“Living Well” Case Study

This case study of a real-life context brings a tangible and practical aspect to these concepts. The following description is of a global orga­nization that has its headquarters in Canada and operates in a substantial number of coun­tries around the world.

“Living Well” is a multinational organiza­tion in the pharmaceutical industry. They have business centers in more than 40 locations in the world in which they oper­ate. Not all business centers have the same areas of focus, yet they fully represent the organization. This can be from research col­laboration amongst scientists in the different laboratories, to conducting seminars with universities on the latest pharmaceutical developments, to partnering in joint ventures with other related organizations. In another five locations, in countries where one of the 40 Business Centers is not located, there are Field Offices set up in which a narrower range of the specific services needed in those locations are offered. Over the years these Field Offices have increased the number of services they have been offering on a regular or on an as needed basis, yet they have not reached the full service offering of a Business Center.

The organization represents more than 70 countries in their staff and management lev­els. The heads of most of the Business Centers and Field Offices are of the country in which the center or office is located. English is the main language of business communication across the organization, and in each location, the local languages are also used. The heads of these Business Centers and Field Offices are well connected in their communities in political and industry circles. They tend to understand the cultural nuances, includ­ing who holds the power and how to “get things done” appropriately in each context. Headquarters and other locations do not always see the value in how other locations operate because their practices differ.

There have been occasions over the past few years when members of the organization have conducted business in one of the five coun­tries in which these Field Offices are located, without involving the field office. These mem­bers have had direct contacts on the ground in those countries and either did not see the necessity or relevance of reaching out through the Field Offices, especially if these visits were a “one off” arrangement and not a fuller commitment. The staff in the Field Offices have found out about these visits and busi­ness arrangements either as they are about to happen or after they have taken place and they have felt slighted, not significant and somewhat marginalized by their own organization. These individual meetings and business opportunities that happen outside of the Field Offices are usually successful and the Field Offices think the organization doesn’t find the need to be inclusive. However, when there is a situation in which the help of the Field Office is needed the organization does not hesitate to seek Field Office support. The representatives in those countries feel they can add value that is not being recognized by the organization or their colleagues.

The individual Field Office leaders have voiced concerns to their manager overseeing all Field Offices about these scenarios. In turn, the manager of the field offices has gone

to her vice president (VP) to discuss ways in which the field offices are being marginalized by these actions and that she would like the VP’s office to declare to the rest of the orga­nization that it is critical to involve the Field Offices in their overseas endeavors in those five countries. The VP has been reluctant to do so. The Field Office manager thinks it is because of their interpersonal dynamic and that he doesn’t see the value in involving the Field Offices as long as these transactions are successful without their involvement. The VP has stated that when the Field Offices need to be involved they will be and that since they are not fully functioning Business Centers there is no organizational mandate that forces their involvement.

They are stuck in this dynamic and thus far no resolution has been reached. There is information that is explicit and then a wealth of additional information that is not as obvious. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) use the ODIS (Observe, Describe, Interpret, and Suspend Evaluation) model to foster more mindful observation of the individual players and dynamic interactions between and among them. CMM models can map out what has been taking place and the underly­ing assumptions and cultural influences that have been felt but not named. This mapping process can facilitate moving from identifying these issues to surfacing what is underneath and fueling them to move this toward con­structive resolution. The worldview perspec­tives these participants hold based on their frames of reference and cultural influences are influencing how they understand and act into these circumstances. There seems to be a lack of awareness of these differing world­views causing some of the disagreements and misplaced emotional reactions and hurt feelings (Mezirow, 2000). Working on the paradox of knowing for a deeper understand­ing of self and other can support cocreating a healthier and more productive context of relationship.