour, second in command in the retail market, is also having to pull back and consider culture as it re-examines its image and business model. This time, though, it is not the buying habits and idiosyncrasies of foreign cultures but rather its own French terrain under scrutiny. With 43% of Carrefour's market on domestic soil*, and nearly a million customers in Carrefour hypermarkets daily*, this seems imperative in light of the company's marked drop in earnings and gloomy forecast ahead. Its perception as a premium retailer is now being re-examined, along with the image and function of French hypermarkets themselves. Its new CEO (not French but Swedish, interesting in itself) is said to be focusing much more on discounted prices, in-store and outside promotions, private label products and loyalty cards, in very much the same way as Tesco, its longtime rival, has done with considerable success.

This re-examination of 'premiumization' is not limited to the hypermarket sector alone. L'Oréal and Diageo have both been in the news lately with reports of disappointing earnings and resulting strategies to, like Carrefour, manage the fallout from the current economic downturn through new price point considerations and possible re-branding. Similarly, on a national level, Japan has, in response to economic hard times, been experiencing a seismic shift in consumer habits, away from its legendary emphasis on quality with more focus now on price and value. This surely poses a major threat to brand loyalty, if not to global business overall. Wal-Mart has, to its credit and following countless blunders, continued to rise to the challenges of today's uncertain economy. Whether Carrefour and other global giants will be able to do the same remains a formidable question.

                                      

*Wall Street Journal, August 29 - 30, 2009: "Carrefour Posts Loss on Discounting" 

*http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6390eb24-9432-11de- 9c57-00144feabdc0.html   

Leveraging the Global Marketing Team

In an August 14, 2009, Wall Street Journal article entitled "After Early Errors, Wal-Mart Thinks Locally to Act Globally," Anthony Hucker, the executive in charge of expanding winning Wal-Mart formats globally, states: "What we have learned in the past couple of years is that one size does not fit all." Mr. Hucker's statement refers to using innovations pioneered, not in the U.S., but in various countries abroad. This sharing of information among the global teams responsible for these countries has, for example, led to adopting store formats that were found to be successful in some markets and then integrating them into other markets to better optimize local shopping habits. This global shared learning has also resulted in offering products and experiences that are more in tune with local tastes.

Such an evolved strategy contrasts dramatically with that initiated a decade ago when Wal-Mart's global expansion began. At that time, Wal-Mart's charge was to duplicate the U.S. model everywhere, while making accommodations only for local language translation. As an example, Marcelo Vienna, a Sao Paulo native who is now Wal-Mart's Brazilian chief marketing officer, had originally been sent to Wal-Mart in Branson, Mo., to translate store-management manuals into Portuguese, all the while wondering how this would play in Brazil. Coming from a culture where questioning authority is not acceptable, these direct translations were accepted and acted upon; with less than optimum results.

Furthermore, Wal-Mart's initial global expansion strategy was to export the U.S. theme "lowest everyday pricing" as its comparative advantage. This was supported by Wal-Mart achieving global purchasing advantages through leveraged negotiation with global branded manufactures, many of whom they had established relationships with domestically. This strategy, however, begins to fray when locally produced items in new markets are preferred and where, in many international markets, store brands (private label) tend to dominate branded items.

I found this out first hand in the early 90's when I addressed an audience of German retailers and manufacturers on what to expect with Wal-Mart's impending entry into the German market. Their overall reaction was interesting. Although still cautious, a number of German retailers confided that Wal-Mart could not possibly buy at lower prices from established German suppliers, given these retailers' longstanding relationships with their suppliers. Many of the attendees also commented that the traditional early morning Wal-Mart pep rallies (part of the Wal-Mart culture), would fall flat with German workers (soon to be ‘associates'). And, they opined that Wal-Mart store greeters would be seen by the German consumer as an additional cost that provided no true value. It would seem that Wal-Mart's hubris prevailed, and that their subsequent exit from the German market could have been foretold, given this entry strategy.

After a number of such early cultural gaffes, Wal-Mart has moved to a localized strategy that has been credited with helping to reverse early global expansion missteps and has resulted in current international revenue and profit growth exceeding that of the U.S. market. How could these missteps have been avoided in the first place? One way is by listening to and leveraging the knowledge of the global marketing team. As the WSJ article points out, Wal-Mart is now listening to its local market colleagues rather than lecturing them on the "Wal-Mart Way."

Wal-Mart is not alone in making blunders in their early global expansion endeavors. Luminaries like Coca Cola and McDonalds stumbled early on with their strategy of exporting the "American Way." It was not until these giants understood that there are no global consumers, and all global markets are local, that they began localizing their efforts. This came about - albeit after all else had failed - by listening to and adapting what their local marketing teams had been saying all along.

The end result for these and many other global marketing organizations is that the added cost of localizing efforts, versus the cost savings associated with globalized programs, are being offset by expanded market penetration which in turn generates commensurate gains in revenue and profit.

A more in-depth analysis of Wal-Mart's expansion stumbles can be found in Anil Gupta's book, "The Quest for Global Dominance."

wpceyukgq4

Japan and India: Diving Deeper into Global Waters

In my previous post, I reviewed two illuminating and complementary podcasts on outsourcing and its application in today’s global marketplace. In the discussion of multisourcing and its attendant complexity of managing multiple providers, the cultural considerations were what resonated for me. When an overlay of country culture is added to the already complicated challenge of managing corporate cultural differences in an outsourcing agreement, the challenge is manifold, even if only two nations are involved.

As with any intercultural transaction, broad questions of communication arise early on: Are the cultures at hand relationship-based or transactional?  Is overall communication style direct or indirect? How does ‘saving face’ figure into the picture, if at all?  What is the role of and protocol surrounding small talk?  Taboos?  Humor?  How is silence used and interpreted?  What is the time frame for establishing relationships?  In the business sphere, additional issues as risk tolerance, leadership preferences, entertainment protocol, perceptions of time, decision making processes and, perhaps most importantly, issues of trust are but a smattering of crucial pieces one would need to assess and address.

Such questions and issues will now be increasingly on the minds of Japanese and Indian companies, as the two nations have begun collaborating in more and more outsourcing arrangements, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article (“India’s Outsourcing Firms Lure More Japan Business”).   As a global coach and consultant, I am naturally delighted to see this, since while the two countries are markedly different culturally, on the business front this seems like a match made in heaven, with timing auspicious for both nations.  The Japanese population is ageing steadily, causing gaps in the workforce (particularly in engineering, as the article states). Indian companies, meanwhile, have been feeling the pinch from the U.S. financial sector and have been busily strategizing in hopes of entering new markets.

That said, Japan and India are entirely at odds in their respective cultural orientations. While Japan is extremely homogeneous and in many ways isolationist, India is one of the most diverse mosaics on the planet, and from this basic difference springs a whole host of cultural contrasts. In short, though, where the current outsourcing development is concerned, there are two critical issues at hand for each country. For Japan, the huge question of trust will undoubtedly be its biggest obstacle. Japanese companies have, through the ages, been notoriously tight lipped when dealing with “gaijin” (literally “outside persons”), and, as the article states, very reluctant to entrust segments of their business to others.  For India, used to the efficiency and speed so deeply embedded in the U.S. business culture, the challenge of balancing this with the perfection and assiduous attention to detail demanded of the Japanese market will surely be its albatross.

Fortunately, both countries seem to be undergoing the coaching and training so necessary in these situations.  The reciprocal nature of such programs, as indicated in the article, with both countries sending participants to their respective new partners’ locations and engaging in multifaceted intercultural talent development practices, is a formula for a successful collaboration. It is a sure bet that if the current alliances are successful, both countries will actively continue down this newly paved path.

Outsourcing Redux: Thinking Global, Staying Local??

Since outsourcing is one of my global obsessions, my cultural antennae naturally shot up when, in the past month, I came across several interesting pieces on this intriguing topic. This took me by surprise at first, since it seemed almost reminiscent of the early 2000s, when talk of outsourcing and its many iterations -- insourcing, multisourcing, and so on -- was everywhere, even though the process itself has been around for decades.  Many fine works indeed appeared on the subject, and it was almost impossible to imagine that after so many years of descriptions, prescriptions, advice and caveats pouring in on outsourcing, there was anything else of value to be written or said about it.  However, with nearly everyone in global business trying to make sense of today's capricious economy, and all business practices and trends thus fair game for revisiting, recycling and re-setting, this does in fact seem plausible.  Where outsourcing is concerned, this is especially true, given the pressures for cost cutting and efficiency and the quick fix that this practice has, for better or worse, historically provided.

Two outstanding podcasts, the FT's Digital Podcast of July 28 ("What's Going on with Outsourcing?") and Harvard’s Business Ideacast #157 of August 7 ("Restoring American Competitiveness"), together provide a comprehensive array of compelling insights into outsourcing in today's business world. The FT reports on the state of outsourcing in terms of lessons learned (and those ignored), historical shifts and, using experience as a guide, on what companies should be thinking about and wary of in the future.  Professor Gary Pisano, whose interview comprises the Harvard podcast, has new, almost revolutionary ways of looking at outsourcing, and as such, provides fascinating insights as to how flawed thinking on its use has in fact led to an erosion of America's competitive edge in the marketplace.

The FT, in its parting words before taking its summer podcast break, described trends in outsourcing which companies have embraced over the past decade or so, noting a shift from 'knee jerk outsourcing' (i.e. jumping on the bandwagon in a 'fire! aim! aim!' frame of mind) to insourcing, and back to outsourcing/multisourcing again as a reaction to today's looming cost pressures.  The authors feel, as does Pisano in Harvard's podcast, that this is clearly a mistake.  Companies should instead focus on what their core competencies are, on what is central versus what is ancillary; advice that, while delivered ad nauseum over the years,  apparently hasn't been heeded.  Pisano posits that in dismissing this, and in not looking more deliberately into a company's future needs when contemplating outsourcing, the U.S. has in fact lost its strong position on the world stage.  His example of the U.S.' current dependence on certain Asian nations for sophisticated automobile battery production, a discussion now very much in the limelight, highlights how improper outsourcing has crippled innovation rather than promoting it. Along with this is the notion that companies are usually quick to outsource what they're not particularly good at, and the distinction is astutely made between what a company is good at and what is key to its value. This, too, is not advisable, since in many cases, addressing and then developing skills in these weaker areas would make companies stronger in the long run. The flip side, and far worse, is the danger of outsourcing sectors that the providers can then run with, and in this scenario, Acer's meteoric rise from outsourced party to top tier personal computer company provides a sobering cautionary tale. There is the additional consideration which Pisano mentions, that of the degree of difficulty of gaining back that which a company has outsourced, and uses the U.K. as a cogent example. In today's interconnected universe, it is easy how this could present a formidable challenge, and how, in the bigger picture, viewing manufacturing as a sector to be outsourced has perhaps not been such a good idea after all.

Additionally, the downsides of multisourcing -- using multiple providers instead of one -- are outlined in the FT podcast. The authors feel that, as experience has demonstrated, managing multiple providers adds a huge degree of complexity to the process on so many levels, from legal to logistical. Contracts for outsourcing deals, for example, are typically quite lengthy and complicated in themselves, and can be thousands of pages long, even with a single provider, requiring enormous resources when managed in a multisourcing framework. Envisioning possible cultural obstacles and conflicts arising from a multisourcing arrangement (and, incidentally, contracts themselves are culture bound) would be surely be daunting where national as well as organizational cultures are involved.

Both authors' prescription, then, for very deliberate planning, investing, coaching and training in any outsourcing deal is well taken. Just how feasible it is for companies to put this advice into practice in today's environment is the larger question, and one that will certainly bear watching.

                                                                     

Not Freudian, perhaps "Bidenian". Global thinking is critical.

The beer blast is on, the picnic table is out and the global humble pie is being served.  If you are not aware of the current race issues that have recently surfaced, then bypass this article.  Our generation has lived through tremendous changes in race relations, and the history of it all is indelibly in our minds. 

ABC Video, "The Bottom Line on Beer Diplomacy"

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14821979&ch=4226716&src=news

And whether we want to admit it or not, they exist.  The recent slip in regard to race and the police by our President just opens up more dialog in this arena.  You can take sides.  You can dissect what was said and why.  You can listen to the experts and chastise the innocent.  You can learn.  Yeah, that's it, you can learn.  There is an incredible learning point for everyone in this moment of the Presidential Bidenian slip.  You know, kind of like Joe Biden, the Vice President when he engages his mouth before his brain...a "Bidenian slip".  So there it is in its simplest form.  Laid out on the picnic table, with the beer and humble pie.  People make mistakes and accuse others of injustices when facts are not gathered or when their personal outlook is biased in one way shape or form.  Sometimes people say things out of ignorance, out of an unknown bias, from the position of a naive offender.  The important point is, as a Leader, you need to engage in deep thought, do a self exam to see where your head is, think and then speak.  You need to know how you will affect your followers and your opponents.  There is no room for a Bidenian slip.    x7b8ik3ved

href="http://www.superblogdirectory.com/">Super Blog Directory</a>