Introduction

Globalisation is everywhere. That's a fact.

We may like it or not, but in any case we have to deal with it. Some people see globalisation as a sign of progress, proof of fast economic development and integration. In short, a way for underdeveloped countries to access well-being and modern conveniences. Others see it as a threat to their identity and traditions, a new economic imperialism led mostly by western countries, and in particular by North American multinational companies.

One of the consequences of globalisation has been the tremendous increase in the number of acquisitions, mergers and alliances across the world. Big is beautiful...As a result, the 1990's have seen numerous working with more and more cultures. Differences in corporate and business cultures as well as national cultures have made their activity more complex and challenging. They all recognise that the culture issue is the most difficult one to handle and that it is the first cause for "merger disappointment".

We are all having to deal with an unexpected aspect of economic globalisation, in our professional or private lives: the difficult issue of cultural shock. Academics have even talked about this as the sources for a "cultural war". Is cultural integration possible? Isn't it a trigger we're pulling without knowing who's going to get shot? Are there alternatives to cultural integration? And what should we integrate and what should we not? How can we get the best and not the worst out of this fundamental confrontation of values and beliefs?

We are sceptical about the notion of "cultural integration" when it comes to integrating national cultures or religious beliefs. It may work at an individual level, but at a collective level, culture is rooted so deeply and unconsciously that anyway, cultural integration would never happen at the same pace as technical or economic integration. This difference in pace lies at the origin of people's frustrations and, to a certain extent, to their potential for violence.

For us at ICM, who are involved in working with leaders in international companies, helping them work more effectively across cultures, these differences are something of our stock in trade. And over the years, we have come to hold a few convictions, two of which are driving our approach. First, "bridging" culture is much more realistic than "merging" cultures. Secondly, while integration across national cultures seems unrealistic if not undesirable, a clear and open "corporate culture" does offer a basis for convergence because it creates a space within which national differences can be expressed in a constructive, creative and motivating way.

In working with business leaders toward effective "culture bridging", we realised that even for founders and owners of companies, corporate culture is simply not "in the blood" in the same way as national identity is. Corporate culture tells us relatively little about what we consider just, unjust, right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable, etc, while national cultures do just that. This is important if you're concerned with Culture Bridging, as we are. We have found that by working only on national cultural differences people can sometimes reinforce differences and even stereotypes.

Corporate culture values are more superficial than national culture ones because they entail the survival and development of a company, not of an individual or the community's. In fact, corporate culture, that set of values which have been agreed upon and turned into management practices, behaviours and systems, is a kind of contract which binds a professional community together. Thus, stressing shared values, attitudes and ways of doing things within a corporate culture, in order to succeed together in a given environment, is a way of bringing people together. This doesn't mean forgetting about national cultural differences. It's a question of timing. It's so much easier to discuss national cultural differences from within the trusting framework of a shared corporate culture. By focussing on corporate culture we have found areas of difference that are far less emotionally charged and therefore more easily resolved.

And so we focus bridging efforts on bridging across corporate cultures. Looking closely at corporate culture tells us a lot about how people work together, which, after all, is what people are supposed to do when they belong to the same company. It tells us what criteria people use to determine credible and legitimate managers or executives. It tells us about how individuals and teams go about getting things done, solving problems and making decisions. And it tells us a great deal about how we can motivate people and get them to buy into a shared vision of the company's purpose.

Alliance management and integration processes pose the question of how to reinforce group unity while recognising differences squarely. They raise questions such as: Which culture is the "right" culture for the new entity? The culture of the acquiring company? Or not? Or is it better to form a new culture and if so, how? But, on the other hand, isn't that a bit artificial? Our answer is straightforward and twofold. The right culture is the one that enables the most effective response to the company's external threats, while taking people's past history and values into consideration.

This leads inevitably to a new set of questions. To what extent should local ways of doing things be accepted? To what extent should common values and norms be promoted within a group? What is the acceptable, tolerable level of difference which allows for sufficient consistency and sufficient respect for diversity? We believe that the debate between universal management cultures and the respect of differences is a central question for managers today. The issue is no longer "building one shared and global corporate culture", as we were often asked to do in the 1990's. Today the challenge is about building a corporate culture which allows for differences to be expressed without being considered as a weakness, and above all, to create a new generation of managers whose primary task is to manage diversity in and effective and rewarding way.

This book tells a story about Ingo Janssen, one CEO, and his mishaps as he tries to merge two very different corporate cultures. As the book progresses, however, Ingo reads it along with us. And so he becomes more and more aware of the cultural issues involved in successful integration and begins to apply his new understanding to the integration process of this company with each passing chapter of the book. At the end, in chapter 10, Ingo, like our readers, has the information, processes and competencies in hand to manage his cultural integration process successfully. He draws the right lessons from others' experience, demonstrates culture bridging skills, including calling his own previous approaches into question, invests time and energy into getting it right and sees the bright light at the end of the tunnel as a result.

With this book, we hope to help all leaders involved in mergers, acquisitions, joint-ventures, alliances and other forms of corporate deals, to have their own Ingo-like success story. We hope this book gives corporate leaders the tools to better understand the cultural interactions inherent in acquisitions, alliances and mergers and identify creative, successful ways of leveraging cultural differences for effective culture bridging. We hope we have contributed ideas for finding a common language for addressing cultural issues with diverse teams and for resolving issues arising out of difference. In other words, we hope to have given leaders insights on how to acquire Culture Bridging skills.

Charles GANCEL
Irene RODGERS
Marc RAYNAUD

> Main page of the book