Success in Asia at last!

# Project Kick-off Coaching: Setting up International Projects Professionally by Petra Mehl **75 percent of international mergers and projects fail or miss their goals - what do the successful 25 percent do differently? Many Asian subsidiaries of German parent companies suffer from a 30 percent turnover rate. However, there are also foreign subsidiaries with minimal turnover rates. What makes the difference that makes the difference?** When subsidiaries, mergers, and projects in Asia encounter difficulties, every coaching session is exceptional because each crisis situation is extreme and threatening. For example, the head of a large mechanical engineering company recently called me: "All wheels have come to a standstill! Our Indian colleagues are no longer cooperating! Please quickly find out what's going on!" As it turned out, "The Indians" were just going through the motions. For weeks! In contrast, it only took a few hours for me to identify the problem with a handful of phone calls to the Indian executives and project team members on site. What do you think the problem was? ## The Typical Overseas Crisis in Asia For weeks, the quality of products delivered from India had been poor. Communication was not working. The German managers complained: "We tell and write to the Indian colleagues exactly what needs to be done. But they do something different!" No one knew the reason - although speculations and accusations were rampant. Statements like: "If we could understand English, it would work." After a few phone calls, the cause of the crisis became clear to me: The team members of the Indian-German team had never met in person. There were no integration or team-building workshops. Why should that be relevant, even crucial? For a manager/project leader socialized in Germany, this is not a cause of crisis, but completely normal. In Germany, we live in a culture of facts: "Please stay factual!" Or: "Facts! Facts! Facts!" Therefore, we usually initiate projects with a video conference. Because we believe that only goals, task descriptions, responsibilities, processes, and schedules matter. That's how we think. Which is not the problem. ### The Real Problem The problem is not that we think in a fact-oriented way, but that we think everyone else does too. We don't assume this intentionally or maliciously, but rather unconsciously. Because we are not used to anything else and set our priorities accordingly. We often assume that the other party thinks and acts similarly and are then disappointed when that is not the case. Therefore, a significant part of international coaching after the initial crisis intervention is regularly spent explaining to surprised executives, employees, and project leaders the brainwashing their own culture has subjected them to and what starkly contrasting expectations other cultures have, which can even escalate to work stoppages. This can also be observed in other behaviors: such as different perceptions of time, direct and indirect communication behavior, different understandings of the role and authority of the leader, different individual and collective thinking, which have implications for networking, group understanding. These are just excerpts that have implications for setting priorities and thus for different behaviors. Unfortunately, our strong culture of facts often trips us up at this point. What do you estimate: What percentage of the population, on the contrary to our culture, lives in a relationship-oriented culture? Surprisingly: Around 80 percent of the world's population lives in relationship-oriented cultures. What is the slogan of such a culture? This is something I constantly repeat in international coaching: Relationship before facts! Therefore, priorities are set differently in such cultures. No accusation: You can go to school and attend corporate training your whole life without ever hearing or reflecting on what impact this cultural difference can have. Listening and reflecting are necessary but not sufficient: Hearing is not enough. Only what is practiced is done. Therefore, in individual and group coaching sessions, we go through typical communication, delegation, and leadership situations with team members and executives, among other things. And I often have to interrupt: "No, that's *your* logic - not the Asian logic!" When enough examples are practiced, it becomes internalized for the real situation. This intercultural competence cannot be instructed through a memo; it must be practiced, trained, or coached. It becomes clear at this point why the Indians in our initial example went on strike. We simply underestimated the consequences. ### The Principle: Relationship First, Then Facts In many Europe-Asia projects, a relationship between team members was never established. Team members had never met in person. Trust cannot be built through a video conference. In Germany, this is usually accepted with a shrug. Because here, a personal relationship develops from good professional cooperation. In Asia, this is not possible. Conversely, if personal relationships are established before discussing facts in an international project, mutual trust is also established. And while this may not be true for us, it is the conditio sine qua non for 80 percent of the world's population in any form of collaboration. Only then do 80 percent of the world's population work well, reliably, and punctually. Therefore, personal relationship building should be a top priority when operating in 80 percent of cultures - and wanting to succeed. This is what the responsible project leader wanted. That's why he personally flew to India in our example when the Indian team members began delivering work packages that fell short of expectations in terms of quality. A member of a fact-oriented culture visited members of a relationship-oriented culture. What was his first action at the site in India? The first thing he mentioned to the local project leader was that the quality of the work packages was not acceptable, inquiring about the reason and stating that things could not continue this way. How did the Asian colleagues react to this statement? In this case, with the mentioned going through the motions, and the project came to a standstill. Problems in international projects are almost provoked in this relationship-indifferent manner. First, one starts "relationship-less" with a video conference, and then during the personal visit, the missing relationship is not established, but the focus is solely on "the facts." This mishap could be avoided if international projects were set up professionally from the beginning. This can save you crisis coaching - and a lot of money. By the time the crisis coach is called, significant amounts of productivity have usually already been lost. All of this can be avoided by setting up projects (mergers, acquisitions, subsidiaries...) correctly from the start. Through the integration of people. Meeting in person for long enough to not only clarify factual questions but also provide an opportunity to get to know each other personally and have the chance to build some sympathy and trust, not just as a one-time event, like at a go-kart track. That's not the right atmosphere for intense initial conversations and getting to know each other. Maybe that can come later. How? For example, with a Kick-Off Coaching. Let's look at a prominent example, a board project. ### Practical Example: The Board Project This project involved Swiss, French, Germans, and of course, a large number of Indian colleagues. Because the management absolutely did not want to face difficulties or a project failure, it set up the project differently from the start compared to its other projects that often faced problems. Initially, this triggered the usual resistance internally: "Oh, that just costs time and money! Surely, we can do it without that! Let's have a video conference!" Fortunately, this time the project leader did not fall for the cost apostles' whispers but instead listened to the investment prophets for a change: Every euro invested in a professional kickoff pays off multiple times. Besides, it was quite simple: The management wanted the project to work quickly. So, they were happy to invest. What did the management invest in? Initially, all European team members were flown to the Indian location. This allowed the Europeans to meet their Indian colleagues for the first time and visit the site for the first time, seeing the offices of their colleagues, the production, and getting a firsthand impression. On-site, I conducted a cultural training for the European colleagues on India and then a training for the Indians on European cultures. Only then did the classic project kickoff take place with goal clarification, responsibilities, organization, and project plan. After the kickoff, we conducted a team-building workshop with all participants. This is also unfamiliar for many executives: Teams are not cumulus clouds. Teams do not form themselves depending on the weather. Team development is a task. During such a training, you can see exactly how a team functions - or doesn't. For example, during the workshop, two culturally mixed teams had to complete a complex exercise outdoors in 30 minutes. One group successfully completed the task after 30 minutes. The other group had not achieved much in the same time and was quite annoyed, frustrated, and puzzled. They were about to give up. A typical situation for many international project teams. The workshop was a microcosm of the larger problem. Why did the second group fail? What do you think? ### Project Team in Real-Life Test The failure of the second group directly resulted from Western leadership folklore: the most technically competent team member automatically took over leadership and distributed tasks. No one listened to each other, and when the first problems arose, everyone naturally said, "I could have told you from the beginning that this wouldn't work!" Unfortunately, three out of four managers/project leaders dealing with international projects are familiar with this situation. In German management, it is assumed that such a self-sabotaging team will "sort itself out on its own." In the workshop, we saw clearly that this was not the case. The second group did not "sort itself out" again. Not in a reasonable time: the first group had already finished while the second was still going in circles. They only got