The seeds of conflict between the New York and Indian teams of GFAC Consulting were sowed when the model with a shared service center was introduced. The benefit of previous model with local analysts, working directly, was obvious for the financial consultant teams. When the New York office was forced to let go its dedicated employees and had to address the distant team of newcomers for the analytics, it resulted in some communication gaps and potential delay in reports delivery. Any transition period is concerned with certain difficulties, but after it is over, the company usually obtains a set of advantages that justifies temporary inconveniences. If after two years, the problems still exist, like in the GFAC situation, it means that a system failure is taking place.
In order to diagnose the nature of problems a set of surveys have to be conducted. The first step is informal interview in order to reveal the actual point of view of both sides (that what actually was already done). After that, several in-depth interviews should be conducted with the key management and with the line management of both teams. In order to be objective, the choice of candidates for interview should consider those who express the most discontent as well as those who seem to be satisfied. After receiving the feedback, the information should be summarized and the tendencies should be crystallized. That should result in formulating hypothesis of main problems and proposal of possible solutions that should be presented to the decision-making committee, appointed to be responsible for the change management. In order to realize the changes effectively, the solutions, proposed should be discussed further at the middle management level from both sides. This would ensure acceptance of the solutions by the company employees as they might treat them as their own.
According to the feedback obtained by the locals of each team (New York and India), the set of conclusions can be done. Probably, the New York team from the very beginning of the united service center launch had excessive expectations concerning the new India team. They assumed that they would receive the same resource they had locally. However, there should be a difference in the orientation of the new distant team. In order to integrate it and make it as devoted as the local team was more efforts are needed. Probably the top management of the company did not pay enough attention to “selling” the idea of unified service center to the consultant teams, so the acceptance of new model by the previous employees in New York was poor at the beginning. Afterwards, when the new scheme of cooperation showed some discrepancies, which is normal during any transition period, the consultants team viewed the newly formed unit (service center in India) as the primary cause of all problems. The misunderstandings are clearly seen: the New York team seems to be demanding and not respecting the cultural values of the Indian employees and Indian team does not feel the sharp end responsibility, because they are literally very far from the Clients, in terms of physical distance and business processes. Moreover, the Indian team feels itself demotivated, as the analysts have limited understanding of the purpose of the analytical work they are doing. Unlike previous devoted analysts who worked closely with consultants and shared the client’s values, the current employees of the unified service center are merely conducting some tasks, the importance of which is questionable for them, and that might be the reason for the deadline missing.
Another issue that sharpens the conflict is cultural difference. Overlapped with the organizational imperfection it causes certain confusion in detecting what is the core reason of conflict. What is considered negligence from Indian side is a part of culture, when people are not in a hurry, cherish family values and are focused on relationship. On the other hand, the demanding styles of New York team fits well within the western culture and strive for achievements and performance excellence, sometimes in favor of some personal issues.
The suggestions for resolving the situation should be comprehensive. The predominant intervention approach that is to be implemented is focusing on groups and building trust (Richards-Gustafson, n.d.) First, the negative aspects should be brought to light in order to exclude any passive aggressive behavior from both sides. The business processes should be reengineered in order to ensure personal responsibility of a single analyst in the service center, because the collective responsibility leads to poor performance and stress on the side of consultants. The analysts in the back office should be aware of the whole algorithm of services rendered to the Client in order to understand what is the cost of a seemingly small delay from their side. In order to integrate Indian employees into the company culture and make them feel as a valuable part of the international team the special team building meetings should be conducted, where the employees from New York and India can informally interact and discuss the important issues. That would ensure that the newly formed unit (service center) really shares the values and goals of the company. In addition, exchange-employee internships can be quite useful, when a small group of specialists from one country is invited to work for several weeks or months in another country and department. That would ensure deep understanding of the goals and problems of the partner and show like in the mirror, how their own actions influence the processes on the partner’s side. Moreover, such internship might also strengthen the intercultural links and help to learn about the different culture, respect it and understand it better. When each team sees clearly its own role in the company mission, the team members would understand the perspectives for themselves, feel the respect from the side of their partners, that might lead to positive changes from both side, such as rotation rate decline in Indian service center and decreasing the level of stress and uncertainty in New York department.
References
Richards-Gustafson, F. (n.d.). Eight Steps For Organizational Development Intervention.
Chron.com. Retrieved from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/eight-steps-organizational-development-interventions-14144.html
