“Learning Across Cultures at Michelin” Report

Group 7

Morgan Gittings
Hugh Hodkinson
Mario Silguero Garcia
Introduction
The case, “Learning Across Cultures at Michelin”, is a good representation of how
different management styles within different cultures clash. The case centers around Olivier
Chalon, the President of Michelin’s North American business unit, and his leadership style in
both an American culture and Michelin North America’s company culture. Chalon comes
from French culture as well as a French-based company, which presents are interesting case
for cultural differences in his new roles in the United States. In a recent meeting, Chalon was
informed by Jeff Armstrong, the head of human resources for Michelin North America, that
co-workers and employees had complained about his management style. To his dismay, his
colleagues and employees complained that he was distant, direct, and demanding. These
criticisms held contrary to his selective training at the Grandes Ecoles in France and previous
performance in top-level management roles. Chalon worked in different sectors of business
throughout six countries and consistently excelled, making him an extremely qualified
candidate to turn around the North American business unit.
Case Questions
Root Cause: What differences in American and French value systems might be at the
root of the difficulties Chalon is facing as he implements a new strategy?
Throughout this case there are many cultural differences that appear. A variety of
cultural frameworks can be used to analyze the differences in American and French value
systems. It is important to note that Olivier Chalon is entering several cultures when starting
his role in the Michelin North America business unit: American culture, Michelin North
America company culture, and regional (Greenville, SC) culture. Through the use of
Trompenaars framework, Edward Hall’s framework, and Hofstede’s framework, we will
analyze the systems in which the difficulties stem from as he works to implement his
strategy.
Trompenaars Framework: Specific - Diffuse
The first cultural difference that is apparent is the Specific – Diffuse dimension
developed by Fons Trompenaars. The book, Cross-Cultural Management: Essential
Concepts, defines this dimension as “the extent to which individuals willing to allow access
to their inner selves to others” (Thomas, 2018, p. 51). Typically, in specific cultures there is
separation between personal and professional life; however, in diffuse cultures, personal and
professional life overlap. In the case, Olivier Chalon makes note of how intrusive the
American culture is and that when asked about his wife and newborn, he felt it was
inappropriate (Gupta, 2009). From this statement made by Chalon, we can see that there is a
difference in the Specific – Diffuse dimension among Chalon’s culture and the North
America business unit’s culture. In this particular case, Olivier Chalon is representative of a
specific culture because he is uncomfortable with the fact that his subordinates and
colleagues are asking personal questions. In the North American Michelin culture, a diffuse
culture is represented because it seems normal as well as casual to have more personal
conversations at work. The difference between these cultures on this dimension illustrates
why Chalon’s co-workers and subordinates might view him as distant.
Edward Hall’s Framework: High vs. Low Context
The second cultural difference that appears in this case is Edward Hall’s dimension of
context. Hall developed the context dimension to relate how cultures communicate. There are
high and low context cultures. In Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to
Internal Communication, low-context cultures communicate through the use of “explicit
verbal messages to convey meaning” (Spencer-Oatley, 2009, p. 23). In contrast, a high
context culture relies “heavily of context such as social roles and positions, shared knowledge
and experience, and on non-verbal channels such as pauses, silence and tone of voice, to
convey meaning” (Spencer-Oatley, 2009, p. 23). Olivier Chalon’s management style is
considered low context because “[He] was straightforward with [his] criticism and apparently
[he] surprised some people with [his] direct style” (Gupta, 2009, p. 4). Additionally, Chalon
was “upfront with [his] disapproval when [he] didn’t get what [he] was expecting. If [he] was
displeased, [he] let them know it” (Gupta, 2009, p. 4). Chalon’s direct and demanding
management style aligns with a low context culture because he is explicit and honest with his
communication. In a high context culture, Chalon would convey his disapproval in a more
respectful and indirect way. Here we see a difficulty arising because there is a clash between
low and high context cultures.
Hofstede’s Framework: Power Distance
Although Chalon has had an extremely successful managerial career where he has
been able to easily motivate large teams of even 1,500 employees in the past, this did not
transfer over when he moved over to a managerial position in America. One reason that we
noticed could be a root of this problem is the difference in power distance between French
and American culture. Clearly, we could identify from the case that Americans have a much
lower power distance score rating than France. On the Hofstede comparison website (G.
Hofstede, 2021) it showed that France had a score of 68/100 (a particularly high score) while
the United States only had a score of 40/100 (a score on the lower end). These differences in
score caused a clash of interests and highlighted how each culture carries out work
conversations differently. We saw this in the case when Chalon was trying to talk to his
American colleagues informally, he struggled to be as informal as the Americans were. He
did have an open-door policy so that employees could call in at any point throughout the day,
as well as tried to walk around the office and converse informally with his colleagues. For
example, Chalon tried to speak to his employees as if he were not their manager, however the
informality of the United States workers made Chalon uncomfortable at times. We saw this
when the American employees asked Chalon about his wife and kids, which he thought was
too inappropriate of a conversation for the workplace. Although Chalon was trying to be
more informal to fit in with his American colleagues, he could not quite understand how they
were comfortable with this level of informal communication in the workplace.
Hofstede’s Framework: Individualism vs. Collectivism
Although France does have a relatively high individualism score of 71/100, The
United States had a much higher score of 91/100 (G. Hofstede, 2021). This would lead us to
believe that American culture tends to be more individualistic and looking after themselves
and their direct family is more important to members of the United States than it is in France.
This means that the American employees got very stressed when they thought they were
going to lose their occupation. At one stage in the case Armstrong mentions how
uncomfortable and unsatisfied the employees are with Chalon’s management style, going on
to say that some even believed they were going to lose their jobs and be fired. This obviously
did not go down well with the United States employees due to their high individualism score.
The reason they thought they could be at risk of losing their employment was because
Chalon’s management style consisted of only giving back negative feedback and not
mentioning the positives of his employee’s work. As we said in class, for many European
countries, no feedback is good feedback. Clearly this management style is not as popular or
well liked in America, leading many of the employees to feel uncomfortable and wary about
their occupation status.
Hofstede’s Framework: Masculinity
The United States also had a high masculinity score of 62/100 compared to France’s
43/100 (G. Hofstede, 2021). Although these scores were not reflective of the case. According
to a reading, higher masculinity means a more intense importance on getting results and
success, while low masculinity would refer to “compassion for completion” (M.S.,
Leibensperger, 2015). We saw this when Chalon said he was primarily concerned with
achieving results while the American employees wanted him to be more compassionate and
complement them when they completed a task well, instead of simply just focusing on the
negatives and what they have to improve. We saw this when the American employees
complained about Chalon’s “confrontational rough-and-tumble culture”. It was particularly
noticeable when Chalon admitted that he thought his team was smart and capable, he still
would not let on to his employees that he believed this. This lack of compassion led to many
of the workers jumping to the conclusion that they could lose their jobs, which I explained as
a problem earlier.
Hofstede’s Framework: Indulgence vs. Restraint
France scored 48/100 on indulgence, which is relatively on the lower-medium end of
the scale. The United States on the other hand scored a much higher result of 68/100 (G.
Hofstede, 2021), meaning that they are a much more indulgent country. This means that
citizens of America have a much higher emphasis on enjoying life and want to live a life of
leisure. One mistake Chalon made which is arguably at the root of why his new implemented
system did not succeed is due to his lack of leisure he has involved in the workplace (A. Kim,
2020). He made his employees feel as if work was simply just a place for working hard and
nothing else. This ideology would have worked in France as we saw in the case, but clearly
the American employees would like more leisure involved in their work. This could be done
through organising work events such as work nights out, weekends away in small groups, etc.
Although this is one of the roots as to why Chalon’s new system was unsuccessful in the
United States, this is one of the problems that is easiest to solve as it is simply a matter of
organising work events that the staff will enjoy ensuring the employees feel more positive
about their workplace.
Recommendations: What should Chalon do to overcome these difficulties?
Identified Difficulties
Olivier Chalon had always been successful in France, but when he tried to apply his
managerial methods in the United States, his efforts were not as successful. Below is a
bulleted list of difficulties we identified:
 His employees though Chalon’s leadership style was discouraging.
 He was unable to communicate well due to his distant perception and his demanding
demeanor.
 He lost the trust of his colleagues and employees.
 His colleagues and employees were not a productive, resulting in further errors.
Although Chalon’s style worked well for him in Europe, it has proven to be unsuccessful
in America, and as a result he must adapt to cultural changes to prove himself a successful
leader. If Chalon wants to remain in his position and successfully implement his strategy to
provide the results his superiors are expecting, he must understand that one technique will not
work for everyone. It is important that he finds and utilizes the most effective techniques to
regain the trust of his co-workers and subordinates as well as satisfy his superiors.
In order to reach a two-year goal to turnaround the North America business unit and be a
great leader at Michelin, he must adopt a multicultural strategy. In addition, Chalon should
consider adopting the Coaching technique, which focuses on achieving goals while at the
same time, supporting the socio-emotional needs of colleagues and subordinates.
Plan
Our plan would include a series of recommendations to bridge the gap between the
current situation and the hopeful future. First, it is important when making recommendations
to know that specific social contexts influence groups. Furthermore, to be more encouraging
and motivational, one must understand the complexities of relationships with other, the
environment, the culture of the company, the community, and personal experiences both
inside and outside the workplace. Once there is an overall better understanding of the
situation, a development strategy can be devised to achieve the desired future state. In the
case of North American business unit, the goal is to have a more cohesive relationship among
employees, managers, and colleagues, so that they can work to implement a strategy that will
make Michelin more competitive. The next step is to analyze the business results. Business
results will provide information on the effectiveness of the strategy once implemented. It is
crucial that the strategy and set goals (embracing improvement opportunities, being
customer-centric, knowing what skills to employ, and adapting to cultural differences) are
shared by the entire organization.
Additionally, emotional intelligence is a key component of good leadership and
receiving feedback will allow you to understand how your actions affect others. With
emotional intelligence comes establishing a clear purpose, employing operating principles
and well-defined objective, and establishing a person relationship with colleagues and
employees. Most importantly, developing a mutual trust within the workplace will help
resolve problems and help the company achieve its goals.
Recommendations
Here are a few recommendations that Olivier Chalon could take in order to regain
trust and reinstatement goodwill among his co-workers and subordinates. These
recommendations include both business-oriented and dimension-oriented strategies.
Business-Oriented Strategies
1. Reassess all major groups of personnel within one week.
2. Determine which leadership function is most aligned with culture at the North
American business unit.
3. Schedule a meeting with managers to provide information on the necessary
modifications.
4. Make a gradual shift between in-office and out-of-office approaches.
5. Re-evaluate connections with co-workers and analyze corporate data to assess
whether results have improved.
Dimension-Oriented Strategies
1. Create an environment both inside and outside of the office where more personal
relationships can be developed.
2. Develop a newsletter that acknowledges employee’s hard work.
 3. Consider weekly or monthly one-on-one meetings with employees to go over their
performance, but also get to know them more personally by asking questions and
learning what concerns or questions they may have.
4. Organize semi-annual retreats to work on team relationship.
Contingent Reward Leadership
The contingent reward system is a motivation-based system that is used to reward
those that meet their identified goals. This reinforcement measurement encourages employees
to effectively complete their tasks and meet their goals in a professional and timely fashion.
The contingent reward system provides more frequent assessments of the employee’s work
with applicable rewards when qualified.
Conclusion
The “Learning Across Cultures at Michelin” case illustrates the need for cultural
awareness throughout business. The case shows how success for one strategy or one person
in a specific culture may not transfer into success for another culture. Using various cultural
frameworks, we identified cultural differences in Olivier Chalon’s management approach.
Our first analysis of cultural differences was through a comparison of the French and
American cultures using Hofstede’s framework. The second analysis of cultural differences
consisted of the Michelin North America company culture and Chalon’s individual culture
using Trompenaars framework and Edward Hall’s framework. From our analyses, we
identified six dimensions associated to the culture differences: Specific – Diffuse. High vs.
Low Context, Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity, and Indulgence
vs. Restraint. Once we identified these dimensions, we developed a plan and
recommendations to aid in the implementation of Chalon’s strategy to improve the North
American business unit.
Our plan and recommendations include both business-oriented and dimension-
oriented strategies because difficulties within a company are not solely one or the other. The
goal of our plan and recommendations is to encourage a healthy and trustworthy relationship
between the management and the team at Michelin North America. Furthermore, we felt it
important in our strategy to emphasize understanding differences among individuals and
groups, building stronger person and professional relationships, and finding ways to
acknowledge and reward successes. We hope that our plan and recommendations will help
Olivier Chalon find successful management approaches to make Michelin North America a
stronger and more successful company.
References
Websites:
Hofstede, G. (2021). Compare Countries. Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-
insights.com/product/compare-countries/. [Accessed March 2, 2022].
Kim, A., (2020, September 6). What is indulgence vs restraint Hofstede?
Theburningofrome.com. https://www.theburningofrome.com/users-questions/what-is-
indulgence-vs-restraint-hofstede/. [Accessed March 3, 2022].
Articles:
Gupta, S. (2009). Learning Across Cultures at Michelin (A). INSEAD. 1-5.
Leibensperger, M.S. (2015, November 28). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory &
Employee Behavior. Leadership. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2015/11/28/hofstedes-
cultural-dimensions-theory-employee-behavior/.
Books:
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Chapter 2: Unpacking Culture. In Intercultural
Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication (pp. 13–29).
Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomas, D. C., & Peterson, M. F. (2018). Comparing Cultures: Systematically Describing