Tesco Company in India: Global Teams Characteristics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Unique characteristics of global teams
Intercultural challenges
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Tesco has just signed a deal with Indian firm Tata to go into the country and establish new stores there. It may encounter challenges associated with multicultural global teams. Variations in the perception of conflict, confrontation and rank could also arise. These differences are highlighted in subsequent sections of the report.

Unique characteristics of global teams

Gluesing and Gibson (2004) identified a number of dimensions that make global teams substantially different from conventional ones. First, geographical locations change from physical ones to multiple ones (Hensey, 2001). It is likely that Tesco’s new branches in India will continue to use suppliers from the UK or other parts of the world. Therefore, immense coordination will be critical in coping with these multiple environments. The strategic partnership is going to create dissimilarities in economic, social and political conditions. Company representatives in the UK could make decisions under the presumption that the political climate is a certain way (Gannon and Newman, 2005).

It is possible that reality may prove them wrong. Alternatively, workers can only implement some strategic moves when the level of economic development in their country is compatible with the decision. Infrastructural, telecommunication and material access differ between India and the UK, so this may cause some glitches in strategy (Leung et al., 2005).

Communication is a context-based characteristic that could come in the way of seamless execution of Tesco’s plan. English is the UK’s native tongue while persons in India speak a multitude of dialects. Difficulties could arise in communication between personnel as Indian employers may not express themselves fluently. Sometimes words may appear the same but could have divergent meanings, depending on the cultural context (Zhang and Zhou, 2009). In India, the word ‘No’ after a statement means that the person is looking for agreement from the recipient (Gupta, 2008). This differs from the general meaning of the word, which is often a rejection of something. Some learning and contextualisation of words ought to take place.

Differences in managerial styles may manifest as Tesco starts business in India. Adler and Gundersen (2008) report that managerial style differences are one of the issues that slow down the implementation of the strategy. Task and relationship patterns may differ between the Indian partners and their British counterparts. Most western cultures, including Britain, tend to perceive hierarchy as tools used to “organise and facilitate problem-solving around those tasks.” (Adler and Gundersen, 2008, p. 47).

Conversely, relationship-oriented cultures like India perceive hierarchies as structures that help individuals know who has authority over them. A number of respondents from these cultures believe that an organisation cannot even function without hierarchy. Tesco may want to avoid flat structures as that could cause confusion and slow down work (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). Instead, the organisation ought to consider formal hierarchical structures with clearly defined reporting personnel for each individual.

How teams perceive tasks in and of itself may also affect how work gets done in the new alliance. Gluesing and Gibson (2004) also define certain key characteristics that may define tasks in global teams. One of them is workflow interdependence, which refers to the degree to which workflow within the team relies on others’ contribution. Effective coordination of information and knowledge is critical in making such teams work. Tesco’s new partners are likely to belong to this category since the retail sector is a highly complex one.

The second trait is external coupling, which refers to the degree to which global team members relate with their environment (Crowley, 2005). If the external coupling is high, it is likely that the concerned environment is dynamic, and members must respond to it accordingly. In the retail sector, both organisations ought to keep abreast with new products and processes. However, external coupling in this industry is still not very high since people tend to perform routine functions. Tesco would have to synchronise its two divergent environments in order to make the business work.

A third trait is internal coupling, which is the extent to which team members need to get to know each other. Global teams participating in mergers or acquisitions tend to have high levels of internal coupling (Mullins, 2007). The partnership between Tesco and India’s Tata necessitates a high level of internal coupling among senior managers. These persons have to get acquainted and must work hard to determine local practices in each others’ country. Failure to do so could lead to adverse consequences in the enterprise.

Intercultural challenges

Perhaps one of the most significant cross-cultural challenges that may affect the partnership is the preferences for indirect or direct confrontation. Behfar et al. (2006) explain that if a certain component of a multicultural organisation has members who prefer aggressive ways of confrontation while the other group is oriented towards consensus-building, then this could cause tensions. People from individualistic societies, like the UK, tend to focus on message content rather than the delivery process. As a result, members of high-context cultures are likely to perceive their counterparts as overly aggressive, rude and impatient. They may think of this method as untactful and could eventually fall out with their western counterparts (Burnes and James, 1995).

On the other hand, the Tesco representatives may also have problems with Indian partners owing to the non-confrontational style. Many Asians prefer using indirect methods to deliver bad news. UK expatriates may perceive this as passive, less efficient and evasive. They may think that consensus building is not necessary or is a mere waste of time (Hendry and Hope, 1994). Unless cross-cultural training occurs, it is likely that the multicultural team will feel incompatible.

Challenges in confrontation could also arise when Tesco representatives attempt to use an egalitarian style of leadership, which encourages people to participate in decision-making (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). Persons in the UK do not mind if ideas originate from a low-level employee since this eventually affects the organisation positively. This implies that if a mid-level employee wants to challenge another’s idea, they are free to do. However, Indian partners may not respond very positively to such a perspective because it is a sign of personal disrespect in their culture. The hierarchical nature of this society demands that problem-solving occur in a formal and indirect way (Hogan, 2005). These issues may present particular challenges unless the company strives to do something beforehand.

Perception of time and urgency could also impede strategy implementation between the two partners. Expectations on what time is permissible in the delivery of projects differ culturally. Some cultures may perceive realistic project deadlines as one and a half months, while others may think of them as slightly longer. Additionally, attitudes towards lateness are substantially different between western and eastern cultures. When a company fails to synchronise differences in perceptions of time, then the chances are that measurable costs may emanate (Hughes and Williams, 2000).

Tesco’s Indian branch could have difficulties in finalising purchase orders, complete process cycles, among other things if misalignments arise between these entities (Maul and Brown, 2001). Anger, misunderstandings and a partner’s reputation could be on the line when these differences arise. The Indian team may perceive the UK team as having unrealistic exceptions. On the other hand, sometimes, the UK team could think about their Asian counterparts as inefficient and slow (Trompenaars, 1996).

Timing of tasks could also emanate from differences in perceptions of urgency and time. Both partners need to agree on how long they will spend doing typical work tasks (Rollinson, 2002). Managers often have to dedicate a substantial share of their time in meetings. Multicultural teams, like the new Tesco partnership, could struggle with differences on schedule. Perhaps the Indian team may want to spend 3 hours in a meeting while the UK one would prefer 1 hour, instead. Time asymmetries may escalate to endemic levels if projects are long term (Behfar et al., 2006). Quarterly reports are the norm in Britain, but this may not necessarily be prevalent in all parts of India. Alternatively, if members extend the delivery date by as much as 8 months, then dire consequences could arise.

The need to understand respect and hierarchy is a priority item for multicultural teams. Issues of the chain of command are quite crucial in Indian business environments. Violations of hierarchy occur when people ignore the chain of command. People from high-power distance cultures like India could react quite dramatically to these violations. A low-level employee would deeply offend a high-level Indian manager if they contacted them directly. Sometimes this could lead to the cancellation of contracts or similar consequences (Gilley and Maycunich, 2000). It is likely that Tesco representatives do not care much about rank, and this attitude may make the organisation lose business from new Indian suppliers. The UK team may want to stay away from unconventional reporting relationships. For instance, Indian older members may not feel comfortable about reporting to younger members (Behfar, 2006). Some of them may also not be comfortable with the idea of reporting to lower-ranking members, so UK parties ought to deal with these challenges.

Some problems may also arise out of parochialism from the developed nation. Many partners in developing countries often complain about self-indignation, arrogance and even ignorance among their more-developed peers. It is common for westerners to ask non-westerners whether they are familiar with a certain type of technology. Sometimes that technology could already be in the target nation and maybe nothing new. However, these questions reflect some sort of naivety and arrogance on westerners’ part. They may misconceive other undeveloped societies as backwards and thus cause resentment among them. Tesco employees should avoid stereotypes and technological parochialism; otherwise, this may perpetuate divisions amongst workers and reduce productivity (Thornhill, 2000).

All the above differences emanate from differences in cultures between India and the UK. It is imperative to study theoretical models in cultural differences between these countries in order to place potential difficulties in context. Hofstede carried out an analysis of cultures across the world and came up with five parameters to be used for this analysis. The figure below shows the differences between the two nations in terms of these dimensions. India scored differently from the UK in all the parameters.

*The differences between the two nations in terms.*

Power distance is a measure of the extent to which a culture values in rank. As alluded to in earlier portion of the paper, India is a high power-distance culture with a score of 77. Conversely, Britain has a score of 35 in this dimension. Their score shows that a person’s personal background ought not to affect how far they get in life (Brett, 2007). On the other hand, Indians have a caste system that determines how much one can accomplish. Some individuals are predestined architects, lawyers, doctors or cooks (Chang, 2006). These expectations may limit the level of opportunities that Tesco managers can offer different members of the local community.

48 was India’s score in the collectivism-individualism index, while the United Kingdom got 85. Traditional family values dominate Indian business; this explains why indirect communication is common (Macduff, 2006). Conversely, UK citizens are highly individualistic, and this implies that personal fulfilment lies in the hands of individuals. Such differences matter in partnerships because they will affect communication patterns, conflict handling or negotiations.

Britain got 66 in the masculinity-femininity index while India got 56. This implies that in the UK, women have greater chances of success since their gender is a non-issue. Conversely, India appears to appreciate this factor, as well. However, some differences may arise in terms of etiquette and human rights accorded to females. These divergences could have implications on persons who are able to advance or those who may not be able to do so (Gannon and Newman, 2005).

India got a score of 61 while Britain got 25 in the long term orientation index. This implies that Indian businessmen tend to force friendships with potential partners. The UK expatriate may think that signing a contract could be the end of negotiation while the Indian businessman may assume that this could be the beginning of a strong friendship. Finally, Indians had low uncertainty avoidance of 40 while Britons had 35. Surprisingly, this finding indicated that both teams would not struggle to make things up as they go.

Conclusion

Most of the differences in the two cultures can be traced in the Hofstede model as India is high context culture while the UK is not. Team contexts, task expectations, as well as characteristics, will be substantially different. Approaches to time, rank and confrontation are likely to impede strategy. Tesco must engage in cross-cultural training to mitigate these challenges.

References

Adler, N and Gundersen, A, 2007, International dimension of organisational behaviour, Cengage, NY. Web.

Behfar, K 2006, ‘Managing challenges in multicultural teams’, Research on Managing groups and Teams, vol. 9, pp. 233-262. Web.

Brett, J, 2007, Negotiating globally: how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Web.

Boyacigiller, N, Goodman, P and Phillips, M 2004, Crossing Cultures: Insights from Master Teachers, Blackwell Publishing, NY. Web.

Burnes, B and James, H, 1995, ‘Culture, Cognitive Dissonance and the Management of Change’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol 15 no 8, pp. 14-33. Web.

Chang, S, 2006, ‘When East and West Meet: An Essay on the Importance of Cultural Understanding in Global Business Practice and Education’, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, vol 9 no 45, pp. 15-23. Web.

Crowley, E, 2005, ‘Managing dispersed teams: new challenges, new solutions’, Handbook of Business Strategy, vol. 3, pp. 209-212. Web.

Gannon, M and Newman, K, 2005, The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management, Blackwell Business, Oxford. Web.

Gilley, J and Maycunich, A, 2000, Beyond the Learning Organization, Perseus Books, New York. Web.

Gluesing, J and Gibson, C, 2004, ‘Designing and forming global teams,’ in The handbook of global organising and managing, H, Lane, M, Maznevski, M, Mendenhall and J, Mcnett, eds, Blackwell Publishers, NY. Web.

Gupta, S, 2008, Understanding Indian culture and bridging communication gap, Subodh, Gupta. Web.

Hensey, M, 2001, Collective Excellence: Building Effective Teams, Press, Virginia. Web.

Hendry, J and Hope, V, 1994, ‘Cultural Change and Competitive Performance’, European Management Journal, vol 12 no 4, pp. 401-406. Web.

Hogan, J, 2005, ‘Cultural identity, pluralism, and globalization’, CRVP, vol 25 no 4, pp. 56-67. Web.

Hughes, T and Williams, T, 2000, ‘It is not what you achieve, it is the way you achieve it’, Total Quality Management, vol 11 no3, pp. 92-101. Web.

Leung, K, Rabi, B, Buchan, N, Erez, M and Gibson, C, 2005, ‘Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol 36 no 4, pp. 357–378. Web.

Macduff, I, 2006, ‘You’re Pace or Mine? Culture, Time, and Negotiation’, Negotiation Journal, vol 22 no 1, pp. 31–45. Web.

Maull, R and Brown, P, 2001, ‘Organisational Culture and Quality Improvement’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol 21 no3, pp. 35-41. Web.

Mullins, L, 2007, Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pitmans, London. Web.

Powell, S, 2006, ‘Geert Hofstede: Challenge of Cultural Diversity’, Human Resource Management International Digest, vol 14 no 3, pp.12-15. Web.

Rollinson, D, 2002, Organizational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Web.

Thornhill, A, 2000, Managing Change: A Human Resource Strategy Approach, Prentice Hall, London. Web.

Trompenaars, F, 1996, ‘Resolving International Conflict: Culture and Business Strategy’, London Business School, vol 7 no 3, pp.51-68. Web.

Zhang, T and Zhou, 2009, ‘The Significance of Cross-cultural Communication in International Business Negotiation’, Journal of Business and Management, vol 3 no 2, pp. 103-109. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!