Adaptations to Culture by International Businesses

Our recent discussion of Disney’s actions to open parks in France and Japan details the difficulties and adjustments that must be undertook in order to successfully adapt an already popular amusement park to a new culture. As we learned, Disney had much more success in reaching the Japanese market than in France where attendance numbers were low. In order to enjoy this success in a new market, such as Japan, Disney needed to adjust its park and the way it worked to appeal to, and satisfy, what Japanese consumers wanted. First, the orderly nature of the park was increased beyond that of the American Disneyland which is in fact very orderly to begin with. Everything is clean with all operations running at an even more efficient level than in America. Second, small adjustments such as in the number of restaurants needed to be perfected. The Japanese look down upon walking while eating so the number of sit-down restaurants was doubled in comparison to the original Disneyland. Third, attractions are tweaked slightly to appeal to the principles of Japanese culture. These adjustments to an already successful theme park in the United States have allowed Disneyland Tokyo to be an enormous success. Disney successfully created an “exotic” park that at the same time contains many familiarities that comfort the Japanese (Maanen).

Disney’s Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world. With international Disneyland locations, movies, television shows, and books people all over the world can recognize the character. As we have previously discussed, the global nature of Disney has necessitated adjustments to the cultures around the world it targets. In order to build on globalization’s effects on culture, another highly visible worldwide company will be examined. McDonalds, with its trademark Golden Arches can be found in 119 countries, serving over 47 million customers daily (Veseth). With such obvious global success it becomes evident that McDonalds has been extremely successful in adapting their brand and products to many different cultures throughout the world.

McDonalds regardless of their locations outside of the United States must compete with the local restaurants in the area. In order achieve success they must adapt their menu while keeping the characteristic efficiency you will see at any McDonalds worldwide. In most areas of India, menus are 100% vegetarian featuring items anyone who is familiar with McDonald’s traditional menu would be amazed at. While this menu would certainly fail in most places outside of India it is essential for success in that area. McDonalds did try and sell their trademark beef burgers in India and failed quickly due to the sacred nature of cows in this region. Adaptation to the local culture in which franchises are opened is an absolute must for success. In the mid-2000s McDonalds began introducing a new concept, the drive-thru, in some of their Chinese locations. This was done in response to China’s increasing suburbanization which has increased the prevalence of cars within the general population of China. While this seems like an easy adaptation to their restaurants, the Chinese culture is very unfamiliar with this concept. Employees had to direct cars through the proper entrances and instead of the use of a speaker to take orders, this task would be done by an actual employee face-to-face. McDonalds had to adapt a fast-food staple all around the Western world, the drive-thru to a culture unfamiliar with this concept. Furthermore, food development was designed with the goal of making it easier to eat in cars (Chinadaily).

Regardless of the industry a company operates, if global expansion is planned, it is absolutely necessary to examine the culture in which the business is moving. Had Disney or McDonalds decided their American offerings, design, and planning were sufficient for application in other cultures they would have quickly failed. The companies were able to identify the important values, understandings, and tendencies in foreign cultures and make adjustments to enjoy success in those areas. Next time you see Mickey Mouse or those Golden Arches look how their characteristics of that business are a function of the culture you are in.

Works Cited

"Drive-through Tips for China." Chinadaily US Edition. 20 June 2006. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. .

Maanen, John. "Displacing Disney: Some Notes on the Flow of Culture." Qualitative Sociology 15.1 (1992): 5-35. Print.

Veseth, Michael. "5: Globalization As McWorld." Globaloney: Unraveling the Myths of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Culture Clash: Sprint - Nextel

In the course textbook, Kinicki and Kreitner emphasize the importance of strong organizational culture, or a “set of shared values and beliefs that underlie a company’s identity” (36). They explain that while a number of different organizational cultures can be successful for a company, it is very difficult to merge two companies together whose organizational culture is very different. In fact, Kinicki and Kreitner state that “mergers often fail due to incompatible cultures” (45).

One famous example of a merger that many consider failed was between Sprint and Nextel, which merged in 2005. Sprint acquired Nextel in a $35 billion acquisition, with the idea that the merger would bring a stronger customer base and a strong strategy to help Sprint Nextel lead in communication changes (Sedensky). However, the merger instead brought on a wide array of problems and customer and employee discontent. The two company’s cultures were very distinct, with Nextel known for having a more entrepreneurial culture and Sprint having a more traditional, bureaucratic culture. A Washington Post article written by Kim Hart, two years after the acquisition explains that “The two sharply different cultures have resulted in clashes in everything from advertising strategy to cellphone technologies.” The Washington Post article explains this culture clash with an example, where at a manager’s meeting soon after the merger, the CEO from Nextel excited the crowd with a pep rally style speech and the CEO from Sprint followed up with a formal PowerPoint presentation. This difference in culture continued over time, with Nextel employees feeling that “the aggressive, entrepreneurial style that spurred its early growth had been stamped out by Sprint’s more bureaucratic approach” and Sprint’s employees feeling that Nextel’s more rash decision making was impulsive and apt to cause losses (Hart). The two sides also began to compete for now duplicated positions, creating even more tension. Many Nextel employees began to exit the company, which in turn made Sprint employees feel abandoned (Hart).

When looking at the Competing Values Framework outlined in the book, Sprint seemed to have a hierarchy culture, with a more structured work environment, while Nextel seemed to be in line more with an adhocracy culture, valuing flexibility and the ability to quickly respond to market changes. These organizational cultures completely contradict one another. The adhocracy culture, emphasized by Nextel, has an external focus and values flexibility, while the hierarchy culture emphasized by Sprint, has an internal focus and values control. No wonder the two companies found themselves so at odds with one another. However, it is possible to bring two different cultures together and I think that one of the problems with the Sprint Nextel merger was that they tried so hard to recognize the cultural differences of the two companies that they created a competing, me versus them environment. Instead, they should have focused on identifying the culture for the company as a whole and begun the process of culture change outlined in the text.

Even more importantly, Sprint and Nextel should have considered cultural differences when considering the merger in the first place and thought about the consequences such a merger might bring. Recently, AT&T has announced plans to acquire T-Mobile (Associated Press). While AT&T has cited increased coverage as a strong benefit for the merger, I wonder if they have considered the difference in the two company’s cultures and the effect this might have on the merger’s success. Like, the Sprint - Nextel merger, AT&T - T-Mobile is a merger of a company known for its innovation and creativity (T-mobile) and a company known for its more bureaucratic and traditional company culture (AT&T). Will this merger find more success?

Google's Organizational Culture

The layers of organizational culture are very apparent within Google.  According to Google’s co-founder Larry Paige, “We don’t just want you to have a great job. We want you to have a great life. We provide you with everything you need to be productive and happy on and off the clock.” This quotation is the culmination of Google’s observable artifacts, espoused values and enacted values that are crucial to the success of Google as a multi-national franchise.

            Observable artifacts are extremely important to the success of a company because they are tangible items that allow employees to become a part of that company’s organizational culture. In K&K, it defines observable artifacts as “artifacts that consist of the physical manifestation of an organization’s culture.” With regards to Google, the observable artifacts found at Google’s various offices around the world explicitly tie into their organizational culture. Some of these observable artifacts include:

• Every office on Google’s campus is geographically named and decorated as the country they represent. Each office has pictures and specific cultural furniture tied with that specific geographical location
• Hundreds of bikes and scooters are placed around campus to make it easier to travel to and from different offices
• Very few solo offices were built so that Google can help promote entrepreneurial group thinking
• Laptops and internet access are found everywhere throughout the campus so employees can work in any sort of setting
• There are multiple cafes around campus that serve breakfast, lunch and dinner to employees
• There are multiple gyms, beach volleyball courts and heated pools that are all free for employees to use

The observable artifacts found at each of these campuses are the reason why Google was named the 4^th best company to work for in 2011. With that said, the observable artifacts help promote a strong organizational culture that makes Google more than just a place to work

Espoused values are also very important to a company because they are essentially the framework of how management wants their company to run. As stated in K&K, espoused values are “explicitly stated values and norms that are preferred by an organization.” When it comes to Google, the company is extremely forthright when displaying their values. According to Google’s blog, they believe that to act in the best interest of the company every employee should follow the following ten values:

1. “Focus on the user and all else will follow     
2.  It’s best to do one thing really, really well
3. Fast is better than slow
4. Democracy on the web works
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer
6. You can make money without doing evil
7. There’s always more information out there
8. The need for information crosses all borders
9. You can be serious without a suit
10. Great just isn’t good enough”

Espoused values are very important because it provides employees a way to see what the corporation deems important for them to be sustainable into the future. In all, espoused value are how a company attempts to mold organizational culture.

Enacted values are also extremely important to the success of a company because they are essentially how a company’s culture is today. In K&K they define enacted values as “values and norms that are actually exhibited or converted into employee behavior.” Just because Google states their espoused values, this doesn’t mean that the employees strictly abide by them but in Googles case they do. Google employees are the culmination of their espoused values. The company has always created an extremely entrepreneurial environment where its employees can create new products that are simple yet innovative for their users. Throughout their campus, they purposely created very few solo offices so that Google employees work together on projects. In addition to this, they give each employee an hour in the middle of the day to work on a project of their own. Through this process called dogfeeding, some of Google’s greatest products such as Gmail have been produced. In all, enacted values are the way a company acts albeit the observable artifacts and espoused values.

In all, these layers of organizational culture seem to be very strong at Google. As Larry Paige said, he wants his employees not to hate coming to work every morning and by providing a very strong organizational culture, Google has turned into one of the most powerful technology companies on the planet.

This model of organizational culture is something that I hope I will be able to experience when I work after college. When I graduate, I want to do investment banking which requires long hours, little to no sleep and almost no free time. I don't plan to do this for long, but my reasoning for doing it at all is that it has multiple exit opportunities to almost any industry after 2 years. Working at Google is definitely appealing to me because if I want to be happy with my job for a sustainable period of time, I will need an environment like Google. In all, the culture that Google fosters is set as an ideal that all other organizations should try and emulate. 

Works Cited

http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html

http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/joininggoogle/hiringprocess/index.html

http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2005/10/google-corporate-values.html

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/index.html