A meeting of minds?

The Indian owners of an agricultural machine company, with a growing

number of subsidiaries around the world, were determined to improve the
productivity of their operations in Europe. To this end, they sent a managing
director (MD) from its headquarters in Bombay to head its recently acquired
company in Italy and to spearhead changes in the running of the European
operations. Before his departure, the MD had persuaded the owners that a cross-
subsidiary team of key managers needed to be created which, under his
leadership, would harmonise the decisions made by the two European
companies they owned (one in Italy and another in Lithuania). This team would
eventually serve as a basis for integrating decision-making across all of the
company’s operations in Europe and Asia.
The initial team was to consist of managers from the technical,
production, quality control and client relation departments of the Italian and
Lithuanian subsidiaries. The team would have its first meeting in Rome, with
later meetings in Vilnius and Bombay. The company’s infrastructure would be
updated to allow the team to meet virtually between their regular face-to-face
meetings.
The MD from Bombay regarded his first meeting with the team-members
as an opportunity for them to get to know each other and to share information
about day-to-day operations. Once he had explained his aims to his Italian
management team, he left them to organise the meeting. This get-together was
conducted in English, which was the operating language of the concern. After
the MD had explained his plans and the importance of the team in improving
the company’s fortunes, he asked the individual members to take it in turns to
introduce themselves. The Lithuanian members each talked very briefly about
their positions and responsibilities. The Italians, however, found it difficult to
restrict themselves to introductions and started talking in detail and with great
eagerness about all the machinery they were producing. There was only an
outline agenda for the meeting, so the introductions quickly became a
disorganised discussion dominated by the Italians. They talked about the
manufacturing process (‘we were the leaders in automated production ten years
ago, but now we are a long way behind our competitors’), and complained
vociferously about the working conditions (‘our main priority must be to
renovate the factory. We cannot go on like this!’). They deplored the motivation
of the employees (‘absenteeism is a terrible burden . . . but you people must
have the same problem in your country’), and speculated about future products
(‘we wonder whether the company is going to continue with tractor
production’).
Unable to get a word in edgeways, one or two Lithuanians in the team
now and again asked the MD if they could add to the discussion, but their
requests were frequently drowned out by the loud comments of the Italian
participants. All the Lithuanians really managed to do was to ask occasional
questions about certain products that they were also making.
Afterwards, when the team-members were drinking an aperitif before
dinner, the MD wandered among the rather quiet Lithuanians on one side of the
room, and asked them how they felt the meeting went. They were rather
reluctant to respond at first, but eventually volunteered a few comments that
showed their disappointment. One of them had this to say: ‘We didn’t really get
the information we needed. We didn’t find out enough about what is going on in
your company – certainly not enough to write a decent report. Our management
will wonder what we actually achieved here.’ The MD then went over to the
Italians on the other side of the room who were still continuing the discussion
they had had during the meeting. When he asked one manager for his
impression of the meeting, he was deluged with comments by everyone
standing nearby. The reaction of one Italian participant reflected the general
feelings of his fellow-countrymen: ‘I don’t understand why the visitors are so
cold; they really didn’t want to know anything about us and told us nothing
about themselves. It should have gone much better – after all we speak the same
technical language!’
Questions
1. What are the ‘sources of differences’ in this case?
2. Which responses – appropriate or inappropriate – to the sources of
these differences were used during the preparation for the meeting as well as the
meeting itself?
3. How could the first meeting of the team have been more successful?
Consider the suggestions below and add any ideas you may have.
4. What you can learn from this case study?