In praise of the stateless multinational

[Lexington]

In praise of the stateless multinational

Sep 18th 2008

From The Economist print edition

Not without its flaws, but infinitely preferable to the state-bound version

Illustration by James FryerIF YOU hanker after the idealistic spirit of international co-operation, talk to the boss of an emerging-market multinational. Not the boss of Gazprom, perhaps, which has behaved like an arm of the Russian state. But try Chairman Yang Yuanqing of Lenovo, who has moved his family to North Carolina to deepen his appreciation of American culture, so as to help him integrate his Chinese and American workers. Or Lakshmi Mittal, the London-based Indian boss of Arcelor Mittal, who says his multinational team of executives get on so well that he forgets there are different nationalities in the room, and who believes his firm has no nationality, instead being “truly global”.

Lenovo and Arcelor Mittal are at the leading edge of a new phase in the evolution of the multinational corporation, as our special report this week argues. At first companies set up overseas sales offices, to watch over the export of goods made at home. Then they built small foreign replicas of the mother ship, to cater to local demand. Today the goal is to create what Sam Palmisano, the boss of IBM, calls the “globally integrated enterprise”—a single firm in which work is sourced wherever it is most efficient.

For business leaders, building a firm that is seamlessly integrated across time zones and cultures presents daunting obstacles. Rather than huddling together in a headquarters building in Armonk or Millbank, senior managers will increasingly be spread around the world, which will require them to learn some new tricks.

How do you get virtual teams of workers to bond, for instance? The answer seems to be a lot of time spent talking—as well as the odd junket. MySQL, an online database firm, holds virtual Christmas parties, at which teams around the world play games and exchange virtual gifts. And what about overcoming all those awkward cultural differences? Lenovo, for example, has had to encourage normally reticent Chinese workers to speak candidly in meetings with American colleagues.

Some people assume that stateless multinationals inevitably compete away standards in a race to the bottom. It is true that multinationals tend to shop around for taxes, but in other ways they are usually sticklers for good behaviour. Encouragingly, firms from emerging markets are finding that a globally integrated company needs a single culture, and that the best way to foster this is to make the highest ethics anywhere in the firm the norm for everyone, wherever they are working. Anything less tends to corrode the culture.

A globally integrated firm cannot allow corrupt practices by employees in some countries and not others, so it must outlaw them everywhere. On the other hand, it cannot enforce religious practices and holidays, or different ways of life, so it must preach tolerance. One investment bank, for example, is extending its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender network to its Indian operations over the opposition of its local boss.

Flag-wavering

In fact, the real threat comes from overly chummy links between a state and its multinationals. Although politicians may have been more comfortable in a world where what was good for General Motors was good for America, that tended to lead to protectionism and antiquated working practices. Firms in which loyalty to the state goes beyond the economic value it offers usually expect something in return—soft contracts and subsidies, perhaps, or standards conveniently set in their interest. In fact the sorry story of GM itself highlights the dangers of being a national champion. Rather than fear the stateless corporation, people would be wise to do all they can to make them feel at home in their country.

The Economist

Point de vue intéressant en ce qu'il montre que la mondialisation permet non pas un dumping mais une harmonisation à la hausse.

[Luis]

One investment bank, for example, is extending its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender network to its Indian operations over the opposition of its local boss.

???

[Lexington]

???

Meaning what?

[Luis]

Je ne comprends pas de quoi il s'agit : des réseaux bi, gays, trans, pour une banque ?? J'ai dû louper un truc.

[vincponcet]

Je ne comprends pas de quoi il s'agit : des réseaux bi, gays, trans, pour une banque ?? J'ai dû louper un truc.

Dans les grandes entreprises surtout d'origine américaine, il y a des clubs internes sur base de communautés d'intérêt.

Mais surtout, il y a des clubs poussés par les RHs US sur la promotion de la "diversité", les "minorités", etc..

On y retrouve ainsi des clubs LBGT, handicapés, "women empowerment", "issus de l'immigration", voire plus segmentés comme "asiatique"/"beur", etc…

[Luis]

Promotion de la diversité ? Alors que ça segmente au contraire, non ?

[Rincevent]

Promotion de la diversité ? Alors que ça segmente au contraire, non ?

Et oui. La diversité, aujourd'hui, c'est l'ultra-segmentation. De la même manière que l'identité est désormais ce qui sépare, et non ce qui rapproche.

[Lexington]

Dans les grandes entreprises surtout d'origine américaine, il y a des clubs internes sur base de communautés d'intérêt.

Mais surtout, il y a des clubs poussés par les RHs US sur la promotion de la "diversité", les "minorités", etc..

On y retrouve ainsi des clubs LBGT, handicapés, "women empowerment", "issus de l'immigration", voire plus segmentés comme "asiatique"/"beur", etc…

LGBT, pas LBGT. pour le reste

Pour prendre l'exemple de la boite (américaine) pour laquelle je travaille, dans la promotion de la "diversité", ce sont les slogans du genre "Valuing diversity is one of our values". Avec la menace toujours que ce soit valuing diversity plutôt que valuing abilities

[Luis]

On peut être feignant au boulot si c'est pour la diversité, alors ! Ouf !