Lately, there has been an increase in the interest for understanding global engagement, but it is unclear what people are specifically seeking to know about it. In many cases, people want to know about cultural differences. How does China differ from the US, from Brazil or from Russia? Which countries have higher engagement scores and which have lower scores? These people are not interested in global engagement; they are interested in local differences. It is important to clarify the distinction between the two.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines global as "relating to, or involving the entire world" or "relating to, or applying to a whole." In other words, global refers to something that is universal, total and inclusive. Yet when people talk about something in global terms, increasingly they are actually discussing its antonyms: local, narrow, restricted.
From a business management perspective, something that is global implies an overall or comprehensive approach to the entire entity. This applies whether the business entity is located in a single building in Toledo, Ohio or a worldwide organisation with operations in 70 countries and 300 locations. When discussing global, we should be discussing what can be understood and applied across the entire business regardless of location, or function, or any other breakdown.
This has tremendous implications in terms of managing your business. When thinking globally, it should mean you are looking for the policies, practices and procedures that are effective across the board (or mostly across the board). That is, it determines what will have the most or best influence on your entire organisation—not just part of it.
Another way to look at it is that global practices provide businesses the biggest return on their investment. A global practice or process is something that will create a benefit for the whole of the organisation in some way. How many things that you do for your business have a truly global impact?
The more that do, the more returns you can reap.
An example of this may be seen in how gasoline blends are established in the US. Each state (and sometimes even each county within the states) has its own regulations about what additives are required for gasoline to meet anti-pollution standards in the state. As a result, there are dozens of different blends that refineries have to produce to meet the different needs of the states. This variation creates vast differences in pricing because some blends are more expensive than others. It also diminishes the desired impact because the states that are less restrictive on pollutants eventually influence the air quality in neighboring states that may be more restrictive.
If gasoline standards were the same, then potentially there would be lower production costs, as well as a more universal (and ideally positive) impact on air quality. However, because the focus is on the local need rather than the greater good, these benefits are missed.
When we talk about engagement from a global perspective, we are really asking what factors will benefit engagement across the entire entity, and not just a specific group within it. Global here isn't interested in what drives engagement in France and in Canada. It is interested in how a business can manage engagement in France and Canada at the same time. That is, how can it best serve the greater need and the greater good?
However, too often, and too quickly, the focus often shifts to what is different rather than what is universal. It seems difficult for business leaders and managers to accept the fact there may be universal drivers of engagement. Dennis Donovan, a former human resources executive at GE and The Home Depot, had an answer for this. When he faced leaders from various business units asserting that they were unique and no one understood them, he said, "No, you're not, and yes, I do!"
The same can be said to countries and business divisions that claim they are different from everyone else when it comes to creating engagement for their people. They are not as different as they think they are. When you suggest there are common drivers of engagement globally—and they insist that you don't understand how they are different—you understand them much better than they think.
When discussing global engagement, those who dismiss the global perspective often point to the variability of average engagement scores by country. They note that engagement scores are lower for China, higher for Colombia, and somewhere in the middle for Canada. They take this as evidence that when you talk about engagement, you can't speak globally because of the differences in scores.
Yet the reality of these differences may have more to do with a reflection of a global foundation of engagement than the need to study engagement on a country-by-country basis. The reason why China may be lower on engagement could be that businesses in China aren't providing the fundamental elements of engagement. Certainly, there are also local factors at play here (ie, at the very least, there are differences in how people from different cultural and educational backgrounds complete survey questionnaires), but the difference in average scores is not evidence that a global foundation for engagement exists.
When we examine drivers of engagement within global organisations, as well as across organisations, we discover a fair degree of similarity. Yes, there are striking differences, but there is more consistency in key drivers of engagement than one might suspect. This suggests there is some foundation that needs to be met—a global factor—in addition to local needs may be present.
Drivers of engagement detail the behaviors or processes a business can influence, which helps strengthen its engagement environment. Engagement performance, in essence, is a reflection of how well a company is doing on these behaviors and processes. Thus, two disparate countries can have common drivers of engagement, but vastly different engagement scores. Those with higher engagement scores are also more likely to be doing a good job on the drivers. This is the reason why groups within the same business can be so different on the engagement index. The drivers within the business are the same, but one business unit is just doing a better job of implementing those drivers than the other.
Another factor that promotes local thinking over global thinking is the bad habit of slicing and dicing survey results (and other business metrics) into smaller portions of the organization. Although there is a lot that can be learned by looking at unique strengths and weaknesses of various locations and business divisions, it waters down the understanding of what can be globally leveraged. It also, sometimes intentionally, waters down accountability for change and action at the global level.
Focusing locally relieves senior leadership from taking action, which, at least in terms of employee survey practices, is exactly the opposite of what is required of senior leaders. Their role should be to drive action, create momentum for the whole of the organisation and still benefit their constituents in the organization. Having a global perspective and direction gives them the tools and information they need to do this. Breaking things apart into sub-divisions diminishes their power to do this, because it ends up encouraging a "passing of the buck" down to the lower-level managers.
This is not to say that there are no unique and local drivers of engagement. Clearly, there are. The point, however, is not to dismiss what is universal at the cost of embracing what is local. Growth comes in leveraging both.
Therefore, the next time your business starts to talk about its global needs (and the oxymoron of "global differences"), take stock of whether you are talking about leveraging the power of a global (unified) process and perspective, or falling into the bad habit of cutting up the organisation into bite-sized pieces. Look for the universal truths. In the end, they will provide your business the solid foundation required to better meet its local needs.
About the author
Jeffrey A. Jolton is the director of global services at Kenexa, overseeing the project management and thought leadership for many of Kenexa's largest global survey projects. He holds a Doctorate and a Master of Science degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Ohio University.
www.kenexa.com